SIT N Wr en eier pene ng Sarr Da Yea Division Ri Wag Secti 884 iS, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetico5meye ne un ah BRENDIAUIM ye. Be BP A Byte GY wht an fang, ! Du . = at 7 ir Pi 7 vi ; WAY tut Ty a ae { ~ GRITICAL AND EXEGETIOALS 1 or! ot — HANDBOOK THE ACTS OF TIR-APUSTLES. HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. WITH PREFACE, INDEX, AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY REV. WILLIAM ORMISTON, D.D., LL.D. SHCOND EDITION. NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 10 AND 12 Dery STREET. 1884. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, By FUNK & WAGNALLS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. Tux third edition of this Commentary appeared in the year 1861. The accessions to the exegetical literature of the Book of Acts since that date have been on the whole meagre; and they have been chiefly directed to the investigation of certain specially important facts which are recorded in the Book, as regards their miraculous character and their relation to the Pauline Epistles.” The critical researches as to this canonical writing are, doubtless, not yet concluded ; but they are in such a position that we must regard the attempts—prosecuted with so much keenness, confidence, and acuteness—to make the Book of Acts appear an intentional medley of truth and fiction like a historical romance, as having utterly failed. To this result several able apologetic works have within the last ten years contributed their part, while the criticism which finds ‘‘ purpose’’ everywhere has been less active, and has not brought forward arguments more cogent than those already so often discussed. Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in which its now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing essentially new, and it touches only here and there on the objections urged by his opponents. 1 There has just appeared in the first part of the Stud. und Krit. for 1870 the beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag : ‘‘ die Visions- hypothese in ihrer neuesten Begriindung,’’ which I can only mention here as an addition to the literature noted at ix. 3-9. [Soon after this preface was written, there appeared Dr. Overbeck’s Commentary, which, while formally professing to be a new edition of de Wette’s work, is in greater part an extravagant appli- cation to the Book of Acts of a detailed historical criticism which de Wette himself strongly condemned. It is an important and interesting illustration of the Tübingen critical method (above referred to) as pushed to its utmost limits ; but it possesses little independent value from an exegetical point of view. WEB) iv PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. With reference to the method of judging the New Testament writ- ings, which Dr. Baur started, and in which he has taken the lead, I cannot but regret that, in controversy with it, we should hear people speak of ‘‘ believing’’ and ‘‘ critical’? theology as of things necessarily contrasted and mutually exclusive. It would thus seem, as if faith must of necessity be uncritical, and criticism unbelieving. Luther himself combined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay, bold- ness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even on the dog- matic side (‘‘ what makes for Christ ’’),—a course, no doubt, which ded him to mistaken judgments regarding some N. T. writings, easily intel- ligible as it may appear in itself from the personal idiosyncrasy of the great man, from his position as a Reformer, and from the standpoint of science in his time. As regards the Acts of the Apostles, however, which he would have called ‘‘ a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul,’” he with his correct and sure tact discerned and hit upon the exact opposite of what recent criticism has found : ‘‘ Thou findest here in this book a beautiful mirror, wherein thou mayest see that this is true : Sola fides justificat.’? The contrary character of definite ‘* purpose,’’ which has in our days been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the corre- sponding lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not hesi- tated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in my judgment, an assent on their part to a critical impossibility. For—as hardly a single unbiassed person would venture to question—the author has not made use of any of the Pauline Epistles preserved to us ; and therefore these letters cannot have been accessible to him when he was engaged in the collection of his materials or in the composition of his work, be- cause he would certainly have been far from leaving unused historical sources of such productiveness and of so direct and supreme authen- ticity, had they stood at his command. How is it to be still supposed, then, that he could have written his work in an age, in which the Epis- tles of the apostle were already everywhere diffused by means of copies and had become a common possession of the church,—an age, for which we have the oldest testimony in the ¢anon itself from the un- known author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter (iii. 15 f.) ? It is my most earnest desire that the labour, which I have gladly de- voted, as in duty bound, to this new edition, may be serviceable to the correct understanding of the book, and to a right estimate of its histor- ical contents ; and to these ends may God give it His blessing ! I may add that, to my great regret, I did not receive the latest work of Wieseler,’ which presents the renewed fruit of profound and inde- 1 Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte, Gotha, 1869. PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. Vv pendent study, till nearly half of my book was already finished and in type. But it has reference for the most part to the Gospels and their Chronology, the investigation of which, however, extends in many cases also into the Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his tenth Beitrag, with his wonted thoughtfulness and depth of research, in proof of the agreement of Luke xxiv. 44 ff. and Acts i. 1, have not availed to shake me in my view that here the Book of Acts follows a different tradition from the Gospel. ; Dr. MEYER. Hannover, October 22, 1869. PREFATORY NOTE. Tie explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this Com- mentary [see especially the General Preface to Romans, vol. I.] regard- ing the principles on which the translation has been undertaken, and the method followed in its execution, are equally applicable to the portion now issued. | W. Pep Guascow COLLEGE, May, 1877. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. [For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The following list consists mainly of works which deal with the Acts of the Apostles in particular. Several of the works named, especially of the older, are chiefly doctrinal or homiletic in their character; while some more recent books, dealing with the history and chronology of the apos- tolic age, or with the life of St. Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book of Acts, have been included because of the epecial bearing of their discus- sions on its contents. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted ; + marks the date of the author’s death; ¢ = circa, an approximation to it. | ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., + 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist. at Prince- ton: The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols. 8°, New York [and Lond.] 1857, al. ANGER (Rudolf), + 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: De temporum in Actis Apos- tolorum ratione. 8°, Lips. 1833, Arcurarıvs (Daniel), + 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus. See also GERHARD (Johann). 8°, Francof. 1607, al. BARRINGTON (John Shute, Viscount), + 1734: Miscellanea sacra; or a new method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725. 2d edition, edited by Bishop Barrington. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1770. BAUMGARTEN (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Die Apostelgeschichte, oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom. 2 Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1852. [Translated by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer. 3 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854.] Baur (Ferdinand Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre. 8°, Stuttg. 1845, al. [Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols, 8°, Lond, 1875-6 Bepa (Venerabilis), + 735, Monk at Jarrow: In Acta Apostolorum expositio [Opera]. BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R, C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. .. . 2 voll. 4°, Lovanii, 1850. Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Bznson (George), D.D., + 1763, Minister in London: The History of the first planting of the Christian religion, taken from the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1735. 2d edition, with large additions. 3 vols. 4°, Lond. 1756. Bıscoe (Richard), + 1748, Prebendary of St. Paul’s: The History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, confirmed from other authors. . . . 2 vols. 8°, Lond, 1742, al. BLoMFIELD (Charles James), D.D., + 1857, Bishop of London : Twelve Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles... . 8°, Lond. 1825. Brenz [Brentivs] (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: In Acta Apostolica homiliae centum viginti duae. 2°, Francof. 1561, al. BUGENHAGEN (Johann), ¢ 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Vitemb. 1524, al. BuLLInGER (Heinrich), ¢ 1575, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Apostolorum commen- tariorum libri vi. 2°, Tiguri, 1533, al. Burton (Edward), D.D., + 1836, Prof. of Divinity at Oxford: An attempt to ascertain the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's Epistles. 8°, Oxf. 1830. CAJETANUS [Tommaso DA Vio], t 1534, Cardinal: Actus Apostolorum commen- tariis illustrati. 2°, Venet. 1530, al, Catixtus (Georg), t 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositio literalis in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654. Cauvın [CHavuvin] (Jean), t 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Geney. 1560, al. [Translated by Christopher Featherstone. 4°, Lond. 1585, al.] CAPELLUS [Carpet] (Louis), t 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Historia apostolica illustrata ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistolis inter se collatis, collecta, accurate digesta, ... 4°, Salmur, 1683. Casstoporus (Magnus Aurelius), } 563. See Romans. Curysostomus (Joannes), ¢ 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homiliz ly, in Acta Apostolorum [Opera]. ConYBEARE (William John), M.A., Howson (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epis- tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852, al. Cook (Frederick Charles), M.A., Canon of Exeter: The Acts of the Apostles ; with a commentary, and practical and devotional suggestions. . . . 12°, Lond. 1850. Crapvock (Samuel), B.D., ¢ 1706, Nonconformist minister: The Apostolical history . . . from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus ; with a narrative of the times and occasions upon which the Epistles were written : with an analytical paraphrase of them. 2°, Lond. 1672. Creu (Johann), t 1633, Socinian Teacher at Racow: Commentarius in mag- nam partem Actorum Apostolorum [Opera]. Denton (William), M.A., Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cripplegate : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1874-6. Dick (John), D.D., + 1834, Prof. Theol. to United Secession Church, Glas- gow: Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Glas. 1805-6, al. Drv (Louis de), ¢ 1642, Prof. at Leyden: Animadversiones in Acta Aposto- lorum, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati, Erasmi et Bezae versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illustrantur .. . 4°, Lugd. Bat, 1634. Dionysius CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE Rycxet], f 1471, Carthusian monk: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria, 2°, Paris, 1552. Du Ver. See Vern (Charles Marie de), Estey (Heneage), M.A., Vicar of Burneston: Annotations on the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ; compiled and abridged for the use of students. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1812 al. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. ix Fervs [Wırn] (Johannes), t 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz : Enarrationes breves et dilucidae in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Colon. 1567. Fromonp [Froıpmont] (Libert), ¢ 1633, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Actus Apostolorum brevi et dilucido commentario illustrati. 4°, Lovanii, 1654, al. GaGNEE (Jean de), ¢ 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Clarissima et facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evangelia necnon in Actus Apostolicos scholia selecta. 29, Paris, 1552, al. GERHARD (Johann), ¢ 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in Acta Apos- tolorum. 4°, Jenae, 1669, al. Also : S. Lucae evangelistae Acta Apostolorum, triumvirali commentario ... theologorum celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi, Danielis Arcu- larii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustrata. 4°, Hamburgi, 1713. GroAG (Paton James) D.D., Minister of Galashiels: Critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1870. Gorran (Nicholas de), ¢ 1295, Prof at Paris: In Acta Apostolorum .. . Com- mentarii. 2°, Antverp. 1620. GRYNAEUS (Johann Jakob), + 1617, Prof. Theol, at Basle: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. - 49, Basil. 1573. GUALTHERUS [WALTHER] (Rudolph), ¢ 1586, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Aposto- lorum per divum Lucam descripta homiliae elxxxv. 2°, Tiguri, 1577. Hackett (Horatio Balch), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. in Newton Theol. Institution, U. S. : A commentary on the original text of the Acts of the Apostles. 8°, Boston, U.S., 1852, al. Heryricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Acta Apostolo- rum Graece perpetua anotatione illustrata. 2tomi. [Testamentum Novum... ulustravitJ. P. Koppe. Vol. iii. partes 1, 2.] 8°, Gotting. 1809, al. Hemsen (Johann Tychsen). See Romans. Henrenius (Johannes), ¢ 1566, Prof. Theol. at Louvain: Enarrationes vetus- tissimorum theologorum in Acta quidem Apostolorum et in omnes Epistolas. 2°, Antverp. 1545. Hiwpesranp (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau : Die Geschichte der Aposteln Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen Abschnitten bear- beitet. 8°, Leipiz. 1824. Hormetstrer (Johann), ¢ 1547, Augustinian Vicar-General in Germany : In duo- decim priora capita Actorum Apostolicorum commentaria. 2°, Colon. 1567. Humpuary (William Gilson), M.A, Vicar of St. Martin’ s-in-the-Fields, London : A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. 8°, Lond. 1847, al. KISTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), +1834, R. C., Prof. Theol. at Münster: Ge- schichte der Aposteln mit Ammerkungen. 8, Münster, 1822. Kumoer [Kunvör] (Christian Gottlieb), t 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Com- mentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos. 4 voll. 8°, Lips. 1807-18 al. Lance (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Das Apostolische Zeitalter. 2 Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1853. LECHLER (Gotthard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig: Der Apostel Geschich- ten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homiletisch von G. Gerok [Lange’s Bibelwerk. V.]. 8°, Bielefeld, 1860, al. [Translated by Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 1866. And by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. 8°, New York, 1867. ] Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Riicksicht aut Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8°, Stuttg. 1851. Zweite durchaus umgearbeitete Auflage. 8°, Stuttg. 1 857. LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), + 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : De Handelingen der heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verk- laart. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll. 8°, Amst, 1724. x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. LEEEBUscH (Eduard) : Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte von neuem untersucht. 8°, Gotha, 1854. Lewin (Thomas), M. A., Barrister : The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851.—New edition. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1874. Licutroor (John), D.D., t 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : A com- mentary upon the Acts of the Apostles; chronical and critical, . . From the beginning of the book to the end of the twelfth chapter. . . . 4”, Lond. 1645, al. [Also, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. See Marruew. ] Luweorce (Philipp van), t 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com- mentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711, al. LINDHAMMER (Johann Ludwig), t 1771, General Superintendent in Hast Fries- land: Der... . Apostelgeschichte ausführliche Erklärung und An- wendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck ausgelegt und ,.. . mit . . . philologischen und critischen Noten erläutert wird. 2°, Halae, 1725, al. Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Acts of the Apostles, with a commentary. 12°, Boston, U.S., 1844. LoBSTEIN (Johann Michael), + 1794, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Vollständiger Commentar über die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas. Th. I. 8°, Strassb. 1792. Lormus (Jean), + 1634, Jesuit: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria .. . 2°, Lugd. 1605, al. MartcorLm (John), t 1634, Minister at Perth: Commentarius et analysis in Apostolorum Acta. 4°, Mediob. 1615. Maskew (Thomas Ratsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dorchester: An- notations on the Acts of the Apostles, original and selected . . . 2d edition .. . 12°, Camb. 1847. MENKEN (Gottfried), f 1831, Pastor at Bremen : Blicke in das Leben des Apos- tel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach etlichen Kapiteln der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bremen, 1828. MexocHıo (Giovanni Stefano), ¢ 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Historia sacra de Acti- bus Apostolorum. 4", Rom. 1634. Morvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), ¢ 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Versio et explicatio Actorum Apostolicorum. Edidit, animadversiones recen- tiorum maxime interpretum svasque adjecit G. J. Dindorf. 2 voll. 8°, Lips. 1794. NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), t 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. 2 Bände. 89, Hamb. 1832, al. [Translated by J. E. Ryland. 8°, Lond. 1851.] NovArıxo (Luigi), ¢ 1650, Theatine monk: Actus Apostolorum expansi et notis monitisque sacris illustrati. 2°, Lugd. 1645. OxrcUMENtTts, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca. See Romans. OERTEL (J. O.), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz : Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte. . . . 8°, Halle, a. S., 1868. Patny (William), D.D., ¢ 1805, Archdeacon of Carlisle : Horae Paulinae ; or, the truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul evinced by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another. See TATE (James). 8°, Lond. 1790, al. Parrizi (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Rome: In Actus Apostolorum com- mentarium. 4°, Rom. 1867. Pearce (Zachary), D.D., t 1774, Bishop of Rochester. See MATTHEW. Pearson (John), D.D., t 1686, Bishop of Chester: Lectiones in Acta Aposto- lorum, 1672 ; Annales Paulini [Opera posthuma]. 4°, Lond. 1688, al. [Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. R. Crowfoot, B.D. 12°, Camb. 1851.] EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xl Perri [PEETERS] (Barthelemi), ¢ 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay : Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Duaci, 1622. PrLevier (Johannes), + c. 1760, Pastor at Middelburg: De Handelingen der heylige Apostelen, beschreeven door Lukas, ontleedt, verklaardt en tot het oogmerk toegepast. 4°, Utrecht, 1725, al. PricaEus [Price] (John), LL.D., + 1676, Prof. of Greek at Pisa: Acta Apos- tolorum ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis serip- toribus illustrata. 8°, Paris, 1647, al. Pyue (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A paraphrase, with some notes, on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles of the New Testa- ment. 8°, Lond. 1725, al. Rırenm (Johann Karl): Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Actorum Apostolorum. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1821. Rırscau (Albrecht), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Die Entstehung der altkatho- lischen Kirche. 8°, Bonn, 1850—2te durchgängig neu ausgearbeitete Ausgabe. 8°, Bonn, 1857. Rosınson (Hastings), D.D., + 1866, Canon of Rochester : The Acts of the Apos- tles ; with notes, original and selected, for the use of students. 8°, Lond. 1830, Also, in Latin. 8°, Cantab. 1824. SALMERON (Alphonso), + 1585, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum [Opera, xii.]. SANCHEZ [Sancrius] (Gaspar), + 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Alcala : Com- mentarii in Actus Apostolorum .. . 4°, Lugd. 1616, al. SCHAFF (Philip), D.D., Prof. of Church Hist. at New York: History of the Apostolic church. 8°, New York, 1853. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854. [Previously issued in German at Mercersburg, 1851.] SCHNECKENBURGER (Matthias), + 1848, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bern, 1841. SCHRADER (Karl), Pastor at Hörste near Bielefeld: Der Apostel Paulus. 5 Theile. [Theil V. Uebersetzung und Erklärung . .... der Apostelge- schichte. ] 8°, Leipz. 1830-36. SCHWEGLER (Albert), ¢ 1857, Prof. Rom. Lit. at Tübingen : Das nachaposto- lisches Zeitalter. 8°, Tübing. 1847. SELNECCER (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Jenae 1567, al. STAPLETON (Thomas), ¢ 1598, Prof. at Louvain: Antidota apostolica contra nostri temporis haereses, in Acta Apostolorum. . . 2 voll. 1595. STIER (Rudolf Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Hisleben: Die Reden der Aposteln. 2 Bände. 8°, Leipz. 1829. [Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8°, Edin, 1869.] STRESO (Caspar), ¢ 1664, Pastor at the Hague: Commentarius praeticus in Actorum Apostolicorum ... capita. 2voll. 4°, Amstel. 1658-9, al. SYLVEIRA (Juan de), t 1687, Carmelite monk : Commentarius in Acta Aposto- lorum. 2°, Lugd. 1678. Tare (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s: The Horae Paulinae of William Paley, D.D., carried out and illustrated in a continuous history of the apostolic labours and writings of St. Paul, on the basis of the NCEE ce. 8°, Lond. 1840. THEOPHRYLAcTus, c. 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum [Opera]. Terersc# (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter. 8°, Frankf. 1852, al. [Translated by Carlyle. 8°, Lond. 1852.] Treıss (Johann Otto), ¢ 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Lukas Apostelgeschichte neu übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen, 8°, Gera, 1800. Tr (Ch. J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland: Paulus nach der Avostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte . . . 8°, Leiden, 1866. TROLLOPE (William) : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles .. . 12°, Camb. 1847. xil EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), ¢ 1785, Prof. in Leyden : Selecta e scholis L. C. Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb. Wassenbergh. 2 partes. 8°, Amst. 1815-17. Vert (Charles Marie de), t e. 1701, R. C. convert, latterly Baptist : Explicatio literalis Actorum Apostolicorum. 8°, Lond. 1684. [Translated by the author into English, 1685,] WarcH (Johann Ernst Immanuel), 1 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Disserta- tiones in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4°, Jenae, 1756-61. WASSENBERGH (Everaard van). See VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar). Wieseter (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 8°, Götting. 1848. Wouzocen (Johann Ludwig von), t 1661, Socinian: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum [Opera]. ZELLER (Eduard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin: Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. 8°, Stuttg. 1854. [Translated by Rev. Joseph Dare. 8°, Lond. 1875. ] ERRATA. On pages 33, 35, and 36, for the letters (D), (=), and (F), indicating the notes appended to the chapter, read (#), (1), and (s) respectively. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Tur Book of Acts is the indispensable and invaluable link of connec- tion between the Gospels and the Epistles. It is the proper sequel and natural result of the one, and forms a fit preface and a suitable setting for the other. It is difficult to overestimate our indebtedness to this book, historically, theologically, and ecclesiastically. As an epitome of the labours of thirty eventful years, it is remarkable for the fulness and variety of the information it contains ; and is no less remarkable for the omission of much which it would be of great interest for us to know. Even in the life of Paul, of whose labors it specially treats, there are considerable periods of which nothing is recorded, or the events of which are dismissed with a sentence. As many volumes would have been required to give a full narrative in detail, this brief treatise is written on the principle of selection ; and the selection of material is alike judicious and fair. The impartiality and truthfulness of the writer is amply evinced by the honest record which he makes of the imperfections in the church, and of the differences which arose be- tween some of its acknowledged leaders. The united testimony of the early church to the authenticity of this book, and to its authorship—as the work of Luke, the writer of the third Gospel—is confirmed by internal evidence, deduced from the identity of style, the continuity of the narrative, the reference of the writer to a previous treatise addressed to the same individual, and the correspondence of plan. No less than fifty words, not found elsewhere in the N. T., are common to both books. Dr. Schaff, in the revised edition of his History of the Christian Church, vol I., page 739, writes : ‘‘ No history of thirty years has ever been written so truthful, so impartial, so important, so interesting, so healthy in tone and so hopeful in spirit, so aggressive yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring, so replete with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in xvi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet withal so simple and modest, as the Acts of the Apostles. It is the best as well as the first manual of church history.’’ Severe critical assaults have been directed against the Book of Acts. The writer has been accused of systematic perversion of facts, and of deliberate addition of events and incidents which had no foundation in truth, in order to serve his special purpose of preparing an irenicum be- tween the Petrine or Jewish Christians, and the Pauline or Gentile party, who held more liberal and enlarged views of the gospel. Now there is no evidence whatever in the book of any such design ; and its credibility and perfect reliability are clearly demonstrable from the har- mony between the records it contains and authentic secular history ; and from the numerous and striking coincidences between the Acts and the Epistles. The argument constructed by Paley on this subject, in his Horae Paulinae, is unanswerable. Dr. Meyer was born in Gotha, January 10th, 1800. He was baptized on the 12th day of the same month, and was named Henry August Wilhelm. The family name was formerly written Majer, or Mayer. As a child, he was constitutionally feeble, but by constant well-regulated exercise he acquired the power of great physical and mental endurance. At the gymnasium of Gotha he early laid the foundation of his high classical culture. He had a decided taste for the classica] languages and literature, and made distinguished proficiency in them. In 1818 he entered the University of Jena to study theology. Simple and social were the years of his student life. On leaving the university he became a tutor in an institution under the care of Pastor Oppermann, whose daughter he married in 1823, with whom he lived in great domestic enjoyment for forty years. In 1823 he was installed as pastor in Osthausen, and in 1830 called to the more prominent position of pastor at Harste, near Göttingen. In 1829 he issued the first part of the great work of his life, which was followed in 1832 by another instalment. His original plan of the work expanded as he proceeded, and he did not live to see it completed. His views, during forty years of most assiduous study of the Scriptures, changed considerably ; and such changes were frankly expressed in »uc- cessive editions, and in fresh productions on other portions of the Word. The principle of grammatico-historical interpretation, however, which he at first adopted was rigidly adhered to throughout his life. It was his custom carefully to revise, correct, and polish each work before making it ready for the press. In 1837 he removed to Hoga, and in 1844 was called to Hannover as Consistorialrath, Superintendent, and Chief Pastor of the Neustädter St. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. xvii Johannis Kirche. In 1845 the faculty at Göttingen conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Theology. In 1846 he suffered from a severe illness, which so injured his health that he never afterward regained his former strength. In consequence of this his labours were somewhat modified and diminished, though still abundant, and he adopted very striet rules of abstinence and exereise, which he maintained until the close of his life. He called water and walking his two great physicians. He was accustomed to rise early, generally at four o’clock. In 1864 his wife died, and after that bereavement he lived in the family of his son, and was very greatly cheered by the gleesome glad- ness and constant attendance of his granddaughters, who accompanied him in his daily walks, in all kinds of weather. In 1865 he retired from official life and devoted his time to his studies and to the society of friends. He was a man of peace, and all party-political proceedings and irritating religious controversies were exceedingly offensive to him. His views of truth became clearer and more positive with his advancing years and his maturer studies. His last illness was brief, nor were his sufferings great. The last Sunday of his life, June 15th, was spent in his usual way, with great personal enjoyment to himself and others. About the middle of that night he was suddenly seized with great pain, from which he obtained some relief. On the 19th, two days before his decease, he said : ** Willingly would I still remain with you ; but willingly am I also ready to depart, if God calls me.’’ On the evening of June 21st, 1873, he quietly fell asleep. His remains were laid in the Neustädter church- yard, and on the cross at his tomb is engraved this text : Romans xiv. 8. Dr. Gloag, the able translator of a part of Meyer’s Commen- taries, writes about six months after his death : ‘‘ It is hardly to the credit of our theologians, that the greatest modern exegete should have recently passed away, with such slight notice, at least in our English periodicals, of his literary works and vast erudition.”’ Among Commentaries on the Acts the work of Meyer occupies a deservedly pre-eminent place. In extent of erudition and accuracy of scholarship it stands unsurpassed. No name is entitled to take pre- cedence of that of Meyer as a critical exegete ; and it would be difficult to find one that equals him in the happy combination of superior learn- ing with keen penetration, analytical power, and clear, terse, vigorous expression. He has admirable exegetical tact and acumen, and presents his results with candour and perspicuity. So impartial and candid is he, that he never allows his own peculiar views to colour or distort his inter- pretations of the language of Scripture. Any Biblical student will find exquisite delight in tracing his clear and cogent reasonings to the gen- xvill PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. erally correct decision reached by his calm judicial mind and deep spir- itual instinct. He has no sympathy with the school of rationalistie interpreters, and firmly believes in the supernatural—the divine inter- position in human affairs. The Bible is to him the Word of God ; and redemption through the incarnation and death of the Son of God a glorious reality. The peculiarity of his views concerning the person of Christ do not seem to affect his full appreciation of the Saviour’s work. Indeed his doctrine is decidedly evangelical, and he readily receives whatever is revealed, provided he has satisfactory evidence of the authenticity of the record. His honesty and fearlessness are so great that he does not even seek to harmonize apparent discrepancies ; while his views of inspiration are such as to permit him to regard some of them as irreconcilable and contradictory. Some of his statements, therefore, must be carefully scrutinized and received with caution, but no theologian, however learned or eminent, can consult his excellent Commentaries without deriving great profit and grateful satisfaction. Alford, referring to the Commentaries and critical notes of Meyer, says : ‘¢ Though often differing widely from him, I cannot help regarding his Commentaries on the two Epistles to the Corinthians as the most mas- terly and complete that I have hitherto seen on any portion of Seript- ure.’? Dr. Howard Crosby, whose high attainments as a scholar render him an authority equal to the highest in such matters, characterizes Meyer’s Commentaries as ‘‘ unsurpassed,’’ and states ‘‘ his work is a kriua 25 dei.’’ He states : ‘‘ Meyer’s faults are his purism, which presses a classical exactness on Hellenistic Greek, and a low view of inspiration, which permits him to see irreconcilable difficulties’’ in the sacred narratives; but further adds: ‘‘In the Epistles Meyer is specially sound and foreible.”” Dr. T. W. Chambers, another thor- oughly qualified judge, writes: ‘‘ Meyer has been justly called the prince of exegetes ; being at once acute and learned.’? Dr. Gloag regards him as ‘‘ the greatest modern exegete’’ and speaks of his Com- mentaries as ‘* unrivalled.”’ Dr. Dickson, Prof. of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, Editor of Meyer’s Commentaries, as published by T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh, characterizes the production of Meyer as ‘‘ an epoch-making work of exegesis,”’ and adds: ‘‘ I have thought it right, so far as the English reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, the work of Meyer without addition or subtraction in its latest and presumably best form as it left his hand.’’ This American edition is an exact reprint of the Scottish one. Meyer’s Commentary on Acts is intrinsically worthy of republication at any time, but the immediate occasion of its hasty reproduction at this PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION, XIX time is to be found in the fact that the attention of Sunday-schools, and of Christian people generally, will be specially directed to the Book of Acts, during the first six months of the present year, and both pastors and teachers will find in Meyer an invaluable aid. The work of the American editor, which, though far too hurried, has been one of genuine delight, consists : Fürst, in transferring from the page to foot-notes most of the exceedingly numerous references to authorities. These notes are indicated by small numerals, on each page. It is thought that thus the book will be better suited for the general reader, while the scholarly student can still avail himself of all the references he may desire. Second, in appending a number of supple- mentary notes to each chapter. These notes have been written and select- ed for the purpose of expanding and confirming, and, in some in- stances, of modifying and correcting the statements of the author. The notes have been designedly made more copious in the hope of rendering the work more serviceable to Sunday-school teachers and to the general reader. A list of the books used, referred to, or quoted in preparing the sup- plementary notes is furnished. They are all in the English language, most of them inexpensive, many of them handy volumes and easily pro- curable. We would specially commend to Biblical students the well- known and excellent work of Prof. Hackett, which Dr. Gloag, in the preface to his own work on the Acts, modestly styles ‘‘ the best work on the subject in the English Janguage.’’? The Rev. S. Cox, editor of the Zxpositor, London, says of the Commentaries of Hackett and Gloag, they ‘‘are probably the best in our language, each of them marked by sound scholarship, good common-sense, and a candid and devout spirit. If a choice must be made, give Gloag the preference.”’ We most heartily concur in the last sentence, and unhesitatingly say of Gloag what Gloag himself has said of Hackett, it is the best book on the Acts in the English language. The works of Abbott, Alexander, Plumptre, Jacobus ; and Howson and Spence, edited by Schaff, are suit- ' able for popular reading and Sunday-school work. It is hoped that the Table of Contents, and the Index to the Supple- mentary Notes, to which reference is made in the text by small capitals in brackets, will be of service to the reader, and facilitate the study of the volume. The attentive, earnest perusal of Meyer’s work cannot fail not merely to increase the reader’s knowledge of the Scriptures, but also to awaken fresh interest in the thorough study of the Sacred Book. W. Ormiston. New York, January 6, 1882. LIST OF THE BOOKS USED, REFERRED TO, OR QUOTED IN THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Asporr.— The Acts of the Apostles. By Rev. Lyman Abbott. Barnes & Co., N. Y., 1876. ALEXANDER. — The Acts of the Apostles. By Joseph Addison Alexander. In 2 vols. Scribner, N. Y., 1857. Atrorp.—The Greek Testament: A critical and exegetical commentary. By Henry Alford, B.D. In 3 vols. Rivingtons, London, 1852. ApocrypHa.—Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations. Vol. 16 of the Ante- Nicene Christian Library. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870. Arnot.—The Church in the House: A series of lessons on the Acts of the Apostles. By William Arnot. Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1873. Barnes.—Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles. De- signed for Bible-classes and Sunday-schools. By Albert Barnes, 10th ed. Harper & Brothers, N. Y., 1844. Also, Scenes and Incidents in the Life of the Apostle Paul. By Albert Barnes. Hamilton, Adams & Co., London, 1869. BENGEL.—Gnomon of the New Testament. By John Albert Bengel. Vol. 2d. Translated by Rev. Andrew Fausset. 4th ed. T. T. Clark, Edin., 1860. BLEER.—An Introduction to the New Testament. By Frederick Bleek. Trans- lated from the German of the 2d edition, by Rev. William Urwick, M.A. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1869. BLoomFIELd.— The Greek New Testament, with English Notes. Critical, Philo- logical, and Exegetical. By Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., F.S.A. Ist Am. ed. from the 2d London. In 2 vols. Perkins & Marvin, Boston, 1837. Burter.—St. Paul in Rome : Lectures delivered in the Legation of the United States of America, in Rome. By Rev. C. M. Butler, D.D. + . J. B. Lippincott & Co., Phila., 1865. Catvry.—Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. By John Calvin. Ed- ited from the original English translation of Christopher Fetherstone, By Henry Beveridge, Esq. 2 vols. : Edin., 1842 Campzett, — The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek, with Preliminary Dissertations, and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By George Camp- bell, D.D., F.R.S., Principal of Mareschal College, Aberdeen. 3d ed. Aberdeen, 1814. CoNYBEARE.— The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By Rev. W. J. Conybeare, M.A., and Rev. J. S. Howson, M.A. In 2 vols. 6th ed. 2 Scribner, N. Y., 1856. Coox.— The Acts of the Apostles. Introduction. By Canon Cook. - Charles Seribner’s Sons, N. Y. xxil LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Dextox.— A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. By William Denton, M.A. Lond., 1874. Dicx.—Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By John Dick, D.D. First American (from the 2d Glasgow) edition. Robert Carter, N. Y., 1844. DopDpkipge. — The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, D.D. Vols. VIII. and IX. : A Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles. Leeds, 1805. EapıE.— Paul the Preacher. By John Eadie, D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church (Scotland). Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1859, Farrar.—The Life of Christ, in 2 vols., 1874; The Life and Work of St. Paul, in 2 vols., 1879; The Early Days of Christianity, in 1 vol., 1882. By F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., Canon of Westminster, etc. E. P. Dutton & Co., N. Y. FisHrer.—The Beginnings of Christianity. By George P. Fisher, D.D., Prof. of Ecel. Hist. in Yale College. Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y. FırcH.— James the Lord’s Brother. By Rev. Chauncy W. Fitch, D.D. Dana, N. Y., 1858. Gioac.—A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870. Goprr.—A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Godet, 8.T.P., Neuchatel. Translated by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin ; with Preface and Notes by John Hall, D.D. 2d edition. I. K. Funk & Co., N. Y., 1881. (GRADUATE, A.) Paul of Tarsus : An Inquiry into the Times and the Gospel of the Apostle of the Gentiles. By a Graduate. Roberts Bros., Boston, 1872. Hacxerr.—A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles. By Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. in Newton Theol. Inst. A new edition, revised and greatly enlarged. Gould & Lincoln, Boston, 1859. Howson.—The Acts of the Apostles. By J. S. Howson, D.D., and H. M. Spence, M.A. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D, LL.D., Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Union Theol. Sem., New York. Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y., 1882. Jacopson.—The Holy Bible: With an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, and a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by Canon Cook. The Acts. By William Jacobson, D.D., Bishop of Chester. Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y. Jacogus.— Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Acts of the Apostles. By Melancthon W. Jacobus, Prot. of Bib. Lit. Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1860. JosEepHUS.—The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston, A.M. E. Morgan & Co., Cincinnati, 1851. Knox.—A Year with St. Paul. By Charles E. Knox. Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., N. Y. Lange. —A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Acts of the Apostles, an Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary. By Gotthard Victor Lechler, D.D. Translated by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. Edited by Dr. Schaff. Charles Scribner & Co., N. Y., 1869. LeAtues.— The Witness of St. Paul to Christ ; with an Appendix on the Credi- bility of the Acts. By Rev. Stanley Leathes, M.A. Rivingtons, Lond., 1869. Lumpy.—The Cambridge Bible for Schools: The Acts of the Apostles, chaps. ii.-xiv., with Introduction and Notes. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. Cambridge, 1879. LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Xxxli McCuntock.—Cyclopedia of Bib. Theol. and Eccl. Lit. Prepared by Rev. John McClintock, D.D., and James Strong, S.T.D. Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1880. MacDurr.—The Footsteps of St. Peter and the Footsteps of St. Paul. By J. R. MacDuff, D.D. Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1877, 1856. Micaaeris. —Introduction to the New Testament. By John David Michaelis, Translated by Herbert Marsh, D.D., F.R.A.S., Bishop of Peterborough. F.C. & J, Rivington, Lond., 1823. Morrison.—The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul. Arranged in the form of a continuous history. By Thomas Morrison, M.A. T. Nelson & Sons, Edin., 1867. NEANDER. —General History of the Christian Religion and Church. From the German of Dr. Augustus Neander, Translated from the 2d and im- proved edition. By Joseph Torrey. Vol. II. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1851. Orsuausen.—Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. By Dr. Herman Olshausen. Translated for Clark's For. and Theol. Lib. 1st Am. ed. revised after 4th Ger. ed. by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., N. Y., 1858. Puumprre.—The Acts of the Apostles. With Commentary by E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 2d ed. Cassell & Co, N, Y. Patry.—The Works of William Paley, D.D., complete in one volume. J. J. Woodward, Phila. Renan.—The Apostles (1866), and St. Paul (1869), By Ernest Renan. Transla- ted from the original French. Carlton, N. Y., 1866, 1869. Scuarr.—History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff. A new edition thoroughly revised and enlarged. Vol. I. : Apostolie Christianity. x Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y., 1882. Smiru.—A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by William Smith, LL.D. In 3 vols. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1860. Strer.—Clark’s For. Theol. Lib. Fourth series. Vol. 22: Stier’s Words of the Apostles. T. T. Clark, Edin., 1869. Sumyer.—A Practical Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles in the Form of Lectures. By John Bird Sumner, D.D., Bishop of Chester, I. Hatchard & Son, Lond., 1838. Taytor.—Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Missionary. By Rev. William M. Taylor, D D. Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1882. Tuomas.—A Homiletic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. By David Thomas, D.D. Richard D. Dickinson, Lond., 1870. Vaueuan.—The Church of the First Days: Lectures on the Acts of the Apos- tles. By C.J. Vaughan. 2d ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1866. Wescorr.— The Gospel of the Resurrection. By Brooke Foss Wescott, B.D. 2d ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1867. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER. VERSE, PAGE. TOPICS. Introd. Ir il Authorship and genuineness of the Book. EL I. 7 Aim and sources of the Book. fs Tite 11 Time and place of composition. g IV. 13 Chronological summary of the Acts. iB 1-3 23 Reference to Luke’s Gospel. ce 4-7 27 Last words of Jesus. x 8-11 29 The ascension. ae 12-14 3 Return to Jerusalem. a 15-22 33 Address of Peter. = 23-26 35 Election of Matthias. ; IT 122 41 Descent of the Holy Spirit. i, 3, 4 45 Gift of tongues. Re 5-13 53 Effects of the miracle. se 14-36 57 Peter’s discourse. ee 37-40 67 Results of the discourse. cs 41-43 69 The first converts. re 44-47 71 Community of goods ; growth. ENTE 1-11 77 Healing of a lame man. es 12-26 79 Peter’s discourse. INE 1-7 91 Arrest of Peter and John. % 8-12 93 Their defence. es 13-22 95 Their release. 2 23-31 97 A prayer-meeting. = 32-37 99 State of the church. WG 1-11 105 Sin and punishment of Ananias. a 12-16 109 Miraculous power of the apostles. RS 17-25 111 Their arrest and deliverance. ue 26-33 113 Trial before the Sanhedrim. Oe 34-42 115 Counsel] of Gamaliel. IL, 1-7 125 Appointment of the seven. 2 8-15 129 — | Stephen’s arrest and trial. — VI. 1-53 135. | Stephen’s defence. rg 1-16 141 History of the patriarchs. s§ 17-46 147 Jews under the law. as 47-53 155 The temple and the prophets. os 54-60 157 The martyrdom of Stephen. VEE, 1-4 165 General persecution. es 5-13 167 Philip preaching in Samaria. i 14-17 169 Simon is baptized. ue 18-24 ial Simon Magus. es 26-40 173 The Ethiopian eunuch. IX. 1-9 181 Saul’s conversion. sé 10-18 189 Ananias baptizes Saul. ey 19-22 191 Preaching in Damascus. se 23-25 191 Flight from Damascus. ES 26-31 193 Visit to Jerusalem and Tarsus. XXV1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER, VERSE. PAGE. TOPICS. IX. 32-43 195 Peter eures /Eneas and raises Dorcas. xe 1-8 203 The vision of Cornelius. Ot 9-16 205 The vision of Peter. & 17-22 207 Messenger from Cornelius. at 23-33 209 Peter visits Cornelius. sc 34-43 211 Peter’s address. © 44-48 215 Baptism of Cornelius. DIE 1-18 221 Peter’s defence of his conduct. ““ 19-26 223 The gospel in Antioch. ae 27-30 225 Antioch sends aid to Jerusalem. XI. 1 229 Martyrdom of James. oe 8-7 231 Imprisonment of Peter. of 8-19 233 Peter's wonderful deliverance. & 20-23 237 Death cf Herod Agrippa. XII. 1-3 245 First ordained missionaries. u 4-12 247 Success in Cyprus. at 13-15 251 Paphos to Perga. a 16-41 253 Paul’s sermon at Antioch. ab 42-52 265 Labors in and expulsion from Antioch. XIV. 1-7 271 Events at Iconium. u 8-14 273 The apostles taken for gods. uc 15-21 275 Paul remonstrates and is stoned. ae 22-28 276 Return to Syrian Antioch. XV. 1-5 283 Delegates sent to Jerusalem. ae 6-13 285 Peter’s address at the council. a 14-21 287 Address of James. ee 22-35 295 Decision and letter of council. gi 36-41 299 Separation of Paul and Barnabas. XVI. 1-5 305 Silas accompanies Paul. SE 6-10 309 Call from Macedonia. si 11-15 311 Lydia baptized at Philippi. X 16-18 313 A demoniac woman healed. Ge 19225 315 Imprisonment of Paul and Silas. x 26-35 317 Conversion of the jailer. st 36-40 319 Release from prison. XVII. 1-9 325 Paul at Thessalonica. % 10-15 327 Paul at Beroea. ae 16-21 329 Paul at Athens. = 22-34 337 Paul’s address on Mar’s hill, XVIII. 1-7 347 Paul in Corinth. as 8-11 sol Encouraged by a vision. ss 12-18 359 Aquila and Priscilla. sie 19-23 355 Paul returns to Antioch. a 24-28 307 Apollos. XIX. 1-7 365 Disciples of John. “x 8-12 369 Paul in Ephesus. ce 13-20 371 Sons of Sceva. ee 21-34 375 Tumult raised by Demetrius. ge 35-41 377 Tumult quelled by the town clerk. XX. 1-3 383 Paul in Greece. ee 4-6 385 Plot against Paul. > 7-12 387 Services at Troas. ac 13-38 389 Paul at Miletus. XXI. 1-16 399 Paul’s journey to Jerusalem. gs 17-26 405 His address and vow. oc 27-40 411 Arrest of Paul. XXII. 1-21 417 Paul’s speech to the mob. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxvil CHAPTER. VERSE. PAGE, TOPICS, XXI. 1-10 427 Paul before the Jewish council. SC 11-22 431 Conspiracy against Paul’s life. 23-30 433 Resened by Lysias and sent to Cesarzea. 31-35 435 Paul introduced to Felix. 1-9 441 Paul accused by Tertullus. 10-21 443 Paul’s defence. 22-23 447 His confinement. 24-27 449 Address before Felix and Drusilla. 1-12 455 Paul’s trial and appeal. 13-22 457 Festus and Agrippa. 23-27 459 Paul and Agrippa, 1-23 463 Paul’s defence of the gospel. 24-26 469 His reply to Festus. 27-32 471 Appeal to Agrippa. 1-8 477 Voyage to Italy. 9-20 483 A storm at sea. 21-26 485 Paul’s address on board. 27-37 487 Fears and hopes. 38-41 489 Shipwreck. 42-44 491 All on board saved. 1-6 497 Paul at Malta; murderer and god. 8-10 499 He cures diseases. 11-15 501 Voyage to Rome. 16-22 503 Conference with chief men of the Jews. 23-29 505 Second interview with the Jews. 30-31 507 Paul’s captivity. oe XXII. 22-30 491 Plea of Roman citizenship. INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. LETTER. CHAPTER, VERSE. PAGE. NOTES. A Introd. 6 | Authorship. B es 6 Authenticity, c ee 11 Design, D x 22 | Chronology. E 1g 1 37 | Name. F Os 3 37 | Forty days. G & 14 38 His brethren. H = 18 38 Fate of Judas, I Er 24 39 Thou, Lord. 7 sf 26 39 The Lot. K 108; 4 72 | Other tongues. L E% 27 74 Hades. M III. 20 87 Parousia. N IV. 1 100 Sadducees. o ee 6 101 | Annas the high priest, P we 20 101 For we cannot but speak, Q oc 24 101 Stated prayer. R ce 32 102 All things common, Ss No 1 120 Ananias, Ip wc 15 121 Peter’s shadow. U cc 36 121 Theudas, v var 1 131 | A murmuring. w er 3 132 Seven men. x ee 15 132 | The face of an angel. Y NR 2 160 | Stephen’s speech. z x 3 161 Historical errors. Al A 3 161 Abraham’s call. Bl & 4 162 Death of Terah. c! ac 6 162 Four hundred years, p! & 16 162 Jacob’s burial. el oC 19 163 Cast out . . . children. Fl 3G ' 30 163 An angel. al VALET: 1 178 | A great persecution. H! ge 2 179 Devout men carried Stephen. zu sc 13 179 Simon believed. a ot 14 180 Samaritans. X! SE 14 180 Mission of Peter and John. ul x 17 180 | They received the Holy Ghost. m! IX, it 196 | Saul. n! ub 2 196 Damascus. ol ge 3 196 | A light from heaven, pl x 7 197 | Stood speechless. q! oC 23 197 | Many days. RB! és 32 198 | Peter and Paul—Lydda and Joppa. XXX INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. === LETTER. CHAPTER. VERSE. PAGE. NOTES. s! x ae 216 Conversion of Cornelius. mi ae 2 217 A devout man. u! = 10 217 Fell inte a trance. v! Ke 35 218 Accepted with him. w! XI. 3 226 | They of the circumcision contended. x! OG 20 227 Antioch. y! XII. 1 238 Herod. zı ge 2 238 He killed James. A? we 5 + 239 Peter in prison. B? ne 23 240 Death of Herod. co XIII 1 266 |. Special documentary source. D? “ 1,2 266 ,| Prophets and teachers. E? “x 5 267 John as an attendant. F? UG 33 267 Second psalm. G? x 41 267 Paul’s sermon, H? XIV: 1 276 Iconium. I? Sc 5 277 An assault made. a? uC 6 277 Cities of Lycaonia. K? Sc 11 278 Gods in the likeness of men. i a 23 278 Chosen them elders. M? Vo il 299 Except ye be circumcised. N X 6 300 Apostles and elders. 0? es 13 300 James answered. p? GC 21 301 Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. Q? Re 23 302 Send greeting. R? ce 34 392 Verse supposed spurious. 82 es 39 303 The contention of Paul and Barnabas. me XVI. 10 320 We endeavored to go. u? x 12 320 The chief eity. v? aA 15 321 Baptism of Lydia. w? ee 24 321 The inner prison. x se 33 322 And washed their stripes. y? XVII. 1 340 Thessalonica. Ze UL 12 340 Honorable women. aS « 15 341 | Timothy. B’ ce 17 342 The market-place. c® ae 23 343 An unknown God. Dp’ XVIII. 1 359 Corinth. ES os 15 360 Gallio. F3 x 18 361 Having shorn his head. Gs ze 24 361 Apollos. H3 ue 25 362 Baptism of John. Te XIX. 1 378 Ephesus. a a 2 379 Whether there be any Holy Ghost. KS ge 13 379 Exorcists. 1? ot 41 380 He dismissed the assembly. Mm’ XX. 1-3 395 After the uproar. N® ne 28 396 Typ exkAnoiav Tod Kupiov. 03 re 18-38 396 Paul’s address at Miletus. ps XXI, 1 412 Rhodes and Patara. a gi 4 413 | Disciples at Tyre. R? 9 413 Philip’s four daughters. s3 ““ 10 414 | Tarried many days. ne fe 26 414 Paul purifying himself. us XXI. 1 422 Paul’s defence. ye fe 27, 423 Art thou a Roman ? we XXII. 5 436 | I did not know that he is the high priest. LETTER. x3 y3 PA At INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. XXxi CHAPTER, VERSE. PAGE. | 436 437 438 450 451 452 460 460 473 491 492 492 493 493 494 494 507 508 509 510 512 NOTES, Pharisees and Sadducees, The Lord stood by him, Paul’s sister’s son. Tertullus began to accuse. According to our law, ete. Felix trembled. I appeal to Cesar. Unto my Lord. Almost thou persuadest me. And he put us therein. | Fair Havens. Toward the N. W. and S. W. Euroclydon. | The angel of God. They cast four anchors out of the stern. Except these abide, ye cannot be saved. Melita. This sect spoken against. Two whole years in his own hired house. Paul’s second imprisonment. Evidential value of the Acts. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, INTRODUCTION. SEO, {AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK. ned HE fifth historical book of the New Testament, already named N in early Christian antiquity (Canon Murat., Clem. Al. Strom. v. 12, p. 696, ed. Potter, Tertull. e. Mare. v. 2 f., de jejun. 10, de ed Dbapt. 10; comp. also Iren, adv. haer. üi. 14. 1, iii. 15. 1) from its chief contents rpü£eıc (Tov) arooröAwv, announces itself (i. 1) as a second work of the same author who wrote the Gospel dedicated to Theophilus. The Acts of the Apostles is therefore justly considered as a portion of the historical work of Luke, following up that Gospel, and continuing the his- tory of early Christianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of Paul at Rome ; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient orthodox church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius, ZZ. E, iii. 25, among the Homologoumena. There is indeed no definite reference made to the Acts by the Apostolic Fathers, as the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp. Acts x. 41), and Polycarp, ad Phil. 1 (comp. Acts ii. 24), cannot even be with certainty regarded as special reminiscences of it; and the same re- mark holds good as to allusions in Justin and Tatian. But, since the time of Irenaeus, the Fathers have frequently made literal quotations from the book (see also the Epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus. v. 2), and have expressly designated it as the work of Luke? (A). With this fact before us, the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see Wolf Cur. IV. p. 731, Schmidt in Stäudlin’s Kirchenhist. Archiv, I. p. 15), might appear strange: ro» d2 ovyypagéa Tov mpdfewv of fev Kinuevra Akyovor tov "Pouns, GArot d2 Bapvaßav Kat GA2or Aovxdv Tov edayyeiıorav, but this statement as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated, unsupported by any other notice of ecclesiastical antiquity, that it can only have reference to some arbitrary assumption of individuals who knew little or nothing of the book. Were it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been alleged to be a work of Clement or Barnabas ; but of this there is not the slightest trace. That the Book of Acts was in reality much less known and read than the Gospels, the interest of which was the most general, immediate, and supreme, and than the N. T. Epistles, which were destined at once for whole churches, and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evi- dent from Chrysostom, Hom. TI. : roarois rovr\ rd BiBdiov ob bre Ev, yvopınov 1Tt cannot be a matter of surprise thatour in the Canon, as there are several Gospels, old codd. name no author in the superscrip- needing distinctive designation by the names tion (only some minusculi name Luke), since of their authors. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. IX. there are not several “Acts of the Apostles” p. 57. 2 INTRODUCTION. fori, obre abrd, ote 6 ypapas abrö kal ovvdeis." And thus it is no wonder if many, who knew only of the existence of the Book of Acts, but had never read it (for the very first verse must have pointed them to Luke), guessed at this or that celebrated teacher, at Clement or Barnabas, as its author. Photius himself, on the other hand, concurs in the judgment of the church, for which he assigns the proper grounds : uev &E Ov TpooimlaceTat, OS mpagsers karaßeßAnraı. re uexpı TIS avammpews obdelS abtav TO ’ z Abroc 62 Aovkds éxexpiver, Ilporov kai érépa ara mpayuareia, Tas deomorınüs TEpLexovoa Asvrepov 02, ££ @v Kai TOV dAdwy edayyeAıorav dıaoreiderat, ovvrayua mpoeAdetv Eroımoaro, aaa obros Nat ’ +) : en ¢ = en) N - ee ’ NER uovog Kai THY avaımypın AKPLIOC éEnynoato, kal TaALy THY THY rpusewv anapınv amo TAUTHS ÜMEOTNOATO. Moreover, so early an ecclesiastical recognition of the canonicity of this book would be inexplicable, if the teachers of the church had not from the very first recognized it as a second work of Luke, to which, as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authority belonged. The weight of this ancient recognition by the church is not weakened by the rejection of the book on the part of certain heretical parties ; for this affected only its validity as an authoritative standard, and was based en- tirely on dogmatic, particularly on anti-Pauline, motives. This was the case with the Zbionites (Epiphan. Haer. Xxx. 16), to whom the reception of the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant ; with the Severians (Euseb. H. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic principles were incompatible with the doctrines of Paul; with the Marcionites (Tertull. e. Mare. v. 2, de praescr. 22), who could not endure what was taught in the Acts concerning the connection of Judaism and Christianity ; and with the Manichaeans, who took offence at the mission of the Holy Spirit, to which it bears testimony (Augustin. de utilit. credendi, ii. 7, epist. 237 [al. 253], No. 2):—From these circum- stances--the less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less degree of veneration for it—is to be explained the somewhat arbitrary treatment of the text, which is still apparent in codd. (particularly D and E) and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although Bornemann (Acta apost. ad Codicis ‘antabrig. fidem rec. 1848) saw in cod, D the most original form of the text (‘‘agmen ducit codex D haud dubie ex autographo haustus,” p. xxvill.), which was an evident error. That the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one author, follows from the uniformity in the character of its dietion and style (see Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 160 ff.. Credner, Hinl. I. p. 132 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. nach Inh. u. Urspr. Stuttg. 1854, p. 388 ff. ; and especially Lekebusch, d. Apostelgesch. Gotha 1854, pp. 387-79 ; . Apostelgesch. 1868), from the mutual Götting. 1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d 1 So much the less can it be assumed with certainty, from the fragment of Papias, pre- served by Apollinaris, on the death of Judas (of which the different forms of the text may be seen, (1) in Theophyl. on Acts i. 18, and Cramer, Cat. in Act. p. 12 f.;: (2) in Oecum. I. p. 11, Cramer, Cat. in Matth. p. 231, and Boissonade, Anecd. IT. p. 464 ; (3) Scholion in Matthaei on Acts i. 18), that Papias had in view the narrative of the event in the Acts, Composit. u. Entsteh. Klostermann, Vindieiae Lucanae, and wished to reconcile it with that of Mat- thew. He gives a legend respecting the death of Judas, deviating from that of Matthew and the Acts, and independent of both. « See the dissertations on this point: Zahn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff., and in opposi- tion to him, Overbeck in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 35 ff.; also Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 87 ff. AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK. 3 references of individual passages (de Wette, Einl. § 115, and Zeller, p. 403 ff.), and also from that unity in the tenor and connection of the essential leading ideas (see Lekebusch, p. 82) which pervades the whole. This similarity is of such a nature that it is compatible with a more or less independent manipulation of different documentary sources, but not with the hypothesis of an aggregation of such documentary sources, which are strung together with little essential alteration (Schleiermacher’s view ; comp. also Schwanbeck, über d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk. 1. p. 253, and earlier, Königsmann, de Jontibus, ete., 1798, in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 215 ff.). The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel, and evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary character as to both books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. In the passages xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1- 18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the author expressly by “we ”’ includes himself as an eye-witness and sharer in the events related. According to Schleier- macher, these portions—belonging to the memoirs, strung together with- out elaboration, of which the book is composed—proceed from Timothy, a hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Einleit., and earlier in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1025 ff., p. 1046 ff.), Ulrich (Stud. wu, Krit. 1837, p. 367 ff., 1840, p. 1003 ff.), and de Wette, and consistently worked out by Mayerhoff (Einl. in d. Petr. Schr. I ». 6 ff.) to the extent of ascribing the whole book to Timothy ; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections, as well as in general almost all from xv. 1 onwards, to Silas." But the reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke is the narrator using the we, are wholly unimportant. For, not to mention that it is much more natural to refer the unnamed I of that narrative in the first person plural to Luke, who is not elsewhere named in the book, than to Timothy and Silas, who are elsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished from the subject of the we ; and apart also from the entire arbitrariness of the asser- tion that Luke could not have made his appearance and taken part for the 4 first time at xvi. 10; the circumstance that in the Epistle to the Philip- pians no mention of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of the objectors, is still merely such in semblance. that time, been absent from Philippi ! How long had Luke, at How probable, moreover, that Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians by means of Epaphroditus, left it to the latter to communicate orally the personal information which was of interest to them, and therefore And how possible, in fine, that Luke, at the mary salutations as iv. 22! adds in the Epistle only such sum- time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle, was temporarily absent from Rome, which is strongly supported, and, indeed, is required to be 1 Assuming, with extreme arbitrariness, that the redacteur has in xvi, 10 ff., misled by the preceding Bon@noorv naiv (!), copied the first person after the Silas-document, and only in ver. 19 felt the necessity of changing the nueis of Silas into the names concerned, in doing which, however, he has forgotten’ to include the name of Timothy. See Schwan- beck, p. 270 f., who has many other instances of arbitrariness, e.g. that avdpas Hyoupm. Ev rois adeAd., xv. 22, stood in the Silas-docn- ment after exAe&auevovs, and other similar statements, which refute themselves. The holding Luke and Silas as identical (van Vloten in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 223 ff.) was perhaps only a passing etymological fancy (lucus, silva). See, in opposition to it, Cropp in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 353 fl. 4 INTRODUCTION. assumed by Phil. ii. 20 f., comp. on Phil. ii. 21. The non-mention of Luke in the Epistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum e si- lentio (see Lekebusch, p. 395) ; and the greater vividness of delineation, which is said to prevail where Timothy is present, cannot prove anything in contradistinction to the vividness of other parts in which he is not con- cerned. On the other hand, in those portions in which the “ we’ intro- duces the eye-witness,’ the manipulation of the Greek language, indepen- dent of written documents, exhibits the greatest similarity to the peculiar colouring of Luke’s diction as it appears in the independent portions of the Gospel. It is incorrect to suppose that the specification of time ac- cording to the Jewish festivals, xx. 6, xxvii. 9, suits Timothy better than Luke, for the designations of the Jewish festivals must have been every- where familiar in the early Christian church from its connection with Judaism, and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both the Timo- thy-hypothesis, already excluded by xx. 4 f., and the Si/as-hypothesis, un- tenable throughout, are clogged, only serve more strongly to confirm the tradition of the church that Luke, as author of the whole book, is the person speaking in those sections in which ‘‘we’’ occurs. See Lekebusch, p. 140 ff.; Zeller, p. 454 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 33 ff., and Jahrb. IX. p. 50 ff. ; Klostermann, l.c.; Oertel, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch.. p- 8 ff. In the “we’’ the person primarily narrating must have been the “7,” with which the whole book begins. No other understanding of the matter could have occurred either to Theophilus or to other readers. The hypothesis already propounded by Königsmann, on the other hand, that Luke had allowed the ‘‘ we’’ derived from the memoir of another to remain unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of Gfrörer (heil. Sage, I. p. 244 f.), impute to the author something bordering on an unintelligent mechani- cal process, such as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle Ages (examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 ff.), but must appear utterly alien and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of such company as we have here. Recent criticism, however, has contended that the Acts could not be composed at all by a companion of the Apostle Paul (de Wette, Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, and others). For this purpose they have alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 25-28, x1. 30, compared with Gal. i. 17-19, ii.1; xvii. 16 f., xviii. 5, with 1 Thess. iii. 1 f.), inadequate accounts (xvi. 6, xviii. 22 f., xxviii. 30 f.), omission of facts (1 Cor. xv. 82; 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 25 f. ; Rom. xv. 19, xvi. 3 f.), and the partially unhistorical character of the first portion of the book (accord- ing to de Wette, particularly ii. 5-11), which is even alleged to be ‘‘a con- tinuous fiction’? (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. 111 f.). They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (xxviii. 7-10), un-Pauline speeches and actions (xxi. 20 ff., xxiii. 6 ff., chap. xxii., xxvi.), an un- Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-Christians : approval of the 1 Especially chap. xxvii. and xxviii. See erally, Oertel, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch. p. Klostermann, Vindic. Luc. p. 50 ff. ; and gen- 28 ff. GENUINENESS, 5 apostolic decree). It is alleged that the formation of legend in the book (particularly the narrative of Simon and of Pentecost) belongs to a later period, and that the entire tendency of the writing (see sec. 2) points toa later stage of ecclesiastical development (see especially Zeller, p. 470 ff.) ; also that its politically apologetic design leads us to the time of Trajan, or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119) ; that the jes in the narrative of the travels (held even by Köstlin, Urspr. d. Synopt. Evang. p. 292, to be the genuine narrative of a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand by the author of the book, who wishes to be recognized thereby as a com- panion of the Apostle (according to Köstlin : for the purpose of strengthen- ing the credibility and the impression of the apologetic representation) ; and that the Book of Acts is ‘‘the work of a Pauline member of the Ro- man church, the time of the composition of which may most probably be placed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130 after Christ ” (Zeller, p- 488). But all these and similar grounds do not prove what they are al- leged to prove, and do not avail to overthrow the ancient ecclesiastical rec- ognition. For although the book actually contains various matters, in which it must receive correction from the Pauline Epistles ; although the history, even of Paul the apostle, is handled in it imperfectly and, in part, inadequately ; although in the first portion, here and there, a post-apostolic formation of legend is unmistakeable ; yet all these elements are compat- ible with its being the work of a companion of the apostle, who, not emerging as such earlier than chap. xvi., only undertook to write the history some time after the apostle’s death, and who, when his personal knowledge failed, was dependent on tradition developed orally and in writing, partly legendary, because he had not from the first entertained the design of writing a history, and had now, in great measure, to content himself with the matter and the form given to him by the tradition, in the atmosphere of which he himself lived. Elements really wn-Pauline cannot be shown to exist in it, and the impress of a definite tendency in the book, which is alleged to betray a later stage of ecclesiastical development, is simply imputed to it by the critics. The We-narrative, with its vivid and direct impress of personal participation, always remains a strong testimony in favour of a companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of which that narrative is a part; to separate the subject of that narrative from the author of the whole, is a procedure of sceptical caprice. The surprisingly abridged and abrupt conclusion of the book, and the silence concerning the last labours and fate of the Apostle Paul, as well as the silence concerning the similar fate of Peter, are phenomena which are in- telligible only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of the apostle being prevented by circumstances from continuing his narrative, but would be altogether inconceivable in the case of an author not writing till the second century, and manipulating with a definite tendency the his- torical materials before him,—inconceivable, because utterly at variance with his supposed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of Luke’s authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from the nueis in the narrative of the travels (comp. Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; see especially 6 INTRODUCTION. Köstlin, p. 291), is so arbitrary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting mode in which such traditions arise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiasti- cal tradition is to be explained, not from the wish to have a Pauline Gos- pel, but from the actual possession of one, and from a direct certainty as to its author.—The Book of Acts has very different stages of credibility, from the lower grade of the legend partially enwrapping the history up to that of vivid, direct testimony ; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free historical criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scep- ticism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader and Gfrörer) it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and his school, after the more cautious but less consistent precedent set by Schneckenburger (über d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841.) On the whole, the book remains, in con- nection with the historical references in the apostolic Epistles, the fullest and surest source of our knowledge of the apostolic times, of which we always attain most completely a trustworthy view when the Book of Acts bears part in this testimony, although in many respects the Epistles have to be brought in, not merely as supplementing, but also in various points as deciding against particular statements of our book (B). Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (A) «This work, as well as the Gospel, being anonymous, attempts have been made to refer the authorship to some other person than St Luke.’ ‘* We are inclined to give the weight which it deserves to the ancient opinion, and to ac- cept the traditional view of the origin of both the Gospel and the Acts, rather than any of the modern suppositions, which are very difficult to be reconciled with the statements in the Acts and the Epistles, and which are the mere offspring of critical imaginations.” (Lumby) The evidence that Luke wrote the Acts is threefold :—The explicit testimony of the early Christian writers—the relation in which the Acts stands to the Gospel which is ascribed to Luke—and the similarity of style in the two books, —See Introductions to the Acts, by Hackett, and by Abbott. (B) In the preface to the Gospel the writer speaks of his perfect understanding of all the things whereof he was about to write, implying the utmost care on his part accurately to ascertain the facts. The same course was doubtless adopted by him in writing this second treatise. With the opportunities at his command of personal observation, of intercourse with the parties concerned in the events recorded, and probably of the aid of written documents, and with his admitted claims for diligence in use of them, the writer of the Acts merits the highest confidence granted to the best accredited testimony. Professor Hackett, in his Introduction to the Acts, says: ‘We have not only every reason to regard the history of Luke as authentic, because he wrote it with such facilities for knowing the truth, but because we find it sustaining its credit under the severest scrutiny to which it is possible that an ancient work should be subjected.’’ “This history has been confronted with the Epistles of the N. T. and it has been shown as the result, that the incidental corre- spondences between them and the Acts are numerous and of the most striking AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 7 kind.” “The speeches in the Acts which purport to have been delivered by Peter, Paul, and James have been compared with the known productions of these men ; and it is found that they exhibit an agreement with them, in point of thought and expression, which the supposition of their common origin would lead us to expect.” “We have a decisive test of the trustworthiness of Luke in the consistency of his statements and allusions with the information which contemporary writers have given us respecting the age in which he lived and wrote.” SEC. I.—AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. When the aim of the Acts has been defined by saying that Luke wished to give us a history of missions for the diffusion of Christianity (Eich- horn), or a Pauline church-history (Credner), or, more exactly and cor- rectly, a history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome (Mayerhoff, Baumgarten, Guericke, Lekebusch, Ewald, Oertel), there is, strictly speaking, a confounding of the contents with the aim. Certainly, Luke wished to compose a history of the development of the church from its foundation until the period when Paul laboured at Rome ; but his work was primarily a private treatise, written for Theophilus, and the clearly ex- pressed aim of the composition of the Gospel (Luke i. 4) must hold good also for the Acts en account of the connection in which our book, accord- ing to Acts i. 1, stands with the Gospel. To confirm to Theophilus, in the way of history, the Christian instruction which he had received, was an end which might after the composition of the Gospel be yet more fully at- tained ; for the further development of Christianity since the time of the as- cension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor, and Greece up to its announcement by Paul himself in Rome, the capital of the world, might and ought, according to the view of Luke, to serve that purpose. Hence he wrote this history ; and the selection and limitation of its con- tents were determined partly by the wants of Theophilus, partly by his own Pauline individuality, as well as by his sources ; so that, after the pre- Pauline history in which Peter is the chief person, he so takes up Paul and his work, and almost exclusively places them! in the foreground down to the end of the book, that the history becomes henceforth biographical, and therefore even the founding of the church of Rome—which, if Luke had designed to write generally, and on its own account, a mere history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, he would not, and could not, have omitted—found no place. The Pauline character and circle of ideas of the author, and his relation to Theophilus, make it also easy enough to understand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter, 1 The parallel between the two apostles is not made up, but historically given. Both were the representatives of apostolic activ- ity, and what the Acts informs us of them is like an extended commentary on Gal. ii. 8. Comp. Thiersch, Kirche im upostol. Zeitalt. p. 120f. At the same time, the purpose of the work as a private composition is always to be kept in view ; as such it might, accord- ing to its relation to the receiver, mention various important matters but briefly or not at all, and describe very circumstantially others of less importance. The author, like a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled. Comp. C. Bertheau, über Gal. ii. (Programm), Hamb. 1854. 8 INTRODUCTION. fall gradually into the background in the history, but also how the re- flection of Paulinism frequently presents itself in the pre-Pauline half (‘‘hence this book might well be called a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul,’’ Luther’s Preface). One who was not a disciple of Paul could not have written such a history of the apostles. The fact that even in respect of Paul himself the narrative is so defective and in various points even inap- propriate, as may be proved from the letters of the apostle, is sufficiently explained from the limitation and quality of the accounts and sources with which Luke, at the late period when he wrote, had to content himself and to make shift, where he was not better informed by his personal knowledge or by the apostle or other eye-witnesses. Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent our book asa composition marked by a set apologetic’ and dogmatic purpose. A justifi- cation of the Apostle Paul, as regards the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian church, is alleged by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss. 1817, to be its design ; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared himself. More recently Schneckenburger (üb. d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841) has revived this view with much acuteness, to the prejudice of the historical character of the book. By Baur (at first in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, then especially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller, 1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 331 ff., and in his Gesch. der drei ersten Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as regards the book, from the apologetic to the conciliatory standpoint. He was followed specially by Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. I. p. 73 ff. ; Zeller, p. 320 ff.; and Volkmar, Relig. Jesu, p. 336 ff.; while B. Bauer (d. Apostelgesch. eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und Judenthums, 1850) pushed this treatment to the point of self-annihilation. According to Schneckenburger, the design of the Acts is the justification of the Apostle Paul against all the objections of the Judaizers ; on which account the apostle is only represented in that side of his character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the greatest pos- sible similarity to Peter (see, in opposition to this, Schwanbeck, Quellen d. Tuk. p. 94 ff.). In this view the historical credibility of the contents is maintained, so far as Luke has made the selection of them for his particular purpose (c). This was, indeed, only a partial carrying out of the purpose- hypothesis ; but Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller have carried it out to its full consequences,” and have, without scruple, sacrificed to it the historical 1 Aberle, in the theol. Quartalschr. 1853, p. 173 ff., has maintained a view of the apolo- getic design of the book peculiar to himself ; namely, that 1t was intended to defend Paul against the accusation still pending against him in Rome. Everything of this nature is invented without any indication whatever in the text, and is contradicted by the pro- logues of the Gospel and the Acts. 2 Certainly we are not carried by the Acts, * as we are by the Pauline Epistles, into the fresh, living, fervent conflict of Paulinism with Judaism; and so this later work may appear as a work of peace (Reuss, @esch. d. N. T. p. 206, ed. 4) and reconciliation, in the composition of which it is conceivable enough of itself, and without imputing to it conciliatory tendencies, that Luke, who did not write till long after the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem, already looked back on those conflicts from another calmer and more objective standpoint, when the Pauline ministry presented itself to him in its entirety as the manifestation of the great principle, 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. 7 AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK, 9 character of the contents. They affirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his compliance towards Judaism, is entirely different from the apostle as ex- hibited in his Epistles (Baur) ; that he is converted into a Judaizing Chris- tian, as Peter and James are converted into Pauline Christians (Schwegler) ; and that our book, as a proposal of a Pauline Christian towards peace by concessions of his party to Judaism, was in this respect intended to influ- ence both parties, but especially had in view the Roman church (Zeller), The carrying out of this view—according to which the author, with ‘set reflection on the means for attaining his end,’ would convert the Gentile apostle into a Petrine Christian, and the Jewish apostles into Pauline Christians—imputes to the Book of Acts an imperceptibly neutralizing artfulness and dishonesty of character, and a subtlety of distortion in breaking off the sharp points of history, and even of inventing facts, which are irreconcilable with the simplicity and ingenuous artlessness of this writ- ing, and indeed absolutely stand even in moral contradiction with its Christian feeling and spirit, and with the express assurance in the preface of the Gospel. And in the conception of the details this hypothesis neces- sitates a multitude of suppositions and interpretations, which make the re- proach of a designed concoction of history and of invention for the sake of an object, that they are intended to establish, recoil on such a criticism itself. See the Commentary. The most thorough special refutation may be seen in Lekebusch, p. 253 ff., and Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 183 ff. Comp. also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 7 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 62 ff. That, moreover, such an inventive reconciler of Paul- inism and Petrinism, who is, moreover, alleged to have not written till the second century, should have left unnoticed the meeting of the apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome, and their contemporary death, and not have rather turned them to account for placing the crown on his work so pur- posely planned ; and that instead of this, after many other incongruities which he would have committed, he should have closed Paul’s intercourse with the Jews (chap. xxviii. 25 ff.) with a rejection of them from the apos- tle’s own mouth,—would be just as enigmatical as would be, on the other hand, the fact, that the late detection of the plan should, in spite of the touchstone continually present in Paul’s Epistles, have remained re- served for the searching criticism of the present day. As regards the sources (see Riehm, de fontibus, etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1821 ; Schwanbeck, üb. d. Quellen d. Schriften d. Luk. I. 1847; Zeller, p. 289 ff.; * Lekebusch, p. 402 ff.; Ewald, @esch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 40 ff. ed. 3), it is to be generally assumed from the contents and form of the book, and from the analogy of Luke i. 1, that Luke, besides the special communications which he had received from Paul and from intercourse with apostolic men, besides oral tradition generally, and besides, in part, his own personal knowledge (the latter from xvi. 10 onwards), also made use of written doc- uments. But he merely made use of them, and did not simply string them together (as Schleiermacher held, Einl. in d. N. T. p. 360 ff.). For the use has, at any rate, taken place with such independent manipulation, that the attempts accurately to point out the several documentary scurces em- 10 INTRODUCTION. ployed, particularly as regards their limits and the elements of them that have remained unaltered, fail to lead to any sure result. For such an inde- pendent use he might be sufliciently qualified by those serviceable con- nections which he maintained, among which is to be noted his intercourse with Mark (Col. iv. 10, 14), and with Philip and his prophetic daughters (xxi. 8, 9); as, indeed, that independence is confirmed by the essential similarity in the character of the style (although, in the first part, in ac- cordance with the matters treated of and with the Aramaic traditions and documentary sources, it is more Hebraizing), and in the employment of the Septuagint. The use of a written (probably Hebrew) document con- cerning Peter (not to be confounded with the «yjpvyua llerpov), of another concerning Stephen, and of a missionary narrative perhaps belonging to it (chap. xiii. and xiv.; see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1043 f.; comp. also Ewald, p. 41 f.), is assumed with the greatest probability ; less probably a special document concerning Barnabas, to which, according to Schwanbeck, iv. 36 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25, xiii. 1-14, 28, xv. 24 be- longed. In the case also of the larger speeches and letters of the book, so far as personal knowledge or communications from those concerned failed him, and when tradition otherwise was insufficient, Luke must have been dependent on the documents indicated above and others ; still, however, in such a manner that—and hence so much homogeneity of stamp—his own reproduction withal was more or less active. To seek to prove in detail the originality of the apostolic speeches from the apostolic letters, is an enterprise of impossibility or of self-deceiving presupposition ; however little on the whole and in the main the genuineness of these speeches, ac- cording to the respective characters and situations, may reasonably be doubted. As regards the history of the apostolic council in particular, the Epistle to the Galatians, not so much as even known to Luke, although it supplements the apostolic narrative, cannot, any more than any of the other Pauline Epistles, be considered as a source (in opposition to Zeller); and the apostolic decree, which cannot be a creation of the author, must be regarded as the reproduction of an original document. In general, it is to be observed that, as the question concerning the sources of Luke was formerly @ priori precluded by the supposition of simple reports of eye-witnesses (already in the Canon Murat.), recently, no less a priori, the same question has been settled in an extreme negative sense by the as- sumption that he purposely drew from his own resources ; while Credner, de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, and others have justly adhered to three sources of information— written records, oral information and tradition (Luke 1. 1 ff.), and the author’s personal knowledge ; and Schwanbeck has, with much acuteness, attempted what is unattainable in the way of recognizing and separating the written documents, with the result of degrading the book into a spiritless compilation... The giving up the idea of written 1 According to Schwanbeck, the redaetenr biography of Barnabas ; (4) The memoirs of of the book has used the four following doc- Silas. Of these writings he has pieced togeth- uments: (1) A biography of Peter; (2) A rhe- er only single portions almost unchanged ; torical work on the death of Stephen; (3) A hence he appears essentially as a compiler. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 41 sources—the conclusion which Lekebusch has reached py the path of thorough inquiry—is all the less satisfactory, the later the time of com- position has to be placed and the historical character of the contents withal to be maintained. See also, concerning the derivation of the Petrine speeches from written sources, Weiss in the Krit. Beiblatt 2. Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1854, No. 10 f., and in reference to their doctrinal tenor and its harmony with the Epistle of Peter, Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. 1855, and bibl. Theol. 1868, p. 119 ff." Concerning the relation of the Pauline history and speeches to the Pauline epistles, see Trip, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868. Comp. also Oort, Inguir. in orat., quae in Act. ap. Paulo tribuuntur, indolem Paulin. L. B. 1862 ; Hof- stede de Groot, Vergelijking van den Paulus der Brieven met dien der Handel- ingen, Gröning. 1860. NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (c) “ The Book is a special history of the planting and extension of the church, both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating centres, or sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome.” ( Alexander.) “The church of Christ described with respect to its founding, its guidance, and its extension, in Israel and among the Gentiles, from Jerusalem even to Rome.’ (Lange.) The Acts like the Gospel is addressed to one individual for his information and instruction, but not designed for him alone. Luke wrote his history to preserve the memorials of the Apostles for Christians of all ages. SEC. IIH.— TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. As the Gospel of Luke already presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 20-25), the Acts of the Apostles must have been written after that event. Acts viii. 26 cannot be employed to establish the view that the book was composed during the Jewish war, shortly before the destruction of the city (Hug, Schneckenburger, Lekebusch ; see on viii. 26). The non- mention of that event does not serve to prove that it had not yet occurred, but rather leads to the inference that it had happened a considerable time ago. A more definite approximation is not possible. As, however, the Gospel of John must be considered as the latest of the four, but still be- Jongs to the first century, perhaps to the second last decade of that cen- tury (see Introduction to John, sec. 5), there is sufficient reason to place the third Gospel within the seventh decade, and the time of the composi- tion of the Acts cannot be more definitely ascertained. Yet, as there must have been a suitable interval between it and the Gospel (comp. on i. 3), it may have reached perhaps the close of the seventh decade, or about the year 80; so that it may be regarded as nearly contemporary with the Gos- pel of John, and nearly contemporary also with the history of the Jewish 1 With justice Weiss lays stress on the Acts as being the oldest doctrinal records of importance of the Petrine speeches in the the apostolic age. 2 INTRODUCTION. 5 war by Josephus. The vague statement of Irenaeus, Zaer. iii. 1 (Euseb, v. 8), that Luke wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, comes nearest to this definition of the time. On the other hand, the opinion, which has prevailed since the days of Jerome, that the close of the book, which breaks off before the death of the apostle, determines this point of time as the date of composition (so Michaelis, Heinrichs, Riehm, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, Guericke, Ebrard, Lange, and others), wbile no doubt most favourable to the interest of its apostolic authority, is wholly unten- able. That the death of the apostle is not narrated, has hardly its reason in political considerations (my former conjecture), as such considerations could not at least stand in the way of a quite simple historical mention of the well-known fact. But it is to be rejected as an arbitrary supposition, especially considering the solemn form of the conclusion itself analogous to the conclusion of the Gospel, that the author was prevented from finishing the work (Schleiermacher), or that the end has been lost (Schott). Wholly unnatural also are the opinions, that Luke has, by narrating the diffusion (more correctly : the Pauline preaching) of the gospel as far as Rome (ac- cording to Hilgenfeld, with the justification of the Pauline Gentile-church up to that point), attained his end (see Bengel on xxviii. 31, and especially Baumgarten’) ; or that the author was led no further by his document (de Wette) ; or that he has kept silence as to the death of Paul of set purpose (Zeller), which, in point of fact, would have been stupid. The simplest and, on account of the compendious and abrupt conclusion, the most natu- ral hypothesis is rather that, after his second treatise, Luke intended to write a third (Heinrichs, Credner, Ewald, Bleek). As he concludes his Gospel with a short—probably even amplified in the teatus receptus (see critical note on Luke xxiv. 51, 52)—indication of the ascension, and then commences the Acts with a detailed narrative of it ; so he concludes the Acts with but a short indication of the Roman ministry of Paul and its duration, but would probably have commenced the third book with a de- tailed account of the labours and fate of Paul at Rome, and perhaps also would have furnished a record concerning the other apostles (of whom he had as yet communicated so little), especially of Peter and his death, as well as of the further growth of Christianity in other lands. By what circumstances he was prevented from writing such a continuation of the history (perhaps by death), cannot be determined. To determine the place of composition beyond doubt, is impossible. With the traditional view of the time of composition since the days of Jerome falls also the certainty of the prevalent opinion that the book was written in Rome ; which opinion is not established by the reasons assigned 1 So also Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 107; Otto, geschichtl. Verh. d. Pastoral-briefe, p. 189. This opinion is unnatural, because it was just in the issue of the trial—whether that consisted in the execution (Otto) or in the liberation of the apostle—that the Paul- ine work at Rome had its culmination, glori- fying Christ and fulfilling the apostolic task (Luke xxiv. 47). See Phil. i.20. How im- portant must it therefore have been for Luke to narrate that issue, if he should not have had for the present other reasons for being silent upon it! That Luke Anew what became of Paul after his two years’ residence in Rome, is self-evident from the words £newve de Suetiay x. T. A., XXVili. 80, CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 13 on the part of Zeller, Lekebusch, and Ewald. Still more arbitrary, how- ever, is its transference to Alexandria (Mill, according to subscriptions in codd. and vss. of the Gospel), to Antioch, or to Greece (Hilgenfeld) ; and not less so the referring it to Hellenic Asia Minor (Köstlin, p. 294). REMARK.— The circumstance that there is no trace of the use of the Pauline Epistles in the Acts, and that on the other hand things occur in it at variance with the historical notices of these Epistles, is, on the whole, a weighty argu- ment against the late composition of the book, as assumed by Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, and others, and against its alleged character of a set purpose. How much matter would the Pauline Epistles have furnished to an author of the second century in behalf of his iftentional fabrications of history! How much would the Epistle to the Romans itself in its dogmatic bearing have furnished in favour of Judaism! And so clever a fabricator of history would have known how to use it, as well as how to avoid deviations from the his- torical statements of the Pauline Epistles. What has been adduced from the book itself as an indication of its composition in the second century (110-130) is either no such indication, as, for example, the existence of a copious Gospel- literature (Luke i. 1) ; or is simply imported into it by the reader, such as the alleged germs of a hierarchical constitution ; see Lekebusch, p. 422 ff. SEC. IV.—CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ACTS. Agr. Dion. 31, v.c. 784 (D). The risen Jesus ascends to heaven. Matthias becomes an apostle. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and its immediate consequences (i. and ii.).—Since, according to the well-founded assumption that the feast meant at John v. 1 is not a Passover, it must be considered as certain that the time of the public ministry of Jesus em- braced no more than three paschal feasts (John ii. 13, vi. 4, xii. ff.), conse- quently only two years and some months ;' as it is further certain that our Lord was not crucified on the 15th, but on the 14th of the month Nisan, which fell on a Friday ;* according to the researches founded on the Jewish calendar by Wurm (in Bengel’s Arch. II. p. 1 ff., p. 261 ff.) and Anger (de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione, Lips. 1833, pp. 80-88), the date laid down above appears to result as the most probable (‘‘anno 31, siquidem is intercalaris erat, diem Nisani 14 et 15, anno 33, siquidem vulgaris erat, diem Nisani 14, anno vero 32 neutrum in Veneris diem incidere potuisse. Atqui anno 33, ideo quod ille annum sabbaticum proxime antecedebat, Adarus alter adjiciendus erat. Ergo neque annum 32 neque 33 pro ultimo vitae Christi anno haberi posse apparet,’’ Anger, p. 38). Nevertheless, the uncertainty of the Jewish calendar would not permit us to attain to any quite reliable result, if there were no other confirmatory points. But here 1 The Fathers, who assumed only one year for the public ministry of Jesus, considered His death as occurring in the year 782, under the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, which is not to be reconciled with Luke iii. 1. See Seyffurth, Chronol. sacra, p. 115 ff. .2 Every calculation which is based on the 15th of Nisan as the day of the death of Jesus (so Wieseler, according to whom it happened on 7th April 30) is destitute of historical foun- dation, because at variance with the exact account of John, which must turn the scale against the Synoptical narrative (see on John xviii, 28). 14 INTRODUCTION. comes in Luke iii. 1, according to which John appeared in the 15th year of the reign' of Tiberius, ©.e. from 19th August 781 to 19th August 782 (see on Luke, /.c.*). And if it must be assumed that Jesus began his public teaching very soon after the appearance of John, at all events in the same year, then the first Passover of the ministry of Jesus (John ii. 13) was that of the year 782; the second (John vi. 4), that of the year 783 ; the third (John xii. ff.), that of the year 784. With this agrees the state- ment of the Jews on the first public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, that (see on John ii. 20) the temple had been a-building during a period of 46 years. This building, namely, had been commenced in the 18th year of the reign of Herod the Great (i.e. autumn 734-735). If now, as it was the interest of the Jews at John ii. 20 to specify as long an interval as possible, the first year as not complete is not included in the calculation, there results as the 46th year (reckoned from 735-736), the year from autumn 781 to autumn 782; and consequently as the first Passover, that of the year 782. The same result comes out, if the first year of the build- ing be reckoned 734-735, and the full 46 years are counted in, so that when the words John ii. 20 were spoken, the seven and fortieth year (7.e. autumn 781-782) was already current.—Arr. Dron. 31-34, u.c. 784-787. Peter and John, after the healing of the lame man (iii.), are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrim (iv.) ; death of Ananias and his wife (v. 1-11) ; prosper- ity of the youthful church (v. 12-16) ; persecution of the apostles (v. 17-42). As Saul’s conversion (see the following paragraph) occurred during the continuance of the Stephanic persecution, so the ezecution of Stephen is to be placed in the year 33 or 34 (vi. 8-vii.), and not long before this, the election of the managers of alms (vi. 1-7) ; and nearly contemporary with that con- version is the diffusion of Christianity by the dispersed (viii. 4), the minis- try of Philip in Samaria (viii. 5 ff.), and the conversion of the chamberlain (viii. 26 ff.). What part of this extraneous activity of the emigrants is to be placed before, and what after, the conversion of Paul, cannot be deter- mined.-—AER. Dion. 35, u.c. 788. Paul’s conversion (ix. 1-19), 17 years be- fore the apostolic council (see on Gal. ii. 1).— According to 2 Cor. xi. 82, Damascus, when Paul escaped thence to betake himself to Jerusalem (ix. 24-26), was under the rule of the Arabian King Aretas. The taking pos- session of this city by Aretas is not, indeed, recorded by any other author, but must be assumed as historically attested by that very passage, because there the ethnarch of Aretas appears in the active capacity of governor of the city,’ and his relation to the 6A Aayuackyvév is supposed to be well 1 Not of his joint reign, from which Wiese- ler now reckons in Herzog’s Zncykl. XXI. p. 547. 2 In presence of this quite definite state- ment of the year of the emperor, the differ- ent combinations, which have been made on the basis of the accounts of Josephus con- cerning the war between Antipas and Aretas in favour of a later date for the public ap- pearance of Jesus (34-35; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 620 ff.), necessarily give way. These, moreover, are not sufficiently reliable for an exact marking off of the year, to induce us to set aside the year of the emperor men- tioned by Luke, which could only be based on general notoriety, and the exact specifica- tion of which regulates and controls the synchronistie notices in Luke iii. 1 f. 3 Not merely of a judicial chief of the Ara- bian population of Damascus, subordinate to the Roman authority (Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellex. I. p. 239.) There is no historical CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 15 known to the readers. It is therefore very arbitrary to regard this relation as a temporary private one, and not as a real dominion (Anger: “forte fortuna eodem, quo apostolum tempore propter negotia nescio quae Da- masci versatum esse,’’ and that he, either of his own accord or at the request of the Jews, obtained permission for the latter from the magistrates of Damascus to watch the gates). The time, when the Arabian king became master of Damascus, is assigned with much probability, from what Josephus informs us of the relations of Aretas to the Romans, to the year 37, after the death of Tiberius in March of that year. Tiberius, namely, had charged Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to take either dead or alive Aretas, who had totally defeated the army of Herod Antipas, his faithless son-in-law (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). Vitellius, already on his march against him (Joseph. l.c. xviii. 5. 3), received in Jerusalem the news of the death of the emperor, which occurred on the 16th of March 37, put his army into winter quarters, and journeyed to Rome. Now this was for Aretas, considering his warlike and irritated attitude toward the Roman power, certainly the most favourable moment for falling upon the rich city of Damascus—which, besides, had formerly belonged to his ancestors (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 2)— because the governor and general-in-chief of Syria was absent, the army was inactive, and new measures were to be expected from Rome. The king, however, did not remain long in possession of the conquered city. For when, in the second year of Caligula (i.e. in the year from 16th March 38 to 16th March 39), the Arabian affairs were regulated (Dio Cass. lix. 9. 12), Damas- cus cannot have been overlooked. This city was too important for the ob- jects of the Roman government in the East, to allow us to assume with probability— what Wieseler, p. 172 ff., and on Gal. p. 599, assumes '—that, at the regulation of the Arabian affairs, it had only just come by way of gift into the hands of Aretas, or (with Ewald, p. 339) that according to agreement it had remained in his possession during his lifetime, so that he would have to be regarded as a sort of Roman vassal. This, then, limits the flight of Paul from Damascus to the period of nearly two years from the summer of 37 to the spring of 39. As, however, it is improbable that Aretas had entrusted the keeping of the city gates to the Jews in what remained of the year 37, which was certainly still disturbed by military movements ; and as his doing so rather presupposes a quiet and sure pos- session of the city, and an already settled state of matters ; there remains only the year 38 and the first months of the year 39. And even these first months of the year 39 are excluded, as, according to Dio Cassius, /.c., Caligula apportioned Arabia in the second year of his reign ; accordingly Aretas can hardly have possessed the conquered city up to the very end of that year, especially as the importance of the matter for the Oriental inter- ests of the Romans made an early arrangement of the affair extremely probable. Every month Caligula became more dissolute and worthless ; and certainly the securing of the dangerous East would on this account trace of the relation thus conjectured, and 1 See also his three articles in Herzog’s it would hardly have included a jurisdiction Encykl.; Aretas, Galaterbrief, and Zeitrech- over the Jew Saul. nung, neutest. 16 INTRODUCTION. rather be accelerated than delayed. Accordingly, if the year 38! be ascer- tained as that of the flight of Paul, there is fixed for his conversion, be- tween which and his flight a period of three years intervened (Gal. i. 18), the year 35.—Aer. Dion. 36, 37, u.c. 789, 790. Paul labours as a preacher of the gospel in Damascus, ix. 20-23 ; journey to Arabia and return to Da- mascus (see on ix. 19).—Arr. Dion. 38, v.c. 791. His flight from Damascus and first journey to Jerusalem (ix. 23-26 ff.), three years after his conversion, Gal. 1. 18. From Jerusalem he makes his escape to Tarsus (ix. 29, 30).— Arr. Dion. 39-43, v.c. 792-796. The churches throughout Palestine have peace and prosperity (ix. 31); Peter makes a general journey of visitation (ix. 32), labours at Lydda and Joppa (ix. 32-43), converts Cornelius at Caesarea (x. 1-48), and returns to Jerusalem, where he justifies himself (xi. 1-18). Christianity is preached in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and in that eity even to the Gentiles, on which account Barnabas is sent thither, who fetches Paul from Tarsus, and remains with him for one year in Antioch (xi. 19-26). In this year (43) Agabus predicts a general famine (xi. 27, 28).—AER. Dron. 44, u.c. 797. After the execution of the elder James, Peter is imprisoned without result by Agrippa L., who dies in August 44 (xii. 1-23). In the fourth year of the reign of Claudius occurs the famine in Judaea (see on xi. 28), on account of which Paul (according to Acts, but not according to Gal. ii. 1) makes his second journey to Jerusalem (with Barnabas), whence he returns to Antioch (xi. 29, 30, and see on xii. 25).—AER. Dion. 45-51, v.c. 798-804. In this period occurs the jirst missionary journey of the apostle with Bar- nabas (xiii. and xiv.), the duration of which is not indicated. Having returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas remain there ypovov ovk dAiyov (xiv. 28).—AER. Dion. 52, v.c. 805. The third journey of Paul to Jerusalem (with Barnabas) to the apostolic congress (xv. 1-29), according to Gal. ii. 1, fourteen years after the first journey. Having returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas separate, and Paul with Silas commences his second missionary journey (Acts xv. 30-41).—AER. Dron. 53, 54, u.c. 806, 807. Continuation of this missionary journey through Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia ; crossing ‚From Troas to Macedonia ; journey to Athens and Corinth, where Pual met with Aquila banished in the year 52 by the edict of Claudius from Rome, and remained there more (see on xviii. 11) than a year and a half (xvi. 1-xviil. 18).—AeEr. Dron. 55, v.c. 808. From Corinth Paul journeys to Ephesus, and thence by Caesarea to Jerusalem for the fourth time (xvii. 20-22), from which, without staying, he returns to Antioch (xviii. 22), and thus closes his second missionary journey. He tarries there xpövov rıva (xvill. 23), and then commences his third missionary journey through Galatia and Phrygia (xviii. 23), during which time Apollos is first at Ephesus (xviii. 24 ff.) and then at Corinth (xix. 1).—A&r. Dion. 56-58, v.c. 809-811. Paul arrives on this 1 With this also agrees the number of the assumed for the coinage. The circumstance year AP of a Damascene coin of King Aretas, described by Eckhel and Mionnet, namely, in so far as that number (101) is to be reckoned according to the Pompeian era commencing with 690 u.c.,—and this is at any rate the most probable,—whence the year 38 may be safely that there are extant Damascene coins of Augustus and Tiberius, and also of Nero, but none of Caligula and Claudius (see Eckhel, I. 3, p. 330f.), is unsatisfactory as evidence of a longer continuance of the city under the power of Aretas, and may be accidental. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. Ir journey at Ephesus (xix. 1), where he labours for not quite three years (see on xix. 10). After the tumult of Demetrius (xix. 24-40) he journeys to Macedonia and Greece, and tarries there three months (xx. 1, 2).—Aer. Dion. 59, v.c. 812. Having returned in the spring from Greece to Macedonia (xx. 3), Paul sails after Easter from Philippi to Troas (xx. 6), and from Assos by way of Miletus (xx. 13-38), and Tyre (xxi. 1-6) to Ptolemais (xxi. 7), thence he journeys by Caesarea (xxi. 8-14) to Jerusalem forthe fifth and last time (xxi. 15-17). Arriving shortly before Pentecost (xx. 16), he is after some days (xxi. 18-33) arrested and then sent to Felix at Caesarea (xxiii. 23-35).—ArER. Dion. 60, 61, v.c. 813, 814. Paul remains a prisoner in Caesarea for two years (from the summer of 59 to the summer of 61) until the departure of Felix, who leaves him as a prisoner to his successor Festus (xxiv. 27). Festus, after fruitless discussions (xxv., xxvi.), sends the apostle, who had appealed to Caesar, to Rome in the autumn (xxvii. 9), on which journey he winters at Malta (xxviii. 11).—That Felix had retired from his procuratorship before the year 62, is evident from Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 9, according to which this retirement occurred while Pallas, the brother of Felix, was still a favourite of Nero, and while Burrus, the praefectus praetorio, was still living ; but, according to Tac. Ann. xiv. 65, Pallas was poisoned by Nero in the year 62, and Burrus died in an early month of the same year (Anger, de temp. rat. p. 101). See also Ewald, p. 52 ff. Further, that the retirement of Felix took place after the year 60," is highly probable from Joseph. Vit. § 3, and from Antt. xx. 8.11. In the first passage Josephus informs us that he had journeyed to Rome wer’ eixoorov Kai Exrov éviavrov of his life, in order to release certain priests whom Felix, during his (consequently then elapsed) procuratorship (xa9’ öv xpövov biAg TiS ’Iovdaias Emerpörevev), had sent as prisoners thither. Now, as Josephus was born (Vit. § 1) in the first year of Caligula (7.e. in the year from 16th March 37 to 16th March 38), and so the completion of his 26th year fell in the year from 16th March 63 to 16th March 64, that journey to Rome is to be placed in the year 63,” for the sea was closed in the winter months until the beginning of March (Veget. de re milit. iv. 39.) If, then, Felix had retired as early as the year 60, Josephus would only have interested himself for his unfortunate friends three years after the removal of the hated gov- ernor,—a long postponement of their rescue, which would be quite inex- born between 13th September 87 and 16th March 38, and therefore the above journey is 1 Not in the year 58, as Lehmann (in the Stud. und Krit. 1858, p. 322 ff.) endeavours to establish, but without considering the pas- sage in Joseph. Vita3. See, besides, in opposition to Lehmann, Wieseler on Gal. p. 583 f. » 2 Wieseler, p. 98, following Clinton, Anger, and others, has defended the year 64. He appeals especially to a more exact deter- mination of the age of Josephus, which is to be got from Anti. xx. 11. 3, where Josephus makes his 56th year coincide with the 13th year of Domitian (13th September 93 to 13th September 94). Accordingly, Josephus was to be referred not to the year 63, but, as he would not have entered upon it in the autumn, only to the year 64. But this proof is not convincing, as we are at all events entitled to seek the strictly exact statement of the birth of Josephus in the Vita, § 1 16 March 37 to 16th March 38), and are not, by the approximate parallelism of An#/. xx. 11. 2, justified in excluding the period from 16th March to 13th September, 37. Even if Jose- phus were bornin March 37, his 56th year would still fallin the 13th year of Domitian, 18 INTRODUCTION. plicable. But if Felix resigned his government in the year 61,' it was natural that Josephus should first wait the result of the complaint of the Jews of Caesarea to the emperor against Felix (Joseph. Antt. xx. 8, 10); and then, when the unexpected news of the acquittal of the procurator came, should, immediately after the opening of the navigation in the year 63, make his journey to Rome, in order to release his friends the priests. Further, according to Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, about the time of the entrance of Festus on office (kata röv kaıpdv roörov), Poppaea, the mistress of Nero, was already his wife (yvv7,) which she became according to Tac. Ann. xiv. 59, Suet. Wer. 35, only in May of the year 62 (see Anger, l.c. pp. 101, 103). Now, if Festus had become already procurator in the year 60, we must either ascribe to the expression xatd Tov katpdv roürov an undue indefiniteness, extending even to inaccuracy, or in an equally arbitrary manner understand yvv7 proleptically (Anger, Stölting), or as uxor injusta (Wieseler), which, precisely in reference to the twofold relation of Poppaea as the emperor’s mistress and the emperor's wife, would appear unwar- ranted in the case of a historian who was recording the history of his own time. But if Festus became governor only in the summer of 61, there remains for Töv kaıpöv roürov a space of not quite one year, which, with the not sharply definite «ard «.7.4., cannot occasion any difficulty. The ob- jection urged by Anger, p. 100, and Wieseler, p. 86, on Gal. p. 584 f., and in Herzog’s Eneykl. XXI. p. 557, after Pearson and Schrader, against the year 61, from Acts xxviii. 16,—namely, that the singular 7@ orparoredapxn refers to Burrus (who died in the spring of 62) as the sole praefectus praetorii at the period of the arrival of the apostle at Rome, for before and after his prefecture there were two prefects,—is untenable, because the singular in the sense of : the praefectus praetorii concerned (to whom the prisoners were delivered up), is quite in place. The other reasons against the year 61, taken from the period of office of Festus and Albinus, the successors of Felix (Anger, p. 101 ff. ; Wieseler, p. 89 ff.), involve too much uncertainty to be decisive for the year 60. For although the en- trance of Albinus upon office is not to be put later than the beginning of October 62 (see Anger, /.c.), yet the building (completion) of the house of Agrippa, mentioned by Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, ix. 1, as nearly contem- poraneous with the entrance of Festus on office, and the erection of the wall by the Jews over against it (to prevent the view of the temple), as well as the complaint occasioned thereby at Rome, might very easily have occurred from the summer of 61 to the autumn of 62; and against the brief duration of the high-priesthood of Kabi, scarcely exceeding a month on this supposition (Anger, p. 105 f.), the history of that period of rapid dissolution in the unhappy nation raises no valid objection at all.—Aer. Dion. 63, 64, v.c. 815-817. Paul arrives in the spring of 62 at Rome (xxvii. 11, 16), where he remains two years (xxviii. 30), that is, until the spring of 64, in further captivity. Thus far the Acts of the Apostles.— On the disputed point of a second imprisonment, see on Rom. Introd. p. 15 ff. 1 See also Laurent, neutest. Studien, p. 84 ff. AUTHORITIES FOR CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 19 Remark 1.—The great conflagration of Rome under Nero broke out on 19th July 64 (Tac. Ann. xv. 41), whereupon commenced the persecution of the Christians (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). At the same time the abandoned Gessius Florus (64-66), the Nero of the Holy Land, the successor of the wretched Albinus, made havoc in Judaea, Remark 2.—The Book of Acts embraces the period from a.p. 31 to a.p. 64, in which there reigned as Roman emperors: (1) Tiberius (from 19th August 14), until 16th March 37; (2) Caligula, until 24th January 41; (3) Claudius, until 15th October 54 ; (4) Nero (until 9th June 68). 4 AUTHORITIES TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. Euseb. Chronicon in Mai nova Collect. VIII. p. 374 ff.—Hieron. Chronic. and de vir. ill. 5.—Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf.—Baronii Annal. ecclesiast. Rom. 1588, and later editions.—Petavius, de doctrina tempor. Par. 1627, in his Opp. Amst. 1640.—Cappelli hist. apostolica illustr. Genev. 1634, and later editions. —Usserii Annal. V. et N. T. Lond. 1650, and later editions.—Fried. Spanheim (the son of Fried. Spanh.), de convers. Paulinae epocha fixa, in his Opp. Lugd. Bat. 1701, III. p. 311 ff., and his Hist. Eccl. N. T. in his Opp. I. p. 534 ff.— Pearson, Lection. in priora Act. capita, and Annales Paulin. and in his Opp. posthuma, ed. Dodwell, Lond. 1688.—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a Vhistoire ecclés. Par. 1693, Bruxell. 1694.—Basnage, Annal. politico-eccles. Roterod. 1706, I. p. 403 ff.—J. A. Bengel, ordo tempor. Stuttg. 1741, third edi- tion, 1770.—Michaelis, Einleit. in d. göttl. Schr. d. N. B. II. § 169.—Vogel, üb. chronol. Standpunkte in d. Lebensgesch. Pauli, in Gabler’s Journ. für auserles. theol. Lit. 1805, p. 229 ff.—Heinrich’s Prolegom. p. 45 ff.—The Introductions of Hug, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt.—Siiskind, neuer Versuch über chronol. Stand- punkte f. d. Ap. Gesch. u. f. d. Leben Jesu in Bengel’s Arch. I. 1, p. 156 ff., 2, p. 297 ff. Comp. the corrections in Vermischte Aufsätze meist theol. Inhalts, ed. C. F. Siskind, Stuttg. 1831.—J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Chronol. d. Ap. Gesch. in Keil’s and Tzschirner’s Annal, III. p. 128 ff.—Kuinoel, Prolegom. § 7.— Winer, Realwörterb. ed. 3, 1848.—De Wette, Einl. § 118.—Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, I. Lpz. 1830.—Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, ed. Lücke, Gott. 1830 (agrees with Hug).—Koehler, üb. d. Abfassungszeit d. epistol. Schriften im N. T. u. d. Apokalypse, Lpz. 1830. Comp. the corrections in Annalen der gesammten Theol. Jun. 1832, p. 233 ff. (in Koehler’s review of Schott’s Erörterung, ete.).- -Feil- moser, Einl. p. 308 ff.—Schott, Isag. § 48. Comp. the corrections in Erörterung einig. wicht. chronol. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch. d. Ap. Paulus, Jen. 1832. — Wurm, üb. d. Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paulus in the Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1833, pp. 1 ff., 261 ff.—Olshausen, bibl. Kommentar. II.—Anger, de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione, Lpz. 1833.—Wieseler, Chronologie d. apost. Zeitalt. Gött. 1848, and Kommentar z. Br. an d. Gal. Gött. 1859, Exeurs. p. 553 ff. ; also in Her- zog’s Eneykl. XXI. p. 552 ff.—Ewald, Gesch. d, apost. Zeitalt. ed. 3, 1868.—See also Göschen, Bemerkungen zur Chronol. d. N. T. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 701 ff.—Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, Rom. 1793.—Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 366 ff. . 20 INTRODUCTION. SYNOPSIS OF THE DATES FIXED a £ =) h = = es - : 5 z a . m 2 El 3) 22138 38.2 (SSS) Sa Bla) 2S Eee l2äsa § |S|5 22 | 82/2 |20ls|: lsleiale a | ao | & | on S| oO as SO] 12) Ss |2|=|8|9| 5 oo | vo | 38 A» oh A AW) on HH AA = r>im| a pa | |e a Bae ee ee Ascension of Christ, . . 31! |33) 32 31 32 '3133'33| 33 |33'33/33'80| 3% | 31 | 33 | 31? Stephen's martyrdom, 33 or34 co > co ry co -t co co co @ ~ 34 33 37 30 I a. Claud | 36? 1% a. Paul’s conversion, . » =» = ..| 33 veut 34 33 3935| 40 |35/24/37/31| 372 | 83?) 37? | 35 a. peer HOEY ee Cland. 37 |86/42'88| 43 (88)87/40/88|.. |867| 40 38 a. Paul’s arrival at Antioch, a Salven Ca 41 |40 42/43) 43? 4243/40 39 42? \ about 43 Death of James,. .. . 44 42 '41 4144 44 44|44 42 44 or | 44 4 Maui 56 6 o oe 44) 41 44 Aa 42 '42 4444| 44 144 4414244] 44 or 46? 5 41 ee un le | 46 | 42 arlasaı 44 wanauzto| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 a. | 44| alas 44/44/45 45 44 al 8 first HIRE a ) Claud.| to 42toto .. |tojtojto to) .. | to De | v. | 47 | lasla6 7\46147 46 47? Paul’s third journey to Je- rusalem, to the une 49 494652 53 1495115047] .. |472|47?| 52 Council, c 52 Paul commences his end | missionary journey,. . = 49 49/4653) .. 50 5150 47 53 : 3 aie 49 ae nn 49| .. | 49 494954) .. atosı... dar [oar] 52 Paul arrives at Corinth, 58) sales 50 504954 54? |52)52/51/48) 54? | 52?) 52 | 53 Paul’s fourth journey to Je- 52 rusalem (a2.Caesarea), and setae Caos, 5251156 54? 154545849] .. | 54? | 54 | 55 third missionary journey, 55 Ä \ 53 525156, 56 1541545350 56 Paul's abode at Ephesus, 55-584 |..| .. | .. | to tototo to to toito to } to | ee ae 59| 58 [57157155 52 58 Paul’s fifth jouruey to Jeru- i | salem, and imprisonment, 10} a = 56 I ca 59 |58/58'56.53; 60 |57?| 60 | 59 Paul’s removal from Caes- 55. under lealeeleo | | 2! 62 | 61 area to Rome, . 61% |° 57 | Nero. 56 2 56 62) 60 16016015955] 62 | 59?) 62 | 6 Bis Hat Ail Pea ewe 57 |57/57.63| 61 (61/61/60 56) 63 | 60 | 63 | 62 a es nn AlNera Er to tototo to |to to to to} to to | to | to A er IV. 59 59159 53 [63 63 62 58| 65 | 62 | 65 | 64 1 Lehmann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 312 ff.) furnishes from this point onward the follow. ing dates :—Second journey to Jerusalem, 44 ; first missionary journey, 45 and 46 ; apostolic couneil, 47; second missionary journey, 48,—in 49 Paul arrives at Corinth ; fourth journey to Jerusalem, 51; third missionary journey, 52, during which he remains at Ephesus from the autumn of 52 until 54, and in 55 proceeds to Macedonia and Greece; fifth journey to Jerusalem, and imprisonment, 56; removal from Caesarea to Rome, 58; imprisonment in Rome, 59 to 61.— These dates chiefly Benen on the assumption that Felix had been recalled as early as the year 58.—Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 94 f£., fixes, with me, on the year 61 as that of the departure of Felix and the voyaze of the apostle.—Gerlach (Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, $ 14) does not CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. — 21 BY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGISTS. = | a ; ß 3 $ AR | ans); |; |. | 1235| ° ° [=] 3 2 En o 3 @|o} Vs 7 = Bil emt | one! Pes) e. a pecs se fo be le & is Slelei/ai/a\8/% | 2 (sisi 2)5 |e) & gal & Bopmlalo|M |Fla|a \|Mie| 2 | & IS| < jas] E 32 32 33 | 30? 35 | 36 1831 33 83 |. 81 || oo 37 | ur: 82 or | 38%? 85 | 36 N 37 89? |38 38 | 37 7 35 | or |40| 82 | 41 40 |388?| or 39 | 87 138 37 41 | 385] 88 | or] 40 |s8 38 38 38 40 did 40 38 or |43| 35 | not | 43 | 41! or 42 | 40 |38) 40 | 43 | 38] 41 | or| 4g | 41 occur. 41 | 41 | 43 43 42 | 44 we os ae ae or 43, eat lal wae as 41 | or 44| .. 44 | 44 or 45? 43 43 43 HAuNLOn |) 7. da or | 4 | 44 4 |4|..| 44 En or or 44 44 44 44 44 44 or | 44) 47? | .. 4.\4| .. Pa paced) cee TARA | or 45 45 45 or 46? 44 44 44 46 44 4 | 45] or 44 | 41 4 44 45 | 44 | or 45| 44] 45 45 lor 46? 44 45 to |..t0 48 Cyn In. alc: Coy co | oe ae st to |45?|..| to ate 49 about) .. to 46 46 48 47 50 49 Re 52 |52?| 47? | 55 52 |51 | or 47 | 51 152) or 46 | 52 | 51 | 52 about’. 51 50 50 51 Bee. |..4 or | 47 | tela! .. |». |52| 52. .., [about 52 | 50 b : none ne not 51 ee | 52 |52| ‚© | 40 | 82.158] 52 beforel .. | or | .. | 52 45 54 and 49 52 2 2 52 52 about! 551 4g | 55? | 52 al | 49 | 52\58| or | 49 |58| 52 |.. | 52 53 | | 53 53 54 56 |55 | 50 .. |Caes.| 54 | or 51 | 54 |55| ge) 51 | 55 | 54 | 56] 54 = S. 57 |55 | 50 55 | 54 to 55 54 54 | 56 | 54 54 to |to | to ve se to | or | 51 ff. 57 ‚to, to to jand to =. to 59 | 58] 52 57 | 55 ff. | 218717 66. |) 56) 1870| 57 7 58 60 |58| 53 59 5% | 58 es 59 | 58 58) 59 58 | 60] 58 | 60! 58 A 5 | 60 62 | 60] 55 61 59 |60 | or | 61 | 60 60) 61 60 | 62} 60 | 62! 60 | 61 | 63 | 61 62 60 | 61 2 62 | 61 61 62 | 61 | 63| 61 | 63/ 61 to to oe to to to to to to to to to to to to to 65 | 63 64 62 63 | 64 | 64 | 63 63 64 68 | 65| 63 | 65| 64 |6 ! I | ee enc rr ee wm cn ee Er er ne me ne ee me en ee enter on the chronological question, but fixes on the year 60 or 61.—Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 547 ff., agrees in essential points with our dates.—Stilting, Beitr. z. Eweges. d. Paul. Br. 1869, starting from the assumption that the fourteen years in Gal. ii. 1 are to be reckoned from the conversion to the composition of the Epistle, and that so likewise the four- teen years in 2 Cor. xii. 2 are to be determined, fixes for the conversion of Paul the year 40; for the first journey to Jerusalem, 43 (for the second, 45) ; for the third, 49; for the second mis- sionary journey to Corinth, 50-52 ; for the fourth journey to Jerusalem, 52; for the arrest, 56; for the two years’ imprisonment, 59 to 61. 22 INTRODUCTION. . NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (®) Although the author contends strongly for the date he assigns for the ascension, that the feast referred to in John v. 1 was not the Passover, but the feast of Purim, and hence our Lord’s public ministry extended only over a period of a little more than two years, the exact chronology of the Acts is still an unsettled question. The great diversity in the chronological -table furnished by him is proof of this. “The exact number of Passovers from the baptism to the crucifixion of Christ, and the length of our Lord’s ministry, are points on which there is much difference of opinion. For myself I can see no better view than the old one, that our Lord’s ministry lasted three years.i (diyle.) “What this feast was is, in all probability, a question which, though inter- esting and important in settling the length of our Lord’s ministry, will never receive a final answer.” ‘The data are clearly insufficient to decide convin- cingly how long Christ publicly taught on earth, nor shall we ever be able to attain any certainty on that deeply interesting question.” (Farrar, Ex. VIIL., Life of Christ.) Dr. Robinson in his Harmony of the Gospels, and Dr. McDonald, of Prince- ton, in his Life and Writings of John, both consider the Passover to be re- ferred to in John v. 1—as does also Dr. Jacobus in his Notes. Hackett says : ‘“ The chronology of the Acts is attended with uncertainties which no efforts of critical labor have been able to remove.” And he gives A.D, 33 as the probable date of the ascension. In this opinion Lewin and Canon Cooke concur, as does also Dr. P. J. Gloag in the introduction to his excellent commentary. Canon Farrar, in Excursus X. appended to his Life and Work of St. Paul, says: ‘‘How widely different have been the schemes adopted by different chronologists, may be seen from the subjoined table, founded on that given by Meyer.” “This important book forms the grand connecting link of the Gospels with the Epistles, being a sort of appendix to the former, and an introduction to the latter, and is therefore indispensably necessary to a right understanding of both.’’ (Bloomfield. ) “Any view which attributes wlterior design to the writer beyond that of faith- fully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are answered by the book in the course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied purposes of the writer.” (Alford.) “The purpose of the writer was, evidently, to narrate the work of Christ con- tinued after his ascension, and wrought through the Holy Spirit, and to fur- nish his readers with an account of how Christianity, after the death of its Founder, was preserved, established, and in so short a time communicated to so many nations.” (Denton.) The evidential value of the book is very great when considered in relation to the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and the facts of external history ; and its bearing on the organization, worship, mission work, and future history of the Church is most obvious and important. (See Introductions by Plumptre and by Howson.) CRITICAL NOTES. 23 IIpagsıs tév anootoAwv. B, Lachm. Tisch. have mpafeıs ürooröAwv. So also Born. Later enlarge- ments of the title in codd.: Aovxa evayyeAuorod mpaseıs amooröAwv, al. ai rpäseıs TOV dyiov amootöAwv. Peculiar to D ; mpasis anooröAov. N has merely modseıs, but at the close mpdfers anooroAwv.— The codex D is particularly rich in additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: ‘Hic liber (the Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum Syrarum, Bedae et scribae codicis D omnem modum excedunt.” ‘Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Borne- mann, ‘‘monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem” (E). CHAPTER I. 2 ’ . Ver. 4. ovvarılöouevos] min. Euseb. Epiph. have ovvavartouevos. Recom- mended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has ovvadioxduevos per’ aitov. Both are ineptly explanatory alterations. — Ver. 5. The order : &v zvevu. Barr. dyiv, adopted by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B N* against A C E min. vss. Or. al. — Ver. 6. &myporwv] Lachm. Tisch. read 7pdrwv, according to A B C* 8, the weight of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails. — Ver! 8. pot] Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read ov, decisively attested by A B C D & Or, — Instead of «on, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read év racy. But év is wanting in A C* D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding. — Ver. 10. éo8771 Aevap] A BC 8 min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have &odyseoı Aevxais. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. is the usual expression. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 4. — Ver. 13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order ’Iodvuns k. ’IakwBos, which is supported by A B C D®& min. vss., also Vulg. and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke vi. 14. — Ver. 14. After xpocevy7 Elz. has kat 7H denoeı, which, on decisive testimony, has been omitted by modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 15. uabnrar] A B C* 8 min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have adeAgov : recom- mended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. ; the Rec. is an interpretation of dde/9., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense of uaßnr. — Ver. 16. raurmv is wanting in A B C* 8 min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express passage of Scripture immediately follows. — Ver 17. ovv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Born. read év according to decisive testimony ; ovv is an interpretation. — Ver. 19. ’AxeAdaué] There are different modes of writing this word in the critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read ‘Axe2dauay accord- ing to A B; Born. ‘AceAdauay according to D ; N has ‘AyeA9audy. — Ver. 20. AaBo:.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. read Aa8érw according to A BC D® Eus. Chrys. ; 2é30: was introduced from the LXX. — Ver. 24. dv &£eA. Ex tout. Tov dvo éva] Elz. has éx tovr. röv dbo éva by ééeA., in opposition to greatly preponderat- 24 CHAP. I., 1-3. ing testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity. — Ver. 25. röv xAjpov} A BC* D (rör. tov) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read rdv tézov. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (rörov röv). Rightly ; the Ree. is a gloss according to ver. 17.—a@’ 75] Elz. Scholz read é 75. The former has prepon- derating testimony. — Ver 26. aitév] AB C D** N min. vss. have adrois. So Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the geni- tive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.). Ver. 1. Tov piv mpörov Aöyov Eroımo.] Luke calls his Gospel the first history, inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. pdros, in the sense of ppotepos. See on Johni. 15. Adyos, narrative, history, or the like, what is contained in a book.’ As to rorsiv used of mental products, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 61 B: roısiv pifiovs, aad’ ob Adyovs. Hence Aoyomovös = ioropırös.? pév, without a subsequent de. Luke has broken off the construction. Instead of continuing after ver. 2 somewhat as follows: ‘‘ but this devrepos Aoyos is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension,’’ which thought he had before his mind in the pév, ver. 1,—he allows himself to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history itself. — wep) mdévrwv| a popular expression of completeness, and therefore not to be pressed. — dv jpéaro «.r.A.] dv is attracted, equivalent to a; and, setting aside the erroneous assertion that jpéatc rowsiv is equivalent to eroinoe (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained : ‘‘what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until the day,’ ete., as if Luke had written : bv aptduevos ’Inooös Eroimoe x. édidakev aype K.T.A. Comp. xi. 4.4 But Luke has not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger, has maintained that 7p&aro denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His as- cension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only begun by Jesus up to His ascension ; as if Luke had written jpato moıwv Te Kai diddcKwv.® In point of fact, jpéaro is inserted according to the very frequent custom of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid and graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and 1§0 in Xen. Ages. 10. 8, Arad. iii. 1. 1, and frequently. See also Schweigh. Lew. Herod. II. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. 2 Pearson, ad Mover. p. 244. 3 Comp. Winer, p. 535 (E. T. 720); Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 313 (E. T. 365); Kühner, ad Xen. Anab.i.2.1; Baeuml. Partik. p. 163 f. * Plat. Legg. vii. p. 807 D; Xen, Anab. vi. 4.1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also Luke xviii. 5, xxiv. 27, 47; Acts 1. 22, viii. 35, x. 37. So also Winer, p. 577 (E. T. 775) ; Buttm. p. 320 (E. T. 374): Lekebusch, p. 202 f. So also in substance Hackett, Commentary on the Orig- anal Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston, 1858. ed 2. 5 As Xen. Cyr. vill. 8. 2: dp&owar dıdackwr, I shall begin my teaching, Plat. Theaet. p. 187 A, Mencx. p. 237 A; comp. Krüger, § 56. BALL, REFERENCE TO THE GOSPEL. 25 teaching,—a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis, moreover, lies on toveiv te kai didaoxecv, which comprehends the contents of the Gospel.‘ It may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘* The Jirst narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited His activity in doing and teaching during His earthly life wp to His ascension.’? mousın precedes, comp. Luke xxiv. 19, because it was primarily the épya of Jesus that demonstrated His Messiahship, John x. 38; Acts x. 38. Ver. 2. Until the day on which He was taken up, after that He had com- missioned by means of the Holy Spirit the apostles whom He had chosen, belong- ing to dv jpiato k.r.A.— äypı 75 nuöpas] a usual attraction, but to be ex- plained as in ver. 22; Luke i. 20, xvii. 27; Matt. xxiv. 38. — Evreilduevos] refers neither merely to the baptismal command, Matt. xxviii., nor merely to the injunction in ver. 4; but is to be left as general: having given them charges, ‘‘ut facere solent, qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo disce- dunt,’’ Beza. — did rveiu. dyiov] belongs to évreA. trois amoor.: by means of the Holy Spirit, of which He was possessor (Luke iv. 1, xiv. 18; John iii. 34, xx. 22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so specially as regards His disciples (ix. 55). Yet it is not to be explained as: by com- munication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel), since this is not promised till after- wards ; noryet as: quae agere deberent per Spir. 8. (Grot.), which the words cannot bear. Others? connect dıa rveuu. dy. with ots &$eA&faro, quos per Sp. S. elegerat. But there thus would result a hyperbaton which, without any certain example in the N. T.,* would put a strong emphasis and yet without any warrant in the context, on did mv. dyiov. — ods éeAée.] is added with design and emphasis ; it is the significant premiss to évreiAdu. «.r.A. (whom He had chosen to Himself) ; for the earlier éxAoyn on the part of Jesus was a necessary preliminary to their receiving the évroay did mv, dy. — aveajoln| Luke ix. 51, xxiv. 51 (Elz.). \ Ver. 3. Ois kai] to whom also. To the foregoing ods éfeAés., namely, there is attached a corresponding incident, through which the new intercourse, in which the évrecAduevos x.7.A. took place, is now set forth. —uerü ro radeiv aitév| includes in it the death as the immediate result of the suffering (iii. 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 12).— dv’ quép. reocapar. | He,showed Himself to them throughout forty days, (F) not continuously, but From time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well known by the preceding év 7oAA, rerunpioıs. — ra wept 77S Bao. r. Oeoö] speaking to them that which related to the Messiah’s kingdom, which He would erect. The Catholics have taken occasion hence to assume that Jesus at this stage gave instructions concerning the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, and the like.—As to the variation of the narrative of the forty days from the narrative given in the Gospel, see on Luke xxiv. 50 f. This diversity 1 Comp. Papias in Ens. iii. 39. 3 Winer, p. 517 (E. T. 696); Buttm. newt. 2Syr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Gr. p. 333 (E. T. 388). Scaliger, Heumann, Kypke, Michaelis, Ro- 4 Plat. Apol. p. 19 D, al. ; Dissen, ad Dem. senmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen,de decor. p. 177 f. ; and see on Rom. svi. <7, Wette. . 26 CHAP. I., 4-11. presupposes that a not inconsiderable interval occurred between the composition of the Gospel and that of Acts, during which the tradition of the forty days was formed or at least acquired currency. The purposely chosen örravöuevos conspiciendum se praebens' corresponds to the changed corporeality of the Risen One (comp. the remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51), but does not serve in the least degree to remove that discrepancy (in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 12), as if it presupposed that Jesus, on occasion of every appearance, quitted ‘the sphere of invisibility.’’ Comp. the 6947 in Luke xxiv. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff.; comp. with John xx. 17; Acts 1. 21 f., x. 41; Luke xxiv. 427. Ver. 4. To the general description of the forty days’ intercourse is now added by the simple «ai, and, in particular, the description of the two last interviews, ver. 4 f. and ver. 6. ff., after which the avei7g0n took place, ver. 9. — cvvadrlou. mapnyy. avroıs] while He ate with them, He commanded them. ovvarılöu. 1s thus correctly understood by the vss. (Vulg.: convescens), Chrysostom (rpareins koıwovov), Theophylact, Oecume- nius, Jerome, Beda, and others, including Casaubon. — cuvadicectar (prop- erly, to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in a Greek translator of Ps. cxli. 4, where ovvaticbo (LXX.: ovvdvdcw) corresponds to the Hebrew DMR, also in Clem. Hom. 6, and Maneth. v. 339. Asto the thing itself, comp. on x. 41. Usually the word is de- rived from ovvaridev, to assemble.” It would then have to be rendered ; when He assembled with them.” But against this it is decisive that the sense: when He had assembled with them, would be logically necessary, so that Luke must have written cvvadiceis. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis : ovvadcCouévots, is completely unnecessary, although approved by Valckenaer. — tiv émayyediav Tov narpös] see on Luke xxiv. 49. Jesus means the promise cat’ é£oynv, given by God through the prophets of the O. T. (comp. ii. 16), which, z.e. the realization of which, they were to wait for (wepyéverv only here in the N. T., but often in the classics) ; it referred to the complete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was to follow only after His exaltion. Comp. John vil. 39, xv. 26, xiv. 16. Already during their earthly intercourse the rveöwa dy. was communicated by Jesus to the disciples partially and provisionally. Luke 1x. 55; John xx. 21, 22.— ‘qv hKotoaté uov] The oblique form of speech is changed, as frequently also in the classies,* with the increase of*animation into the direct form, Luke v. 41, and elsewhere, particularly with Luke.” Bengel, moreover, aptly says: ‘ Atque hie parallelismus ad arctissimum nexum pertinet utriusque hbri Lucae,’’—but not in so far as 7» nkovo. pov points back to Luke xxiv. 49 as to an earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus had employed the active. This is gram- matically incorrect ; 1t must then have been ovvaAilwv, or, with logical accuracy (as Luther 1 Comp. Tob. xii. 19; 1 Kings viii. 8. 2 Herod. v. 15. 102; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 48: Lucian, Zuet. 7. 3 Not as Luther (when He had assembled them), Grotius (“in unum recolligens qui dispersi fuerunt’’), and most interpreters, including even Kuinoel and Olshausen (not Beza and de Wette), explain it, as if Luke felt), cvvadicas. 4 Stallb. ad Protag. pp. 322 C, 338 B, Kühner, § 850. 5 See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 385). LAST WORDS OF JESUS, 27 here, shortly before his ascension, gives the same intimation which was also given by Him on the ascension day (Luke xxiv. 49), directly before the ascent ; although according to the gospel the day of the resurrection coin- cides with that of the ascension (B, p. 6). Therefore jv 7rovo. wou is to be considered as a reference to a former promise of the Spirit, not recorded by Luke. Comp. John xiv. 16 f., xv. 26.—On dxovew ri twos, see Winer, p. 187 (E. T. 249). Ver. 5. Reminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist, Luke iii. 16 ; John i. 33. ‘For on you the baptism of the Spirit will now soon take place which John promised instead of his baptism of water.’’—Barrıoßnasode] tiv émiyvow Kai Tov mAoörov THS xopnyias onuaiver., Theophyl. ; Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; Acts xi. 16. Moreover, comp. on John i. 33.— od uerd TOAA, TavT. juép.| is not a transposition for ob moAd pera Tavr. nuep., but : not after many of these, now and, up to the setting in of the future event, still current, days.‘ The position of the negative is to be explained from the idea of contrast, not after many, but after few.” Ver. 6. Not qui convenerant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as if what follows still belonged to the scene introduced in ver. 4 ; but, as is evident from ovvaiig., ver. 4, comp. with ver. 12, a new scene, at which the ascen- sion occurred (ver. 9). The word of promise spoken by our Lord as they were eating (vv. 4, 5), occasioned (u?v odv) the apostles to come together, and in common to approach Him with the question, etc. Hence: They, therefore, after they were come together, asked Him. Where this joint asking occurred, is evident from ver. 12.° To the av corresponds the dein ver. 7. —év 79 xpövo «.r.A.] The disciples, acquainted with the ©. T. promise, that in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy Spirit would be poured out (Joel iii. 1, 2; Acts ii. 16 ff.), saw in ver. 5 an indirect intimation of the now impending erection of the Messianic kingdom; comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 169. In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain in- formation concerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask : “ Lord, if Thou at this time restorest the (fallen) kingdom to the people Israel ?”’ The view of Lightfoot, that the words were spoken in indignation* simply introduces arbitrarily the point alleged.—ei] unites the question to the train of thought of the questioner, and thus imparts to it the indirect character. See on Matt. xii. 10, and on Luke xiii. 23.—év 76 yp. Tovry] i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume from ver. 4 f. —aroxaicr.] See on Matt. xvii. 11. By their rö "Iopa7A they betray that they have not yet ceased to be entangled in Jewish Messianic hopes, according to which the Messiah was destined for the people of 1 Comp. Winer, p. 152 (E. T. 201). that no discussions intervened which would 2 See Kühner, II. 628. On ravras, inserted have diverted them from this definite inquiry between moAA. and nuep., comp. Xen. Anab. as to the time, Therefore ıt was probably iv. 2. 6, v.7.20, vii. 3.30; Dem. 90.11; Alc. on the same day. The rovr» is thus ex- 1. 14. plained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that 3 Concerning the time of the question, this OV META TOAA, TAUT. HK expression ev T® xpovw Tout gives so far in- 4 “Ttane nunc regnum restitues Judaeis illis, formation that it must have occurred very qui te cruct affixerunt?” soon after that meal mentioned in ver. 4, so 28 CHAP. I., 4-11. Israel as such; comp. Luke xxiv. 21. An artificial explanation, on the other hand, is given in Hofmann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 647.—The cir- cumstance that, by the declaration of Jesus, ver. 4 f., their sensuous expec- tation was excited and drew forth such a rash question, is very easily ex- plained just after the resurrection, and need occasion no surprise before the reception of the Spirit itself; therefore we have not, with Baumgarten, to impute to the disciples the reflection that the communication of the Spirit would be the necessary internal ground for all the shaping of the future, according to which idea their question, deviating from the tenor of the promise, would be precisely a sign of their understanding. Ver. 7 f. Jesus refuses to answer the question of the disciples ; not indeed in respect of the matter itself involved, but in respect of the time inquired after, as not beseeming them (observe the empuatic ody tueév ); and on the contrary (4444) He turns their thoughts, and guides their interest to their future official equipment and destination, which alone they were now to lay to heart. Chrysostom aptly says : dıdaokaAov roürö Eorı u) & Bovkerau 6 pabytns, dA” & ovupepeı pabeiv, didackerv.—ypdvovs 7) Katpots] times or, in order to denote the idea still more definitely, seasons. kaıpös is not equivalent to xpövos, but denotes a definite marked off portion of time with the idea of fit- ness. On 7, which is not equivalent to «ai, comp. here Dem. Ol. 3: tiva yap xpövov 7 Tiva KaipoYr Tod TapdvToS BeAriw Imreire >—!0ero Ev TH iia éEovoia] has established by means of His own plenitude of power. On év, comp. Matt. xxi. 23.— The whole declaration (ver. 7) is ageneral proposition, the application of which to the question put by the disciples is left to them ; therefore only in.re-” spect of this application is an ad hance rem perficiendem to be mentally supplied with ero, Bengel, however, well observes: ‘‘ gravis descriptio reservati di- vini ;’’ and “ergo res ipsa firma est, alias nullum ejus rei tempus esset.’’ But this res ipsa was, in the view of Jesus, which, however, we have no right to put into the question of the disciples, in opposition to Hofmann,’ the restoration of the kingdom, not for the natural, but for the spiritual Israel, compre- hending also the believing Gentiles (Rom. iv. 9), for the “Iopa7A rod Geos (Gal. vi. 16); see Matt. viii. 11; John x.'16, 26, viii. aan and already Matt iii. 9 ;—dvvayiv éreAQ rob dy. mv. 6’ buds] power, when the Holy Spirit has (shall have) come upon you.*—dprepes] namely, of my teaching, actions, and life, what ye all have yourselves heard and seen, v. 21f., x. 39 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 48 ; John xv. 27.—év re 'Iepovoad, . . . THS THS] denotes the sphere of the apostles’ work in its commencement and prog- ress, up to its most general diffusion; therefore 775 y7s is not to be explained of the land, but of the earth; and, indeed, it is to be observed that Jesus delineates for the apostles their sphere ideally, Comp. xiii. 47 ; Isa. viii. 9; Rom. x. 18; Col. 1. 23; Mark xvi. 15. Ver. 9. Kai vegéAn| This kai annexes what occurred after the éxipin, He was taken up on high, not yet immediately into heaven. The cloud, which re- ceived Him into itself, from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation ! See Thom. Mag. p. 489 f.; Tittm. Synon. 2 Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 647. N. T. p. 41. 9 Winer, p. 119 (E. T. 156). THE ASCENSION. ! 29 of the presence of God, who takes to Himself His Son into the glory of heaven. Comp. on Luke i. 35; Matt. xvii. 5. Chrysostom calls this cloud ro öxnua rd BaowAtKdv.— Concerning the ascension itself, which was cer- tainly bodily, but the occurrence of which has clothed itself with Luke in the ‘ traditionary form of an external visible event (according to Dan. vii. 13; comp. Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64.' The representation of the scene betrays a more developed tradition than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Schnec- kenburger : sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation ; Baumgarten : that the exalted Christ was to appear as the acting subject properly speaking in the further course of the Book of Acts). Nothing of this kind is in- dicated. , Vv. 10, 11. ’Arevifovres 7oav] expresses continuance: they were in fixed gazing. To this (not to mopevou. air.) eis rov obmavöv belongs.? Strangely erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 12: that os is not temporal, but as if: ‘‘they wished to fix the blue (?) heaven, which one cannot fix.’’ — ropevouévov aitod| whilst He, enveloped by the cloud, was departing (into heaven). — xai idov] as in Luke vii. 12, Acts x. 17; not as an anacoluthon, but: behold also there !*—The men are characterized as in- habitants of the heavenly world,* angels, who are therefore clothed in white. See on John xx. 12. — of kaı eimov] who (not only stood, but) also said : comp. ver. 3. — ri &orykare «.7.A.| The meaning is: ‘‘ Remain now no longer sunk in aimless gazing after Him; for ye are not for ever separated from this, Jesus,’ who will so come even as ye have seen Him go away into heaven.”’ — oöros] i.e. in the same manner come down from heaven in a cloud as He was borne up. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 30.— On the emphasis otros, dv rpümov, comp. xxvii. 25 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8. Ver. 12. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, which is not only here, but also in Luke xix, 29, xxi. 37, called éAqowr.° Its locality is indicated in Luke xxiv. 50, not differently from, but more exactly than in our passage (in opposition to de Wette and others) ; and accordingly there is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypothesis that the Sabbath-day’s journey is to be reckoned from Bethphage. * It is not the distance of the place of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on which it occurred, that ismeant. Luke here supposes that more precisely defined locality as already known ; but if he had had any particular design” in naming the Mount of Olives, he must have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially as the Mount of Olives was already sufficiently known to him from the Gospel, xix. 29, xxi. 37, without any such latent reference. — caf @drov Exov dddv] having a 1 See remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51. But if the tradition had meant /hese—and in 2 Comp. iii. 4, vi. 15, vii. 55, xi. 6, xiii. 9 ; 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. To ovpavw might also have stood, Luke iv. 20, xxii. 56; Acts iii. 12, x. 4, xxiii. 1. See generally, Valck. Schol. p. 809 ff. Comp. Polyb. vi. 11. 7. 3 See Nägelsbach, z. Z/ias, p. 164, ed. 3. 4 According to Ewald, we are to think on Moses and Elias, as at the transfiguration. that case it would certainly have named them —Luke would hardly have left them unnamed. Comp. rather Luke xxiv. 4 ; Acts x. 30. ö See on Luke xix. 29. 6 Wieseler, Synop. p. 435. 7 Baumgarten, p. 28 f.: that he wished to lead their thoughts to the future, according to Ezek. xi. 23 ; Zech. xiv. 6. 30 CHAP. I., 12-14. Sabbath'’s way. The way is conceived as something which the mountain has, i.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Such is—and not with Wetstein and Kuinoel : éyew pro azéyew —the correct view also in the analogous passages in Kypke, II. p. 8. The more exact determination of 6 éor Eyyds 'Iepovo. is here given; hence also the explanation of Alberti’ and Kypke, that it expresses the extent of the mountain (Sabbati consians itinere), is contrary to the context, and the use of éyevv is to be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esse.” — A 0065 oaßdarov, a journey permitted on the Sabbath,° according to the tra- ditionary maxims, was of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matt. xxiv. 20. The different statements in Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 6 (six stadia), and Bell. Jud. v. 2. 3 (five stadia), are to be considered as different estimates of the small distance. Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem,* hence the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond the ridge of the mountain on its eastern slope. Vv. 13, 14. Eio7A0ov] not: into their place of meeting, as Beza and others hold, but, in accordance with what immediately precedes: into the city. The simple style of a continued narrative. — Td brepwov] my, the room directly under the flat roof, used for praying and for meetings.° It is here to be conceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to the gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on account of Luke xxiv. 53; see on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same room as in John xx. 19, 26. — od joav karau.] where, i.e. in which they were wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following 6 re Ilétpos «.7.2. is a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of dveßmoav. According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were present at the ascension. In the Gospel, xxiv. 33, comp. vv. 36, 44, 50, the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded ; but according to Mark xvi. 14, comp. vv. 15, 19, 20, it is likewise only the Eleven.—As to the list of the apostles, comp. on Matt. x. 2-4; Mark ili. 17, 18; Luke vi. 14-16. — 6 InAorns] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matt. x. 4. — ’Iovdas ‘IaxwBov| the relationship is arbitrarily defined as : brother of the (younger) James. It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luke vi. 15 ; John xiv. 22; and Huther on Jude, Introd. § 1. Already the Syriac ~ gives the correct rendering. — öuoßvuadov] denotes no mere external being- together ; but, as Luther correctly renders it: wnanimously.° — odv yovacti] 1 Ad Luce. xxiv. 13. 5 Hieros. Sotah, f. 24.2. See Lightfoot, p. 2 Herm. ad Vig. p. 753. 3 According to Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 502, this statement presupposes that the ascension occurred on the Sabbath. But the inference is rash, and without any historical trace. 4 John xi. 16. See also Robinson, II. p. 309 f. 11. f., and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145, and con- cerning the word generally, which is very common with classical writers and not a com- pound, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 317 f. ; Lo- beck, Hlem. 1. p. 452 f. 6 Comp. Dem. Phil. IV. 147: ono@vuador ex plas yvwuns. So throughout in Acts and Rom. xy. 6. RETURN TO JERUSALEM. ol % along with women ; not: cum uxoribus (as Calvin holds) ;! they are partially known from the Gospels; Matt. xxvi. 56, 61; Luke viii. 2 f., xxiv. 10; Mark xv. 40 f. — «ai Map‘¢] «ai, also, singles out, after the mention in gen- eral terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special remark.? —adedgois] The unbelief * of the four brothers-german (6) of the Lord was very probably overcome by His resurrection. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 7. Ob- serve that here, destdes the eleven apostles, two other classes are specified as assembled along with them (od» . . . «ai civ), namely (a), women, including the mother of Jesus; and (b) the brethren of Jesus. Among the latter, therefore, none of those eleven can be ineluded. This, in opposition to Lange, Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp. on John vii. 3. Ver. 15. ’E» rais jjép. ravr.] between the ascension and feast of Pente- cost. — Ilerpos] even now asserting his position of primacy in the apostolic circle, already apparent in the Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus Himself. — röv adeAgav (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the Book of Acts and the Epistles, the Christians according to their brotherly fellowship ; hence here (see the following parenthesis) both the apostles and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense. — övoudr.] of persons, who are numbered.*—There is no contradiction between the number 120 and the 500 brethren in 1 Cor. xv. 6 (in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who suppose the number to have been invented in accordance with that of the apostles : ‚12x 10), as the appearance of Jesus in 1 Cor. /. ¢., apart from the fact that it may have taken place in Galilee, was earlier, when many foreign believers, pilgrims to the feast, might have been present in Jerusalem, who had now left.° — éxi rd aörö] locally united.*® Vv. 16, 17. “Avdpes adeAgoi is more honourable and solemn than the simpie familiar ddeAgoi.7— ide] It could not but be an especial object with Peter to lay the foundation for his judgment, by urging that the de- struction of Judas took place not accidentally, but necessarily according to the counsel of God. — tiv ypagnv taditnv] this which stands written—comp. on viii. 35—is not, with Wolf and Eckermann, to be referred to Ps. xli. 10 (John xiii. 18, xviii. 3), because otherwise that passage must have been adduced ; but to the passages contained in ver. 20, which Peter has already in view, but which he only introduces—after the remarks which the vivid thoughts crowding on him as he names Judas suggest—at ver. 20 in connection with what was said immediately before. — örı xarnp.] örı is equivalent to eis éxeivo, örı (Mark xvi. 14; John ii. 18, ix. 17; 2 Cor. i. 18, al.). If Judas had not possessed the apostolic office, the ypag7 referred to, which predicted the very Y 1 See also Calovius and others, not uninter- nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 275 f. ; Baumgarten, p. ested in opposing celibacy. 2 See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11. 8 See on Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; John vii. 5. 4Comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. 3. 4. The ex- pression is not good Greek, but formed after the Hebrew, Num. i. 2, 18, 20, iii. 40, 43. 5 Comp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 434, and see on 1 Cor. xv. 6; also Lechler, apost. u. 29 f. ; 6 Comp. ii. 1, iii, 1; Luke xvii. 35; Matt. xxii. 34; 1 Cor. vii. 5, xi. 20, xiv. 23; Hist. Susann. 14; often also in the LXX. and in Greek writers. See Raphel, Polyb., and Loesner. 7 See ii. 29, 37, vii. 2, a. Comp. Xen. Anad. i. 6.6: ävöpes ido, See generally Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 238. 32 CHAP. I., 15-22. % vacating of an apostolic post, would not have been fulfilled in his fate. This ful- filment occurred in his case, inasmuch as he was an apostle. — rov kAnp. 775 dıar. tavr. | the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the apostolic office. Comp. Rom. xi. 13. 6 «Ajpos is primarily the lot, ver. 26, then that which is assigned by lot, and then generally what is assigned, the share ; just as in Greek writers.' Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of*Canaan. The gen- itive is to be taken partitively—share in this ministry—as the idea of apostolic fellowship, in which each xAnpoöxos has therefore his partial possession in the service, also occurs in the sequel (see vv. 22, 26). — Aayxaveıv here not, as in Luke i. 9, with the partitive genitive, but, as is usual (2 Pet. i. 1), with the accusative of the object.” The word is the usual term for obtaining by lot, as in Luke i. 9; it next signifies generally to obtain, and is especially used of the receiving of public magistracies.* So here in reference to 7. . KAnp. T. Olax, ravr. ; in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical constitution (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the wsus loguendi of the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the thought of the actual use of the lot which afterwards took place. Ver. 18. This person now acquired for himself a field for the wages of his iniquity—a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers : For the money which Judas had received for his treason, a place, a piece of land, was purchased, Matt. xxvii. 6-8. This rhetorical designation, purposely chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas,* clearly proves that ver. 18 is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks : 79cxdv morel tov Aöyov Kal Aavdavöovrws Thy airiav naudevrınyv oboav dxoxadixret. To go further, and to assume—what also the fragment of Papias in Cramer’s Cat. narrates —that the death of Judas took place in the field itself,° is not warranted by any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others, such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew, that Judas himself had actually purchased the field ; although it is im- probable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason, and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed. — kai mpnvnS yevöu., ete.] kai is the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By mpnwns yevou.® «.7.2., the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall,” and bursting. The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known, 1 Comp. Acts viii. 21, xxvi. 18; Wisd. ii. 9, v.53; Ecclus, xxv. 19. 2 See Bernhardy, p. 176 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. 9.2: 3 Dem. 1306. 14; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 E. 4 Beza aptly remarks that the mode of ex- pression affirms “ non quid conatus sit Judas, sed consiliorum ipsius eventum.” 5 Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. Tl. p. 184; Baumg. p. 31; Lange. 6 Which cannot be rendered suspensus (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio). 7 rpyvyjs, headlong: the opposite ürrıos, Hom. Z. xi. 179, xxiv. 11. ADDRESS OF PETER 33 but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliation with Matthew— that the rope, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and that thus what is here related occurred—is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing. Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it pointed to swicide (m). The twofold form of the tradition, and in Papias there occurs even a third,' does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhis- torical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matt. xxvii. 5. —!Aaxnoe] he cracked, burst in the midst of his body—a rhetorically strong expression of bursting with a noise.” Ver. 19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the above mentioned expositors,* as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the com- plete description of the curse of the action of Judas: éyévero forms with édannoe and &Sexvßn, ver. 18, one continuously flowing representation, and yvaoröv . . . ‘Iepovo. is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that of simple narration. But rq iia duatéxtw abrov+ and roür’ éore Yop. aim. are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and Peter’s own words might be trusted to the reader ; for it is self-evident (in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not Greek but Aramaic. — yvooröv éyév.| namely, what is stated in ver. 18.— öore] so that, in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known, According to our passage, the name “‘ field of blood ’’ (877 pn, comp. Matt. xxvii. 8) was occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody—according to others, on the field itself (see on ver. 18). The passage in Matthew, l.c., gives another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means improbabie that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned, first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destina- tion of being a ywpiov Zvragjvar ;> hence Peter might even now quote this name in accordance with the design of his speech. — dcddexros] in the N. T. only in Acts, a mode of speaking, may express as well the more general idea of language, as the narrower one of dialect." Im both senses it is often used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium.’ In all the passages of Acts it is dialect, and that, excepting at ii. 6, 8, the Aramaic, although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its more precise definition by the context. 1 See on Matt. xxvii. 5, and comp. Introd. sec. 1. 2 Hom. J/. xiii. 616 ; Act. Thom. 37.—ééexv6y] Comp. Ael. Anim. iv. 52: ra amAayxva e£exearv. 3 Also Schleierm. Hin/. p. 372. 4 aurov : of the dwellers of Jerusalem (who spoke the Aramic dialect), spoken from the standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, ‘* quorum alter Graece scriberet alter legeret,’? Erasmus. 5 Aeschin. i. 99 ; Matt. xxviii. 7. © Valckenaer well observes on the distinc- tion betweenthesetwo ideas : ‘‘ Habent omnes dialecti aliquid inter se commune; habent enim omnes candem Zinguam matrem, sed dialectum efticit, quod habent singulae pe- culiare sibi.” The Greeks also employ dwrn in both senses (see also Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, p. 404, Pott). 7 Plat. Symp. p. 203 A. Theaet. p. 146 B, pronuntiatio (Dem. 982. 18), sermo (Arist. Poet. 22). 34 CHAP, I., 23-26. Ver. 20. Tdp] The tragic end of Judas was his withdrawal from the apostolic office, by which a new choice was now necessary. But both that withdrawal and this necessity are, as already indicated in ver. 16, to be demonstrated not as something accidental, but as divinely ordained. —The first passage is Ps. Ixix. 26, freely quoted from memory, and with an intentional change of the plural (LXX. airöv), because its historical ful- filment is represented xar’ éoyjv in Judas. The second passage is Ps. cix. 8, verbatim after the LXX. Both passages contain curses against enemies of the theocracy, as the antitype of whom Judas here appears.—The Eraviıs is not that ywpiov which had become desolate by the death of Judas (Chry- sostom, Oecumenius, and others; also Strauss, Hofmann, de Wette, Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel éxvcxor7, and as the xwpiov is not to be considered as belonging to Judas (see on ver. 18), the meaning is: ‘‘ Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, become desolate, forsaken by its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone, who has his dwelling therein.’’ — ziv éxicxor.] the oversight,’ the superintendence which he had to exercise, JP, in the sense of the xAjpwors : the apostolic office. Comp. 1 Tim. ili. 1 (of the office of a bishop). Vv. 21, 22. Oöv] In consequence of these two prophecies, according to which the ofiice of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is necessary. — Töv cuveAdvTwv] dependent on éva,ver. 22: one of the men who have gone along with us,” who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys. Others: who have come together with us, assembled with us.* So Vulgate, Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mark xiv. 53. — év ravti xpövw, Ev &| all the time, when. — cioniOe kat éjAbev] a current, but not a Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deut. xxvill. 19; Ps. exxi. 8; 1 Sam. xxix. 6; 2 Chron. i. 10. Comp. John x. 9; Acts ix. 28. — 20’ nuäs] a brief expression for &10720. &9’ huäs x. &5779. ag’ juav.* — apfäu. . is a parenthesis, and éwS 775 nuepas is to be attached to eiojAde . . . ’Inooös, as Luke xxiii. 5. See on Matt. xx. 8. — éwS 7. nu. 75 x.r.A.] 75 is not put by attraction for 7,-—as the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the Greek writers,° is without example in the N. T.,—but is the genitive of the definition of time.® Hence also the expression having the preposition involved, äypı 75 nuepas, ver. 2, comp. xxiv. 11. — näprupa tS avacr, abtod] i.e. apostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. xv.), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus ; comp. ii. 32, and see on ver. 8.-- rovrwv] is impressively removed to the end, pointing to those to be found among the persons present (of those there), . . lwavvov 1 Lucian, D. D. xx. 8, frequently in the LXX. and Apocr. 2 jx, 39, x. 23, al. ; Hom. J. x. 221. 3 Soph. 0. R. 572; Polyb. i. 78. 4. 4See Valckenaer on the passage, and ad Eurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 (E. T. 80). Comp. also John i. 51, 5 See Kiihner, ad. Xen. Mem, II. 2. 4. 6 Matthiae, § 377. 2; Winer, p. 155 (E. T. 204). So, too, in Lev. xxiii. 15; Bar. i. 19. Comp. Tob. x. 1; Susann. 15° Hist. Bel and Drag. 3. ELECRION OF MATTHIAS. 35 and emphatically comprehending them.’—Thus Peter indicates, as a requisite of the new apostle,? that he must have associated with the apostles (#iv) during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when John was still baptizing (a70 rod Barr, ’lodvv.) until the ascension. That in this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel suppose, Peter had in view one of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical testimony (comp. x. 41), and justly so, in conformity with the positive contents of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new di- vine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimony (r7js avaor. airod) Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ qui illud credidere, totam fidem suscepere.’’ How Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1 Pet. i. 3. Comp. Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33, v. 32, x. 40. Ver. 23. ’Eoryjcav] The subject is, as in vv. 24, 26, all those assembled. They had recognised in these two the conditions required by v. 21 f. ‘‘ Ideo hic demum sors incipit, qua res gravis divinae decisioni committitur et im- mediata apostoli peragitur vocatio,’? Bengel. For this solemn act they are put forward.— "Iwo7¢ r. Kar, Bapoa3zav| Concerning him nothing further is known. For he is not identical® with Joses Barnabas, iv. 36, against which opinion that very passage itself testifies ; from it have arisen the name ’Iwo7v in Band Bapvaßav in D (so Bornemann).* Barsabas is a patronymic (son of Saba) ; Justus is a Roman surname (yo), adopted according to the custom then usual, see Schoettgen.—Nor is anything historically certain as to Matthias.® Vv. 24, 25. Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in the name of all present. The zpocevédu. is contemporaneous with elzov: praying they said. See on Eph. i. 9. — xvpce] (1), mr. Comp. iv. 29. In opposition to the view of Bengel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to Jesus, —for which 6p 22e2220 is appealed to, because Christ chooses His own mes- sengers, —xv. 7 is decisive, where the same Peter says expressly of God: éEeAétaro did Tov oröuarös pov Akovcaı ra 24vy, etc., and then also calls God kapdıoyvoorns (comp. 34 ‘pn, Jer. xvii. 10). By the decision of the lot the call to the apostleship was to take place, and the call is that of God, Gal. 1. 15. God is addressed as kapdıoyvoer. because the object was to choose the intrinsically best qualified among the two, and this was a matter depending on the divine knowledge of the heart. The word itself is found neither in Greek writers nor in the LXX.—In Aaßeiv röv rörov (see the critical notes) the ministry is considered as a place, as a post which the person concerned 1 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. 2 And Luke relates this as faithfully and dispassionately as he does what is contained in x. 41. He would hardly have done so, if he had had the design imputed to him by Baur and his school, as such sayings of Peter did not at all suit the case of Paul. In opposition to Heinrichs and others, also Ullmann in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1828, p. 377 ff. 4See also Mynster in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1829, p. 326 f. 5 Traditional notices in Cave, Antig. ap. p. 735 ff. According to Eus. i. 12. 1, he was one of the Seventy. Concerning the apocryphal Gospel under his name, already mentioned by Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. T. p. 782 Apocryphal Acta Andreae et Matthiae may be seen in Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 132 ff. 36 CHAP. I., 23-26. istoreceive. Comp. Ecclus. xii. 12. — kat arooroA7s] designates more definite- ly the previous d:axovias. There is thus here, among the many instances for the most part erroneously assumed, a real case of an &v did dvoiv.1— ag’ 75 map£ßn] away from which Judas has passed over, to go to his own place. A solemn circumstantiality of description. Judas is vividly depicted, as he, forsaking his apostleship (a@’ 75), has passed from that position to go to his own place. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 18: rapafaivwv and rjS KkAlvns abtod. — Topevd, eis T. Tom. T. idtov] denotes the end destined by God for the unworthy Judas as his own, to which he must come by his withdrawal from the apustolic office. But the meaning of 6 roros 6 idıos (the expression is purposely chosen as correlative to rév römov r. dıar. etc.) is not to be decided from the linguis- tic use of röros, as röros may denote any place, but entirely from the con- text. And this requires us to understand by it Gehenna, which is conceived as the place to which Judas, according to his individuality, belongs. As his treason was so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to the röros idıos. This explanation is also required for the completeness and energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed by analogous rabbinical pas- sages.” Hence the explanations are to be rejected which refer rör. idıos to the habitation of Judas,* or to that ywpiov, where he had perished, * or to the ‘¢ societas, quam cum sacerdotibus ceterisque Jesu adversariis inierat’’ (Hein- richs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann, Kypke, comp. already Oecumenius) refer ropev9jrar . . . idıov even to the successor of Judas, so that the rör. idıos would be the apostleship destined for him. But such a con- struction would be involved (zopev§. would require again to be taken as an ‘object of Aa3eiv), and after Zafeiv . . . droororjs tautological. The reading Sixacov, instead of idcov, in A hits the correct meaning. The contrast ap- pears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul: eis röv äyıov rörov Eropeidn, and as to Peter: eis rov dpecAduevov römov 775 ddENS.5 Ver. 26. And they, namely, those assembled, gave for them (airois, see the critical notes) Jots — i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with one of the two names of those proposed for election — namely into the vessel in which the lots were collected, Lev. xvi. 8. The expression Zöwkav is opposed to the idea of casting lots; comp. Luke xxiii. 34 and parallels. — éecev 6 «A7pos] the lot, (5) giving the decision by its falling out, fell by the shaking of the vessel. — éx? Mar9.] on Matthias, according to the figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both.” — This decision by the bela tiyn 8 of the lot isan Old Testament practice,’ suitable for the time before the effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring afterwards, and therefore not to be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage. — ovykareınd. 1 See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856 ; Nigelsb. 8 raAAcır, comp. Hom. JZ. iii. 316, 324, vii. 2. Ilias, p. 361, ed. 3. 181, Od. xi. 206, al. 2See in Lightfoot, e.g. Baal Turim, on 7 Hom. Od. xiv. 209 ; Ps. xxii. 19, a2. Comp. Num. xxiv. 25: “Balaam ivitin locum suum, LXX. Ezek. xxiv. 6; John i. 7. z.e. in Gehennam.”’ 8 Plat. Legg. vi. 759 C; comp. Prov. xvi. 33. 3 Keuchen, Moldenhauer, Krebs, Bolten. 9 Num. xxvi. 52 ff. ; Josh. vii. 14; 1 Sam. x. 4 Elsner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarten, and 20;1 Chron. xxiy. 5, xxv. 8; Proy. xvi. 33; others. comp. also Luke i. 9. 5 Comp. Polyc. Phil. 9; Ignat. Magn. 5. NOTES. . 37 peta 7. évd, am. | he was numbered along with’ the eleven apostles, so that, in consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to be the twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: ‘‘ Non dicuntur manus novo apostolo impositae, erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus.’’ It is otherwise at vi. 6. — The view which doubts the historical character of the supplementary election at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which . break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the artless simplicity of its description. NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (E) Name. Y. 1. The name of the book is traditional and ancient, but not apostolie or appropriate. 'The work is certainly not a record of the acts of the apostles, as it says little of any of them except Peter and Paul. The word “ Acts ” seems to be used in the sense of ‘“ Memoirs.” Dr. Plumptre would call it Origines Ecclesie. The record is authentic and reliable, but makes no claims to com- pleteness. It is a history of beginnings only of the work of the church on earth, but a continuation of the work of Christ in her and for her. (F) ‘‘ Forty days.’ V. 3. In this passage alone is the period between the resurrection and the ascension defined. Some assert that there is'a discrepancy between the state- ment here given and the Gospel; they say according to the Gospel both events occurred on the same day. No such discrepancy really exists between the account which closes the Gospels and opens the Acts. The later account is more full and minute, and furnishes some incidents connected with the sublime event, and indicates the time when it occurred. Surely no candid reader of the Gospel narratives can for a moment suppose that all which is recorded of the life of our Lord on earth after his resurrection transpired in one day. Moreover, if he ascended on the same day he rose from the sep- ulchre, it must have been very late at night, which seems at variance with the entire record. Our author supposes an interval between the two grand events, but suggests that during that interval, or rather from the time between the writing of the two treatises by Luke, a period probably of not more than five years, a tradition “was formed, or at least acquired currency, concern- ing the forty days and other incidents of the ascension.’’ See his Commentary on Luke xxiy. 50-5 ; and on Acts i. 3 and 9. LovyxataynpigecOac in this sense, thus 21 it signifies fo condemn with. Frequently, equivalent to cupindigerOar (xix. 19), is not and quite in the sense of ovyxarawn. here, elsewhere found ; D actually has ovveundio®n ovycarapiOuetcar is found. N* has only as the result of a correct explanation. The xareimdio@n. So also Constitt. ap. vi. 12.1. word is, altogether, very rare ;in Plut. Tem. & 38 CHAP. I. But no such supposed ‘more developed tradition’ is required to harmonize the record, or to vindicate the veracity of the historian. The later account does not contradict, but only supplements the earlier, “Luke alone, in his Gospel and in the Acts, has given us a detailed view of the scene, which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7, and assumed throughout the whole N. T. Interpreters like Meyer think themselves obliged to limit the ascension of Jesus to a purely spiritual elevation, and to admit no external visible in which this elevation was manifested.’’ “The reality of such a fact as that related by Luke in his account of the as- cension is indubitable, both from the standpoint of faith in the resurrection, and from the standpoint of faith in Benen The ascension is a postulate of © faith.’ (Godet.) The ascension was a necessary consequence of the resurrection ; it was pre- dicted in the O. T.; it was prefigured by the translation of Enoch and of Elijah; it is recorded by two evangelists ; it is presupposed in the Gospel of John ; it is referred to asa fact and a foundation for doctrine in the Epistles ; Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state ; so that the visible personal ascension of our Lord from the slope of Olivet into heaven is a doc- trine most surely believed and rejoiced in. (a) ‘* His brethren.” V. 14. The four brothers-german of our Lord, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas: these have generally been supposed to be the sons of Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus, and therefore only his cousins. For this supposi- tion we find no authority in Scripture. James, the son of Alpheus, one of the twelve, is clearly a different person from ‘‘James, the Lord’s brother.” Three Jameses are mentioned in the Gospels — James, the son of Zebedee, brother of John, one of the twelve ;—James, the son of Alpheus, brother of Judas, one of the twelve ;—and James, the son of Joseph, brother of our Lord, but not one of the twelve. The story of the immaculate conception and per- petual virginity of Mary has not the slightest foundation in the Bible, and the common and natural meaning of the terms used in Matt. xiii, 55, 56, Mark vi. 3, Gal i. 19, and Ps. lxix. 8, implies that his brothers were the sons of his mother, That those called his brethren were different persons from the son of Alpheus and his brothers is manifest, because after the twelve were chosen and named by Jesus, ‘‘ his brethren’’ did not believe in him. In this passage they are mentioned as distinct from, and not of the eleven apostles, An interesting and satisfactory discussion of this question may be found in a small volume, by Rev. Chauncey W. Fitch, D.D. (a) Fate of Judas. V. 18. There is a difference but no contradiction in the accounts given by Matthew and Luke. Matthew does not say what happened to the body of Judas after he hanged himself ; nor does Luke say what he did to himself ere he fell head- long and burst asunder in the midst. We have not the link to connect the act of suicide with what befell his body ; but the two facts are in no sense at va- riance. ‘‘ Matthew traces the traitor’s fall through all its human stages of remorse NOTES. 39 to his own self-inflicted penalty. Luke (Peter) portrays not the act of Judas in the frenzy of desperation, but the act of God in righteous retribution.’’ “ The two accounts are (not as Meyer the result of different traditions, but) companion pictures by inspired artists equally and perfectly informed. Whereof, in strict suitability to their several designs, one reveals the human side of the tragedy, and the other the divine.”’ « Matthew wrote as a historian for a wide circle of readers, many of whom had no previous knowledge of the case ; he therefore states the main fact, and, according to his custom, passes over the minute details. Peter orally address- ing those who knew the facts as fully as himself, and less than six weeks after their occurrence, and upon the very spot, assumes the main fact as already known, and naturally dwells upon those very circumstances which the Evan- gelist many years later no less wisely and naturally leaves out altogether. ‘However this may seem to others, there is scarcely an American or English jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent.” (Alexander. (a), Thou, Lord. > Vi. 24, Whether this prayer was addressed to Christ or to God the Father has been disputed, We agree with those who consider Christ as here addressed. The word Kvgios, when used absolutely in the N. T., generally refers to Christ ;—Jesus is called Kvo:os in verse 21 :—all the other apostles were selected by him, as was afterwards Paul. The first Christians were in the habit of praying to Christ. Peter on a former occasion in addressing Jesus said, “Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee.” (5). “ The lot. VY. 26. Under the Theocracy the lot was used for various purposes; for the division of the land—for decision in certain criminal cases—for the selec- tion of troops in military enterprises—and for the appointment to important offices. The only instance under the new dispensation is this case, of Mat- thias, The Roman soldiers gambling at the cross for the robe of Jesus is an illustration of the practice, but no sanction for it. From the sanction of O. T. and this example of the apostles many argue in favor of the admissibility of the practice. Calvin, in his Com. on this text, says: ‘‘Those men who think it to be wickedness to cast lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and partly they understand not the force of this word. There is nothing which men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanities, whereby it has come to pass that they have brought lots into great abuse and superstition. For that divination or conjecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish.”’ Though the custom has been corrupted and depraved, he holds it to be lawful and Christian. Others have called in question the propriety of this election of Matthias, and argue with no little plausibility that Matthias was not the di- vinely appointed successor of Judas, but Paul, who was soon after specially chosen and commissioned by Christ himself to the apostleship. But Matthias was reckoned one of the twelve (Acts vi. 2). Inasmuch as we have no instance of casting lots after the Spirit was given to the church, the practice now, in our judgment, is more than questionable. 40 CHAP. II., 1-3. CHAPTER IL. VER. 1. amavres öuoßvuadov] Lachm. and Tisch. read ruvres öuov, after AB C¥ N, min. Vulg. Correctly : the öuoduuudov, so very frequent in the Acts, unin- tentionally supplanted the duod found elsewhere in the N. T. only in John ; muvres, Which is wanting in N*, critically goes along with the reading öuod. — Ver. 2. xaßnuevor] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read xadelöuevo., according to C D. The Recepta (comp. on xx. 9) is more usual in the N. T., and was accordingly inserted. — Ver. 3. dce/] is wanting only in N*. — éxdficev] Born., following D* N*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did. Cyr., reads Exa9ıcav. A correction occa- sioned by y/doca. — Ver. 7. After éficrav7o J2 Elz. has ravres, which Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Born. have erased, following B D, min. and several yss. and Fathers. From ver. 12. — zpos a/A720us] is wanting in ABC 8, 26, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident, easily passed over. Its genuineness is supported by the reading mpös aA?7Aovs, ver. 12, instead of a/20S xpos dAAov, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this passage. — Ver. 12. ri dv OéAut Toro eivar] Lachm. Born. read ri 6éAe: TodTo eivaı, following A BC D, min. Chrys. : A has 6éAec after roüro. But after Aéyew the direct expression was most familiar to the transcribers (comp. ver. 7). — Ver. 13. dıayAsvalorres] Elz. reads yAevdlovres, against preponderating testimony. — Ver. 16. ’Io7A] Tisch. and Born. have deleted this word on too weak authority ; it is wanting among the codd. only in D.— Ver. 17. &vvrvioıs] Elz. reads évu7va, against decisive codd. From LXX. Joel iii. 1. — Ver. 22. airoi] Elz. reads kat auroi. But Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted «ai, in accordance with A B C* D ES, min, and several vss. and Fathers. xai, both after cafés and before airoi, was very familiar to the transcribers. — Ver. 23. After édorov Elz. and Scholz read ?aßBövres, which is wanting in ABC N*, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition to develope the construction. — Instead of yeıpov, Lachm. Tisch, Born. have yeıpös, following A BC D8, min. Syr. p. Aeth. Ath. Cyr. And justly, as yetpov was evidently inserted for the sake of the following avönwv. — Ver. 24. §avatov] D, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read @dov. So Born. From vv. 27, 31. — Ver. 27. ddov] Lachm. Born. and Tisch. read &@dnv, which was already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A B C D8, min. Clem. Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Ps. xvi. 10, the reading is also different, A having ddov and B ddnv ; the text here is to be decided merely by the prepon- derance of testimonies, which favours ddnv.— Ver. 30. Before kabioaı, Elz. Scholz. Born. read 73 kara odpxa avaornoeın Tov Xpicrév, which is wanting in A BC D** 8, min, and most vss. and several Fathers, has in other witnesses considerable variation, and, as already Mill correctly saw, is a marginal gloss inserted in the text. — Instead of roi Opévov, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read röv 6pdvov, according to ABCD, min: Eus. This important authority, as well as the circumstance that éxi with the genitive along with xadiZeıw is very usual in the N. T, (comp. Luke xxii. 20; Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17; Matt. xix. 28, xxii. 2, DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41 xxv, 31), decides for the accusative. — Ver. 31. kareAei6ßr] ABCDEN, min, and several Fathers read &yrareAeigßn. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. From ver. 27. Therefore not only is dönv (instead of gdov) read by Tisch., but also after kare)sio0n there is read by Elz. buy) avroi, for the omission of which the authorities decide. —oÜre . . . obre is ac- cording to important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., instead of ob... oidé, as the reading given in the text appears likewise to have been formed from ver. 27. — Ver. 33. tues] Elz. Scholz have viv ieis. But, according to A B C* D 8, min. and many vss. and Fathers, Lachm. Born. Tisch. have erased viv, which is an addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 37. momjoouev] romowuev is found in AC E 8, min. Fathers. But the deliberative subjunctive was the more usual. Comp. on iv. 16, — Ver. 38. &#n] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be erased, as it is entirely wanting in B min. Vulg. ms. Aug., and other witnesses read gyciv, which they have partly after neravoyo. (A C8, 15, al.), partly airods (D). A supplementary addition. — Ver. 40. Sceaptiparto]-Elz. Scholz read dıeuaprupero, against decisive testimony. A form modelled after the following imperfect. — Ver. 41. After oöv, Elz. Scholz read douevos, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating testi- mony. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 42. kai before 77 xAdcer is rejected by decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — Ver. 43. £y&vero] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read £yivero, according to AB CD N, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr. This considerable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation resem- bling what follows ; on the contrary, éyévero has been inserted as the more usual form. — Ver. 47. 77 &xkAnoia] is wanting in A BC S, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted for the sake of conformity to ver. 41, because ézi ro aurö, iii. 1, was considered as still belonging to ii. 47, and therefore iii. 1 began with Iletpds de (so Lachm.). Ver. 1.’ When the day of Pentecost became full, i.e., when the day of Pen- tecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the He- brew mode,’ conceived as a measure to be filled up ;* so long as the day had not yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was not yet filled; but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making the day full, the couzA7jpwors* therewith occurred ; by which, without figure, is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality. The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at va- riance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant, Hitzig° would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in oppo- sition to this, Schneckenb. p. 198 f. — 7 wevrnkoory] is indeed originally to be referred to the jucpa understood ; but this supplementary noun had en- tirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent substantive.® zevrnxoorn also occurs in Tob. ii. 1, quite apart from its nu- ‘Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, and many similar passages in the N. T. and in see van Hengel, de gave der talen, Pinkster- the Apocrypha. studie, Leid. 1864. 4 Comp. 3 Esdr. i 58; Dan. ix. 2. 2 See Gesen. Ties. 8.v. won. 5 Ostern und Pfingst, p. 39 f. 3 Comp. also ix. 23; Luke ii. 6, xxii. 9, 51, ® Comp. Mace. xii, 32. 42 OLBAP. CLES Ale meral signification, and &v 79 tevtnKoory Eoprä is there : on the Pentecost-feast.! The feast of Pentecost, II Nav, Deut. xvi. 9, 10 (ayia Errü &3douadwv, Tob. J.c.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast of the grain-harvest (Ex. xxiii. 16; Num. xxviii. 26), and subsequently, al- though we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus,’ regarded also as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Ex, xix. 1) in the third month.? It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16); so that the second paschal day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offer- ing, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days.“ Now, as in that year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on John xviii. 28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the 14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost on the Sunday.’ Therefore the custom—which, besides, cannot be shown to have existed at the time of Jesus—of the Karaites, who explained naw in Lev. xxiii. 15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost always ona Sunday, ° is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig) ; and it is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated with the Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.” But still the question arises : Whether Luke himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a Saturday or a Sunday ? As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradi- tion, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening, and be par- taken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the cru- cifixion the 15th of Nisan ; so he must necessarily—but just as erroneously — have conceived of this first mevrnkoorn asa Saturday,” unless we should assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday celebration of Pentecost ; which, indeed, does not correspond with his ac- count of the day of Jesus’ death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correct- ness of the Johannine tradition. — joav ruvres öuod Em To airö] Concerning the text, see the critical remarks; concerning &ri TO aürö, see on i, 15. These ravres, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of Jesus then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles. For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost, and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (ver. 15), not the apostles alone, but with them also the other aadnrai—among whom there were, without doubt, many foreign pilgrims to the feast—were assembled. Moreover, in ver. 14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the rävres, - 1 See Fritzsche in loc. primitiva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione, 2 Comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Writ. 1843, p. Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned 680. from the dast paschal day; see Ewald, Jahrb. 3 Danz in Meuschen, N. 7. ex Talm.ill.p. IV. p. 134 f. 741; Buxt. Synag. p. 438. 6 Ideler, II. p. 613; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349. 4 See Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc. ; Ewald, 7 See also Vaihinger in Herzog’s Zncykl. XI. Alterth. p. 476 f. ; Keil, Archäol. § 83. p. 476 f. 5 In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de 8 Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 19. DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 43 designedly added, by no means corresponds to the small number of the apostles (i. 26), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding men- tion was made of a much greater assembly (i. 15); it is, on the contrary, designed—because otherwise it would have been superfluous—to indicate a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be lim- ited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic saying of Joel, adduced in ver. 16 ff., that the effusion of the Spirit was not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so that üravres (ver. 1) must be understood of all the followers of Jesus—of course, according to the latitude of the popular manner of expression. Ver. 2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an audible onueiov—a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind borne along.“ The wonderful sound is, by the comparison (éorep) with a violent wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs), or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon.?— oixov] is not arbitrarily and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to be understood of a private house, and, indeed, most probably of the same house, which is already known from i. 13, 15 as the meeting-place of the disciples of Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus partook of the last supper (Mark xiv. 12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot be determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older com- mentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18, and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it; the reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, ver. 1 describes the circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist ; hence a place in the temple could neither be wished for by them nor granted to them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from Luke xxiv. 53, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The sup- position that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the great multitude of those that flocked together, ver. 6. The private house may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple; but not even this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the occurrence. (3) It is true that, according to Joseph. Antt. viii. 3. 2, the principal building of the temple had thirty halls built around it, which he calls oixovs ; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special knowledge? ‘But,’ it is said, (4) ‘‘the solemn inauguration of the church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in the sanctuary of the old covenant,’’ Olshausen ; ‘‘ the new spiritual temple must have... proceeded from the envelope of the old temple,’’ Lange. But this locality would need first to be proved! If this inauguration did not take place in 1 Comp. mvedua Biacov, Arrian. Exp. Al. ii. marks: “Sonus venti vehementis, sed absque 6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11. vento; sic etiam linguaeigneae, sed absque 2 Comp. Neander, p. 14. Lightfoot aptly re- igne.’”” Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 20. 44 CHAP. IL, 1-3. the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is not till ii. 44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative.— Kaiser’ infers from joav . . . él ro airé, ver. 1, as well as from oikos, kaßnevor, ov ushvovow, ver 15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration of the Agapae.? An interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise which was given to the apostles for so near a realization. — oÜ joav ka eLöue- vot] where, that is, in which they were sitting. We have to conceive those assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (ver. 15) had arrived (for in prayer they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers. Ver. 3. After the audible onueiov immediately follows the visible. Incor- rectly Luther : “there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were of fire.’ ? The words mean: There appeared to them, i.e. there were seen by them, tongues becoming distributed, füre-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like little flames of fire, and were distributed (ii. 45 ; Luke xxii. 17, xxiii. 34) upon those present ; see the following &xadıoe x.7.A. They were thus ap- pearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn : not really consisting of fire, but only dcei zupés ; and not confluent into one, but dis- tributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire, they bore an analogy to electric phenomena ; their tongue-shape referred as a cnueov to that miraculous AaAeiv which ensued immediately after, and the Jire-like form to the divine presence (comp. Ex. iii. 2), which was here operative in a manner so entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological definition of the onueia, vv. 2, 3, is impossible. Lange,* fancifully supposes that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmo- sphere (?). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like tongues into an accidental electric natural oceurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and others) are in vain ; for these flames, which make their appearance, during an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men, present far too weak resemblances ; and besides, the room of a house, where the phenomenon exelusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for any such natural development. The representation of the text is mon- strously altered by Heinrichs: Fulgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in 1 Commentat. 1820, pp. 3-23; comp. bidl. 3 Therefore the expression is not to be ex- Theol. II. p. 41. plained from Isa. v. 24, for there WN Ww is 2 Comp. Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der arepresentation of that which consumes. christl. Arch. 1V. p. 124. 4 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19. GIFT OF TONGUES. 45 inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostolorum commota mens; as also by Hen- mann: that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues merely in the estatic state ; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that ‘‘ they saw flames signifies in rabbinical wsus loguendi: they were transported into ecstatic excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Rabbins to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at Sinui,—of which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be recognised in our passage. — &xädıce re] namely, not an indefinite subject, something,’ but such a yAwooa aoei rvpos. If Luke had written exadıoav (see the critical remarks), the notion that one yAöcca sat upon each would not have been definitely expressed.” Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, incorrectly take zip as the subject, since, in fact, there was no fire at all, but only something resembling fire ; ö0e) tupés serves only for comparison, and consequently zip cannot be the subject of the continued narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs et al., consider the rveüua dyrov as subject. In that case it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 13 ; kadioavros ég’ Eva Exaorov aita? Eminoßmoav üravres rvevuaTos dyiov, and Matt. xvi. 18 would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the rveöua äyıov, in so far as it sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the fiery tongues ; but in so far as it ‚filled the assembled, as the rverwa itself, differ- ent from the symbo].—Theté joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads xaé, following insufficient testimony) connects &xuüdıoe «7.2. with d@yoav «.r.A. into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts: OpOnoay K.r.A., EmAnodnoav, k.7.A., and #psavto Kr.A., as is marked by the thrice recurring kai. Ver. 4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the infernal filling of all who were assembled,* without exception (é72. dxartes, comp. ver. 1), with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they, and, indeed, these same dravres (comp. iv. 31)—accordingly not excluding the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel)—np$avro Aakeiv érepars yAwooats, Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit * are related to the present as the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and anti- typical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus ; see ver. 33 ; John xvi. 7, vii. 39. — %p£avro] brings into prominence the primus impetus of the act as its most remarkable element. — AaZeiv Er&paıs yAdooas| For the sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that érépacs yAdéooas on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as TaiS juerepaıs yAwooas (comp. ver. 8: rq idia diakéxto jucv). The érepac yAöccaı (K) therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as abso- lutely nothing else than languages, which were different from the native 1 Hildebrand, comp. Buttm. newt. Gr. p. mavres, kai amootöAwv OyTwy Exel, ei un Kal oi 118 (E. T. 134). &AAoı peterxov. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff. 2 Comp. Winer, p. 481 (E. T. 648). 4 Luke i. 41, 47; John xx. 22; comp. also 3 Chrysostom well remarks: ovx av elite Luke ix. 55. 46 CHAP TI, language of the speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, an- other Median, etc., consequently languages of another sort,’ i.e. foreign, 1 Cor. xiv. 21; and these indeed—the point wherein precisely appeared the miraculous operation of the Spirit-—not acquired by study (yRécous kawvais, Mark xvi. 17). / Accordingly the text itself determines the mean- ing of yAdooat as languages, not tongues, as van Hengel again assumes on the basis of ver. 3, where, however, the tongues have only the symbolic destination of a divine onyeov? ; and thereby excludes the various other explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning verba obsoleta et poetica.* This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of Herder,‘ that new modes of interpreting the ancient prophets were meant ; (2) against Heinrichs, who’ founds on that assumed meaning of yAöcoaı his explanation of enthusiastic speaking in languages which were foreign indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages of the speakers ; (3) against Bleek.° The latter explains yAdoca: as glosses, i.e, unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages, but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical phraseology, yet so that these glosses were borrowed from different dialects and languages (therefore érépas). Against this explanation of the yAccoaı, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the wsus loquendi is already decisive. For yAöco« in that sense is a grammatico- technical expression, or at least an expression borrowed from grammarians, which is only as such philologically beyond dispute.” But this meaning is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words universally intelligible ? How could he put this expression even into the mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. ? For juerépars yAdooars, ver. 11, must be explained in a manner ertirely corresponding to this. Further, there would result for nueripa:s a Wholly absurd meaning. jjérepar yAdooat, forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites, etc., just as the "Arrixai yAdooa of Theodorus® are provincialisms of Attica, which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is fur- ther decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of yAdooa 1 Luke ix. 29; Mark xvi. 13; Gal. i. 6. 8; Pollux. ii. 4; Plut. Pyth. orac. 24; and see Giese, Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff. 4 Von d. Gabe der Sprachen am ersten christl. Pfingstf., Riga, 1794. 5After A. G. Meyer, de charismate av yAwoowv, etc., Hannov. 1797. 6 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p.33 ff., 1830, p. 45 fl. 7 See all the passages in Bleek, p. 33 ff., and alreädyin A. G. Meyer, l.c.; Fritzsche, ad 3 Galen, exeg. glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Marc. p. 741. Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22.3 f.; Quinctil. i. € In Athen. xiv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf. 2 Van Hengel understands, according to ver. 3, by Erepaı yA., ‘‘ tongues of fire, which the believers in Jesus have obtained through their communion with the Holy Spirit.” That is, “an open-hearted and loud speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ,‘ such as had not been done before. Previously their tongues had been without fire. GIFT OF TONGUES. 4% transferred also to 1 Cor. xii. 14, no sense is left for the singular term yAuoon Aakeiv ; for yAdooa could uot denote genus locutionis glossematicum,' but simply a single gloss, | As Bleek’s explanation falls to the ground, so must every other which takes yAöocar in any other sense than languages, which it must mean according to vv. 6, 8, 11. This remark holds par- ticularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel, according to whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the excite- ment of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each of those who came together heard the language of his.own ancestral wor- ship from the mouth of these Galileans, ver. 6. From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express contrast in which the list of nations (vv. 9-11) stands with the question ook od nävres . . . TadcAaior (ver, 7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke intended to narrate nothing else than this : the persons possessed by the Spirit began to speak in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations,* the knowledge and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only now communi- cated in and with the rvenua üyıov.” The author of Mark xvi. 17 has correctly understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he wrote kawvais instead of érépars. The explanation of foreign languages has been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and expositors ; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent, to the effect that the inspired received the gift of speaking all the lan- quages of the earth,* and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. “Poena linguarum dispersit homines : donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit,’’ Grotius. Of this the text knows nothing; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned in vv. 9-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unnecessary, as the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek,*® and partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many who did not enter upon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it ; and yet in his case there is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek (k). But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically? On this the 1 kts yAwoonpanky, Dionys. Hal. de Thuc. 277 ff. ; Milville, Obss. theol. exeg. de dono M. linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesch. 2Comp., besides 1 Cor. xiv.21,Ecclus.praef.: d. apost. K. p. 201 ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche, örav nerax@n (the Hebrew) eis erepav yA@ooav Nova opusc. p. 304 f. (Leo, Tact. 4. 49: yAdaaars Staddpors Aakeır) ; 4 Augustin.: “coeperunt loqui linguis om- also Aesch. Sept. 171: moAıv dopimovov un mpoöo0” nium gentium.” Erepobwvw orparo. Not different is Pind. Pyth. 5 Comp. Schneckenb. neutest. Zeitgesch. p. Zi. 43: aAAorpiaıaı yAwooats. 17 ff. 3 Comp. Storr, Opusc. II. p. 290 ff., III. p. 48 CHAP. II., 4. following points are to be observed: (1) Since the sudden communi- cation of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logi- cally possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is per- ceptible in their letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, xiv. 11); since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter him- self in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign languages,—the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representa- tion of the entire future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The analogy of magnetism,‘ is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the magnetic ‘‘rapport’’ is not conceivable. (3) If the event is alleged to have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an idea,* and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a per- manent facility of speaking languages, ‘‘in order to represent and to attest, in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations, the consecration of their languages in the church, and again the holiness of the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural generally,’’ ° such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported sub- jective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange, * according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the inner life by which men’s minds are united has here reached its fairest manifestation. This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified by the gospel, and as the leaven of all Janguages, which effects their re- generation into the language of the Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of the fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled in their mother-tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native Galileans ; ° along with which David Schulz® explains érépars yAoooaıs even of other kinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept away, and there is not even left. matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient 1 Adduced especially by Olshausen, and by Baeumlein in the Wiirtemb. Stud. VI. 2, p. 118. 2Comp. Augustine, serm. 9: Loquebatur enim tune unus homo omnibus linguis, quia locutura erat nnitas ecclesiae in omnibus linguis. 3 Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb. 1850, p. 9. 4 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff. 5 Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de cha- rismatib. sp. s., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Fritzsche, Schrader, and others. 6 d. Geistesgaben d ersten Christen, Breslau, 1836. GIFT OF TONGUES. 49 occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with Thiess, resort even to the hypothesis that the speakers had only used the Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean. Every resolution of the matter into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwar- ranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening believed that they heard their own native languages. Sce against this view, Castalio in loc., and Beza on x. 46. This opinion—which Billroth on 1 Cor. strangely outbids by his fancy of a primeval language which had been spoken—is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 44, as allowable by the punctuation of ii. 6; is found thereafter in the Pseudo- Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 60, ed. Brem. (p. 475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others ; and has recently been advocated especially by Schneckenburger ;* legend also presents later analogous phenomena—in the life of Francis Xavier and others. (6) The miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative,” and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we further compare x. 46, 47, the xa%0s «al jueis in that passage shows that the | Aadrsiv yAvooaıs, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event in Actsii. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to xix. 6. But we have to take our views of what the yAdooas Aareiv really was, not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account of Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 14 : according to which it (see comm. on 1 Cor. xii. 10) was a speaking in the form of prayer—which took place in the highest ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding—and not a speaking in foreign Janguages. The occurrence in Acts ii. is therefore to be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the glossolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages super- vened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church, and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost,—a phe- nomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages, and accordingly into an occurrence quite unique, not indeed as to sub- stance, but as to mode,* and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of the church.‘ How this transformation—the supposition of which is by 1 Beitr. p. 84; comp. wb. den Zweck d. 4 The conclusion of Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit, Apostelgesch. p. 202 ff; Svenson also, in the 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion Zeitschr. f. Luih. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 f£., of Paul, must have been well acquainted with arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing. the glossolalia, could not have represented it 2 See Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 309 ff.; asaspeaking in foreign languages, is incor- Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. rect. Luke, in fact, conceives and describes 87 ff. ; the Pentecostal miracle nof as the glossolalia, 3 Comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 146. which was certainly well known to him, as it 50 CHAP. II, 4. no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief (in opposition to Rossteuscher, p. 125) —took place, cannot be ascertained. But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most part Galileans (in the elabo- rated legend ; all of them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossola- lia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can ex- plain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particular- ly the languages spoken. That a symbolical view of the phenomenon has occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away with the diversity of languages which arose, Gen. xi., by way of punish- ment, according to which idea there was to be again in the Messianic time eis Aaös Kupiov Kai yAdooa pia’ is not to be assumed (Schnecken- burger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the yAdéoca pia, is not a N. T. one, and it would suit not the miracle of speaking, such as the matter appears in our narrative, but a miracle of hearing, such as it has been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of Christianity * cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occur- rence in the form in which it appears in our passage. The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia, but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been adopted by Bleek * whose explanation, however, of highly poetical discourse, combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the érép. yA. generally nor with vv. 8 and 11; by Baur,* who, however, explains on this account érép, yA. as new spirit-tongues,® and regarded this expression as the original one, but subsequently,° amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acced- ed to the view of Bleek; by Steudel,? who explains the Pentecostal event , from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encoun- tered in others,—a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign unbelievers in our passage; by Neander, who, however,* idealizes the speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly ; was a frequent gift in the apostolic age, but as a quite extraordinary occurrence, such as it had been presented to him by tradition ; and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of the déstinclion between it and the speaking with tongues, which he knew by experience. With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog’s Encyk!, XVIIT. p. 689) sees in our narrative a later legendary formation, but from a time which was no longer familar with the nature of the glossolalia. Thislatter statement is not to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote £0on after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the source which he here made use of must have been still older ; and partly because he was a friend of Paul, and as such could not have been otherwise than familiar with the nature of that xdpicua, which the apostle himself richly possessed. 1 Test. XII. Patr. p. 618. 2 Comp. Zeller, Hilgenfeld. 3 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff. 4In the vib. Zeitschr. 1830, 2. p. 101 ff. 5 Which the Spirit has created for Himself as His organs, different from the usual human tongues. See also in his newtest. Theol. p. 323 f. 6 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff. "In the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 133 f£., 1831, 2, p. 128 ff. 8 4th edition, p. 28. GIFT OF TONGUES. 51 by Wieseler,' who makes the épunveia yAwoodv be described according to the impression made upon the assembled Jews,—an idea irreconcilable with our text (vv. 6-12); by de Wette, who ascribes the transformation of the glossolalia in our passage to a reporter, who from want of knowl- edge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning ; by Hilgenfeld, according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages as a special y&vos of speaking with tongues; by van Hengel, who sees in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the original fact in our passage ; and by Ewald,” who represents the matter as the first outburst of the infinite vigour of life and pleasure in life of the new-born Chris- tianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages, amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc.,—a view in which the appeal to the 48d 6 marıp and papdv a6é is much too weak to do justice to the érépas yAuccaıs as the proper point of the narrative. On the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though | only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times,’ a conception which Hofmann * supports by the significance of Pentecost as the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished from history,° has been carried out in the boldest and most decided manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives—according to the idea of the destination of Christianity for all nations—and typical views.° — kaßos, as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context, in which foreign lan- guage, — az0gIéyyeo9ar| elogui,’ a purposely chosen word ® for loud utterance in the elevated state of spiritual gifts.° 1 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 743 ff., 1860, p. 117. 2 Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff., comp. Jahrb. III. p. 269 ff. 3 Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. 1834, 2, p. 40 ff. ; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit, 1843, p. 658 ff., 1844, p. 708 ff.; Zinsler, de charism. Tod yA Aad. 1847; Engelmann, v. d. Charis- men, 1850; Maier, d. Giossalie d. apost. Zeit- alt. 1855 ; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67; Rossteuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler ; comp. also Kahnis, vom heil. Geiste, p. 61 ff., Dogmat. I. p. 517, Schaff, and others. 4 Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 206 fl. 5 Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identi- fies the matter even with the appearance of the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, re- corded in 1 Cor. xv.6!--Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urehr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the Pentecostal history in our passage from the Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as the festival of the law, urging the mythi- cal miracle of tongues on Sinai (comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 202 ff.). 6 Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul’s idea of the Aadeiv tats yAwooats Tov avOpwrwv Kal Tav ayyeAwr, 1 Cor. xiii. 1, converted into reality. According to Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 322, there remains to us as the proper nucleus of the matter only the conviction, which be- came to the. disciples and first Christians a Fact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit by whom Jesus was qualified to be the Messiah had also been imparted to them, and was the specific principle — determining the Christian consciousness—of their fellowship. This com- munication of the Spirit did not, in his view, even occur at a definite point of time. 7 Lucian, Zeux. 1, Paras. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 405 E, Diog. L. i. 63. 8 Comp. ii. 14, xxvi. 25. ® 1 Chron. xxv. 1; Ecclus. Prolog. ii.; comp. 52 CHAP, II., 5, 6. Ver. 5 gives, as introductory to what follows, preliminary information how it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired. Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that ver. 5 refers to the Aateiv érép. yA., and that the sense is: ‘‘Neque id secus quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant isti coetui homines,’’ etc. The context, in fact, distinguishes the ’lovdaioe and the TadAaioe (so designated not as a sect, but according to their nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans.’ — joav .« « Katoixovvtes| they were dwelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary residence,” but of the domicile * which they had taken up in the central city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as Israelites (hence evAaGeiS, comp. on Luke ii. 25). Comp. Chrys.: 70 karoıkeiv ebAaBeias mv omueiov THS; aT ToooüTwv yap EAvav dvTES Kal marpidas adevres 2.2. GKovv éxei,— Tov rd Tdv obpav.] sc. E8vav, of the nations to be found under heaven (Bernhardy). —%76 röv ovpavér is classical, like i76 röv 7Aıov.* The whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deut. ii. 25; Col. i. 28. Ver. 6. Tie dovnc raurnc] this sound, which, inasmuch as ovdtoc points back to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of ver. 2, to which also yevou. carries us back. Comp. John iii. 8. Luke represents the matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meet- ing to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a ‘‘sympathy of the susceptible’’ (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no mention of either ; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different languages ; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in ver. 4; therefore Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take gwv/ in the sense of nun. Contrary to the wsus loguendi; even in Gen. xlv. 16 it is other- wise. — ovvexößn] mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed.* — eic Exaoroc] annexes to the more indefinite jkovov the exact statement of the subject.° — dtartkro] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on i. 19), lan- guage in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in ver. 8, designedly amobdeyna, Deut. xxxii. 2, also Zech, x. 2; also 4 Comp. Plat. Zp. p. 326 C, Tim. p. 23 C. of false prophets, Ezek. xiii. 19 ; Mich. v. 12. 5 Comp. ix. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; 2 Macc. x. See, generally, Schleusner, 7hes. I. p. 417; 30 ; Herod. viii. 99; Plat. Hp. 7, p. 346 D; also Valckenaer, p. 344; and van Hengel. p. 40. Diod. S. iv. 62 ; Lucian. Wigr. 31. 1 See also van Hengel, p. 9. ° Comp. John xvi. 32; Acts xi. 29 al.; Jacobs, 2 Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Od. 53 Luke xiii.4; Acts. vii. 48, ix. 22, al.; x. 397; Bernhardy, p. 420. Piat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii. p. 969 C. EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 53 chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different lan- guages, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Per- sian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons pos- sessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the érépwv yAwoodv. The view that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van Hengel), appears—from ver. 8; from the list of nations, which would be destitute of significance ; from rpoonAvro: (ver. 10), which would be mean- ingless ; and from ver. 11,’ as well as from the opinions expressed in vv. 12, 13, which would be without a motive—as an exegetical impossibility, which is also already excluded by eic &xaoroc in ver. 6. — Aarovvrwv aitav] - not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of Aareiv Er£p. yAdooac, that each individual must have spoken in the different languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and con- sequently even the summary airév is quite in order. Vv. 7, 8. ’E£ioravro denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first perplexity, ver. 6; éaiuafov is the continuing wonder resulting from it. Comp. Mark vi. 51.—idoi| to be enclosed within two commas. — rävrec ovro K.r.A.]| pointing out : all the speakers present. It does not distinguish two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van Hengel) ; but see ver. 4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition of eioiv brings the zdvrec oitoe into more emphatic prominence. — TaAıAaior] They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian, Median, ete. This view, which takes Tad. in the sense of nationality, is required by vv. 8, 11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named. It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into prominence the accessory idea of want of culture (uncultivated Galileans) ; and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Ta. as a designation of the Christian sect —a designation, evidence of which, moreover, can only be adduced from a later period.? It is erroneous, also, to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposi- tion to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opuse. p. 310. —xa? wdc] kai, as a simple and, annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans) how happens it that, etc. —ijueic axobomev Exactog x.7.2.] we on our part (in con- trast to the speaking Galileans) ear each one, etc. That, accordingly, éyevv7. is to be understood distributively, is self-evident from the connec- 1 Where neither in itself nor according to own tongues. ver. 8 can rais nuerepaıs yAwooars mean what 2 Augusti, Denkwürd. IV. pp. 49, 5. van Hengel puts intoit: as we do with our 54 cHAP. II., 9-11. tion (comp. raic juer. yAdooac, ver. 11); therefore van Hengel’ wrongly objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to run : möc Hu. ak. T. id. dıak., &vn Exaoroc éyevvibn. — Ev 7 Eyevvnb.] designation of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the popular way of expressing the matter, born furnished. Vv. 9-11. Tapdov . . . "Apaßec is amore exact statement, placed in apposi- tion, of the subject of &yevvjßnuev. After finishing the list, ver. 11, Luke again takes up the verb already used in ver. 8, and completes the sentence already there begun, but insuch a way as once more to bring forward the im- portant point 77 id/a diadéxrw, only in a different and more general expres- sion, by raic nuer. yAoooaıc. Instead, therefore, of simply writing Aadobyr. avr. Ta ueyaA. r. Ocov Without this resumption in ver. 11, he continues, after the list of nations, as if he had said in ver. 8 merely kat möc jueic. —The list of nations itself, which is arranged not without reference to geography, yet in a desultory manner east, north, south, west, is certainly genuine (in opposition to Ziegler, Schulthess. Kuinoel), but is, of course, not to be considered, at any rate in its present order and completeness, as an origi- nal constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be psycho- logically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong astonishment, but : as an historical notice, which was designedly interwoven in the speech and , put into the mouth of the people, either already in the source whence Luke drew, or by Luke himself, in order to give very strong prominence to the | contrast with the preceding TaArAaioı. —’EAauiza, on the Persian Gulf, are so named in the LXX. (Isa. xxi. 2); called by the Greeks ’EAvuaior.? — ’Iovdaiav] There is a historical reason why Jews should be also mentioned in ı this list, which otherwise names none but foreigners. A portion of those who had received the Spirit spoke Jewish, so that even the native Jews’ heard their provincial dialect. yAéooac, because the Jewish dialect differed in pronunciation from the Galilean, although both belonged to the Aramaic language of the country at that time ; comp. on Matt. xxvi. 73. Heinrichs thinks that ’Iovdaiav is inappropriate (comp. de Wette), and was only included in this specifica- tion in fluxzu orationis ; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in consideration of his Roman readers. What a high degree of carelessness would either sugges- tion involve!® Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out after Judaea. — tiv ’ Aciav] is here, as it is mentioned along with individual Asiatic districts, not the whole of Asia Minor, nor yet simply Jonia (Kuinoel), or Lydia (Schneckenburger), to which there is no evidence that the name Asia was applied ; but the whole western coast-region of Asia Minor.* — ra uépy rjc Außung 12.c.p.2Af.: ‘‘ How comes it that we, no one excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue of our own people?” Thus, in his view, we are to explain the passage as the words stand in the text, and thus there is designated only the one mother-tongue—the Aramaic. 2See Polyb. v. 44. 9, al. The country is called "EAvrais, Pol. xxxi. 11.1; Strabo, xvi. p. 744, 3 Tertull. c. Jud.%, read Armeniam. Con- jectural emendations are : "Idovmatay (Caspar Barth), ’Ivöiav (Erasmus Schmid), Bıdvviav (Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer). 4 Caria, Lydia, Mysia, according to Plin. H. N. v.28; see Winer, Realw., Wieseler, p. 32 ff. This is not at variance with the érépac : { EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 55 tig Kata Kupnvrv] the districts of the Libya situated towards Cyrene, i.e. Libya Cyrenaica, or Pentapolitana, Upper Libya, whose capital was Cyrene, nearly one-fourth of the population of which were Jews.' So many of the Cyre- naean Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of their own (vi. 9). —oi éxidnuodvTec 'Pouaioı] the Romans — Jews dwelling in Rome and the Roman countries of the West generally — residing (here in Jerusalem) as strangers (pilgrims to the feast, or for other reasons).” As iriönuoüvrec, they are not properly included under the category of karoıkoövrec in the preparatory ver. 5, but are by zeugma annexed thereto, —'Iovdaioi re Kai mpoonAvro: is in apposition not merely to oi &rıd. "Puuaio: (Erasmus, Grotius, van Hengel, and others), but, as is alone in keeping with the universal aim of the list of nations, to all those mentioned before in vv. 9, 10. The native Jews (‘Iovdaior) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were their mother- tongues ; the Gentile Jews (xpooj)vro.) heard their different non-Hebraic mother-tongues, and that likewise in the different idioms of the several nationalities. — Kprrec kai "Apaßec] are inaccurately brought in afterwards, as their proper position ought to have been before "Iovd. re kat zpoo72., be- cause that statement, in the view of the writer, held good of all the nationali- ties, —r. juerépare yAdooarc| quer. has the emphasis of contrast: not with their language, but with ours. Comp. ver. 8. That y/é0c. comprehends also the dialectic varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from vv. 6-10. The expression r. juer. yA. affirms substantially the same thing as was meant by érépare yAdooare in ver. 4. —ra peyadeia r. Ocov] the great things of God which God has done.’ It is the glorious things which God has pro- vided through Christ, as is self-evident in the case of that assembly in that condition. Not merely the resurrection of Christ (Grotius), but ‘‘tota huc oixovouia gratiae pertinet,’’ Calovius. Comp. x. 46. Vv. 12, 13. Acyrdp.] see on Luke ix. 7. — ri dv 02201 ovro eivaı ;] The optative with ay, in order to denote the hypothetically conceived possibility : What might this possibly wish to be? i.e. What might—if this speaking in our native languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have any meaning—to be thought of as that meaning?* On the distinction of the sense without av, see Kuhner, ad Xen. Anab. v. another class of judges, consequently none of the impartial, of whom there was mention in vv. 7-12, but hostile persons (in part, doubtless, of the hierarchical party) who drew from the well-known freer mode of life of Jesus and His disciples a judgment similar to Luke vii. 34, and decided against the disciples. — diayAevétovrec] mocking ; a stronger expression than the simple verb.° The scoffers explain the enthusiasm of the speakers, 7. 33.° — érepor] 1See Joseph. Anti. xiv. 7. 2. xvi. 6.1. See Schneckenbnrger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 88 ff. 2On emiönu., as distinguished from xaroı- Koüvres, Comp. xvii. 21. Plat. Prof. p. 342 C: Eevos dv Emiönunon. Legg. viii. p. 8, 45 A; Dem. 1352. 19 ; Athen. viii. p. 361 F : ot "Pounv KaTOLKOUPTES Kal ol émtdnuodwTeEs TH TOAEL. 3 Comp. Ps. Ixxi. 19; Ecclus, xvii. 8, xviii. 8, xxxiii. 8 ; 3 Macc. vii. 22. 4Comp. xvii. 18; Herm. ad Viger. p. 720; Bernhardy, p. 410 f. 5 Comp. also Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 130. On 6cAev of impersonal things, see Wetstein and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 370 B. 6 Dem. 1221. 26; Plat. Aw. p. 364 B; Polyb. xvii. 4. 4, xxxix. 2. 13; used absolutely also, Polyb. xxx. 13. 12, 56 CHAP. I, 14-17. which struck them as eccentric, and the use of foreign languages instead of the Galilean, as the effect of drunken excitement. Without disturbing themselves whence this foreign speaking, according to the historical posi- tion of the matter, this speaking with tongues, had come and become pos- sible to the Galileans, they are arrested only by the strangeness of the phe- nomenon as it struck the senses, and, in accordance with their own vulgarity, impute it to the having taken too much wine. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The contents of the speaking (van Hengel) would not, apart from that form of utterance as if drunk with the Spirit, have given ground for so frivolous an opinion, but would rather have checked it. The judgment of Festus con- cerning Paul (xxvi. 24) is based on an essentially different situation. — yAebkovc] yAevKocg TO amöorayna THE orapvAjc piv marndn, Hesychius.* Vv. 14, 15. Zraßeic] as in v. 20, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21; Luke xix. 8, xviil. 11. The introduction of the address (ke stood up, etc.) is solemn. — ovv Toig évdexa] thus Matthias is already included, and justly ; ver. 32, comp. with i, 22. We may add that Grotius aptly remarks (although contradicted by Calovius) : ‘‘ Hic incipit (Petrus) nominis sui a rupe dicti meritum implere.’’ — äreof.] as in ver. 4: but not as if now Peter also had begun to speak érépac yAoco. (van Hengel). That speaking is past when Peter and the eleven made their appearance ; and then follows the simple instruction re- garding it, intelligible to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with empha- sis. — karoıkovvrec] quite as in ver. 5. The nominative with the article, in order to express the imperative address.* — rovro] namely, what I shall now explain to you. Concerning éverifectac (from otc), auribus pereipere, which is foreign to the old classical Greek, but in current use in the LXX. and the Apocrypha.* In the N. T. only here.* — ov yap] yap justifies the pre- ceding summons. The ovroı, these there, does not indicate that the apostles themselves were not among those who spoke in a miraculous manner, as if the gift of tongues had been a lower kind of inspired speech ;° but Peter, standing up with the eleven, places himself in the position of a third per- son, pointing to the whole multitude, whom he would defend, as their ad- vocate ; and as he did so, the reference of this apology to himself also and his fellow-apostles became self-evident in the application. This also ap- plies against van Hengel, p. 64 f. — dpa rpirn] about*nine in the morning ; so early in the day, and at this first of the three hours of prayer (see on ili. 1), contemporaneously with the morning sacrifice in the temple, people are not drunk! Observe the sober, self-collected way in which Peter speaks. Vv. 16, 17. But this (which has just taken place on the part of those assembled, and has been accounted among you as the effect of drunken- ness) is the event, which is spoken of by the prophet Joel. — Joel iii. 1-5 (LXX. ii. 28-81) is freely quoted according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking as the organ of God, describes the oyueia which shall directly precede the dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion of the ful- 1 Job xxxii. 19; Lucian. Zp. Sat. 22, Phi- 3 See Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 166. lops. 89. 65 ; Nic. Ad. 184. 299. Comp. yAev- 4Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 520. «omörns, Leon. Tar. 18; Apollonid. 10. 51 Cor. xiv. 18, 19; so de Wette, at variance 2 See Bernhardy, p. 6%. with ver. 4. PETER’S DISCOURSE, 87 ness of the Holy Spirit, and then frightful catastrophes in heaven and on earth. This prophecy, Peter says, has now entered upon its accomplish- ment. — kat écrac] and it will be the case: quite according to the Hebrew (and the LXX.) IM. The «ai in the prophetic passage connects it with what precedes, and is incorporated in the citation. — iv raic ösyäraıc Huépare | The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has only pera raira. Peter has in- serted for it the familiar expression D’AI MINN (Isa. ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1, al.) by way of more precise definition, as Kimchi also gives it (see Lightfoot). This denotes the last days of the pre-Messianie period—the days immediately preceding the erection of the Messianic kingdom, which, according to the N. T. view, could not but take place by means of the speedily expected Parousia of Christ ; see 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; and as regards the essential sense, also Heb. i. 1.'— éxyeo] a later form of the future.” The outpouring fig- uratively denotes the copious communication. Tit. iii. 6; Acts x. 45. Comp. i. 5, and see on Rom. v. 5. — azo rov mveunarog uov] deviating from the He- brew ‘MTS. The partitive expression (Bernhardy, p. 222) denotes that something of the Spirit of God conceived as a whole—a special partial em- anation for the bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb. ii. 4; 1 Cor. xii.)—will pass over to every individual (im racav capxa*).— mäocav oapka| every flesh, i.e. omnes homines, but with the accessory idea of weakness and imperfection, which the contrast of the highest gift of God, that is to be imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents.* In Joel qwa-53 certainly refers to the people of Israel, conceived, however, as the people of God, the collective body of whom, not merely, as formerly, individ- ual prophets, shall receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of be- lievers on Christ without distinction of nations; so also in the Messianic fulfilment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now begun, what the prophet has promised to all flesh is not to be understood of the Jewish peo- ple as such (van Hengel, appealing to ver, 39), but of all the true people of God, so fur as they believe on Christ. The first Messianic effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost was the beginning of this fulfilment, the completion of which is in the course of a progressive development that began at that time with Israel, and as respects its end is yet future, although this end was by Peter already expected as nigh. — kat xpopyreboovow . . . éEveTmacbjoovrat describes the effects of the promised effusion of the Spirit. tpogytevcover, afflatu divino loquentur (Matt. vii. 22), is by Peter specially recognized as a prediction of that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just com- menced with the érépace yAdéooac. This we may the more warrantably af- firm, since, according to the analogy of xix. 6, we must assume that that 1 Comp. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 82 f. tia! effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For 2 Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 91). the personality of the Spirit, comp. especially 3 The impersonality of the Spirit is not the saying of Peter, v. 3. ; thereby assumed (in opposition to Weiss, bidl. 4 Comp. Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; 1 Cor. 1. Theol. p. 136), but the distribution of the gifts 29; Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke iii. 6. and powers, which are represented as a par- 58 CHAP. Ir., 18-21. speaking was not mere glossolalia in the strict sense, but, in a portion of the speaker’s prophecy. Comp. the spiritual speaking in Corinth. — oi viol üuov Kai ai Avyaripecs buov] the male and female members of the people of God, ü.e. all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by the inspired mem- bers of the Christian theocracy, among whom, according to i. 14, there were at that time also women. — öpacsıg . . . &vumviorg] visions in waking and in sleeping, as forms of the azoxdAvyuc of God, such as often came to the prophets. This prophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion of the Spirit in its fulness, become common property. The fulfilment of this part of the prophecy had, it is true, not yet taken place among the members of the Christian people of God, but was still before them as a consequence of the communication of the Spirit which had just occurred ; Peter, however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (ver. 16), because their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit, and was consequently already in idea included in it. — veavioxoı . . . mpeo- Birepor] belong likewise, as the preceding clause (viol . . . Gvyarépec), to the representation of the collective body as illustrated per pepioudv. The öpaosıc correspond to the lively feelings of youth ; &vurvıa, to the lesser ex- citability cf more advanced age; yet the two are to be taken, not as mutu- ally exclusive, but after the manner of parallelism.—The verb, with the dative of the cognate noun, is here (évurviowg Evurviacd., they will dream with dreams; comp. Joel iii. 1) a Hebraism, and does not denote, like the similar construction in classic Greek, a more precise definition or strengthening of the notion conveyed by the verb (Lobeck, Paral. p. 524 f). Ver. 18. A repetition of the chief contents of ver. 17, solemnly confirm- ing them, and prefixing the persons concerned.—xai ye] and indeed.’ It seldom occurs in classical writers without the two particles being separated by the word brought into prominence or restricted, in which case, however, there is also a shade of meaning to be attended to.” We must not explain the dovAove pov and the dobsa¢ ov with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance with the original text, which has no yov, of servile hominum genus, nor yet with Tychsen? of the alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased from abroad) : both views are at variance with the yov, which refers the relation of service to God as the Master. It is therefore the male and female members of the people of God (according to the prophetic fulfilment : of the Christian people of God) that are meant, inasmuch as they recognise Jehovah as their Master, and serve Him: my male and female worshippers ; comp. the Hebrew WT 72. In the twofold yov Peter agrees with the translators of the LXX.,* who must have had another reading of the original before them. 1 Luke xix. 42; Herm. ad Viger. p. 826. who are at the same time my servants and 2 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319. handmaids, and therefore in spiritual things 3 Tllustratio vatieinit Joel iii. Gott. 1788. are quite on a level with the free.” Similarly 4So much the less ought Hengstenberg, Bengel, and recently Beelen (Catholic) in his Christol. I. p. 402, to have imported into this Commentar. in Acta ap. ed. 2, 1864, who ap- enclitic nov what is neitherfound in itnorrel- _ peals inappropriately to Gal. iii. 27 f. evant: ‘‘on servants and handmaids of men, < PETER’S DISCOURSE. 59 Vv. 19, 20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring about (Sécw, as at ' Matt. xxiv. 24) catastrophes in heaven and on earth—the latter are mentioned at once in ver. 19, the former in ver, 20—as immediate heralds of the Messianic day. Peter includes in his quotation this element of the prophecy, because its realization (ver. 16), conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit which necessarily preceded it, presented itself likewise essentially as belonging to the allotted portion of the éoyara: juépar. The dreadful events could not but now—seeing that the effusion of the Spirit preceding them had alread y come menced—be conceived as inevitable and very imminent ; and this circum- stance could not but mightily contribute to the alarming of souls and their being won to Christ. As to répara and onueia, see on Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom. xv. 19—aiva . . . karvov contains the omueia éxt rjc yjc, namely, bloodshed (war, revolt, murder) and conjlagration. Similar devastations belonged, according to the later Jewish Christology also, to the dolores Messiae. See on Matt. xxiv. 6, 7. ‘‘Cum videris regna se invicem turbantia, tune ex- pectes vestigia Messiae.’?' The reference to blood-rain, fiery meteors, and pillars of smoke arising from the earth? is neither certainly in keeping with the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the analogy of Matt. xXxiv. — dtuida karvov] vapour of smoke.* — Ver. 20. Meaning: the sun will become dark, and the moon appear bloody. Comp. on Matt. xxiv. 29; also Isa. xiii. 10 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7. — xpiv é20civ] ere there shall have come. — riv juépav Kvpiov| ö.e. according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment of the words : the day of Christ, namely of His Parousia. Comp. on Rom. x. 13. But this is not, with Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinoel, following the Fathers, to be considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem, which belongs to the oyucia of Parousia, to the dolores Messiae. See on Matt. xxiv. 29. — 139 peyddyy x. éxiparg] the great (kar’ &£oxijw, fraught with decision, comp. Rev. xvi. 14) and manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest before all the world as that which it is. Comp. the frequent use of éxidvera for the Parousia (2 Thess. ii. 8, a/.). The Vulgate aptly renders: mani- Festus. Instead of &rıpavj, the Hebrew has 8130, Zerribilis, which the LXX., deriving from 785, has incorrectly translated by örıgavj, as also else- where.° But on this account the literal signification of éxigav. need not be altered here, where the text follows the LXX. Ver. 21. And every one who shall have invoked the name of the Lord,—this Peter wishes to be understood, according to the sense of the prophetic ful- filment, of the invocation of Christ (relative worship : see on vii. 59 ; Rom. x. 12; Phil. ii. 10; 1 Cor. i. 2); just as he would have the owjoera understood, not of any sort of temporal deliverance, but of the saving deliverance of the Messianic kingdom (iv. 12, xv. 11), which Jesus on His return will found ; and hence he must now (vv. 22-36) demonstrate Jesus the crucified and risen and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (ver. 36). 2 Beresh. rabb. sec. 41. eral idea. Comp. on such combinations, Lo- 2De Wette, comp. Kuinoel. beck, Paral. p. 584. S ärwis, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical 4 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 728 f. writers more usually aruos is the more gen- 5 See Biel and Schleusn. 7’kes. 8.2. 60 CHAP. II., 22-24. And how undauntedly, concisely, and convincingly he docs so! A first fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit. Ver. 22. Toörovc] like rovro, ver. 14, the words which Follow." — rov Nafwpaiov is, in the mouth of the apostle, only the current more precise designation of the Lord,” not used in the sense of contempt * for the sake of contrast to what follows, and possibly as a reminiscence of the superscrip- tion of the cross (Beza and others), of which there is no indication in the text (such as perhaps : dvdpa dé). — avdpa and Tov Beov anodedeıyu.] a man on : the part of God approved, namely, in his peculiar character, as Messiah. azé stands neither here nor elsewhere for ixé, but denotes the going forth of the legitimation from God (divinitus).*— eis buäac] in reference to you, in order that He might appear to you as such, for you. — dvvan. k. repaoı x. omeiorg] a rhetorical accumulation in order to the full exhaustion of the idea,’ as re- gards the nature of the miracles, their appearance, and their destination. Comp. ver. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 4.— iv pécw vuov] in the midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all. Ver. 23. Tovrov] an emphatie repetition.® There is to be no parenthesis before it. This one. . . . delivered up, ye have by the hand of lawless men’ affixed and made way with: x. 39; Luke xxii. 2, xxiii. 32. By the avdjo are to be understood Gentiles (1 Cor. ix. 21; Rom. i. 14), and it is here more especially the Roman soldiers that are meant, by whose hand Christ was affixed, nailed to the cross, and thereby put to death. On éxdorov, comp. Drac. 26, and examples from Greek writers in Raphel and Kypke, also Lobeck, Paral. p. 531. It refers to the delivering up of Jesus to the Jews, which took place on the part of Judas. This was no work of men, no independent success of the treachery, which would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of Jesus ! but it happened in virtue of the fixed, therefore unalterable, resolve and (in virtue of the) foreknowledge of God.’ — zpöyvocıc is here usually taken as synonymous with ßovA7 ; but against all linguistic usage.” Even in 1 Pet. i. 2, comp. ver. 20, the meaning praescientia (Vulgate) is to be retained. See generally on Rom. viii. 29. God’s BovA7 (comp. iv. 28) was, that Jesus was to be delivered up, and the mode of it was present to Him in His prescience, which, therefore, is placed after the Bovay. Objectively, no doubt, the two are not separate in God, but the relation is conceived of 1See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ad Anab. ii. 5. 10. 2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 10. 3 Comp. vi. 14, xxiv. 5. 4 Joseph. Antt. vii. 14.5; Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 17.1; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 280 (E. T. 326). 5 Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. xxx. 6 See Schaef. Melel. p. 84; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. 7 §va xeıpös (see the critical remarks) is here not to be taken, like 1.3, for the mere per (see Fritzsche, ad Marc, p. 199), but, as it isa manual action that is spoken of, in its con- crete, literal meaning. It belongs to vivid rhetorical delineation, Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 273. 8 On BovAy, comp. the Homeric Aros & Ere- Aciero BovAn, Tl. 1.5, Od. xi. 297. ® This reason must operate also against Lamping’s (Pauli de praedestinat. decreta, 1858, p. 102 ff.) defence of the common ex- planation, in which he specifies, as the dis- tinction between BovAnand mpoyvwors, merely this: “illud adumbrat Dei voluntatem, hoc inde profeetum decretum.’ It is arbitrary, with Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. w. Pet. p. 146, to refer BovAy not to the saving will, but merely to the will as regards destiny. See, in oppo- sition to this, iii. 18, where the suffering of Christ is the fulfilment of divine prophecy ; comp. viii. 32 f., x. 43. PETER’S DISCOURSE. 61 after the analogy of the action of the human mind.—The dative is, as in xy. 1, that in which the &xdorov has its ground. Without the divine AovA «.r.A. it would not have taken place. —The question, How Peter could say to those present: Ye have put Him to death, is solved by the remark that the execution of Christ was a public judicial murder, resolved on by the Sanhedrim in the name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by the Gentiles, and accomplished under the direction of the Sanhedrim (John xix. 16) ; comp. iii. 13 f. The view of Olshausen, that the death of Christ was a collective act of the human race, which had contracted a collective guilt, is quite foreign to the context. Ver. 24. Tac ödivac] Peter most probably used the common expression from the O. T.: NN ‘IT, snares of death, in which the #avaros personified is conceived as a huntsman laying a snare.’ The LXX. erroneously trans- lates this expression as ödivec Havarov, misled by an, dolor (Isa. Ixvi. 7), in the plural 2'727, used particularly of birth-pangs. See the LXX. Ps. xviii. 5; 2 Sam. xxii. 6. But Luke—and this betrays the use of a Hebrew source directly or indirectly—has followed the LXX., and has thus changed the Petrine expression vineula mortis into dolores mortis. The expression of Luke, who with dJdivec could think of nothing else than the only meaning which it has in Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. In the sense of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained : after he has loosed the snares of death, with which death held him captive ; but in the sense of Luke: after he has loosed the pangs of death. According to Luke,* the resur- rection of Jesus is conceived as birth from the dead. Death travailed* in birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these pangs ceased, they were loosed ; and because God has made Christ alive, God has loosed the pangs of death.‘ To understand the death-pangs of Christ, from which God freed Him ‘‘resuscitando eum ad vitam nullis dolo- ribus obnoxiam ’’ (Grotius), is incorrect, because the liberation from the pains of death has already taken place through the death itself, with which the earthly work of Christ, even of His suffering, was finished (John xix. 30). Quite groundless is the assertion of Olshausen, that in Hellenistic Greek üdivec has not only the meaning of pains, but also that of bonds, which is not at all to be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. hes. V. p. ° 571. —xabére : according to the fact, that ; see on Luke i. 7. — our jv divarov] which is afterwards proved from David. It was thus impossible in virtue of the divine destination attested by David. Other reasons (Calovius : on account of the wnio personalis, ete.) are here far-fetched. — xpareisdaı ir’ abrov] The #avaroc could not but give Him up; Christ could not be retained by death in its power, which would have happened, if He, like other dead, had not become alive again and risen to eternal life (Rom. vi. 9).° By His 1 Pg, xviii. 5 f., exvi. 3. See Gesen. Thes. O. C. 1612, ZI. 927; Aelian. 7. A. xii. 5. I. p. 440. Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p. 574 A: peyadats adios 2 Comp. On mpwröroros Er Ta vexpav, Col. i re kai odvvats ovvexerbar. The aorist participle 18. is synchronous with aveornae. 3 6 Oavatos wdive karexwv abröv, Chrys. 5 On xpareiodaı vd, to be ruled by, comp. 4 4 On Avcas, see LXX. Job xxxix. 3; Soph. Mace. ii. 9 ; Dem. 1010. 17. 62 CHAP. II., 25-29. resurrection Christ has done away death as a power (2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 25 f.) Ver. 25. Eic auröv] so that the words, as respects their fulfilment, apply to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220.—The passage is from Ps. xvi. 8 ff., ex- actly after the LXX. David, if the Psalm, which yet certainly is later, belonged to him, or the other suffering theocrat who here speaks, is, in what he affirms of himself, a prophetic type of the Messiah ; what he says of the certainty that he should not succumb to the danger of death, which threatened him, has received its antitypical fulfilment in Christ by His res- urrection from the dead. This historical Messianic fulfilment of the Psalm justified the apostle in its Messianic interpretation, in which he has on his side not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle Paul (xili.-35 f.). The xpowpdynv x.7.2., as the LXX. translates 'N’W, is, accord- ing to this ideal Messianic understanding of the Psalm, Christ’s joyful expression of His continued fellowship with God on earth, since in fact (ör.) God is by His side protecting and preserving Him; J foresaw the Lord before my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind’s glance,’ I saw Jehovah always before my face. — ix def:av pov éotiv] namely, as protector and helper, as rapaorarnc.” Concerning éx de£ıöv, from the right side out, i.e. on the right of it, see Winer, p. 344 (E. T. 459). The figurative element of the expression is borrowed from courts of justice, where the advocates stood at the right of their clients, Ps. cix. 31. —iva py cadevfa| without figure: that I may remain unmoved in the state of my salvation. On the figurative use—frequent also in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors*—of oaAeveı, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2. Ver. 26. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted. The aorists denote an act of the time described by zpowpayyy k.r.A., the joyful remem- brance of which is here expressed. — 7 kapdia nov, “3?: the heart, the centre of personal life, is also the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of the will. —Instead of 7 yAöocod uov, the Hebrew has "1129, i.e. my sowl,® in place of which the LXX. either found a different reading or gave a free rendering. —ére dé Kai 7 oapE pov «.r.A.) but moreover also my flesh (body) shall tabernacle, that is, settle itself by way of encampment, on hope, by which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that he shall not perish, but continue in life—while, according to Peter, from the point of view of the fulfilment that has taken place in Christ, these words eic Xpiordév (ver. 25) prophetically express that the body of Christ will tarry in the grave on hope, i.e. on the basis of the hope of rising from the dead. Thus what is divinely destined for Christ—His resurrection—appears in poetic mould as the object of the hope of His body. — ir: dé kai] Comp. Luke xiv. 26; Acts xxi. 28; Soph. O. R. 1345. — én’ éAridc] as in Rom. iv. 18. Ver. 27. What now the Psalmist further says according to the historical sense : For thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades (1), i.e. Thou wilt not suffer 1 Xen. Zell. iv. 3. 16 ; otherwise, xxi. 29. 4 Delitzsch, Psych. p. 248 ff. 2 Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 21. 5 Ps, vii. 6, xxx. 13, el al.; see Schoettgen, 3 Dorville, ad Char. p. 307. p. 415. ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 63 me to die in my present life-peril, and wilt not give Thy Holy One, according to the Ketibh of the original: Thy holy ones, the plural of category, comp. Hupfeld in loc., to see corruption—is by Peter, as spoken eic Xpiordv, taken in accordance with the prophetical meaning historically fulfilled in Him : Thou wilt not forsake my soul in Hades, after it shall have come thither ;! but by the resurrection wilt again deliver it,” and wilt not suffer Thy Holy One, the Messiah, to share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the sense as fulfilled, putrefaction (comp. xiii, 34 ff.).* Instead of dradbopar, the original has NNW, a pit, which, however, Peter, with the LXX., un- derstood as d:agfopa, and accordingly has derived it not from MW, but from ANY, diadbeipw ; comp. Job. xvii. 14. — On déaerc, comp. x. 40, The meaning is: Thou wilt not cause, that, etc. Often so also in classical writers froın Homer onward. As to ideiv in the sense of experiencing, comp. on Luke ii. 26. Ver. 28. Thou hast made known to me ways of life; Thou wilt fill me with joy in presence of Thy countenance, meant by the Psalmist of the divine guid- ance in saving his life, and of the joy which he would thereafter experience before God, refers, according to its prophetic sense, as fulfilled in Christ, to His resurrection, by which God practically made known to him ways to life, and to his state of exaltation in heaven, where he is in the fulness of blessedness with God. — pera tov rpooorov cov] TIIIS, in communion with Thy countenance, seen by me. Comp. Heb. ix. 24. Vv. 29-31. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically made known the resurrection of Christ. Ver. 29. Mera mappnoiac] frankly and freely, without reserve; for the main object was to show off a passage honouring David, that it had re- ceived fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel well remarks: ‘‘Est igitur hoc loco rpoßepareia, previa sermonis mitiga- tio.”’—David is called 6 rarpiapync as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly family, from which the nation expected their Messiah. — ör:] that (not for). Peter wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is allowable for him to say on account of this very notoriety ; therefore with és6y there is not to be supplied, as is usually done, äorw, but éori (&£eorı). —év juiv] David was buried at Jerusalem.‘ In ro pvqua abrov, his sepulchre, there is involved, according to the context, as self-evident: ‘‘cum ipso Davidis corpore corrupto ; molliter loquitur,’’ Bengel. 1 See Kühner, § 622; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 333). 2 This passage is a dictum probans for the abode of the soul of Christ in Hades, but it contains no dogmatic statement concerning the descensus ad infernos in the sense of the church. Comp. Giider, Lehre von d. Erschei- nung Christi unter d. Todten, p. 30; Weiss, Petrin, Lehrbegr. p. 233f. 3 After this passage, compared with ver. 31, no further discussion is needed to show how unreasonably it has been taken for granted (see especially Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 128 ff.) that the early church conceived the resurrection of Christ as a ueraßanıs eis érepov o@ua, entirely independent of the dead body of our Lord. How much are the evan- gelical narratives of the appearances of the risen Christ, in which the identity of His body has stress so variously laid on it, at variance with this opinion! Comp. x. 41. 4 Neh. iii. 16; Joseph. Antt, vii. 15. 3, xiii, 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. _ 64 CHAP. II, 30-36. Vv. 30-32. Oiv] infers from the previous kai 7d uvjua adtod . . . Tabrms, whence it is plain that David in the Psalm, l.c., as a prophet and divinely conscious progenitor of the future Messiah, has spoken of the resurrection of Christ as the one who should not be left in Hades, and whose body should not decay. —xai eidöc] see 2 Sam. vii. 12. -— x kaprov r. dagbo0¢ abrou] se. rıva. On the frequent supplying of the indefinite pronoun, see Kühner, II. p. 87 f.; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression kapmöc THC dopvo¢g avtov (Ps. Cxxxii. 11) presupposes the idea of the uninter- rupted male line of descent from David to Christ.’— kadioaı éxi T. Opdvov avrov] to sit on His throne,” namely, as the Messiah, who was to be the theo- cratic consummator of the kingdom of David (Mark xi. 10; Acts xv. 16). Comp. Luke i. 32. — zpoidév| prophetically looking into the future. Comp. Gal. iii. 8. —örı ob karer.] since He, in fact, was not left, etc. Thus has history proved that David spoke prophetically of the resurrection of the Messiah. The subject of careAeigfy x.7.A. is not David * — which no hearer, after ver. 29, could suppose—but 6 Xproröc: and what is stated of Him in the words of the Psalm itself is the triumph of their historical fulfilment, a triumph which is continued and concluded in ver. 32. — roürov röv ’Inoovv] has solemn emphasis ; this Jesus, no other than just Him, to whom, as the Messiah who has historically appeared, David’s prophecy refers. —ov] neuter: whereof. See Bernhardy, p. 298. — wäprvpec] in so far as we, His twelve apostles, have conversed with the risen Christ Himself. Comp. a 2e5 XA, Ver. 33 O0v] namely, in consequence of the resurrection, with which the exaltation is necessarily connected. — rq de£ıa tov Beou] by the right hand, i.e. by the power of God, v. 31; Isa. Ixiii. 12.4 The rendering: to the right hand of God, however much it might be recommended as regards sense by ver. 34, is to be rejected, seeing that the construction of simple verbs of motion with the dative of the goal aimed at, instead of with zpéc or eic, belongs in classical Greek only to the poets,° and occurs, indeed, in late writers,° but is without any certain example in the N. T., often as there would have been occasion for it; for Acts xxi. 16 admits of another expla- nation, and Rev. ii. 16 is not at all a case in point. In the passage of the LXX. Judg. xi. 18, deemed certain by Fritzche, 77 yj Mod, if the read- ing is correct, is to be connected, not with 7A9ev, but as appropriating da- tive with ard avaroAov 7Aiov.” The objection, that by the right hand of God is here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. There is something triumphant in the element emphatically prefixed, which is correlative to avéotyoev 6 Oed¢ (ver. 82) ; God's work of power was, as the resurrection, so 1 Comp. Heb. vii. 5; Gen. xxxv. 11 ;2 Chron. vi. 9; and see remark after Matt. i. 18. 2 Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 4. 3 Hofm. Schriftbew. TI. 1, p. 115. 4Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Bengel, also Zeller, p. 502, and others. 5 See the passages from Homer in Nigelsb. p. 12, ed. 3, and, besides, Erfurdt, ad Antig. 234 ; Bernhardy, p. 95; Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42, the latter seeking to defend the use as legitimate. ; ® The dative of interest (e.g. Epxouar cor, I come for thee) has often been confounded withit. Comp. Kriiger, § 48.9.1. See Winer, “p. 201 f. (E. T. 268 f.). 7 Concerning Kvpw ievar, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 26, see Bornemann, ed. Lips. ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 65 also the exaltation. Comp. Phil. ii. 9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect trans- lation of "yn, has been unnecessarily and arbitrarily assumed. — r7v re émayy. T. dy. mv. AaB. mapa r. ratp.| contains that which followed upon the vbwdeic, and hence is not to be explained with Kuinoel and others: “after He had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the . Father ;”” but: “after He had received the promised (i. 4) Holy Spirit from His Father. See on Luke xxiv. 49.— roüro is either, with Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred to the rveuua äyıov, SO that the 6 corresponds to the explanatory id quod? or— which, on account of the 6 annexed to roiro, is more natural and more suitable to the miracu- lous character—it is, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to be taken as an in- dependent neuter: He poured forth, just now, this, what ye, in effectu, see and hear, in the conduct and speech of those assembled. Accordingly, Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously been remarked (rv Te &mayy. . . . marpöc), themselves to infer that what was poured out was nothing else than just the rvenua dyiov.* — The idea that the exalted Jesus in heaven receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is founded on such instructions of Christ as John xv. 26, xvi. 7. Comp. on 1%. Vv. 34, 35. Tap] The fundamental fact of the previous statement, namely, the 79 desıa Ocov iwheic, has still to be proved, and Peter proves this also from a saying of David, which has not received its fulfilment in David him- self. — Aéyer 08 avtéc] but he himself says, but it is his own declaration ; and then follows Ps. ex. 1, where David distinguishes from himself Him who is to sit at the right hand of God, as His Lord (76 kvpiw pov). This King, des- ignated by ro kvpiw pov of the Psalm, although it does not proceed from David (see on Matt. xxii. 43), is, according to the Messianic destination and fulfilment of this Psalm,‘ Christ, who is Lord of David and of all the saints of the O. T. ; and His oceupying the throne, sit Thou at my right hand, de- notes the exaltation of Christ to the glory and dominion of the Father, whose civOpovoc He has become ; Heb. i. 8, 13; Eph. i. 21 f. Ver. 36. The Christological aim of the whole discourse, which, as un- doubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said (odv), is emphatically at the close set down for recognition as the summary of the faith now requi- site. In this case dcoaidc (unchangeably) is marked with strong emphasis. — mac olxoc 'Iop.] without the article, because oix. ’Icp. has assumed the nature of a proper name.° The whole people is regarded as the family of their an- cestor Israel One V3). — xal xipiov avtov k. Xptoröv] him Lord, ruler gener- ally, comp. x. 36, as well as also Messiah. The former general expression, ac- cording to which He is 6 dp &mi rävrov, Rom. ix. 5, and xegady irép mavra, 1 Bleek in the Stud. vw. Krit. 1832, p. 1038; de Wette ; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 205. 2 Kühner, § 802. 2. 3 It cannot, however, be said that “ the first congregation of disciples receives this gift without baptism ” (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 150). Those persons possessed by the Spirit were, in fact, all confessors of Christ, and it must in their case be supposed that they had already received baptism in the Jifetime of our Lord, to which conclusion vv. 38, 41 point. 4 Which is not to be identified with its his- torical meaning. See Hupfeld in Zoc., and Diestel in the Jahrb. f.d. Th. p. 562 f. 5 Comp. LXX. 1 Kings xii. 23: Ezek, xlv. 6, al. Winer, p. 105 (E. T. 157). 66 CHAP. IL, 37-41. Eph. i. 22, the latter special, according to which He is the curip rov köouov, v. 31, John iv. 42, and xegady ripe éxxAnoiac, Eph. i. 22, Col. 1. 18, together characterize the Messianic possessor of the kingdom, which God has made Christ to be by His exaltation, seeing that He had in His state of humilia- tion emptied Himself of the power and glory, and was only reinstated into them by His exaltation. Previously He was indeed likewise Lord and Mes- siah, but in the form of a servant; and it was after laying aside that form that He became such in complete reality.’ It is not to be inferred from such passages as this and Acts iv. 27, x. 38, xvii. 31 (de Wette), that the Book of Acts represents the Messianic dignity of Jesus as an acquisition in time ; against which view even rapü tov rarpdc in our passage (ver. 33), compared with the confession in Matt. xvi. 16, John xvi. 30, is decisive, to say noth- ing of the Pauline training of Luke himself. Comp. also ver. 34. — auröv is not superfluous, but rovrov röv ’Imoovv is a weighty epexegesis, which is purposely chosen in order to annex the strongly contrasting dv Uueig Eorav- pooare (comp. iii. 13, vii. 52), and thus to impart to the whole address a deeply impressive conclusion. ‘‘ Aculeus in fine,’’ Bengel. Ver. 37. But after they heard it, what was said by Peter, they were pierced in the heart. — karavvooeıv, in the figurative sense of painful emotion, which penetrates the heart as if stinging, is not found in Greek writers, who, how- ever, use viccecy in a similar sense ; but see LXX. Ps. cix. 16 : katavevvypévov 7h kapdia, Gen. xxxiv. 7, where xareviynoar is illustrated by the epexegesis : Kal Aurnpov mv avtoic opödpa.” The hearers were seized with deep pain in their conscience on the speech of Peter, partly for the general reason that He whom they now recognised as the Messiah was murdered by the nation, part- ly for the more special reason that they themselves had not as yet acknowl- edged Him, or had been even among His adversaries, and consequently had not recognised and entered upon the only way of salvation pointed out by Peter.—On the figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de orat. iii. 34, of Pericles : ‘Cut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret.”’ —ri moımoouev] what shall we do?’ The inquiry of aneed of salvation surren- dering itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made by the dis- course of Jesus in Nazareth, Luke iv. 28. —dvdpe¢ adeAgoi] an affectionate and respectful address from broken hearts already gained. Comp. on i. 16. “Non ita dixerunt prius,’’ Bengel. Ver. 38. What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation ! The weravoyoare demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral con- dition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith (Mark i. 15) ; the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. iii. 19, vill. 22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So the apostles began to accomplish it, Luke xxiv. 47.— im 76 övöuarı ’Ino. Xpıorov] on the ground of the name, so that the name ‘‘ Jesus Messiah,’’ as the contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming bap- tized rests, Barri£, is only here used with Zri; but comp. the analogous ı Comp. Weiss, did. Theol. p. 134 f. Susann. 11 (of the pain of love). Compare 2 Ecclus. xiy. 1, xii. 12, xx. 21, xlvii. 21; also Luke ii. 35. 3° Winer, p. 262 (E. T. 348). RESULTS OF THE ADDRESS. 67 expressions, Luke xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts v. 28, 40.; Matt. xxiv. 5, al. — ei¢ denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt contracted in the state before weravora. Comp. xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11. — Kai Amp.) Kai consecutivum. After reconciliation, sanctification; both are experienced in baptism. — roD dyiov rvetuaroc] this is the dwped itself. Heb. wi. 4; Acts x. 45, xi. 17. Ver. 39. Proof of the preceding Ajpecbe K.7.2.: for to you belongs the promise concerned, yours it is, i.e. you are they in whom the promise of the communication of the Spirit is to be realized. — roic eic narpav] to those who are at a distance, that is, to all the members of the Jewish nation, who are neither dwellers here at Jerusalem, nor are now present as pilgrims to the feast, both Jews and Hellenists.’ But, although Peter might certainly con- ceive of the conversion of the Gentiles, according to Isa. ii. 2, xlix. 1, «al., in the way of their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the mention of the Gentiles here—observe the emphatically preceding tuiv—would be quite alien from the destination of the words, which were intended to prove the Afpecte «.7.A2. of ver. 38. The conversion of the Gentiles does not here belong to the matter in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, under- stood it of time :? longe post futuros, but this is excluded by the very concep- tion of the nearness of the Parousia.—As to the expression of direction, ei¢ wakp., COMP. on XXii. 5. —baove Av mpookaA. K.r.A.] contains the definition of räoı roic eic waxpav: as many as God shall have called to Himself, namely, by the preaching of the gospel, by the reception of which they, as mem- bers of the true theocracy, will enter into Christian fellowship with God, and will receive the Spirit. Ver. 40. Observe the change of the «aorist dreuapriparo (see the critical notes) and imperfect maperareı : he adjured them (1 Tim v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1, often also in classical writers), after which followed the continued exhor- tation, the contents of which was: Become saved from this (the now living) perverse generation away, in separating yourselves from them by the ueravora and baptism. — oxoAı6c] crooked, in a moral sense = ädıroc.. Comp. on Phil. 11,19, Ver. 41. M&v obv] namely, in consequence of these representations of the apostle. We may translate either : they then who received his word (namely, oatnre k.T.2.),° or, they then, those indicated in ver. 37, after they received his word, etc.* The latter is correct, because, according to the former view of the meaning, there must have been mention previously of a reception of the word, to which reference would here be made. As this is not the case, those present in general are meant, as in ver. 37, and dzodefauevor Tov Adyov avrov (ver 40) stands in a climactic relation to karevuynoav (ver. 37). — mpooer£&önoav] were added (ver. 47, v. 14, xi. 24), namely, to the fellowship of 1 Comp. also Baumgarten. Others, with 22Sam. vii. 19, comp. the classical ovx« &s Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, pakpav. Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, 3 Comp. viii. 4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza, de Wette, Lange, Hackett, also Weiss, Petr. Bengel, Kuinoel, and others). Lehrbegr. p. 148, and bibl. Theol. p. 149, ex- 4 Comp. i. 6, viii. 25, xv. 3 (so Castalio, de plain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph. ii. 13. Wette). 68 CHAP. II., 42-45. the already existing followers of Jesus, as is self-evident from the context. — Yvxai] persons, according to the Hebrew Y2), Ex. 1.5; Acts vii. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 20; this use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving ıt.' yvux7 means, in the strict sense, soul (life).—The text does not affirm that the baptism of the three thousand occurred on the spot and simultaneously, but only that it took place during the course of that day (ri juepa Exsivy). Observe further, that their baptism was conditioned only by the peravoa and by faith on Jesus as the Messiah; and, accordingly, it had their further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a subsequent, con- dition (ver. 42). Ver. 42 now describes what the reception of the three thousand had as its consequence ; what they, namely, the three thousand and those who were already believers before (for the whole body is the subject, as is evident from the idea of rpoceréfjoav), as members of the Christian community under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did.” The development of the inner life of the youthful church follows that great external increase. First of all: they were perseveringly devoted to the instruction (2 Tim. iv. 2; 1 Cor. xiv. 6) of the apostles, they were constantly intent on having them- selves instructed by the apostles. — rn xowwvie] is to be explained of the mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another.” The same in substance with the adeAgdryc, 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9. It is incor- rect in Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and others to refer it to rov arooroAwv, and to understand it of living in intimate association with the apostles. For xai 7H kovwv. is, as well as the other three, an independent element, not to be blended with the preceding. Therefore the views of others are also incor- rect, who either* take the following (spurious) «ai as explicativum (et commu- nione, videlicet fractione panis et precibus), or suppose a &v dıa Övurv (Homberg) after the Vulgate: et communicatine fractionis panis, so that rH Kevwv. would already refer to the Agapae. Recently, following Mosheim,° the explanation of the communication of charitable gifts to the needy has become the usual one.° But this special sense must have been indicated by a spe- cial addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by the context, as in Rom. xv. 26; Heb. xiii. 16 ; especially as koıwvia does not in itself signify communicatio, but communio ; and it is only from the context that it can obtain the idea of fellowship manifesting itself by contributions in aid, etc., which is not here the case.— ry kAacee tov aptov] in the breaking of their bread (rov a.). By this is meant the observance of common evening-meals (Luke xxiv. 30), which, after the manner of the last meal of Jesus, they concluded with the Lord’s Supper (Agapae, Jude 12). The Peschito and several 1 Eur. Androm. 612, Med. 247, al.; see Kypke, II. p. 19. 2 With the spuriousness of the second kai (see the critical note), the four particulars are arranged in pairs. 3 Comp. on Phil. i.5. See also Weiss, ddl. Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. [Wolf. 4 Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by 5 De rebus Christ. ante Const. M.p. 114. 6 So Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baum- garten, also Löhe, Aphorism. p. 80 ff., Har- nack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 ff., Hac- ett, and others. That the moral nature of the ko.vwvia expresses itself also in liberality, is correct in itself, but is not here particularly brought forward, any more than other forms of its activity. This in opposition to Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 285. THE FIRST CONVERTS. 69 Fathers, as well as the Catholic Church,' with Suicer, Mede, Wolf, Light- foot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily explain it exclusively of the Eucharist ; comp. also Harnack, l.c. p. 111 ff. Such a celebration is of later origin ; the separation of the Lord’s Supper from the joint evening meal did not take place at all in the apostolic church, 1 Cor. xi. The passages, xx. 7, 11, xxvii. 35, are decisive against Heinrichs, who, after Kypke, ex- plains the breaking of bread of beneficence to the poor (Isa. lviii. 7), so that it would be synonymous with xowwvia (but see above). —rai¢ mpooevyaic] The plural denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubtless, Psalms and wonted Jewish prayers, especially having reference to the Messiah and His kingdom.—Observe further in general the family character of the brotherly union of the first Christian church. Ver. 43. But fear came upon every soul, and many miracles, ete. Luke in these words describes : (1) what sort of impression the extraordinary result of the event of Pentecost made generally upon the minds? of those who did not belong to the youthful church ; and (2) the work of the apostles after the effusion of the Spirit. Therefore ré is the simple copula, and not, as is often assumed, equivalent to yap. — éyivero]| (see the critical note) is in both cases the deseriptive imperfect.* Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke has éxi with the accusative, or éu@oBoc yiverat. — H6ßog, aS in Mark iv. 41, Luke i. 63, vii. 16, etc., fear, dread, which are wont to seize the mind on a great and wonderful, entirely unexpected, occurrence. This ¢60¢, occa. sioned by the marvellous result which the event of Pentecost together with the address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin), in pre- venting the first internal development of the church’s life from being disturbed by premature attacks from without. — dıa rwv arocr.] for the worker, the causa efficiens, was God. Comp. ver. 22, iv. 30, xv. 12. Vv. 44, 45. But (sé, continuative) as regards the development of the _church-life, which took place amidst that doc without and this miracle- working of the apostles, all were &mi 7d aurc. This, as ini. 15, ii. 1, is to be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact, Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel : de animorum consensu, which is foreign to N. T. usage. They were accustomed all to be together. This is not strange, when we bear in mind the very natural consideration that after the feast many of the three thousand—of whom, doubtless, a considerable number consisted of pilgrims to the feast—returned to their native countries ; so that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too large to assemble in one place. — kai eiyov axavra xowd| they possessed all things in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives («ai ra kryuara 1This Church draws as an inference from 466. Beelen still thinks that he is able to make our passage the historical assertion: Sub una good the idea of the daily unbloody sacrifice specie panis communicaverunt sanctiin primi- of the mass by the appended r. zpocevy. ! tiva ecclesia. Confut. Conf. Aug. p. 543 of my 2 raocn Wuxn, Winer, p. 147 (E. T. 194). edition of the Libri Symbolici. See, in oppo- 3 Comp., moreover, on the expression, Hom. sition to this view, the striking remarks of Zl. 1, 188 : IInAciwrı 8’ axos yevero, xii, 392, al. Casaubon in the Zirercitatt. Anti-Baron. p. 70 CHAP. II., 45, 46. . .. elye, comp. iv. 32), we are to assume not merely in general a distin- guished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of help,’ or ‘‘a prevailing willingness to place private property at the disposal of the church ;’’ ? but a real community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods gen- erally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 32), and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Acts v. 2), for the relief of the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed : (1) It took place only in Jerusalem. For there is no trace of it in any other church ; on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition to selfishness and rAesovefia. Comp. also Jas. v. 1 ff. ; 1 John iii. 17. And this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and gen- eral poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally— certainly also in the hope of the Parousia speedily occurring—were soon consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from counselling or at ull introducing it elsewhere. (2) This community of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was left to the Sree will of the owners. This is evident from Acts v. 4 and xii. 12. Never- theless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love,® it was, in point of ‚Fact, general in the church of Jerusalem, as is proved from this passage and from the express assurance at iv. 32, 34 f., in connection with which the conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in iv. 36, is simply a concrete instance of the general practice. (4) It was not an institution borrowed from the Essenes* (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schnecken- burger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apos- tles ; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed, the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be con- ceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5) On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within, as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples, the wants of all being defrayed from a common purse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command Luke xii. 33, but in a definite form. That Luke here and in iv. 32, 34 expresses himself too strongly (de 1 Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog’s En- cykl. III. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean ra THY diiwy Kowa might be compared with it (Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46). 2 De Wette, comp. Neander, Baumgarten, Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, and already Mosheim, Diss. ad hist. eccl. pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others. Wette), is an arbitrary assertion. 3 Bengel on iv. 34 aptly says: “non nisi summo fidei et amoris flori convenit.” 4 See Joseph. Bell. Jud. i.8.3f. The Py- thagoreans also had a community of goods. See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 165. 72; Zeller, p. 504. See, in opposition to the derivation from. Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. XI.2, p.1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl. COMMUNITY OF GOODS. TI Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of goods." — ra kryuara] the landed possessions (belonging to him).? ürapseıg : possessions in general,* aurä] it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in the preceding verb (érizpackov).* —kalléte av Tic xpeiav eiye] just as any one had need. av with the indicative denotes : ‘‘ accidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret.’’ ® Ver. 46. Kal! juépav] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241. — On rpookaprepeiv ev, to be diligent in visiting a place, comp. Susann. 6.-- iv ro iep~] as con- fessors of the Messiah of their nation, whose speedy appearance in glory they expected, as well as in accordance with the example of Christ Him- self, and with the nature of Christianity as the fulfilment of true Judaism, they could of course have no occasion for voluntarily separating themselves from the sanctuary of their nation; on the contrary, they could not but unanimously (öwodyu.) consider themselves bound to it; comp. Luke xxiv. 53. — KAdvrec üprov] breaking bread, referring, as in ver. 42, to the love-feasts. The article might stand as in ver. 42, but is here not thought of, and there- fore not put. It would mean: their bread. —xar’ oikov] Contrast to &v ro iepo ; hence : at home, in meetings in their place of assembly, where they partook of the meal, perhaps in detachments. Comp. Philem. 2. So most commentators, including Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, de Wette. But Erasmus, Salmasius, and others explain it domatim, from house to house. So also Kuinoel and Hildebrand. Comp. Luke viii. 1; Acts xv. 21; Matt. xxiv. 7. But there is nowhere any trace of holding the love-feasts successively in different houses ; on the contrary, according to i. 13, it must be assumed that the new community had at the very first a fixed place of assembly. Luke here places side by side the public relig- ious conduct of the Christians and their private association ; hence after &v ro iep@ the express xkar’ oikov was essentially necessary.° — uereAäußavov rpoone] they received their portion of food (comp. xxvii. 33 f.), partook of their sustenance.” Ver. 46 is to be paraphrased as follows: In the daily visiting of the temple, at which they attended with one accord, and amidst daily observance of the love-feast at home, they wanted not sustenance, of which they partook in gladness and singleness of heart. —év ayaddracec| this is the expression of the joy in the Holy Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread, ‘fructus fidei et character veritatis,’’ Bengel. And still in the erection of 1 Comp. Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 232. 2 See v.1; Xen. Cec. 20.23; Eustath. ad I. vi. p. 685. 3 Polyb. ii. 17. 11; Heb. x. 34, and Bleek in loc. 4 Comp. Luke xviii. 22; John xii. 5. See generally, Winer, p. 138 (E. T. 181 f.). 5 Herm. ad Viger. p. 820. Comp. iv. 35; Mark vi. 56; Krüger, Anad.i. 5. 2; Kiihner, ad Mem.i. 1. 16; and see on 1 Cor. xii. 2. 6 Observe how, on the one hand, the youth- ful church continued still bound up with the national cultus, but, on the other hand, de- veloped itself at the same time as a separate society, and in this latter development already put forth the germs of the distinctively Chris- tian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, prakt. Theol. 1. p. 174 ff., 213 ff.). The further evolution and in- dependent vital power of this cultus could not but gradually bring about the severance from the old, and accomplish that severance in the first instance in Gentile- Christian churches. 7 Plat. Polit. p. 275 C : maudeias pererdAnbevar Kal Tpod7js. 12 CHAP, sis 47. This is, then, the The the kingdom believers are äuouo: év ayardıaoeı, Jude 24. joy of triumph. -—- aperörnc] plainness, simplicity, true moral candour.' word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but ag£Acıa is.? Ver. 47. Aivovvrec rt. Oeöv] is not to be restricted to giving thanks at meals, but gives prominence generally to the whole religious frame of spirit , which expressed itself in the praises of God (comp. de Wette). This is clearly evi- dent from the second clause of the sentence, kat &yovres . . . Aaöv, referring likewise to their relation in general. That piety praising God, namely, and this possession of the general favour of the people, formed together the happy accompanying circumstances, under which they partook of their bodily sustenance with gladness and simple heart. — rpöc 62. r. Aadv] possess- ing favour, on account of their pious conduct, in their relation to the whole people” Comp. Rom, v. 1. — 6 kipioc] i.e. Christ, as the exalted Ruler of His church. —rov¢e cwfouévove| those who were being saved, i.e. those who, by their very accession to the church, became saved from eternal perdition so as to partake in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. ver. 40. Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. (x) Other tongues. V. 4. The obvious and natural meaning of the passage is that the disciples were suddenly endowed with the faculty of speaking foreign languages, before utterly unknown by them. This special gift was promised by our Lord (Mark xvi. 17). The exercise of the gift is mentioned in connection with the conversion of Cornelius and his company (Acts ii. 15) ; also with the Ephesian brethren on whom Paul laid his hands (Acts xix. 6), And Paul speaks of ‘‘kinds of tongues’’ as one of the spiritual gifts, and discusses the question at length in 1 Cor. xiv. The gift is designated by a variety of names: kawalis yAdsoas Aadeiv (Mark xvi. 17); Eregaıs yAvocaıs Aakeiv (Acts il. 4); yAvocaıs Aakeiv (Acts x. 46) ; yAwooaıS or yAdoon AaAeiv, In this passage alone is the phrase ‘‘ other tongues ” employed. Various explanations have been offered of this wonderful phenomenon by those who deny the supernatural, or who, with our author, consider that the sudden communication of a facility of speak- ing foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, or with Alford regard such an endowment as self-contra- dictory and impossible. It is supposed that the disciples were not all Galile- ans, but that some of them were foreign Jews, acquainted with other languages, in which they spoke—that the utterances were incoherent, jubilant expres- sions—that nothing more is meant than that some poetical, antiquated, provin- cial and foreign phrases were employed by the speakers; or that the utter- ances were ecstatic, spoken in a high state of inspiration, and often destitute able period intervenes, and the popular hu- mour, particularly in times of fresh excite- ment, isso changeable. Schwanbeck also, p. 1 Dem. 1489. 10 : ahedAns kat mappnaias pears. 2 Ael. V. A. iii. 10, al. Polyb. vi. 48. 4. 3 To refer this remark, on account of the later persecution, to the idealizing tendency and to legendary embellishment (Baur), isa very rash course, as between this time and the commencement of persecution aconsider- 45, denies the correctness of the representa- tion, which he reckons among the peculiarities of the Petrine portion of the hook. NOTES. 73 of intelligible meaning —or that the words uttered had been heard by the disci- ples before, when mingling at the annual feasts with pilgrims of many nations ; and now under high excitement these words or phrases were recalled and ut- tered—or some have supposed that only one language was spoken, but each hearer understood it as his own. That is, Peter spoke in Aramaic, but one un- derstood it as Greek, another as Arabic, and another as Persian. Now, not one of these theories, however ingenious, accounts for the recorded facts, and some of them contradict them. But when the event is admitted to be dis- tinctly miraculous, and the power a special gift of God, why is it to be consid- ered either impossible or inconceivable? We may be wholly incapable of con- ceiving the modus operandi, yet admit the credibility and certainty of the fact, Some difficulty arises from considering the speaking with tongues discussed by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., as identical in all respects with the event which transpired on the day of Pentecost. The gifts are analogous and similar, but not identi- cal. The gift at Pentecost was unique, not only as the first in order, but also as superior in kind. Both are spiritual gifts, and of supernatural origin, and characterized by similar terms ; but they differ in this, that at Pentecost dis- tinct languages were spoken, which were understood at once by the hearers, while at Corinth a tongue was spoken unintelligible to the hearer, and required to be interpreted. At Pentecost the speaker understood what he said ; while it is not perfectly clear that the speakers always understood what they uttered. Dr. Charles Hodge, however, regarding the gift spoken of by Paul as identical with that vouchsafed at Pentecost, thinks that the speaker, even when unintel- ligible to others, understood himself, at least generally, even when he was wholly unable to interpret in his own native tongue. Dr. J. A. Alexander says: ‘* Other tongues can only mean languages different from their own, and by necessary implication previously unknown.” “ The attempt to make this phrase mean a new style, or a new strain, or new forms of expression is not only unnatural, but inconsistent with the following narrative, where everything im- plies a real difference of language.” Dr. Lechler, in Lange, declares: ‘‘The narrative does not allow a single doubt to remain in an unprejudiced mind, that we are, here already in verse 4th, to understand a speaking of foreign lan- guages, which were new to the speakers themselves.”” And in reference to 1 Cor. xiv., he says: ‘‘ The parallel passages claim respectively, at the outset, an interpretation of their own, independently of each other,” and adds, “It appears, then, that certain essential features of both occurrences are the same, while important differences between the two are discoverable.” Calvin says: “I suppose it doth manifestly appear hereby that the Apostles had the variety and understanding of languages given unto them, that they might speak unto the Greek in Greek, and unto the Italians in the Italian tongue, and that they might have true communication and conference with their hearers.” Dr. Jacobson, Bishop of Chester, says : ‘‘ Nothing short of the sudden com- munication of the power of speaking languages, of which there had been pre- viously no colloquial knowledge, and which were not learned in the ordinary course, can have been implied by this statement, reiterated as it is in vv. 6, 8, and 11. None of the suggestions of vehement excitement, for a time affecting the organs of speech, so as to render it more or less unintelligible, of ecstatic inarticulate utterances, of the use of archaic words or poetic phraseology, or of new modes of interpreting ancient prophecies, can be accepted as at all ade- 74 NOTES. quate to this narrative.” For a full discussion of the subject see Schaff’s “ History of the Christian Church,’ vol. i., pp. 224-245. (v) Hades. V. 27. A Greek word which, from its derivation, means that which is not seen, and is used to designate the invisible state—the infernal regions—the abode of the dead. In the Septuagint it is used as a translation of the He- brew word Sheol. We have no appropriate word in English to express what is meant by the word Hades. The word occurs in the N. T. eleven times, and is rendered by the word hell in every instance except one (1 Cor. xv. 55), where it is rendered grave. In no instance does it mean hell as that word is now com- monly understood—the place of punishment for the wicked after judgment— nor in any case does it necessarily mean grave. When itis said that the soul of Christ was not left in Hades—unhappily rendered in our version hell—the real meaning is that his soul was not left in the abode of separate spirits, whither it went at his death, even as his body did not remain in the grave or sepulchre where it was laid after his crucifixion. In the passage from the 16th Psalm here quoted by Peter, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted of David the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principal and ultimate object.’’ (Campbell.) Doubtless from this passage the article of the Apostles’ Creed is deriyed, ‘‘ He descended into hell ;” all that this can mean is that the soul of Christ at his death was separated from his body, and entered the abode of separate spirits, called by himself paradise. For interesting and instructive discussions of this question see Campbell's Dissertation VI., part ii.; Dr. Cra- ven (Lange, Revelation) ; and Gloag. CRITICAL REMARKS. I or CHAPTER III. VER. 3. After é2Aenuoc., Aaßeiv is to be defended, which is wanting in D, min. Theophyl. Lucif. and some vss., and is wrongly deleted by Heinr. and Bornem. The authorities which omit it are too weak, especially as the complete super- fluousness of the word (it is otherwise in ver. 5) rendered its omission very natural. — Ver. 6. éye:pac kai] is wanting in B D &, Sahid.; deleted by Bornem. But as Peter himself raises up the lame man, ver. 7, this portion of the sum- mons would more easily be omitted than added from Luke v. 23, vi. 8; comp. vii. 14. Lachm. and Tisch. have the form &yeıoe ; rightly, see on Matt. ix. 5 ; Mark ii. 9. — Ver. 7. After 7jyepe, A BC N, min., the vss., and some Fathers, have auröv. Adopted by Lachm. A usual addition. — Ver. 11. auroü] Elz. has Tod iafevtoc ywiod, against decisive testimony. A church-lesson begins with ver. 11. — Ver. 13. kat 'Ioaax x. 'Iaxw3] Lachm. and Bornem. read kai Oed¢ ’Ioaak, x. Oeöc *Iaxw3, following A C D N, 15, 18, 25, several vss., Chrys., and Theophyl. From Matt. xxii. 32 (therefore also several of these witnesses have the article before Oecd), and LXX. Ex. iii. 6. —yév] is wanting in Elz., but is to be defended on the authority of A BCE, min., vss., and Fathers, and because no corresponding dé follows. — Ver. 18. aizod (not atrod) is, with Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive evidence, to be placed after Xpıoröv, and not after roognrov (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 20. mporeyeipıouevov] Elz.: mporern- pvyuévov, against decisive evidence. A gloss (vv. 18, 21 ff.) more precisely de- fining the meaning according to the context (comp. also xiii. 23 £.). — Ver. 21. Tov] Elz.: ravrov, against decisive testimony, Introduced to make the state- ment stronger, in accordance with ver. 24. — dz’ aidvoc] is wanting in D, 19, Arm. Cosm. Tert. Ir.; so Born. It was considered objectionable, because, strictly speaking, no prophets existed az’ aidvoc. The position after d)/wv (Lachm. Tisch.) is so decidedly attested that it is not to be derived from Luke 1. 70. — Ver. 22. Instead of yév, Elz. has piv ydp, against decisive evidence. yap was written on the margin, because the connection was not understood. — poe roöc rarépac] is wanting in A BC N, min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It is placed after eizev in DE, vss., and Fathers. So Born. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 23. Instead of é£0/o0fp., ABC D, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read éfoAc#p. An etymological alteration, which often occurs also in Codd. of the LXX. Comp. the variations in Heb. xi. 28.—Ver. 24. karnyysılav]) Elz.: mpokarnyyeılav, against decisive evidence. A gloss of more precise definition. — Ver. 25. of vioi] Elz.: vioi. But the article, which before vioi was easily left out by a transcriber, is supported by preponderant witnesses, as is also the év wanting before 7@ or£pu. in Elz., which was omitted as superfluous. — Ver. 26. After aitoi Elz. has "Ijooiv, against many and im- portant authorities. A familiar addition, although already read in A B. — tuov] C, min. vss. Ir. have alrov (so Lachm.) or aizot. The original dudv was first changed into airod (in conformity with éxaorov), and then the plural would be easily inserted on account of the collective sense. The pronoun is entirely wanting in B. 76 CHAP, III, 1-8. Ver. 1. After the description of the first peaceful and prosperous life of the church, Luke now, glancing back to ii. 43, singles out from the multi- tude of apostolic répara x. onueia that one with which the first persecution was associated. — ir! rd aurö] here also in a local reference ;' not merely at the same time and for the same object, but also in the same way, i.e. together, yay, 2 Sam. 2.c. Prominence is here given to the united going to the temple and the united working, directing special attention to the keeping together of the two chief apostles. — av&ßaıvov] they were in the act of going up. — ml THY Gpav THC mpooevxnc] Eri, used of the dejinition of time, in so far as a thing extends to a space of time.? Hence: during the hour, not equiv- alent to repi ryv @pav.* Concerning the three hours of prayer among the Jews: the third (see on ii. 15), the stzth (noon), and the ninth (that of the evening sacrifice in the temple), see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein, in loc. Comp. x. 3, 9.—The Attic mode of writing &varyv is decidedly at- tested in the Book of Acts. Ver. 2. XwAöc Ex Kowa. unrp.] born lame. Comp. xiv. 8; John ix. 1. And he was above forty years old, iv. 22.—The imperfect &ßaoralero, he was being brought, denotes the action in reference to the simultaneous avéBacvor, ver. 1; and ériMovv, its daily repetition. — tiv Aeyou. opaiav] which bears the by-name,* “* Beautiful.” The proper name was, ‘‘ gate of Nicanor.’’ It lay on the eastern side of the outermost court of the temple, leading towards the valley of Kidron, and is described by Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 3, as sur- passingly splendid: ro» dé muAov ai pév évvéa xpvoo Kai apybpw Kexadvppévat mavrayxödev oar, Öuolwe TE TapaoTadec Kai ra omépOvpa’ pia 0& m ESwdev TOV ven Kopıvdiov xaAkov Toad TH Tih TAG KaTapybpovcg Kat mepıynboovs Vrepayovoa. Kat dvo uévy éxaotov Tov TvA@vog Obpat, TpLaKovTa dE THYaV TO bog ExdoTHC, Kal TO mAdtoc qv mevreraidera. Others (Wagenseil, Lund, Bengel, Walch) under- stand it of the gate Susan, which was in the neighbourhood of Solomon’s porch, and at which the market for pigeons and other objects for sacrifice was held. But this is at variance with the signification of the word opaiog ; for the name Susan 1s to be explained from the Persian capital (Ww, town of lilies), which, according to Middoth, 1 Kal. 3, was depicted on the gate.° Others (Kuinoel, et. al.) think that the gate Chulda, i.e. tempestiva, leading to the court of the Gentiles, is meant.° But this derivation of the name (from In, tempus) cannot be hıstorically proved, nor could Luke expect his reader to discover the singular appellation porta tempestiva in öpalav, seeing that for this the very natural ‘‘ porta speciosa’’ (Vulg.) could not but sug- gest itself.—Among the Gentiles also beggars sat at the gates of their temples "— a usage probably connected with the idea (also found in ancient Israel) of a special divine care for the poor *— roi alreiv] eo fine, ut peteret. 1See on i. 15; comp. LXX. 2 Sam. ii. 13; the gate of the temple is only an invention on Joseph. Anit. xvi. 8. 6. account of the name, and the latter might be 2 See on Mark xv. 1; Nägelsb. on the Ziiad, sufficiently explained from the lily-shaped p. 284, ed. 3. decorations of the columns (WAY NwyD 3 Alberti, Odss., Valckenaer, Winer, and 1 Kings v. 19). many others. 6 See Lightf. Hor. ad. Joh. p. 946 f. 4 Sce Schaefer, Melet. p. 14. 7 Martial. i. 112. 5 Perhaps, however, this picture of Susa on & Hermann, Privatalterth. § 14. 2. HEALING OF A LAME MAN. fire Vv. 3-5. MéA2ovrac eicılvar eis r. iep.] For it was through this outermost gate that the temple proper was reached. — jp&ra £enuoo. Aaß.]| he asked that he might receive an alms. Modes of expression used in such a case, Merere in me; In me benefac tibi, and the like, may be seen in Vajicra rabb. f. 20, 3, 4. — On Aaßeiv, which in itself might be dispensed with, see Winer, p. 565 [E. T. 760]. — arevioac . . . BAéWov eis yuäc] They would read from his look, whether he was spiritually fitted for the benefit to be received. ‘““ Talis intuitus non caruit peculiari Spiritus motu ; hine fit, ut tam secure de miraculo pronuntiet,’’ Calvin. Comp xiii. 9. — öreiyev aitoic] The sup- plying of röv vovv serves to make the sense clear. Comp. Luke xiv. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 16. He was attentive, intent upon them.‘ Ver. 6. Aidonı] I give thee herewith. —iv ro övöu. . . . mepıräreı) by virtue of the name (now pronounced) of Jesus the Messiah, the Nazarene, arise and walk. év denotes that on which the rising and walking were causally dependent. Mark xvi. 17; Luke x. 17; Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18. Comp. the utterance of Origen, c. Cels. 1, against the assertion of Celsus, that Chris- tians expelled demons by the help of evil spirits: rocotroy yap divata 76 évoua tov 'Incov. This name was the focus of the power of faith, through which the miraculous gift of the apostles operated. Comp. on Matt. vii. 22; Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Mark xvi. 17. A dico or the like is not (in oppo- sition to Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) to be supplied with &v r. ovou. x.t.2. Observe, moreover, first, the solemnity of the ’Ijcov Xpiorov tov Nat. ; and secondly, that Xporov, as in ii. 38, cannot yet be a proper name. Comp. John xvii. 3, i. 42. Vv. 7, 8. Avröv rac de£ıäc] comp. Mark ix. 27, and see Valckenaer, ad Theoer. iv. 35. — éorepeatycav| his feet were strengthened, so that they now performed their function, for which they bad been incapacitated in the state of lameness, of supporting the body in its movements. — ai Bacere are the feet.” — ra odvpa: the ankle-bones, tali (very frequent in the classics), after the general expression subjoining the particular. — é£a226uevoc], springing up, leaping into the air. Not: easiliens, videlicet e grabbato (Casaubon), of which last there is no mention. — kai eionAPe . . . Tov Oedv] This behaviour bears the most natural impress of grateful attachment (comp. ver. 11), lively joy (repırar. Kai d22A6uevoc, — at the same time as an involuntary proof of his complete cure for himself and for others), and religious elevation. The view of Thiess—that the beggar was only a pretended cripple who was terrified by the threatening address of Peter into using his feet, and afterwards, for fear of the rage of the people, prudently attached himself to the apostles—changes the entire narrative, and makes the apostle himself (vv. 12, 16, iv. 9, 10) the deceiver. Peter had wrought the cure in the possession of that miraculous power of healing which Jesus had imparted to His apostles (Luke ix. 1), and the supernatural result can- not in that case, any more than in any other miracle, warrant us to deny 1Comp. Schweigh. Lex. Herod. I. p. 241, 5; Plat. Tim. p. 92 A, and in later Greek and Lex. Polyb. p. 238. writers. [LXX. Iea. lv. 12. 2 Asin Wisd. xiii. 18; Joseph. Antt. vii. 5. 3 Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 82; Anab. vii. 3. 33; 78 CHAP. III., 10-15. its historical character, as is done by Zeller, who supposes that the general xwAol repixarovow, Luke vii. 22, Matt. xv. 31, has here been illustrated in an individual instance. Ver. 10. ’Ereytvworov auröv, örı x.7.A2.] A well-known attraction.’ — rpöc THY éAennoc.| for the sake of alms. — 6 kadnuevoc] See on John ix. 8. —éni ri immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful gate. See on John iv. 6.— Haußovs Kat éxotdc.| astonishment and surprise at what had happened to him—an exhaustive designation of the highest degree of wonder.? Ver. 11. Kparoivroc] But as he held fast Peter and John, i.e. in the impulse of excited gratitude took hold of them and clung to them, in order not to be separated from his benefactors.”° There is no sanction of usage for the meaning commonly given, and still adopted by Olshausen and De Wette: assectari. For in Col. ii. 19 xpareiv occurs in its proper sense, to hold fast ; the LXX. 2 Sam. iii. 6 is not at all in point, and in Achill. Tat. v. p. 309, Ere yelper je kpareiv is’: me retinere conabatur. — As to the porch of Solomon, see on John x. 23. — éx@ay3or] the plural after the collective noun 6 Aaöc.* Ver. 12. ’Arexpivato] he began to speak, as a reply to the astonishment and concourse of the people, which thereby practically expressed the wish for an explanation. See on Matt. xi. 25. Observe the honourable address, ävdp. ’Iop., as in ii. 22, v. 35, xiii. 16, xxi. 28.—ri Oavudlere éxi rotvtw;]. The wonder of the people, namely, was unfounded, in so far as they regarded the healing as an effect of the düvauıc 7 evoeß. of the apostles themselves. — robr~| is neuter; see ver. 10: at this. As to the 7, an, introducing the second question, observe that the course of thought without interrogation is as follows: Your astonishment is groundless, provided that you were rea- sonably entitled to regard ws as the workers of this cure. The 7 is accord- ingly : or else, if you think that you must wonder why, etc. — juiv emphat- ically prefixed : id/a is then correlative. —eiceBeia] ‘quasi sit praemium pietatis nostrae a Deo nobis concessum,’’ Heinrichs. In us lies neither the causa effectiva nor the causa meritoria. — meromköoı tow repiz. aitév| to be taken together: as if we had been at work, in order that he might walk. That this telic designation of that which was done is given with the genitive of the infinitive, is certainly to be traced to the frequent use of this form of ex- pression in the LXX.°; but the conception of the aim is not on that ac- count to be obliterated as the defining element of the expression, especially as even in classical writers this mode of conception is found, and presents itself in the expression roveiv Orwc.° The roeiv is conceived as striving. Ver. 13. Connection: Do not regard this cure as our work (ver. 12) ; no, God, the peculiar God of our fathers, glorified (by this cure),” His servant Opaia rn.) Ent: ı Winer, p. 581 (E. T. 781). 4 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. 11.1.6. Ast. ad 2 Comp. dadua cat OauBos, Plut. de audit. 8. 145, and similar expressions, Lobeck, Parad. p. 60 f. 3 Comp. John xx. 23; Rev. ii. 25, iii. 11; Song of Sol. iii. 4: exparnoa avrov kat our apjKa avtov, Polyb. viii. 20.8; Eur. Phoen. 600; Plut. Mor. p. 99D. Plat. Legg. 1. p. 63. Nägelsb. on the Iliad, ii. 278. Comp. Acts v. 16 5 See Winer, p. 306 (E. T. 410). 6 See, e.g., Herod. i. 117: Omws Egraı 7 Iwvin EAevdepn, V. TOLELY 4, 6 ay 109, i. 209. Comp. mpaoceıv önws, Krüger on Thuc. 1. 56. 7 Comp. John ix. 3f., xi. 4. PETER’S DISCOURSE. 79 Jesus, whom you delivered up, ete.—what a stinging contrast ! — +. rar£pwv nz. | embraces the three patriarchs. Comp. on Rom. ix. 5. — The venerated designation : ‘‘the God of Abraham,’ etc. (Ex. iii. 15 f.), heightens the blame of the contrast. — &öö5ace] namely, inasmuch as He granted such a result by means of His name (ver. 6). —röv caida] is not to be explained, after the Vulgate, with the older interpreters (and still by Heinrichs, Kui- noel), as filium, since only viöc Ocov is throughout used of Christ in this sense ; but with Piscator, Bengel, Nitzsch,' Olshausen, de Wette, Baum- garten, and others, as seroum ; and the designation of the Messiah as the fulfiller of the divine counsel: servant of God, has arisen from Isa. x].-Ixvi. namely, from the Messianic reference of the MM! 72), there. Comp. Matt. xii. 18. So also in ver. 26, iv. 27, 50. Observe that an apostle is never called raic (but only dovAoc) Ocod. Comp. especially iv. 29 f. — dv üueic pév] This «£v, which pierces the conscience of the hearers, is not followed by any corresponding dé. Comp. oni. 1. The connection before the mind of Luke was: whom you have indeed delivered up, ete., but God has raised from the dead. But by xpivavroc éxeivov arorvew he was led away from carrying out this sentence, and induced to give to it another turn. — rapedéxare| namely, to Pilate. — jpvicacte aitév] i.e. ye have denied that He is the Mes- siah, John xix. 14, 15; Luke xxiii. 2. Comp. also vii. 35. The object of the denial was obvious of itself, since Jesus had just been spoken of as the raic tov Ocov. Observe, moreover, that with 7pv70. auröv the relative construction is not carried on, but with rhetorical emphasis the sentence is continued independent of it: and ye have denied Him.” This is in keeping with the liveliness of the discourse and its antitheses ; but without such a breaking off of the construction auröv would be quite superfluous, as the regimen remains the same as before. — xara rpöowrov] towards the face; ye have denied Him even unto the face of Pilate, so audaciously! Comp. Gal. ii. 11. There is no Hebraism.* — kpivavroc éxeivov aroavew] although the latter had decided to release (him). See John xix. 4; Luke xxiii. 16. éxefvov is designedly used instead of airoi, in order to make the contrast felt between what Pilate judged and what they did.* Chrys. well says: öweic éxeivov Berncavroc ovK HOEAHCaTE. Vv. 14, 15. 'Yueic dé] Contrast to xpivavtog éx. amoAveı, ver. 13. — röv äyıov Kai dixacor| the kar’ &£oxrv Holy; consecrated to God, inasmuch as He is the M7 12}, and Just, innocent and entirely righteous, see on John xvi. 10. Comp. Isa. liii. 11. To this characteristic description of Jesus ävdpa govéa, Barabbas,° forms a purposely chosen contrast : @ man who was a mur- derer. It is more emphatic, more solemn, than the simple govéa; but avipwrov govéa would have been more contemptuous, Bernhardy, p. 48. — xapıodijvar buiv] condonari vobis," that he should by way of favour be delivered to 1 Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 331 ff. cor. p. 319; and tke examples from Plato in 2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 304: Kühner, § 799. Ast, Lex. I. p. 658. 3See Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 612; Schweig- 5 See Luke xxiii. 19 ; comp. on John xviii. 40. häuser, Lew. Polyb. p. 540. 6 Comp. Soph. O. (. 948 : avépa marpokrovor, * Comp. ver. 14. See Krüger and Kühner, O. R. 842: avSpas Ancras. ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3.20; Dissen, ad Dem. de 7 Ducker, ad Flor. iii. 5. 10, 80 CHAP. III., 16-19. you.’ — Tov dé apynyov tij¢ Conc] forms a double contrast, namely, to dvdpa govéa and to amexteivare. It means: the author? of life, inasmuch as Christ by His whole life-work up to His resurrection was destined (vv. 20, 21) to provide eternal life, all that is included in the Messianic cwrypia (Heb. ii. 10). See John iii. 16, xi. 25; 2 Tim. 1. 10. The inclusion, however, of physical life (de Wette, Hackett), according to the idea of John i. 4, has no support in the text, nor would it have been so understood by the hearers, although even Chrysostom comes ultimately to the idea of the original Living one. — dv 6 Ocd¢ . . . Ov jueic K.r.A.] great in its simplicity. ‘The latter, in which ov is neuter, is the burden of the apostolic consciousness. Comp. on li. 32. Observe, moreover, on vv. 14, 15: ‘‘ Graphice sane majestatem illam aposto- licam expressit, quam illi fuisse in dicendo vel una ejus testatur epistola,”’ Erasmus. The Zpistle of Peter is written as with runic characters. Ver. 16. “Eri 19 mioreı Tov övöu. abrov] on account of faith in His name (which we acknowledge as that of the Messiah), i.e. because we believe in His Messiahship. On ézi, of the cause on which the fact rests, on the ground of, see Bernhardy, p. 250; as to the genitive of the object with riorıc, see on Rom. iii. 22. Others—particularly Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and Ols- hausen—understand äri of the aim.” in order that faith in Jesus may be excited in you (and at the same time in the healed man himself, according to Olshausen). But the very connection of thought is in favour of the first explanation. For «ai éxi rn rioreı «.r.A. attaches itself closely to the pre- ceding ov jueic waptrpéc Eouev ; so that Peter, immediately after mentioning the testimony, brings forward the extraordinary efficacy of the faith on which this apostolic testimony is based. Still more decisive is the paral- lelism of the second clause of the verse, in which the thought of the first clause is repeated emphatically, and with yet more precise definition. — 7d évoua abrov] so far, namely, as the cure was effected by means of His name pronounced, ver. 6. Observe the weighty repetition and position at the end. —7 riorıce 9 de avtov| the faith wrought (in us) through Him. Through Christ was the faith, namely, in Him as the Messiah, wrought in Peter and John, and in the apostles generally, partly by means of His whole manifes- tation and ministry during His life (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 14), partly by means of the resurrection and effusion of the Spirit. The view which takes miotic Of trust in God brought about through Christ,‘ is not in keeping with the first half of the verse, which has already specifically determined the object of riorıs. — ralırmv] deırrıröc. For the bodily soundness of the man, who was present (ver. 11), was apparent to their eyes.’ — arévavri rävr. bu. | corresponds to öv @ewpeite in the first clause of the verse. The faith, etc., gave to him this restoration in the presence of you all ; so that no other way of its coming to pass was at all to be thought of. Vv. 17, 18. Peter now pitches his address in a tone of heart-winning 1 Plut. C. Gracch. 4; Acts xxv. 11, xxvii. 4 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 21; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. 24, Philem. 22. See Loesner, Odss. p. 172 f. p. 824; dibl. Theol. p. 139, after de Wette. 2 Heb. ii. 10, xii. 2; Mic. i.18; 1 Macc. ix. 5 On öAorAnp., comp. Plut. Mor. p. 1063 F; 61; Plat. Zocr. p. 96 C; Tim. p. 21E. Plat. Tim. p. 44 Ci odAdKAnpos vyujs TE mar- 3 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475. TEAWS. REPENTANCE URGED. 81 gentleness, setting forth the putting to death of Jesus (1) as a deed of ig- norance (ver. 17) and (2) as the necessary fulfilment of the divine counsel (ver. 18). — kai viv] and now, i.e. et sic, itaque ; so that viv is to be under- stood not with reference to time, but as: in this state of matters." — adeAgoi] familiar, winning. Chrys. : aitav rag yuxäc eiféws rn TOV adeAp@v mpoonyopia rapsuvßnoaro. Comp. on the other hand, ver. 12: avdpe¢ "Iopankiraı. — xara äyvorav] unknowingly (Lev. xxii. 14), since you had not recognised Him as the Messiah ; spoken quite in the spirit of Jesus. See Luke xxiii. 34; comp. xiii. 27. ** Hoc ait, ut spe veniae eos excitet,’’ Pricaeus. Comp. also 1 Pet. 1.14. The opposite: xara mpößeow, kara mpoaipeow. — Gorep Kai ot apy. tuav|] namely, have acted ignorantly. Wolf (following the Peshito) refers the comparison merely to ämpd£are : scio vos ignorantia adductos, ut Jaceretis sicut duces vestri. But it would have been unwise if Peter, in order to gain the people, had not purposed to represent in the same mild light the act also of the Sanhedrists (äpyovrec), on whom the people depended. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8. — Ver. 18. But that could not but so happen, etc. Comp. Luke xxiv. 44 ff. — ravrwy r@v tpooyrav| comp. Luke xxiv. 27. The expression is neither to be explained as a hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor from the typical character of history (Olshausen), but from the point of view of ful- Jilment, in so far as the Messianic redemption, to which the divine predic- tion of all the prophets referred (com. x. 43), has been realized by the suf- ferings and death of Jesus. Looking back from this standpoint of histor- ical realization, it is with truth said: God has brought into fulfilment that which He declared beforehand by all the‘ prophets, that His Messiah should suffer. On r. Xpioröv aurov, comp. iv. 26; Luke ji. 26, ix. 20; Rev. xi. 15, xii. 10. —oi7w] so, as it has happened, vers. 14, 15, 17. Ver. 19. Oöv] infers from ver. 17 f. — ueravonoare] see on ii. 38. The éxtotpéware (comp. xxvi. 20), connected with it, expresses the positive con- sequence of the weravoeiv. ‘‘ Significatur in resipiscente applicatio sui ad Deum,’’ Bengel. — eic 7d é£aAero4. x.7.2.] contains the aim, namely, the medi- ate aim: the final aim is contained in ver. 20, which repentance and con- version ought to have. The idea of the forgiveness of sins is here repre- sented under the figure of the erasure of a hand-writing.* Baptism is not here expressly named, as in ii. 38, but was now understood of itself, see- ing that not long before thousands were baptized ; and the thought of it has suggested the figurative expression &£aAeıoA. : in order that they may be blotted out, namely, by the water of baptism. The causa meritoria of the forgiveness of sins is contained in ver. 18 (xafeiv tov X.).” The causa appre- hendens (faith) is contained in the required repentance and conversion. Ver. 20. The final aim of the preceding exhortation. In order that times of refreshing may come. Peter conceives that the xaıpor avapiews and the Parousia 1 Since, in fact, only by this self-manifesta- loc. See also vii. 34, x. 5, xxii. 16; John ii. tion of the risen Christ must the true light 28; 2 John 5. concerning Him who was formerly rejected 2 See on Col. ii. 14. Comp. Ps. li. 9; Isa. and put to death have dawned upon you; xliii. 25; Dem. 791. 12: &&aAnAurraı To obAnna. otherwise you could not have so treated Him. 3 Comp. Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 258. Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 1.19, and Kühner in 82 CHAP), MTs, (20,21. (kat arooreiAn x.7.A.) (M) will set in, as soon as the Jewish nation is converted to the acknowledgment of Jesus asthe Messiah. It required a further revelation to teach him that the Gentiles also were to be converted—and that directly, and not by the way of proselytism—to Christ (chap. x.). — öroc av, with the subjunctive,' denotes the purpose that is to be attained in dependence on a supposition, here, in this event ; if ye comply with the summons.” This dv, consequently, is not equivalent to éav (Vulg. : ut cum venerint), in which case an apodosis which would be wanting is arbitrarily supplied in thought (see Erasmus and, recently, Beelen). Others (Beza, Castalio, Eras- mus Schmid, Eckermann, é al.) consider ézwc as a particle of time — ore: quandocungue venerint. Against this it may be decisively urged, in point of linguistic usage, that in Greek writers (in Herod. and the poets) the temporal öroc is joined with the indicative or optative, but does not occur at all in the N. T.; and, in point of fact, the remission of sins takes place not for the first time at the Parousia, but at once on the acceptance of the gospel. — xacpoi avayig.| seasons of refreshing : namely, the Messianic, as 1s self-evident and 1s clear from what follows. It is substantially the same as is meant in Luke 11. 25 by rapaxAnoıc tov “Icpaya, — namely, seasons ın which, through the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, there shall occur blessed rest and refreshment for the people of God, after the expiration of the troub- lous seasons of the alöv oi7o¢.* The alövec oi &repyöuevor: in Chap. 11. 7 are not different from these future xa:poi. This explanation is shown to be clearly right by the fact that Peter himself immediately adds, as explana- tory of kacpot avait. : Kai amooreiAn TOV mpokexeip. buiv Ino. X., which points to the Parousia. Others rationalizing have, at variance with the text, ex- plained the xacpoi ava. either of the time of rest after death,* or of deliver- ance from the yoke of the ceremonial law,’ or of the putting off of penal judgment on the Jews,° or of the sparing of the Christians amidst the de- struction of the Jews,’ or of the glorious condition of the Christian church before the end of the world.* On avayvicc, comp. LXX. Ex. viii. 15 ; Aq. Isa. xxviil. 12; Strabo, x. p. 459. — arö rpocdrov tov kupiov) The times, which are to appear, are rhetorically represented as something real, which is to be found with God in heaven, and comes thence, from the face of God, to earth. Thus God is designated as airıoc of the times of refreshing (Chry- sostom). — rov mporex. iuiv ’I. X.] Jesus the Messiah destined for you (for your nation). On rpoyerpifoua (xxii. 14, xxvi. 16), properly, / take in hand ; then, I undertake, I determine, and with the accusative of the person : J ap- point one.” Analogous is 6 tov Ocov éxAextéc, Luke xxiil, 35. Ver. 21. Whom the heaven must receive as the place of abode appointed xv. 17; Luke ii. 35; Rom. iii. 4; Matt. 4 Schulz in the Bidl. Hag. V. p. 119 ff. NARBE 6 Kraft, Obss. sacr. fasc. IX. p. 271 ff. 2See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 289; Klotz, 6 Barkey. ad Devar. p. 685 f. 7 Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot. 332) DIMeenls edie: (Gale ae ACIS xine, 8 Vitringa. Analogous 1s the conception of karamavaıs ® Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 7, viii. 9; Polyb. vi. and saßßarıcuös in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 58. 3; Plut. Galb. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 22; Comp. äveoıs. 2 Thess. i. 7, and the descrip- Wetstein and Kypke én loc.; Schleusn. Zies. tion given in Rev. xxi. 4 f. iv. p 513. THE PAROUSIA. 83 for Him by God until the Parousia. Taken thus,’ oipavév is the subject,? and dei does not stand for éde, as if Peter wished historically to narrate the ascension ; but the present tense places before the eyes the necessity of the elevation of Christ into heaven as an absolute relation, which as such is constantly present until the Parousia (ver. 20, and äypı ypdvwv x.r.A., ver. 21). Hence also the infinitive is not of the duration of the action (d£yeodaı), but of its absolute act (défacfar). Others find the subject in öv: who must occupy heaven (so Luther and many of the older Lutherans, partly in the interest of Christ’s ubiquity; also Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Lange, Weiss, et al.) ; ‘‘ Christus coelum debuit occupare ceu regiam suam,”’ Ca- lovius. But against this view the linguistic usage of déyeofa:, which never signifies oceupare,* is decisive.*—On the pév solitarium Grotius aptly re- marks, that it has its reference in äypı ypdvov arokaraor., ‘quasi dicat : ubıillud tempus venerit, ex coeloin terras redibit.’? — aype xp6vov arokaraor. ravrwov] until times shall have come, in which all things will be restored. Before such times set in, Christ comes not from heaven. Consequently the times of the alöv 6 wéAdwv ıtself—the xaıpor avapisewe—cannot be meant ; but only such tımes as shall precede the Parousia, and by the emergence of which it is conditioned, that the Parousia shall ensue. Accordingly the explanation of the universal renewal of the world unto a glory such as preceded the fall? is excluded, seeing that that restoration of all things (ravrwov) coincides with the Parousia, in opposition to de Wette, as well as many older expositors, who think on the resurrection and the judgment. The correct interpretation must start from Mal. iv. 6 as the historical seat of the expression, and from Matt. xvii. 11, where Christ Himself, taking ıt from Malachi, has made it His own. Accordingly the azoxaracracic ravrwv can only be the restoration of all moral relations to their original normal condition. Christ’s reception in heaven—this is the idea of the apostle—continues until the moral cor- ruption of the people of God is removed, and the thorough moral renovation, the ethical restitutio in integrum, of all their relations shall have ensued. Then only is the exalted Christ sent from heaven to the people, and then only does there come for the latter the avayvéic from the presence of God, ver. 20. What an incitement neither to neglect nor to defer repentance and conversion as the means to this azoxatacract ravrwv ! The mode in which this moral restitution must take place is, according to ver. 22, be- yond doubt,—namely, by rendering obedience in all points to what the 1 Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 2 de fil., already hasevidently this view : det yap avrov . dm’ ovpavod SexOqvar, and Oecumenius calls heaven the amodoxn Tov ameotaAuevov. The Vulgate repeats the ambiguity of the original: quem oportet coelum quidem susci- pere ; but yet appears, by suscipere, to betray the correct view. Clearly and definitely Cas- talio gives it with a passive turn: “quem oportet coelo capi.” 2 Beza, Piscator, Castalio, and others, the Socinians, also Kuinoel, de Wette, Baum- garten, Lechler, Hackett. 3 We should have to explain it as: who must accept the heaven (comp. Bengel). But what a singularly turgid expression would that be! 4 Comp. on the other hand, Plat. 7heaet. p. 177 A: TeAevrnoavras altos Exeivos méev 0 TOV karav Kkafapos Toros ov Sefetar, Soph. Zrach. 1075: Gvakt Atdy Scfar we. Occupare would be Comp. Soph. Ant. 605: karexeıs 'OAvumov nappapdercav alykav. 5 maAryyevecia, Matt. xix. 23; comp. Rom. viii. 18 ff.; 2 Pet. iii. 13. KATEXELY. 84 CHAP, IIL, 22-24. Messiah has during His earthly ministry spoken. Observe, moreover, that mavrov is not masculine,’ but neuter, as in Matt. xvii. 11, Mark ix. 12 (comp. ver. 22, xara mavra, öca) ; and that aroxarasracız cannot be otherwise taken than in its constant literal meaning, restoration,” wherein the state lost and to be restored is to be conceived as that of the obedience of the theocracy toward God and His messenger (ver. 22). The state of forgive- ness of sin (ver. 19) is not identical with this, but previous to it, as örwg k.7.A. (ver. 20) shows : the sanctification following the reconciliation. — ov éAdanoev x.t.A2.| The attracted dv refers to ypövov : of which he has spoken, etc.” Others refer it to r4vrwv, and explain: usque ad tempus, quo omnia eventum habebunt,* quae, etc. ; by which Peter is supposed to mean either the conquest of Messiah’s enemies and the diffusion of the Christian re- ligion,° or the destruction of the Jewish state,® or the erection of the Mes- sianic kingdom and the changes preceding it, the diffusion of Christianity, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment.” Incorrectly, as arokarao- racic, in the sense of impletio, cic wipac &Aßeiv,’ and the like, is without warrant in usage; and as little does it admit the substitution of the idea realization.” — ar’ aidvoc] since the world began, to be taken relatively. See on Luke i, 70. Vv. 22-24. Connection: What has just been said: “By the mouth of His holy prophets from the beginning,’’ is now set forth more particularly in two divisions,—namely : (1) Moses, with whom all O. T. prophecy begins (comp. Rom. x. 19), has announced to the people the advent of the Mes- siah, and the necessity of obedience to Him, vv. 22,23. Thus has he made a beginning in speaking of the arokaraoraoıc ravrwv, which in fact can only be brought about by obedience to all which the Messiah has spoken. (2) But also the collective body of prophets from Samuel onwards, that is, the prophets in the stricter sense, etc., ver. 24 — Mwvo7jc] The passage is Deut. xviii. 15 f., 19,'° which, applying according to its historical sense to the prophetic order generally which presents itself to the seer collectively as in one person, has received its highest fulfilment in Christ as the realized ideal of all the Old Testament interpreters of God, consequently as the adnfivoe mpooatnc.' Comp. vil. 37. — oc éué] as He has raised up me by His prepara- 1 Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 85, and bidd. Theol. p. 145. verbal notion is exceedingly harsh. Hofm. Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 648, follows the correct 2 Polyb. iv. 23. 1; v. 2. 11; xxviii. 10.7; Dion. Hal. x. 8 ; also Plat. Aw. p. 370. 3 On Aadeıv rı, in this sense, comp. Matt. xxvi. 13; Plat. Aw. p. 366 D; Soph. Phil. 110. So also Aéyev tr, to tell of something ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 23 A; Phaed. p. 79 B. 4 Baumgarten, p. 83, endeavours to bring out essentially the same meaning, but without any change in the idea of amoxaraor., in this way : he supplies the verb arokaraotaßnoeodaı with oy eAdAnoev, and assuines the kingdom of Israel (i. 6) to be meant. To imagine the latter reference, especially after ravrwv, 18 just as arbitrary, as the supplying of that reference of av to xpövwr. 5 Rosenmiiller, Morus, Stolz, Heinrichs. ® Grotius, Hammond, Bolten. 7 Kuinoel. 8 Oecumenius, ® Grotius, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 517, Lechler. 10 See on this passage and its different ex- planations, and also on its at any rate Messianic idea, Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 110 ff.; G. Baur, alttest. Weissag. I. p. 353 ff. 11 Calvin appropriately says: “Non modo quia prophetarum omnium est princeps, sed quod in ipsum dirigebantur omnes superiores prophetiae, et quod tandem Deus per 08 ejus absolute loquutus est.” Heb. i.1f. PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 85 tion, calling, commission, and effectual communion. Bengel well remarks regarding the Messianic fulfilment : ‘‘ Similitudo non officit excellentiae.”’ —éora dé] see on ii. 17. — é£o2AoAp. éx. rov Aaov] In the LXX. it runs after the original text : &yo éxdicjow é& abrov. Peter, in order to express this threat according to its more special import, and thereby in a manner more deterrent and more incentive to the obedience required,’ substitutes for it the formula which often occurs in the Pentateuch after Gen. xvii. 14: MWY MT WHIT WN, which is the appointment of the punishment of death excluding forgiveness.* The apostle, according to his insight into the Mesgianic reference and significance of the whole passage, understands by it, exelusion from the Messianic life and ejection to Gehenna, consequently the punishment of eternal death, which will set in at the judgment.* — kai... dé] z.e. Moses on the one hand, and all the prophets on the other. Thus over against Moses, the beginner, who was introduced by wév, there is placed as similar in kind the collective body. See as to «al... dé, on John vi. 51, and observe that dé is attached to the emphasized idea appended (ravrec).* — All the prophets from Samuel and those that follow, as many as have spoken, have also, etc.,—evidently an inaccurate form of expression in which two con- structions are mixed up,—namely : (1) 8 ATELPOV. 1 So Hermann, Opuse. III. p. 158. 2 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 716 ; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 31; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 444 f. 3 Baeumlein, Parfik. p. 222. 4 Winer, p. 204 (E. T'. 273). 5 See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 177 f.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 4. 143; Stallb. ad Plat. Crit. p.51 A; Prot. p. 355 A. 6 Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 121. 7x. 34; Eph. iii. 18; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 D; Polyb. viii. 4. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 66. 8 Plat. Apol. p. 26 D. 9 Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 20; Plat. Crit. p. 109 D. 10 See Hartmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, Tp. 19st. 11 Comp. Lys. acc. Nicom. 28, and Bremi in loc. [ten. 12 Kuinoel and Olshausen, comp. Baumgar- 13 See Winer, p. 253 (E. T. 337). 14 Comp, xvii. 18; Plut. Mor. p. 222 C. THEIR RELEASE. 95 Ver. 16. The positive thought of the question is: We shall be able to dö nothing to these men. What follows contains the reason: for that a notable miracle, a definite proof of divine co-operation, has happened through them, is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we are not in a position to deny it. — To the pév corresponds 4/2’, ver. 17; to the yrwordy is opposed the mere dofacrév.' Vy. 17, 18. In order, however, that it be not further brought out among thé people, i.e. spread by communication hither and thither among the people, even beyond Jerusalem. The subject is rö onueiov, not dıdayy ; but the former is conceived of and dreaded as promoting the latter. magis, i.e. here ulterius.* — Observe that the confession of ver. 16, made in the bosom of the council, in confidential deliberation, and without the presence of a third party, is therefore by no means ‘inconceivable’? (in opposition to Zeller). The discussion in the council itself may have been brought about in various ways, if not even by secret friends of Jesus in the Sanhedrim (Neander, Lange). —azeAq arecAno.| emphatically threaten.* — Zadcw] is quite general, to speak ; for it corresponds to the two ideas, oleyysodaı * and diddoxew, ver. 18.—éxi 76 dvdu. rovrwo] so that the name uttered is the basis on which the Aadeiv rests. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 47. They do not now name the name contemptuously, but do so only in stating the decision, ver. 18. — The article before the infinitive brings into stronger Concerning jj in such a case, see Baeumlein, émt mAEIoV, prominence the object.® Partik. p. 296 f. Vv. 19-22. ’Evér. r. Ocoi] coram Deo, God as Judge being conceived as present : ‘‘multa mundus pro justis habet, quae coram Deo non sunt justa,”’ Bengel. We may add, that the maxim here expressed, founded on Matt. xxii. 21, takes for granted two things as certain; on the one hand, that some- thing is really commanded by God ; and, on the other hand, that a demand of the rulers does really cancel the command of God, and is consequently im- moral; in which case the rulers actually and wilfully abandon their status as organs of divine ordination, and even take up a position antagonistic to God. Only on the assumption of this twofold certainty could that principle lead Christianity, without the reproach of revolution, to victory over the world in opposition to the will of the Jewish and heathen rulers.* For analogous ex- pressions from the Greek’? and Latin writers and Rabbins, see Wetstein. The paddov # is : rather (potius, Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God, rather to listen to you.’ The meaning of axovev is similar to reıdapyeiv, ver. 1 Plat. Pol. v. p. 479 D, vi. p. 510 A. 5 Bernhardy, p. 356; Winer, p. 303 (E. T. 2 See xx. 9, xxiv.4; 2 Tim. il. 16, ili. 9; Plat. Phaedr. p. 261 B; Gorg. p. 453 A; and Stallb. an loc. ; Phaed. p. 93 B; Xen. de vect. 4. 3. Comp. em waddov, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 48. * Comp. Luke xxii. 15; Lobeck, Paral. p. 523 ff. ; Winer, p. 434 (E. T. 584). 40On un beyyerdaı, not to become audible, Erasmus correctly remarks : “ Plus est quam ne loquerentur ; q. a. ne hiscerent aut ullam vacem ederent.” Comp. Castalio. See on b0eyyer@at, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 409. 406). ° Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. § 310. Observe withal, that it is not the magisterial command itself and per se that is divine, but the com- mand for its observance is a divine one, which therefore cannot be connected with im- morality without doing away with its very idea as divine. 7 Plat. Apol. p. 29D; Arrian. Zpiet. i. 20. 8 Inconsistently the Vulg. has, at v. 29, magis. See Bacuml. Partık. p. 136. 96 CHAP. IV., 23-28. 29. — yap] Ver. 20 specifies the reason, the motive for the summons: kpivarein ver. 19. For to us it is morally, in the consciousness of the divine will, impossi- ble not to speak,! i.e. (P) we must speak what we saw and heard —namely, the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-witnesses and ear- witnesses. — „ueic] we on our part. — rpooareınoausvoı) after they had still more threatened them, namely, than already in the prohibition of ver. 18, in which, after ver. 17, the threatening was obviously implied.* — undev evpickovtec TO THC K.T.2.] because they found nothing, namely how they were to punish them. The article before whole sentences to which the attention is to be specially directed.* — röc is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be ex- plained gua specie quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did not know how to invent any kind of punishment, which might be ventured upon without stir- ring up the:people. Therefore dia rov Aaov, on account of the people, .e. in consideration of them, is not to be referred, as usually, to ariAvcav avrouc, but to wydév eipickovtec K.T.2. — Erov yap x.r.A.] So much the greater must the miracle of healing have appeared to the unprejudiced people, and so much the more striking and worthy of praise the working of God in it. rAsıövwv tecoapax. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 53.4 Vv. 23, 24. poe rovc idiove] to those belonging to them, i.e. to their fellow- apostles. This explanation (Syr. Beza) is verified partly by ver. 31, where it is said of all, that they proclaimed the doctrine of God ; partly by ver. 32, where the multitude of believers are contrasted with these. Hence neither are we to understand, with Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, the Christian church in general, nor, with Olshausen, the church in the house of the apostles, or an assembly as in xii. 12.° — dvo8vpaddv jpav] Thus all with one accord spoke aloud the following prayer; and not possibly Peter alone. The attempts to explain this away (Kuinoel, comp. Bengel: that the rest accompanied the speaker with a subdued voice; de Wette: that they spoke after him mentally ; Olshausen: either that one prayed in the name of all, or that in these words is presented the collective feeling of all) are at variance with the clear text.° It is therefore to be assumed (comp. also Hildebrand) that in vv. 24-30 there is already a stated prayer (Q) of the apostolic church at Jerusalem, which under the fresh impression of the last. events of the life of Jesus, and under the mighty influence of the Spirit received by them, had shaped and moulded itself naturally and as if invol- untarily, according to the exigency which engrossed their hearts; and which at this time, because its contents presented to the pious feeling of the suppliants a most appropriate application to what had just happened, the assembled apostles joined in with united inspiration, and uttered aloud. With this view the contents of the prayer quite accord, as it expresses the memories of that time (ver. 25 ff.) and the exigencies (vv. 29, 30) of the 1 Winer, p. 464 (E. T. 624). 5 Van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 68. 2 Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 3, ed. Compl. ; Dem. ® This holds also in opposition to Baumgar- 544, 26; Zosim. i. 70. ten’s view, that the whole assembly sang 3 Comp. Kühner, II. p. 138; Mark ix. 23; together the second Psalm, and then Peter Luke i. 62; Acts xxii. 30. made an application of it to the present cir- 4 Plat. Apol. p. 17 D, and Stallb. in loc. ; cum:tances in the words here given. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f. A PRAYER-MEETING. 97 threatened church in general with energetic precision, but yet takes no special notice of what had just happened to Peter and John. — The address continues to the end of ver. 26. Others! supply ei after ci, or before 6... einov (Bengel), but less in keeping with the inspired fervour of the prayer. The designation of God by d£orora and 6 roujoag k.r.}., Serves as a back- ground to the triumphant thought of the necessary unsuccessfulness of hu- man opposition. Comp. Neh. ix. 6; Rev. xiv. 7, al. Vv. 25, 26. Ps. ii. 1, 2, exactly according to the LXX. The Psalm it- self, according to its historical meaning, treats of the king, most probably of Solomon, mounting the throne ; but this theocratic king is a type of the ideal of the Israelitish kingdom, 7.e. of the Messiah, present to the prophetic eye. The Psalm is not by David (see Ewald and Hupfeld) ; but those who are praying follow the general assumption that the Psalms, of which no other is mentioned as author, proceed from him. —- From the standpoint of the antitypical fulfilment in Christ they understoood (see ver. 27) the words of the Psalm thus : Wherefore raged, against Jesus, Gentiles, the Romans, and tribes, of Israel, imagined a vain thing, in which they could not succeed, namely, the destruction of Jesus? There arose, against Him, the kings of the earth, and the rulers, the former represented by Herod, and the latter by Pilate, assembled themselves, namely with the é3vecw and Aaoic (see ver. 27), against Jehovah, who had sent Jesus, and against His anointed. — gpvacow| primarily, to snort ; then, generally, ferocio ; used in ancient Greek only in the middle.? Vv. 27, 28. For in truth there assembled, etc. This yap confirms the con- tents of the divine utterance quoted from that by which it had been his- torically fulfilled. — &r' aAndeiac] according to truth? really. — éxi rov dywv maida cov Ino bv éxpic.] against Thy holy servant, ete. Explanation of the above kara tov Xpiorov aitov. The (ideal) anointing of Jesus, i.e. His conse- cration on the part of God to be the Messianic king, took place, according to Luke, at His baptism,* by means of the Spirit, which came upon Him while the voice of God declared Him the Messiah. The consecration of Christ is otherwise conceived of in John (öv 6 raryp jyiace ; see on John x. 36). —‘Hpédyc] Luke xxiii. 11. —oiv &dveor x Aaoic “Iop.] with Gentiles and Israel’s peoples. The plural Aaoic does not stand for the singular, but is put on account of ver. 25, and is to be referred either, with Calvin and others, to the different nationalities (comp. ii. 5) from which the Jews—in great measure from foreign countries—were assembled at the Passover against Jesus; or, with Grotius and others, to the twelve tribes, which latter opinion is to be preferred, in accordance with such passages as Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 5, xlviii. 4. The priesthood not spe- cially named is included in the Aaoic ’Iop. — rougoa] contains the design of the cvrfySyoav. This design of their coming together was “to kill Jesus ;”’ but the matter is viewed according to the decree of God overruling it: ‘to do what God has predetermined.’? — 4 xeip cov) symbolizes in the lofty strain 1 Vulgate, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, de Wette, 3 Bernhardy, p. 248. Comp. x. 34; Luke iv. and many. 25: Dem. 538; Polyb. i. 84. 6. 2 See Wesseling, ad Diod. iv. 74. 4 Acts x. 38; Luke iii. 21, 22. 98 CHAP. IV., 29-35. of the discourse the disposing power of God.‘ A zeugma is contained in xpodpice, inasmuch as the notion of the verb does not stand in logical re- lation to the literal meaning of 7 xeip cov—with which some such word as rponroiuace Would have been in accord—but only to the attribute of God thereby symbolized. — The death of the Lord was not the accidental work of hostile caprice, but the necessary result of the divine predetermination, to which divine dei, the personally free action of man had to serve as an in- strument.? Ov« abroi ioyvoav, GAG od Ei 6 TO Mav EriTpépag Kai eig Tépac ayayor, 6 evumxavoc Kai coddc’ ovvjAdov wiv yap Exeivor OG EX po . . ., Emoiovv JE a OD &ßobAov, Oecumenius. Beza aptly says: roujoa refers not to the consilia et voluntates Herodis, ete., but to the eventus consiliorum.* Vv. 29, 30. Kai raviv] and now, as concerns the present state of things. In the N. T. only in the Book of Acts ;* often in classical authors, — &gıde® éme tT. area. avr. : direct thine attention to their threatenings, that they pass not into reality. On égopav in the sense of governing care, see Schaef. App. ad Dem. V. p. 31. Comp. Isa. xxxvii. 17. avrov, according to the original meaning of the prayer (see on ver. 24), refers to the "Hpodyc . . . "IopanA. named in ver. 27, from whom the followers of Jesus, after His ascension, feared continued persecution. But the apostles then praying, when they uttered the prayer in reference to what had just occurred, gave to it in their conception of it a reference to the threatenings uttered against Peter and John in the Sanhedrim. — roic dotActe cov] i.e. us apostles. They are the servants of God, who exccute His will in the publication of the gospel. But the waic Ocod kar’ &£oyyv is Christ. Comp. on ili. 13.°— uera mappno. mac.| with all possible freedom.” —év To tHv yeipa cov Exreiv. K.T.A.] L.e. whilst Thou (for the confirmation of their free-spoken preaching ; comp. xiv. 3; Mark xvi. 20) causest Thy power to be active for (cic, of the aim) healing, and that signs and wonders be done through the name (through its utterance), ete. —kai o. k. T. yiveoSa:] is infinitive of the aim, and so parallel to eic iacıy, attaching the general to the particular ; not, however, dependent on eic, but standing by itself. To supply év ro again after kai (Beza, Bengel) would unnecessarily disturb the simple concatenation of the discourse, and therefore also the clause is not to be connected with döc. Ver. 31. "Eoateidy 6 téx0c¢] This is not to be conceived of as an accidental earthquake, but as an extraordinary shaking of the place directly effected by God, a onueiov’—analogous to what happened at Pentecost—of the filling with the rveoua, which immediately ensued. This filling once more with the Spirit (comp. ver. 8) was the actual granting of the prayer dd¢ . . . Aöyov cov, ver. 29; for the immediate consequence was : éAdAovv T. Ady. T. Ocov uerä mappnoiac, namely in Jerusalem, before the Jews, so that the threatenings 1 Comp. ver. 30, vii. 50, xiii. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6; 6 For examples of öos in prayers, see Elsner, Herod. viii. 140.2; Herm. ad Viger. p. 732. p. 381 ; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 427. 2 Comp. ii. 23, iii. 18; Luke xxii. 22, xxiv. 26. 7 See Theile, ad Jac. p.7 ; and on Phil. i. 20, 3 Comp. Flacius, Clav. I. p. 818. 8 Viewed by Zeller, no doubt, as an inven- 4 Verse 38, xvii. 30, xx. 32, xxvii. 22. tion of pious legend, although nothing similar 5 Ts to be so written with Tisch. and Lachm., occurs in the gospel history, to afford a con- comp. on Phil. ii. 23. necting link for such a legend. STATE OF THE CHURCH, 99 against Peter and John (vv. 19, 21) thus came to nothing. Luke, how- ever, has not meant nor designated the free-spoken preaching as a glossola- lia (van Hengel).' Ver. 32. Connection: Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occur- rence for the apostles (ver. 31); but (dé) as regards the whole body of those that had become believers, etc. (ver. 32). As, namely, after the former great increase of the church (ii. 41), a characteristic description of the Christian church-life is given (ii. 44 ff.); so here also, after a new great increase (ver. 4), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the Sanhedrim (vv. 5-31) had taken place, there is added a similar description, which of itself points back to the earlier one (in opposition to Schleiermacher), and in- dicates the pleasing state of things as unchanged in the church now so much enlarged. — roi dé mAnVouc] of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers. These are designated as mictebcavrec, having become believers, in reference to ver. 4; but in such a way that it is not merely those roAdoi, ver. 4, that are meant, but they and at the same time all others, who had till now become believers. This is required by rd mA7Voc, which denotes the Christian people generally, as contrasted with the apostles. Comp. vi. 2. The believers? heart and soul were one,—au expression betokening the complete harmony of the inner life as well in the thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is the heart,? as in the activity of the affections and impulses, in which they were oiuwuyor, and icdyuyor.® —xai ovdé eic] and not even a single one among so many. Comp. on John i, 3. — airs] belongs to izapy.*— As to the com- munity of goods, see on ii. 44 (R). Ver. 33. And with this unity of love in the bosom of the church, how effective was the testimony of the apostles, and the divine grace, which was imparted to all the members of the church ! — rie avaor. r. kup. ’Inoov]. This was continually the foundation of the whole apostolic preaching ; comp. . oni. 22. They bore their witness to the resurrection of Christ, as a thing to which they were in duty bound. Hence the compound verb amedidovv.* Observe, moreover, that here, where from ver. 32 onwards the internal con- dition of the chuveh is described, the apostolic preaching within the church is denoted. — The yaprc ueyaAn is usually understood (according to ii. 47) of the favour of the people. Incorrectly, as obdé yap évdens «.r.A., ver. 34, would contain no logical assignation of a reason for this. It is the divine grace, which showed itself in them in a remarkable degree (1 Cor, xv. 10). So, correctly, Beza, Wetstein, de Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett. — jv Erl mavt. adr.| upon them all: of the direction in which the presence of grace was active. Comp. Luke ii. 40. Vv. 34, 35. Tap] adduces a special ground of knowledge, something from 1 As extra Biblical analogies to the extra- ordinary eoaA. 6 romos, comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 90 ff.; Ovid. Met. xv. 672. Other examples may be found in Donghtaeus, Anal. II. p. 71, and from the Rabbins in Schoettgen, p. 421. 2 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 250. 3 Phil. ii. 2, 20. Comp. 1 Chron. xii. 38 ; Phil. i. 27. See examples in Elsner, p. 317; Kypke, Il. p. 31. 4 Comp. Luke viii. 3; Tob. iv. 8; Plat. Alc. I. p. 104 A. 5 Which (see Wyttenbach, Bibl. crit. IIT. 2, 56 ff.) kadamep Eyxeıpıo@evras aurovs TL Setxvuce Kai ws mepı obAnuaros Adyeı auto, Oecumenius, Comp. 4 Macc. vi. 32; Dem, 234. 5. 100 CHAP. IV. which the xäpıs ueydAn was apparent. For there was found no one needy among them, because, namely, all possessors, etc. — rwAodvres K.r.A.] The pres- ent participle is put, because the entire description represents the process as continuing: being wont to sell, they brought the amount of the price of what was sold, etc. Hence also rımpaorou. is not incorrectly (de Wette) put in- stead of the aorist participle.‘ The aorist participle is in its place at ver. 37. — napa rods mddaS]. The apostles are, as teachers, represented sitting (comp. Luke ii. 46) ; the money is brought and respectfully’ placed at their feet as they sit.? — kadörı dv «.r.?.] See on ii. 45. Vv. 36, 37. Aé] autem, introduces, in contradistinction to what has been summarily stated in vv. 34, 35, the concrete individual case of an honour- ably known man, who acted thus with his landed property. The idea in the dé is: All acted thus, and in keeping with it was the conduct of Joses. — inö (see the critical remarks) |: as at ii, 22. — vids tapakdjo.] 8131 13, son of prophetic address, i.e. an inspired instigator, exhorter. Barnabas was a prophet (Acts xiii. 1), and it is probable that (at a later period) he received this surname on the occasion of some specially energetic and awakening address which he delivered ; hence Luke did not interpret the name gen- erally by vids zpognteias, but, because the zpodyreia had been displayed pre- cisely in the characteristic form of tapdxAyjovs (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 3), by vids rapaka, At Acts xi. 23 also, mapd«Anovs appears as a characteristic of Barnabas. We may add, that the more precise description of him in this passage points forward to his labours afterwards to be related. — Aevirns] Jer. xxxii. 7 proves that Levites might possess lands in Palestine.* Hence the field is not to be considered as beyond the bounds of the land (Bengel). — drdpy. ait. dypod] Genitive absolute. — 76 xpjna] in the singular: the sum of money, the money proceeds, the amount received.® NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (n) Sadducees. V.1. It is worthy of note that in the Gospels the Pharisees are the great oppo- nents of Christ, while in the Acts the Sadducees are most violently hostile to the apostles. - This may be explained by the facts, that Christ specially endangered the influence of the Pharisees by unmasking their formality and hypocrisy ; and that the apostles, in preaching so strenuously the resurrec- tion of Jesus, successfully assailed the leading tenet of the Sadducees. The sect of the Sadducees was not numerous, but it exerted much influence. Jo- sephus says: “Their opinions were received by few, yet by those of the greatest dignity.’ They rejected all tradition—the doctrine of a resurrection 1 See, on the contrary, Kühner, II. § 675. 5. 2 Comp. Chrysostom : moAAy 7 Tıun. 3 The delivery of the funds to the apostles is not yet mentioned in ii. 45, and appears only to have become necessary when the in- erease of the church had taken place, With the alleged right of the clergy personally to administer the funds of the church, which Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this passage has nothing to do. 4 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 406 5 Herod. iii. 38; Poll. 9. 87; Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. v. p. 436. NOTES. 101 and a future state—the reality of direct divine influence, and strongly insisted on the perfect freedom of the human will. Their name is probably derived from a certain Zadok, pupil of a distinguished rabbi, whose followers held that ‘‘there was nothing for them in the world to come.” (0) Annas the high priest. V. 6. Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, at this time held the office of high priest, a fact which doubtless was known to Luke; but as Annas had been high priest, and even now wielded very great influence, the title is given to him. In the Gospel by Luke he is named along with Caiaphas, and that first in order, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests’’ (Luke iii. 1). On this passage Meyer writes: “But Annas retained withal very weighty influence, so that not only did he, as did every one who had been deylepev’s, continue to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the func- lions of high priest. Annas, whose son-in-law, and five sons besides, filled the office, was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm.” It is also probable that Annas was president of the Sanhedrim, an office of equal importance with that of high priest, who was usually made president. Caiaphas was made high priest by Valerius Gratus, a.p. 24, and held office for twelve years. He was entirely under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law. (P) For we cannot but speak. V. 20. Peter and John were dauntless in their determination to obey God, even though interdicted by the highest earthly authority, secular or sacred. Their conduct was manly, heroic, Christlike. Socrates is reported to have said, on being condemned for teaching the people their duties to God: “OÖ ye Athe- nians, I will obey God rather than you ; and if you would dismiss me and spare my life on condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens, I would rather die a thousand times than accept the proposal.’ A similar instance of heroic fidelity to God’s law is recorded in 2 Mace. vii. :—A young man, scourged and threatened with death by Antiochus unless he deliberately violated the law of God, said : “I will not obey the king’s commandment ; but I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses.” (Q) A stated prayer. V. 24. Some suppose that this was a liturgical form already introduced into the infant church, and used on this occasion as peculiarly appropriate. With this supposition Meyer agrees. But the prayer seems to have been the natural and sudden outburst of devotion and desire. Nor does the language used imply that all necessarily spoke aloud. It might be a concert of hearts rather than of voices, though all, as was customary, may have assented vocally at the close. Nor have we any intimation elsewhere of any forms of prayer, or of liturgical service at so early a period in the Christian Church. No evi- dence is found in the record that even the Lord’s Prayer was publicly used in the assemblies of Christians. 102 CHAP. IV. (R) All things common. V. 32. See also notes on ii. 44.—‘‘' Common in the use of their property, not nec- essarily in the possession of it.” (Hackett.) “It would appear that by the community of goods is meant, not that the disciples lived in common, and that all property ceased among them, but that a common fund was instituted. The disciples were actuated by the spirit of love toward each other, which impelled them to regard the necessities of their brethren as their own. Not only did they give largely of their wealth, but many placed the whole of it at the disposal of the apostles.” ‘‘In the first glow of Christian life the disciples put into actual practice the precept of our Lord” (Luke xii. 33). (Gloag.) The community of goods was voluntary, local, and temporary, not obligatory then or now. We have here aspecimen of Christian Socialism. The narrative gives us such a view of it as throws the secular thing called by that name into contempt, and reveals the lamentable imperfection connected even with the highest form of spiritual fellowship now existing on this earth. From it we learn that the so- cialism which these first Christians enjoyed was attractive, religious, and amal- gamating. They recognized the authority, the creatorship, the revelation, and the predestination of God ; and in their prayers they invoked his protection, interposition, and aid. Their union was most hearty and practical ; it con- sisted with a diversity of position and service. It was under the spiritual and economical supervision of the apostles, and it was produced by the favor of God, for ‘ great grace was upon them all.” In what a sublime contrast does such a state of things stand to all the socialistic schemes of the world. Read the one hundred and thirty-third psalm. (Condensed from Thomas.) ‘““ The ideal perfection of man’s condition is just that, in which neither poor nor rich are to be found, but every individual has his wants supplied. Intima- tions that such a condition must one day be realized, are to be found, not only in the reckless cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most exalted of our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this idea ; the Essenes and other small bodies attempted to realize it. But the outward realization of it requires certain internal conditions ; and just because these conditions were wanting, the attempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, how- ever, were secured by the Redeemer, who poured pure brotherly love into the hearts of believers ; but as the Church herself still appears in this world ex- ternally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be outwardly prac- tised.’’? (Olshausen.) CHAPTER V. Ver. 2. After ywvaıkös, Elz. Scholz have auroö, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have rightly deleted, as it is wanting in A B D* N, min., and has evidently slipped in from ver. 1.— Ver. 5. After üxovovras, Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted the usual reading rai7ra; it is wanting in A BD N* min. Or. Lucif. and several vss., and is an addition from ver. 11. — Ver. 9. eire] is very suspi- cious, as it is wanting in B D N, min. Vulg.; in other witnesses it varies in position, and Or. has ¢yciv. Deleted by Lachm. Born. and Tisch. — Ver. 10. napa T. x.] Lachm. and Tisch. read xpos r. x. according to A B D NS, Or. ; other witnesses have éxi +r. z.; others, i767. x.; others, &vorıov. Born. also has mpos tT. =. But as Luke elsewhere writes apa 7. x. (Luke viii. 41, xvii. 16), and not mpös r. m. (Mark v. 22, vii. 25; Rev. i. 17), the Recepta is to be retained, — Ver. 15. mapa ras 7A,.] Lachm. reads ka? eis tas mA, after A B D** N, min. D* has only xar& x}. ; and how easily might this become, by an error of a transcriber, «al tas A., which was completed partly by the original «ata and partly by cis! Another correction was «ai &v rais miarelaıs (E). No version has xai. Accordingly the simple xara Aar., following D*, is to be preferred. — Instead of xAcvév, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly «Awopiov (so A BD 8); kAwvdv was inserted as the wonted form. — Ver. 16. «is 'Iepovo.] eis is wanting in AB 8, 103, and some vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of eis has predominant attestation ; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side of trav répié TéAewv the locally defining addition 'Ispovoaiyu, which became the occasion of omitting the eis ‘Iepovc. that follows. — Ver. 18. 7. yep. aizav] aitév is wanting in ABD SS, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lu- eif., and omitted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But see iv. 3.— Ver. 23. éorwras] Elz. has fw &or. But é&w has decisive evidence against it, and is a more precisely defining addition occasioned by the following écw. — mp6] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read &ri. according to ABD NS, 109; zpo is an interpretation. — Ver. 24. 6 re iepeds nal db orpat. riepoü. x. of dpytep.] AB DS, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely 6 re orpar.r. iepov x. of apytep. So Lachm. Rinck, and Born. But /epevs being not understood, and being regarded as unnecessary seeing that ol apyıep. followed, might very easily be omitted ; whereas there is no reason for its having be&n inserted. For the genuineness of jepevs also the several other variations testify, which are to be considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word, namely, of iepeis x. ö,orp. T. lep. kK, ol Gpx. and 6 re apyvepeds K. Öorp. r. iep. K. ol apy. — Ver. 25. After airois Elz, has Aéywv, against decisive evidence. An addition, in accordance with ver. 22 f. — Ver. 26. iva un] Lachm. Born. have py, according ttBDEN, min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary on account of é403. Comp. Gal. iv. 11.— Ver. 28. od is wanting in AB N“, 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 Ernpörnoev. — Ver. 32. After touev, Elz. Scholz. Tisch. have avroö, which « 104 CHAPS) V.,) 1-10 A D* &, min., and several vss. omit. Itis to be defended. As papropes is still defined by another genitive, airod became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate, and was omitted. B has kai jueis Ev ait uaprupes (without Zouev), ete. But in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the Zouev, the half of which was easily omitted after jueis ; and thereupon airud was transformed into ait@. The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm. : kat nuels Ev aiT@ pdprupés kouev x.7.A.— Ver. 33. éBovAevorto] Lachm. reads EBovAovro, according to ABE, min. An interpretation, or a mechanical interchange, frequent also in Mss. of the classics ; see Born. ad xv. 37. — Ver. 34. Bpayd rı] ti, according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. — arooröAovs] AB 8, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have avßporovs. So Lachm. Tisch. ; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke, and therefore the designation of the apostles by «vdp@rovs appeared to the scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in vv. 35, 38.— Ver. 36. zpooexAiby] Elz. Griesb. Scholz. read Tp00ex0AA79n, in opposition to AB C** S, min., which have mpocexAiéy ; and in opposition to C* D* K H, min. Cyr., which have mpuoexayon (so Born.). Other witnesses have xpoceré6y, also mpocerAnpußn. Differing interpretations of the rpooe«Aidn, which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have adopted. —- Ver. 37. ixavév] to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., as it is wanting in A* B N, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before Aaöv, and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with roAvv (so Born.). — Ver. 38. In- stead of édcare, Lachm. has üdere, following ABC 8. A gloss. — Ver. 39. dvvaode] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have dvvnjoeoße, according to B C D E &, min., and some yss. and Fathers. Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression, men altered it to agree with the foregoing future. — Instead of airovs, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have, Elz. and Scholz read airé, against decisive testi- mony. An alteration to suit 76 épycv.— Ver. 41. After övöuaros Elz. has aizov, which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of completeness. Other interpolations are : ’Ijc0v,—rod Xpiotot,—'Ijo0d Xpicrod, —Tov Kvplov,—Tov Veod, Vv. 1-10. Ananias* and Sapphira, however, acted quite otherwise. They attempted in deceitful hypocrisy to abuse the community of goods, which, nevertheless, was simply permissive (ver. 4). For by the sale of the piece of land and the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the whole sum to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock; but they aimed only at securing for themselves the semblance of holy loving zeal by a portion of the price, and had selfishly embezzled the remainder for themselves. They wished to serve tıo masters, but to appear to serve only one. With justice, Augustine designates the act as saerilegium (‘‘ quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellerit ”') and fraus. — The sudden death of both is to be regarded as a result directly effected through the will of the apostle, by means of the miraculous power imparted to him, and not as a natural stroke of paralysis, independent of ITMVIIN, God pities ; Jer. xxviii. 1; Dan. i. the Aramaic NY’DW, formosa. Derived from 6: LXX. Tob. v. 12. Itmay,however, be the the Greek cdmecpos, sapphire, it would have Tebrew name m2ly (Neh. iii. 23, LXX.), 2.e. probably been Sarpeıpivn. God covers.—The name Zardeipn is apparently SIN OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. 105 Peter, though taking place by divine arrangement (so Ammon, Stolz, Heinrichs, and others). For, apart from the supposition, in this case necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and wife for such an im- pression of sudden terror, the whole narrative is opposed to it ; especially ver. 9, the words of which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost presumption, if he had not the consciousness that his own will was here active. If we should take ver. 9 to be a mere threat, to which Peter found himself induced by an inference from the fate of Ananias, this would be merely an unwarranted alteration of the simple meaning of the words, and would not diminish the presumptuousness of a threat so expressed. Nearly allied to this natural explanation is the view mingling the divine and the natural, and taking half from each, given by Neander, the holy earnestness of the apostolic words worked so powerfully on the terrified conscience ; and by Olshausen, the word of Peter pierced like a sword the alarmed Ananias, and thus his death was the marvel arranged by a higher dispos- ing power. But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the de- sign of the whole representation. According to Baur, nothing remains historical in the whole narrative except that Ananias and his wife had, by their covetousness, made their names so hated, ‘‘that people believed that they could see only a divine judgment in their death, in whatever way it occurred ;”’ all the rest is to be explained from the design of representing the rveöwa äyıov as the divine principle working in the apostles. Comp. Zeller, who, however, despairs of any more exact ascertainment of the state of the case. Baumgarten, as also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main with Neander; whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, al- though recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative is con- cerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of the two swords of the Pope. — The severity of the punishment, with which Porphyry reproached Peter,' is justified by the consideration, that here was presented the first open venture of deliberate wickedness, as audacious as it was hypocritical, against the principle of holiness ruling in the church, and particularly in the apostles; and the dignity of that principle, hitherto unoffended, at once required its full satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the viola- tors, by which ‘‘ awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline,’’* at the same time, the authority of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly guaranteed in its inviolableness (“ ut poena duorum hominum sit doctrina multorum,’’ Jerome). — évoo¢gic.] he put aside for himself, purloined.* — azo - T. TYAS] sc. rı.* Ver. 3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work of the devil, who as the liar from the beginning (John viii. 44), and original enemy of the mvedua üyıov and of the Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart of Ananias (comp. on John xiii. 27; Luke xxii. 3), and filled it with his presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and ability 1 Jerome, pp. 8. p. 395 f. 2 Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 46. 4 See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 36; Buttm. newt. 3 Tit. ii. 10; 2 Macc. iv. 32; Josh. vii. 1; Gr. p. 139 (E. T. 159). Comp. Athen. vi. p. Xen. Cyr. iv. 2.42 ; Pind. Nem. vi. 106 ; Valck. 234 A : vood. Ex ToD xpymatos. 106 CHAP, V., 4-6. (Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9), ought not to have permitted this, but should have allowed his heart to be filled with the Holy Spirit ; hence the question, diati Eminpwoev K.7.A. — petoacbai ce To mveüua 70 dy.] that thou shouldest by lying deceive the Holy Spirit: this is the design of &mAypuoev. The expla- nation is incorrect which understands the infinitive é«a7e«ds, and takes it only of the attempt : unde accidit, ut mveüua dy. decipere tentares (Heinrichs, Kuinoel). The deceiving of the Holy Spirit was, according to the design of Satan, really to take place ; and although it was not in the issue suc- cessful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias. — 70 rveöua ro dyıov] Peter and the other apostles, as overseers of the church, were pre- eminently the bearers and organs of the Holy. Spirit (comp. xiii. 2, 4) ; hence through the deception of the former the latter was deceived. — For examples of yeideodaı, of de facto lying, deception by an act, see Kypke, II. p. 82 f. The word with the accusative of the person’ occurs only here in the N. T., often in the classical writers.” — This instantaneous knowledge of the deceit is an immediate perception, wrought in the apostle by the Spirit dwelling in him. Ver. 4. When it remained, namely, unsold ; (the opposite, mpadev), did it not remain to thee, thy property ? and when sold, was it not in thy power ? — That the community of goods was not a legal compulsion, see on ii. 43. — év 77 07 E£ovola brjpye] sc. 7 rıum, Whick is to be taken out of mpaßev. It was in the disposal of Ananias either to retain the purchase-money entirely to himself, or to give merely a portion of it to the common use ; but not to do the latter, as he did it, under the deceitful semblance as if what he handed over to the apostles was the whole sum. The sin of husband and Wife is cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vil. 2. 4: KAépavres ta idea. — Ti Ore] quid est quod,i.e. cur? Comp. on Mark ii. 17. Wherefore didst thou fix this deed in thy heart ? i.e. wherefore didst thou resolve on this deed (namely, on the instigation of the devil, ver. 3) ? — ob« &yevow drOparots, a2Ad TH Oe@). The state of things in itself relative: not so much . . . but rather, is in the vehemence of the address conceived and set forth absolutely : not to men, but to God. ‘Asa lie against our human personality, thy deed comes not at all into consideration ; but only asa lie against God, the supreme Ruler of the theocracy, whose organs we are.’’* The taking it as non tam, quam® is therefore a weakening of the words, which is unsuited to the fiery and decided spirit of the speaker in that moment of deep excitement. The datives denote the persons, to whom the action refers in hostile contradis- tinction.* Examples of the absolute wevdec8ac with the dative are not found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. Josh. xxiv. 27; 2 Sam. xxii. 45 ; Ps. xviii. 44, Ixxviii. 36. By ro Oe Peter makes the deceiver sensible of his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy. This ro 0:9 is quite 1 Isa. Ivii. 11; Dent. xxxiii. 29 ; Hos. ix. 2. 2 See Blomfild, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 478. ®Comp. xix. 21; the Heb. 29 Oy ow (Dan. i. 8; Mal ii. 2), and the classical ex- pression @éc@ax Ev dpecr, and the like. . * Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 8; Winer, p. 461 f. (E. ™. 621). 5 See also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 781. 6 Bernhardy, p. 99. Valckenaer well remarks : “WevcacOat twa notat mendacio aliquem decipere, weto. rırı mendacio contumeliam alicui facere. THEIR PUNISHMENT. 107% warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (ver. 3, ro xvedua) is a lie against God (7 089), whose Spirit was lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the Spirit and his personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not called God. (s) Vv. 5, 6. ’Egépvge] as in xii. 23 ; elswhere not in the N. T., but in the LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp. xx. 10. azopiyecv occurs in the old Greek from Homer onward. — &m wüvras rods dkovovtas] upon all hearers, namely, of this discussion of Peter with Ananias. For ver. 6 shows that the whole proceeding took place in the assembled church. The sense in which it falls to be taken at ver. 11, in conformity with the context at the close of the narrative, is different. Commonly it is taken here as in ver. 11, in which case we should have to say, with de Wette, that the remark was proleptical. But even as such it appears unsuitable and disturbing. — oi vewrepor] the younger men in the church, who rose up from their seats (avacravres), are by the article denoted as a definite class of persons. But seeing that they, unsummoned, perform the business as one devolving of itself upon them, they must be considered as the regular servants of the church, who, in virtue of the church-organization as hitherto developed, were bound to render the manual services required in the ecclesiastical commonwealth, as indeed such ministering hands must, both of themselves and also after the pattern of the synagogue, have been from the outset necessary.' But Neander, de Wette, Rothe, Lechler, and others? doubt this, and think that the summons of the vedrepor to this business was simply based on the relation of age, by reason of which they were accustomed to serve and were at once ready of their own accord. But precisely in the case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more natural to assume a far more urgent summons to the performance of the immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious necessity of ser- vice, than to think of people, like automata, acting spontaneously. — ovv£oreilav aüröv] means nothing else than contraxerunt eum.” We must conceive the stretched out limbs of him who had fallen down, as drawn together, pressed together by the young men, in order that the dead body might be carried out. The usual view: they prepared him for burial, by washing, swathing, etc., confounds ovoréAAev with mepeoréAAecv,* and, more- over, introduces into the narrative a mode of proceeding improbable in the case of such a death. Others incorrectly render: they covered him (de Dieu, de Wette) ; comp. Cant. : involverunt. For both meanings Eur. Tread. 382 has been appealed to, where, however, od duuapros Ev yepoiv memioıs ov- veoräinsav means: they were not wrapped up, shrouded, by the hands of a wife with garments (in which they wrapped them) in order to be buried. As little is ovveor@aAdaı in Lucian. Imag. 7: to be covered ; but: to be pressed together, in contrast to the following dSinveudoSar, to flutter in the wind. The explanation amoverunt ® is also without precedent of usage. 1See Mosheim, de red. Christ. ante Const. 4Hom. Od. xxiv. 292; Plat. Hipp. maj. p. p. 114. 291 D ; Diod. Sic. xix. 12; Joseph. Antt. xix. 2 See also Walch, Diss. p. 79 f. 4.1; Tob. xii. 14 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 17. 3 Comp. Laud.: collexerunt (sic) ; Castal. : 5 Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and constrinxerunt ; 1 Cor. vii. 29. others. 108 CHAP. W.,. 7-16. Ver. 7. But it came to pass—about an interval of three hours—and his wife came in. The husband had remained away too long for her. A period of three hours might easily elapse with the business of the burial, especially if the place of sepulture was distant from the city (see Lightfoot). After éyévero dE a comma is to be put, and os op. zp. didor. is a statement of time inserted independently of the construction of the sentence.’ The common view : but there was an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, is at variance with the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute éyévero,? As to the «ai after éyévero, see on Luke v. 12. On diuornua used of time, comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1. Ver. 8. ’Azexpifn] comp. on iii. 12. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ respondit mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat instar sermonis. — Tooovrov] Sor so much, points to the money still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with an overlooking of the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel sup- pose that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on which Bornemann insists,* results not as the import of the word, but, as else- where frequently,* from the connection. Vv. 9, 10. Wherefore was it agreed by you (dative with the passive, see on Matt. v. 21) to try the Spirit of the Lord (God, see vv. 4, 5)? i.e. to vent- ure the experiment, whether the rveöüwa dyiov, ruling in us apostles, was infallible.’ The repdfwv challenges by his action the divine experimental proof. — oi des] a trait of vivid delineation ;° the steps of those returning were just heard at the door" outside (ver. 10). — xpos röv dvdpa adrijs] beside her (just buried) husband. Ver. 11. $6305] quite as in ver. 5, fear and dread at this miraculous, destroying punitive power of the apostles. —é9’ bAqv r. ExkA. kal Ext mavras k.t.a.| upon the whole church (in Jerusalem), and (generally) on all (and so also on those who had not yet come over to the church, ver. 18) to whose ears this occurrence came. Vv. 12-16. After this event, which formed an epoch as regards the pres- ervation of the holiness of the youthful church, there is now once more® introduced as a resting-point for reflection, a summary representation of the prosperous development of the church, and that in its external relations. — dé is the simple zeradarırdv, carrying on the representation.—By the hands of the apostles, moreover, occurred signs and wonders among the people in great number. And they were all® with one accord in Solomon’s porch, and there- 1 See on Matt. xv. 32 ; Luke ix. 28 ; Schaefer, ad Dem. V. p. 368. 2 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 235 ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 2. f. 3 Schol. in Luc. p. 168. 4 See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608 B; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 747. 5 Comp. Mal. iii. 15 ; Matt. iv. 7. 6 Comp. Luke i. 79; Rom. iii. 15, x. 15. 7 See on John v. 2; Acts iii. 10. 8 Comp. ii. 43 f., iv. 32 ff. ® All Christians, comp. ii. 1, in contrast to tov de Aoımav. The limitation of aämavres to the apostles (Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others) is by Baur urged in depreciation of the au- thenticity of the narrative. The apostles are assumed by Baur to be presented as a group standing isolated, as superhuman, as it were magical beings, to whom people dare not draw nigh ; from which there would result a con- ception of the apostles the very opposite of that which is found everywhere in the N. T. and in the Book of Acts itself ! Even Zeller has, with reason, declared himself opposed to this interpretation on the part of Baur. MIRACULOUS POWER. 109 fore publiely: of the rest, on the other hand, no one ventured to join himself to them ; but the people magnified them, the high honour in which the people held the Christians, induced men to keep at a respectful distance from them : and the more were believers added to the Lord, great numbers of men and women ; so that they brought out to the streets, etc. The simple course of the description is accordingly : (1) The miracle-working of the apostles con- tinued abundantly, ver. 12: dia... moAla. (2) The whole body of believers was undisturbed in their public meetings, protected by the respect! of the people (a? joav, ver. 12 . . . 6 Aads, ver. 13), and the church increased in yet greater measure ; so that under the impression of that respect and of this ever increasing acceptance which Christianity gained, people brought out to the streets, etc., vv. 14, 15. Ziegler,? entirely mistaking the unartificial progress of the narrative, considered kai joav . . . yvvarkav as a later insertion ; and in this Eichhorn, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel agree with bim ; while Laurent? recognises the genuineness of the words, but looks on them as a marginal remark of Luke. Beck* declared even ver. 15 also as spurious. It is unnecessary even to make a parenthesis of ver. 14 (with Lachmann), as Gore in ver. 14 is not necessarily confined in its correct logical reference to ad’ éuey. air. 6 Aaös alone, but ‘may quite as fitly refer to vv. 13 and 14 together.’ —tav 02 Aoırav] are the same who are designated in the contrast immediately following as 6 Aaos, and therefore those who had not yet gone over to them, the non-Christian popu- lation. It is strangely perverse to understand by it the newly converted (Heinrichs), or the more notable and wealthy Christians like Ananias (Beza, Morus, Rosenmiiller). By the röv Aoctév, as it forms the contrast to the dravres, Christians cannot at all be meant, not even as included (Kuinoel, Baur). — xoAAdo%ai avrois] to join themselves to them, i.e. to intrude into their society, which would have destroyed their harmonious intercourse.’ This avrois and avrovs in ver. 13 must refer to the üravrss, and so to the Chris- tians in general, but not to the apostles alone, as regards which Luke is assumed by de Wette to have become ‘a little confused.’? — ~a/Aov dé] in the sense of all the more, etc.” The bearing of the people, ver. 13, promoted this increase. —7@ kvpio] would admit grammatically of being construed with morevovres (xvi. 34) ; but xi. 24 points decisively to its being connected with pooeridevro. They were added to the Lord, namely, as now con- nected with Him, belonging to Christ. — 77707] “ pluralis grandis: jam non initur numerus uti iv. 4,’’ Bengel.*— «ard mAareias (see the critical remarks)] emphatically placed first: so that they (the people) through streets, along the streets, brought out their sick from the houses, etc. 1“Est enim in sancta disciplina et in 4 Obss. exeq. crit. V.p. 17. sincero pietatis cultu arcana quaedam 5 Compare Winer, p. 525 (E. T. 706). oceuvorns, quae malos etiam invitos con- 6 Comp. ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 834; Luke xv. 15. stringat,’ Calvin. It would have been more 7 See Nägelsbach on the Ziiad, p. 227, ed. 3. accurate to say : ‘‘quae profanum vulgus et 8 Comp. on the comparatively rare plural malos etiam,’ etc. rAn@n not again occurring in the N. T., Bremi. 2 In Gabler’s Journ. f. theol. Lit. I. p. 155. ad Aeschin. adv. Clesiph. p. 361. 3 Neulest. Stud. p. 138 f. 110 CHAP. V., 17-20. — im wi. x. kpaßßar.] denotes generally: small beds? and couches. The distinction made by Bengel and Kuinoel with the reading «Awov, that the former denotes soft and costly, and the latter poor and humble, beds, is quite arbitrary. — épyou, ITlerpov] genitive absolute, and then 7 ond: the shadow cast by him. — «dv] at least? is to be explained as an ab- breviated expression: in order that, should Peter come, he might touch any one, if even merely his shadow (T) overshadowed him.* That cures actually took place by the shadow of the apostle, Luke does not state; but only the opinion of the people, that the overshadowing would cure their sick. It may be inferred, however, from ver. 6 that Luke would have it regarded as a matter of course that the sick were not brought out in vain, but were cured by the miraculous power of the apostle. As the latter was analogous to the miraculous power of Jesus, it is certainly conceivable that Peter also cured without the medium of corporeal contact ; but if this result was in individual instances ascribed to his shadow, and if men expected from the shadow of the apostle what his personal miraculous endowment supplied, he was not to be blamed for this superstition. Zeller certainly cannot admit as valid the analogy of the miraculous power of Jesus, as he does not himself recognise the historical character of the corresponding evangel- ical narrative. He relegates the account to the domain of legend, in which it was conceived that the miraculous power had been, independently of the consciousness and will of Peter, conveyed by his shadow like an electric fluid. An absurdity, which in fact only the presupposition of a mere legend enables us to conceive as possible. — 76 A760] the multitude (vulgus) of the neighbouring towns. — oirıves] as well those labouring under natural disease as those demoniacally afflicted ; comp. Luke iv. 40 f.—Then follows ver. 17, the contrast of the persecution, which, however, was victoriously overcome. ; Vv. 17, 18. ’Avaoras] The high priest stood up ; he raised himself : a graphie trait serving to illustrate his present interference.* ‘‘ Non sibi quiescendum ratus est,’? Bengel. The dpyepevs is, according to iv. 6, Annas, not Caia- phas, although the latter was so really. — kai müvres of odv aüro, 7 odca aipeoıs rov Saddovx.] and all his associates,° which were the sect of the Sadducees. This sect had allied itself with Annas, because the preaching of Christ as the Risen One was a grievous offence to them. Seeiv. 1,2. The participle # obca (not oi övres is put) adjusts itself to the substantive belonging to the predicate, as is often the case in the classical writers.° Luke does not affirm that the high priest himself was a Sadducee, as Olshausen, Ewald, and others assert. This remark also applies in opposition to Zeller, who adduces it as an objection to the historical character of the narrator, that Luke makes Annas a Sadducee. In the Gospels also there is no trace of the Sadducaeism of Annas. According to Josephus,’ he had a son who be- 1 kAwvapiov, see the critical remarks, and 4 Comp. vi. 9, xxiii. 9; Luke xv. 18, al. comp. Epict. iii. 5. 13. 5 His whole adherents, ver. 21; Xen. Anad. 2 kaı €av, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 838. 2 I ae. [333 E, 392 D. 3 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 120, 6 See Kühner, § 429; Stallb. ad Liat. Rep. and see on 2Cor. x1, 16. TAT ZEIT ARREST AND DELIVERANCE. nak longed to that sect. — év rnpnoeı Snuoc.] rnpno. as in iv. 8. The public prison is called in Thue. v. 18. 6 also merely rö dnudovov ; and in Xen. List. vii. 36. oixia Ömuöora. Vv. 19, 20. The historical state of the case as to the miraculous mode of this liberation,—the process of which, perhaps, remained mysterious to the apostles themselves,—cannot be ascertained. Luke narrates the fact in a legendary’ interpretation of the mystery ;? but every attempt to refer the miraculous circumstances to a merely natural process (a stroke of lightning, or an earthquake, or, as Thiess, Eck, Eichhorn, Eckermann, and Heinrichs suggest, that a friend, perhaps the jailer himself, or a zealous Christian, may have opened the prison) utterly offends against the design and the nature of the text. It remains matter for surprise, that in the proceedings afterwards (ver. 27 ff.) nothing is brought forward as to this liberation and its circumstances. This shows the incompleteness of the narrative, but not the unhistorical character of the fact itself (Baur, Zeller), which, if it were an intentional invention, would certainly also have been referred to in the trial. Nor is the apparent uselessness of the deliverance, for the apostles are again arrested, evidence against its reality, as it had a sufficient ethical purpose in the very fact of its confirming and increasing the courage in faith of the apostles themselves. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Christ, by His angel, had wished to demonstrate to the Sanhedrim their weakness (Baumgarten), would only have sufficient foundation, provided the sequel of the narrative purported that the judges had really recognised the inter- position of heavenly power in the mode of the deliverance. Lange? refers the phenomenon to a visionary condition: the apostles were liberated ‘‘in the condition of genius-life, of second consciousness.’’ This is extravagant fancy introducing its own ideas, — üyye?os] not the angel, but an angel.‘ — Sud rjS vurrös] per noctem, i.e. during the night; so that the opening, the bringing out of the prisoners, and the address of the angel, occurred during the course of the night, and toward morning-dawn the apostles repaired to the temple.° The expression is thus more significant than dia ryv vorra® would be, and stands in relation with i76 rov öp9pov, ver. 21. Hence there is no deviation from Greek usage.’ — ££ayay.] But on the next day the doors were again found closed (ver. 23), according to which even the keepers had not become aware of the occurrence. — Ver. 20. oradevres] take your stand and speak ; in which is implied a summons to boldness. Comp. ii. 14. — ra biuara TIS [ws raürns] the words of thislife. What life it was, was self-evi- dent to the apostles, namely, the life, which was the aim of all their effort and working. Hence: the words, which lead to the eternal Messianic life, bring about its attainment. Comp. John vi. 68. See on tavrys, Winer, p., 223 (E. T. 297 f.) We are not to think here of a hypallage, according to which ravrns refers in sense to 7. Ayjuara.® 1 Ewald also di-covers here a legendary form 5 Comp. xvi. 9, and see on Gal. ii. 1. (perhaps a duplication of the history in ch. 6 Nägelsbach on the J/iad, p. 222, ed. 3. 2 Cop. Neander, p. 726. [xii.). 7 Winer, Fritzsche. 3 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 68. 8 Bengel, Kuinoel and many others. Comp. 4 Winer, p. 118 (E. T. 155). xiii. 26 ; Rom. vii. 24. 112 CHAP. V., 21-80. Vv. 21-23. ‘Yrs rov 6p8por] about the dawn of day.* The akovoavrss is simply a continuation of the narrative: after they heard that, ete., as in ii. 87, xi. 18, and frequently. — rapayevöusvos] namely, into the chamber where the Sanhedrim sat, as is evident from what follows. They resorted thither, unacquainted with the liberation of the apostles which had occurred in the past night, and caused the Sanhedrim and the whole eldership to be con- voked,in order to try the prisoners. — nal mdcav tiv yepovoiav| The importance which they assigned to the matter (comp. on iv. 6) induced them to sum- mon not only those elders of the people who were likewise members of the Sanhedrim, but the whole body of elders generally, the whole council of representatives of the people. The well-known term yepovoia is fittingly ? transferred from the college of the Greek gerontes* to that of the Jewish presbyters. Heinrichs * considers do. 7. yepovo as equivalent to 76 cuvédpiov, to which it is added as honorificentissima compellatio. Warranted by usage ;° but after the quite definite and well-known 76 ovvédprov, the addition would have no force.—Ver. 23 contains quite the artless expression of the official report. Vv. 24, 25. "O re lepeds] the (above designated) priest, points to the one expressly named in ver. 21 as 6 dpycepeds. The word in itself has not the signification high priest ; but the context ® gives to the general expression this special reference. — 6 otparyyos r. tepov] see on iv. 1. He also, as the executive functionary of sacred justice, was summoned to the Sanhedrim. —o! Apxıepeis] are the titular high priests ; partly those who at an earlier date had really held the office, and partly the presidents of the twenty-four classes of priests. Comp. on Matt. ii. 4.—The order in which Luke names the persons is quite natural. For first and chiefly the directing éepevs, the head of the whole assembly, must feel himself concerned in the unex- pected news; and then, even more than the apxıepeis, the orparnyös, because he, without doubt, had himself carried into effect the arrest mentioned at ver. 18, and held the supervision of the prison. — dınmöpovv . . . roöro] they were full of perplexity (see on Luke xxiv. 4) concerning them (the apostles), as to what this might come te—what they had to think as the possible termina- tion of the occurrence just reported to them. Comp. on ii, 12, also x. 17. — éoradres k.T.A.] Comp. vv. 20, 21. Vv. 26-28. O8 pera Bias] without application of violence. Comp. xxiv. 7 and the passages from Polybius in Raphel. More frequent in classical writers is ia, é« Bias, mpds Biav. —iva pu) Audaoh.] contains the design of doßoövro yap t. Aaiv. They feared the people, in order not to be stoned. How easily might the enthusiasm of the multitude for the apostles have resulted in a tumultuous stoning of the orparnyös and his attendants (s77pér.), if, by 1 On öpdpos, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 275 f. ; and vro, used of nearness in time, see Bern- hardy, p. 267. Often soin Thue. ; see Krüger oni. 100.38. Comp 3Macec.v.2; Tob. vii. 11. 2 Although nowhere else in the N. T.; hence here, perhaps, to be derived from the source used by Luke. 3 Dem 489. 19: Polyb xxxvili. 5.1; Herm. Staatsalterth. § 24. 186. 4 Following Vitringa, Archisynag. p. 356. 51 Mace. xii. 6; 2 Macc. i. 10, iv. 44; Judith iv. 8, xi. 14, xv.8; Loesner, p. 178. 6 So also in 1 Macc. xv. 1; Bar. 1. 7; Heb. y. 6; and see Krebs, p. 118. TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. 15 any compulsory measures, such as putting them in chains, there had been fearless disregard of the popular feeling! It is erroneous that after verbs of fearing, merely the simple 7, wjxos «.r.A., should stand, and that there- fore iva un) 7.9. is to be attached to jyayev . . . Bias, and EHoß. «. r. A. to be taken parenthetically.! Even among classical writers those verbs are found connected with örws “7.2 Assuming the spuriousness of od, ver. 28 (see the critical remarks), the question proper is only to be found in «ai Sovrccbe «.r.A., for which the preceding (mapayyekia . . . didayis tuo) paves the way. — rapayy. rapnyy.] see iv. 17, 18.— ml r. övöu, 7.] as in iv. 17. — Bovdeobe] your efforts go to this ; ‘““ verbum invidiosum,’’ Bengel. — &rayayeiv «.7.4.] to bring about upon us, i.e. to cause that the shed blood of this man be avenged on us (by an insurrection of the people). ‘ Pro confesso sumit Christum jure occisum fuisse,’’ Calvin.” On the (contemptuous) rov7~.. . rovrov Bengel rightly remurks : “ fugit appellare Jesum ; Petrus appellat et celebrat, vv. 30, 31.’’—Observe how the high priest prudently leaves out of account the mode of their escape. Disobedience towards the sacred tribunal was the ful- crum. Ver. 29. Kal of amöoroAoı] and, ‚generally, the apostles. For Peter spoke in the name of all; hence also the singular arorpıd.* — reidapxeiv #.r.A.] “Ubi enim jussa Domini et servi concurrunt, oportet illa prius exsequi.’’ ° The principle is here still more decidedly expressed than in iv. 19, and in all its generality. Vv. 30-32 now present, in exact reference to the previous Oe pdAAov, the teaching activity of the apostles as willed by God. — 6 0205 r. ar. u. ] Comp. iii. 13. — jyeuper] is, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and others, to be referred to the raising from the dead, as the following relative sentence contains the contrast to it, and the exaltation to glory follows immediately afterwards, ver. 31. Others, such as Calvin, Bengel, de Wette, hold that it refers generally to the appearance of Christ, whom God has made to emerge.® — diaxeıpideodaı]) to murder with one’s own hands.” This purposely chosen significant word brings the execution of Christ, which was already in iv. 10 designated as the strict personal act of the instiga- tors, into prominent view with the greatest possible force as such. So also in the examples in Kypke, II. p. 34. The following aorist «peydo. is synchronous with dexep. as its modal definition. — éx §vAov] on a tree: an expression, well known to the hearers, for the stake.® on which criminals were suspended. The cross is here designedly so called, not because the oraupös was a Roman instrument of death,’ but in order to strengthen the representation, because éx? fdAov reminded them of 1 So Winer, p. 471 (E. T. 634), de Wette. 6 Maimon. Hilchoth. Melach. iii. 9. Comp. 2 With iva un: Diod. Sic. ii. p. 329. See on iv. 19. Hartung, Partikell. IL. p. 116; Kühner, ad 6 jii. 22, 26, xiii. 23; Luke i. 69, vii. 16. Xen. Mem. ii. 9.2; Krüger on Thue. vi. 13. 1. 7See xxvi. 21; Polyb. viii. 23. 8. Comp. 3Comp. Matt. xxiii. 35, xxvii. 25; Acts Staxerpovovtar, Job xxx. 24. xviii. 6; Josh. xxiii. 15; Judg. ix. 24; Ley. Sy’. Gen. x1. 19; Deut. xxi. 22; Isa. x. 26; xxii. 16. comp. Acts x. 39; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Gal. iii. 13. 4 See Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 111 (E. T. 127%). ® See, on the other hand, ii. 35, iv. 10. 114 CHAP. V., 31-34. the accursed (see on Gal. iii, 13). — Ver. 31. Him has God exalted by His right hand to be the Leader (not as in iii. 15, where a genitive stands along- side), z.e. the Ruler and Head of the theocracy, a designation of the kingly dignity of Jesus,’ and a Saviour (the author and bestower of the Mes- sianic salvation). On the idea, comp. ii. 36. As to 77 det. aizod, see on ii. 23. — dodvar petdvorav x.t.A.] contains the design of rotrov . . . rq deka avtov : in order to give repentance to the Israelites and the forgiveness of sins. With the exaltation of Christ, namely, was to commence His heavenly work on earth, through which He as Lord and Saviour, by means of the Holy Spirit, would continually promote the work of redemption to be ap- propriated by men, would draw them to Him, John xii. 32, 33, in bringing them by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. i. 23) to a change of mind (comp. xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25), and so, through the faith in Him which set in with the weravosa, making them partakers of the forgiveness of sins in baptism (comp. 1 Pet. ill. 21). The appropriation of the work of salvation would have been denied to them without the exaltation of Christ, in the absence of which the Spirit would not have operated (John vii. 39, xvi. 7) ; but by the exaltation it was given’ to them, and that, indeed, primarily to the Jsraelites, whom Peter still names alone, because it was only at a later period that he was to rise from this his national standpoint to universalism (chapter x.). — With the reading airot uapr. (see the critical remarks), pdpt. governs two genitives different in their reference, the one of a person and the other of a thing,* and avrod could not but accordingly precede ; but the emphasis lies on the bold jets, to which then ro rveüua x.r.A. is added still more defiantly. — röv pyudr. rovrwv] of these words, i.e. of what has just been uttered. See on Matt. iv. 4. Peter means the raising and exaltation of Jesus. Of the latter the apostles were witnesses, in so far as they had already experienced the activity of the exalted Jesus, agreeably to His own promise (i. 5), through the effusion of the Spirit (ii. 33 f.). But Luke, who has narrated the tradition of the externally visible event of the ascen- sion as an historical fact, must here have thought of the eye-witness of the apostles at the ascension. — xa) Td mveiua J? TH üyıov] as WellWe . . . as also the Spirit,* in which case de, according to the Attic usage, is placed after the emphasized idea.° The Holy Spirit, the greater witness, different from the human self-consciousness, but ruling and working in believers, witnesses with them (ovunaprvpei, Rom. vill. 16). Comp. xv. 28.— rois neapy. wit@| to those who obey Him. In an entirely arbitrary manner this is usually restricted by a mentally supplied jjiv merely to the apostles ; whereas all who were obedient to God, in a believing recognition of the Messiah compatible with that more free rendering of dovrat. ı Comp. Thue. i. 132.2; Aesch. Agam. 250 ; and rınar apxnyoi, Eur. 77. 196. 2 Not merely the actual impulse and occasion given, as, after Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Wette, also Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 307 (comp. his böbl. Theol. p. 138), would have us takeit. Against this view may be urged the appended kai apecw anaprıwvr, which is not 3 See Winer, p. 180 (E. T. 239) ; Dissen, ad Pind. 01.1.94; Pyth. ii. 56. 4On the other hand, see Hartung, Partikell. ip: isl 5 Baeumlein, Pariik. p. 169. COUNSEL OF GAMALIEL. 115 preached to them, comp. ii. 38, xi. 17, and so through the ömako) 775 rioreus, Rom. i. 5, had received the gifts of the Spirit. They form the category to which the apostles belong. Ver. 33. Aterpiovro] not: they gnashed with the teeth, which would be dıempiov rods odövras,' but dissecabantur (Vulgate), comp. vil. 54: they were sawn through, cut through as by a saw,” —a figurative expression (comp. ji. 87) of deeply penetrating painful indignation.* It is stronger than the non- figurative dıiaroveiodaı, iv. 2, Xvi. 18. — é3ovAevovto] they consulted, Luke xiv. 31; Acts xv. 37. The actual coming to a resolution was averted by Gamaliel. Ver. 34. Gamaliel, ON “93, retributio Dei (Num. i. 10, ii. 20), is usually assumed to be identical with Rabban Gamaliel, Ip (senex), celebrated in the Talmud, the grandson of Hillel and the son of R. Simeon,—a view which cannot be proved, but also cannot be refuted, as there is nothing against it in a chronological point of view.‘ He was the teacher of the Apostle Paul (Acts xxii. 3), but is certainly not in our passage to be con- sidered as the president of the Sanhedrim, as many have assumed, because in that case Luke would have designated him more characteristically than by 7S Ev r. cvvedpiv dapıc. That he had been in secret a Christian,’ and been baptized, along with his son and Nicodemus, by Peter and John,° is a legend deduced by arbitrary inference from this passage.” An opposite but equally arbitrary extreme is the opinion of Pearson (Lectt. p. 49), that Gamaliel only declared himself in favor of the apostles from an inveterate partisan opposition to the Sadducees. Still more grossly, Schrader, II. p. 63, makes him a hypocrite, who sought to act merely for his own elevation and for the kingdom of darkness, and to win the unsuspicious Christians by his dissimulation. He was not a mere prudent waiter on events (Thiersch), but a wise, impartial, humane, and religiously scrupulous man, so strong in character that he could not and would not suppress the warn- ings and counsels that experience prompted him to oppose to the passion- ate zeal, backed in great part by Sadducean prejudice, of his colleagues (ver. 17); and therefore to be placed higher than an ordinary jurist and politician dispassionately contemplating the case (Ewald). Revently it has been maintained that the emergence of Gamaliel here recorded is an unhis- torical röle® assigned to him ; and the chief? ground alleged for this view 1 Lucian. Calumn. 24. 2 Plat. Conv. p.193 A; Aristoph. Hq. 768 ; whether he might have regarded them as di- vine miracles or not. Ov, if Gamaliel gave 1 Chron. xx. 3; See Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 880; Valckenaer, p. 402 f. 3 Alberti, Gloss. p. 67: muxp@s exakeraıvor. 4 Lightf. Hor. ad Matth. p. 33. 5See already Recogn. Clem. i. 65; Beda, Cornelius a Lapide. 6 Phot. cod. 171, p. 199. 7 See Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 501. 8 Baur, see also Zeller. ® Moreover, Baur pnts the alternative: Either the previous miracles, etc., actually took place, and then Gamaliel could not have given an advice so problematic in tenor, this counsel, then what is said to have taken place could not have occurred as it is related. But this dilemma proves nothing, as there isa third alternative possible, namely, that Ga- maliel was by the miracles which had occurred favorably inclined towards Christianity, but not decided ; and therefore, as a prudent and conscientious man, judged at least a further waiting forlight to be necessary. This favor- able inclination is evidently to be recognised in the mode in which he expresses his advice ; see on vv. 38, 39. 116 CHAP. V., 35, 36. is the mention of Theudas, ver. 36 (but see on ver. 36), while there is fur- ther assumed the set purpose of making Christianity a section of orthodox, or in other words Pharisaic Judaism, combated by Sadducaeism. As if, after the exaltation of Christ, His resurrection must not really have stood in the foreground of the apostles’ preaching ! and by that very fact the position of parties could not but necessarily be so far changed, that now the main interests of Sadducaeism were most deeply affected. — vouodıdaoraros] a vouırös, one skilled in the law (canonist) as a teacher.1— Apaxd a short while.? —On tw roeiv] to put without.” — r. avOpdzovs (see the critical. re- marks): thus did Gamaliel impartially designate them, and Luke repro- duces his expression. The order of the words puts the emphasis on éw ; for the discussion was to be one conducted within the Sanhedrim. Comp. iv. 15. Ver. 35. ’Em rois avopdr. rovroıs] in respect of these men* might be joined to mpocéyere éavtois (Lachm.), as Luther, Castalio, Beza, and many others have done (whence also comes the reading 470 röv «.r.A. in E) ; yet the cur- rency of the expression mpdocev rı Ent rıvı® is in favour of its being con- strued with ri uéAAete mpaooew. The emphasis also which thus falls on em toiS avöp. is appropriate. — mpäooeıv (not orev) : agere, what procedure ye will take. Comp. iii. 17, xix. 36; and see on Rom. i. 32. Gamaliel will have nothing rporer&s (xix. 36) done; therefore they must be on their guard (mpoo&y. &avr.). Ver. 36. Tap gives the reason ® for the warning contained in ver 35. In proof that they should not proceed rashly, Gamaliel reminds them of two instances from contemporary history (vv. 36, 37) when fanatical deceivers of the people (without any interference of the Sanhedrim) were overthrown by their own work. Therefore there should be no interference with the apostles (ver. 38) ; for their work, if it should be of men, would not escape destruction ; but if it should be of God, it would not be possible to over- throw it. — mpd Toürwv T@v nuep.] i.e. not long ago. Ov A€éyet nalaıa dimynuara kalroıye Exwv, aAAA vedtepa, @ udAıora TpdS riorıv Hoav ioyvpd, Chrysostom. Comp. xxi. 88. Yet the expression, which here stands simply in contrast to ancient incidents (which do not lie within the experience of the genera- tion), is not to be pressed ; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time before the census of Quirinus. — Ocvdäs] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1, informs us that under the procurator Cuspius Fadus’ an insurgent chief Theudas (u) gave himself out to be a prophet, and obtained many adherents. But Fadus fell on the insurgents with his cavalry ; they were either slain or taken prisoners, and Theudas himself was beheaded by the horsemen. This narrative suits our passage exactly as regards substance, but does not correspond as regards date. For the Theudas of Josephus lived under Claudius, and Tiberius 1 See on Matt. xxii. 35. 5 Wolf and Kuinoel in loc., Matthiae, p. 927. 2 Thue. vi. 12; Polyb. iii. 96.2; 2 Sam. xix. 6 Erasmus well paraphrases it : ‘‘ Ex prae- 36. teritis sumite consilium, quid in futurum 3Comp. Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 3; Symm. Ps. oporteat decernere.”’ exlii. 7. 7 Not before a.p. 44; see Anger, de temp. * Bernhardy, p. 251. rat. p. 44. THEUDAS. 34% Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus about a.p. 46; whereas Gamaliel’s speech occurred about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very many,' therefore, suppose, that it is not the Theudas of Josephus who is here meant, but some other insurgent chief or robber-captain acting a re- ligious part,? who has remained unknown to history, but who emerged in the turbulent times either of the later years of Herod the Great or soon after his death. This certainly removes all difficulties, but in what a vio- lent manner! especially as the name was by no means so common as to make the supposition of two men of that name, with the same enterprise and the same fate, appear probable, or indeed, in the absence of more pre- cise historical warrant, otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere histori- cal mistakes occur in Luke (comp. iv. 6; Luke ii. 1, 2). Besides, it is antecedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced an admon- itory example thoroughly striking, from a historical point of view, such as was that of Judas the Galilean. But the attempts to discover in our Theudas one mentioned by Josephus under a different name,* amount only to assumptions incapable of proof, and are nevertheless under the necessity of leaving the difference of names unaccounted for. But inasmuch as, if the Theudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the Theudas mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought on the side of Josephus ;* as, on the contrary, the exactness of the narrative of Josephus secures at any rate the decision in its favour for chronological accuracy over against Luke ; there thus remains nothing but to assume that Zuke—or in the first instance, his source—has, in the reproduction of the speech before us, put into the mouth of Gamaliel a proleptic mistake. This might occur the more easily, as the speech may have been given simply from tradition. And the tradition which had correctly preserved one event adduced by Gamaliel, the destruction of Judas the Galilean, was easily amplified by an anachro- nistic addition of another. If Luke himself composed the speech in accord- ance with tradition, the error is in his case the more easily explained, since he wrote the Acts so long after the insurrection of Theudas,—in fact, after the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth,—that the chronological error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he was not a Jew, and he had been for many years occupied with efforts of quite another kind than the keeping freshly in mind the chronological position of one of the many passing enthusiastic attempts at insurrection. 1 Origen, c. Cels. i. 6, Scaliger, Casaubon, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, Krebs, Lardner, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke, Anger, Olshausen, Ebrard. 2So also Gerlach, @. Römischen Statthalt. p. 70, not without a certain irritation towards me, which I regret, as it contributes nothing to the settlement of the question. 3 Wieseler, Synops. p. 103 ff., and Baum- garten, also Köhler in Herzog’s Zncykl. XVI. p. 40 f., holding it to refer to the scribe Mat- It has been ex- thias in Joseph. Bell. i. 33. 2, Antt. xvii. 6; Sonntag in the Stud. vw. Krit. 1837, p. 638 ff., and Ewald, to the insurgent Simon in Joseph. Bell. ii. 4. 2, Antt. xvii. 10. 6; Zuschlag in the monograph Theudas, Anführer eines 750. in Palast. erregten Aufstandes, Cassel 1849, tak- ingit to be the Theudion of Joseph, Antt. xvii. 4, who took an active part in the Idumean rising after the death of Herod the Great, 4 Baronius, Reland, Michaelis, Jahn, Ar- chäol. I. 2, § 127. 118 CHAP. V., 37-40. plained as a proleptic error by Valesius,' Lud. Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius,? Eichhorn, Credner, de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim,’ as also by Baur and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument against the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen considers himself pre- vented from assenting to the idea of a historical mistake, because Luke must have committed a double mistake,—for, first, he would have made Gamaliel name a man who did not live till after him ; and, secondly, he would have put Judas, who appeared under Augustus, as subsequent to Theudas, who lived under Claudius. But the whole mistake amounts to the simple error, that Luke conceived that Theudas had played his part already before the census of Quirinius, and accordingly he could not but place him before Judas.* — eivai teva] giving out himself? for one of peculiar im- portance. ® — © mpooex?i0n] to whom leaned, i.e. adhered, took his side: rorAovs qratyoev, Josephus, l.c.7 — &y&vovro eis obdev] ad nihilum redacti sunt.* They were, according to Josephus, /.c., broken up (dıe?V0noav) by the cavalry of Fadus, and partly killed, partly taken prisoners.—The two relative sen- tences @ mpooer?. and 65 dvnp&ßn are designed to bring out emphatically the contrast. Comp. iv. 10. Ver. 37. ’Iovdas 6 Tarıdaios] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1, calls him a Gaula- nite ; for he was from Gamala in Lower Gaulanitis. But in Anti. xviii. 1. 6, xx. 5. 2, Bell. ji. 8. 1, xvil. 8, he mentions him likewise as TaArAeios. Apparently the designation ‘‘the Galilean ’’ was the inaccurate one used in ordinary life, from the locality in which the man was at work. Gaulani- tis lay on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.—He excited an insurrec- tion against the census which Augustus in the year 7 aer. Dion.” caused to be made by Quirinius the governor of Syria (see on Luke ii. 2), represent- ing it as a work of subjugation, and calling the people to liberty with all the fanatical boldness kindled by the old theocratic spirit." — üriormoe . . . ömiow aitot| he withdrew them from the governmen), and made them his own adherents."' — arorero] a notice which supplements Josephus. Accord- 1 Ad. Euseb. H. E.ii. 11. 2 Spicileg, p. 258. 3 According to Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 94, the difficulty between Luke and Josephus remains ‘‘somewhat in suspense.” Yet he inclines to the assumption of an earlier Theu- das, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler. According to this hypothesis, the Greek name (see Wetstein) Theudas (= deodas = deddwpos), preserved still on coins in Mionnet, must be regarded as the Greek form of the name nn. Bnt why should Gamaliel or Luke not have retained the name Matthias? Or what could induce Josephus to put Matthias instead of Theudas ? especially as the name DIN was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg. p. 423), and Josephus himself mentions the later insurgent by no other name. 4 Entirely mistaken is the—even in a lin- guistic point of view erroneous—interpreta- tion of pera rovrov (ver. 37) by Calvin, Wet- stein, and others, that it denotes not temporis ordinem, but, generally, insuper or praeterea. 5 &eavrov, in which consists the arrogance, the self-exaltation ; ““ character falsae doc- trinae,” Bengel. 6 mpobnrns EAeyer eivaı, Joseph. Anti. xx. 5. 1. On rıs, eximius quidam (the opposite ovdecs—Valckenaer, ad Herod. iii. 140), see Wetstein in doc. ; Winer, p. 160 (E. T. 218); Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. viii. 95, p. 299. 7Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5; also mpdcxAtots, Polyb. vi. 10. 10, v. 51. 8. 8 See Schleusner, 7’hes. TV. p. 140. 9 Thirty-seven years after the battle of Ac- tinm, Joseph. Anti. xviii. 21. 10 Joseph. Anit. xviii. 1.1. See Gerlach, d. Röm. Statthalter, p. 45 f.; Paret in Herzog’s Encykl. VII. p. 126 f. 11 Attraction : Hermann, ad Vig. p. 893. JUDAS OF GALILEE. 119 ing to Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 2, two sons of Judas perished at a later period, whom Tiberius Alexander, the governor of Judaea, caused to be crucified.* Still later a third son was executed.? — dtecxopricbncar] they were scattered, — which does not exclude the continuance of the faction, whose members were afterwards very active as zealots, and again even in the Jewish war ;° therefore it is not an incorreet statement (in opposition to de Wette). Vv. 38-40. Kei] is the simple copula of the train of thought ; 7d viv as in iv. 29. — !E üvfponov] of human origin (comp. Matt. xxi. 25), not proceed- ing from the will and arrangement of God (not &x Oeoö).— 7 Bovin airy 7 ro £py. roöro] ‘‘Disjunctio non ad diversas res, sed ad diversa, quibus res appellatur, vocabula pertinet.’’* This project or (in order to denote the matter in question still more definitely) this work (as already in the act of being executed). — xatadvdjcerac] namely, without your interference. This conception results from the antithesis in the second clause: od divacbe kataddcat abrovs. For similar expressions from the Rabbins, see Schoettgen.° The reference of xaraAveıv to persons (aitovs, see the critical remarks) who are overthrown, ruined, is also current in classical authors."—Notice, further, the difference in meaning of the two conditional clauses: éav 7 and ei. . . éorev,’ according to which the second case put appeared to Gamaliel as the more probable. — unrore kai Deouayoı edpebjre|] although grammatically to be explained by a oxerr£ov, mpoosxere éavtois (Luke xxi. 84), or some similar phrase floating before the mind, is an independent warning : that ye only be not found even fighters against God. Valckenaer and Lachmann (after Pricaeus and Hammond) construe otherwise, referring wnrore to édoare abrovs, and treating 67: . . . aivovs as a parenthesis, A superfluous inter- ruption, to which also the manifest reference of Geoudyo. to the directly preceding ei 0} éx Oeod éorw «.7.2, is Opposed. — kai] is to be explained ellip- tically : not only with men, but also further, in addition.” — Heouaxor]."” — éxeicfycav| even if only in tantum, and yet how greatly to their self- conviction on account of their recent condemnation of Jesus ! — deipavrec] The Sanhedrim would at least not expose themselves, as if they had insti- tuted an examination wholly without result, and therefore they order the punishment of stripes, usual for very various kinds of crime—here, proved disobedienee—but very ignominious (comp. xvi. 37, xxii.).—Concerning the counsel of Gamaliel generally, the principle therein expressed is only right conditionally, for interference against a spiritual development must, in respect of its admissibility or necessity, be morally judged of according to the nature of the cases ; nor is that counsel to be considered as an abso- 1 Comp. Bell. ii. 8. 1. 2 Bell. ii. 17.8 f.; Vit. v. 11. 3 Joseph. Bell. ii. 17. 7. 4 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277. 5 Pirke Aboth, iv. 11, al. Comp. Herod. ix. 16: 6, rı det yeveodar ex Tov Oeod, aunxaror amotpeWar avdpwrw. Eur. Hippol. 476. 6 Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 24; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 714C; Lucian. Gall. 23. Comp. katadvots Tov tupavvov, Polyb. x. 25. 3, etc. 7 Comp. Gal. i. 8,9; and see Winer, p. 277 f. (E. T. 369) ; Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B. 5 See Hom. Z. i. 26, ii. 195; Matt. xxv. 9 (Elz.); Rom xi. 21; Baenmlein, Partik. p. 283 ; Niigelsb. on the J/iad, p. 18, ed. 3. ®See Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 134. 10 See Symm. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16; Job xxvi. 5; Heraclid. Alleg. 1; Lucian. Jov. Tr 45. On the thing itself, comp. Hom. //. vi. 129: oix av Eywye deoiow Emovparvioroı maxoiunv. 120 NOTES. lute maxim of Gamaliel, but as one which is here presented to him by the critical state of affairs, and is to be explained from his predomi- nant opinion that a work of God may be at stake, as he himself indeed makes this opinion apparent by & . . . éorw, ver. 39 (see above). Ver. 41 f. Xaipovres] comp. Matt. v. 11, 12.— dtp rod övöuaros] placed first with emphasis : for the name, for its glorification. For the scourging suffered tended to that effect, because it was inflicted on the apostles on account of their steadfast confession of the name. Comp. ix. 16. ‘‘ Quum reputarent causam, praevalebat gaudium,*’ Calvin. The absolute To övoua denotes the name kar’ é£oyqv,—namely, ‘‘ Jesus Messiah’? (iii. 6, iv. 10), the confession and announcement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute Dw (Lev. xxiv. 11, 16), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied of itself. Comp. 3 John 7. — xaryiid0. arınach.| An oxymoron.’ — rücav huégpav] every day the odx éxavovro in preaching took place.” They did it day after day without cessation. — xar’ oixov] domi, in the house, a con- trast to ev ro lepo. See on ii. 46. — averavovto dudüokorres].”— cai ebayyed. “Ino. +. X.] and announcing Jesus as the Messiah, a more specific definition of dWadoxovres as regards its chief contents. NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (s) Ananias. V.1. His punishment.— The statement of our author, though strong, is near the truth. Peter was merely the organ of the Holy Spirit, and his address was the sentence of death. It was not Peter who either pronounced or exe- cuted the sentence, but God himself. Dr. Davidson observes: ‘ It is evidently set forth as the miraculous instantaneous effect of Peter’s words. This, with the harshness of the divinely inflicted punishment, which is out of character with the gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting the fact as histori- cal, at least in the way it is told.” Others denounce the punishment as too severe, and not in accordance with the benign spirit of Christ. Porphyry ac- euses Peter of cruelty. To this charge Jerome very justly replies: “The apostle Peter by no means calls down death upon them, as the foolish Por- phyry falsely lays to his charge, but by a prophetic spirit announces the judg- ment of God, that the punishment of two persons might be the instruction of many.” “But whether used directly against Peter, or indirectly against God himself, the charge of rashness and undue severity may be repelled without resorting to the ultimate plea of the divine infallibility and sovereignty, by the complex nature of the sin committed, as embracing an ambitious and vainglo- rious desire to obtain the praise of men by false pretences ; a selfish and ava- ricious wish to do this at as small expense as possible ; a direct falsehood, whether told by word or deed, as to the completeness of the sum presented ; but above all, an impious defiance of God the Spirit, as unable to detect the 1 Comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. xi, 26-30; Gal. 3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. %71; Bernhardy, vi. 14, 17, al. 1 Pet. ii. 19. p. 477. 2 See Winer, p. 162 (E. T. 214). NOTES. 121 imposture or to punish it; a complication and accumulation of gratuitous and aggravated crimes, which certainly must constitute a heinous sin—if not the unpardonable sin—against the Holy Ghost.” (Alexander.) The sin of Ananias was an aggravated combination of all iniquity—vanity and hypocrisy, covetous- ' ness and fraud, impiety, and contempt of God, As analogous instances refer to the fate of Nadab and Abihu ; Korah and his company ; the man that gath- ered sticks upon the Sabbath day, and Achan. (rt) Peter's shadow. V.15. ~ “The expression is rhetorical; the sick were anxious that something be- longing to Peter might touch them, even if it were only his shadow.” It is not said, but it is implied, that cures were thus wrought. Analogous in- stances are recorded in the evangelical history: the infirm woman (Matt. ix, 21, 22); cures effected by handkerchiefs from the person of Paul (Acts xix. 12). See specially Lange, in loc. (u) Theudas. V. 36. Josephus gives the history of an impostor named Theudas, who drew a great multitude of people after him. He was apprehended and beheaded by order of the Roman ruler. But this event occurred in the reign of Claudius, about ten years after the speech of Gamaliel had been delivered. Assuming that this Theudas is the one referred to by Gamaliel, a charge of anachronism and ‘““historical mistakes ” is brought against Luke. Now without making any comparison between the two historians for accuracy, or insisting that Luke is as good authority as Josephus, the assumed difficulty may be re- moved by supposing that Gamaliel referred to some one of the many turbulent insurrectionary chiefs, of whom Josephus speaks as overrunning the land about the time of the death of Herod the Great. He says: ‘At this time there were great disturbances in the country, and the opportunity that now offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings.” ‘Judea was at this time full of robberies; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted upon any one to lead them, he was created a king forthwith.” ‘The name was not an uncommon one, and it can excite no surprise that one Theudas, who was an insurgent, should have appeared in the time of Au- gustus, and another, fifty years later, in the time of Claudius. Josephus gives an account of four men named Simon, who followed each other within forty years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of rebellion.”’ (Hacketl.) Now such an explanation, or others equally probable, must be proved to be false, before a charge of ignorance or error is brought against the writer of the Acts. The “charge is in the last degree improbable, considering how often such apparent inconsistencies are reconciled by the dis- covery of new but intrinsically unimportant facts ; and also the error, if it were one, must have been immediately discovered, and would either have been rectified at once, or made the ground of argumentative objection.” (Alexander, ) 122 CHAPS Vi.; 2h: CHAPTER Vi. VER. 3. ‘Ayiov] is wanting in B D 8, 137, 180, vss. Chrys. Theophyl. De- leted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; the Syr. expresses xupiov. A more precisely de- fining addition (comp. ver. 5), which is also found inserted at ver. 10. — kara- ormooueu] Elz. has xarcorjowuev, against decisive evidence, An over-hasty cor- rection. — Ver. 5, mAjpn] A C* D E HN, min. have zAnons, which, although adopted by Lachm., is intolerable, and is to be regarded as an old error of transcription, — Ver. 8. yapitos] Elz. has riorews, contrary to decisive evidence. From ver. 5. — Ver. 9. «ai ’Aoias] is deleted by Lach., following A D* Cant. It was easily overlooked after KiAvcIAZ ; whereas it would be difficult to con- ceive a reason for its being inserted. — Ver. 11. BAdodnua] D has ‘BAacgnuias. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Born. But pjyata BAdopnua was ex- plained by the weakly-attested PAaodnnias (blasphemies) as a gloss ; and this, taken as a genitive, thereupon suppressed the original 6/aodyua. — Ver. 13. After fnuara, Elz. has BAdconua, against a great predominance of evidence. From ver. 11. — After dyiov, Elz. has roörov, which, it is true, has in its favour BC, Tol. Sahid. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, but was added with reference to ver. 14, as the meeting of the Sanhedrim was conceived as taking place within the area of the temple court. Vv. 1-7. An explanation paving the way for the history of Stephen, ver. 8 ff. Ver. 7 is not at variance with this view. Ver. 1. Aé] Over against this new victory of the church without, there now emerges a division in its own bosom. —év raiS juép. ravr.] namely, while the apostles continued, after their liberation, to devote themselves unmolested to their function of preaching (v. 42). Thus this expression (0°1D°3 ON) finds its definition, although only an approximate one, always in what precedes. Comp. on Matt. iii. 1. — rAnAvvovrwov] as a neuter verb (Bernhardy, p. 339 f.): amidst the inerease of the Christian multitude, by which, consequently, the business of management referred to became the more extensive and difficult.!— 'EAAnviorns, elsewhere only preserved in Phot. Bibl. (see Wetstein), according to its derivation, from éA2nvicev, to present oneself in Grecian nationality, and particularly to speak the Greek language ;? and according to its contrast to 'E3paiovs, is to be explained: a Jew, and so non-Greek, who has Greek nationality, and particularly speaks Greek: ix. 29. Comp. Chrysustom and Oecumenius. As both appella- tions are here transferred to the members of the Christian church at Jeru- salem, the ‘E@paioe are undoubtedly : those Christians of the church of Jerusa- lem, who, as natives of Palestine, had the Jewish national character, and spoke 1 Comp. Aesch. Ag. 869; Polyb. iii. 105.7; Apoer. Herodian, iii. 8. 14, often in the LXX. and 2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380. A MURMURING. 123 the sacred language as their native tongue ; and the 'EAAnviorai are those mem- bers of this church, who were Greek-Jews, and therefore presented themselves in Greek national character, and spoke Greek as their native language. Both parties were Jewish Christians; and the distinction between them turned on the different relation of their original nationality to Judaism. And as the two parties (v) embraced the whole of the Jews who had become Chris- tian, it is a purely arbitrary limitation, when Camerarius, Beza, Salmasius, Pearson, Wolf, Morus, Ziegler,! would understand exclusively the Jewish proselytes who had been converted to Christianity. These are ineluded among the Greek-Jews who had become Christian, but are not alone meant ; the Jews by birth who had been drawn from the dcacropa to Jerusalem are are also included. The more the intercourse of Greek-Jews with foreign culture was fitted to lessen and set aside Jewish narrow-mindedness, so much the more easy it is to understand that many should embrace Chris- tianity.* — po] denotes, according to the context, the antagonistic direc- tion, as in Luke v. 30. Comp. Acts ix. 29. — &v 77 dur. 77 Kabyu.] in the daily service (2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 13), here: with provisions, in the daily distribution of food. Ver. 2 requires this explanation. — xaßnuepivös only here in the N. T., more frequently in Plutarch, etc., belongs to the later Greek.* — The neglect of due consideration, rapadeopeiv,* which the widows of the Hellenists met with, doubtless by the fault not of the apostles, but of subordinates commissioned by them, is an evidence that the Jewish seli- exaltation of the Palestinian over the Greek-Jews,° so much at variance with the spirit of Christianity,° had extended also to the Christian com- munity, and now on the increase of the church, no longer restrained by the fresh unity of the Holy Spirit, came into prominence as the first germ of the later separation of the Hebrew and Hellenistic elements ;’ as also, that before the appointment of the subsequently named Seven, the care of the poor was either exclusively, or at least chiefly, entrusted to the Hebrews.*® The widows are not, as Olshausen and Lekebusch, p. 93, arbitrarily assume, mentioned by synecdoche for all the poor and needy, but simply because their neglect was the occasion of the yoyyvouös. We may add, that this passage does not presuppose another state of matters than that of the com- munity of goods formerly mentioned (Schleiermacher and others), but only a disproportion as regards the application of the means thereby placed at their disposal. There is nothing in the text to show that the complaint as to this was unfounded (Calvin). Ver. 2. Td rAj00s rév uaßnröv] the mass of the disciples ; i.e. the Christian multitude in general, not merely individuals, or a mere committee of the church. Comp. iv. 32. It is quite as arbitrary to understand, with Light- 1 Einleit. in d. Br. a. d. Hebr. p. 221, and LXX. and Apocr., but see Kypke, II. p. 36. Pfannkuche, in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. VIII. 5 Lightf. Hor. ad Joh. p. 1031. p. 471. 6 Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; Rom. x. 12; 1 2 Comp. Reuss in Herzog’s Encykl. V. p. Cor. xii. 13. 703 f. 7 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 333. s Judith xii. 15 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 55. 8 Mosh. de reb. Christ. ante Const. pp. 118, 4 Not elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the 139. 124 CHAP. VI, 3-5. foot, only the 120 persons mentioned in i. 15, as, with Mosheim and Kuinoel, to suppose that tle church of Jerusalem was divided into seven classes, which assembled in seven different places, and had each selected from their midst an almoner. As the place of meeting is not named, it is an over-hasty conclusion that the whole church could not have assembled all at once. — ook dpeotév ori] non placet.' The Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, Pisca- tor, Casaubon, Kuinoel, incorrectly render: non aequum est, which the word never means, not even in the LXX. It pleased not the apostles to leave the doctrine of God—its proclamation—just because the fulfilment of the proper duty of their calling pleased them. — xarareiyp.] A strong expression under a vivid sense of the disturbing element (fo leave in the lurch).” — dıakoveiv rpanelaıs] to serve tables, i.e. to be the regulators, overseers, and dispensers in reference to food. The expression, which contains the more precise definition for 77 dvaxovig of ver. 1, betrays “ indignitatem aliquam’? (Bengel). —The reference which others have partly combined with this. partly as- sumed alone, of zpamefa to the money-changers’ table,” is excluded, in the absence of any other indication in the text, by the diaxoveiv used statedly of the ministration of food.* Moreover, the designation of the matter, as if it were a banking business, would not even be suitable. The apostles would neither be tparefoxduor nor tpareforovoi.® They may hitherto in the management of this business have made use, without fixed plan, of the assistance of others, by whose fault, perhaps, the murmuring of the Hellenists was occasioned. Ver. 3. Accordingly (oöv), as we, the apostles, can no longer undertake this business of distribution, look ye out, i.e. direct your attention to test and select, etc. —éxrd] (w) the sacred number. —- cogias] quite in the usual practical sense : wisdom, which determines the right agency in con- formity with the recognised divine aim. With a view to this required con- dition of fulness of the Spirit and of wisdom, the men to be selected from the midst of the church were to be attested, i.e. were to have the corre- sponding testimony of the church in their favour.*— od$ katacrjcomev Emi TIS xpelas raurns] whom we (the apostles) will appoint,’ when they are chosen, over the business in question.” This ofiecium, ministration,® is just that, of which the distributing to the widows was an essential and indeed the chief part, namely, the care of the poor in the church, not merely as to its Hedlen- istic portion.!” The limitation to the latter would presuppose the existence of a special management of the poor already established for the Hebrew 1 xii. 3; John viii. 29; Herod.i.119; Plato, Def. p. 415 A. 2On the form, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 713 ff. 3 Matt. xxi. 12, Luke xix. 23 (‘‘pecunia in usum pauperum collecta et iis distribuenda,” Kuinoel). 4 Wetst. ad Matth. iv. 11. 5 Athen. IV. p. 170. 6 Comp. xvi. 2 and on Luke iv. 22; Dion. Hal. Ant. ii. 26. 7The opposite of kxatactyc. emi THs XP. (comp. 1 Macc. x. 37) is: nerastneaodaı aro ris xp-, Polyb. iv. 87. 9; 1 Mace. xi. 63. 8 On &ri with the genilöve, in the sense of official appointment over something, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 3. 2. %° See Wetstein and Schweighäuser, Zea. Polyb. p. 665. 10 Vitringa, de Synag. ii. 2. 5, Mosheim, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, CHOOSING THE SEVEN. 125 portion, without any indication of it in the text ; nor is it supported by the Hellenic ames of the persons chosen (ver. 5), as such names at that time were very common also among the Hebrews. Consequently the hypothesis, that pure //ellenists were appointed by the impartiality of the Hebrews,’ is entirely arbitrary ; as also is the supposition of Gieseler,? that three He- brews and three Hellenists, and one proselyte, were appointed ; although the chosen were doubtless partly Hebrews and partly Hellenists.—Observe, moreover, how the right to elect was regarded by the apostles as vested in the church, and the election itself was performed by the church, but the ap- pointment aud consecration were completed by the apostles ; the requisite qualifications, moreover, of those to be elected are defined by the apostles.* From this first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to which could not but regulate analogically the practice of the church, was gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further elaboration (Phil. i. 1).* It remains an open question whether the overseers corresponded to the D'N21 of the synagogue 5— rj diaxovia tov Aöyov] correlate contrasting with the dıakoveiv rpar£Zaıs in ver. 2.°° The apostolic working was to be separated from the office of overseer ; while, on the other hand, the latter was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of existing gifts, as the very example of Stephen (vv. 8-10) shows ; comp. on Vili. 5. Ver. 5. TMavric row rA7Povc] ‘‘pulcher consensus cum obsequio,’’ Bengel. The aristocracy of the church was a wer’ evdogiag mAnhovc apioroKparia.® — riorewc] is not, with Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others, to be interpreted honesty, trustworthiness ; for this qualification was obvious of itself, and is here no peculiar characteristic. But the prominent Christian element in the nature of Stephen was his being distinguished by fulness of faith 1 Rothe, de Wette, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 75. 2 Kirchengesch. I. sec. 25, note 7. 3 Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 618 f. 4 But the assumption that “the institution of the so-called deacons was originally one and the same with the presbyterate, and that only at a later period it ramified into the dis- tinction between the presbyterate in the narrower sense and the diaconate”’ (Lange. apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 75, after J. H. Böhmer; comp. also Lechler, p. 306), is not to be proved by xi. 30. See in loc. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 355 ff., thinks it very probable that the authority of the Seven was the first shape of the office of presbyter afterwards emerging in Jerusalem. So also Holtzmann, /.c. p. 616. Similarly Weiss, Dibl. Theol. p. 142, according to whom the presbyters stepped into the place of the Seven and took upon themtheir duties. But the oflice of presbyter was still at that time vested in the apostles themselves ; accord- ingly, the essential and necessary difference of the two functions was from the very first the regulative point of view. The presbyterate retained the oversight and guidance of the diaconate (Phil. i. 1) ; comp. also xi. 30; but the latter sprang, by reason of the emerging | exigency, from the former, not the converse. 6 As Leyrer, in Herzog’s Encykl. XV. p. 313, thinks. The ecclesiastical overseership arose out of the higher need and interest of the new present, but the synagogal office might serve as a model that offered itself his- torically. The requirements for the latter office pointed merely to “ well-known trust- worthy *’ men. 6 Vitringa ; on the other side Rhenfeld, see Wolf, Curae. 7 Observe, however, that it is not said: 7 Staxovia THs Tpocevxis Kal ToD Adyou, and there- fore it is not to be inferred from our passage, with Ahrens (Amt d. Schlüssel, p. 37 f.), that by 77’ mpocevxy a part of ‘the office of the keys” is meant. See, in opposition to this, Diisterdieck in the Stud. w. Krit. 1865, p. 762 f. 8 Plat. Menex. p. 288 D. 126 CHAP. VI., 6-9. a (comp. xi. 24), on which account the church united in selecting him first. — #idırror] At a later period he taught in Samaria, and baptized the chamberlain (viii. 5 ff.). Concerning his after life and labours (see, how- ‘ever, xxi. 8) there are only contradictory legends. — Nıxöiaov] neither the founder of the Nicolaitans,! nor the person from whom the Nicolaitans had borrowed their name in accordance with his alleged immoral principles ;? Thiersch wishes historically to combine the two traditions.* NıroAarrai, Rev. li. 6, is an invented Greek name, equivalent to xparouvrec tiv dıdayyv Badadpu (ver. 14), according to the derivation of DY ya, perdidit populum.* Of the others mentioned nothing further is known. — mpoonAvrov ’Avrıoy.] From this it may be inferred, with Heinsius, Gieseler, de Wette, Ewald, and others, that only Nicolas had been a proselyte, and all the rest were not; for otherwise we could not discern why Luke should have added such a special remark of so characteristic a kind only in the case of Nicolas. But that there was also a proselyte among those chosen, is an evidence of the wisdom of the choice. —’ Avtioyéa] but who dwelt in Jerusalem. — The fact that Stephen is named at the head of the Seven finds its explanation in his distinguished qualities and historical significance. Comp. Peter at the head of the apostles. Chrysostom well remarks on ver. 8: kai Ev roig éxta qv Tle MpöKpırog Kal ra mpwreia eiyev' el yap Kal 7 YELpoTOvia Kom, aAA’ Kuwo OvTOS &meomäoaro yap mAeiova. Nor is it less historically appropriate that the only proselyte among the Seven is, in keeping with the Jewish character of the church, named last. Ver. 6.° And after they (the apostles) had prayed, they laid their hands on them. —xai is the simple copula, whereupon the subject changes without carrying out the periodic construction.° Itis otherwise ini. 24. The idea that the overseers of the church (comp. on xiii. 3) form the subject, to which Hoelemann is inclined, has this against it, that at that time, when the body of the apostles still stood at the head of the first church, no other presiding body was certainly as yet instituted. The diaconate was the jirst organ- ization, called forth by the exigency that in the jirst instance arose.— The imposition of hands,’ as a symbol exhibiting the divine communication of power and grace, was employed from the time of Moses* as a special theocratic consecration to office. So also in the apostolic church, without, however, its already consummating admission to any sharply defined order (comp. 1 Tim. v. 22). The circumstance that the necessary gifts (comp. here vv. 3, 5) of the person in question were already known to exist? does not exclude the special bestowal of official gifts, which was therein contemplated ; see- ing that elsewhere, even in the case of those who have the Spirit, there 1 As, after Iren. Hae. ii. 27, Epiph. Haer. 5 See, on the imposition of hands, Bauer in 25, Calvin, Grotius, and Lightfoot assumed. the Stud. u. Krif. 1865, p. 343 ff.; Hoelemann 2 Constitt. ap. vi. 8.3; Clem. Al. Strom. ii. in his neue Bibelstud. 1866, p. 282 fi., where D. 177i. p- Ast: also the earlier literature, p. 283, is noted. 3 See his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 251 f. ; 6 See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 132). comp. generally, Lange, «post. Zeitalt. II. p. ? DT ND Dd, Vitringa, Synag p. 836 ff. 526 ff.,and Herzog in his Zneykl.X.p.338 f.), & Num. xxvii. 18 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9; Ewald, but otherwise historically quite unknown. Alterth. p. 57 f. 4 See Ewald and Düsterdieck, Z.c. ® Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 387. INSTALLING THE SEVEN. 127 yet ensues a special and higher communication.—Observe, moreover, that here also (comp. viii. 17, xiii. 3) the imposition of hands occurs after prayer,’ and therefore it was not a mere symbolic accompaniment of prayer* without collative import, and perhaps only a ‘‘ ritus ordini et decoro con- gruens”’ (Calvin). Certainly its efficacy depended only on God’s bestowal, but it was associated with the act representing this bestowal as the medium of the divine communication. Ver. 7, attaching the train of thought by the simple xai, now describes how, after the installing of the Seven, the cause of the gospel continued to prosper. ‘* The word of God grew’’—it increased in diffusion.* How could the re-established and elevated love and harmony, sustained, in addition to the apostles, by upright men who were full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom (ver. 8), fail to serve as the greatest recommendation of the new doctrine and church to the inhabitants of the capital, who had always before their eyes, in the case of their hierarchs, the curse of party spirit and sectarian hatred? Therefore—and what a significant step towards victory therein took place !—a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith, that is, they submitted themselves to the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, they became believers; comp. as to izaxoy rioreuc, on Rom. i. 5. The better portion of the so numerous (Ezra ii. 36 ff.) priestly class could not but, in the light of the Christian theocratic fellowship which was developing itself, recognise and feel all the more vividly the decay of the old hierarchy. Accordingly, both the weakly attested reading 'Iovdaiov, and the conjecture of Casaubon, approved by Beza: xai tov ispéwr, SC. Tevéc, are to be entirely rejected ; nor is even Elsner’s view, which Heinsius anticipated, and Wolf and Kuinoel followed, to be adopted, viz. that by the oyAoc tev iep., the sacerdotes ex plebe, plebeti sacerdotes, YINT DY Din, are meant in contradistinction to the theologically learned priests, pysan spoon. The text itself is against this view ; for it must at least have run: moAA.oL Te iepeic Tov öyAov. Besides, such a distinction of priests is nowhere indicated in the N. T., and could not be presumed as known. Compare, as analogous to the statement of our passage, John xii. 42. Vy. 8, 9. Yet there now came an attack from without, and that against that first-named distinguished overseer for the poor, Stephen, who became the rpwronäprup.* The new narrative is therefore not introduced abruptly (Schwanbeck). — yaäpıroc is, as in iv. 33, to be understood of the divine grace, not as Heinrichs, according to ii. 47, would have it taken : gratia, quam apud permultos inierat. This must have been definitely conveyed by an addition. — duvauewe] power generally, heroism ; not specially : miraculous power, as the following &roieı répara x.r.A. expresses a special exercise of the generally characteristic yapre and divauic. —rivec tov éx tHe ovvaywyye Aey. Aıßepr.] some of those who belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue.. The number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated by the 1 Luke has not expressed himself in some Theol. p. 144. such way as this: kai émidevtes avtois Tas 3 xii. 24. xix. 20, ete. Comp. the parable of xelpas mpoonV&avro. the mustard-seed. Matt. xiii. 31, 32, 2? This also in opposition to Weiss, Didl. 4 Const. ap. ii. 49. 2 128 CHAP. VI., 10-12. Rabbins,' at the fanciful number 480 (i.e. 4 x 10 x 12). Chrysostom, already correctly explains the AcBeprivo:: of ‘Pwyaiwy amerevdepoı. They are to be conceived as Jews by birth, who, brought by the Romans, particularly under Pompey, as prisoners of war to Rome, were afterward emancipated, and had returned home. Many also remained in Rome, where they had settled on the other side of the Tiber.” They and their descendants after them formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own, which was named after the class-designation which its originators and possessors brought with them from their Roman sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (libertin- orum). This, the wswal explanation, for which, however, further historical proof cannot be adduced, is to be adhered to as correct, both on account of the purely Roman name, and because it involves no historical improba- bility. Grotius, Vitringa, Wolf, and others understand, as also included under it, Jtalians, who as, freedmen had become converts to Judaism. But it is not at all known that such persons, and that in large numbers, were resident in Jerusalem. The Roman designation stands opposed to the view of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen, who were in the service of Palestinian masters. Others,* suppose that they were Jews, natives of Libertum, a (problematical) city or district in proconsular Africa. If there was a Libertum,‘* the Jews from it, of whom no historical trace exists, were certainly not so numerous in Jerusalem as to form a separate synagogue of their own.® —x«ai Kup. kat ’Adee.] Likewise two synagogal communities. Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos,° were no doubt of opinion that by é« ac ovvaywyie . . . kal’ Aciac there is meant only one synagogue, which was common to all those who are named. But against this may be urged, as regards the words of the passage, the circumstance that r. Aeyouévne only suits AvBeprivwr, and as regards matter of fact, the great number of syn- agogues in Jerusalem, as well as the circumstance that of the Libertini, Cyrenaeans, etc., there was certainly far too large a body in Jerusalem to admit of them all forming only one synagogue. In Cyrene, the capital of Upper Libya, the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews,’ and in Alexandria two of the five parts into which the city was divided were inhabited by them.* Here was also the seat of Jewish-Greek learning, and it was natural that those removing to Jerusalem should bring with them in some measure this learning of the world without, and prosecute it there in their synagogue. Wieseler, p. 63, renders the first kai and indeed, so that the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, would be designated as a mere part of the so-called Libertine synagogue. But how arbitrary, seeing that «ai in the various other instances of its being used 1 Megill. £.'%3, 4; Ketuvoth f. 105, 1. xara Kup. (Schulthess, de charism. Sp. St. p. 2 Sueton. Tiber. 36; Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; 162 ff.). See Wetstein, who even considers Philo, Leg. ad Cat. p. 1014 C. Außepr. as another form (inflexio) of the name 3See particularly .Gerdes in the Jfiscell. AcBuor. The Arm. already has Libyorwm. Groning. I. 3, p. 529 ff. 6 Exam. emendatt. Valek. in N. T.p. 48. 4 Suidas: Außeprivor: övona £dvous. 7 Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6.1; c. Apion. 5 Conjectures: Außvorivwv, Libyans (Oecu- Ira: menius, Lyra, Beza, ed. 1 and 2, Clericus, 8 Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xiv. 10.1, xix. 5. Gothofredus, Valckenacr), and Aıßivov tov 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 18, 7. STEPHEN ARRESTED. 129 throughout the representation always expresses merely the simple and ! The Synagoga Alexandrinorum is also mentioned in the Talmud.! Winer and Ewald divide the whole into two communities: (1) Kupyy. and ’ARe£, joined with the Libertines ; and (2) the synagogue formed of the Cilician and Asiatic Jews. But against this view the above reasons also militate, especially the rjc Aeyou£vnc, which only suits Außeprivov. The grammatical objection against our view, that the article rév is not repeated before Kupyv., and before ’A2ef., is disposed of by the consideration, that those belonging to the three synagogues, the Libertine-synagogue, the Cyrenaeans, and the Alexandrians are conceived together as one hostile category,” and the two following synagogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a unity, and represented by the kat tov prefixed. We have thus in our passage jive synagogues, to which the ruvéc belonged, — namely, three of Roman and African nationality, and two Asiatic. The two categories—the former three together, and the latter two together—are represented as the two synagogal circles, from which disputants emerged against Stephen. To the Cilician synagogue Saul doubtless belonged. — Asia is not to be taken otherwise than in ii. 9.—ovfyrovvrec] as disputants, ix. 29. The oufnreiv had already begun with the rising up (dvéorycav).* Vv. 10, 11. The codia is to be explained, not of the Jewish learning, but of the Christian wisdom,® to which the Jewish learning of the opponents could not make any resistance.° The rveüua was the rv. äyıov,’ with which he was filled, vv. 3, 5. —@] Dative of the instrument. It refers, as respects sense, to both preceding nouns, but is grammatically determined according to the latter, Matthiae, page 991.—röre] then, namely, after they had availed nothing in open disputation against him. ‘‘ Hic agnosce morem improborum ; ubi veritate discedunt impares, ad mendacia confugiunt,”’ Erasmus. Paraphr. — imeßarov] they instigated, secretly instructed.* — axyxd. auev x.7.2.] provisional summary statement of what these men asserted that they had heard as the essential contents of the utterances of Stephen in question. For their more precisely formulated literal statement, see vv. 13, 14. Vv. 12-14. The assertion of these üroßAyroi? served to direct the public opinion against Stephen ; but a legal process was requisite for his complete overthrow, and prudence required the consent of the people. Therefore they stirred up the people, and the elders of the people and the scribes, etc. — owverivpoav] they drew them into the movement with them, stirred up them also, Often in Plut., Polyb., etc. —xat ömioravrec] as in iv. 1. The subject is still those hostile rww&c. — ovunpr.] they drew along with them, as in xix. 29. — udprvpac wevdeic] Consequently, Stephen had not spoken the 1 Megill. f. 73, 4. 6 Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff., ii. 6 ff. 2 See Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 7; Sauppe ? But ro ayio 1s not added ; for “ adversarii and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem.i.1.19; Dissen, sentiebant Spiritwm esse in Stephano ; Spiri- ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f. tum sanctum in eo esse non sciebant,”’ Bengel. 3 Vulg. : ‘* et eorum qui erant.” ® Comp. Appian. i. 74, UmeßAn@noav Kary- 4 Bernhardy, p. 477 f.; Winer, p. 320 f. (E. yopo. The Latin sudornarunt, or, as the T. 444.) Vulg. has it, submiserunt (Suet. Ver. 28). 5 Luke xxi. 15; and see on Eph. i. 8, 17. ® Joseph. Bell. v. 10.4 ; Plut. 7id. Gr. 8. 130 CHAP, VI., 13, 14. same words, which were then adduced by these witnesses, ver. 14, as heard from him. Now, namely, in presence of the Sanhedrim, it concerned them to bear witness to the blasphemy alleged to have been heard according to the real state of the facts, and in doing so those dvdpec troBAyroi dealt as Jalse witnesses. As formerly’ a saying of Jesus was falsified in order to make Him appear as a rebel against the theocracy ; so here also some ex- pression of Stephen now unknown to us,—wherein the latter probably had pointed, and that in the spirit of Jesus himself, to the reformatory influence of Christianity leading to the dissolution of the temple-worship and legal institutions, and the consummation of it by the Parousia, and had indeed, perhaps, quoted the prophecy of the Lord concerning the destruction of Jerusalem,—was so perverted, that Stephen now appears as herald of a revolution to be accomplished by Jesus, directed against the temple and against the law and the institutions of Moses.” Against the view of Krause,* that an expression of other, more inconsiderate, Christians was im- puted to Stephen, may be urged not only the utter arbitrariness of such a supposition, but also the analogy of the procedure against Jesus, which very naturally presented itself to the enemies of Stephen as a precedent. Heinrichs, after Heumann and Morus, thinks that the uaprupec were in so far wevdeic, as they had uttered an expression of Stephen with an evil design, in order to destroy him ; so also Sepp. p. 17. But in that case they would not have been false, but only malicious witnesses ; not a wevdoc, but a bad motive would have been predominant. Baur also and Zeller maintain the essential correctness of the assertion, and consequently the incorrectness of the narrative, in so far as it speaks of false witnesses. But an antagonism to the law, such as is ascribed by the latter to Stephen, would lack all internal basis and presupposition in the case of a believing Israelite full of wisdom and of the Holy Spirit ;* as regards its true amount, it can only be conceived as analogous to the subsequent procedure of Paul, which, as’in xviii. 13, xxi. 21, was misrepresented with similar perversity ; nor does the defensive address, vii. 44-53, lead further. Nevertheless, Rauch® has maintained that Stephen actually made the assertion adduced by the wit- nesses, ver. 14, and that these were only false witnesses, in so far as they had not themselves heard this expression from the mouth of Stephen, which yet was the purport of their statement. This is at variance with the entire design and representation, see particularly ver 11. And the utterance itself, as the witnesses professed to have heard it, would, at any rate, 1 Matt. xxvi. 61: John ii. 19. Jerusalem, and the Parousia, etc. But Ste- 2 Comp. Weiss, b¢d/. Theol. p.148. But that Stephen, as Reuss thinks (in Herzog’s Encyk. XV. p. 73), preached something which the apostles had not previously taught, is all the more uncertain an assumption, seeing that already in the sayings of Jesus Himself sufü- cient materials for the purpose were given. Comp. e.g. John iv. 21 ff., the sayings of Jesus concerning the Sabbath, concerning the Levitical purifications, concerning the mAjpw- ats of the law, concerning the destruction of phen (6 to mvevpare Séwv, Constitt. ap. viii. 46. 9) may have expressed himself in a more threatening and incisive manner than others, and thereby have directed the persecution to himself. In so far he was certainly the fore- runner of Paul. 3 Comment. in histor. atque orat. Steph., Gott. 1780. 4 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 125. 5 In the Stud, u. Krit. 1857, p. 356. STEPHEN ACCUSED. 131 even if used as a veil for a higher meaning, be framed after a manner so alien to Israelite piety and so unwise, that it could not be attributed at all to Stephen, full as he was of the Spirit. Oecumenius has correctly stated the matter: érewd) GAAwc pév hjkovoav, GAAwe dé viv aurol Tpovxüpovv, eikörwg Kal Wevdoudprupec avaypdgovtat. — Tov Térov Tov ayiov] the holy place kar’ &£oxhv is the temple.'— Ver. 14. 6 Nafwp. ovtoc] is not to be considered as part of the utterance of Stephen, but as proceeding from the standpoint of the false witnesses who so designate Jesus contemptuously, and blended by them with the words of Stephen. And not only isö Nafwp. an expression of contempt, but also ouroc? : Jesus, this Nazarene ! — rov rérov tovrov] The false witnesses represent the matter, as if Stephen had thus spoken pointing to the temple. Ver. 15. All the Sanhedrists ® saw the countenance of Stephen angelically glorified ; a superhuman, angel-like défa became externally visible to them on it (x). So Zuke has conceived and represented it with simple definite- ness ; so the serene calm which astonished even the Sanhedrists, and the holy joyfulness which was reflected from the heart of the martyr in his countenance, have been glorified by the symbolism of Christian legend. But it would be arbitrary, with Kuinoel (comp. Grotius and Heinrichs), to rationalize the meaning of eidov . . . ayyéAov to this effect: ‘‘Os animi tranquillitatem summam referebat, adeo ut eum intuentibus reverentiam injiceret ;’’ according to which fhe expression would have to be referred, with Neander and de Wette, to a poetically symbolical description, which does not correspond with the otherwise simple style of the narrative. The phenomenon was certainly ‘‘an extraordinary operation of the Spirit of Jesus ;’’* but the form of it is added by tradition, which betrays the point of view of the miraculous also by the ravrec. The parallel adduced afresh by Olshausen (2 Sam. xiv. 17) is utterly unsuitable, because there the com- parison to an angel relates to wisdom, and not to anything external. Nor is the analogy of the déga in the face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 7) suitable, on account of the characteristic rpédcwr. ayyé2ov. For Rabbinical analogies, see Schoettgen and Wetstein. NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (v) A murmuring. Y. 1. The first dissension within the Christian Church arose from a natural jealousy of two parties, of different language and national manners. Each party, wedded to its own customs and ways, was naturally prejudiced some- what against the other ; both truly Christian, yet each imperfect and lacking in true charity. This trouble was the germ of the future disturbance caused by the Judaizing Christians during and after the age of the apostles. The same element of discontent and disunion exists still in countries where 13 Mace. ii. 14. 3 arevigavres eis avtov: ‘‘usitatum est in 2 vii.40, xix.26; Luke xv. 80; Ast, Zew. judiciis oculos in reum convertere, quum Plat.1I. p. 494; Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. ix. expectatur ejus defensio,” Calvin. 29, p. 492. 4 Baumgarten, p. 130. 1352 CHAP. VI., NOTES. different races, nationalities, and languages prevail, as in our own land, where dwell together natives of almost every country in the world. There is need for the exercise of enlarged and enlightened charity, for the exhibition of Christian wisdom and apostolic tact, and for the cultivation of a spirit of mu- tual forbearance and brother-love. « There is something very sad in the brief statement contained in the open- ing verses of this sixth chapter. It tells us that the curtain had fallen on the first act of the church’s history. Hitherto unbroken peace had reigned in the church, and a mutual love, which manifested itself in the general community of goods. But now we see the fair life interrupted, and the apostle compelled by a dissension to make arrangements for governing the community. It is a humiliating thought that the first great movement to organize ecclesiastical order and discipline was forced upon the apostles by an outburst of human passions among believers.’’ (Howson, Acts.) (w) Seven men. V. 3. Luke does not designate these men deacons. Nor does it appear that any one of the seven was ever so called. Philip is spoken of as an evangelist, and both he and Stephen were successful preachers. ‘‘Some of the ancient writers regarded them as the first deacons ; others as entirely distinct from them. The general opinion at present is that this order arose from the institution of the Seven, but by a gradual extension of the sphere of duty at first assigned to them.’’ (Hackett.) Various reasons have been imagined why seven were selected—that this was the sacred number among the Jews ; that there were seven thousand believers at the time—one for each thousand ; that there were seven congregations in Jerusalem ; that it referred to the supposed existence of seven archangels ; that it was a contrast to the twelve apostles, or a reference to the days of the week. But all such supposi- tions are arbitrary and vain, Lightfoot observes: “Let him that hath confi- dence enough pretend to assign a sufficient reason.’’ The special exigency of the time required a particular work, and for this men were selected by the church and appointed by the apostles. The office of a deacon is scriptural, and his qualifications and duties are divinely specified. (x) The face of an angel. V. 15. Our author, speaking of the phenomenon, ascribes it to the “operation of the Spirit of Jesus, but the form of it is added by tradition.” The narrative plainly implies that the appearance was supernatural, probably something similar to the radiance on the face of Moses, upon which the children of Israel could not look. The comparison with the angel is not intended to give any definite idea of his actual appearance, as we know nothing of the aspect of an angel’s conntenance ; but it is used as a strong figure to suggest the idea of something superhuman and celestial. Augustine thus beautifully writes of the martyr’s transfigured face: “O lamb, foremost of the flock of Christ, fighting in the midst of wolves, following after the Lord, but still at a distance from him, and already the angel’s friend ! Yes, how clearly was he the angel’s friend, who, while in the very midst of the wolves, still seemed like an angel ; for so transfigured was he by the rays of the Sun of Righteousness, that even to his enemies he seemed a being not of this world.”’ CRITICAL REMARKS. 133 OHAPTER. VI, Ver. 1. dpa is wanting inABCN, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ. Bed. Deleted by Lachm. Butif not genuine, it would hardly have been added, as it was so little necessary for the sense that, on the contrary, the question expressed in a shorter and more precise form appears to be more suitable to the standpoint and the temper of the high priest. — Ver. 3. t7v yyv] The article is wanting in Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation. A copyist’s error. Restored by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 5. aito doüvar) doivar aire is decidedly attested ; so Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 7. dovAevowor] Tisch. reads dovdAevcov- ow, in accordance, no doubt, with A C D, vss. Ir., but it is a mechanical rep- etition from ver. 6. — Ver. 11. r7v yjv Aiyixtov] ABC D* (which has 颒 6A75 THiS Aly.) 8, 81, vss. have t7v Alyvrrov. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But how easily might THN be passed over after THN! and then the change AiyvrrON became necessary. — Ver. 12. Instead of oira, oıria is to be received with Lachm. Tisch. Born,!— &v Aiyirtw] Lachm. Tisch. read eis Aiyvrrov, following A BC EN, 40. &v Aiy. is an explanatory supplement to övra. — Ver. 14. After ovyy&v. Elz, has airoi, in opposition to witnesses of some importance (also NS), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent addi- tion. — Ver. 15. dé] A C E 8, 15, 18, vss. have xal xaré3y, which Griesb. has recommended, Rinck preferred, and Lachm, and Tisch. have adopted. D, 40, Syr. p. Cant. have no conjunction at all ; so Born., but from the LXX. Deut. x. 22; «ai? kar. is to be preferred as best attested. — Ver. 16. 6] Elz. reads 6, against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction. ——7od Yvyéu] Lachm. reads rod év 2., according to A EN** min, Copt. Syr. p. Tol. BC & min. Sahid. Arm. have merely &v =. An alteration, because this Lvyéu was appre- hended, like the preceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Gen. xxxill. 19 was not recognized. — Ver. 17. ouoAöyncoev] So Tisch. Lachm. But Elz. and Scholz have duocev, against ABC N, 15, 36, and some vss. A more precisely defining gloss from the LXX. instead of which D E have érnyyeiAaro (so Born.). —Ver. 18. After érepos Lachm. has Er’ Aiyvrrov, according to AB C N, min. and several vss. An exegetical addition from the LXX. — Ver. 20. After marpös Elz. has airod. See on ver. 14. — Ver. 21. exrehevra dt adzor] Lachm. Born. read &xredevros 62 adroö, according to ABCDNmin. A correc- tion in point of style. — Ver. 22. racy oodia] A C EN, vss, Or. (twice) Bas. Theodoret have év racy 006. So Tisch. D* has rüoav riv oodiav. So Born. Interpretations of the Itecepta, in favour of which is also the reading wdons cogias in B, which is a copyist’s error. — év before épy. (Elz. Scholz) is as de- eidedly condemned by external testimonies as the aurov after Zpyoıs, omitted in Elz., is attested. — Ver. 26 curv7#2ucev] BCDN, min. and some vss. have ovvnAkacev or ovryAdaccev, Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recom- 1 How often otriov is exchanged in mss. ad Iier. iii. 11; Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. with oiros and oirov, may beseeninFrotscher, 64D; Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 33. 134 CHAP, VII. mended the latter, and Lachm. Born. (comp. also Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 31) adopted it. Gloss on the margin for the explanation of the original ovvnAacev .. . eS eipyvmv. On its reception into the text, the eis eip., separated from ovvjA. by aitovs, was retained. — Ver. 27. 颒 jus] ABC HR, min, Theophyl. have 26’ 7udv. So Tisch. and Lachm. From LXX. Ex. ii. 14. — Ver. 30. xupiov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C8, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to ayye?os generally, and here specially oc- casioned by the LXX. Ex. iii. 2. — Instead of gAo)i zvpos, Tisch. has rupi gAoyés, after A C E, min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and as the witnesses at our passage are divided, we cannot come to any decision. — Ver. 31. éatuage] So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Lachm. have &davuacev. Both have considerable attestation. But the suitableness of the relative imperfect was, as often elsewhere, not duly apprehended. — After xupiov Elz, Scholz have pos airév, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch, have deleted, following ABS, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. An exegetical amplification, instead of which D, after karav., continues by: 6 küp. eimev ara Aéywov. — Ver. 32. Lachmann’s reading: 6 deös ’Adpauu x. ’loaak x. ’Iakw3 (so also Tisch.), has indeed considerable attestation, but it is an adaptation to iii. 13. — Ver. 33. év ©] Lachm. Tisch. read 颒 4, which is to be preferred on account of pre- ponderant attestation by AB C D** (D* has od, so Born.) N; év o is from the LXX. — Ver. 34. aroore?o] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read aroorei)o, which is so decidedly attested by AB CD. Chrys., and by the transcriber’s error arooriAw in E and &, that it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Ex, iii. 10. The Recepta is a mistaken emendation. — Ver. 35, Instead of dméoresAer, üneoraAkev is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to decisive evi- dence, — év yerpi] Lachm. Tisch. Born., read ovv xeıpi, which is so decidedly attested, and might so easily give place to the current év yerp’, that it must be preferred. — Ver. 36. y7] Lachm. reads 77, according to BC, min. Sahid. Cant, A transcriber’s error. The originality of y7 is supported also by the’ Alyimrov (instead of Aiyörrw) adopted by Elz, and Born. after D, which, however, has preponderating testimony against it.— Ver. 37. After Oeös Elz. has tudv, against decisive testimony. «vpoS and aitod akovosode are also to be rejected (Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted both), as important authorities are against them, and as their insertion after the LXX. and iii. 22 is more natural than their omission. — Ver. 39, rais kapd.] Lachm. reads év zais-xapd., according to ABCR8. This is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, r7 xapdia (in H, min. and some vss, Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred by Rinck and Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine, were it not that almost all the uncials and vss support the plural. — Ver. 43. öuov] is wanting in BD, min, vss. Or. Ir. Philast. Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the LXX. — 'Peoav] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and Tisch. have ‘Pegdv, according to A C E, But Elz. Scholz have ‘Pewdiv ; Born, "Peugau (D, Vulg. Ir.) ; B has ‘Poudd ; N*, "Poudav ; N**, ‘Pardav. — Ver. 44. The usual &v before rois, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted (after A B C D** HN, min, Chrys. and some vss.), is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 46. 026] BDH *, Cant. have o/kw. Adopted by Lachm. and Born. But in accordance with ver, 48 it appeared contradictory to the idea of Stephen, to designate the temple as the dwelling of God; and hence the alteration.— Ver. 48. After yeıpor. Elz. has vaois, against ABC DEN, min. and most vss. An exegetical addition. Comp. xvii. 24. — Ver. 51. 77 xapdia] Lachm. and Born. read xapdiaıs. But the STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 135 plural, which is found partly with and partly without the article inACDN, min, and several vss. Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the plural of the subject, B has «apdias, which, without being a transcriber’s error (in opposition to Buttm. neutest. Gr. p.148 [E. T. 170]), may be either singular or plural, and therefore is of no weight for either reading. — Ver. 52. yeyévyofe] The reading ’yeveoße in Lachm, Tisch. Born. is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted, Ver. 1. The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sanhedrists on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him an explanation of the charge just brought against him.—Zs then this, which the witnesses have just asserted, so? With e (see oni. 6; Luke xiii. 23) the question in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring about it. On the apa, used with interrogative particles as referring to the cir- cumstances of the case—here, of the discussion—see Klotz. Vv. 2-53. On the speech of Stephen.”—This speech bears in its contents and tone the impress of its being original. For the long and somewhat. prolix historical narrative, vv. 2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible throughout only indirectly, cannot—so peculiar and apparently even ir- relevant to the situation is much of its contents *—be merely put into the mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in ver. 1; the striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the smallest portion (vv. 48-53), would be more diffused over the whole, and the historical mistakes—which have nothing surprising in them in the case of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment—would hardly occur. —But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse, which must in the main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally (Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown.‘ It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the pub- lie life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given, if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the whole spirit of the apostolic age and with vi. 12, it only remains as the ı Ad Devar. p. 177; Nägelsb. on the Ziad, orat., Marb. 1849. Comp. his Kirche im p. 11, ed. 3. 2 See Krause, Comm. in hist. et orat. Steph., Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. con- silio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff. ; Luger, üb. Zweck, Inhalt u. Eigenthiimlichk. der Rede des Steph., Lübeck 1838: Lange in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 ff., and apost. Zeitalt. If. p. 84 fi. ; Thiersch, de Stephani apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. w. Krit. 1857, p. 352 fl. ; F. Nitzsch in the same, 1860, p. 479 ff. ; Senn in the Zvang. Zeitschr. JS. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 311 ff. 3 Comp. Calvin: ‘ Stephani responsio prima specie absurda et inepta videri posset.”’ 4 Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., con- jectures: by Saul. 136 CHAP. WEL FA most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing it on record, as the authentic source ; so that, immediately after the tragical termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and after- wards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents, and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, re- move any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conject- ures are to be ventured on;' and only this much is to be assumed as prob- able, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian, perhaps a secret Chris- tian in the Sanhedrim itself,—a view favoured by the diffusion, which we must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that vv. 54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted at ver. 53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source. With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict ; with regard to which, however,—especially as they are based in part on tradi- tions not found in the O. T.,—it must remain undetermined how far they are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events, these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an un- altered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been pre- served from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down. —From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand its originality, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as cor- rect in substance, and verbal only so far, as—setting aside the literary share, not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it into its present shape—it was possible and natural for an intentional exer- tion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Defini- tions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. Accord- ing to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, ‘‘ at the founda- tion of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefi- nite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought ;’’ the exact recol- lection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable ; the artificial plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration ; the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the Jews to Christianity ; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is histori- cally improbable, etc. ; Stephen is ‘‘the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of the Gentiles.’’? Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism : “ The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.”’ Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the 1 Olshausen, e g., refers to vi. 7; Luger and 2See in opposition to Baur, Schnecken- Baumgarten to the intervention of Saul. burger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 X. STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 137 relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in vi. 18, 14. Among the older interpreters—the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speech—the opinion of Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a historical way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the call of the Gentiles.’ But the very supposition, that the teaching of the call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbi- trary ; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill-chosen by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often com- mitted, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indi- cated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man acceptable to God ; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. somuch at length, just to show the Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself Jitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, conse- quently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to look upon this reference of the speech as “with definite purpose aimed at.’ In a more exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has laid down as the leading thought : “ Great and extraordinary as were the benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition of that people.”” In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised, and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant « to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people,—a point of view which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would indeed in itself be unholy and impious.* With reason, Luger, who yet goes too far inthe references of details, Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch have adhered to the historical standpoint given in vi. 13, 14, and kept strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech ;* along with which, how- 1 Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who con- per mali fuistis,’ etc. siders the speech, as respects the chief object 395Sam: ‘vilnis's 1 Kinss ws 5! yi, 1271 aimed at, as a preparation for xxviii. 25 ff. Chron. xviii. 12; comp. on vy. 49, 59. 2 Comp. already Bengel : ‘‘ Vos autem sem- 4 Comp. also de Wette, 133 CHAP VL. Sl: ever, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate, in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and allegorical application of them—by which they were to serve as amirror to the present—as designed by him,’ as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as it lays stress, on the contrary, upon God’s free and unmerited grace and elec- tion ; a similar view was already held by Calvin ; but to this there remains the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point, the non-meritorious nature of grace and election, is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in vi. 14 was ¢rwe,? inasmuch as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at vi. 14.—But if the asser- tion in vi. 14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive character,’ at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehement- ly ; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges was to him the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper theme is to be found in vv. 51, 52, and the contents and course of the speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: J stand here accused and per- secuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in conse- quence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which you, according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and con- tinue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this 1 Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, even in the very command of God to Abraham to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be involved the application: ‘To us also, to whom God in Christ has appeared, there has been a command to go out from our kindred.” In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to in- dicate : So will the race of oppressors, before whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated church will then cele- brate its new independent worship. In the envy of Joseph’s brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it is indicated that Christ also was from envy delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies the affliction and spiritual famine of the hos- tile Jews, who, however, would at length (ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles, acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. Moses’ birth at the period of the severest op- pression, points to the birth of Christ at the period of the census. Moses’ second appear- ance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere occurring) second appearance of Christ, which would have as its consequence the restora- tion of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the high priest in the judgment hall, etc. — Ac- cording to Luger, the speech has the three main thoughts: (1) That the law is nota thing rounded off in itself, but something added to the promise, and bearing even in it- self a new promise; (2) That the temple ia not exclusively the holy place, but only stands in the rank of holy places, by which a per- fecting of the temple is prefigured; (3) That from the rejection of Jesus no argument can be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, the ambassadors of God in all stages of reve- lation had been reviled. These three main thoughts are not treated one after the other, but one within the other, on the thread of sacred history ; hence the form of repetition very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, 26, etc.). 2 See, against this, on vi. 13. > Comp. the appropriate remarks of F, Nitzsch. STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 139 view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets history speak, and that with all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won the assembly to reflection.’ He commences with the divine guidance of the common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs ; but even in their case that refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph, who yet was destined to be the-deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in accordance with the aim of his defence, he is cbliged to dwell upon Moses, in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance and rejection appeared,’ although he was the mediator of God for the de- liverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (ver. 44 ff.). But hardly has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (vv. 48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attach, no longer to be restrained, upon his hostile judges (ver. 51 ff.), and that with a bold reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most un- veiled expression.* This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry ; whereupon Stephen breaks off in the mid-current of his speech,* and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he sees standing at the right hand of God. ; Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised and appreciated. Even Erasmus (ad ver. 51) gave it as his opinion, that there were many things in it ‘‘ quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id quod instituit.’? We, in saying so, points to the interruption after ver. 53. Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as “a compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical pur- pose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasti- cism ever invented,’’ Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowl- edged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, as opposed to the hostile accusations,—a praise which, doubtless, is in- tended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly character- izes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly 1The more fully, and without confining himself to what was directly necessary for his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical not carried the history farther than to the time of Solomon, Vv. 51, 52 include in them- selves the whole tragic summary of the later representation, the more might he, on account of the national love for the sacred history, and in accordance with O. T. examples (Ex. xx. 5 ff. ; Deut. xxiii. 2 ff.), expect the eager and concentrated interest of his hearers, and perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing of their judgment. 2 Ver. 27 f., ver. 39 ff. 3 We may not ask wherefore Stephen has history. 4 What Stephen would still have said or left unsaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be ascertained. But the speech is broken of; with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new stream of reproaches. And certainly he would still have added a prophetic threatening of punishment, as well as possibly, also, the summons to repentance. 140 CHAP. VII, 2-4. and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle, and in this respect also it is a ‘‘documentum Spiritus pretiosum,”’ Bengel (y). As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hel- lenist, which must be left undecided, this forms no reason why he should not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the speech was delivered in Greek; it is sufficient to set down this phenome- non to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew, whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already Greek. Vv. 2, 3. Brethren and respectively (kai) fathers. The former (kinsmen, D'S) refers to all present ; the latter,’ to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. xxii. 1.— 6 Oeöc race dögnc] God, who has the glory. And this défa (M22), as it stands in significant relation to ©0907, must be understood as outward majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly mani- fests Himself.*?— Haran, |, LXX. Xappav, with the Greeks * and Romans, * Kappa and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia.° The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by ver. 3 as that narrated -in Gen. xii. 1. But this occurred when Abraham had already departed from Ur to Haran (Gen. xi. 31) ; accordingly not: xpiv 7 karoıkjoar This discrepancy ° is not to be set at rest by the usual assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probabiy derived from Gen. xv. 7,’ that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which Stephen refers, while in Gen. xii. there is recorded that which afterwards happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, ver. 3, admits of no other historical reference than to Gen. xii. 1. Stephen has thus, according to the text, erroneously (z) —speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment, how easily might he do so !—transferred the theophany that happened to Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius, “Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evan- gelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit quae sunt hominum ’’), and not to be evaded by having recourse * to an avrov Ev Xappav. 1 Comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew as in respectful address to kings, priests, prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Mare. p. 654. 2 Comp. ver. 55; Ex. xxiv. 16; Isa. vi. 3; Ps. xxiv. 7, xxix. 3; and on] Cor. ii. 8. 3 Herodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. xvi. 1, p, 747. 4 “ Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas,” Lucan. i. 104; comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc. Xxiil. 3. [Zrak. XI. 291 ff, § See Mannert, Geogr. Y. 2, p. 280 ff. ; Ritter, 6 Ewald explains the many deviations in this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by the supposition that the speaker followed a later text-book, then much used in the schools of learning, which had contained such peculi- arities. This is possible, but cannot be other- wise shown to be the case; nor can it be shown how the deviations came into the sup- posed text-book. 7 Comp. Neh. ix.%; Philo, de Adv. II. pp. 11,16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. Anti. i. 7. 1; see Krause, /.c. p. 11. 8 See Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others. HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS, 141 anticipation in Gen. xi. 31, according to which the vision contained in xii. 1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur (a'); or, by what professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary assumption ‘‘ that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigra- tion of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran,’’' to which primordial hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back. — év rq Meooror.] for the land of Ur* was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which the Chaldeans inhabited ; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8, mentions as castellum Persicum, whose situation must be conceived as farther south than Haran.*— xpiv 7] see on Matt. i. 18. — fy av co dei£o] quameunque tibi monstravero. ‘*Nou norat Abram, quae terra foret,’’ Heb. xi. 8, Bengel. Ver. 4. Tore] after he had received this command. — usta rd arofaveiv tov rar&pa avtov| Abraham was born to his father Terah when he was 70 years of age; and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years. Now, as Abraham was 75 years old when he went from Haran,’ it follows that Terah, after this departure of his son, lived 60 years (B'). Once more, there- fore, we encounter a deviation from the biblical narrative, which is found also in Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 415, and hence probably rests on a tradition, which arose for the credit of the filial piety of Abraham, who had not migrated before his father’s death. The circumstance that the death of Terah is narrated at Gen. xi. 32, proleptically, comp. xii. 4, before the migration, does not alter the state of matters historically, and cannot, with an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all justify the expedient of Baumgar- ten, p. 134.° The various attempts at reconciliation are to be rejected as arbitrarily forced: e.g. the proposal, Knatchbull, Cappellus, Bochart, Whiston, to insert at Gen. xi. 32, instead of 205, according to the Samaritan text 145, but even the latter is corrupted, as Gen. xi. 32 was not under- stood proleptically, and therefore it was thought necessary to correct it ; ® or the ingenious refinement which, after Augustine, particularly Chladenius, Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and several older interpreters have defended, that wet@xicev is to be understood, not of the transferring generally, but of the giving quiet and abiding possession, to which Abraham only attained after the death of his father. More recently ® it has been assumed that Stephen here follows the tradition ° that Abraham left Canaan after the spiritual death of his father, i.e. after his falling away into idolatry—this, 1 Baumgarten, p. 134. 2DIWD VIN, Gen. xi. 28. 3 See, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis, Arnold in Herzog's Encykl. XVI. p. 735. 4 Gen. xi. 26, 32, xii. 4; Joseph. Anft.i. 7.1. 5 That the narrative of the death of Terah, Gen. Z.c., would indicate that for the com. mencement of the new relation of God to men Abraham alone, and not in connection with his father, comes into account. Thus cer- tainly all tallies. ® Naively enough, Knatchbull, p. 47. was of opinion that, if this alteration of the He- brew text could not be admitted, it was better “cum Scaligero nodum hune solvendum re- linquere, dum Elias venerit.”” According to Beelen in loc., Abraham need not have been the jirst-born of Terah, in spite of Gen. xi. 26, 27. 7 De conciliat. Mosis et Steph. circa annos Abr., Viteb. 1710, ® Michaelis, Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Ols- hausen. ® Lightf. in doc.; Michael. de chronol. Mos. post diluv. sec. 15. 142 CHAP. VII, 5-13. at least, was intended to protect the patriarch from the suspicion of having violated his filial duty !— which opinion Michaelis incorrectly ascribes also to Philo. According to this view, arodaveiv would have to be understood spiritually, which the context does not in the least degree warrant, and which no one would hit upon, if it were not considered a necessity that no deviation from Genesis /.c. should be admitted. — nerorıcev] namely, God. Rapid change of the subject ; comp. on vi. 6. — eic jv tpeic viv karoık.] i.€. into which ye having moved now dwell init. A well-known brachylogy by combining the conception of motion with that of rest.’ The eic 7 calls to mind the immigration of the nation (which is represented by ieic) from Egypt. Ver. 5. KAnpovoyia, nm, hereditary possession. Heb. xi. 8. — Biya modöc] * On the subject-matter, comp. Heb. xi. 9.— Kai ixnyyeidato] Gen. xiii. 15. Kai is the copula. He gave not... . and promised, the former he omitted, and the latter he did.— xal ro or£pu. aitov] kai is the simple and, not namely (see Gen. l.c.). The promise primarily concerned Abraham as the participant father of the race himself. Comp. Luke i. 71.— This verse, too, stands apparently at variance with Genesis, where, in chap. xxiii., we are informed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth. But only apparently. For the remark oux édwxev ait@ . . . modös refers only to the first period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine before the institution of circumcision (ver. 8), while that purchase of a field falls much later. It was therefore quite superfluous, either * to emphasize the fact that Abraham had not in fact acquired that field by divine direction, but had purchased it, or * to have recourse to the erroneous assumption, not to be justified either by John vii. 8 or by Mark xi. 13, that oi« stands for oir. Vv. 6, 7. By the continuative dé there is now brought in the express declaration of God, which was given on occasion of this promise to Abraham concerning the future providential guidance destined for his posterity. But God, at that time, spoke thus: ‘‘ that his seed will dwell as strangers in a foreign land,”’ etc. The örı does not depend on é242., nor is it the recitative, but it is a constituent part of the very saying adduced.® This is Gen. xv. 13, but with the second person (thy seed) converted into the third, and also otherwise deviating from the LXX.; in fact, kai Aatp. poe év TH TéTW TOdTH is entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expansion suggested by Ex. iii. 12. — éorae räporov] MM WM. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 18; Eph. il, 19. — dovAdsove:y alrö] namely, the aAAörpror. — rerpanöcıa] Here, as in an oracle, the duration is given, as also at Gen. l.c., in round numbers ; but in Ex. xii. 40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage ° is historically specified eractly as 430 years (c'). In Gal. iii. 17 (see in loc.), Paul has inappropriately referred the chronological statement of Ex. xii. 40 to the space of time from the promise made to Abraham down to the giving of 1 Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T. 516 f.) ; Dissen, ad 3 With Drusius, Schoettgen, Bengel. Pind. Ol. xi. 38, p. 132. 4 With Kuinoel and Olshausen. 2 LXX. Deut. ii. 5 (937-73), spatium, quod 5 LXX.: yıwWokwv yvwon OTe mapotKoy K.T.A, planta pedis calcatur. ‘Comp. on Bjua in the 6 &m rerpar. belongs to the whole eoras sense of vestigium, Hom. H. Mere. 222, 345. 2... KAKWTOVTL. HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS. 143 the law.— Ver. 7. Asin the LXX. and in the original Heb. the whole passage vv. 6, 7 is expressed in direct address (rö oröpua cov), while Stephen in ver. 6 has adduced it in the indirect form ; so henow, passing over to the direct expression, inserts the eirev 6 Oed¢, which is not in the LXX. nor in the Heb. — And, after this 400 years’ bondage, the people. . . I shall judge , kpivew of judicial retribution, which, as frequently in the N. T., is seen from the context to be punitive. — £y6] has the weight of the authority of divine absoluteness. Comp. Rom. xii. 19. —év rö röorw rotrw] namely, where I now speak with thee (in Canaan). There is no reference to MHoreb,' as we have here only a freely altered echo of the promise made to Moses, which suggested itself tu Stephen, in order to denote more definitely the promise made to Abraham. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bengel and Baum- garten, who find an indication of the long distance of time and the intervening complications. Stephen, however, here makes no erroneous reference (de Wette), but only a ‚free application, such as easily presented itself in an extempore speech. Ver. 8. Aradyknv wepıroujce] a covenant completed by means of cireumcision.? Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision; and, on the other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father of many nations. —idoxev] inasmuch as God proposed and laid on Abraham the conclusion of the covenant. —vizwce] so, i.e. standing in this new relation to God,* as the bearer of the divine covenant of circumeision. JIshmael was born previously. —xai 6 'Icaak r. ‘Iaxd3| namely, éyévvyce x. repıer. T. mu. T. 070. Vv. 9-13. Zy2dcavrec] here of envious jealousy, as often also in classical writers. Certainly Stephen in this mention has already in view the similar malicious disposition of his judges towards Jesus, so that in the ill-used Joseph, as afterwards also in the despised Moses, both of whom yet became deliverers of the people, he sees historical types of Christ. — azédovro eig Aiy.] they gave him away to Egypt.* For analogous examples to arod. eic, see Elsner, p. 390.—The following clauses, rising higher and higher with simple solemnity, are linked on by kai. — yapıv x. cogiav| It is simplest * to explain ydpw of the divine bestowal of grace, and to refer évavtiov dap. merely to oooiav: He gave him grace, generally, and in particular, wisdom before Pharaoh, namely, according to the history which is presumed to be well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other counsel. —yoiu.| ‘‘vice regis cuncta regentem,’’ Gen, xli. 42, Grotius. — x. 6A. 7. oik. aur.] as high steward. — xopraouara] fodder for their cattle. So through- out with Greek writers.° A scarcity of fodder, to which especially belongs the want of cereal fodder, is the most urgent difficulty, in a failure of crops, for the possessors of large herds of cattle. — övra orria] that there was corn. The question, Where ? finds its answer from the context and the familiar history. The following eic Aiyurrov (see critical remarks) belongs to éazécr., and is, from its epoch-making significance, emphatically placed first. On 1 Ex. iii. 12: év 7 öper tovTw. 5 Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21. 2 Gen. xvii. 10. Comp. on Rom. iv. 11. 6 And comp. LXX. Gen. xxiv. 25, 32, xlii. > Comp. on Eph. v. 33. 27; Judg. xix. 19; Ecclus, xxxiii. 29, xxviii. 4 By sale, comp. v.8; Gen. xlv. 4, LXX. 29. 144 CHAP: Vil. 14-16. axoverv, to learn, with the predicative participle, see Winer ;' frequent also in Greek writers.— üveyvwpichn] he was recognised by his brethren,? to be taken passively, as also Gen. xlv. 1, when the LXX. thus translates YUN. — TO yévog Tov 'Iwoyo] the name* is significantly repeated ;* a certain sense of patriotic pride is implied in it. Vv. 14, 15. "Ev wp. EBdoumk. révte] in 75 souls, persons,’ he called his father and, in general, the whole family, z.e. he called them in a personal number of 75, which was the sum containing them. The expression is a Hebraism (2), after the LXX. Deut. x. 22. In the number Stephen, however, follor’s the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 27, Ex. i. 5,° where likewise 75 souls are specified, whereas the original text, which Josephus follows,’ reckons only 70.°— aizo¢ Kk. of rar. juav| he and our patriarchs, generally. epanorthosis. See on John ii. 12. Ver. 16. Merer£ßnoav] namely, avröc x. of marépec yuav. Incorrectly Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the rar£pec ;° whereas airic kal oi marépec yuav are named as the persons belonging to the same category, of whom the being dead is affirmed. Certainly Gen. xlix. 30,” according to which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.), is at variance with the statement werer£d. cic Suyéu. But Stephen—from whose memory in the hurry of an extemporary speech this statement escaped, and not the statement, that Joseph’s body was buried at Sychem*— transfers the locality of the burial of Joseph not merely to his brethren, of whose burial-place the O. T. gives no information, but also to Jacob him- A very common 1 p. 325 (E. T. 436). 2 Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm. p. 127 A, Lach. p. 181 C. 3 Instead of the simple avrov, as A E, 40. Arm. Vulg. read. 4 Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 7%. 34; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11. 5 ji. 41, xxvii. 37. 6 At Deut. 2.c. also Codex A has the reading 75, which 1s, however, evidently a mere alter- ation by a later hand in accordance with the two other passages. Already Philo (see Loes- ner, p. 185) mentions the two discrepant state- ments of number (75 according to Gen. Z.c. and Ex. /.e., and %0 according to Deut. Z.c.) and allegorizes upon them, 7 Ante. ii. 7%. 4, vi. 5. 6. 8 According to the Hebrew, the nnmber 70 is thus made up: all the descendants of Jacob who came down with him to Egypt are fixed at 66, Gen. xlvi. 26, and then, ver. 27, Joseph and his two sons and Jacob himself (that is, “ four persons more) are included. In the reckoning of the LXX., influenced by a dis- crepant tradition, there are added to those 66 persons (ver. 26) in ver. 27 (contrary to the original text), vior de Iwan ot yerönevor avry ev yn Alyintw Wuyxat Evvea, So that 75 persons are male out. It is thus evidently contrary to this express mode of reckoning of the LXX., when it is commonly assumed (also by Wet- stein, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Ols- hausen) that the LXX. had added to the 70 persons of the original text 5 grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Joseph (who are named in the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 20). Butin the greatest contradiction to the above notice of the LXX. stands the view of Seb. Schmid, with whom Wolf agrees, that the LXX. had added to the 66 persons (ver. 26) the wives of the sons of Jacob, and from the sum of 78 thereby made up had again deducted 3 persons, namely, the wife of Judah who had died in Canaan, the wife of Joseph and Joseph him- self, so that the number 75 is left. Entirely unhistorical is the hypothesis of Krebs and Loesner: ‘*Stephanum apud Luc. (et LXX.) de iis loqui, qui in Aegyptum invitati fuerint, Mosen ‚de his, qui eo venerint, quorum non nisi 70 fuerunt.” Beza conjectured, instead of wévre in our passage : mavres (!); and Mas- sonius, instead of the numeral signs OE (75), the numeral signs CZ (66). For yet other views, see Wolf. 9 See also Hackett. 10 Comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 7. 11 Josh. xxiv, 83, comp. Gen. 1. 25. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 145 self, in unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen. xlix. 30 (p!). Perhaps the Rabbinical tradition, that all the brethren of Joseph were also buried at Sychem,' was even then current, and thus more easily suggested to Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain that Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this,” which transfers the burial of all the patriarchs to Hebron, although no special motive can be pointed out in the matter ; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel, to assume that he had wished thereby to convey the idea that the Samari- tans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could not, as the possessors of the graves of the patriarchs, have been rejected by God. — wvycaro ’ABp.| which, formerly, Abraham bought. But according to Gen. xxxiii. 19, it was not Abraham, but Jucob, who purchased a piece of land from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand, Abraham pur- chased from Ephron the field and burial-cave at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.). Consequently, Stephen has here evidently fallen into a mistake, and asserted of Abraham what historically applied to Jacob, being led into error by the fact that something similar was recorded of Abraham. If expositors had candidly admitted the mistake so easily possible in the hurry of the moment, they would have been relieved from all strange and forced expe- dients of an exegetical and critical nature, and would neither have assumed a purchase not mentioned at all in the ©. T., nor,’ a combining of two pur- chases,* and two burials ;° nor,® against all external and internal critical evidence, have asserted the obnoxious’ Ap. to be spurious,’ either supplying ‘Tax as the subject to avycaro,* or taking ovyoaro as impersonal ; * nor would ’Aßp., with unprecedented arbitrariness, have been explained as used in a patronymic sense for Abrahamides, i.e. Jacobus.‘° Conjectural emendations are: 'Iaröß,'' 6 tov '"Aßpaau.'"* Other forced attempts at reconciliation may be seen in Grotius aud Calovius. — roi Suyéu] the father of Sychem.* The relationship is presupposed as well known.— avicaro] is later Greek. "*— rinje apyup.| the genitive of price : for a purchase-money consisting of silver. The LXX. (Gen. xxxiii. 19) has &xarov auvav," for which Stephen has adopted a general expression, because the precise one was probably not present to his recollection. 1 Lightf. and Wetst. in loc. 2 Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 2. 3 Flacius, Bengel, comp. Luger. 4 Gen. xxiii., xxxiii. 5 Gen. 1. ; Josh. xxiv. 6 Beza, Bochart, Bauer in Philol. Thue. Paul. p. 167, Valckenaer, Kuinoel. 7 Comp. Calvin. € Beza, Bochart. * “ Quod emtum erat,’’ Kuinoel. 10 Glass, Fessel, Surenhusius, Krebs. 11 Glericus. 12 Cappellus. 132 Not the son of Sycbem, as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and others have it. See Gen. xxxiii. 19. Lachmann reads roo ev, 3., 1n accord doubtless with important witnesses, of which several have only év 3., but evidently an alteration arising from the opinion that Zvxen was the cify. The circumstance that in no other passage of the N.T. the genitive of relationship is to be explained by rarnp, must be regarded as purely accidental. Entirely similar are the passages where with female name unrnp is to be supplied, as Luke xxiv. 10. See generally, Winer, p. 178 f. (E. T. 237). Ifjilii were to be supplied, this would yield a fresh historical error ; and not that quite another Hamor is meant than at Gen. Z.c. (in opposition to Beelen). 14 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 137 f. 15 Probably the name of a coin, see Bochart, Hieroz. 1. p. 473 ff. ; Gesenius, Thes. ii. p. 1241, 8.v. no'yD. 146 CHAP. VII., 17-23. Vv. 17, 18. Kadc] is not, as is commonly assumed, with an appeal to the critically corrupt passage 2 Macc. i. 31, to be taken as a particle of time cum, but! as quemadmodum. In proportion as the time of the promise, the time destined for its realization, drew nigh, the people grew, etc. — je ©poady. K.r.A.] which God promised (ver. 7). öwoAoy., often so used in Greek writers ; comp. Matt. xiv. 7. — aveorn Baothed¢ Erepoc] tH¢ BaowAeiacg eig aAAov oikov peteAqAvdviac,? Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 1. — öc our ndeı Tov ’Iwonp]| who knew not Joseph, his history and his services to the country. This might be said both in Ex. i. Sand here with truth; because, in all the transactions of Pharaoh with Moses and the Israelites, there is nothing which would lead us to conclude that the king knew Joseph. ZErroneously Erasmus and others, including Krause, huld that oida and y' here signify to love; and Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hackett render: who did not regard the merits of Joseph. In 1 Thess. v. 12, also, it means simply to know, to understand, Ver. 19. Karacogifecfa] to employ cunning against any one, to beguile, LXX. Ex. i. 10. Only here in the N. T.* — rov roıeiv Exdera ra Bpépn avtor] a construction purely indicative of design ; comp. on iii. 12. But it cannot belong to xaraoooıo,* but only to éxax. Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 20. He mal- treated them, in order that they should expose their children (E'), i.e. to force upon them the exposure of their children.°— ei¢ 70 u7 [woy.] ne vivi conserva- rentur, the object of roriv éxfera Tt. Bp. avr.® Ver. 20. ‘Ev © xappo] ‘‘tristi, opportuno,’’ Beng. — doreiog rH Oe, | Luther aptly renders : a fine child for God,—i.e. so beautifully and grace- fully formed,’ that he was by God esteemed as aoreioc.® In substance, there- fore, the expression amounts to the superlative idea; but it is not to be taken asa paraphrase of the superlative, but as conceived in its proper literal sense.’ The expressions Qeosıdyc and Geoeixedoc, compared by many, are not here revelant, as they do not correspond to the conception of aoreiog ro Oew@. — Moses’ beauty" is also praised in Philo, Vit. Mos. i. p. 604 A, and Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 7, where he is called raic uopen Oeioc. According to Jalkut Rubeni, f. 75. 4, he was beautiful as an angel. — ujvac rpeig] Ex. ii. 2. — rov marpöc] Amram, Ex. vi. 20. Vv. 21, 22. 'Exref. 62 abröv, aveiA. auröv] Repetition of the pronoun as in Matt. xxvi. 71; Mark ix. 28; Matt. viii. 1.!!— dveiAaro] took him up (sustu- lit, Vulg.). So also often among Greek writers, of exposed children ; see Wetstein. — éavrq ] in contrast to his own mother. — eic viöv] Ex. ii. 10, for a son, so that he became a son to herself. So also in classical Greek with 1 Comp. also Grimm on 2 Macc. i. 31. 2 The previous dynasty was that of the Hyk- sos; the new king was Ahmes, who expelled the Hyksos. See Knobel on Ex. i. 8. 3 But see Kypke, II. p. 37: and from Philo, Loesner, p. 186. Aorist participle, as in i. 4. 4 So Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 846. 5 On moreiv Exdeta = éxBeivar, COMP. Torey €xdotov = éxd.dovat, Herod. iil. 1; on exderos, Eur. Andr. 70. * Comp. LXX. Ex.i. 17 ; Luke xvii. 33. See on 2 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. i. 20. 7 Comp. Judith xi. 23. 8 Comp. Winer, p. 232 (E. T. 310). 9See also on 2 Cor. x. 4. Hesiod, "Epy. 825: avairıos adavaroıcıv, and Aesch. Agam. 352 : Ocoıs avammAarnros, are parallels; as are from the O. T., Gen. x. 9, Jonah iii. 3. 10 Ex. ii. 2; comp. Heb. xi. 23. [p. 377. 11 See on Matt. viii. 1, Fritzsche, ad Mare. JEWS UNDER THE LAWS. 147 verbs of development.’ — raon cogia Aiy.] Instrumental dative. The notice itself is not from the O. T., but from tradition, which certainly was, from the circumstances in which Moses? was placed, true. The wisdom of the Egyptians extended mainly to natural science, with magic, astronomy, medicine, and muthematics ; and the possessors of this wisdom were chiefly the priestly caste,* which also represented political wisdom.‘*— duvaröc év Ady. x. Epy.| see on Luke xxiv. 19. év épy. refers not only to his miraculous activity, but generally to the whole of his abundant labours. With dw. év Adyore ® Ex. iv. 10 appears at variance ; but Moses in that passage does not describe himself as a stammerer, but only as one whose address was unskil- ful, and whose utterance was clumsy. But even an address not naturally fluent may, with the accession of a higher endowment,® be converted into eloquence, and become highly effective through the Divine Spirit, by which it is sustained, as was afterwards the historically well-known case with the addresses of Moses.” Thus, even before his public emergence, for to this time the text refers, a higher power of speech may have formed itself in him. Hence düv. év Ady. is neither to be referred, with Krause, to the writ- ings of Moses, nor to be regarded, with Heinrichs, as a once-current gen- eral eulogium ; nor is it to be said, with de Wette, that admiration for the celebrated lawgiver had caused it to be forgotten that he made use of his brother Aaron as his spokesman. Ver. 23. But when a period of forty years became full to him,—i.e. when he was precisely 40 years old. This exact specification of age is not found in the O. T. (Ex. ii. 11), but is traditional.*— avé8n éxt tiv Kapdiav aitov] it arose into his heart, i.e. came into his mind, to visit, to see how it went with them, etc. The expression’ is adopted from the LXX., where it is an imita- tion of the Hebrew 27 92 79%, Jer. iii. 16, xxxii. 35; Isa. Ixv. 17,2 Neither is 6 duadoyrauöc, for which Luke xxiv. 38 is erroneously appealed to, nor 7 BovAr to be supplied. — éricxéy.] invisere, Matt. xxv. 36, often also in Greek writers. He had hitherto been aloof from them, in the higher circles of Egyptian society and culture, — rove adeAgoic] ‘‘motivum amoris,’’ Bengel. Comp. ver. 26. Vv. 24, 25. See Ex. ii. 11, 12. — adıreiodar] to be unjustly treated. Erro- neously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies verberari. That was the mal- treatment. — juivaro| he exercised retaliation. Only here in the N. T., often in classic Greek. Similarly aueißsodar.!! — x. Erroino. éxdix.] and procured revenge (Judg. xi. 36). He became his éxdcxoc, vindex. — To kararovovu.] for him who was on the point of being overcome, present participle.!? — rardsac] mode of the juivaro k. Emoino, k.r.A, Wolf aptly says: ‘‘Percussionem vio- 1 Bernhardy, p. 218 f. See Lightfoot in loc. Bengel says: ‘‘ Mosis 2 Philo, Vit. Mos. vita ter 40 anni, vv. 30, 36.”’ 8 Isa. xix. 12. ® Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9. 4 Comp. Justin. xxxvi. 2. 10 ** Potest aliquid esse in profundo animae, 5 Comp. Joseph. Antt. iii 1.4: mAndeı out- quod postea emergit et incor . . . ascendit,” Acty mudavwraros. Bengel. 6 Comp. Luke xxi. 15. 11See Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 42; Herm. ad 7 Comp. Joseph. Anit. ii. 12. 2. Soph. Ant. 639. [xi. 6, xiii. 56. ® Beresh.f. 115.3; Schemoth Rabb. f. 118. 3. 12 Comp. Polyb. xxix, 11. 11, xl, 7.3; Diod. 148 CHAP. VII, 26-37. lentam caedis causa factam hic innui indubium est.’? Comp. Matt. xxvi. 31, and see ver. 28. — The inaccuracy, that röv Aiyvrrıov has no definite reference in the words that precede it, but only an indirect indication! in adırovuevov, Which presupposes a maltreater, is explained from the cireum- stances of the event being so universally known.—Ver. 25. But he thought that his brethren would observe that God by his hand (intervention) was giving them deliverance. — didwow] the giving is conceived as even now beginning ; the first step toward effecting the liberation from bondage had already taken place by the killing of the Egyptian, which was to be to them the signal of deliverance. Vv. 26, 27 f. See Ex. ii. 13 f. —do6y] he showed himself to them,—when, namely, he arrived among them ‘‘rursus invisurus suos.’’? Well does Bengel find in the expression the reference ultro, ex improviso.* — avroig] refers back to aderdovc. It is presumed in this case as well known, that there were two who strove. — ovvnAacev ait. eic eip.] he drove them together, by representations, to (cic, denoting the end aimed at) peace.* The aorist does not stand de conatu,° but the act actually took place on Moses’ part ; the fact that it was resisted on the part of those who strove, alters not the action. Grotius, moreover, correctly remarks : ‘‘ vox quasi vim significans agentis instantiam significat.’? — 6 dé adıkav r. zAno.| but he who treated his neighbour, one by nationality his brother, wnjustly, was still in the act of maltreating him. — üröcaro] thrust him from him. On xartornoev, has ap- ‘pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 171; and on diraoryc, who judges according to the laws, as distinguished from the more general kpırzc, Wyt- tenbach, Ep. crit. p. 219. — i) avedeiv x.7.2.] thou wilt not surely despatch (il. 23, v. 33) me? To the pertness of the question belongs also the oü. Vv. 29, 30. See Ex. ii. 15-22, iii. 2. — év 76 Aöyo TobTw] on account of this word, denoting the reason which occasioned his flight.° — Madıäu] ])V), a district in Arabia Petraea. Thus Moses had to withdraw from his obsti- nate people ; but how wonderfully active did the divine guidance show it- self anew, ver. 30! On äporkoc, comp. ver. 6.— al mAnpwd. Erov Teccapak. } traditionally, but comp. also Ex. vii. 7: ‘‘ Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit XL annos, in Mediane XL annos, et ministravit Israeli annos XL.’’ ’— &v rq Ephup tov dp. 2.] in the desert, in which Mount Sinai is situated, “0 V3, Ex. xix. 1, 2; Lev. vii. 28. From the rocky and mountainous base of this desert Sinai rises to the south (and the highest), and Horeb more to the north, both as peaks of the same mountain ridge. Hence there is no con- tradiction when, in Ex. iii., the appearance of the burning bush is trans- ferred to the neighbourhood of Horeb, as generally in the Pentateuch the names Sinai and Horeb are interchanged for the locality of the giving of the law, except in Deut. xxxiii. 2, where only Horeb is mentioned, as also in Mal. iv. 4; whereas in the N. T. and in Josephus only Sinai is named. The latter name specially denotes the locality of the giving of the law, while 1 Winer, p. 587 (E. T. 788). xx. 134. 2 Erasmus. Comp. 1 Kings iii. 16. © Grotius, Wolf, Kuinoel. 3 Comp. ii. 3, vii. 2, ix. 17, al. ; Heb. ix. 28. 6 Winer, p. 362 (E. T. 484). * The opposite: £pıdı EvveAacoar, Hom. I. 7 Beresh. Rabb.f. 115. 3. JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 149 Horeb was also the name of the entire mountain range. — iv HAoyi mupöe Barov] in the flume of fire of a thorn bush. Stephen designates the phenom- enon quite as it is related in Exodus, l.c., as a flaming burning bush, in which an angel of God was present, in which case every attempt to explain away the miraculous theophany, a meteor, lightning, must be avoided.’ Vv. 31-33. See Ex. iii. 3-5. — 7d öpaua] spectaculum. See on Matt. xvii. 9. — xaravojoaı] to contemplate, Luke xii. 24, 27; Acts xi. 6. — @wr7 kupiov] as the angel represents Jehovah Himself, so is he identified with Him. When the angel of the Lord speaks, that is the voice of God, as it is His representative servant, the angel, who speaks. To understand, with Chry- sostom, Calovius, and others, the angelus increatus —i.e. Christ as the 2Adyog — as meant, is consequently unnecessary, and also not in keeping with the anar- throus ayyeAoc, which Hengstenberg * wrongly denies (F’). Comp. xii. 7, 23. — Avoov 7d brödnua Tov mod. cov.| The holiness of the presence of God required, as it was in keeping generally with the religious feeling of the East,* that he who held intercourse with Jehovah should be barefooted, lest the sandals charged with dust should pollute (Josh. v. 15) the holy ground (y7 ayia); hence also the priests in the temple waited on their service with bare feet.° Ver. 34. ‘Idav eidov] LXX. Ex. iii. 7. Hence here an imitation of the Hebrew form of expression. Similar emphatic combinations were, how- ever, not alien to other Greek.’ — xarößnv] namely, from heaven, where I am enthroned.* — azvareiAw (see the critical remarks), adhortative subjunc- tive.’ Vy. 35-37. The recurring roörov is emphatic: thisand none other." Also in the following vv. 36, 37, 38, oiroc . . . ovtog . . . oüroc are always em- phatically prefixed. — öv npvjoavro] whom they at that time, ver. 27, denied, namely, as dpyovra kai dıkaoryv. The plural is purposely chosen, because there is meant the whole category of those thinking alike with that one (ver. 27). This one is conceived collectively.'' — apy. x. Avrpworiw] observe the climax introduced by ?Avrpvr. in relation to the preceding diraor. It is introduced because the obstinacy of the people against Moses is type of the antago- nism to Christ and His work (ver. 51) ; consequently, Moses in his work of deliverance is a type of Christ, who has effected the Atrpwore of the people in the highest sense.!?—— According to the reading civ yeıpi (see the critical remarks), the meaning is to be taken as: standing in association with the 1 See the particularsin Knobel on Ex. xix. 2. 2On dAdé mupös, comp. 2 Thes. i. 8, Lach- mann; Heb. i. 7; Rev. i. 14, ii. 18, xix. 12; Isa. xxix. 6, lvi. 15; Pind. Pyth. iv. 400. 3 Ohristol. III. 2, p. 70. 4 Even in the present day the Arabs, as is well known, enter their mosques barefooted. The precept of Pythagoras, avvmöönros Sve Kat mpooxvver, was derived from an Hyyptian cus- tom. Jamblich. Vit. Pyfh. 23. The Samari- tan trode barefoot the holiest place on Ge- rizim, Robinson, III. p. 320. [769 tt. 5See Wetstein; also Carpzov. Apyar. p. 5 Comp. Matt. xiii. 14; Heb. vi. 14. 7See on 1 Cor. ii.1; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 532. (dv eidor is found in Lucian, Dial. Mar. iv. 3. 8 Isa. Ixvi. 1; Matt. v. 34. Comp. Gen. xi. 7, XVille els) PSs Cv. 5. ®See Elmsl. ad Hur. Bacch. 341, Med. 1242. 10 See Bornemann in the Sdchs, Stud. 1842, p. 66. 11 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 8. Roth, Zee. Agr. 3. 12 Luke i. 64, ii. 38; Heb. ix. 12; Tit. ii. 14. Comp. 150 CHAP. VII., 38-42. hand, i.e. with the protecting and helping power, of the angel. Comp. the classical expression odv Oeoic. This power of the angel was that of God Himself (ver. 34), in virtue of which he wrought also the miracles, ver. 36. — As to the gender of Bdroc, see on Mark xii. 26. — After the work of Moses (ver. 36), ver. 37 now brings into prominence his great Messianic prophecy, which designates himself as a type of the Messiah ;! whereupon in ver. 38 his exalted position as the receiver and giver of the law is described, in order that this light, in which he stands, may be followed up in ver. 39 by the shadow—the contrast of disobedience towards him. Ver. 88. This is he who... had intercourse with the angel . . . and our Jathers, was the mediator (Gal. iii. 19) between the two.? — év rq éxxAnoia év TH Epnuw] in the assembly of the people, held for the promulgation of the law, in the desert, Ex. xix. This definite reference is warranted by the context, as it is just the special act of the giving of the law that is spoken of. — Aöyıa Zövra] ¢.e. utterances which are not dead, and so ineffectual, but living, in which, as in the self-revelations of the living God, there is effective power (Jolin vi. 51), as well with reference to their influence on the moulding of the moral life according to God’s will, as also especially with reference to the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings thereto an- nexed.* Incorrectly Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others hold that ¢qv stands for Gworoeitv. Even according to Paul, the law in itself is holy, just, good, spiritual, and given for life (Rom. vii. 12, 14); that it never- theless kills, arises from the abuse which the power of sin makes of it,* and is therefore an accidental relation. Vv. 39,40. They turned with their hearts to Egypt, i.e. they directed their desires again to the mode of life pursued in Egypt, particularly, as is evident from the context (ver. 40), to the Egyptian idolatry. Ex. xx. 7, 8, 24. Others, including Cornelius a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiüller : they wished to return back to Egypt. But the oi mporopevoovra: judy in ver. 40 would then have to be taken as: ‘who shall go before us on our return,’’—which is just as much at variance with the historical position at Ex. xxxii. 1 as with Ex. xxxii. 4, 1 Kings xii. 28, and Neh. ix. 18, where the golden bull appears as a symbol of the God who has led the Israelites out of Egypt. — 0eovc] the plural, after Ex. xxxii. 1, denotes the category,’ without reference to the numerical relation. That Aaron made only one idol was the result of the universally expressed demand; and in accord with this universal demand is also the expression in Ex. xxxii. 4. —oi mporop.] borne before our line of march, as the symbols, to be revered by us, of the present Jehovah, — 6 yap. M. oiroc] yap gives the motive of the demand. Moses, hitherto our leader, has in fact disappeared, so that we need another guid- ance representative of God. — oiroc] spoken contemptuously.° — The nomi- native absolute is designedly chosen, in order to concentrate the whole 1 Deut. xviii. 15 (comp. above, iii. 22). xxxii. 47. 2 On yivonaı pera, versor cum, which is no 4 Rom. vii. 5, 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xy. 55. Tlebraism, comp. ix. 19, xx. 18; Mark xvi. 5 See on Matt. ii. 20. 10; Ast, Zea. Plat. I. p. 394. 6 See on vi. 14. 3 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 235, Heb. v. 12); Deut. JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 151 attention on the conception.' For this Moses . . . we know not what has happened to him, since he returns not from the mount. Ver. 41. "Eyooyoroincav] they made a bull, Ex. xxxii. 4: &moinoev avira uöoxov yovevrov. The word does not elsewhere occur, except in the Fathers, and may have belonged to the colloquial language. The idol itself was an imitation of the very ancient and widely-spread bull-worship in Egypt, which had impressed itself in different forms, e.g. in the woıship of Apis at Memphis, and of Mnevis at Heliopolis. Hence yooxoc is not a calf, but* equivalent to raüpoc, a young bull already full-grown, but not yet put into the yoke. — Examples of avayecv —namely, to the altar, 1 Kings iii. 15 —@voiav may be seen in Elsner, p. 393, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 189. — eigpai- vovro] they rejoiced in the works of their hands. By the interpretation : ‘‘ they held sacrificial feasts’? (Kuinoel), the well-known history (Ex. xxxii. 6), to which the meaning of the words points, is confounded with that meaning itself. —épyow] plural of the cateyory, which presented itself in the golden calf. On cigpaiv. év,* to denote that on which the joy is causally based, compare yaipev év, Luke x. 20 ; see on Phil. i. 18, Ver. 42. “Eorpewe 08 6 Oeöc] but God turned,—a figurative representation of the idea: He became unfavourable to them. The active in a neuter sense ;* nothing is to be supplied. Incorrectly Vitringa, Morus, and others hold that éorpewe connected with rapid. denotes, after the Hebrew 21%, rursus tradi- dit. This usage has not passed over to the N. T., and, moreover, it is not vouched for historically that the Israelites at an earlier period practised star-worship. Heinrichs connects éorp. with aizoi¢: ** convertit animos eorum ab una idololatria ad aliam.’’ But the expression of divine disfavour is to be retained on account of the correlation with ver. 39. — kai rap£d. avtove Aatp.| and gave them up to serve, an explanatory infinitive. The fall. ing away into star-worship, orpar. r. ovpavov = DAWN NIS, in which, from the worshipper’s point of view, the sun, moon, and stars are conceived as living beings, is apprehended as wrought by an angry God by way of pun- ishment for that bull-worship, according to the idea of sin being punished by sin. The assertion, often repeated since the time of Chrysostom and Theophylact, that only the divine permission or the withdrawal of grace is here denoted, is at variance with the positive expression and the true biblical conception of the divine retribution.® Self-surrender (Eph. iv. 19) is the correlative moral factor on the part of man. — u ooayıa «.r.A.] Amos v. 25-27, freely after the LXX. Ye have not surely presented unto me sacrifices and offerings, offerings of any kind, for forty years in the wilder- ness? The question supposes a negative answer; therefore without an in- terrogation the meaning is: Ye cannot maintain that ye have offered . . . to me. The apparent contradiction with the accounts of offerings, which were actually presented to Jehovah in the desert,° disappears when the pro- 1 Comp. on Matt. vii. 24; Buttm. newt. Gr. 41 Macc. ii. 63; Acts v.22, xv.16; Kühncr, p. 325 (E. T. 379); Valck. Schol. p. 429. IL. pp. 9, 10. 2 Comp. Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19; Herod. iii. 28. 5 See on Rom. i. 24. 3 Ecclus. xiv. 5, xxxix. 31, li. 29; Xen. Hier. 6 Ex. xxiv. 4 ff.; Num. vii., ix. 1 ff. 210. 152 CHAP. VII., 43, 44. phetic utterance, understood by Stephen as a reproach,! is considered as a sternly and sharply significant divine verdict, according to which the ritual offerings in the desert, which were rare and only occurred on special occa- sions (comp. already Lyra), could not be taken at all into consideration against the idolatrous aberrations which testified the moral worthlessness of those offerings. Usually? you is considered as equivalent to mihi soli. But this is incorrect on account of the enelitie pronoun and its position, and on account of the arbitrarily intruded pdévov. Fritzsche* puts the note of interrogation only after mpookvveiv avroic, ver. 43: ‘‘ Sacrane et victimas per XL annos in deserto mihi obtulistis, et in pompa tulistis aedem Molochi, etc.?’’ In this way God’s displeasure at the unstedfastness of His people would be vividly denoted by the contrast. But this expedient is im- possible on account of the „7 presupposing a negation. Moreover, it is as foreign to the design of Stephen, who wishes to give a probative passage for the Aarpevew TH orparıa Tov oupavov, to concede the worship of Jehovah, as it is, on the other hand, in the highest degree accordant with that design to recognise in ver. 42 the negative element of his proof, the denial of the rendering of offering to Jehovah, and in ver. 43 the positive proof, the direct reproach of star-worship. Ver. 43. rpookvveiv abroic| is the answer which God Himself gives to His question, and in which xai joins on to the negation implied in the preceding clause : No, this ye have not done, and instead of it ye have taken up from the earth, in order to carry it in procession from one encamp- ment to another, the tent, N20, the portable tent-temple, of Moloch. — rov MoA6y] so according to the LXX. The Hebrew has D237, of your king, ü.e. your idol. The LXX. puts instead of this the name of the idol, either as explanatory or more probably as following another reading.“ 6 Moddéy, Hebrew on (Rex), called also p57 and Dan, was an idol of the Ammonites, to whom children were offered, and to whom afterwards even the Israelites ° sacrificed children. His brazen image was, according to Rabbinical tradition,° especially according to Jarchi on Jer. vii. 31, bollow, heated from below, with the head of an ox and outstretched arms, into which the children were laid, whose cries were stifled by the sacrificing priests with the beating of drums. The question whether Moloch corre- sponds to Kronos or Saturn, or is to be regarded as the god of the sun,” is Kai): 1 According to another view, the period of forty years without offerings appears in the prophet as the ‘‘golden age of Israel,” and as a proof how little God cares for such offer- ings. See Ewald, Proph. in loc. 2 As by Morus, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Olshausen, similarly Kuinoel. 3 Ad Mare. p. 65 f. 4 0559, comp. LXX. 2 Kings xxiii. 13. 5 Whether the children were burned alive, or first put to death, might seem doubtful from such passages as Ezek. xx. 26,31. But the burning alive must be assumed according to the notices preserved concerning the Car- thaginian procedure at such sacrifices of children (see Knobel on Ley. xviii. 21).—The extravagant assertion that the worship of Moloch was the orthodox primitive worship of the Hebrews (Vatke, Daumer, Ghillany), was a folly of 1835-42. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; 1 Kings xi. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31. 6° Comp. the description, agreeing in the main, of the image of Kronos in Diod. Sic. ER AE 7 Theophylact, Spencer, Deyling, and oth- ers, including Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Miinter, Creuzer. THE TABERNACLE OF WITNESS. ala settled for our passage to this extent, that, as here by Moloch and Rephan two different divinities from the host of heaven must be meant, and Rephan corresponds to Kronos, the view of Moloch as god of the sun receives thereby a confirmation, however closely the mythological idea of Kronos was origi- nally related to the notion of a solar deity ' and consequently also to that of Moloch. See, moreover, for Moloch as god of the sun, Miiller in Herzog’s Encykl.?—kai 70 dorpov rov Heov bu. "Pepav] and the star (star-image) of your (al- leged) god Rephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of your god Rephan. ‘Peoav is the Coptic name of Saturn, as Kircher * has proved from the great Egyp- tian Scala. The ancient Arabs, Phoenicians, and Egyptians gave divine honours to the planet Saturn ; and in particular the Arabic name of this eS Jer star, whys, corresponds entirely to the Hebrew form }?"2,* which the LXX. translators ° have expressed by Rephan, the Coptic name of Saturn known to them.°—We may add, that there is no account in the Pentateuch of the worship of Moloch and Rephan in the desert ; yet the former is forbidden in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; Deut. xviii. 10. It is probable, however, that from this very fact arose a tradition, which the LXX. followed in Amos, l.c.— Tove rumovc] apposition to 77V oKyv. tT. MoA. x. r. dotp. T. Peov tu. ‘Ped. It includes a reference to the tent of Moloch, in so far as the image of the idol was to be found in it and was carried along with it. For examples in which the context gives to rizoc the definite sense of idol, see Kypke, I. p- 38, and from Philo, Loesner, p. 192. — éréxewva] beyond Babylon. Only here in the N. T., but often in classic writers. — Baßvi.] LXX.: Aauacxoi, so also in Hebrew. An extension in accordance with history, as similar modifications were indulged in by the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, p. 75 Ver. 44. 'H cxyv7 Tov wapr.] not a contrast to ver. 43, for the bringing out of the culpability, *‘ hie ostendit Steph., non posse ascribi culpam Deo,”’ Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette, which there is nothing to indicate ; but after the giving of the law (ver. 38) and after the described back- sliding and its punishment (vv. 39-43), Stephen now commences the new section of his historical development,—that of the tabernacle and of the temple,—as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the 1 Comp. Preller, Griech. Mythol. I. p. 42 f. 2 1X. p. 716 f. 3 Lingua Aeg. restituta, p. 49, 527. 4 See Winer, Realw. II. p. 387, and generally Müller in Herzog’s Zneykl. XU. p. 738. 5 In general, the L.XX. has dealt very freely with this passage. The original text runs according to the customary rendering: and ye carried the tent of your king and the frame MD of your images, the star of your divinity, which ye made for yourselves. See Hitzig in loc. ; Gesenius, 7’hes. II. p. 669. The LXX. took > which is to be derived from > as a er name (‘Pedav), and transposed the words as if there stood in the Hebrew o> joy} DJ‘ TON 2 2313. Moreover, it is to be observed that the words of the original may be taken also as ‚future, as a threat of punish- ment (E. Meier, Ewald): so shall ye take up the tent (Ewald: the pole) of your king and the platform of your images, etc. According * to this, the fugitives are conceived as taking on their backs the furniture of their gods, and carrying them from one place of refuge to another. This view corresponds best with the connection in the prophet ; and in the threat is implicd at the same time the accusation, which Düsterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 910, feels the want of, on which account he takes it as present (but ye carry, etc.).— The speech of Stephen, as we have it, simply follows the LXX. ® See Movers, Phönicier, I. p. 289 f., Müller, tc: 154 CHAP, VII., 45-51. guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge. — The Hebrew UP Ons means tent of meeting, of God with his people, i.e. tent of revelation, not tent of the congregation,’ but is in the LXX., which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by a) oKnvy TOU uaprvpiov, the tent in which God bears witness of Himself, as if derived from W, a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Ex. XXV.—XXVil. — xaTd Tov Tizov bv éwp.] See Ex. xxv. 9, 40.? Ver 45. Which also our fathers with Joshua—in connection with Joshua, under whose guidance they stood—ajter having received it from Moses, brought in to Canaan. dıad£xeoda:, only here in the N. T., denotes the taking over from a former possessor.* — év tH karaoy£oeı TOV Edvov] karaoxeoıc, as in ver. 5, possessio.* But év is not to be explained as put for eic, nor is karaoysoıc Tov &0vov taking possession of the land of the Gentiles, as is generally held, which is not expressed. Rather: the fathers brought in the tabernacle of the covenant during the possession of the Gentiles, i.e. while the Gentiles were in the state of possession. To this, then, siguficantly corre- sponds what further follows: ov éwcev 6 Beöc x.7.A. But of what the Gen- tiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from eioyyayov—namely, of the Holy Land, to which the eic in eioyyay. refers according to the history well known to the hearers. — arö rpooorov r. 7. ju.]| away from the face of our fathers, so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their view.°— Euc Tov yu. A.] is to be separated from the parenthetic clause av éfwcev . . . nuov, and to be joined to the preceding: which our fathers brought in... until the days of David, so that it remained in Canaan until the time of David inclusively. Kuinoel attaches it to év &£woev «.r.A. ; for until the time of David the struggle with the inhabitants of Canaan lasted. This is in opposition to the connection, in which the important point was the dura- tion of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel, paving the way for the tran- sition to the real temple, shows; with David the new epoch of worship begins to dawn. Vv. 46, 47. Kai nrioaro] and asked, namely, confiding in the grace of God, which he experienced, Luke i. 30. The channel of this request, only indirectly expressed by David, and of the answer of God to it, was Nathan. °® What is expressed in Ps. cxxxii. 2 ff. is a later retrospective reference to it. See Ewald on the Psalm. This probably floated before the mind of Stephen, hence oxyvona and eipeiv. The usual interpretation of „ryoaro: optabat, desiderabat, is incorrect; for the fact, that the LXX. Deut. xiv. 16 ex- presses Ssxw by Zridoueiv, has nothing at all to do with the linguistic use of aitovmat. — ebpeiv oxyvoua TO Oe@ ’Iar.] i.e. to obtain the establishment of a dwelling-place destined for the peculiar god of Jacob. In the old theo- cratic designation ro Oe ’Iaxé3, instead of the bare aire, lies the holy 1 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 167. 4LXX., Apocr., Joseph., Vulgate, Calvin, 2 Comp. Heb. viii. 5, and thereon Liinemann Grotius, Kuinoel, and others. and Delitzsch, p. 337 f. 5 Comp. LXX. Ex. xxxiv. 24; Deut. xi. 23. 34 Macc. iv. 15; Dem. 1218, 23. 1045, 10; On the aorist form &£woa, from e£&wdeiv, see Polyb. ii. 4. 7; xxxi. 12.7; Lucian. Dial. M. Winer, p. 86 (E. T. 111). xi. 3. 6 2 Sam. vii. 2; 1 Chron. xviii. 1. THE TEMPLE AND THE PROPHETS. 155 national motive for the request of David; on oxyvoua applied to the temple at Jerusalem, comp. 3 Esdr. i. 50, and to a heathen temple, Pausan. iii. 17. 6, where it is even the name. Observe how David, in the humility of his request, designates the temple, which he has in view, only generally as oxyvoua, Whereas the continuation of the narrative, ver. 47, has the definite olxov. —Stephen could not but continue the historical thread of his discourse precisely down to the building of Solomon's temple, because he was accused of blasphemy against the temple. Vv. 48-50. Nevertheless this @xoddu. aurö olkov (ver, 47) is not to be misused, as if the presence of the Most High—observe the emphatic pre- fixing of 6 tiyoroc, in which lies a tacit contrast of Him who is enthroned in the highest heavens to heathen gods—were bound to the temple! The temple-worship, as represented by the priests and hierarchs, ran only too much into such a misuse.'— yerporoijroic] neuter : in something which is made by hands, xvii. 24.7 — Vv. 49, 50 contain Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, slightly deviating from the LXX. — 6 ovpavöc . . . roddv uov] a poetically moulded expression of the idea: heaven and earth I fill with my all-ruling presence.” Thus there cannot be for God any place of His rest (rér. rjc kararavc.), any abode of rest to be assigned to Him, — oikodounoere] The future used of any possible future case. Baur’ and Zeller have wrongly found in these verses a disap- proving judgment as to the building of the temple, the effect of which had been to render the worship rigid ; holding also what was above said of the tabernacle—that it was made according to the pattern seen by Moses—as meant to disparage the temple, the building of which is represented as “a corruption of the worship of God in its own nature free, bound to no fixed place and to no rigid external rites’’ (Zeller). Such thoughts are read between the lines not only quite arbitrarily, but also quite erroneously, as is evident from ver. 46, according to which the building of Solomon ap- pears as fulfilment of the prayer of David, who had found favour with God.® The prophetical quotation corresponds entirely to the idea of Solomon himself, 1 Kings viii. 27. The quotation of the prophetic saying was, moreover, essentially necessary for Stephen, because in it the Messianic ref- ormation, which he must have preached, had its divine warrant in reference to the temple-worship. Ver. 51. The long-restrained direct offensive now breaks out, as is quite in keeping with the position of matters brought to this point. This against Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, who quite arbitrarily suppose that after ver. 50 an interruption took place, either by the shouts of the hearers, or at least by their threatening gestures; as well as against Schwanbeck, p. 252, who sees here ‘‘ an omission of the reporter.”’ Stephen has in ver. 50 ended his calm and detailed historical narrative. And now it is time that the accused should become the bold accuser, and at length throw in the face of his judges the result, the thoughts forming 1 Comp. John iv. 20 ff. u. Krit. 1855, p. 528 ff., concurred, ascribing to 2 Comp. LXX. Isa. xvi. 12; 2 Chron. vi. 18. Stephen a view akin to Essenism. 3 Comp. Matt. v. 84; 1 Kings viii. 27, 5 Comp. 1 Kings viii. 24. 4 With whom Schneckenburger in the Stud. ® Comp. Baur, I. p.58, ed. 2; Ewald, p. 213. 156 CHAP. VII, 2-56. which were already clearly enough to be inferred from the previous his- torical course of the speech. Therefore he breaks off his calm, measured discourse, and falls upon his judges with deep moral indignation, like a reproving prophet : Ye stiff-necked ! etc. — arepiru. tq kapd. x. Tr. Ooiv] an up- braiding of them with their unconverted carnal character, in severe contrast to the Jewish pride of circumcision, The meaning without figure is: Men whose management of their inner life, and whose spiritual perception, are heathenishly rude, without moral refinement, not open for the influence of the divine Spirit.’ — ineic] with weighty emphasis. — dei] always; even yet at this day !— ec oi marépec vuov kat tbyeic] se. del TO mv. ay. avrır. 3 for the fathers are thought of in their resistance to God and to the vehicles of His Spirit,and therefore not the bare £or£ is to be supplied.?—The term ävrırirreiv, not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., is here chosen as a strong designation.® Bengel well puts it: ‘in adversum ruitis.”’ Ver. 52. Proof of the oc oi rarépec buov Kal, also, iueic. — kai arekr.] kai is the climactic even ; they have even killed them.* The characteristic more special designation of the prophets: tov¢ mpoxarayyeiiavrac x.T.A., augments the guilt. — roi dixaiov] Kar’ éEoyqv of Jesus, the highest messenger of God, the (ideal) Just One.” Contrast to the relative clause that follows. — viv] in the present time, opposed to the times of the fathers ; öueic is emphatically placed over against the latter as a parallel. — xpodéra] betrayers (Luke vi. 16), inasmuch as the Sanhedrists, by false and crafty accusation and con- demnation, delivered Jesus over to the Roman tribunal and brought Him to execution. Ver. 53. Oirwec] quippe qui. Stephen desires, namely, now to give the character, through which the foregoing od viv iueic mpodöraı k.T.A., as founded on their actually manifested conduct, receives its explanation. — i2aBere] ye have received, placed first with emphasis. — eic dıarayäac ayyéAwv| upon ar- rangements with angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels, the direct servants of God, which accompanied the promulgation of the law, made you perceive the obligation to recognise and observe the received law—comp. the contrast, x. oi« éovaaé.—as the ethical aspect of your éAaBere. Brietly, therefore: Ye received the law with reference to arrangements of angels, which could not leave you doubtful that you ought to submit obediently to the divine institution. — cic denotes, as often in Greek writers and in the N. T.,’ the direction of the mind, in view of.° — dıarayn is arrangement, regula- tion, as in Rom. xiii. 2, with Greek writers dıarafıc.” At variance with linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Elsner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause, 1 Comp. Lev. xxvi. 41 ; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; SEL Lvs Anil 7x2: ERom. 1. 25: 29): Barnabas, Zp.9; Philo, de migrat. Abr. I. p. 450 ; and from the Rabbins, Schoettgen in loc. 2 With Beza and Bornemann in the Sächs. Stud. 1842, p. 72. 3 Comp. Polrb. iii.. 19. 5: avremerav tais omeipaıs KatamAnktik@s. Num. xxvi. 14; Herodian. vi. 3. 13. 4 Comp. on this reproach, Luke xi. 47. 5 iii. 14, xxii. 14: 1 Pet. iii. 18; 1 Johnii. 1. 6 Angels were the arrangers of the act of divine majesty, as arrangers of a festival (Statacoortes), dispositores. 7 Winer, p. 371 (E. T. 496). 8 Comp. here especially, Matt. xii. 41 ; Rom, iv. 20. ° Comp. also Ezra iv. 11;.and see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 886. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 49. MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 157 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, taking dıarayy in the above signification, render : accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam, as if eic stood for év. Others—Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckenaer, and others—explain dıarayn as agmen dispositum, because Jdıaracoeıv is often, also in the classics, used of the drawing up of armies,’ and dıarasıc of the divisions of an army,? and translate praesentibus angelorum ordinibus, so that eic is likewise taken for &v. But against this view, with which, moreover, eic would have to be taken as respectu, there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of the use of dıarayy in the sense assumed ; and therefore the supposition that dıarayn = dıarafıc in this signification is arbitrary, as well as at variance with the manifest similarity of the thought with Gal. iii. 19. Bengel? renders : Ye received the law for commands of angels, i.e. as commands of angels, so that eic is to be understood as in ver. 21.* But the Israelites did not receive the law as the commands of angels, but as the commands of God, in which character it was made known to them dr ayy&Aov.°—Moreover, the mediating action of the angels not admitting of more precise defini- tion, which is here adverted to, is not contained in Ex. xix., but rests on tradition, which is imported already by the LXX. into Deut. xxxiii. 2. Comp. on Gal. iii. 19.° It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizing, when earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels either Moses and the prophets’ or the seniores populi ;* indeed, Chrysostom even discovers here again the angel in the bush. Vv. 54-56. Taira] The reproaches uttered in vv. 51-53. — dıerp. raic kapd.] see on v. 33. — Eßpuxov 7. odövr.] they gnashed their teeth, from rage and spite.° — én’ auröv] against him. — np. xveiu.] which at this very moment filled and exalted him with special power, iv. 8. — eic rov ovupavov] like Jesus, John xvii. 1. The eye of the suppliant looks everywhere toward, heaven,” and what he beheld he saw in the spirit (xAjp. xvebu. ayiov) ; he only and not the rest present in the room. — roüc oupavovc]) up to the highest." — döFav Ozov] WT VAD: the brightness in which God appears.’? — éordra} Why not sitting ?* He beheld Jesus, as He has raised Himself from God's throne of light and stands ready for the saving reception of the martyr. Comp. ver. 59. The prophetic basis of this vision in the soul of Stephen is Dan. vii. 13 f. Chrysostom erroneously holds that it is a testimony of the resurrection of Christ. Rightly Oecumenius : iva dei£n ryv avriAnwu tiv eic auröv. Comp. Bengel: ‘‘ quasi obvium Stephano.’’ De Wette finds no explanation satisfactory, and prefers to leave it unexplained ; while Borne- 12 Macc. xii. 20. 2 Judith i. 4, viii. 36. 3 Comp. Hackett, F. Nitzsch, also Winer doubtfully, and Buttmarn, 4 Comp. Heb. xi. 8. 5Comp. Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3: kaAlıcra Tov dboyuarwv Kal Ta ooLwrara TOY ev MOV Ta Tots vouots Se’ ayyeAwy Tapa Tov Ocod maddvTwr ; and see Krebs in loc. ® For Rabbinical passages (Jalkut Rubenif. 107, 3, al.), see Schoettgen and Wetstein ad Gal. iii. 19. 7 Heinrichs, Lightfoot. § Surenhusius, karaAA. p. 419. * Comp. Archias, 12: Bpvxwyv Unkrov odovra, Hermipp. quoted in Plut. Pevicl.33 ; Job xvi. 9% Bas SEXY OR KVU. nen 10 Comp. on John xvii. 1. 11 Comp. Matt, iii. 16. Actsx. 11. 12 See on ver. 2. Luke ii. 9. 13 Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xvi. 19, al. It is otherwise in 158 CHAP. VII, 57-60. mann!is disposed only to find in it the idea of morandi et ewistendi,? as » formerly Beza and Knapp, Ser. var. arg. —eide] is to be apprehended as mental seeing in ecstasy. Only of Stephen himself is this seeing related ; and when he, like an old prophet,* gives utterance to what he saw, the rage of his adversaries—who therefore had seen nothing, but recognised in this declaration mere blasphemy—reaches its highest pitch, and breaks out in tumultuary fashion. The views of Michaelis and Eckermann, that Stephen had only expressed his firm conviction of the glory of Christ and of his own impending admission into heaven ; and the view of Hezel,* that he had seen a dazzling cloud as a symbol of the presence of God,—convert his utterance at this lofty moment into a flourish of rhetoric. According to Baur, the author's own view of this matter has objectivized itself into a vision, just as in like manner vi. 15 is deemed unhistorical. —eide . . . flewpa| he saw . . . I behold.” As to 6 vide 7. avOp., the Messianic designa- tion in accordance with Dan. vii. 13, see on Matt. viii. 20. Vv. 57, 58. The tumult, now breaking out, is to be conceived as pro- ceeding from the Sanhedrists, but also extending to all the others who were present (vi. 12). To the latter pertains especially what is related from jpuyoav onward. — They stopped their ears, because they wished to hear nothing more of the blasphemous utterances. — éfw tic téAewc] see Ley. xxiv. 14. ‘‘Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem ; omnes enim civitates, muris cinctae, paritatem habent ad castra Israelis.’’ ° — 2AıBoß6Aovv] This is the fact generally stated. Then follows as a special circumstance, the activity of the witnesses in it. Observe that, as auröv is not expressed with éAfo3.,’ the preceding éx’ auröv is to be extended to it, and therefore to be mentally supplied.* — oi uäprupec] The same who had testified ‘at vi. 13. A fragmeut of legality! for the witnesses against the condemned had, according to law, to cast the first stones at him.’ — aréGevro ra iuaria avrov] Gare eivar Kovgot Kai amaparödıcror eic TO ALOoBodAciv, Theophylact. — Yavdov] So distinguished and zealous a disciple of the Pharisees—who, however, ought neither to have been converted into the ‘‘ notarial witness,’’ nor even into the representative of the court conducting the trial (Sepp)—was for such a’ service quite as ready (xxii. 20) as he was welcome. But if Saul had been married or already a young widower (Ewald,) which does not follow from 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, Luke, who knew so exactly and had in view the circumstances of his life, would hardly have called him veaviac, although this denotes a degree of age already higher than pecpdaxiov.° Comp. xx. 9, xxiii. 17, also v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14. — kai 2%.d0ß6Aovv) not merely the witnesses, but generally. The repetition has a tragie effect, which is further strength- ened by the appended contrast örırad. x.r.2. A want of clearness, occa- sioned by the use of two documents (Bleek), is not discernible. — The I In the Sächs. Stud. 1842, p. 73 f. 7 Which Bornemann has added, following 2 Lobeck, ad\Aj. 199. D and vss. 3 Comp. John xii. 41. 8 Comp. LXX. Ex. xxiii. 47. 4 Following older commentators, in Wolf. ® Deut. xvii. 7; Sanhedr. vi. 4. 5 See Tittmann’s Synon. pp. 116, 120. 10 Lobeck, ad P’hryn. p. 213. 6 Gloss in Babyl. Sanhedr. f. 42. 2. STEPHEN’S DEATH, 159 stoning, which as the punishment of blasphemy was inflicted on Stephen, seeing that no formal sentence preceded it, and that the execution had to be confirmed and carried out on the part of the Roman authorities,’ is to be regarded as an illegal act of the tumultuary outbreak. Similarly, the murder of James the Just, the Lord’s brother, took place at a later period. The less the limits of such an outbreak can be defined, and the more the calm historical course of the speech of Stephen makes it easy to understand that the Sanhedrists should have heard him quietly up to, but not beyond, the point of their being directly attacked (ver. 51 ff), so much the less warrantable is it, with Baur and Zeller, to esteem nothing further as his- torical, than that Stephen fell “as victim of a popular tumult suddenly arising on occasion of his lively public controversial discussions,’’ without any proceedings in the Sanhedrim, which are assumed to be the work of the author. Vv. 59, 60. ’Excxatobyuevov] while he was invoking. Whom? is evident from the address which follows. — kipce ’Inoov] both to be taken as vocatives, * according to the formal expression «ipio¢g "Inoovc,* with which the apostolic church designates Jesus as the exalted Lord, not only of His church, but of the world, in the government of which He is installed as ou»Apovoc of the Father by His exaltation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.), until the final completion of His office.° Stephen invoked Jesus; for he had just beheld Him standing ready to help him. As to the invocation of Christ generally, relative worship, conditioned by the relation of the exalted Christ to the Father.® — déFat 7) Treva wov| namely, to thee in heaven until the future resurrection.” ‘¢ Feeisti me victorem, recipe me in triumphum,’’ Augustine. — owvn weyaAn] the last expenditure of his strength of love, the fervour of which also dis- closes itself in the kneeling. — un ornonc avroic r. duapt. tavT.] fix not this sin (of my murder) wpon them. This negative expression corresponds quite to the positive : agı&var ryv auapriav, to let the sin go as regards its relation of guilt, instead of fixing it for punishment.* The notion, ‘‘ to make availing (de Wette), i.e. to impute, corresponds to the thought, but is not denoted by the word. Linguistically correct is also the rendering: ‘ weigh not this sin to them,’’ as to which the comparison of Opw is not needed.’ In this view the sense would be: Determine not the weight of the sin (comp. xxv. 7), consider not how heavy it is. But our explanation is to be pre- ferred, because it corresponds more completely to the prayer of Jesus, Luke xxiii. 34, which is evidently the pattern of Stephen in his request, only saying negatively what that expresses positively. In the case of such 1 Luke xxiv. 16; Sanhedr. vii. 4. 4 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 292 ff. 2 Ewald supposes that the Sanbedrim might 5 1 Cor. xv. 28; comp. x. 36. have appealed to the permission granted to 6 See on Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. i. 2; Phil. ii. 10. them by Pilate in John xviii. 31. But so 7 Comp. on Phil. i. 26, remark. much is not implied in John xviii. 31; see in 8 Comp. Rom. x. 3; Ecclus. xliv. 21, 22; loc. And ver. 57 sufficiently shows how far 1 Macc. xiii. 38, xiv. 28, xv. 4, dl. from ‘‘ calmly and legally *' matters proceeded ® Matt. xxvi. 15; Plat. Zim. p. 63 B, Prot. at the execution. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 9.1, p. 356 B, Pol. x. p. 602 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. and on John xviii. 31. 21; Valcken. Diair. p. 288 A. 3 Rev. xxii. 20. 160 CHAP. VII. —NOTES. as Saul what was asked took place." In the similarity of the last words of Stephen, ver. 59 with Luke xxiii. 34, 40, as also of the words d££aı 76 rv. wov with Luke xxiii. 46, Baur, with whom Zeller agrees, sees an indication of their unhistorical character ; as if the example of the dying Jesus might not have sufficiently suggested itself to the first martyr, and proved sufficient motive for him to die with similar love and self-devotion.— éxorun0n| ** lagubre verbum et suave,’’ Bengel ; on account of the euphemistie nature of the word, never used of the dying of Christ. See on 1 Cor. xv. 18. NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (x) Stephen’s speech. V. 2. ‘Opinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen. Some regard it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors ; others praise it as a complete refutation of the charges brought against him, and as worthy of the fulness of the Spirit with which he was inspired.’’ “It is to be observed that the speech of Stephen is an unfinished production. He was interrupted before he came to a conclusion. We are therefore to regard it as in a measure imperfect.’’ ‘‘It bears, in its nature and contents, the impress of authen- ticity.” (@loag.) “The speaker’s main object may be considered as twofold : first, to show that the charge against him rested on a false view of the ancient dispensation ; and secondly, that the Jews, instead of manifesting a true zeal for the temple and the law, in their opposition to the gospel, were again acting out the unbe- lieving, rebellious spirit which Jed their fathers so often to resist the will of God and reject his favors.’’ ‘‘ Stephen pursues the order of time in his nar- rative ; and it is important to mark that feature of the discourse, because it explains two peculiarities in it ; first, that the ideas which fall logically under the two heads that have been mentioned are intermixed instead of being pre- sented separately ; and secondly, that some circumstances are introduced which we are not to regard as significant, but as serving merely to maintain the connection of the history.” ‘It may be added that the peculiar character of the speech impresses upon it a seal of authenticity.” (//acieett.) Stephen ‘‘ commenced this defence with great calm and dignity, choosing as his theme a subject which he knew would command the attention and win the deep interest of his audience. It was the story of the chosen people, told with the warm, bright eloquence of one not only himself an ardent patriot, but also a trained orator and scholar. He dwelt on the famous national heroes, with rare skill, bringing out particular events in their lives, and showing how, not- withstanding the fact that they had been sent by God, they had been again and again rejected by the chosen people.” “What a magnificent conception, in the eyes of a child of Israel, were those instances of the lifework of Joseph and Moses, both God-sent regenerators of the loved people, both in their turn too rejected and misunderstood by those with whom their mission lay, but jus- tified and glorified by the unanimous voice of history, which has surrounded 1 Comp. Oecumenius. NOTES. 161 the men and their work with a halo of glory, growing only brighter as the cen- turies have multiplied! Might it not be the same with that Great One who had done such mighty works, and spoken such glorious words, but whom they had rejected and crucified ?”’ (Howson, Acts.) (z) Historical errors. VY. 3. The historical allusions in the speech of Stephen in some respects differ from O. T. history; as to the time of Abraham’s call, the time of Terah’s death, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, the number of souls in Jacob’s household, the purchase of the sepulchre, and the place of burial of the patriarchs. These variations or additions, which may either be fairly rec- onciled, or, at least, are of such a nature that were some fact known of which we are not informed all might be harmonized, our author unhappily char- acterizes as ‘‘errors,”’ “ historical mistakes,’’ ‘historical errors,” ‘‘ mistakes,” etc. In reference to all such apparent discrepancies two things should be borne in mind: first, Stephen, though “full of faith and power,” was not an inspired teacher in the strict sense of the word ; so that, provided we have a true record of his discourse, it may contain an error of statement, or a ques- tionable date, and yet the accuracy of the sacred historian remain unimpeach- able ; and second, allowance should be made for the possible errors of copy- ists, specially with regard to numbers. Most of such difficulties, however, have been satisfactorily removed. Surely, in any view of the case, it is rash to assume that men of average culture and information, not to say such men of education and intelligence as Stephen and Luke unquestionably were, would be ignorant of the facts recorded in the sacred books, which had been their constant study. Nor need we suppose a speaker or writer likely to make erro- neous statements, which a reference to the book of Genesis would at once have corrected, or to which even the audience addressed would at once have objected. (A!) Abraham’s call. V. 3. “The discrepancy is only apparent. It would appear from the sacred narrative that Abraham was twice called: once in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards at Haran.” ‘‘To this solution of the difficulty Meyer objects that the verbal quotation from Gen. xii. 1 proves that Stephen had in view no other cull than that mentioned in this passage. But, on the one hand, it is not surprising either that the call should be repeated to Abraham in nearly the sume words, or that Stephen should apply the well-known words found in Gen. xii. 1 to the earlier call. And, on the other hand, the words are not precisely the same ; for here there is no mention of a departure from his father’s house, as there is when God called Abraham at Haran. When Abraham removed from Ur of the Chaldees he did not depart from his father’s house, for Terah, his father, accompanied him ; but when he removed from Haran he left Terah, if he were yet alive, and his brother Nahor ” (Gloag.) “It is a perversion of the text to suppose Stephen so ignorant of the geogra- phy here, as to place Canaan on the west of the Euphrates, His meaning evi- dently is that Abraham’s call in that city was not the first which he received during his residence in Mesopotamia.” (Hackett.) 162 CHAP. VII. —NOTES. (B') Death of Terah. V.4. ‘But this apparent disagreement admits of a ready solution, if we suppose that Abram was not the oldest son, but that Haran, who died before the first migration of the family, was sixty years older than he, and that Terah, consequently, was one hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Abraham. The relation of Abraham to the Hebrew history would account for his being named first in the genealogy.” (Hackett.) ‘““ The most probable explanation is that Abraham was the youngest son of Terah, and was not born until Terah was one hundred and thirty years old.” ( Gloag.) (c!) Four hundred years. YV. 6. “The exact number of years, as we elsewhere learn, was four hundred and thirty. A round sum is here given, without taking into account the broken number.’’ “At first sight the words in the Mosaic narrative would seem to intimate that this was the period of Egyptian bondage ; but Paul understands it differently. He reckons four hundred and thirty years as extending from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law.’ (Gloag.) A solution is “that the four hundred and thirty years in Ex. xii. 40 embraces the period from Abraham’s immigration into Canaan until the departure out of Egypt, and that the sacred writers call this the period of sojourn or servi- tude in Egypt. ” ( Hackett.) (D!) Jacob’s burial and Abraham's purchase. V. 16. «With respect to the concurrence or accumulation of supposed inaccu- racies in this one verse, so far from proving one another, they only aggravate the improbability of real errors having been committed, in such quick succes- sion, and then gratuitously left on record, when they might have been so easily corrected and expunged.’’ (Alexander.) Many critics, including our author, have given up all attempts at reconcilia- tion, and simply assume that Stephen, in the excitement of the occasion, has made a mistake which Luke did not feel at liberty to correct. It is a very easy way to dispose of the difficulty, to say that Stephen made a mistake ; but it is not so easy to account for sueh a man, before such an audience, publicly stat- ing what must have been known by many of them not to be in harmony with well-known facts of their history ; and further, that it should have been recorded by such a historian, and remain without either correction or objection for many generations. Surely if conjectural emendation is ever admissible in an ap- proved text, it would be justifiable here ; and very slight alterations indeed would eliminate the difficulty. Calvin says,“ It is plain that a mistake has been made in the name of Abraham.’’ The following reading has been suggested, which requires only that an ellipsis be supplied: ‘“And were carried into Sychem, and were laid, some of them, Jacob at least, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money ; and others of them in that bought from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” The sketch is drawn with great brevity, and the facts greatly compressed, doubtless clearly apprehended by those to whom they were stated, though not easy to disentangle and ar- NOTES. 163 range now. It seems as rash as it is unnecessary, in view of all the eircum- stances, to charge either the orator or the historian with inaccuracy or mis- statement, in this address, N (z!) Cast out... children. V. 19. “Meyer thinks we have here the construction of the infinitive of purpose : he oppressed them in order to make them so desperate as to destroy their own children. But such a meaning does not suit the context, and is grammati- cally unnecessary. In Hellenistic Greek the indication of the purpose is often changed to that of the result. The reference is to the command of Pharaoh, given to the Egyptians, that they should cast out all the male infants of the Israelites into the Nile.” (Gloag, also Hackett and Lange.) “ Better—in causing their young children to be cast out. The words are rather a description of what the Egyptian king did in his tyranny, than of what the Is- raelites were driven to by their despair.” (Plumptre.) (Fr!) An angel. Y. 30. There is a division of opinion as to whether this was a created angel, or the angel of Jehovah—the messenger of the covenant—the second person of the Godhead, even then appearing as the revealer of the Father. Our author, with others, adopts the former opinion, while Hackett, Alexander, Abbott, Barnes, Jacobus, with Alford, adopt the latter view, in support of which Gloag says : “ The Mosaic narrative isin favor of the latter view. The Angel of the bush who guided the Israelites in the wilderness is in the O. T. frequently identified with God ; and here he appropriates to himself the titles of the Supreme Being, for speaking out of the bush he says, ‘J am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.’ ” 164 CRITICAL REMARKS. CHAPTER VIII. - Ver. 1. mävrec re] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ravrec dé, according to BC DE H, min. Vulg. Copt. al., and several Fathers. A, min. Syr. Aeth. have ré; N* has only ravtec; N** has xai m. The dé has the preponderance of testimony, and is therefore to be adopted, as also in ver, 6. — Ver. 2. &moınoavru] Lachm. and Born. read Zroinoav, according to decisive testimony. — Ver. 5. röAı] Lachm. reads ryv möiw, after ABN, 31, 40. More precise definition of the capital. — Ver. 7. moAAdv] Lachm. reads zoddAoi,! and afterwards &önpxovro, following ABC E NS, min. Vulg. Sahid. Syr. utr. ; éS7pyovro is also in D, which, however, reads wvAAoic (by the second hand: ard moAAoic). Accordingly é&jp- xovro, as decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born. and Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot have written moAAoi (which, on the contrary, was mechanically introduced from the second elause of the verse), but either zoAAwv (H) or moAAoic (D*). — Ver. 10. 7 kadov- vn] is wanting in Elz., but is distinctly attested. The omission is explained from the fact that the word appeared inappropriate, disturbing, and feeble, — Ver. 12. td repi] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read repi, after A BC DES. Cor- rectly ; evayyeki£. is not elsewhere connected with epi, and this very circum- stance occasioned the insertion of ra.— Ver. 13. dvvdusı Kai omueia ueyala yıvöuseva] Elz. Lachm. Born. read: onueia x. dvvaneıc weydiac yıvouevac. Both modes of arrangement have important attestation. But the former is to be considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the „eyaia deleted by Tisch., which is wanting in many and correct codd. (also in N), and is to be considered as an addition very naturally suggesting itself (comp. vi. 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 peyd/ac, and therefore it must have arisen after peydAa was already added. — Ver. 16. oonw] ABCDE®, min. Chrys. have otdémw. 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. — Ver. 18. On decisive evidence idév is to be adopted, with Griesb. and the later editors, instead of @cacdu. The latter is a more precise definition. — Ver. 21. évdémiov] ABC D &, min. and several Fathers have évavtiov or &vavrı, which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. Correctly ; the familiar word was inserted instead of the rare one (Luke i. 8). — Ver. 22. kvpiov] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz, Scholz have Ocot, against preponderating evidence. A mechanical repetition, after ver. 21. — Ver. 25. The imperfects dréotpedov and ebyyyeAifovro (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) are decisively attested, as is also the omission of rc before Gaara, in ver. 27. — Ver. 27. 6s before 2974. is wanting in Lachm. and Born., follow- ing A C* D* 8*, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect expedient to help the con- 1 Instead of which, however, he (Praefat. p. viii.) conjectures moAAa. GENERAL PERSECUTION. 165 struction. — After ver. 36, Elz. has (ver. 37): eime de 6 Bikımmog' ei mioteverg E£ öAns THE kapdiac, Eeorıv. ’Amorpißels de Ele’ mioreiw TOV viöv Tot Oeod elvaı TOV ’Inooöv Xpıoröv. 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. — Ver. 39. After mveöua A**, min. and a few vss. and Fathers have dy.ov émérecev Eni (or eic) TOV ebvoiyor, dyyedoc dé. A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced partly by ver. 26 and partly by x. 44. Ver. 1. The observation Saitoc . . . aurou! forms the significant transi- tion to the further narrative of the persecution which is annexed. — j» ovvevdorav] he was jointly assenting, in concert, namely, with the originators and promoters of the avaipecic.? On avaipecic, in the sense of caedes, suppli- cium, comp. Num. xi. 15; Judith xv. 4; 2 Macc. v. 13; Herodian. ii. 6. 1, iii. 2.10. Here, also, the continuance and duration are more strongly de- noted by 7v with the participle than by the mere finite tense. — &v &xeivn TH quépa] is not, as is usually quite arbitrarily done, to be explained indefi- nitely ilo tempore, but (comp. ii. 41): on that day, when Stephen was stoned, the persecution arose, for the outbreak of which this tumultuary stoning served as signal (G'). — 77» év ‘Iepoc.] added, because now the disper- sion (comp. xi. 19) set in. —-rävrec] a hyperbolical expression of the popular mode of narration.* At the same time, however, the general expression tiv ExkAnoiav does not permit us to limit ravre¢ especially to the Hellenistic part of the church.* But if the hyperbolical rdvre¢ is not to be used against the historical character of the narrative (Schneckenburger, Zeller), neither are we to read withal between the lines that the church had been formally assembled and broken up, but that to dispersion into the regions of Judaea and Samaria — which is yet so clearly affirmed of the ravres !— a great part of those broken up, including the apostles, had not allowed themselves to be induced (so Baumgarten). —«. Zauapeiac]) This country only is here mentioned as introductory to the history which follows, ver. 5 ff. For a wider dispersion, see xi. 19. — iv rov aroor.] This is explained, in opposition to Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, and others, who con- sider these statements improbable, by the greater stedfastness of the apostles, who were resolved as yet, and in the absence of more special divine intimation, to remain at the centre of the theocracy, which, in their view at this time, was also the centre of the new theocracy. They knew themselves to be the appointed upholders and zpwraywworai (Oecumenius) of the cause of their Lord. Vv. 2, 3. The connection of vv. 1-3 depends on the double contrast, 1 Observe the climaa of the three state- 3 Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark iii. 33, al. ments concerning Saul, vii. 59, viii. 1 and 3; 4 Baur, I. p. 46, ed. 2; comp. de Wette. also how the second and third are inserted 5 Quite inappropriately, pressing that mav- antithetically, and how all three are evidently res, Zeller, p. 153, in opposition to this in- intended to prepare the way for the subse- quires: “ Wherefore was this necessary, if quent importance of the man. all their followers were dispersed ?” 2 Comp. Luke xi. 48, and on Rom. i. 3}. 166 CHAP, VIII., 1-9. that in spite of the outbreak of persecution which took place on that day, the dead body of the martyr was nevertheless honoured by pious Jews; and that, on the other hand, the persecuting zeal of Saul stood in stern op- position thereto. On that day arose a great persecution, ver.1. This, however, prevented not pious men from burying and lamenting Stephen, ver. 2; (a') but Saul laid waste, in that persecution which arose, the church (of Jerusalem, ver. 3). he common opinion is accordingly erroneous, that there prevails here a lack of connection—ver. 2 is asupplementary addition, according to de Wette—which is either‘ to explained by the insertion of extracts from different sources, or? betokens that éyévero dé . . . arooröAwv is an inter- polation, or? at least makes it necessary to hold these words as transposed, so that they had originally stood after ver. 2. — ovyxopifer] to carry together, then, used of the dead who are carried to the other dead bodies at the burial-place, and generally: to bury.* According to the Scholiast on Soph. /.c. and Phavorinus, the expression is derived from gathering the fruits of harvest. Comp. Job v. 26. — The ävdpes evAaBeic are not, in op- position to Heinrichs and Ewald, Christians, but, as the connection requires, religious Jews who, in their pious conscientiousness (comp. ii. 5), and with a secret inclination to Christianity,® had the courage to honour the in- nocence of him who had been stoned. Christians would probably have been prevented from doing so, and Luke would have designated them more distinctly. — koreröc : Opyvoce peta odovd yeıpav, Hesychius.’ -— EAvuaivero] he laid waste, comp. ix. 21; Gal. i. 13. The following sentence informs us how he proceeded in doing so; therefore a colon is to be placed after r. éxkA. — Kara Tove oik. elorop.] entering by houses, house by house, Matt. xxiv. 7. —obpwv] dragging.? Vv. 4, 5. Aı?0ov! they went through, they dispersed themselves through the countries to which they had fled.'’ — Ver. 5. Of the dispersed per- sons active as missionaries who were before designated generally, one is now singled out and has his labours described, namely Philip, not the apostle, as is erroneously assumed by Polycrates in Eusebius," but he who is named in vi. 5, xxi. 8. That the persecution should have been directed with special vehemence against the colleagues of Stephen, was very natural. Observe, however, that in the case of those dispersed, and even in that of Philip, preaching was not tied to an existing special office. With their preaching probably there was at once practically given the new ministry, that of the evangelists, xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11, as circumstances re- 1 Olshausen, Bleek. [p. 155. 2 Ziegler in Gabler’s Journ. f. theol. Lit., I. 3 Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 8 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500). 9 See Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 57 f., and Wetstein. Comp. xiv. 19, xvii. 3. Arrian. 4 According to Schwanbeck, p. 825, v. 1 is to be regarded as an insertion from the biog- raphy of Peter. 5 Soph. Aj. 1048; Plut. Sull. 38. [mus. 6 Comp. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicode- 7See Gen. 1.10; 1 Macc. ii. 70; Nicarch. 30; Plut. #ab. 17; Heyne, Odss. in Tibull. p. {ab Epict. i. 29. 10 The oi uev ody Staomapevtes is resumed at xi. 19,—a circumstance betokening that the long intervening portion has been derived from special sources here incorporated. 11 iii, 81. 2, v. 24. 1; see, on the contrary, Vv. 1, 14, and generally, Zeller, p. 154 ff; Ewald, p. 235 f. . PHILIP IN SAMARIA. Lay quired, under the guidance of the Spirit. — kare29.] from Jerusalem. — eic nöAw rc Sauap.| into a city of Samaria. What city it was (Grotius and Ewald think of the capital, Olshausen thinks that it was perhaps Sichem) is to be left entirely undetermined, and was probably unknown to Luke him- self. Comp. John iv. 5. Kuinoel, after Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, and others, takes r7c Zauap. as the name, not of the country, but of the capital.‘ In that case, indeed, the article would not have been necessary before röAıv, as Olshausen thinks.? röäcc, too with the genitive of the name of the city, is a Greek idiom ;* but ver. 9, where r7¢ Zauap. is evidently the name of the country (rd é@voc), is decidedly opposed to such a view. See also on ver. 14. —airoic] namely, the people in that city. Vv. 6, 7. Iloooeixgov] they gave heed thereto, denotes attentive, favourably disposed interest, xvi. 14; Heb, ii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; often in Greek writers.* The explanation jidem praebebant, Krebs, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, confounds the result of the rpoo&yew (ver. 12) with the zpooéyew itself,—a confusion which is committed in all the passages adduced to prove it. — év TO Gkoverv abrovc k. K.T.A.] in their hearing, etc., while they heard. — In ver. 7, more than in v. 16, those affected by natural diseases (rapaAe?. x. ywdoi), who were healed (£depareid.), are expressly distinguished from the pos- sessed,° whose demons came out (££7pxero) with great crying.—Notice the article before Eyövrwov : of many of those who, ete., consequently, not of all. As regards the construction, moAAov is dependent on the ra rveunara axddapra to be again tacitly supplied after rvevuara axabapra.® Ver. 9. Ziuov] is not identical, in opposition to Heumann, Krebs, Rosen- miiller, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, Hilgenfield,’” with the Simon of Cyprus in Joseph.,* whom the Procurator Felix, at a latter period, employed to estrange Drusilla, the wife of Azizus king of Emesa in Syria, from her husband. For (1) Justin,’ expressly informs us that Simon was from the village Gitthon in Samaria, and Justin himself was a Samaritan, so that we can the less suppose, in his case, a confusion with the name of the Cyprian town Kiriov.!® (2) The identity of name cannot, on account of its great. prevalence, prove anything, and as little can the assertion that the Samari- tans would hardly have deified one of their own countrymen, ver. 10, The latter is even more capable of explanation from the national pride, than it would be with respect to a Cyprian. — rpoürnpxev] he was formerly, even before the appearance of Philip, in the city. The following yayeiwv x.r.A. then adds how he was occupied there ; comp. Luke xxiii. 12. — payeiorv| practising magical arts, only here in the N. T.!! The magical exer- cises of the wizards, who at that time very frequently wandered about in 1 Sebaste, which was also called Samaria, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 2. 2 Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 10; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. II. p. 137 ; comp. Luke ii. 4, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6. 3 Ruhnk. Zpp. crit. p. 186. 4 Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 882. 5 Comp. Luke iv. 40 f. * See Matthiae, p. 1533 ; Kühner, II. p. 602. ? See also Gieseler’s Kirchengesch. I. sec. 18. 8, and others. 8 Antt.xx.7.2. Neander, p. 107 f., has en- tirely misunderstood the words of Josephus. See Zeller, p. 164 f. ® Apol. I. 26; comp. Clem. Hom. i. 15, ii. 22. LO PHC 112. 1. 11 But see Eur. Jph. T. 1337 ; Meleag. 12; Clearch. in Athen. vi. p. 256 E; Jacobs, ad Anthol, VI. p. 29. 168 CHAP. VIII., 10-13. the East, extended chiefly to an ostentatious application of their attain- ments in physicial knowledge to juggling conjurings of the dead and demons, to influencing the gods, to sorceries, cures of the sick, sooth- sayings from the stars, and the like, in which the ideas and formulae of the Oriental-Greek theosophy were turned to display.1—rtwa .. . péyav] We are not, accordingly, to put any more definite claim into the mouth of Simon ; the text relates only generally his boasting self-exaltation, which may have expressed itself very differently according to circumstances, but always amounted to this, that he himself was a certain extraordinary person. Perhaps Simon designedly avoided a more definite self-designation, in order to leave to the praises of the people all the higher scope in the desig- nating of that (ver. 10) which he himself wished to pass for. — éavrév] He thus acted quite differently from Philip, who preached Christ, ver. 5. Comp. Rev. ii. 20. . Ver. 10. Ilpooeiyov] just as in ver. 6.— and ukpov éwe ueydAov] A designa- tion of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old.”— ovTé¢ Eorıv 7 duv. T. Ocov 7 KaA. uey.] this is the God-power called great. The Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and appearing and working among them as a human person, which, as the highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific appellation kar’ &£oyyv as the weyadn. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God, the Logos, which Philo also calls unrpörorıc racdv Tov Övvauswv Tod Ocov, had become at that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this effluence of the Godhead rendered human by incarnation,—a belief which Simon certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neigh- bouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ; comp. Ewald. The belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an ana- logue of the 6 Aöyoc caps éyévero, and hence served to prepare for the true and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip: the former became the bridge to the latter. Erroneously Philastr. Haer. 29, and recently Olshausen, de Wette, and others, put the words 7 düvauıs x.T.2. Into the mouth of Simon himself, so that they are held only to be an echo of what the sorcerer had boastingly said of himself.* This is con- 1 See Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz. u. Leit. a. christl. K. I. p. 99 f.; Müller in Herzog’s Eneyk!. WII. p. 675 fi. 2Comp. Heb. viii. 11; Acts xxvi. 22; Bar. 1.4; Judith xiii. 4, 13; 1 Macc. v. 45; LXX. Gen. xix. 11; Jer. xlii. 1, al. 3 According to Jerome on Matth. xxiv., he asserted of himself: ‘‘ Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego om- nipotens, ego omnia Dei.’’ Certainly an in- vention of the later Simonians, who trans- ferred specifically Christian elements of faith to Simon. But this and similar things which were put into the mouth of Simon (that he was AvWTarn Tis Svvauts Kal a’TOV TOD TOY KOTMOV xticavtos @eov, Clem. Hom. ii. 22, 25; that he was the same who had appeared among the Jews as the Son, but had come among the Samaritans as the Father, and among other nations as the Holy Spirit, Iren. i. 23), and were wonderfully dilated on by opponents, point back to a relation of incarnation analogous to the incarnation of the Logos, under which the adherents of Simon conceived him. De Wette incorrectly denies this, re- ferring the expression, ‘‘ the great power af SIMON IS BAPTIZED. 169 trary to the text, which expressly distinguishes the opinion of the infatu- ated people here from the assertion of the magician himself, ver. 9. He had characterized himself indefinitely ; they judged definitely and confessed (Aéyovrec) the highest that could be said of him ; and, in doing so, accorded with the intention of the sorcerer. Ver. 12. They believed Philip, who announced the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ.— evayyekiz. only here (see the critical remarks) with repi.'— The Samaritans called the Messiah whom they expected 279 or INN, the Converter, and considered Him as the universal, not merely political, but still more religious and moral, Renewer. See on John iv. 25. Ver. 13. "Eriorevoe] also on his part (k. aizdc), like the other Samaritans, he became believing, namely, likewise 7 ®dirnw evayyeAlloutvo K.rT.A. (1). Entirely at variance with the text is the opinion ? that Simon regarded Jesus only as a great magician and worker of miracles, and not as the Messiah, and only to this extent believed on Him. He was, by the preach- ing and miracles of Philip, actually moved to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Yet this faith of his was only historical and intellectual, without having as its result a change of the inner life ;* hence he was soon afterwards capable of what is related in vv. 18, 19. The real weravora is not excited in him, even at ver. 24. Cyril aptly remarks: éSarricO, aa our Epwriodn. — ESicraro] he, who had formerly been himself é&:crav rö éAvoc ! Wav 417 God,” to the notion of an angel. This is too weak; all the ancient accounts concerning Simon, as well as concerning his alleged com- panion Helena, the all-bearing mother of angels and powers, betoken a Messianic part which he played ; to which also the name o *Eotws. by which he designated himself accord- ing to the Clementines, points. This name (hardly correctly explained by Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 228 f., from avacryce:, Deut. xviii. 15, 18) denotes the imperishable and unchange- able. See, besides, concerning Simon and his doctrine according to the Clementines, Uhlhorn, die Homil. u. Recognit. des Clemens Rom. p. 281 ff.; Zeller, p. 159 ff.; and concern- ing the entire diversified development of the old legends concerning him, Miiller in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 39i ff.; concerning his doctrine of the Aeons and Syzygies, Philosoph. Orig. vi. 7 ff. According to Baur and Zeller, the magician never existed atall; and the degend concerning him, which arose from Christian polemics directed against the Samaritan worship of the sun-god, the Oriental Hercules (Baal-Melkart), is nothing else than a hostile travestie of the Apostle Paul and his antinomian labours. Comp. also Hilgenfeld, d. clement. Recognit. p. 319 f.; Voleckmar in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 279 ff. The Book of Acts has, in their view, admitted this legend about Oi év ‘Iepoc. atöor.) applies, according to ver. 1, to all the Simon, but has cut off the reference to Paul. Thus the state of the case is exactly reversed. The history of Simon Magus in our passage was amplified in the Clementines in an anti- Pauline interest. The Book of Acts has not cut off the hostile reference to Paul ; but the Clementines have added it, and accordingly have dressed out the history with a view to combit Paulinism and Gnosticism, indeed have here and there caricatured Paul himself as Simon. We set to work unhistorically, if we place the simple narratives of the N. T. on a parall.] with later historical excrescences and disfigurements, and by means of the latter attack the former as likewise fabulous repre- tations. Our narrative contains the historical germ, from which the later legends concern- ing Simon Magus have luxuriantly developed themselves ; the Samaritan worship of the sun and moon has nothing whatever to do with the history of Simon. 1 But see Rom. i. 3; Josephus, Anff. xv. 7. 2. 2 Grotius, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel. 3 Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Agnovit, virtu- tem Dei non esse in se, sed in Philippo. Non tamen pertigit ad fidem plenam, justifi- cantem, cor purificantem, salvantem, tametsi ad eam pervenisse speciose videretur, donec se aliter prodidit.’’ 170 CHAP. VIII., 14-17. apostles, to the apostolic college, which commissioned two of its most distinguished members, Gal. ii. 9.— Zauäpeıa] here also the name of the country ; see vv. 5, 9. From the success which the missionary labours of Philip had in that single city, dates the conversion of the country in general, and so the fact: dédextar 7 Yaudpera tov Adyov tov Oecd (3'). — The design of the mission of Peter and John! (x!) is certainly, according to the text, in opposition to Schneckenburger, to be considered as that which they actually did after their arrival, ver. 15: to pray for the baptized, in order that (owe) they might receive the Holy Spirit (L!). Not as if, in general, the communication of the Spirit had been exclusively bound up with the prayer and the imposition of the hands (vv. 17, 18) of an actual apostle ; nor yet as if here under the Spirit we should have to conceive something peculiar :? but the observation, ver. 16, makes the baptism of the Samaritans without the reception of the Spirit appear as something extraordinary : the epoch-making advance of Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaea into Samaria was not to be accomplished without the intervention of the direct ministry of the apostles. Therefore the Spirit was reserved until this apostolic intervention occurred. To explain the matter from the designed omission of prayer for the Holy Spirit on the part of Philip,‘ or from the subjectivity of the Samaritans, whose faith had not yet penetrated into the inner life,® has no justification in the text, the more especially as there is no mention of any further instruction by the apostles, but only of their prayer, and imposition of hands,° in the effect of which certainly their greater é£ovoia, as compared with that of Philip as the mere evangelist, was his- torically made apparent, because the nascent church of Samaria was not to develope its life otherwise than in living connection with the apostles them- selves.” The miraculous element of the apostolic influence is to be recog- nised as connected with the whole position and function of the apostles, and not to be referred to a sphere of view belonging to a later age (Zeller, Holtzmann). — dédexrar] has received.* — karaßävres] namely, to Samaria situated lower. — oidéxw yap nv] for 1 Which Baur (I. p. 47, ed. 2) derives from the interest of Judaism to place the new churches in a position of dependence on Jeru- salem, and to prevent too free a development of the Hellenistic principle. See, on the other hand, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 542 ff., who, however, likewise gratuitously imports the opinion that the con- version of the Samaritans appeared suspicious and required a more exact examination. 270 Toy onmetwv, Chrysostom, comp. Beza, Calvin. 3 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 175 ff. 4 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 32. 5 Neander, p. 80 f., 104. 6 Ver. 15, comp. with vv. 17. 18, shows clearly the relation of prayer to the imposition of hands. The prayer obtained from God the communication of the Spirit, but the imposi- tion of hands, after the Spirit had been prayed as yet not at all, etc. — uwövov dé for, became the vehicle of the communication. It was certainly of a symbolical nature, yet not a bare and ineffective symbol, but the effective conductor of the gifts prayed for. Comp, on vi. 6. In xix. 5 also it is applied after baptism, and with the result of the communication of the Spirit. On the other hand, at x. 48, it would have come too late. If it is not specially mentioned in cases of ordinary baptism, where the operation of the Spirit was not bound up with the apostolic imposition of hands as here (see 1 Cor. 1. 14-17, xii. 13; Tit. iii. 5), 1t ıs to be considered as obvious of itself (Heb. vi. 2). 7 Surely this entirely peculiar state of mat- ters should have withheld the Catholics from grounding the doctrize of confirmation on our passage (as even Beelen does). 8 See xvii. 7; Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 328) ; Valcken. p. 487. SIMON MAGUS. u 171 Beßarrıou£vor x.r.r.] but they found themselves only in the condition of bap- tized ones, not at the same time also furnished with the Spirit. Ver. 18. The communication of the Spirit was visible (idov, see the critical remarks) in the gestures and gesticulations of those who had received it, perhaps also in similar phenomena to those which took place at Pentecost . in Jerusalem. — Did Simon himself receive the Spirit? Certainly not, as this would have rendered him incapable of so soon making the offer of money. He saw the result of the apostolic imposition of hands on others,—there- upon his impatient desire waits not even for his own experience—the power of the apostolic prayer would have embraced him also and filled him with the Spirit—and, before it came to his turn to receive the imposition of hands, he makes his proposal, perhaps even as a condition of allowing the hands to be laid upon him. The opinion of Kuinoel, that from pride he did not consider it at all necessary that the hands should be laid on him, is entirely imaginary. The motive of his proposal was selfishness in the interest of his magical trade ; very naturally he valued the communication of the Spirit, to the inward experience of which he was a stranger, only according to the surprising outward phenomena, and hence saw in the apostles the pos- sessors of a higher magical power still unknown to himself, the possession of which he as a sorcerer coveted, ‘‘ne quid sibi deesset ad ostentationem et quaestum,’’ Erasmus. Vv. 20, 21. Thy money be along with thee unto destruction ; i.e. let perdition, Messianic penal destruction, come upon thy money and thyself! The sin- money, in the lofty strain of the language, is set forth as something per- sonal, capable of arörsıa. — ein eic axoA.| a usual attraction: fall into de- struction and be in it.!— ryv Ödwpeav tov Oeov] Hv éovaiav raizyv, iva K.T.d., ver. 19. Observe the antithetically chosen designation. — &vowsac] thou wast minded, namely, in the proposal made. — wepic oidé KAnpoc] synonyms, of which the second expresses the idea figuratively : part nor lot.” The utterance is carnest. — &v ro Adyw rourw] in this word, i.e. in the &£ovoia to be the medium of the Spirit, which was in question. Lange gratuitously im- ports the idea: in this word, which flows from the hearts of believers moved by the Spirit. Adyoc of the ‘ipsa causa, de qua disceptatur,’’ is very cur- rent also in classical writers.* Others, as Olshausen and Neander after Grotius, explain Aöyoc of the gospel, all share in whose blessings is cut off from Simon. But then this reference must have been suggested by the context, in which, however, there is no mention at all of doctrine. — cifeia straight, i.e. upright,* for Simon thought to acquire (xracfac) an é£ovcia not destined for him, from immoral motives, and by an unrighteous means. Herein lies the immoral nature of simony, whose source is selfishness. °® Vv. 22, 23. ’Amö tie xax.] i.e. turning thee away from, Heb. vi. 1. Comp. on 2 Cor, xi. 38.—ei dpa ageOjoera] entreat the Lord (God, 1 See Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T. 516 f.). Comp. Nägelsb. on the Ziad, p. 41 f. ed. 3. ver. 23, 4 Comp. Wisd. ix. 3; Ecclus. vil. 6. 2 Comp. Dent. xii. 12, xiv. 27,29 : Isa. lvii. 6. 5 Comp. the ethical oxoAıos (Luke iii. 5), ii. 3 Ast, Lew. Plat. II. p. 256; Brunck, ad 40; Phil. ii. 15. “Cor arx boni et mali,” Ben- Soph. 45.1268 ; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277; gel ; Delitzch, Psychol. p. 250. 172 CHAP, VIII, 18-24. ver. 21), and try thereby, whether perhaps, as the case may stand, there will be forgiven, etc. Comp. on Mark xi. 13; Rom. i. 10. Peter, on account of the high degree of the transgression, represents the forgive ness on repentance still as doubtful." Kuinoel, after older expositors,* thinks that the doubt concerns the conversion of Simon, which was hardly to be hoped for. At variance with the text, which to the fulfilment of the weravönoov, without which forgiveness was not at all conceivable, annexes still the problematic Comp. Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. ® Com. owAnen, ver. 14. 7 The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch is not to be placed defore the baptism of Cor- ler), but it was after that event that the mis- sionary activity of the dispersed advanced so far. See xv. 7. 8 Comp. Herm. ad Soph. El. 65. ® Comp. Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and others, including de Wette. See Winer, 367 (E. T. 489 f.); Ellendt, Zex. Soph. I. p. 619. 222 CHAP. XI., 19-26. sible,’ but lesssimple, as post Stephanum would have again to be explained as e medio sublato Stephano. — noav de rives&£ aurov] does not apply to Iovdaioıg,” as the 64, corresponding to the wév, ver. 19, requires for aurov the ref- erence to the subject of ver. 19, the dıaorap£vrec, and as oiriveg éAMbvTEC eig ’Avriöyeıav, ver. 20, so corresponds to the dujAfov iwc . . . "Avrioxeiac of ver. 19, that a diversity of the persons spoken of could not but of necessity be indicated. The correct interpretatation is: ‘*The dispersed travelled through the countries,’ as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, de- livering the gospel — röv Adyov, kar' &£oxyv, as in vill, 4. vi. 4, and frequently —to the Jews only, ver. 19, hut some of them, of the dispersed, Cyprians and Cyrenians by birth, proceeded otherwise ; having come to Antioch, they preached the word to the Gentiles there.” * — rtov¢ "EAAnvag] is the national contrast to ‘Iovdaiorc, ver. 19, and therefore embraces as well the Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become incorporated into Judaism by circumcision. To understand only the proselytes® would be a limitation not founded here in the text, as in xiv. 1 (x’). Vv. 21-26. Xeip «vpiov] See on Luke i. 66; Acts iv. 30. Bengel well re- marks: ‘‘potentia spiritualis per evangelium se exserens.’’ — auro»] these preachers to the Gentiles. — Ver. 22. eic ra ora] Comp. on Luke iv. 21. — 6 Adyoc]| the word, i.e. the narrative of it; see on Mark i. 45. — Ver. 23. yapw r. Ocov] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles. —rq mpoßkoeı tic Kapd. mpoouér. TH Kvpiw] with the purpose of their heart to abide by the Lord, i.e. not again to abandon Christ, to whom their hearts had resolved to be- long, but to be faithful to Him with this resolution.° — Ver. 24. 67 mw... rlorewc] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had been sent to Antioch,’ but of the immediately preceding éydpy . . . kvpio. —avyp ayaféc] quite generally : an excellent man, a man of worth, whose noble character, and, moreover, whose fulness of the Spirit and of faith completely qualified him to gain and to follow the right point of view, in accordance with the divine counsel, as to the conversion of the Gentiles here beheld. Most arbitrarily Heinrichs holds that it denotes gentleness and mildness, which Baum- garten has also assumed, although such a meaning must have arisen, as in Matt. xx. 5, from the context,® into which Baumgarten imports the idea, that Barnabas had not allowed himself to be stirred to censure by the strangeness of the new phenomenon. — Ver. 25. eic Tapodv] See ix. 30. — Ver. 26. According to the corrected reading éyéveto dé avroic Kai Evıavrov x.T.2. (see the critical remarks), it is to be explained : it happened to them,’ to be associated even yet (kai) a whole year in the church, and to instruct a con- siderable multitude of people, and that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. With ypyyuaricac the construction passes into the accusative with the infinitive, because the subject becomes different (cove safyr.). But it is logically correct that ypyuatica «.r.A. should still be dependent 1 Bernhardy, p. 249. 6 Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 10. 2 Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 7 Kuinoel. 3 Comp. viii. 4, ix. 38. 8 Comp. on Rom. y. 7. 4 Comp. de Wette and Lekebusch, p. 105. 9 Comp. xx. 16; Gal. vi. 14. 5 Rinck. THE GOSPEL IN ANTIOCH. 223 on éyévero abroic, just because the reported appellation, which was first given to the disciples at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and successful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit, that here the name of Christians first arose. — On the climactic «ai, etiam, in the sense of yet, or yet further, comp. Hartung.’— cvvaytyjvac| to be brought to- gether, i.e. to join themselves for common work. They had been since ix. 26 ff. separated from each other.— ypquaricar] to bear the name.? — Kooriavong] This name decidedly originated not in, but outside of, the church, seeing that the Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but designate them- selves by nalyrai, adeAgoi, believers, etc. ; and seeing that, in the two other passages where Xproriavoi occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as ex- trinsic to the church.* But ıt certainly did not proceed from the Jews, because Xptoröc was known to them as the interpretation of WWD, and they would not therefore have transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates. IIence the origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles ın Antioch.* By these the name of the Head of the new religious society, ‘‘ Christ,'’ was not regarded as an official name, which it already was among the Christians themselves ever more and more becoming ; and hence they formed accord- ing to the wonted mode the party-name : Christiani,® ‘* auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat.’’ At Antioch, the seat of the mother-church of Gentile Christianity, this took place at that time, for this follows from the reading éyév, 62 abroic, because in that year the joint labours of Paul and Barnabas occasioned so considerable an enlargement of the church, and therewith naturally its increase in social and public consideration. And ıt was at Antioch that this name was born jirst, earlier than anywhere else,* because here the Christians, in consequence of the predominant Gentile-Christian element, asserted themselves for the first time not as a sect of Judaism, but as an independent community. There is nothing to support the view that the name was at first a title of ridieule.” The conjecture of Baur, that the origin of the name was referred to Antioch, because that was the first Gentile city in which there were Christians,* cannot be justified by the Latin form of the word.’ Vv. 27, 28. Kaz7/4ov] whether of their own impulse, or as sent by the church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem?’ is not evident. — mpoonrar] inspired teachers, who delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ee- static state, yet in exalted language, on the basis of an aroxddvine received. Their working was entirely analogous to that of the O. T. prophets. Rev- elation, incitement, and inspiration on the part of God gave them their qualification ; the unveiling of what was hidden in respect of the divine 1 Partikell 1. p. 138 f. beck, ad Phryn. p. 311 f. 2 See on Rom. vii. 3. 7 De Wette, Baumgarten, after Wetstein 3 Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16. and older interpreters. 4 Ewald, p. 441 f., conjectures that it pro- 4 Zeller also mistrusts the account before ceeded from the Roman authorities. us. 5 Tac. Ann. xv. 44. ® See Wetstein, ad. Matth. xxii. 17. 6 rpwrorv, or, according to BN, mpwrws, Lo- 10 Ewald. art CHAP. XI., 27-80. counsel for the exercise of a pyschological and moral influence on given circumstances, but alwaysin reference to Christ and His work, was the tenor of what these interpreters of God spoke. The prediction of what was fu- ture was, as with the old, so also with the new prophets, no permanent characteristic feature ; but naturally and necessarily the divinely-illumi- nated glance ranged very often into the future development of the divine counsel and kingdom, and saw what was to come. In respect to the de- gree of the inspired seizure, the zpooqra: are related to the yAdcoare Aadovvreg! in such a way that the intellectual consciousness was not thrown into the back ground with theformer as with the latter, and so the mental excite- ment was not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their speaking stand in need of interpretation.” — avaorac] he came forward in the church-assembly. — ‘AyaBoc] Whether the name ® is to be derived from 335, a locust,* or from 24), to love,’ remains undecided. The same proph- et as in xxi. 10. — dia tov mvevuaroce] This characterizes the announce- ment (öonuave) of the famine as something imparted to the prophet by the Holy Spirit ; hence Eichhorn’s opinion,° that the famine was already present in its beginnings, does great violence to the representation of the text, which, moreover, by öorıs . . . KAaudiov states the fulfilment as having oc- curred afterwards, and consequently makes the event to appear at that time still as future, which also péAzew écectac definitely affirms.— mov... oixovuévyy| that a great famine was appointed by God to set in over the whole inhabited earth. Thus generally is 77» oikovu. to be understood in the origi- nal sense of the prophet, who sees no local limits drawn for the famine beheld in prophetic vision, and therefore represents it not as a partial, but as an unrestricted one. Just because the utterance is a prediction, according to its genuine prophetic character, there is no ground for giving to the general and usual meaning of 77% olixovu.,—which is, moreover, designedly brought into relief by 6%7»,—any geographical limitation at all to the land of Judaea or the Roman empire.’ This very unlimited character of the vision, on the one hand, warranted the hyperbolical form of the expression, as given by Agabus, while yet, on the other hand, the famine extending itself far and wide, but yet limited, which afterwards historically occurred, might be regarded as the event corresponding to the entirely general prophetic vision, and be described by Luke as its fulfilment. History pointed out the limits, within which what was seen and predicted without limitation found its ful- filment, inasmuch, namely, as this famine, which set in in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius (a.p. 44), extended only to Judaea and the neigh- bouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem itself, which was sup- ported by the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene with corn and figs.“ The view which includes as part of the fulfilment a yet later famine,® which oc- curred in the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Rome," offends against 1 See on x. 46. 6 Comp. Heinrichs. 2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 10. ? See on Luke ii. 1. BZ: 3 Comp. Ezra ii. 46. 5 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5.2; Eus. 4 With Drusius. » Baumgarten. 5 With Grotius, Witsius, Drusius, Wolf. 10 Suet. Claud. 18; Tacit. Ann, xii. 43. ANTIOCH SENDS AID TO JERUSALEM. 225 the words (Acuwov . . . jrıs) as well as against the connection of the history.' It is altogether inadmissible to bring in here the different famines, which successively occurred under Claudius in different parts of the empire,? since, by the famine here meant, according to vv. 29, 30, Judaea was affected, and the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbitrary is the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was predicted as a sign and herald of the Parousia, and that the fulfilment under Claudius was therefore merely a preliminary one, which pointed to a future and final fulfilment.— On Aıuöc as feminine (Doric), as in Luke xv. 14, see on Luke iv. 26, and Bornemann on our passage. Vy. 29, 30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten assumes, the Christians of Antioch had already sent their money contributions to Judaea before the commencement of the famine, is incorrect, because it was not through the entirely general expression of Agabus, but only through the result (öorıc kal éyéveto éxi K2avd), that they could learn the definite time for sending, and also be directed to the local destination of their benevolence ; hence ver. 29 attaches itself, with strict historical definiteness, to the directly pre- ceding öorıs . . . KAaudiov.” The benevolent activity on behalf of Judaea, which Paul at a later period unweariedly and successfully strove to promote, is to be explained from the dutiful affection toward the mother-land of Christianity, with its sacred metropolis, to which the Gentile church felt itself laid under such deep obligations in spirtual matters, Rom. xv. 27. — The construction of ver. 29 depends on attraction, in such a way, namely, that rov dé naßnrov is attracted by the parenthesis kadoc yiopeiro rıc, accord- ing as every one was able,* and accordingly the sentence as resolved is: oi dé The subsequent éxacroc aitav is a more precise definition of the subject of öpıcav, appended by way of appo- sition. Comp. ii. 3. — r£upaı] sc. rı. — The Christian presbyters, here for the first time mentioned in the N. T., instituted after the manner of the synagogue (D°}pt),° were the appointed overseers and guides of the indi- vidual churches, in which the pastoral service of teaching, xx. 28, also devolved on them.® They are throughout the N. T. identical with the &rıoxoroi, Who do not come into prominence as possessors of the chief super- intendence with a subordination of the presbyters till the sub-apostolic ualyrai, kalaoc niTopEtTé Tıc av’TOV, Gpicav. 1 vv. 29, 30. presbyters. But certainly the presbyters 2 Ewald. were, as elsewere (xiv.23), so also in Jerusalem 3 Comp. Wieseler, p. 149. * (xy. 22, xxi. 18), chosen by the church, and 4See Kypke, II. p. 56; comp. also 1 Cor. apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch, p. XVI. 2. 78, who, however, abitrarily conjectures that 5 We have no account of the institution of the coming over of the priests, vi. 7, had given this office. It probably shaped itself after the analogy of the government of the synagogue, soon after the first dispersion of the church (viii. 1), the apostles themselves having in the first instance presided alone over the church in Jerusalem; while,on the other hand, in conformity with the pressing necessity which primarily emerged, the office of almoner was there formed, even before there were special occasion to the origin of the office.—We may add that the presbyters do not here appear as almoners (in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeit- ait. II. p. 146), but the moneys are consigned to them as the presiding authority of the church. “Omnia enimrite et ordine admin- istrari oportuit,’’ Beza. Comp. besides, on vi. 3, the subjoined remark. ® See on Eph. iv. 11; Huther on 1 Tim. iii. 2. 226 CHAP. XI.—NOTES. age—in the first instance, and already very distinctly, in the Ignatian epistles. That identity, although the assumption of it is anathematized by the Council of Trent, is clear from Acts xx. 17.! Shifts are resorted to by the Catholics, such as Döllinger.” — The moneys were to be given over to the presbyters, in order to be distributed by them among the different overseers of the poor for due application. — According to Gal. ii. 1, Paul cannot have come with them as far as Jerusalem.” In the view of Zeller, that circumstance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a historical character—which is a very hasty conclusion. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (w!) They of the circumeision contended with him. V. 3. Luke employs a designation here which, when he wrote, was full of signifi- cance ; though it probably originated in the very event he here narrates. The difference of sentiment manifest now soon came to bea well-defined distinction between the Jewish and Gentile portions of the church. It is probable that those who reproached Peter with acting disorderly were only a party in the church at Jerusalem who regarded the observance of the law of Moses, if not essential to salvation, yet of the greatest importance ; and specially that the rite of circumcision should be observed first, before any were admitted to either social or church fellowship. They did not censure Peter because he had preached the gospel to them, or caused them to be baptized, but that he had associated with them. His grave offence was that, contrary to the customs of his people, and the commands of the rabbins, he had eaten with the uneireum- cised. It was a maxim of these teachers that a man might buy food of a Gen- tile, but not receive it as a gift from him, or eat it with him. It was to vindi- cate himself in this matter that Peter gave explanations to the brethren at Jerusalem. So clear, conclusive, and satisfactory was his statement of the whole case that his opponents were silenced, and probably most of them for the time at least convinced ; and their indignant complaint against the apos- tle was changed into joyous thanksgiving to God. This dispute may be con- 1 Comp. ver. 28; Tit i. 5,7; 1Pet.v.1f.; the Galatians about this journey. For the Phil. i. 1. See Gabler, de episcopis primae very non-mention of it must have exposed the ecel., Jen. 1805; Münter in the Stud. u. Krit. journey, however otherwise little liable to ob- 1833, p. 769 ff. ; Rothe, Anfanged.chr. K.I.p. jection, to the suspicions of opponents. This 1%3 ff., Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 399 ff.; Jacob- applies also against Hofmann, N. 7. I p. 121 ; son in Herzog’s Encykt. II. p. 241 ff. and Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. 72f. 2 Christenth. u. K. p. 303, and Sepp, p. 853f. The latter, however, ultimately accedes to ® Ewald’s hypothesis also—that Paul had, my view. On the other hand, Paul had no when present in Jerusalem, conducted himself need at all to write of the journey at Acts as quietly as possible, and had not transacted xviii. 22 to the Galatians (in opposition to anything important for doctrine with the Wieseler), because, after he had narrated to apostles, of whom Peter, acccording to xii. 17. them his coming to an understanding with the had been absent—is insufficient to explain the —_ apostle, there was no object at all in referring silence in Gal. ij. concerning this journey. in this Epistle to further and later journeys The whole argument in Gal. ii. is weak, if toJerusalem. See on Gal. ii. 1. Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was silent to NOTES. 227 sidered as the commencement of the Jewish controversy, which so greatly troubled the early church, and which Paul so triumphantly maintained and settled. (x!) Antioch. V. 20. Next to Jerusalem Antioch is the most important in apostolic history. It was the mother church of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of the Jew- ish. Here the first Gentile church was formed, and here first the name Chris- tian was applied to believers. Hence also Paul started on each of his three great missionary tours. This city, populous and powerful, was ranked next to Rome and Alexandria in extent and importance in the Roman Empire. After the establishment of Christianity, it became one of the five patriarchates— Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem being the other four. The gospel was first preached to the Gentiles in Antioch, by some who, fleeing from persecution, had gone thither, with very great success, probably about the same time or shortly after Peter’s visit to Caesarea. The church at Jerusalem, hearing of this success in all likelihood soon after Peter’s account of the re- ceiving of the Gentiles, sent Barnabas, a man of moral worth and spiritual power, and who, being a native of Cyprus, and a friend of Paul, would be in thorough sympathy with the work among the Greeks, to inquire into the state of things and report. When he saw the great work going on, he felt that aid was needed ; and recalling his intercourse with Paul, and the fact that he had been specially called and chosen for this very work, he went to Tarsus, and brought Paul back with him to Antioch, where for a whole year, in delightful fellowship and successful work, they labored together—fratres nobiles. The future prominence and splendor of Paul’s work somewhat casts into the shade the high character and great services of the good and gifted Son of Consolation, who should ever be regarded as occupying a place in the first rank of the founders of our holy faith. 228 CHAP. XII., 1-2. CHAPTER XII. Ver. 3. ai] is wanting in Elz., but rightly adopted, in accordanee with eonsider- able attestation, by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch., because it was easily passed over as wholly superfluous. — Ver. 5. &xrevy5S] Lachm. reads £xrevös, after A? BS; comp. D, Ev éxteveia. Several vss. also express the adverb, which, however, easily suggested itself as definition to yuvou.—vrép] Lachm, Tisch. Born, read mepl, which Griesb, has also approved, after AB D 8, min. But epi is the more usual preposition with zpocetyecfa: (comp. also viii, 15) in the N, T.— Ver. 8. (écat] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have repıföcaı, against AB DN,min. A more precise explanatory definition. — Ver, 9. aire] after jKoA. is, with Lachm, Tisch. Born., to be deleted, according to decisive evidence, A supplementary addition occasioned by sou, ver. 8. — Ver. 13. adtov] Elz. has roi Merpot, against decisive evidence. — Ver, 20, After 7v dé, Elz, has 6 ‘Hpdoys, against preponderant authority. The subject unnecessarily written on the margin, which was occasioned by a special section (the death of Herod) beginning at ver. 20. — Ver. 23. dö$av] Elz. Tisch. have rn» dögav. The article is wanting in D E GH, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec., but is to be re- stored (comp. Rev. xix. 7), seeing that the expression without the article was most familiar to transcribers ; see Luke xvii. 18; John ix. 24; Rom, iv. 20; Rev. iv. 9, xi. 13, xiv. 7.— Ver. 25. After ovumapaA. Lachm. and Born, have deleted «ai, following A B D* 8, min. and some yss. But how readily may the omission of this cai be explained by its complete superfluousness ! where- as there is no obvious occasion for its being added. Vv. 1, 2. Kar’ éxeivov 02 tov karpév| but at that juncture,’ points, as in xix. 23,7 to what is narrated immediately before ; consequently : when Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem (xi. 30). From ver. 25 it is evident that Luke has conceived this statement of time in such a way, that what is re- lated in vv. 1-24 is contemporaneous with the despatch of Barnabas and Saul to Judaea and with their stay there, and is accordingly to be placed between their departure from Antioch and their return from Jerusalem,’ and not so early as in the time of the one year’s residence at Antioch, xi. 25.4 — 'Hpödnc] Agrippa I., grandson of Herod the Great, son of Aristobulus and Berenice, nephew of Herod Antipas, possessed, along with the royal title,’ the whole of Palestine, as his grandfather had possessed it ; Clau- dius having added Judaea and Samaria ° to his dominion already preserved and augmented by Caligula.’ A crafty, frivolous, and extravagant prince, 1 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500). 5 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 30. 2 Comp. 2 Macc. iii. 5; 1 Macc. xi. 14. 6 Joseph. Antt. xix. 5. 1, xix. 6. 1; Bell. ii. 3 Schrader, Hug, Schott. Tale by 4 Wieseler, p. 152; Stölting, Beitr. 2. Hvreg. 7 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 7. 2; Bell. ii. 9.6. See d. Paul. Br. p.184f.; comp. atso Anger, de Wieseler, p. 129 f.; Gerlach in the Luther. tempor. rat. p. 47 f. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 55 ff. MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, 229 who, although better than his grandfather, is praised far beyond his due by Josephus (v ). — éréBarev rac xeipac is not, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, to be interpreted : coepit, conatus est = &rexeipnoe,! because for this there is no linguistic precedent at all, even in the LXX. Deut. xii. 7, xv. 10, the real and active application of the hand is meant, and not the general notion swscipere; but according to the constant usage,” and ac- cording to the context, tpocitero ovAAaßeiv, ver. 3, it is to be interpreted of hostile laying hands on. Herod laid hands on, he caught at, i.e. he caused to be forcibly seized, in order to maltreat some of the members of the church—on oi arö, used to designate membership of a corporation, see Lobeck.* Else- where the personal dative * or &mi rıva ° is joined with éxiBarreiv räc yeipac, instead of the definition of the object aimed at by the infinitive. —On the apostolic work and fate of the elder James, who now drank out the cup of Matt: xx. 23, nothing certain is otherwise known. Apocryphal accounts may be seen in Abdiae Histor. apost. in Fabric. Cod. Apocr. p. 516 ff., and concerning his death, p. 528 ff. The late tradition of his preaching in Spain, and of his death in Compostella, is given up even on the part of the Catholics.° — r. adeAg. "Ioavvov] John was still alive when Luke wrote, and in high respect. — uayaipa] probably, as formerly in the case of John the Baptist, by beheading,’ which even among the Jews was not uncommon and very ignominous ; see Lightfoot, p. 91 (z'!).—The time of the execution was shortly before Easter week (A.n. 44), which follows from ver. 3; and the place was probably Jerusalem.’ It remains, however, matter of surprise that Luke relates the martyrdom of an apostle with so few words, and without any specification of the more immediate occasion or more special circumstances attending it, drAöc kat oc érvyev Herod had killed him, says Chrysostom, A want of more definite information, which he could at all events have easily obtained, is certainiy not to be assumed. Further, we must not in fanciful arbitrariness import the thought, that by “the en- tirely mute (?) suffering of death,’’ as well as “in this absolute quietness and apparent insignificance,’’ in which the first death of an apostle is here presented, there is indicated ‘‘a reserved glory,’’® by which, in fact, more- over, some sort of more precise statement would not be excluded. Nor yet is the summary brevity of itself warranted as a mere introduction, by which Luke desired to pass to the following history derived from a special docu- ment concerning Peter ;!° the event was too important for that. On the contrary, there must have prevailed some sort ef conscious consideration 1 Luke i. 1; Acts ix. 29. 2 iv. 3, v. 18, xxi. $7; Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 46; Luke xx. 19, xxi. 12; John vii. 30; Gen. xxii. 12; comp. Lucian, Tim. 4, also in Arrian., Polybius, etc. 3 Ad Phryn. p. 164; Schaef. Melet. p. 26 ff. 4 Ar. Lys. 440; Actsiv. 3; Mark xiv. 46; Tischendorf, Esth. vi. 2. 5 Gen. xxii. 12; 2 Sam. xviii. 12, and always in the N. T., except Acts iv. 3 and Mark xiv. 46. © See Sepp, p. 75. Who, however, comes at least to the rescue of the bones of the apostle for Compostella ! 7 **Cervicem spiculatori porrexit,'’ Abdias, Gc. p. 531. 8 For Agrippa was accustomed to reside in Jerusalem (Joseph. Antt. xix.7.3); all the more, therefore, he must have been present or have come thither from Caesarea, shortly before the feast (ver. 19). ® Baumgarten, 10 Bleek. 230 CHAP. XIL, 3-11. involved in the literary plan of Luke,—probably this, that he had it in view to compose a third historical book (see the Introduction), in which he would give the history of the other apostles besides Peter and Paul, and therefore, for the present, he mentions the death of James only quite briefly, and for the sake of its connection with the following history of Peter. The reason adduced by Lekebusch, p. 219: that Luke wished to remain faithful to his plan of giving a history of the development of the church, does not suflice, for at any rate the first death of an apostle was in itself, and by its impression on believers and unbelievers, too important an element in the history of that development not to merit a more detailed representation in connection with it.—Clem. Al. in Huseb, ii. 9 has a beauti- ful tradition, how the accuser of James, converted by the testimony and courage of the apostle, was beheaded along with him. Vv. 3, 4. Herod, himself a Jew, in opposition to Harduin, born in Ju- daism, although of Gentile leanings, a Roman favourite brought up at the court of Tiberius, cultivated out of policy Jewish popular favour, and sought zealously to defend the Jewish religion for this purpose.? — mpoo&dero ovaraB.] a Hebraism: he further seized.* — r&ooapoı rerpadiors] four bands of four— rerpädıov, a number of four, Philo, II. p. 533, just as rerpdc in Aristotle and others—quatuor quaternionibus, i.e. four detachments of the watch, each of which consisted of four men, so that one such rerpadıov was in turn on guard for each of the four watches of the nıght.* — peta TO raoxa] not to desecrate the feast, in consideration of Jewish orthodox observance of the law. For he might have evaded the Jewish rule, “non judicant die festo,’’® at least for the days following the first day of the feast,° by treating the matter as peculiarly pressing and important. Wieseler” has incorrectly assumed the 15th Nisan as the day appointed for the execution, and the 14th Nisan as the day of the arrest. Against this it may be decisively urged, that by pera 7d maoya must be meant the entire Paschal feast, not the 14th Nisan, because it corresponds to the preceding ai juépac Tov aliu.* — avayay. ait. TO Aao] that is, to present him to the people on the elevated place where the tribunal stood (John xix. 13), in order there publicly to pronounce upon him the sentence of death. Vv. 5, 6. But there was earnest prayer made by the church to God for him. On éxrevyc, peculiar to the later Greek, 1 Pet. iv. 5; Luke xxii. 44.° — mpoayew| to bring publicly forward. See on ver. 4.— rn vurri éxeivy] on that night; when, namely, Herod had already resolved on the bringing forward, which was to be accomplished on the day immediately follow- ing. — According to the Roman method of strict military custody, Peter was bound by chain to his guard.!? This binding, however, not by one 1 Deyling, Odss. II. p. 263 ; Wolf, Cur. 6 See Bleek, Beitr. p. 139 ff. 2 Joseph. Antt. xix. 7. 3. 7 Synops. p. 864 ff., Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. 3 Comp. on Luke xix. 11, xx. 12. p. 215 ff. 4Onthis Roman regulation, see Veget. R. 8 Comp. Luke xxii. 1. M. iii. 8; Censorinus, de die nat. 23; Wet- ® See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311. stein in oc. 10 Comp. Joseph. Anté, xviii. 6.7; Plin. ep. 5 Moed Katon, v. 2. x. 65; Senec. ep. 5, al. IMPRISONMENT OF PETER. 201 chain to one soldier, but by two chains, and so with each hand attached to a soldier, was an aggravation, which may be explained from the fact that the execution was already determined." Two soldiers of the retpadiov on guard were in the prison, fastened to Peter asleep (kowwu.), and, indeed, sleeping profoundly? in the peace of the righteous ;* and two as guards, @vAakec, Were stationed outside at some distance from each other, form- ing the rpéryv ovaaxjv Kai devr£pav, ver. 10. Vv. 7-11. The narrative of this deliverance falls to be judged of in the same way as the similar event recorded in v. 19, 20. From the mixture of what is legendary with pure history, which marks Luke’s report of the oceurrence, the purely historical state of the miraculous fact in its in- dividual details cannot be surely ascertained, and, in particular, whether the angelic appearance, which suddenly took place,* is to be referred to the inter- nal vision of the apostle, —a view to which ver. 9 may give a certain support.° But as the narrative lies before us, every attempt to constitute it a natural occurrence must be excluded.® This holds good not only of the odd view of Hezel, that a flash of lightning had undone the chains, but also of the opinion of Eichhorn and Heinrichs, ‘‘ that the jailer himself, or others with his knowledge, had effected the deliverance, without Peter himself being aware of the exact circumstances ;’’ as also, in fine, of the hypothesis of Baur, that the king himself had let the apostle free, because he had be- come convinced in the interval (? ver. 3) how little the execution of James had met with popular approval. According to Ewald,’ Peter was delivered in such a surprising manner, that his first word after his arrival among his friends was, that he thought he was rescued by an angel of God ; and our narrative is an amplified presentation of this thought. — Ver. 7. gac| whether emanating from the angel,*or as a separate phenomenon, cannot be determined. — oixyua] generally denoting single apartments of the house,° is, in the special sense: place of custody of prisoners, i.e. prison, a more delicate designation for the decuwrjpiov, frequent particularly among Attic writers.°.—And the chains fell from his hands, round which, namely, they were entwined. — Ver. 9. He was so overpowered by the wonderful course of his deliverance and confused in his consciousness, that what had been done by the angel was not apprehended by him as something actual, i See, generally, Wieseler, pp. 381, 395. 2 See ver. 7. 3 Ps. iii. 6. 4 ereorn, see on Luke ii. 9. 5 Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 150, supposes that the help had befallen the apostle in the condition of ‘second consciousness, in an extraordınary healthy disengagement of the higher life ” [@eniusleben], and that the angel was a “ reflected image of the glorified Christ;”’ that the latter Himself, in an angelic form, came within the sphere of Peter’s vision ; that Christ Himself thus undertook the responsi- bility ; and that the action of the apostle transcended the condition of responsible con- sciousness. There is nothing of all this in the passage. And Christ 2 an angelic form is without analogy in the N. T. ; is, indeed, at variance with the N. T. conception of the d0£a of the glorified Lord. 6 See Storr, Opuse. III. p. 183 ff. 7 Who (p. 202) regards our narrative as more historical than the similar narrativesin chaps. v. and xvi. 8 Matt. xxvili. 3. ®Valck. ad Ammon. iii. 4; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 587. 10 Dem. 789, 2. 890, 13. 1284, 2; Thue. iv. 47. 2, 48.1; Kypke, II. p. 57. Comp. Valck. ad Herod. vii. 119. 232 CHAP, XII., 12-17. aAnbéc, as a real fact, but that he fancied himself to have seen a vision, comp. xvi. 9.— Ver. 10. rv gépovear eis tiv möAıw] Nothing can be de- termined from this as to the situation of the prison. Fessel holds that it was situated in the court of Herod’s castle; Walch and Kuinoel, that Peter was imprisoned in a tower of the inner wall of the city, and that the 0A was the door of this tower, if the prison-house was in the city, which is to be assumed from ka} &£eAdövrec k.r.A., 1ts iron gate still in fact led from the house eic ryv möAıw.—Examples of airduatoc, used not only of persons, but of things, may be seen in Wetstein @n loc., and on Mark iv. 28.1— bounv uiav] not several. — Ver. 11. yevouevoc év éavtm] when he had become (present) in himself, i.e. had come to himself,” “ cum animo ex stupore ob rem inopinatam iterum collecto satis sibi conscius esset.”’ 3 — al maone THC mpocdok. Tov Aaov r. ’Iovd.] For he had now ceased to be the person, in whose execution the people were to see their whole expectation hostile to Christianity gratified. Ver. 12. Zuvdöv] after he had perceived it, namely, what the state of the case as to his deliverance had been, ver. 11.* It may also mean, after he had weighed it, Vulg. considerans, namely, either generally the position of the matter,’ or quid agendum esset.. The above view is simpler, and in keeping with xiv. 6. Linguistically inappropriate are the renderings : sibi conscius ; " and: ‘‘after that he had set himself right in some measure as to the place where he found himself.”’®— There is nothing opposed to the common hypothesis, that this John Mark is identical with the second evangelist. Comp. ver. 25, xiii. 5. Vv. 13, 14. Tiv Oipav tov rvAdvoc] the wicket of the gate, x. 17. On kpobeıv Or körrew, used of the knocking of those desiring admission.” — raıdiorn] who, amidst the impending dangers,'’ had to attend to the duties of a watchful doorkeeper; she was herself a Christian.— izaxoica] For examples of this expression used of doorkeepers, who, upon the call of those outside, listen (auscultant) who is there, see Kypke." — rv gwriy roi TI. | the voice of Peter, calling before the door.— and rjc xapäc] prompted by the joy, which she now experienced, '* she did not open the door at once, but ran immediately in to tell the news to those assembled.—azfyy. Eorävaı k.T.A.] eioayy&iAcıv is the more classical term for the announcement of a door- keeper.'? Vv. 15, 16. Maivn] Thou art mad! An expression of extreme surprise at one who utters what is absurd or otherwise incredible."* The hearer also ı Comp. Hom. Z. v. 749; Eur. Bacch. 47: 5 Beza. ayronara Seopa SteAvdn. Apollon. Rhod. iv. 6 Bengel, comp. Erasmus. 41: avtouator Hvpewv vrocEav oxjes. Ovid. 7 Kuinoel. Met. iii. 699. [Phil. 938. 8 Olshausen ; comp. Chrysostom, Aoyırane- 2 Luke xv. 17; Xen. Anabd. i. 5. 17; Soph. vos ömov Eorıv, also Grotius and others.” 3 Kypke, comp. Wetstein and Dorville, ad 9 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 177 f.; comp. Charit. p. 81; Herm. ad Vig. p. 749. Becker, Charikl. I. p. 130. 4 Comp. xiv. 6; Plut. Them.7 : cvvidwv tov 10 Comp. John xx. 19. kivövvov, Xen. Anad. i. 5. 9; Plat. Dem. p. 381 11 TJ. p. 60, and ValcKenaer, p. 489 f. E, Dem. 17. %, 1351, 6; Polyb. i. 4. 6, iii. 6. 9, 12 Comp. Luke xxiv. 41. vi. 4. 12; 1 Macc. iv. 21; 2 Mace. ii. 24, iv. 4, 13 See Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 74. v. 17, viii. 8; and see Wetstein. 14 Comp. xxyi. 24; Hom. Od. xviii. 406. PETER’S WONDERFUL DELIVERANCE, ~ 233 of something incredible himself exclaims : naivonar !! — diioxvpiz.] as in Luke xxii. 59, and often in Greek writers: she maintained firmly and strongly.— 6 ayyedoc airov &orıv] Even according to the Jewish conception,’ the explana- tion suggested itself, that Peter’s guardian angel had taken the form and voice of his protégé and was before the door. But the idea, originating after the exile, of individual guardian angels,* is adopted by Jesus Him- self,* and is essentially connected with the idea of the Messianic kingdom.° Olshausen rationalizes this conception in an unbiblical manner, to this effect : ‘that in it is meant to be expressed the thought, that there lives in the world of spirit the archetype of every individual to be realized in the course of his development, and that the higher consciousness which dwells in man here below stands in living connection with the kindred phenom- ena of the spirit-world.’? Cameron, Hammond, and others explain: “a messenger sent by him from the prison.’’ It is decisive against this in- terpretation, that those assembled could just as little light on the idea of the imprisoned Peter’s having sent a messenger, as the maid could have confounded the voice of the messenger with the well-known voice of Peter, for it must be presumed from dioyvpilero obtwc Eyewv that she told the more special reasons for her certainty that Peter was there. — Ver. 16. avoi£avrec] consequently the persons assembled themselves, who had now come out of their room. Ver. 17. Karaosicı rn xeıpi] to make a shaking motion with the hand generally, and in particular, as here,° to indicate that there is a wish to bring forward something, for which 6ne bespeaks the silence and attention of those present.” The infinitive cvyav, as also often with vevew and the like, by which a desire is made known.*— The three clauses of the whole verse describe vividly the haste with which Peter hurried the proceedings, in order to betake himself as soon as possible into safe conccalment. Baum- garten invents as a reason: because he saw that the bond between Jerusalem and the apostles must be dissolved. As if it would have required for that pur- pose such haste, even in the same night! His regard to personal safety does not cast on him the appearance of cowardly anxiety ; but by the opposite course he would have tempted God. How often did Paul and Jesus Himself withdraw from their enemies into concealment !— kai roic dere. | who were not along with them in the assembly.— eic érepov rörov] is wholly indefinite. Even whether a place in or out of Palestine® is meant, must remain undetermined. Luke, probably, did not himself know the im- mediate place of abode, which Peter chose after his departure. To fix without reason on Caesarea, or, on account of Gal. ii. 11, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, on Antioch,’® or indeed, after Eusebius, Jerome, and many Catholics, on Rome," is all the more arbitrary, as from the words it 1 Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 440. and Wetstein in loc. 2 See Lightfoot ad loc. 5 Comp. Joseph. Anti. xvii. 10. 2. 3 See on Matt. xviii. 10. ® Ewald, p. 607. 4 Matt. xviii. 10. 10 But see on ver. 25. 5 Heb. i. 14. 11 Even in the present day the reference to ® Comp. xiii. 16, xix. 38, xxi. 40. Rome is, on the part of the Catholics (see 7See Polyb. i. 78. 3; Heliod. x. 7; Krebs Gams, d. Jahr. d. Martyrertodes der Ap. Petr. 234 CHAP. XII., 18-20. is not even distinctly apparent that the érepoc röros is to be placed outside of Jerusalem, although this is probable in itself ; for the common explanation of éeA8dv, relicta urbe, is entirely at variance with the context, ver. 16, which requires the meaning, relicta domo, into which he was admitted (A?). — The James mentioned in this passage is not the son of Alphaeus,—a tradi- tional opinion, which has for its dogmatic presupposition the perpetual virginity of Mary,! but the real brother of the Lord,” aderdöc kata capa Tov Xpıorov.” It is the same also at xv. 13, xxi. 18. See on 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5; Gal. i. 19. Peter specially names him, because he was head of the church in Jerusalem. The fact that Peter does not name the apostles also, suggests the inference that none of the twelve was present in Jerusalem. The Clementines and Hegesippus make James the chief bishop of the whole church.* This amplification of the tradition as to his high position goes, in opposition to Thiersch, beyond the statements of the N. T.° Vv. 18, 19. What had become of the (vanished) Peter,® whether accord- ingly, under these circumstances,’ the wonderful escape was capable of no explanation—this inquiry was the object of consternation (räpaxoc) among the soldiers who belonged to the four rerpadia, ver. 4, because they feared the vengeance of the king in respect to those who had served on that night-watch. And Herod actually caused those who had been the gidaxe¢ of the prison at the time of the escape, after previous inquiry,* to be led to execution—araydjva, the formal word for this.” After the completion of the punishment, he went down from Judaea to his residency, where he took up his abode.— eic r7v Kacdp.] depends, as well as arö 7. ’Iovd., on kareAdov, The definition of the place of the dvétpifev!? was obvious of itself. u. Paul., Regensb. 1867), very welcome, be- cause a terminus a quo is thereby thought to be gained for the duration, lasting about twenty-five years, of the episcopal functions of Peter at Rome. Gams, indeed, places this Roman journey of Peter as early as 41, and his martyrdom in the year 65. So also Thiersch, K. im. apost. Zeit. p. 96 ff., comp. Ewald. 1 See Hengstenberg on John ii. 12; Th. Schott, d. zweite Br. Petr. und d. Br. Judä, p. 193 ff. 2 Lange (apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 193 ff., and in Herzog’s Eneykl. VI. p. 407 ff.) has declared himself very decidedly on the opposite side of the question, and that primarily on the basis of the passages from Hegesippus in Eusebius ji. 23 and iv. 22; but erroneously. Credner, Fini. II. p. 574 f., has already strikingly ex- hibited the correct explanation of these pas- sages, according to which Jesus and James appear certainly as brothers in the proper sense. Comp. Huther on James, Introd. p. 5 ff.; Bleek, Zinl. p. 543 ff. James the Just is identical with this brother of the Lord, see, especially, Euseb. H. #. ii. 1, where the opinion of Clem. Al., that James the Just was the son of Alphaeus, is rejected by Eusebius (against Wieseler on Gai. p. 81 f.), although it was afterwards adopted by Jerome. See, generally, also Ewald, p. 221 ff. Böitger, d. Zeug. des Joseph. von Joh. d. T., etc., 1863. Plitt in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1864, I. p. 28 ff.; Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 184 ff.—Accord- ing to Mark vi. 3, James was probably the eldest of the four brethren of Jesus. 3 Constit ap. viii. 35. The Constit. ap. throughout distinguish very definitely James of Alphaeus, as one of the twelve, from the brother of the Lord, whom they characterize as 6 Emiokomos. See ii. 55. 2, vi. 12. 1, 5, 6, vi. 14. 1, viii. 4. 1, viii. 23 f., vili. 10. 2, viii. 35, viii. 46. 7, v. 8, vii. 46. 1. 4 See Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 415 ff. 5 Gal. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv.%; Acts xv., xxi. 18; Epistle of James. 6 Luke i. 66 ; John xxi. 21. 7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176, comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 34. 8 avarpivas, iv. 9; Luke xxiii. 14. 9 See Wakefield, Sv. crit. II. p. 131; Kypke, II. p. 61; and from Philo: Loesner, p. 204. 10 Vulg.: ¢b¢ commoratus est. EXECUTION OF THE SOLDIERS. 235 Ver. 20.) Ovuouayeir] signifies to fight violently, which may be meant as well of actual war as of other kinds of enmity.” Now, as an actual war of Herod against the Roman confederate cities of Tyre and Sidon is very improbable in itself, and is historically quite unknown; as, further, the Tyrians and Sidonians, for the sake of their special advan- tage (Wid 7d rpioeodar . . . BaoıAıjc), might ask for peace, without a war having already broken out, —namely, for the preservation of the peace, a breach of which was to be apprehended from the exasperation of the king; the explanation is to be preferred, in opposition to Raphel and Wolf: he was at vehement enmity with the Tyrians, was vehemently indignant against them.* The reason of this Yvuouaxia is unknown, but it probably had reference to commercial interests. — öwoVvuadov] here also, with one accord, both in one and the same frame of mind and inten- tion.* — rpöc abröv] not precisely : with him, but before him, turned towards him.°—Biaorov] according to the original Greek name, perhaps a Greek or ® a Roman in the service of Herod, his praefectus cubiculo,’ chamberlain, chief valet de chambre to the royal person,® 6 &ml tov Kovrdvog Tov BaciAéwe.? How they gained and disposed him in their favour, zeicavtec, possibly by bribery, is not mentioned. — did ro tpégecdar . . . BaovduKgc] sc. yopac. This refers partly to the important commercial gain which Tyre and Sidon derived from Palestine, where the people from of old purchased in large quantities timber, spices, and articles of luxury from the Phoe- nicians, to whom, in this respect, the harbour of Caesarea, improved by Herod, was very useful ; and partly to the fact, that Phoenicia annually derived a portion of its grain from Palestine.” Ver. 21. According to Josephus, namely, he was celebrating just at that time games in honour of Claudius, at which, de- clared by flatterers to be a god, he became suddenly very ill, etc. — évdvodu. godzra Baoid.| oroAyv évdvoauevog && apyvpiov reroimpévyv racav, Joseph. l.e. — The fyjua, the platform from which Agrippa spoke, would have to be conceived, in harmony with Josephus, as the throne-like box in the theatre, which, according to the custom of the Romans, was used for popular assemblies and public speeches,'* which was destined for the king, if Luke Tarrn de quépal 8 1 Chrysostom correctly remarks the internal relation of what follows: ev@ews n din kateA- (Gerlach), as koırwv is used in Dio Cass. Ixi. 5. For the meaning chamber, i.e. not treaswre aBev avrov, ei kat un Sua Tlerpov, adda dca thv avrov neyaAnyopiav. Com. Euseb. ii. 10. There ismuch subjectively supplied by Baumgarten, who considers it as the aim of this section to exhibit the character of the kingdom of the world in this bloody persecution directed against the apostles. 2See Schweighäuser, Zex. Polyb. p. 303 ; Kypke, II. p. 63 f. ; Valcken. p. 493. 3 Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4. 4 See on i. 14. 6 See on John i. 1. 6 See the inscription in Wetstein. 7 Sueton. Domit. 16. © Scarcely overseer of the royal treasure chamber, but sleeping-room, is the usual one, and lies at the root of the designations of ser- vice, koıtwrıapxns (chamberlain) and koırwvirns (valet de chambre). Comp. Lobeck, Z.c. In the LXX. and Apocr. also korr. is cubiculum. See Schleusn. hes. ® Comp. on Eri, viii. 27, and on koırwv, Wet- stein and Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 252 1. 10 See Nägelsb. on Lliad, p. 50 f. 11 Joseph. Antt. xv. 9. 6. 12 1 Kings y. 9, 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 6. 13 According to Joseph. Antt. xix. 8. 2,comp. xviii. 6. 7, devrepa de Tv Oewpi@y nuepa. 14 Comp. xix. 29. 236 CHAP. XII, 21-25. — which, however, cannot be ascertained—has apprehended the whole occurrence as in connection with the festival recorded by Josephus. This festival itself is not defined more exactly by Josephus than as held izép rag owtnpiac of the emperor. Hence different hypotheses concerning it, such as that of Anger: that it celebrated the return of Claudius from Britain ; and that of Wieseler : that it was the Quinquennalia, which, however, was not celebrated until August ; a date which, according to the context, ver. 25, is too late. — idnunydper mpös aitobc| he made a speech in publie assembly of — the people (ver. 22) to them, namely, to the Tyrians and Sidonians, to whom, to whose representatives, he thus publicly before the people declared in a speech directed to them his decision on their request, his sentiments, etc. Only this simple view of rpöc aizoic: to them,’ not: im reference to them,—my first edition, and Baumgarten,—as well as the reference to the Tyrians and Sidonians, not to the people,” is suggested by the context, and is to be retained. That, moreover, the speech was planned to obtain popularity, is very probable in itself from the character of Herod, as well as from ver. 22; and this may have occasioned the choice of the word dnunyopeiv, which often denotes such a rhetorical exhibition.* Ver. 22. Hidic dé of KoAakee Tag ove éExeivw mpog ayadov GAAog GAAOVEV dwvac aveßowv, Sedv mpooayopevovTec, EUUEVNE TE eine, ExtAéyovTEs, EL Kal uUeXPL VOY OC avdpwrov Evoßyümuev, AAA TovvTevdev kpeirrova ce YvyTi¢ oboewo duodoyovmev ! Joseph. /.c., who, however, represents this shout of flattery, which cer- tainly proceeded from the mouth, not of Jews, but of Gentiles, as occa- sioned by the silver garment of the king shining in the morning sun, and not by a speech on his part. ‘‘Vulgus tamen vacuum curis et sine falsi verique discrimine solitas adulationes edoctum, clamore et vocibus adstrepebat.’’* 6 djuoc, the common people, is found in the N. T. only in the Book of Acts.’ Ver. 23. ’Erarafev aitov ayyedoc kupiov] an angel of the Lord smote him. The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting in as a punishment of God, is in accordance with O. T. precedents,° apprehended as the effect of a stroke | invisibly befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar ” does not accord with this view, in opposition to Baumgarten. Josephus, l.c., relates that soon after that display of flattery, the king saw an owl sitting on arope above his head, and he regarded this, according to a prophecy formerly received in Rome from a German, asa herald of death, whereupon severe abdominal pains immediately followed, under which he expired after five days, at the age of fifty-four years. That Zuke has not adopted this fable,—instead of which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden shivering,—is a consequence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own sphere and tradition the érdratev . . . @e@ as an exhibition of the divine Nemesis’; 1Comp. Plat. Zegg, vii. p. 817 C: Syuny. 350E. Mpos Taldas TE Kal yvvalkas Kal TOY mavra OXAOV. 4 Tacit. Hist. ii. 90. 2 So Gerlach, p. 60, after Ranisch, de Zucae 5 See xvii. 5, xix. 30, 33. Comp. on xix. 30. et Josephi in morte Her. Agr. consensu, Lips. 6 Comp. 2 Sam. xxiy. 17; 2 Kings xix. 35; 1745; and Fritzsche, Conject. p. 13 f. Isa. xxxvii. 36. 3 See Stallb. ad Gorg. p. 482 C, ad Rep. p. 7 Dan. iv. 26-30. DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 237 therefore Eusebius ! ought not to have harmonized the accounts, and made out of the owl an angel of death. Bengel: ‘‘ Adeo differt historia divina et humana.’’* — avd’ dv] as a requital for the fact, that.” — our Edwre tiv d6Fav ro Oc@] he refused God the honour due to Him, inasmuch as he received that tribute of honour for himself, instead of declining it and directing the flatterers to the honour which belongs to God, ‘‘ nulli creaturae communi- cabilem,’’ Erasmus ;* ob« &m&mAnse rovror, the flatterers, 6 BaoıRedc, obd8 riv KoAakeiav aoeßovoav aretpéyato. How entirely different the conduct of Peter, x. 26, and of Paul and Barnabas, xiv. 14 f. ! — yevduevoe oxwAnndSp.] similarly with Antiochus Epiphanes.° This is not to be regarded as at variance with Josephus, who speaks generally only of pains in the bowels ; but as a more precise statement, which is, indeed, referred by Baur to a Christian legend originating from the fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdom- inal pains that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm which torments the condemned !° Kühn,’ Elsner, Morus, and others, entirely against the words, have converted the disease of worms destroying the in- testines ® into the disease of lice, oSeipiacic, as if 6Verpößpwroc ® were used !— The word oxwAnkößp. is found in Theoph. e. pl. iii. 12. 8 (2%), v. 9. 1. — &£&ıbvgev] namely, after five days. Joseph. /.c. But did not Luke consider the yeröu. oxwAnk. ésépvyev as having taken place on the spot? The whole brief, terse statement, the reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of ééwvFev,’ render this highly probable (3’). Ver. 24. A contrast—full of significance in its simplicity—to the tragical end of the persecutor : the divine doctrine grew, in diffusion, and gained in number of those professing it. Comp. vi. 7, xix. 20. Ver. 25. 'Yxéorperar] they returned, namely, to Antioch, xi. 27-30, xiii. 1. The statement in ver. 25 takes up again the thread of the narrative, which had been dropped for a time by the episode, vv. 1-24, and leads over to the continuation of the historical course of events in chap. xiii. The taking of ürforpeav in the sense of the pluperfect," rests on the er- ronéous assumption that the collection-journey of this passage coincides with Gal. ii. The course of events, according to the Book of Acts, is as follows : — While, kar’ éxeivov tov kaıpov, ver. 1, Barnabas and Saul are sent with the collection to Judaea, xi. 30, there occurs in Jerusalem the execution of James and the imprisonment and deliverance of Peter,” and then,! at Caes- area, the death of Herod.'* But Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem ı A. E. ii. 10. 6 Mark ix. 44 f.; comp. Isa. xlvi. 44. 2 See, besides, Heinichen, Hac. II. ad Euseb. 7 Ad Ael. V. H. iv. 28. III. p. 356 ff. 8 Bartholinus, de morbis Bibl. c. 23; Mead. 3 See on Luke i. 20. 4 Isa. xlviii. 11. Comp. Joseph. 2.e. 52 Mace. ix. 5,9. Observe how much our simple narrative—became eaten with worms— is distinguished from the overladen and ex- travagantly embellished description in 2 Macc. ix. 9 (see Grimm in loc.). But there is no rea- son, with Gerlach, to explain akwAnkößp. figu- ratively (like the German wurmstichig) : worn and shattered by pain. de morb. Bibl. c. 15; and see the analogous cases in Wetstein. 9 Hesych. Mil. 40. 10 Comp. Acts v. 5,10. 11 “ Jam ante Herodis obitum,” etc., Hein- richs, Kuinoel. 12 vy, 2-18. 13 Ver. 19. 14 vy, 20-23. 238 CHAP, XII., NOTES. to Antioch.! From this it follows that, according to the Acts, they visited first the other churches of Judaea and came to Jerusalem last; so that the episode, vv. 1-23, is to be assigned to that time which Barnabas and Saul on their journey in Judaea spent with the different churches, before they came to Jerusalem, from which, as from the termination of their journey, they returned to Antioch. Perhaps what Barnabas had heard on his journey among the country-churches of Judaea as to the persecution of the Christians by Agrippa, and as to what befell James and Peter, induced him, in regard to Paul,? not to resort to the capital, until he had heard of the departure and perhaps also of the death of the king. — cvwrapadaf. x.7.A.] from Jerusalem ; see ver. 12. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (2) Herod. ; V.1. This king was the grandson of Herod the Great. He ruled, in some degree independently, over a larger domain than that of his grandfather. His rev- enues, according to Josephus, were very large—a sum calculated as equal to two millions of dollars. He was aman of ability and of royal magnificence ; but crafty, selfish, and extravagant, vainglorious, unprincipled, and licentious. His reign was short, and was stained by many acts of oppression and cruelty. His death, the result of a loathsome and torturing disease, was an evident Di- vine rebuke of his blasphemous impiety. In this matter Josephus~ concurs with Luke in the main facts of the case. After his death Judea was again re- duced to a Roman province. The three Herods are thus distinguished : “ Aschalonita necat pueros, Antipa Joannem, Agrippa Jacobum, Claudens in Car- cere Petrum.”” Renan, speaking of Herod, says: “ This vile Oriental, in return for the les- sons of baseness and perfidy he had given at Rome, obtained for himself Sa- maria and Judea, and for his brother Herod the kingdom of Chaleis. He left at Rome the worst memories ; and the cruelties of Caligula were attributed in part to his counsels.” ‘The orthodox [Jews] had in him a king according to their own heart.’’ (z!) He killed James. V. 2. Instigated by the Jews, with whom he sought to be popular, and whose ritual he zealously observed, Herod harassed the church by maltreating its members ; and finding this course pleasing to the Jews, whose good-will he was anxious to secure, he seized James and beheaded him—a mode of death deemed very dis- graceful by the Jews. The victim of this high-handed violence was James the elder, designated by our Lord a Son of Thunder. Very little is recorded con- cerning him in the Acts. He is to be distinguished from James the younger, son of Alpheus ; and also from James, the Lord’s brother. The death of James verified the prediction that he should drink of his Master's cup. He is the 1 Ver. 25. 2 See on xi. 30. NOTES. 239 only one of the twelve of whose death there is any account in Scripture, and probably the first of the twelve who died. The record of his “ taking off’’ is very brief—only two words, aveidev uayaiga. Conjecture as to the cause of such brevity is vain. There is a tradition which states that his accuser, or the offi- cer who led him to the judgment-seat, was so influenced by the conduct and confession of the apostle, that he avowed himself a Christian, and, having asked and received the kiss of pardon from James, suffered martyrdom with him. “The accuracy of the sacred writer,’’ says Paley, “in the expressions which he uses here is remarkable. There was no portion of time for thirty years before, or ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a per- son exercising that authority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the last three years of Herod’s life, within which period the transaction here recorded took place.’ (A?) Peler in prison. V. 5. In the war of extermination which Herod had been instigated to wage against the Christians he used the policy of first removing the most marked ringleaders. He had cut off James, the brother of John, Peter’s oldest friend, and one of the three highly favored by the Master, by a sudden and terrible death, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the disciples. This first act of the bloody tragedy had been played with success, and a second is about to open. There remained now no one, unless Saul of Tarsus, more obnoxious or more to be feared than the dauntless, intrepid son of Jonas. He therefore is next seized, and cast into prison, under many guards—a precaution surely unneces- sary, for his friends had no apparent means by which to affect his rescue. But possibly some of the courtiers might have heard that he had once before, in some wonderful way, escaped from prison ; and hence this double security. Not until after the feast of the passover would the punctilious monarch order his execution. Meantime the afflicted and disconsolate disciples, conscious of their helplessness, turn to the Lord in earnest and continued prayer. The last night before the expected execution has come ; the disciples are gathered together in prayer ; the apostle, calm in his confidence and fearless in his faith, quietly sleeps between his guards. Ere the dawn of the morning a dazzling light fills the cell, and an angel arouses the prisoner, and orders him to put on his attire, as for a journey. He safely leads him past the first and second watches through the gate into the open street, and then leaves him. Peter, with difficulty realizing what had been done in his behalf, went to the house of Mary, mother of Mark, and sister of Barnabas, and found the brethren there still in prayer. Wordsworth thus beautifully writes on this passage : ‘‘ Herod’s soldiers were watching under arms at the door of the prison ; Christ’s soldiers were watching with prayer in the house of Mary. Christ's soldiers are more powerful with their arms than Herod’s soldiers with theirs ; they unlock the prison doors and bring Peter to the house of Mary.” And when the answer to their prayer had been granted they could scarcely believe that Peter was really in person, among them. He related to them all the circumstances connected with his deliverance, and they were filled with joy. Peter prudently, in the meantime sought safety in concealment.—£ıc Eregov roröv. Alford says: ‘‘I see in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative.’’ Lechler (in Lange) 249 CHAP. XII., NOTES. observes: “The event is indeed most graphically described, and exhibits no features that can embarrass any one who believes in the interposition of the living God, in the real world, and who admits the actual existence and the operation of angels. Hence no sufficient reason is apparent which could induce those who admit the miraculous character of the historical facts, nevertheless, to assert that legendary matter has been commingled with the pure historical elements,” as Meyer in the text has done. “ All rationalistic explanations to account for this deliverance of Peter are in direct opposition to the narrative. According to Hezel, a flash of lightning shone into the prison, and loosened the chains of Peter. According to Eich- horn and Heinrichs, the jailor, or others with his knowledge, delivered Peter without the apostle being conscious to whom he owed his freedom ; and as the soldiers are a difficulty in the way of this explanation, they suppose that a sleeping draught was administered to them. All this is mere trifling. Others endeavor to get rid of the miraculous by questioning the correctness of the narrative. Meyer and de Wette think that the truth is here so mixed up with the mythical element that it is impossible to affirm what took place. Baur sup- poses that Herod himself delivered the apostle, as he found, in the interval, that the people were not gratified by the death of James, but that, on the con- trary, that proceeding had made him unpopular. Neander passes over the narrative with the remark: ‘By the special providence of God Peter was deliy- ered from prison.’ Whenever the miraculous in the narrative is given up, the only resource is the mythical theory—to call in question the truth of the his- tory—as all natural explanations are wholly unavailing. The narrative, here, however, has no resemblance to a myth ; there is a naturalness and freshness about it which remove it from all legends of a mythical description.” (Gloag.) Renan even admits in a note to chapter 14th of ‘‘ The Apostles :” “ The ac- count in the Acts is so lively and just that it is difficult to find any place in it for any prolonged legendary elaboration.”’ (8?) Death of Herod, V, 23. Josephus informs us that Herod died in the fifty-fourth year of his age, in the seventh of his reign, having reigned only three years over the whole of Palestine. ‘‘ But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised a sedition with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins, for a fire glowed in him slowly,” He further speaks of putrefaction, of convulsions, of worms, of fetid breath, and loathsomeness generally. He says also that it was said by those who un- derstood such things that God inflicted this punishment on the king for his great impiety. Just before his death he summoned the principal men of the entire Jewish nation to come to him. When they came the king was in a wild rage against them all, the entirely innocent as well as those against whom there might be ground of accusation. He ordered them all to be shut up in the Hip- podrome, and left most solemn injunctions with his brother-in-law, Alexis, that when he died they should all be put to death, so that there might be a general mourning at his decease. He acted like a madman, and eyen had a NOTES. 241 design of committing suicide. A more miserable death scene has never been portrayed than Josephus gives of the impious, infamous, and atrociously ma- lignant and cruel Herod. (Josephus Antig. xvii. 6, 5, and 7, and 8.) The points of difference between the account given by Luke and the history of Jo- sephus are few and unimportant, and easily reconciled. There is really no contradiction in the narratives at all, and therefore it is wholly superfluous on the part of any commentator to have recourse to mythical explanations ; as it the worms—mentioned however by Josephus as well as by Luke—had ref- erence to the gnawing worm of remorse which preys upon the consciously guilty. 242 CHAP. XIII. CHAPTER XIII. Ver. 1. joayv dé] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Scholz add tuvés, against ABD N, min. vss. Vig. A hasty addition, from the supposition that all the teachers and prophets of the church of Antioch could not be named, — Ver. 4. oöroı] Lachm. Tisch. read airoi, after AB S, min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr. Vig. ; Born. has of only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 6. 6%7v] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of Paphos was not precisely known, find a contradiction in 6%7» and äypı Iladov ! —dvdpa rıvd] So Lachm, Tisch. Born., after ABC D S, min. Chrys, Theophyl. Lucif. and several vss. After rıva, E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have avdpa. But Elz. and Scholz omit dvdpc, which, however, is decisively attested by those witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous. — Ver. 9. The usual kai before arevicas is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 14, 775 Uıoıdias] Lachm, and Tisch. read ryv Tlioıdiav, after ABC 8. But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like IIvowdexds), — Ver. 15. After ei Lachm. Born. Tisch. have 1s, which has pre- ponderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted. — Ver. 17. After rotrov Lachm. reads, with Elz., ’Iopa7?, which also Born. has defended, following ABCD &, vss. Its being self-evident gave occasion to its being passed over, as was in other witnesses rovrov, and in others Aaoö tovtov. — Ver. 18. étpodod.] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch. and Born, have étporod. (mores eorum sustinuit, Vulg.).. An old insertion of the word which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more ap- propriate. See,the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. katexAnpovounoev] Elz, reads karekAmpodörnoev, against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of the active sense. — Ver. 20. kat werd . . . EdwKe) Lachm. reads 65 Ereoı Terpa- KoololS KaIME VTNKOVTA, Kal peta raüra ~dwkev, Which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted, after A BC NS, min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to re- move somehow the chronological difficulty. — Ver. 23. 7yaye] Elz. and Born, read 7yeıpe, in opposition to ABE GH SS, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An interpretation in accordance with ver. 22.— Ver. 27. üreoräAn] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éareordAn, which is so decidedly attested by AB C D 8, min. Chrys, that the Recepta can only be regarded as having arisen from neg- lect of the double compound. — Ver. 31. viv] is wanting in Elz., but is, accord- ing to important attestation, to be recogized as genuine, and was omitted because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus, Hence others have aypı viv (D. Syr. p. Vulg. Cant. ; so Born.) ; and others still, cai vov (Arm.). — Ver. 32. atrav juiv] Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms, Bed. gr. have only CRITICAL REMARKS, 243 auröv. A B C*D IS, Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only jjudv (so Lachm. and Born., who, however, conjectures 7uiv!), for which Tol. read duöv. Sheer alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive and dative. — Ver. 33, 76 mpotw] Elz. and Scholz read 16 devrépw (after paru@). But ro tpéry, which (following Erasm, and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places it after yeypanraı, where A BC N, lot. 40 have their ro devr£pw) Tisch. Born. have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be considered as the original, which was supplanted by ro devripw according to the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare ıaAuo, which Hesych. presb. and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the difficulty erroneously assumed, — Ver. 41. 6] Elz. reads , which, as the LXX. at Hab. i. 5 has 0, would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive ex- ternal attestation in favour of 6. — The second épyov is wanting in D E G, min. Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl. Oec. and several vss. ; but it was easily omitted, as it was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. l.c.— Ver. 42- auröv] Els, reads éx 775 avvaywy7S rav ’lovdaiwv. Other variations are adrov kr. ovvay. T. ’Iovd. or rwv anooröAwv Ex T. ovvay. T. ’Iovd. Sheer interpolations, be- cause ver. 42 begins a church lesson. The simple airdév has decisive attesta- tion, — After zapexd? ovv Elz. has ra 0vy, which, although retained by Matthaei, is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to ver. 45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to ver. 48. — ‘Ver. 43. After zpocAad, A B (?) C D &, vss, Chrys. have adrois (so Lachm, and Born.). A familiar addition. — mpoouevew] Els. reads érmeévew, against decisive evidence, — Ver. 44, éyoucvw] Elz. reads épyouévw, against A C** E*, min, An alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luke xiii- 33 ; Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26. — Ver. 45. avriAéyovtes kai] is wanting in A B C GX, min and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has évavtiovuevor kat. Both are hasty emendations of style. — Ver. 50. ras evoy.] Elz. reads kai rds evoy., against decisive testimony. xai, if it has not arisen simply from the repetition in writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective. With chap. xii. commences the second part of the book, which treats chietly of the missionary labors and fortunes of Paul. First of all, the spe- cial choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which took place at Antioch, are related, vv. 1-3 ; and then the narrative of their first missionary journey is annexed, ver. 4-xiv. 28. These two chapters show, by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from the immediatly preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul,* by the detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off, which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they have been derived from a special documentary source, which has, nevertheless, been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke.* This documentary 1 Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured ¢¢’ following narrative does not correspond. nuav: “nostro tempore.” Comp. Schleiermacher, Zinl. p. 353 f. 2 Lekebusch, p. 108, explains this abrupt 3 See also Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, isolation as designed; the account emerges p. 1043. solemnly. But to this the simplicity of the 244 CHAP. XIII, 1-2. source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may be conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that the oral communications mentioned at xiv. 27 as made to that church formed the foundation of it from xiii.4 onward. The assumption of a written report made by the two missionaries,! obtains no support from the living apostolic mode of working, and is, on account of xiv. 27, neither necessary nor war- ranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography of Barnabas, to which also iv. 36 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25 belonged ; and Baur? refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary freedom of the author (c’). Ver. 1. This mention and naming of the prophets and teachers is intended to indicate how rich Antioch was in prominent resources for the sending forth messengers of the gospel, which was now to take place. Thus the mother-church of Gentile Christianity had become the seminary of the mis- sion to the Gentiles. The order of the persons named is, without doubt, such as it stood in the original document: hence Barnabas and Saul are separated ; indeed, Barnabas is placed first—the arrangement appears to have been made according to seniority—and Saul last ; it was only by his mission- ary labours now commencing that the latter acquired in point of fact his superiority. — xara tiv oboav éxxAnoiar| with the existing church. £xei is not to be supplied.* This oicay is retained from the original document ; in connec- tion with what has been already narrated, it is superfluous. — card, with, ac- cording to the conception of, here official, direction.* — zpogjra x. diddoxador] as prophets® and teachers, who did not speak in the state of apocalyptic in- spiration, but communicated instruction in a regular and rational unfolding of doetrine.° — The five named are not to be regarded only asa part, but as the whole body of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, in keeping with the idea of the selection which the Spirit designed. To what individuals the predicates ‘‘ prophet’ or ‘‘ teacher ’’ respectively belong, is not, indeed, ex- pressly said ; but if, as is probable in itself and in accordance with iv. 36, the prophets are mentioned first and then the teachers, the three first named are to be considered as prophets, and the other two as teachers. This di- vision is indicated by the position of the particles: (1) ré. .. Kai... Kai; (2) TE... . al.” — That the prophets of the passage before us, particularly Symeon and Lucius, were included among those mentioned in xi. 27, is im- probable, inasmuch as Agabus is not here named again. Zhose prophets, doubtless, soon returned to Jerusalem. — Concerning Simeon with the Roman name Niger,® and Lucius of Oyrene,’ who is not identical with the evan- gelist Luke, nothing further is known. The same is also the case with Menahem (8139), who had been civtpodoc of the tetrarch Herod, i.e. of An- tipas.° But whether oövrpogos is, with the Vulgate, Cornelius a Lapide, ı Olshausen. 7 Comp. Kühner, ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 19; 21. p. 104 ff. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 219 f. 3-Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. [500). 8 Sueton. Aug. 11, al. 4 Bernhardy, p. 240; Winer, p. 374 (E. T. ® Rom. xvi. 21 ? 5 See on xi. 27. 10 See Walch, de Menachemo avvrpodw Hero- 6 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11. dis, Jen. 1758. FIRST ORDAINED MISSIONARIES, 245 Walch, Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, to be understood as Soster-brother, conlactaneus,' so that Menahem’s mother was Herod’s nurse ; or, with Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Raphel, Wolf, Heinrichs, Baum- garten, Ewald, and others, brought up with, contubernalis,—cannot be deter- mined, as either may be expressed by the word.” The latter meaning, how- ever,® makes the later Christian position of Menahem the more remarkable, in that he appears to have been brought up at the court of Herod the Great. At all events he was already an old man, and had become a Christian earlier than Saul, who is placed after him (p’). Ver. 2. Aectoupyoivtav . . . TO Kupiv] Asırovpyeiv, the usual word for the temple-service of the priests,‘ is here transferred to the church (airév) engaged in Christian worship,® in accordance with the holy character of the church, which had the äyıöryc, the ypioua of the Spirit,° and indeed was a ieparevua ayiov." Hence: while they performed holy service to the Lord Christ, and, at the same time, fasted. Any more specific meaning is too narrow, such as, that it is to be understood of prayer, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and many others, on account of ver. 3, but see on that passage, or of preaching, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others in Wolf. Both without doubt are included, not, however, the mass, as Catholics hold ; but certainly the spiritual songs. — eine ro rvevua td äyıov]) the Holy Spirit said,’ namely, by one or some of these Aeırovpyovvrec, probably by one of the prophets, who announced to the church the utterance of the Spirit revealed to him. — 6%] with the imperative makes the summons more decided and more urgent. '” — joc] to me, for my service. — 6 rpookéxAnuat aitobc| for which, description of the design, [ have called them to me,” namely, to be my organs, interpreters, instruments in the propagation of the gospel. The utterance of the Spirit consequently refers to an internal call of the Spirit already made to both, and that indeed before the church, ‘‘ut hi quoque scirent vocationem illorum eique subscriberent,’’? Bengel. The preposition is not repeated before 6, = eic 4, because it stands already before 7d épyov, accord- ing to general Greek usage.” 1 Comp. Xen. Zip. ii. 3. 2 See Wetstein and Kuinoel. 3 Comp. 1 Macc. i. 6; 2 Macc. ix. 29; and see, in general, Jacobs, ad Anthol. XT. p. 38. 4LXX. Ex. xxviii. 31; Num. iv. 88; Ex. xl. 48; Judith iv. 14; Heb. x. 11; comp. on Rom. xv. 27. 5 The reference of aurov not to the collective écxAnoia, but to the prophets and teachers named in ver. 1 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Baumgarten, Hoele- mann, neue Bibelstud. p. 829; Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 146), isnot to be approved on account of adopicare and on account uf ver. 3. The whole highly important missionary act wonld, according to this view, be performed only in the circle of five persons, of whom, moreover, two were the missionaries themselves destined by the Spirit, and the church as such would have taken no part at all, not being even rep- resented by its presbyters,—a proceeding which neither agrees with the fellowship of the Spirit in the constitution of the apostolic church, nor corresponds with the analogous concrete cases of the choice of an apostle, chap. i. and of the deacons, chap. vi. Comp. also xiv. 27, where the missionaries, on their return, make their report to the church. Moreover, itisevident of itself thatthe proph- ets and teachers are included in avtav. ® 1 John ii. 20. 71 Pet. ii. 6. 8 See on Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16. ® Comp. on xx. 28. 10 Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 104 f. Luke ii. 15. 41 xvi. 10. 12 See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 82; Stallb. ad. Phaed. p. 76 D; Winer, p. 393 (E. T. 524 f.). Comp. on 246 CHAP, XIIL, 3-9. Ver. 3. The translation must be: Afterwards, after having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, as the consecration communicating the gift of the Spirit for the new and special holy office,’ they sent them away. For there is here meant a solemnity specially appointed by the church on occasion of that address of the Spirit, different from the preceding, ver. 2 ; and not the termination thereof.? This is evident from the words of Luke himself, who describes this act differently, vyoreic. x. mpooevé., from the preceding, ?Asırovpy. x. vyor., and by röre separates it as something later ; and also because vyoteicartec, in the sense of ‘‘ when they had finished fast- ing,’’ does not even give here any conceivable sense. — azéAvoavy] What the Spirit had meant by eic épyov, 6 mpook&rA. avrobc, might, when they heard that address, come directly home to their consciousness, especially as they might be acquainted in particular with the destination of Saul at ix. 15; or might be explained by the receiver and interpreter of the Spirit’s utterance. — That, moreover, the imposition of hands was not by the whole church, but by its representatives the presbyters,* was obvious of itself to the reader. i Vv. 4, 5. Abroi (see the critical remarks): such was the course taken with them ; they themselves, therefore, ipsi igitur. — éxreugO. i7d rov mvenn.] for ‘‘vocatio prorsus divina erat; tantum manu Dei oblatos amplexa erat ecclesia,’’ Calvin. — They turned themselves at first to the quarter where they might hope most easily to form connections—it was, in fact, the first attempt of their new ministry—to Cyprus, the native country of Barnabas, iv. 36, to which the direct route from Antioch by way of the neighbouring Seleucia, in Syria, also called Pieria, and situated at the mouth of the Orontes, led. Having there embarked, they landed at the city of Salamis, on the eastern coast of the island of Cyprus. — yevöu. év] arrived at. Often so in classical authors since Homer.* —’Twdirqv] See on xii. 12. —drypéryv| as servant, who assisted the official work of the apostles by performing external services, errands, missions, etc., probably also acts of baptism.® “ Barnabas et Paulus divinitus nominati, atque his liberum fuit alios adsciscere,’’ Bengel. — As to their practice of preaching in the synagogues, see on ver. 14. (E?). Vv. 6, 7. "OAnv tHv vjoov] For Paphos, i.e. New Paphos, the capital and the residence of the proconsul, sixty stadia to the north of the old city celebrated for the worship of Venus, lay quite on the opposite western side of the island.° — yayov] see on viii. 9. Whether he was precisely a representative of the cabalistic tendency,’ cannot be determined. But perhaps, from the Arabic name Elymas, which he adopted, he was an Arabian Jew. uaäyov, although a substantive, is to be connected with ävdpa, 7 Comp. on vi. 6. the two missionaries to the Gentiles, and con- 2 Kuinoel and many others: “jejunio et secrates them by its ofice-bearers (Rom. xii. precibus peractis.”’ 8; 1 Tim. v. 17). 3 Not by the prophets and teachers (Otto, 4 See Nägelsbach on the Zliad, p. 295, ed. 3. Pastoralbr. p. 61; Hoelemann, /.e.) ; for the 5x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 14. subject of vy. 2,3 is the church, and its rep- 8 See Forbiger, Geogr. I. p. 969 f. resentatives are the presbyters, xx. 1%, 28, xi. 7 Baumgarten. 30, xy. 2-23; 1 Tim. iv.14. The church sends SUCCESS IN CYPRUS. 247 ii. 14. — Bapınoove] i.e. PW) VA, filius Jesu (Josuae). The different forms of this name in the Fathers and versions, Barjeu, Barsuma, Barjesuban, Bapınoov- ody, have their origin in the reverence and awe felt for the name of Jesus. — avOurdtw| Cyprus, which Augustus had restored to the senate, was, it is true, at that time a propraetorian province ;! but all provincial rulers were, by the command of Augustus, called proconsules.? — ovverö] although the contrary might be suspected from his connection with the sorcerer. But his intelligence is attested partly by the fact that he was not satisfied with heathenism, and therefore had at that time the Jewish sorcerer with him in the effort to acquire more satisfactory views ; and partly by the fact that he does not feel satisfied even with him, but asks for the publishers of the new doctrine. In general, sorcerers found at that time welcome recep- tions with Gentiles otherwise very intelligent.* — rov Ady. tov Ooi] Descrip- tion of the new doctrine from the standpoint of Luke. on viii. 25. See, moreover, Ver. 8. ’EAöuac] The Arabic name, Pee „Me, sapiens, Kar’ ££oxyv : magus,‘ by which Barjesus chose to be designated, and which he probably adopted with a view to glorify himself as the channel of Arabian wisdom by the corresponding Arabic name. — 6 wayoc] Interpretation of ’EAiuac, added in order to call attention to the significance of the name.® — diacrpéwar ard] a well-known pregnant construction, which Valckenaer destroys arbitrarily, and in such a way as to weaken the sense, by the conjecture aroorp£ı)aı : to pervert and turn aside from the faith. Comp. LXX. Ex. v. 4. Ver. 9. LavAoe dé, 6 Kai Mavdoc] se. Aeyöuevoc.* — As Saul, SAND, the longed for, is here for the first time and always henceforth’ mentioned under his Roman name Paul, but before this, equally without exception, only under his Hebrew name, we must assume a set historical purpose in the remark 6 xai IavdAoc introduced at this particular point, according to which the reader is to be reminded of the relation — otherwise presupposed as well known — of this name to the historical connection before us. It is there- fore the most probable opinion, because the most exempt from arbitrariness, that the name Paul was given to the apostle as a memorial, of the conversion of Sergius Paulus effected by him.* ‘‘A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo.’” The same view is adopted by Valla, Bengel, Ols- hausen, Baumgarten, Ewald ; also by Baur,’ according to whom, however, legend alone has wished to connect the change of name somehow adopted 1 Dio Cass. liv. 4. 2 Dio Cass. liii. 13. 3 Lucian. Alex. 30, Wetstein in loc. 4 Comp. Hyde, de relig. vet. Pers. p. 372 f. 5 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in. Lue. p. lviii. 6 Schaefer, ad Bos Hil. p. 213. 7 Comp. the name Abraham from Gen. xvii. 5 onwards. 8 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 368 (comp. Her- zog’s Encykl. XI. p. 243), sees in the name Paul (the little) a contrast to the name Elymas ; for he had in the power of humility confronted this master of magie, and had in a N.T. character repeated the victory of David over Goliath. Against this play of the fancy it is decisive, that Ziymas is not termed and declared a master of magic, but simply o Kayos. (id. 5. ® Jerome in ep. ad Philem. ; comp. de vir. 10 J, p. 106, ed. 2. 248 CHAP. XIII., 10-12. by the apostle— which contains a parallel with Peter, Matt. xvi. 16 — with an important act of his apostolic life." Either the apostle himself now adopted this name, possibly at the request of the proconsul,” or — which at least excludes entirely the objection often made to this view, that it is at variance with the modesty of the apostle —the Christians,.perhaps first of all his companions at the time, so named him in honourable remembrance of that memorable conversion effected on his first missionary journey. Kuinoel, indeed, thinks that the servants of the proconsul may have called the apostle, whose name Saul was unfamiliar (?) to them, Paul ; and that he thenceforth was glad to retain this name as a Roman citizen, and on account of his intercourse with the Gentiles. But such a purely Gentile origin of the name is hardly reconcilable with its universal recognition on the part of the Christian body. Since the time of Calvin, Grotius, and others, the opinion has become prevalent, that it was only for the sake of intercourse with those without, as the ambassador of the faith among the Gentiles, that the apostle bore, according to the custom of the time, the Roman name.’ Certainly it is to be assumed that he for this reason willingly assented to the new name given to him, and willingly left his old name to be forgotten ; but the origin of the new name, occurring just here for the first time, is, by this view, not in the least explained from the connection of the narrative before us. — Heinrichs oddly desires to explain this connection by suggest- ing that on this occasion, when Luke had just mentioned Sergius Paulus, it had occurred to him that Saul also was called Paul. Such an accident is wholly unnatural, as, when Luke wrote, the name Saul was long out of use, and that of Paul was universal. The opinion also of Witsius and Hackspan, following Augustine, is to be rejected: that the apostle in humility, to indicate his spiritual transformation, assigned to himself the name, Paulus = exiguus ; as is also that of Schrader,‘ after Drusius and Lightfoot, that he received at his circumcision the double name.° — rAecbeic¢ rveun. dy.] ‘actu praesente adversus magum acrem,’’ Bengel.® Ver. 10. ‘Padiovpyiac] knavery, roguery.” — vie dıaßörov] i.e. a man whose condition of mind proceeds from the influence of the devil, the arch-enemy of the kingdom of the Messiah.” An indignant contrast to the name Barjesus. dıaßöAov is treated as a proper name, therefore without the article.’ — réone dikawovvnc] of all, that is right, x. 35. — dtaorp£owv tac ödodc Kup. T. eußelac] Wilt thou not cease to pervert the straight—leading directly to the goal—ways of the Lord, to give them a perverted direction? i.e. applying this general reproach to the present case : Wilt thou, by thy opposition to us, and by thy endeavour to turn the proconsul from the faith,'’ persist in so working that God's measures,” instead of attaining their aim according to the divine intention, may be frustrated? The straight way of God aimed here at the 1 Comp. Zeller, p. 213. 7 Polyb. xii. 10. 5, iv. 29. 4; Plut. Cat. m. 2 Ewald. 16. Comp. padıovpynua, xviii. 14. 3 Comp. also Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 147. 5 Comp. on John viii. 44. 4D. Ap. Paul. II. p. 14. 91 Pet. v.8; Rev. xx. 2. 5 Comp. also Wieseler, p. 222 f. 10 Ver. 8. 6 Comp. iv. 8, 31, vii. 55, xiii. 52. 11 Rom. xi. 33; Rev. xv. 3. ELYMAS THE SORCERER. 249 winning of Sergius for the salvation in Christ, by means of Barnabas and Paul; but Elymas set himself in opposition to this, and was engaged in diverting from its mark this straight way which God had entered on, so that the divinely-desired conversion of Sergius was to remain unrealized. De Wette takes it incorrectly : to set forth erroneously the ways in which men should walk before God. On diaorp£owv, comp. in fact, Prov. x. 10; Isa. lix. 8; Micah iii. 9; and notice that the dsaorpégew x.7.2. was really that which the sorcerer strove to do, although without attaining the desired success. Observe, also, the thrice repeated emphatic mavréc... ao... . maonc, and that Kupiov is not to be referred to Christ, but to God, whom the son of the devil resists, as is proved from ver. 11. Ver. 11. Xelp Kupiovu] a designation, borrowed according to constant usage from the O. T.,' of ‘* God’s hand,’’? and here, indeed, of the punitive hand of God, Heb. x. 31.—émi o£] se. iors, is directed against thee. — ion] The future is not imperative, but decided prediction.* — un Brérwv 7. MArov] self-evident, but ‘‘ auget manifestam sententiam.’’* Tothe blind the sun is 905 ageyyéc.° —ayxpe Karpov] for a season.* His blindness was not to be perma- nent ; the date of its termination is not given, but it must have been in so far known by Paul, seeing that this penal consequence would cease with the cause, namely, with the withstanding.’ With the announcement of the divine punishment is combined, by äyp: kaıpov, the hint of future possible forgive- ness. Chrysostom well remarks: 7d äypı Karpov dé ov koAalovroc Hv Td pyua, GAn’ Eriorp£oovroc' EL yap KoAdlovtoc NV, dıaravröc Av avTov Eroinoe TupAov.’— rapaxpijua bi éxétecev x.t.2.] We are as little to inquire what kind of blind- ness occurred, as to suppose, with Heinrichs, that with the sorcerer there was already a tendency to blindness, and that this blindness actually now set in through fright. The text represents the blindness as a punishment of @od without any other cause, announced by Paul as directly cognizant of its occurrence. —ayAi¢ kai oxöroc] dimness and darkness, in the form of a climax. Sce on äyAüc, only here in the N. T., Duncan.’ — The text assigns no reason why the sorcerer was punished with blindness, as, for instance, that he might be humbled under the consciousness of his spiritual blind- ness.’ We must abstain from any such assertion all the more, that this punishment did not befall the similar sorcerer Simon. Rom. xi. 34. Ver. 12. ’Eri rn didayq r. Kupiov] For he rightly saw, both in that an-, nouncement of punishment by Paul, and in the fate of his sorcerer, some- , thing which had a connection with the doctrine of the Lord, that is, with the doctrine which Christ caused to be proclaimed by His apostles." Its announcer had shown such a marvellous familiarity with the counsel of God, and its opponent had suddenly experienced such a severe punishment, that he was astonished at the doctrine, with which so evident a divine judg- 1LXX. Judg. ii. 15; Job xix, 21; 2 Macc. 6 Comp. Luke iv. 18. vi. 26; Ecclus. xxxiii. 2. 7 Ver. 8. Comp. on ver. 12. 2 Luke i. 66, Acts xi. 21. € Comp. Oecumenius. 3 Comp. V. 9. ® Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 193. 4 Quinctil. ix. 3. 45. 10 Comp. Baumgarten. 5 Soph. 0. C. 1546. 11 See on viii. 25. 250 CHAP. XIII., 13-16. ment was connected. Comp. on the connection of the judgment concern- ing the doctrine with the miracle beheld, Mark i. 27. obviously supposes the reception of baptism.'— Whether the sorcerer after- wards became a believer the text does not, indeed, inform us; but the pre- sumption of a future conversion is contained in äyxpı kaıpov, ver. 11, and therefore the question is to be answered in the affirmative ; for Paul spoke that äypı Karpov : Öpıov TH yvouy dıdovc, Oecumenius. The Tübingen criticism has indeed condemned the miraculous element in this story and the story itself as an invented and exaggerated counterpart of the encounter of Peter with Simon Magus, chap. viii.,—a judgment in which the denial of miracles in general, and the assumption of dogmatic motives on the part of the author, are the controlling presuppositions. ? . Vv. 15-15. Having put to the open sea again from Paphos, avayd&vres, as XVI. 11, and frequently, also with Greek writers,* they came in a northerly direc- tion to Perga, the capital of Pamphylia with its famous temple of Diana, * where John Mark parted from them’ and returned to Jerusalem, ‚for what rea- son is not certain, —apparently from want of courage and boldness, see xv. 38. But they, without their former companion (avroi), journeyed inland to the north until they came to Antioch in Pisidia, built by Seleucus Nicanor, and made by Augustus a Roman colony,® where they visited the synagogue on the Sabbath, comp. ver. 5. Their apostleship to the Gentiles had not can- celled their obligation, wherever there were Jews, to turn first to these ; and to Paul, especially, it could not appear as cancelled in the light of the divine order : ’Iovdaiw re mp@rov kai "EAAnvı, Rom. i. 16, clearly known to him, of his ardent love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., of his assurance that God had not cast them off, Rom. xi., as wellas of his insight into the blessing which would arise to the Gentile world even from the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, Rom xi. 11: ff. Hence, although apostle of the Gentiles, he never excludes the Jews from his mission,’ but expressly includes them,® and is wont to begin his labours with them. This we remark against the opinion, which is maintained especially by Baur and Zeller, that in the Book of Acts the representation of Paul’s missionary procedure is unhistorically modified in the interest of Judaism.® — oi repi rov IavAov] denotes the person and his companions, —the company of Paul.‘ Now Paul, and no longer Barnabas, appears as the principal person. The conspicuous agency of the Gentile apostle at once in the conversion of Sergius, and in the humiliation of the sorcerer, has decided his superiority. — rc Tcid.] chorographic genitive.” The éiorevoev 1 Comp. iv. 4, xi. 21, xix. 18. 2 See Baur and Zeller ; comp. also Schneck- enburger, p. 53. 3 Comp. Luke viii. 22. 4 On the ruins, see Fellows’ Travels in Asia Minor, p. 142 tf. 5 Ewald, p. 456, conjectures that now Titus (Gal. ii. 1) had appeared as an apostolic com- panion. But how natural it would have been for Luke at least here to mention Titus, who is never named by him ! 6 On its ruins, see Hamilton’s Travels in Asia Minor, I. p. 431, ff. 7™Comp. on the contrary, é6’ ooov, Rom. > diya 3}. 8 1 Cor. ix. 20. ® See, in opposition to it also, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 302 ff. ; Lekebusch, p. S22 Rite 10 See on John xi. 19, and Valckenaer, p. 499 f. tl Krüger, § 47. 5. 5. PAPHOS TO PERGA. 251 For other designations of this situation of the city, see Bornemann. —xädırav] on the seats of the Rabbins, as Wolf, Wetstein, Kuinoel, think. Possibly ; but it is possible, also, that they had already, before the commencement of the Sabbath, immediately on their arrival, announced themselves as teachers, and that this occasioned the request of the president to the strange Rabbins, — Tov vöuov k. T. mpog.) namely, in the Parasha and Haphthara for that Sab- bath.! That, as Bengel thinks and Kuinoel and Baumgarten approve,? the Parasha, Deut. i.—because Paul, in ver. 18, hints at Deut. i. 31—and the cor. responding Haphthara, Isa. i., werein the order of the reading, is uncertain, even apart from the fact that the modern Parshioth and Haphtharoth were fixed only at a later period.” — oi äapxıovväy.] i.e. the college of rulers, con- sisting of the apyıovvaywyoc ar! $Eoyi» (DIST UND), and the elders associated with him. — &v Üuiv] in animis vestris.—Röyoc mapa. | a discourse of exhor- tation, whose contents are an encouragement to the observance and applica- tion of the law and the prophets. For: ‘‘ opus fuit expositoribus, qui corda eorum afficerent.’’* — Aéyere] On Adyov Atyeıv, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 504. Ver. 16. Karao. 7H xeipi] See on xii. 17. —oi doßovu. r. Oedv) is here, as the distinction from 'IopanAira:ı requires, the formal designation of the pros- elytes of the gate,who, without becoming actual ’Icpayiita by circumcision, were yet worshippers of Jehovah, and attenders at the synagogues, where they had their particular seats.° Against the unfavourable judgment, which the following speech has met with from Schneckenburger, Baur, and Zeller,— namely, that it is only an echo of the speeches of Peter and Stephen, a free pro- duction of the narrator,—we may urge as a circumstance particularly to be observed, that this speech is directed to those who were still non-believers, not, like the Epistles of the apostle, to Christians, and accordingly does not find in the Epistles any exactly corresponding standard with which to compare it ; that, further, nothing un-Pauline occurs either in its contents or form, —on the contrary, the Pauline fundamental dogma of justification® forms its important concluding main point,” and the Pauline delicacy, prudence, and wisdom of teaching are displayed in its entire plan and execution ; that, in particular, the historical introduction, although it may not have originated without some influence from Stephen’s speech, and the latter may have, by the editing, been rendered still more similar, yet presents nothing which could not have been spoken by Paul, as the speech of Stephen was known to the apostle and must have made an indelible impression on him ; and that the use of Ps. xvi.° as a witness for the resurrection of Jesus, was as natural to Paul as it was to Peter, as, indeed, to Paul also Christ rose Kara räc ypagdc.? The reasons, therefore, adduced against its originality in the 1 See on Luke iv. 17. 2 Comp. also Trip, Paulus, p. 194. 3 Zunz, gotlesdienstl. Vortr. d. Juden. p. 6; comp. Hupfeld in the Slud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 843 f. 4 Gloss in Babyl. Schabb. f. 30, 2. Zunz, p. 332 f. 5 Comp. vv. 43, 59, xvii. 4, 17, xvi. 14, xviii. 7. Comp. 6 vv, 38 ff. do not contain a mere “timid allusion” to it, as Zeller thinks, p. 327. 7 In opposition to Baur’s opinion (I. p. 117, ed. 2), that the author, after he had long enough made the Apostle Paul speak in a Petrine manner, felt that he must now add something specifically Pauline / 8 Comp. Acts ii. 25 fl. 91 Oor. xv. 4, oo 32 CHAP. XIII., 17-20. main, are not sufficient, although, especially amidst our ignorance of the document from which the speech thus edited is taken, a more complete as- sertion of an originality, which is at all events only indirect, cannot be made good.' Vy. 17-22. An introduction very wisely prefixed to prepare the minds of the Jews, giving the historical basis of the subsequent announcement that the Messiah has appeared, and carried down to David, the royal Mes- sianie ancestor and type ; the leading thought of which is not the free grace of God, but generally the divine Messianic guidance of the people before the final appearance of the Messiah Himself. Ver. 17. Tov Aaov rovrov ’Iop. (see the critical remarks) refers with rovrov to the address dvdpe¢ ’Iop., and with the venerated name ’Iopayi the theo- cratic national feeling is appealed to.*— éfeAégaro] He chose for Himself, namely, from the mass of mankind, to be His peculiar property. On roüg martp. ju., the patriarchs, comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 1, 16. In them the peo- ple saw the channels and sureties of the divine grace. — öywoev] During the sojourn in Egypt, God ezalted the people, making them great in number and strength, and especially distinguishing and glorifying them in the period directly before the Exodus by miraculous arrangements of Moses. The history, which Paul supposes as known, requires this interpretation, comp. already Chrysostom, who in önwoev finds the two points: eic mAn7boc éxédooav and ra Oaiuara dv avtode yéyove. Others, among whom are Kuinoel, , Olshausen, and de Wette, arbitrarily limit t~ooev merely to the increase of number, appealing even to Gen. xlviii. 19, Ecclus. xliv. 21, 1. 22, where, however, torr, as always,* signifies nothing else than ¢e exalt. The special nature of the exaltation is derived purely from the context. Calvin, Elsner, and Heinrichs suppose that the deliverance from Egypt is meant. But the exaltation, according to the text, occurred év rq mapoıkia Ev yn Alyirry,* during their sojourn as strangers in Egypt. Beza and Grotius think that it is the iywor of the people by and under Joseph that is meant. Erroneously, as iywoev stands in historical connection with the following égjyayev. — peta Bpaxiovog vımAov] i.e. without figure: &v rq toybi abrov tH neyaAn.” Jehovah is conceived as a leader who advances with up- lifted arm, at the head of His people, for their defence against all their enemies. ® Vv. 18, 19. ‘Qc] might be the as of the protasis, so that kai, ver. 19, would then be the also of the apodosis.” But the common rendering circiter is simpler and more suitable to the non-periodie style of the entire context, as well as corresponding to the sc of ver. 20. — On the accentua- tion of recoapaxovraérn, so Lachmann and Tischendorf, see Ellendt.°— étpooopdp.] He bore them as their nourisher, as it were in his arms, i.e. he. nourished and cherished them. There is here a reminiscence of the LXX. 1 Comp. the thoughtful judgment of Weiss, 5 LXX. Deut. iv. 37. bibl. Theol. p. 220. 6 Comp. Ex. vi. 1,6; Bar. ii. 11. 2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22. 7So Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 31. (E. T. p. 3 Comp. particularly Isa. i. 2. 362). 4 vii. 6, 29; Wisd. xix. 10. 8 Lex. Soph. I. p. 405 f. ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA. 253 Deut. i. 31, according to which passage God bore (8%)) the Israelites in the wilderness as a man (W'S) beareth his son. The LXX. has rendered this N) by érpopog., whence it is evident, as the image is borrowed from a man, that it is based on the derivation from 6 rpogöc and not from 7 rpogöc.! In the few other passages where the word is still preserved, women are spoken of—namely, 2 Macc. vii. 27, and Macar. Hom. 46. 3, where of a mother it is said: dvatayBaver kai repiddawe Kat Tpogogopei Ev noAAj oropyn. But as in this place and in Deut. i, 31 the motion of a male rpodd¢ is quite as definitely presented ;* usually rpogeic,® it follows that the two references, the male and the female, are linguistically justified in an equal degree ; there- fore Hesychius explains érpogogdpycev, entirely. apart from sex, by äßpeibev. From misapprehension of this, the word £rporoo. was at an early period— among the Fathers, Origen already has it—introduced in Deut. l.e. ; he bore their manners,‘ because the comparison of God to a nourishing mother or nurse, 7 rpopöc, Was regarded as unsuitable,® and following this reading in Deut. /.c., érporog. was also adopted in our passage for the same reason.— éOvn Erra] see Deut. vii. 1. He destroyed them, i.e. kaderdv.° — karen’npov.] He distributed to them for an inheritance.” This compound is foreign to other Greek writers, but common in the LXX. in an active and neuter significa- tion. The later Greeks have xaraxAnpovyeiv. Ver. 20. And afterwards—after this division of the land among the Israelites—He gave them, during about 450 years, judges—D'VAV, theocratic dictators, national heroes administering law and justice *—wntil Samuel. The dative éreo: rerpax. is dative of the time, during which something hap- pens, comp. viii. 11.° As Paul here makes the judges to follow after the division of the land, it is evident that he overleaps the time which Joshua yet lived after the division of the land, or rather includes it in the wera ravra, which in so summary a statement is the less strange, as Joshua was actually occupied until his death with the consolidation of the new arrange- ment of the land, Josh. xxiv. 1-28. But the 450 years are in contradiction with 1 Kings vi. 1, where the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, the year of the build- ing of the temple, is placed 480 !° years after the Exodus from Egypt, which leaves only about 300 years for the period of the judges. But, on the other hand, the chronology of Josephus, who" reckons 592 years from the Exodus out of Egypt to the building of the temple, agrees with Paul in our passage." If, namely, we reckon: (1) 40 years as the period of sojourn in tle desert ; (2) 25 years as the period of Joshua’s rule ;!% (3) 450 years as the duration 1So also Cyril, in Oseam, p. 182, in Deut. p. 415. [ f. 45, EI. 409. 2 Comp. Plat. Polit.p 268 A B, Eur. Here 3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 316. 4Cic. ad Att. xiii. 29, Constitutt. ap. vii. 36, Schol. Arist. Ran. 1432. 5 With the Greeks their fatherland is often represented under this image. See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 470 D. 6 See Thue. i. 4, and Krüger én loc. 7 LXX. Judg. xi. 24; 1 Kings ii. 8; Isa. xiv. 2,8; 3 Esdr. viii. 35. 8 See Niigelsbach in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. p. 23 ff. ; Bertheau, Komment. 9 Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 3.5: 70 vöwp Nud- pats reosapakovra ÖAaıs KATEbEpETO. John ii. 20 ; Rom. xiv. 25; Winer, p. 205 (E. T. 274). 10. RX 5.440. Tn Antt. viii. 3. 1, comp. x. 8. 5. 12 In Antt.x x. 10, c. Ap. ii. 2, he reckons 612 years for the same period, thus 20 years more, which comes still nearer to the statement of time in our passage ; see below. 13 Joseph. Antt. v. 1. 29. 254 CHAP. XIII., 21-25. of the judges, to Samuel inclusive, according to our passage ; (4) 40 years as the reign of Saul ;* (5) 40 years as the reign of David, 1 Kings ii. 11; (6) the first four years of Solomon’s reign, —there results from the Exodus out of Egypt to the building of the temple 599 years, with which there remains a difference between Paul and Josephus, which is fully covered by öc in the text. Accordingly, it appears as the correct view that Paul here follows the chronology entirely different from 1 Kings vi. 1, which is also followed by Josephus.” This chronology arises from summing up all the numbers men- tioned in the Book of Judges,* 410 years, and adding 40 years for Eli; by which, however, a total much too high results, as synchronistic statements are included in the reckoning. All attempts at reconciling our passage with 1 Kings vi. 1 bear the impress of arbitrariness and violence—namely : (1) that of Perizonius,‘ and others, that in 1 Kings vi. 1 the years are not reckoned, in which the Israelites in the time of the judges were oppressed by heathen nations, with which view Wolf agrees ;° (2) Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Mill, and others supply yevoueva after wevrykovra, post haec, quae spatio 450 annorum gesta sunt, so that the terminus a quo is the birth of Isaac, in whom God chose the fathers ; from thence to the birth of Jacob are 60 years, from the birth of Jacob to the entrance into Egypt are 130 years, after which the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years, and then from the Exodus to the division of Canaan 47 years elapsed, making in all 447 years, —accordingly, about 450 years. With the reading of Lachmann, also, we must count in accordance with this computation. Comp. Beza. (3) Others have had recourse to critical violence. They suppose etther® that in this passage tpraxocioe is to be read (r’ for 6), or” that oc éreou rerp. kK. mevrik. 1S an addition of a marginal annotator, who ® reckoned thus from the birth of Isaac ; or, at least,® that 1 Kings vi. 1 is corrupt ; in which case, however, Kuinoel grants that Paul follows a Jewish chronology of his time. — éw¢ ZauovnA] i.e. until the end of the series of judges, which had commenced with Othniel and closed with Samuel, after which Saul’s reign began. See ver. 21. Ver. 21. Kaxeidev] and from thence. éxet has only here in the N. T., as also in later Greek, a temporal reference, yet so that the time is conceived as something in space stretching itself out. So, too, in the passages in Bornemann,!° — ér7 teccapak.| ’EBacidevoe ZaovA, ZauovnAov COvtoc, Ern oKTo mpoc roic déka’ reAevrnoavroc dé dio Kai eikooı, Joseph. Antt. vi. 14. 9, according to the usual text, in which, however, kai eikocı is spurious.!! In the O. T. there is no express definition of the duration of Saul’s reign. However, 1 See on ver. 21. 4 Orig. Aeg. p. 321. 2 That, nevertheless, the reckoning of 480 5Comp. also Keil in the Dörpi. Beitr. I. years in 1 Kings vi. is not on account of our p.311. passage to be wholly rejected ; and how far, 6 Luther and Beza. on the contrary. it is to be considered as cor- 7 Vitringa and Heinrichs. rect. may be seen in Bertheau on Judges, In- 8 Heinrichs. trod. p. xvi. ff. ® Voss, Michaelis, Kuinoel. [xili. 28. 3 iii. 8, 11, 14, 30, iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, 10 Schol. in Luc. p. 90 f., but not in Luke 1X 22..2.12,8,8,531.5,9,,10, 14, 11. 1, xv, 20) 11 See Bertheau on Judges, p. xx. PAUL’S DISCOURSE. 255 the explanation! that ér7 reccapax., which, in fact, contains the duration of édwxev „ . . SaoiA, embraces the time of Samuel and Saul together, is to be rejected as contrary to the text; and instead of it, there is to be assumed a tradition—although improbable in its contents, yet determined by the customary number 40—which Paul followed. Ver. 22. Meraor. auröv] cannot be explained of the death of Saul,? because there is no éx rov (jv * or the like added, or at least directly suggested, from the context. The word is rather to be considered as selected and exactly corresponding to the known history of Saul, expressing the divine rejection recorded in 1 Sam. xv. 16 ff., and deposition of this king from his office, ac- cording to the current usus loquendi.* — kai eime uaprvpnoac] for whom He also bearing witness has said. « is governed by waprup. ; and on eize uaprup., comp. i. 24: mpooev£auevor einov. — elpov Aavid x.t.A.] Ps, 1xxxix. 21) is here quite freely blended with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 in the inexact recollection of the moment, and formed into one saying of God, as indeed in Ps. Ixxxix. 21 God is the speaker, but not in Sam. xiii. 14. —eipov] God had sought for the kingdom of His people aso rare man like David. — xara tv kapdiav pov] i.e. as my heart desires him. This and the following é¢ . . . pov is to be left without any more precise limitation—Eckermann, after the older com- mentators, supposes that it applies to the government of the people; Heinrichs: to the establishment of the theocracy—as the text does not furnish such a limitation, and ravra ra 9er. forbids it. On these last words Bengel correctly remarks : ‘‘ voluntates, multas, pro negotiorum varietate.’’ ® Vv. 23-25. Paul now proceeds to his main point, the announcement of the Messiah, the Son of David, as having appeared in Jesus,° whom John already preached before His coming. —roirov] with great emphasis, placed first and standing apart. — kar’ ixayycdiav| according to promise, an essential element for the awakening of faith. Comp. ver. 32. —Hyaye ro ’Iopanı . . . Iopanı] He brought’ to the Israelites Jesus as deliverer, Messiah, John having previously preached before His coming a baptism of repentance, baptism obliging to change of mind, to all the people of Israel. — xpd rpoowron] 297, i.e. ante, and that in a temporal sense.* With ric eioödov, according to the context, is meant the official, Messianic, emergence among the people. 'The Fathers strangely and erroneously refer it to the incarnation.’— oc 62 emAnpov 6 ’Iwavv. 7. Öpöuov] but when John fulfilled, was in the act of fulfilling,”® the course—without figure: the official work incumbent on him.'! Paul considers John’s definite pointing to the épyduevoc as that with which the - course of the Baptist approached its termination ; the dpduoc of the forerunner was actually concluded as regards its idea and purpose, when Jesus Him- self publicly appeared. — riva ye ümov. elvar;] is, with Erasmus, Castalio, 1 Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Morus, ö Comp. Eph. vi. 6; Ps. cii. 7; 2 Macc. i. 3 Rosenmüller, Heinrichs. 8 vv. 23. 24, 25. 2 Grotius, de Wette, also my former inter- 7 Zech. iii 8. pretation, 8 Gesenius, 7’hes. II. p. 1111. 33 Macc. vi. 12; Polyb. xxxii. 21. 3. ® See Suicer, T’hes. I. p. 1042. 4See Dan. ii. 21; 1 Macc. viii. 13; Luke 10 Imperfect ; see Bernhardy, p. 373. xvi. 4; also in Greek writers. 11 Comp. xx. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Gal. ii. 2. 256 CHAP. XIII.. 26-33. Calvin, Beza, and many others, to be taken as a question ; not, with Luther, Grotius, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Buttmann, as a relative clause: ‘‘ quem me esse putatis, non sum,’”’ which, indeed, is linguistically justifiable,’ but detracts from the liveliness of the speech.” — ok eiut &y6] namely, the Messiah, John i. 20, as self-evidently the expected Person, who was vividly before the mind of John and of his hearers.*® Ver. 26. In affectionate address (ävdpes adeAdot) earnestly appealing to the theocratic consciousness (vioi yev. ’ABp.), Paul now brings home the announcement of this salvation, procured through Jesus, 6 Adyo¢ ng our. ravrnc,* to the especial interest of the hearers.° — éfaveord27] namely, forth from God, ver. 23, x. 36, not from Jerusalem (Bengel). But this iviv.. . éZareot. actually took place by the very arrival of Paul and his companions. Ver. 27. Täp] Chrysostom leads to the correct interpretation : didwow abroic !£ovsiav arooyıofijvar Tov Tov H6vov reroAumkörwv. In accordance with the contrast : iviv and of karorkovvrec év ‘Iepovc., the logical sequence is: “ To you was the doctrine of salvation sent ; for in Jerusalem the Saviour has been rejected ;’’ therefore the preaching must be brought to those out- side in the diacropd, such as you are. It does not conflict with this view, that at all events the preaching would come to them as Jews ;° since the fundamental idea rather is, that, because Jerusalem has despised Christ, now in place of the inhabitants of Jerusalem the owtside Jews primarily are destined for the reception of salvation. They are to step into the places of those as regards this reception of salvation ; and the announcement of salva- tion, which was sent to them, was withdrawn from those and their rulers, the members of the Sanhedrim, on account of the rejection of the Saviour. Thus there is in ydp the idea of divine retribution, exercised against the seat of the theocracy, and resulting in good to those outside at a distance ;’ the idea of a Nemesis, by which those afar off are preferred to the nearest children of the kingdom.* Most of the older commentators are silent on yap here. According to Erasmus, it is admonitory, according to Calvin, exhortatory to yet greater compliance ; but in this case the special point must first be read between the lines. Contrary to the contrast of iuiv and oi karoık. ‘Iepove., yap, according to de Wette, is designed to introduce the exposition of the idea of cwrnpia ; according to Baumgarten, to convey the hint that the informal (?) way, outwardly considered, in which the ?%öyoc had reached Antioch, had its reason in the fact that the centre of the theocracy had resisted Jesus. — rovrov ayvofoavtec «.r.A.] not having known Him, i.e. Jesus, as the self-evident subject, they have also—xai, the also of the corre- sponding relation—fulfilled by their sentence, by the condemnation of Jesus, the voices of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath day. This fulfilment they effected involuntarily in their folly. But the prophecies had to be ful- 1 Matt. x. 19, al. x Winer, p. 159 (E. T. 210); 4 Comp. on v. 20. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 216 (E. T. 251). 5 Comp. ii. 29, iii. 25 f. 2 Comp. Jas. iii. 15. 6 Objection of de Wette. 3Comp. Mark xiii. 5; Luke xxi. 8; John 7 Comp. Tots eis nakpar, ji. 39 ; xiii. 19.—On ver. 25 generally, com. Luke iii. 8 Comp. Matt. xxi. 8. 5 15 f. PAUL'S DISCOURSE. 257 filled, Luke xxiv. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 3. —äyvojoavree] a mild judgment, entirely in the spirit of Jesus.' Therefore not too lenient for Paul (Schneck- enburger). Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Hackett, and others refer ayvojc. not only to rovror, but also to Kai rac d. Tr. mpog.: ** qui hune non norant, nec prophetarum oracula . . . intelligebant, eo condem- nando effecerunt, ut haec eventu comprobarentur.’? Unnecessarily harsh, as xpivavrec and éxAjp. require different supplements. — räc x. m. oüßß. ava- yıwor.] a mournful addition ; what infatuation !— xpivavrec] judging, name- ly, Jesus. Following Homberg, others have referred it to the gwväc r. rp.: “and although judging, correctly valuing the voices of the prophets, they nevertheless fulfilled them.’’ Incorrect, because at variance with history, and because the resolution of the participle by although is not suggested by the context, but rather (rotrov ayvoroavrec) forbidden. Vv. 28, 29, Kai] and, without having found, they desired.? — kaderövrec . . . EOnxav eig uvnu.| The subject is the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers, as in the preceding. Joseph and Nicodemus’ were, in fact, both ; therefore Paul, although those were favourably inclined to Jesus, could in this sum- mary narrative continue with the same subject, because an exact historical discrimination was not here of moment, and the taking down from the cross and the placing in the grave were simply the adjuncts of the cruci- fixion and the premisses of the corporeal resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 4.* Ver. 30. But God, after such extreme and unrighteous rejection of Jesus on the part of those men, what a glorious deed has He done! Thus Paul paves the way to announce the highest Messianic onueiov of Jesus,’ the res- urrection from the dead ; and that according to its certainty as matter of experience, as well as a fulfilment of the prophetic promise. ® Vv. 31-33. ‘Eni nu&p. mAciove] for several days, as in Luke iv. 25.7 Instead of the argumentative öc, öoye would be still more significant. — roic owvava- Baow «.7.A.}~Thus Paul according to this narrative, like Luke in the Gospel, follows the tradition which knows only Jewish appearances of the Risen One.® — oitivec| quippe qui. — kai nueic K.7.2.] we also, on our part, engaged in the same work of preaching as those eye-witnesses, announce unte you the promise made to the fathers, that, namely, God has completely fulfilled this, etc. —örı rabrmw x.7.2.] contains the particular part of the éxayyedia, the promise of the Messiah generally, which is announced. Entirely arbitrarily, Heumann, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others hold that it should be connected : evayyeACoueba, ore THY mpöcg Tove TaTépacg yevou. Exayy. 6 Oeöc ExmerA., and that rairny is without significance. This very repetition of raéryv has rhetorical emphasis.° — exrerinpwre] stronger than the simple verb, ver. 27.'° — roic 1 Luke xxiii. 34. Comp. oniii. 17; see also ® Comp. ix. 20; see Dissen, ad. Dem. de 1 Cor. ii. 8. cor. p. 225 ; Bernhardy, p. 283. 2 On avarpednvar, comp. ii. 23, x. 39. 10 Comp. the passages from Xenoph. in 3 John xix. 28 f. [viii. 29; Mark xv. 46. Sturz, Herod. v. 35: rv vmdcxeow exmAn- 4On xaßdeAövres avo T. £VAov, comp. Josh. paca, Plat. Legg. p. 958 B: exmAnpwon To 5 Comp. Rom. i. 4. xpeos arav, Polyb. i. 67.1: tas éAmidas x. Tas 6 vv 31, 32-37. &mayyeXias ermAnpovv, 3 Mace. i. 2, 22. Elsc- 7 Nägelsbach on the Jliad, p. 284, ed. 3. where not in the N. T., but comp. exrAnpwaıs, 8 See on Matt. xxviii. 10. Comp.i 4. xxi. 26. 258 CHAP. XIII, 33, 34. rexvorc abt. yuiv| for the benefit of their children, descendants, us. The pre- fixing of r. rev. avr. has a peculiar emphasis. — avaoryoac ’Inoovv] by this, that He raised up Jesus, from the dead. This interpretation’ is necessarily required by the connection, which is as follows: (1) The Jews have put to death Jesus, though innocent, and buried Him, vv. 28, 29. (2) But God has raised Him from the dead, as is certain from His appearance among His followers and their testimony, vv. 30, 31. (3) By this resurrection of Jesus, God has completely fulfilled to us the promise, etc., vv. 32, 33. (4) But the Raised One will, according to God’s asurance, never again die, vv. 34- 38. This, the only explanation accordant with the context, is confirmed by the purposely chosen £xreriypwre, as, indeed, the fulfilment of the ptomise begun from the very appearance of Jesus has, although secured already essentially, as Hofmann interprets the compound verb, only become complete by His resurrection. It has been objected that &x vexpov would have to be added to ävaoryoac, as in ver. 34 ; but incorrectly, as the con- text makes this addition very superfluous, which yet is purposely added in ver. 34, in order that the contrast of unk£rı uEAAovra iroaTpége ei¢ dtapbopav might more strongly appear. The textual necessity of our interpretation excludes, accordingly, of itself the other explanation,’ according to which avasryoac is rendered like DP, prodire jubens, exhibens, iii. 22, vil. 37. This rendering would hardly have been adopted and defended, had it not been thought necessary to understand Ps. ii. 7 of the appearance of Jesus upon earth. — oc . . . yéypaxtai] denotes the avaoryoac ’Incovv as the event which took place according to, besides other scriptural passages, the saying in Ps. ii. 7. —7@ mpotw| Formerly’—though not universally, yet frequently—the first Psalm was wont not to be separately numbered, but, as an introduction to the Psalter and certainly composed for this object, to be written along with the second Psalm, as it is even now found in mss. As, however, such a local citation of a passage is found neither in Paul’s writings nor elsewhere in the N. T., it must be assumed that Paul did not himself utter the zpérw, and that it was not even added by Luke ; but that he took it over from his documentary source—into which it had doubtless come, because it was es- teemed particularly noteworthy that this prophecy should be found written on the very front of the Psalter (F?). — viöc ov ei ov «.t.2.] in the historical sense of the Psalm composed by Solomon on his anointing: My son, as the theocratic king, thow art; I, no other, have this day begotten thee, made thee by thine anointing and installation to be this my son. But, accord- ing to the Messianic fulfilment of this divine saying, so far as it has been historically fulfilled—it is otherwise in Heb. i. 5—especially by the resurrec- tion of the Messiah : My Son, as the Messiah, thou art; I am He who has this day, on the day of the resurrection, begotten Thee, installed Thee into this divine Sonship by the resurrection, Rom. i. 4,—inasmuch, namely, as the 1 Erasmus, Luther. Hammond, Clericus, richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Weiss- Heumann, Morus, de Wette, Baumgarten, ag. u. Erf. p. 113, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 and Lange, and others. others. 2 Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, 3 Sce Wetstein. Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, Rusenmüller, Hein- DISCOURSE AT ANTIOCH. 259 resurrection was the actual guarantee, excluding all doubt, of that Sonship of Christ. Thus has God by the resurrection, after His humiliation, although He was from eternity God's Son, constituted Him the Son of God, He has begotten Him. Comp. ii. 36. The expression is not to be illustrated from mpwtdorakog Ex. T. vexpov, Col. i. 18 ;! because for denoting the installation into the divine Sonship the figure begotten suits admirably ; but as a new beginner of life, as Baumgarten explains it. Christ would by the resurrec- tion not be begotten, but born. Comp. also Rom. viii. 29. The ciuepor, moreover, which to those interpreters, who explain the avacrjo1c generally of the bringing forward Jesus, must appear without significance and in- cluded in the quotation only for the sake of completeness, as is, however, not the case even in Heb. i. 5, forms an essential element of the prophecy in its relation to the connection. Ver. 34. But that God raised Him from the dead as one who is no more to return to corruption, He has thus said. The unkerı péddovta . . . diapbop. is the main element whereby the speech advances. Comp. Rom. vi. 9. — eig dıagdopav] into corruption, is not, with Kuinoel, after Beza and Piscator, to be explained : in locum corruptionis, i.e. in sepulerum, for which there is no reason at all, as wnxörı by no means requires the inference that Christ must already have been once in the condition of corruption ; for wumkerı refers logically to the general idea of dying present in the mind of Paul, which he, already thinking on Ps. xvi. 10, expresses by iroorp. ei¢ diag.” Bengel aptly says: ‘‘non amplius ibit in mortem, quam alias solet subsequi diagfopé.”? The appeal to the LXX., which renders MMY by dvagAopd, is equally inadmissible, for the translators actually so understood DNV, and thus connected with their d:aofopa no other idea than corruptio.* — ddcw ipiv r. bo. A. r. miora] a free quotation of the LXX. Isa. lv. 3, in which Paul, instead of Kabjooua uuiv deadyknv aidviov, gives décw ipiv, certainly not designedly, because the text of the LXX. represents the appearance of the Messiah as something future, as Olshausen thinks ; for the words of the LXX., par- ticularly the aiévov, would have been very suitable as probative of our pas- sage ; nor yet by a mistake of memory, as the passage about the eternal covenant certainly was very accurately known to the apostle ; but because he saw the probative force in ra öcıa A. ra mıord, and therefore, in introduc- ing those words on which his argument hinged, with his freedom otherwise in quotation he regarded it as suflicient only to prefix to them that verb, the idea of which is really contained in duadHoouar vuiv diadixnv aidv. I shall give unto you the holy things of David, the sure; i.ethe holy blessings con- ferred by me on David, the possession of which will be, federally, sure and certain. By this is meant the whole Messianic salvation as eter- nally enduring, which, in an ideal sense, for future realization by the Son of David, the Messiah, belonged as a holy property to David, the Messianic ancestor, and was to come to believers through Christ as a sacred inheri- tance. The LXX. translates W11 "ION inezactly by ra bora Aavid ; but on this very account the literal meaning benefieia is not, against Kuinoel and others, 1 Avainst Baumgarten. 2 Comp. Winer, p. 574 (E. T. 772). 3 Comp. on ii. 27. . 260 CHAP. XIII, 35-39. to be assumed for öoıa. It denotes veneranda, pie observanda.'\—The historical meaning of the passage in Isaiah contains a promise of the Messianic times alluring the exiles to the appropriation of the theocratic salvation ; but in this very Messianic nature of the promise Paul had reason and right to recognise the condition of its fulfilment in the eternal remaining-alive of the risen Christ, and accordingly to understand the passage as a prophetic promise of this eternal remaining-alive ; because through a Messiah liable to death, and accordingly to corruption, those holy possessions of David, seeing they are to be zord, could not be conferred ; for that purpose His life and His government, as the fulfiller of the promises,* must be efernal.* As surely as God, according to this prophetic assurance, must bestow the dora Aavid ra rıora, so surely Christ, through whom they are bestowed, can- not again die. Less accurately Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 384. Ver. 35. Ad] therefore, namely, because the Messiah, according to ver. 34, after His resurrection will not again die, but live for ever. — év érépw| sc. ars, which is still present to the mind of the speaker from the quo- tation in ver. 33. — Aéyec] the subject is necessarily that of eipnkev, ver. 34, and so neither David,* nor the Scripture,® but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 contains David’s words addressed to God. But David is considered as in- terpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth,® As to the pas- sage quoted, see on ii. 25-27. Calvin correctly says: ‘Quod ejus corpus in sepulcro fuit conditum, nihil propterea juris habuit in ipsum corruptio, quum illic integrum non secus atque in lecto jacuerit usque ad diem resur- rectionis.’’ Vv. 36, 37 give the explanation and demonstration (ydp), that in Christ raised by God from the dead this language of the Psalm has recéived its ful- filment. Comp. ii. 29-31. — idia yevea] Dativus commodi : for his own con- temporaries. Others understand it as the dative of time: sua aetate,’ or tempore vitae suae.* Very tame and superfluous, and the latter contrary to the usus loquendi. idia yevea is added in foresight of the future Messianic yeved, Vili. 33, for which the Son of David serves the counsel of God. ‘‘Davidis partes non extendunt se ultra modulum aetatis vulgaris,’’ Bengel. —r17 Tov Ocov BovAn] may either be connected with &xoun$7? or with imnperyoac: *° after he for his generation had served the counsel of God. The latter meaning is more in keeping with the theocratic standpoint of David and ver. 22.— mpocetéOy mpöc Tove Tatépac aitov| was added to his fathers, namely, as regards his soul in Sheol, whither his fathers had preceded him. A well-known Hebrew expression, Judg. ii. 10 ; Gen. xv. 15, xxv. 8, and Knobel thereon. Vv. 38-41. From the previously proved resurrection of Jesus, there fol- lows (obv), what is now solemnly announced, yrwordv k.r.A., and does not ap- pear as a mere ‘‘ passing hint ’’!! of the Pauline doctrine of justification— 1 Comp. Bremi, ad Lys. p. 269, Goth. 7 Kuinoel and the older interpreters. 22 Cor. i. 10. 8 Olshausen. 3 Comp. Calvin and Hofmann, Weissag. u. ° Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, and Erf. Ii. p. 173 £. others. 4 Bengel, Heinrichs, and others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, Luther, Wolf, Bengel, 5 Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, and others. 6 Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. 11 Baur, FORGIVENESS THROUGH CHRIST, 261 that precisely through Him, who was thus so uniquely attested by God to be the promised Messiah, the Messianic forgiveness and justification are offered, vv. 38, 39 ; and from this again follows (oöv, ver. 40) with equal naturalness, as the earnest conclusion of the speech, the warning against despising this benefit. — Observe that Paul does not enter on the point, that the causa meritoria of forgiveness and justification lay in the death on the cross, or how it was so; this belonged to a further instruction afterwards ; at this time, on the first intimation which he made to those who were still unbe- lievers, it might have been offensive and prejudicial. But with his wisdom and prudence, according to the connection in which the resurrection of the Lord stands with His atoning death,' he has neither prejudiced the truth, nor, against Schneckenburger and Baur, exhibited an un-Pauline, an alleged Petrine reference of justification to the resurrection of Jesus. Vv. 38, 39. Ava tovtov] through this one, i.e. through His being announced to you. — kai and TavtTwv . . . Jinarovraı] and that from all things, from which? ye were unable to be justified in the law of Moses, every one who believes in this One is justified. — ard xavrwr] is pregnant: justified and accordingly freed, in respect of the bond of guilt, from all things.” — &v ro véuw and the emphatic &v rourw represent the dicawOjva as causally grounded, not in the law, but in Christ. But the proposition that one becomes justified in Christ by means of faith from all things, z.e. from all sins,* from which one cannot obtain justification in the law, is not meant to affirm that already in the law there is given a partial attainment of justification and the remainder is at- tained in Christ,° which would be un-Pauline and contrary to the whole of the N. T. On the contrary, Paul, when laying down that proposition, in itself entirely correct, leaves the circumstance, that man finds in the law justifica- tion from no kind of sins, still entirely out of account, with great prudence not adopting at once an antinomistic attitude, but reserving the particulars of the doctrine of justification in its relation to the law for eventually further Christian instruction. The proposition is of a general, theoretic nature ; it is only the major proposition of the doctrine of justification, from all things from which a man is not justified in the law, he is justified in Christ by faith ; the minor proposition, but in the law a man can be justified from nothing, and the conclusion, therefore only in Christ can all justification be ob- tained, are still kept back and reserved for further development. Therefore the shift of Neander, I. p. 145, is entirely unnecessary, who * very arbitrarily assumes that zdvrwv is designed to denote only the completeness of the re- moval of guilt, and that, properly speaking, Paul has had it in view to refer the relative to the whole idea of dıramw@rjvaı, but by a kind of Jogical attrac- tion has referred it to r@vrov. — We may add that the view,’ according to which kai . . . dixacovrar is taken as an independent proposition, as it is also by Lachmann, who has erased xai, after A C* x, is also admissible, although 1 Rom. iv. 25. 5 Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p. 96 f. ; 2 Sv = ad’ ov see on ver. 2. admitted also by Zeller, p. 299. 3 Rom. vi. 7; Ecclus. xxvi. 29; Test. XII. ® Comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 131, and patr. p. 540. Lekebusch, p. 334. 4 Comp. before adeots apaprıwr, ? Wolf and others, following the Vulgate. 262 CHAP. XIIL, 40-47%. less in keeping with the flow of the discourse, which connects the negative element (ageove duapr.) and the positive correlative to it (d:caoita) with one another ; therefore kai is the simple and, not : and indeed. But it is contrary to the construction to attach kai avd . . . dıkamwfmyvar to the preceding ; so Luther, also Bornemann, who, however, with D, inserts eravora after kai. Lastly, that neither, with Luther, is &v rovrw to be connected with riorebwr, nor, with Morus, is &v rourw mäc 6 rior. dıkarovraı to be taken as a proposition, by itself, is evident from the close reciprocal relation of &v ro véuw and év robrw. — On the idea of dırawvodaı, the essence of which here already, by ra¢ 6 wicrevwv, most definitely emerges as the Pauline justitia jidei, see on Rom. 117. Vv. 40, 41. "Ev roic mpodyraıc] in volumine prophetarum, Luke xxiv. 44; John vi. 45. — Hab. i. 5 is here quoted, according to the LXX., which, in- stead of 0°33, probably read D'113, from memory with an unimportant deviation. In the announcement of the penal judgments to be executed by means of the Chaldaeans, which are in Hab. /.c. threatened against the degenerate Jewish nation, the apostle sees a divine threatening, the exe- cution of which, in the Messianic sense, would ensue at the impending last judgment by the punishment befalling the unbelieving Israelites. The divine threatening preserves its power and validity even to the end, and has then its last and highest fulfilment. This last Messianic judgment of God—not the ruin of the Jewish war'—is here the épyov. — aoavichyre] vanish, come to nought.* The coming to nought through terror is meant.— épyafoua] The present denotes what God was just on the point of doing. The éy6 annexed, J, whom you despise, has the emphasis of divine authority. —épyov] A rhetorically weighty anaphora, and bence without de? — endınyyraı] tells it quite to the end.* Vv. 42, 43. After this speech Paul and Barnabas depart, and on their going out of the synagogue are requested by those present, the subject of mapexaa., to set forth these doctrines again next Sabbath. But after the assembly was dismissed (Avfeionc), many even follow them to their lodging, etc.— éfidvtwv dé aurov] They consequently departed, as is indisputably evident from ver. 43, before the formal dismissal of the synagogue. Olshausen, indeed, thinks that the é£:évr. air. did not historically precede the Aufeions ns cvvaywy., but is only anticipated as the chief point of the narrative, giving rise to the request to appear again. But this is nothing but an arbitrary device, which would impute to Luke the greatest clumsiness in his representation.— ei¢ rd uera&v caBBarov] on the next following Sabbath. Instead of erasv, D has what is correct as a gloss: é¢y¢. In the N. T. this meaning is without further example, for Rom. ii. 15 1s not a case in point. From the apostolic Fathers: Barnabas 13 ; Clemens, ad Cor. I. 44. For the few, but 1 Wetstein and others. 3 Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 341 (ET. 2 Comp. Philostr. Jmag. i. 26: obx ws amo- 398). Krüger, § lix. 1. 3 f. AowTo, add’ ws abavıodeiev. Jas. iv. 14. So 4 Comp. xy. 3; Job xii.3; Ecclus. xxxix. very often in classical writers. See Toup, 12, xliii. 31, xliv. 8; Joseph. Anté. v, 8. 33 Em in Suid. I. p. 92. Bell. v. 13.7. LABORS IN ANTIOCH. 263 quite certain examples from the other later Greek,' see Krebs.” Others — Camerarius, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Rosenmüller, Sepp, and others — render : ‘‘ diebus sabbatha intercedentibus,’’ by which, following the Recepta (see the critical remarks), those making the request are regarded as Gentiles, who would have desired a week-day. Comp. Luther: ‘ between Sabbaths.”” We should then have to explain oaßßarov as week,* that is : on the intervening week, so that it would require no conjectural emendation.* But the evident con- nection in which ver. 42 stands with ver. 44 gives the necessary and authentic explanation: ro éyouévm oaßßaro. — Tr. ceBou. mpoonA.] the (God) worshipping proselytes. This designation of the proselytes occurs only here ; elsewhere, merely mpooyAvro:,° or merely oeßöuevo: With © and without? Oeov. Yet there is here no pleonasm ; but oeßou. is added, because they were just coming from the worship, as constant partakers in which they were worshipping proselytes. —oizwec| applies to Paul and Barnabas, who (quippe qui) made moving representations (éreov) to those following them to con- tinue in the grace of God, which by this first preaching of the gospel had been imparted to them, because the apostles by the very following of the people, and certainly also by their expressions, might be convinced that the yapic tov Ocov had found an entrance into their souls.— zpoctadovvrec] speak- ing to them ; xxviii. 20.° Vy. 44,45. To dé &xoutvo oaßß.] but on the foliowing Sabbath.’ It is in itself, moreover, highly probable that the two apostles were not idle during the week, but continued their labours in private circles. — cuviy0n] As it was Sabbath,’ this assembly, at which also the Gentiles of the city were present, oxedov raca 7 méAcc, and see ver. 48, took place certainly in and near the synagogue, not, as Heinrichs supposes, “ante diversorium apostolorum.’’ The whole city = rävrec vi roAiraı ; see Valckenaer, ad Phoen. 93%. — rovc öyAovc] which consisted in great part of Gentiles, whose admission to the preaching of the Messiah now stirred up the angry zeal ({jA0c) of Israelitish pride ; observe that here the "Iovdaior alone without the proselytes are named. — ävrıA&yovreg is neither superfluous nor a Hebraism," but joined with «ai BAaceyu., it specifies emphatically the mode of avréAeyov, namely, its hostile and spiteful form : they contradicted, contradicting and at the same time blaspheming the apostle and his doctrine.” Vv. 46, 47. ‘Hv dvayxaiov| namely, according to the counsel of God '* and our apostolic duty. —oi« agiove kpivere x.7.2.] This judgment of their un- worthiness they, in point of fact, pronounced upon themselves by their zealous contradicting and blaspheming. — idoé| ‘t ingens articulus temporis magna revolutio,’’ Bengel. As to the singular, comp. on Matt. x. 16. — 1 Plut. Inst. Lac. 42, de disci. amici et adul. 6 xvi. 14, xviii. 6. 22; Joseph. c. Ap. i. 21; Bell. v. 4. 2,—but 7 xiii. 50, xvii. 4, 17. (19; Wisd. xiii. 17. not Bell. 11. 11. 4. 8 Lucian, Nigr. 7. 11, 18; Theophr. Char. 2 Obss. p. 220; Kypke, II. p. 67 f. ; Wyttenb. ® Comp. xx. 15, xxi. 26; Luke xiii. 33 ; often ad. Plut. Mor. p.177 C. Comp. Otto,ad The- also in classical writers. oph. Ant. 1. 8, p. 26 ff. 10 See also ver. 42. 3 Mark xvi. 9: Luke xviii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 11 Ewald, Zehrb. § 2800. [Judg. iv. 24. 4 Grotius : caBBatwv. 12 See Lobeck. Paralip. p. 532 f. Comp. 5 ii. 10, vi. 5; Matt. xiii. 21. 13 See on ver. 14. 264 CHAP. XIII, 48-52. obtw yap évréradrat x.r.i.] a proof that the orpesöueda eis ra éOvn occurred not arbitrarily, but in the service of the divine counsel. Isa. xlix. 6, according to the LXX., with slight deviation, referring to the servant of God, is by Paul and Barnabas, according to the Messianic fulfilment which this divine word was to receive, recognised and asserted as &vroAy for the apostolic office ; for by means of this office it was to be brought about that the Messiah (ce) would actually become the light of the Gentiles,’ for which, according to this oracle, God has destined Him. — rov eivai ce x.t.A.] the final purpose : in order that thou mayest be, etc. Vv. 48, 49. Tov Adyov r. Kupiov}] see on vili. 25. — 000: 70av tetaypévor eig Zoyv aléviov| as many of them as were ordained to eternal, Messianic, life. Luke regards, in accordance with the Pauline conception,* the believing of those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by God already, namely, from of old, to partake of eternal life. Not all in general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this Coy ; and not the rest. Chrysostom correctly remarks: dgupiopévor ro Bew. The raéic of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance with His rpdyvworc, by meaus of which He foreknew them as credituros ; but the divine raé:¢ was realized by the divine «Ajove effectual for faith, Rom. viii. 28-80—of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instru- ment. It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a proof of the decretum absolutum.* For Luke leaves entirely out of account the relation of ‘‘ being ordained ”’ to free self-determination ; the object of his remark is not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical sequence. Indeed, the evident relation, in which this notice stands to the apostle’s own words, &reıd) . . . Loc, ver. 46, rather testifies against the conception of the absolute decree, and for the idea, according to which the destination of God does not exclude, comp. ii. 41, individual freedom, oc ov kar’ avaykyv, Chrysostom ; although, if the matter is contemplated only from one of those two sides which it necessarily has, the other point of view, owing to the imperfection of man’s mode of looking at it, cannot receive proportionately its due, but appears to be logically nullified. See, more particularly, the remark subjoined to Rom. ix. 33. Accordingly, it is not to be explained of the actus paedagogieos,* of the praesentem gratiae opera- tionem per evangelium,® of the drawing of the Father, John vi. 44, 37, ete., with the Lutheran dogmatic writers; but the literal meaning is to be ad- hered to, namely, the divine destination to eternal salvation : éero aurovc 6 Oed¢ eic mepımoinow owunpiac, 1 Thess. v. 9. Morus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, and others, with rationalizing arbitrariness, import the sense: ‘‘ quibus, dum fidem doctrinae habebant, certa erat vita beata et aeterna,” by which 1 Luke ii. 32, etc. Gi. 13, a2. 2 Rom. ix.; Eph. i. 4,5, 11, iii. 11; 2 Thess. 3In which case Beza, for example, pro- ceeds with logical self-deception : “ Ergo vel non omnes erant vitae aeternae destinati, vel omnes crediderunt.’’ Rather it is to be said : “ Omnes erant vitae aeternae destinati, sed eredituwri.” This excludes from the divine taéts Of salvation those who reject the faith through their own fault. See Beza and Calvin in loc., and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Au- gusti. 4 Calovius. 5 Bengel. EXPULSION FROM ANTIOCH. 265 the meaning of the word rerayu£vo: is entirely explained away. Others take joav rerayu. in the middle sense, quotquot se ordinaverant ad vitam aeternam, as Grotius, Krebs, Loesner, and others,’ in which case rerayı. is often under- stood in its military sense (qui ordines servant) >? *“qui de agmine et classe erant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam.’’® But it is against the middle rendering of rerayu.,* that it is just seized on in order to evade an unpleasant meaning ; and for the sensus militaris of rerayı. no ground at all is afforded by the context, which, on the contrary, suggests nothing else than the simple signification ‘‘ ordained’ for rerayu., and the sense of the aim for eic Conv aidv. Others join eic [wmv aidvov to éxiorevoar, so that they understand rerayı. either in the usual and correct sense destinati,® or quotquot tempus constituerant,® or congregati,’ in spite of the simple order of the words and of the expression miorevew eic Cwiv aidviov being without example; for in 1 Tim. i. 16 eic defines the aim. Among the Rabbins, also, the idea and expression ‘‘ordinati (0°13) ad vitam Futuri saeeuli,’’ as well as the opposite : ‘‘ ordinati ad Gehennam,’’ are very common. See the many passages in Wetstein. But Wetstein himself interprets in an entirely erroneous manner: that they were on account of their faith ordained to eternal life. The faith, foreseen by God, is subse- quent, not previous to the ordination ; by the faith of those concerned their divine ra&ıc becomes manifest and recognised. See Rom. viii. 30, x. 14; Eph. i. 11, 13, al. Ver. 50. Iapörpvvav 7. oeß. yuv. Tr. evox.] they stirred wp® the female pros- elytes, of genteel rank.’ Heinrichs interprets oeß. otherwise: ‘‘religiosas zeloque servandorum rituum ethnicorum ferventes.’? Against this may be urged the stated use of oe3. in this narrative, vv. 16, 43, as well as the greater suitableness of the thing itself, that the crafty Jews should choose as the instruments of their hatred the female proselytes, who were suf- ficiently zealous for the honour of their adopted religion to bring about, by influencing their Gentile husbands, the intended expulsion of the apostles. Ver. 51. ’Ekrwa£. r. xoviopr.] as a sign of the greatest contempt.’°— éx’ aurovg] against them, is to be understood either as denoting the direction of the movement of the feet in shaking off the dust, or, more significantly, in the sense of the direction, frame of mind, in which the action took place. Comp. Luke ix. 5. —’Ixévov] belonging at an earlier period to Phrygia," but at this time the capital of Lycaonia,'” and even yet,'® an important city. ı Hofmann’s view, Schriftbew. I. p. 288, 4 Comp. on xx. 13. amounts to the same thing: “who, directed 5 So Heinrichs. unto eternal life, were in a disposition of mind 6 Markland. corresponding to the offer of it.” The com- 7 Knatchbull. parison of 1 Cor. xvi. 15 does not suit. Lange, 8 Pind. Ol. iii. 88; Lucian, Tow. 35. II. p. 173, in a similar manner evades the ° See xvii. 12, and on Mark xv. 43. meaning of the words: ‘those who under 10 Comp. xviii. 6, and see on Matt. x. 14. God’s ordination were at that time ripe for 11 Xen. Anad. i. 2. 19. faith... Comp. already Brestchneider, ‘ dis- 12 Strabo, xii. p. 568 ; Cic. ad Div. xv. 4; positi."—that is to say, ‘‘apti facti oratione Plin. N. H. vi 25. Pauli.” 13 Konieh or Koniyah, see Ainsworth’s 2 See Maji Odss. III. p. 81 ff. Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand 3 Mede in Wulf, Greeks. 266 CHAP, XIII. —NOTES. Ammian. Marc. xiv. 2, reckons it to belong to the neighbouring Pisidia, in opposition to the above witnesses, —an error easily committed. In Iconium the legend makes 7hecla be converted by Paul. — From the Pisidian Antioch they did not move farther forward, but turned south- eastward, in order (xiv. 26) at a later period to return by ship to the Syrian Antioch. Ver. 52. What a simple and significant contrast of the effect produced by the gospel, in spite of the expulsion of its preachers, in the minds of those newly converted! They were filled with joy, in the consciousness of their Christian happiness, and with the Holy Spirit! WUWdoc yap diWacKddov rappnolav our Eykömreı, GAAG mpolvudrepoy Tovei TOV wabyTHyv, as Chrysostom here says (G?). Notres BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (c?) Special documentary source. V. 1. While there is nothing in the supposition of our author that the 13th and 14th chapters are a separate document, revised by Luke, inconsistent with the authenticity and authority of the record, yet there does not seem to be any ne- cessity, from the style or the contents of the chapters, for any such supposi- tion. Gloag in reference to this says: ‘‘ The narrative is pervaded throughout with Luke’s peculiar style, and is not so unconnected with the preceding his- tory as is asserted.” Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, and other distinguished teachers were assembled there, so that, as Meyer happily re- marks, the mother church of the Gentiles became a seminary of missionaries. Hitherto Luke has given an account of the progress of the gospel generally. Henceforth he treats almost exclusively of Saul—now and henceforth called Paul—his missionary labors and journeys, and the leading events of his life. The missionary character of the church is now brought prominently into view. The first two acts of the church at Antioch are characteristic of the gospel, and exemplify the unity of the Christian church. They first sent alms to the poor Jews in Jerusalem, and next sent the gospel far and wide to the igno, rant Gentiles. This conduct furnishes a pattern for all churches to-day. (D?) Prophets and teachers. Ys. 1, 2. These office-bearers of the early church are frequently referred to in the Acts and in the Epistles of Paul. (1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11.) The proph- ets were an order of men endowed with the Spirit, and recognized by the church as next to the apostles in dignity and authority, and superior to the teachers. They, when inspired by the Spirit, addressed the people in an exalted and im- passioned state of mind—their conscious intelligence being informed by the Holy Spirit. They were only occasionally under this influence, and some- times, as in the present instance, they foretold future events. The teachers were publicly appointed by the church to the work of instruction, and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using their own judgment, after due medita- tion, furnished instruction for the edification of others. A prophet might also be a teacher, as the higher gift usually included the lower; but the teacher NOTES. 267 would not assume the function of the prophet. The mention of prophets and teachers implies that the first Gentile church was large and flourishing. Some of the prophets came from Jerusalem to minister to the Gentiles. “The prophets in the New Testament stood to the early churches nearly in the same relation as do our printed Bibles to our modern churches. They spoke by au- thority and without error, and gave to their audience such details as occur in the Gospels, and such illustrations and precepts as are found in the Epistles. They were the ‘men of their counsel ’—present oracles, whose lips keep knowledge.” (Kadie.) (8?) John as an attendant. YV. 5. The two friends took with them John, surnamed Mark, the nephew of Bar- nabas, and the author of the second gospel. He is styled in the narrative “their minister ;” but it is impossible to determine with precision the kind of service he was expected to render them. Some suppose that he was simply a personal attendant, as Elisha was upon Elijah, or Gehazi upon Elisha ; others believe that he was an assistant in their public duties—such as preaching and the administration of the ordinance of baptism.” (Taylor.) While it may be readily imagined that Mark, as the younger man, would perform any kind of service which would contribute to the personal comfort of his relative and his distinguished companion, doubtless his functions were mainly of a spiritual character. Soon, however, he left such noble companionship, and seriously offended Paul by abandoning the arduous and perilous mission. His motives for doing this were probably various, though cowardice did not necessarily con- stitute one of them. Having passed through his mother’s native isle, he prob- ably felt a strong desire to visit her—or still more probably, being strongly attached to Peter, through whose instrumentality he was converted, as Peter affectionately calls him Marcus my son, and sympathizing more strongly with his work than that of Paul, he may have returned to join him. Be this as it may, Barnabas never lost confidence in him, and he was also at last reconciled to Paul, and was with him when a prisoner in Rome (Col. iv. 10 ; Philemon, 24). (F?) Second psalm. YV. 33. “The majority of mss. are in favor of devrépw ; but critics have in general preferred the reading rporw, as being more difficult and adverted to by the Fathers. It is accounted for on the supposition that our first psalm was not numbered, but was composed as an introduction to the psalter ; and that the second psalm was properly the first. Insome Hebrew mss. this order occurs.”’ (Gloag.) Some refer the words quoted to the incarnation of Christ, but the reference clearly is, as our author shows, to his resurrection. Declared, by his resurrection, to be the Son of God with power, it was the public inauguration of his Sonship, a manifestation of his divinity (Rom. i. 4). (6?) Paul’s sermon. V. 41. Of this first recorded discourse of Paul very different judgments have been formed. Some suppose it to be unhistorical—a mere imitation and repetition of the speech of Peter. Another says it is but the echo of the speeches of 268 CHAP. XIII.—NOTES. Peter and Stephen. The similarity between the discourses is just what might be expected, from the two apostles speaking on the same subject to similar audiences. Farther, says Gloag, there is nothing un-Pauline either in the form or the contents of the discourse. Neander says: “It is a specimen of the pe- culiar wisdom and skill of the great apostle in the management of men’s dispo- sitions, and of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian truth.” The discourse is regularly constructed, and may be divided into four parts— the historical, the apologetic, the doctrinal, and the practical. In the dis- course the preacher wins the attention of his audience by giving a sketch of the history of their forefathers. Then he proves the Messiahship of Jesus from the testimony of John, from the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and from his resurrection from the dead. Next he proclaims the forgiveness of sins through faith in this crucified and risen Messiah, announcing distinctly the doctrine which he discusses at so great length in his Epistles—justification through faith in Christ. Justification, as taught by Paul, means deliverance from con- demnation, the claim of the law for punishment. Dr. Taylor gives in a note a striking and curious illustration of the use of the word justified in this sense, taken from Scott’s ‘‘ Waverley,”—when Evan Maccombich, pleading for his master, says to the judge “that ony six o’ the very best o’ his clan will be willing to be justified in his stead.” Here the word means hanged ; a criminal being held to be set right with the law when he had suffered its penalty. The conclusion of the discourse is an earnest warning against rejecting Christ, lest something worse than the evils predicted by Habakkuk should come upon them. Startled and surprised by this solemn conclusion, they besought the apostles, as they left the synagogue, to come and preach again on the next Sabbath. Even after they had withdrawn, many followed and had an inter- view with the apostles. During the week the excitement was great; nor were the apostles either idle or silent. And so next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word. But when the Jews saw the multitudes of the Gentiles listen- ing to the truth and receiving it, they be¢ame enraged, and contradicted and insulted the apostles. On the other hand, the Gentiles, hearing that Jesus the crucified was set for a light and salvation to them, were glad and glorified God ; and even though the apostles were driven off by the instigation of the Jews, the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost. CRITICAL REMARKS. 269 CHAPTER XIV. Ver. 2. areoivres] ABCN, min. have dreOjoavres, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted ; and rightly, partly on account of the preponderating authority (D, however, does not here concur, as it has an entirely different reading), and partly because areıdoövres most directly presented itself to the mechanical scribes as a contrast to those who had become believers. If they had conformed themselves to rioreücaı, ver. 1, they would have written arıormoavres. — Ver. 3. Before dıdövr: Elz. has kai, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 8. After airod Elz, has izapyor, against greatly preponderating evidence. Added from iii. 2 as an unnecessary completion. — repırerarjkeı] So (not repienen. aS Elz.) D HE GH, min. Chrys. Lachm. and Tisch. have repıerürnoen, after ABCN, min. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the latter. — Ver. 9. jxove] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read jxovcer, after ADE GHRX, min, Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist, and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood. — Ver. 10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born. avnAaro, after D) have #Aato. But Elz. has HAAero, against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on ac- count of mepiemareı.— Ver. 12. per] is, after A B C* D8, rightly erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born. as a customary insertion. — Ver. 13. After 76?.ews Elz. has abrov. A current addition, condemned by the witnesses. — Ver. 14. &$ernydnoav] Elz. has eicer7d., against decisive evidence, The less the reference of 飗 was understood, the more easily would the better known eis be inserted, corre- sponding to «is röv öyAov. — Ver. 17. kairorye] Others: kaiye (so DE, Born.). Others : kairoı (so A B C* 8**, Lachm.). With this diversity kairoı, and also yé, are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested ; and therefore Kairotye, With C*** GH N*, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec., is to be retained. Be- side kai sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is also the case in xvii. 27. — dyafovpydv] so to be read, with A B C8, min. Ath. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz, Born. have aya$oroav, which, as the more usual word, was inserted. — üwiv . tuov] Elz. has juiv . . . nuov, against very important witnesses. The alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace. — After ver. 18, CD E, min. vss. read dıarpıdovrwv aizav k. dıdaokövrwv. So Born. with dé after dıarp., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of smoothing the transition from ver. 18 to its contrast in ver. 19, variously en- riched by different insertions. — Ver. 19. vowioavres] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have vouilovres, after A B DS, min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the context, — reßvavaı] Lachm. Tisch. read redrnzrevaı, after AB C N, min, Cor- rectly, as the contracted form was the more usual. — Ver. 28. After duerpıBov dé Elz. has ?xei, which has been, after A B C D 8, min. and several vss., erased or suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise definition. 270 CHAP. XIv., 1-11. (m?) Vy. 1, 2. Kara 76 airé] at the same time, simul (Vulg.), öuoö, Hesych." — 'EAAjver] see on xi. 20. Comp. xviii. 4, 6. Yet here those Gentiles only are meant who were in connection with Judaism as proselytes of the gate, comp. xiii. 43, and thus had not by circumcision laid aside their Greek nationality. This limitation is required by the context ; for they are present in the syn- agogue, and in ver. 2 the 07 are distinguished from them, so that they occupy a middle place between the é@y and the "Ioadaior. — oitwe] in such a manner, so effectively. — ore] refers to the preceding oöroc, as in John iii. 16.2 — areıßyoavres (see the critical remarks), having refused obedience, by unbelief. — éxdx.] they made evil-affected, put into a bad frame of mind, £.e. ad iracundiam concitaverunt (Vulg.), like the German phrase, ‘‘ sie machten bös.”’ This meaning, not in use with Greek writers, nor elsewhere in the N. T. or in the LXX. (Ps. cvi. 32?) and Apocr., occurs in Joseph. Antt. xvi. 1. 2, 7. 3, 8. 6. — xara rov adedg.] refers to éxqy. x. éxdx. conjointly. Both were hostilely directed against the Christians, Vv. 3, 4. Oöv represents vv. 3 and 4 as a consequence of vv. 1 and 2. “In consequence of that approval (ver. 1) and this hostility (ver. 2), they spent indeed (uév) a considerable time in free-spoken preaching (ver. 3), but (dé) there arose a division among the multitude’? (ver. 4). — im ro Kvpiw] states on what their bold teaching rested—had its stay and support.* Hence as regards sense: freti Domino. Elsewhere in the N. T. with &v. Küpısce may as well be Jesus* as God ;° the mode of conception of the apostolic church admits both the former, Mark xvi. 20, and the latter. The latter, however, is preponderantly supported partly by Acts xx. 32, where rc xäpıroc aurov is to be referred to God, and partly by iv. 29, 30, where dıdövrı onueia K.T.A. likewise points to God. Comp. Heb. ii. 4. —76 uaprvpovvri .. . avtav| who gave practically confirmatory testimony® to the word of His grace (to the gospel, xx. 24), in granting that signs and wonders should be done by their hands. The second participle dıssvrı, added without copula, denotes the Form, in which the paprvpeiv was presented. — öoyio07] comp. John vii. 43. “* Seinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.’’’ Examples in Wetstein. — kai] and indeed, (1?) Vv. 5-7. 'Opu7] impetus (Vulg.), but not exactly in the sense of an assault,* nor yet a plot.° The former meaning, according to the context, expresses too much ; the latter is not sanctioned by linguistic usage, even in Jas. iii. 4. It denotes a strong pressure, a pushing and thronging.‘ — ovv roic üpxovomw abrov] joins on closely to ’Iovdaiwv, whose rulers of the syna- gogue and elders are meant. Comp. Phil. i. 1. On ifpica, comp. Luke xvill. 32; 1 Thess. ji. 2; Lucian, Soloec. 10."— ovvıdövrec! Comp. on xii. 12. 1Comp.1 Sam. xxxi. 6, and examples in 7 Virg. Aen. ii. 39. Kypke, II. p. 69 f.; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. ® Luther, comp. Castalio, Calvin, and others, 210. ® Kuinoel, de Wette, and others. 2 Often soin Greek writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. 10 Comp. Herod. vii. 18: eet datpovin tis yive- i, 2.1; Sturz, Lex. LV. p. 628. tat öpun, Plat. Phil. p.35 D: Wuxns évpracav 3 See Bernhardy, p. 250. THY TE Opunv Kal emcOvacay, Dem. 309. 4: eis 4 Heinrichs, Olshausen. opunv tou Ta SéovTa moray mpotpéWar, Xen, 5 Grotius, Morus, Kuinoel. Mem. iv. 4. 2; Jas. iii. 4; 3 Macc. i. 23, iv. 3. ® Comp. x. 43, xiii. 22, xv. 8. 11 mroı mAnyals 7 Seapmots 7 Kal GAAw TPOTW, EVENTS AT ICONIUM. 271 It had become known to them, what was at work against them. — Atotpa, sometimes used as feminine singular, and sometimes as neuter plural, as in ver. 8, see Grotius, and Aép37, two cities of Lycaonia (3°), to the north of Taurus, and lying in a southeastern direction from Iconium. Ptol. v. 4 reckons the former to belong to the neighbouring Isauria ; but Plin. v. 32 confirms the statement of our passage. On their ruins, see Hamilton’s Travels in Asia Minor, II. pp. 301 f., 307 f. ; Hackett, p. 228. Vv. 8-10.' ’Exa0yro] he sat, because he was lame. Perhaps he begged, comp. John ix. 8, like the lame man in chap. ili. — repırer.) Pluperfect without augment.” Observe, moreover, the earnest circumstantiality of the narrative. — jxove] The imperfect denotes his persevering listening.— iddv] Paul saw in the whole bearing of the man closely scanned by him, in his look, gestures, play of features, his confidence of being saved, i.e. healed. This confidence was excited by listening to the discourse of the apostle ; by which Paul appeared to him as a holy man of superior powers. Bengel aptly says: ‘‘dum claudus verbum audit, vim sentit in anima, unde intus movetur, ut ad corpus concludat.’’ — rov cwfjva] This genitive of the object depends directly on xiori.* — peyddy tH gory] thus, with the sey. predicatively prefixed only here and in xxvi. 24.‘— dpc] ita ut erectus stes.° — nAaro x. repieräreı) Observe the exchange of the aorist and imperfect : he sprang up, made a leap, and walked. Otherwise in iii. 8. Ver. 11. Avkaovıori] Chrysostom has finely grasped the object of this re- mark : ouk yy TovTO ovderw dmAov, TH yap oikeia dwvn EGOéyyovTO Afyovrec, STE ot Ocot K.T.A. The more surprised and astonished the people were, the more natural was it for them to express themselves in their native dialect, although Zeller reckons this very improbable and calcu- Jated with a view to make the homage go as far as possible. Nothing defi- nite can be made out concerning the Lycaonian language ; perhaps a dialect of the Lycian,° which Jablonsky ” considered as derived from the Assyrian ; Grotius, as identical with the Cappadocian ; and Gühling,® as a corrupt Greek. — duowbévtec avd paroc] having become similar to men. Theophanies Ava TovTo ovdév avroig EAeyov. The distinction there stated of üßpigeıw with eis is groundless, See, on the contrary, e.g. Dem. 522. ult. 539. 14. 1 Although two cures of the same kind of infirmity and in a similar miraculous manner naturally enough produce two similar narra- tives, yet it cannot surprise us that, according to the criticism of Schneckenburger, Baur, and Zeller, the whole of this narrative is as- sumed to originate from an Imitation of the narrative of the earlier Petrine miracle in chap. iii. “But with the miracle is with- drawn also the foundation of the attempted worship of the two apostles; this, therefore, cannot be regarded as historical, and so much the less, as it also is exposed to the suspicion of having arisen from an exaggerated repeti- tion of a trait from the history of Peter,” Zeller, p. 214. Comp. Baur, I. p. 112 ff. ed. 2. In a corresponding manner have the miracles of Paul generally been placed in parallelism with those of Peter, to the prejudice of their hi-torical truth. Comp ,1n opposition to this view, Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch. p. 161 ff. 2 See on Matt. vii. 25, and Valckenaer, p. 504f. Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 9. 3 See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 229 f. (E. T. 266). 4 Sce, generally, Kühner, § 493. 1, and especi- ally Schaefer, ad Dionys. Comp. p. 359. 5See on Matt. xii. 13, and Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 39 f. 6 Lassen in the Zeit. d. Deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. 1856, p. 329 f. ? In Iken’s nov. Thes. II. p. 638 ff. 8 De lingua Lycaon., Viteb. 1726. 272 CHAP. XIV., 12-16. in human form! belonged, at the instance of the myths of antiquity,* to the heathen popular belief, in which such conceptions survived as an echo of these ancient myths ;* although Baur (comp. Zeller) discovers here an imitation, in which the author of the Acts shows himself as ‘‘ acquainted with mythology.’’ Comp., moreover, the analogous conception which at- tached itself to the appearance of Pythagoras, of Apollonius of Tyana, and others. Such a belief was naturally rejected by philosophers ;° but just as naturally it lingered among the people (x). Ver. 12. The fact that Barnabas and Paul were declared to be Zeus and Hermes, is explained partly and primarily from the well-known provincial myth, according to which these gods were once hospitably entertained in the same regions by Philemon and Baucis;° but partly also from Zeus having a temple in front of the city, ver. 13, and from its being the office of Hermes, as the eloquent” interpreter ® and messenger of the gods,’ to ac- company his father when he came down to the earth." Paul was called Hermes, because, in contrast to his companion, it was he who was ‘ leader of the word’ (abröc qv 6 Hy x. T. A.), as Hermes was considered Oeöc 6 rov Probably also his more juvenile appearance and greater activity, compared with the calmer and older Barnabas, contributed to this ; but certainly not, as Neander conjectures, his insignificant bodily appear- ance ; for apart from the fact that this rests only on very uncertain tradition— in the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. p. 41, he is de- scribed as wixpöc TO weyéder, ıbıAöc THY kedarnv ayKbAo¢ Taic Kvipacc’? —Hermes is always represented as a handsome, graceful, very well-formed young man.** But certainly Barnabas must have had a more imposing appearance, kal ard THe Spewc, afiotpethc, Chrysostom. Ver. 13. Dut the priest, then officiating, of the Zeus, who is before the city, i.e. of the Zeus (xodebc), who had his seat in a temple in front of the city. iepov is not to be supplied, with Kuinoel and others," as rov Aröc is the genitive directly belonging to iepete ; but the expression row övroc xpd THE TOA. is explained from the heathen conception that the god himself is present in his temple, consequently is (övroc) at the place where his temple stands: hence the classical expressions rap’ Avi (ad fanum Jovis), rap’ "Hpn.'” Wolf thinks that it is spoken ‘‘de Jove, cujus, simulacrum, and so not templum, ante urbem erectum erat.’’ But mere statues had no special priests.'* It does not, however, follow from this passage, that there was also a temple of Jupiter in the city (Olshausen). — raipove kai or&unara] bulls and garlands. Adyov yyeuov." 1 Hom. Od. xvii. 485 ff. 2See also Niigelsbach, Homer. Theol. p. ® Apollod. iii. 10. 2. 10 Hygin. Poet. Astron. 34; Ovid. Fast. v. 158. 3 Comp. Themist. vii. p. 90, quoted by Wet- stein on ver. 12. 4 Valckenaer, p, 506. 5 Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C-E; Cic. de Harusp. 28. 6 Ovid Met. viii. 611 ff. 7 Vocis et sermonis potens, Macrob. Sat, 1.8. 8 Aoyov mpobnrns, Orph. H. 27. 4. 495. Comp. Walch, Diss. in Act. III. p. 173 ff. 11 Jamblich. de myster. Aeg. 1. 12 Comp. Malalas, Chronogr. x. Nicephor. H. E. iii. 37. 13 Comp. Müller, Archäol. § 379, 380. 14 See Bernhardy, p. 184 f. 15 Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 229. 16 See Valckenaer, Opusc. II. p. 295, and Schol. I. p. 509. p. 247; APOSTLES TAKEN FOR GODS. 273 ~ “Taurus tibi, summe Deorum,”’ Ovid. Metam. iv. 755. Beza, Calovius, Raphel, Erasmus Schmid, Palairet, Morus, Heinrichs, and others, have quite erroneously assumed a hendiadys for raupovc éoteuuévovc. This would come back to the absurd idea: bulls and, indeed, garlands.’ The destination of the garlands is, moreover, not to be referred to the deified apostles, in op- position to Grotius and Valckenaer, who, like statues,? were to have been adorned ; but to the animals that were to be adorned therewith at the com- mencement of the sacrifice, because the design of the garlands is inclu- ded in the zVere Siew. —éri toi¢ rvAdvac] to the gates, doors of the gate, namely, of the city. This reference is required by the correlation in which éxi tovg tvAdvac stands to tov dvto¢ mpd rc möRewc. The alleged incarnate gods were in the city, and therefore the sacrifice was to be brought at the gates of the city. The reference to the doors of the temple,‘ or of the house where the apostles lodged, is not in keeping with the context. Vv. 14, 15. ’Axovoavres] Perhaps an inhabitant already gained by them for Christ brought intelligence of the design. — dıappn£. r. inar. aur.] from pain and sorrow. See on Matt. xxvi. 65. Not: as doing penance for the blinded people, as Lange imagines. — éferjdycav] they sprang out from the gate, to which they had hastened from their lodging, among the multitude. The simple representation depicts their haste and eagerness.—ri raüra roveite ;] see on Luke xvi. 2. — kai nueic «.7.A.] evdénc Ex mpooıniwv avétpewav TO KaKdv, Chrysostom. — öuoıoradeic] of like nature and constitution.’— evayyerızöusvor . . « Cavra| contains what is characteristic of the otherwise öuororaveic iuiv : we who bring to you the message of salvation, to turn you from these vain, i.e. devoid of divine reality, gods, to the living, true God. evayyerız. does not thus mean cohortantes,° but retains its proper import; and the epexegetical in- finitive &miorp£oeıw states the contents of the joyful news. It may be cleared up by supplying deiv, but this conception is implied in the relation of the infinitive to the governing verb.7— rovrwv Tov uaraiov] masculine, not neuter, referring to the gods, present in the conception of the hearers, such as Zeus and Hermes, who yet are no real gods, 1 Cor. vili. 4 ff.— öc &moinoe] significant epexegesis of the Cavra, whereby the uaradérne of the polytheistic deification of the individual powers of nature is made very palpable. Comp. with the whole discourse the speech to the Athenians (‘‘sublimiora audire postulantes,’’ Bengel), chap. xvii. Vv. 16-18. Who in the past ages left the Gentiles to themselves, did not guide them by special revelation, although He withal made Himself known, doing good to them, by the blessings of nature—an indulgent description? of the ungodly character of the heathen, with a gently reproving reference to the revelation of God in nature. "Opa rüc Aavdavövrwc THY Katnyopiav Tid7OL, Chrysostom. Grotius aptly remarks: ‘‘Egregiam hic habemus formam 1See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856. Winer, 5 Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 45 C, Pol. p. 409 B, p. 585 (E. T. 786). comp. p. 464 D ; Jas. v. 17. 2 Comp. ep. Jerem. 9. ¢ Heinrichs and Kuinoel. 3Sce Wetstein and Dougtaens, Anal. p. 80 7 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 f. ; Kühner, ff. ; Hermann, goftesd. Alterth. § 24. 7. II. § 647, ad Xen. Anab. v. %. 34. 4 oi new iepot Tod vew muAwres, Plut. Tim. 12. 8 Comp. xvii. 30. 274 CHAP. XIv., 17-25. orationis, quam imitari debeant, qui apud populos in idololatria educatos evangelium praedicant.’’ '— raic ddoic] local * dative : in their ways.” What is meant is the development of the inward and outward life in a way shaped by themselves, without divine regulation and influence, and also without the intervention of the divine anger. Comp. Rom. iii. 10 ff., 1. 22 ff., where the whole moral abomination and curse of this relation is unveiled, whereas here only alluring gentleness speaks.*— kairoıye ovk audpr. K.T.2.] An indication that they, nevertheless, might and should have known Him.° Observe the relation of the three participles, of which the second is logically subordinate to the first, and the third to the second ; as doer of good, in that He gives you rain, thereby filling, ete.— obpavdder] not uselessly added. ‘‘Coelum sedes Dei,’’ Bengel. Observe also the individualizing ipiv (see critical remarks).— evopocivyc] joy generally. Arbitrarily, Grotius and Wolf suggest that® wine is meant.— räg kapdiac dur] neither stands for the simple bac, nor is it to be taken, with Wolf, of the stomach ;7 but the heart is ‚filled with food, inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the heart. Comp. Ps. civ. 15; Jas. v. 5.—rov um Siew auroic] comp. x. 47. The genitive depends on kar£ravcav, according to the construction karar. rıva rıvoc, to divert a person from a thing, to hinder him in it,® and w7 is the usual particle with verbs of preventing and hindering.’ Vv. 19-22. This unmeasured veneration was by hostile Jews who arrived (&77?%0v) from Antioch” and Iconium," transformed in the fickle multitude'? into a participation in a tumultuous attempt to kill Paul. Between this scene very summarily related and the preceding no interval is, according to the correct text (see critical remarks), to be placed, in opposition to Ewald. The mobile vulgus, that aoraYunrörarov mpaypya Tov aravrwv,'is at once carried away from one extreme to another. — kai reicavtec k,r.A.] and after they, the Jews who had arrived, had persuaded the multitude to be of their party, and stoned * Paul, the chief speaker ! they dragged him, etc. — kvrAucavrwv] not sepeliendi causa, Bengel, Kuinoel. and others,—a thought quite arbitrarily supplied ; but in natural painful sympathy the Lystrians who had been converted to Christ surrounded him who was apparently dead. — avaora¢ etonAvev eig T. m.) 18 certainly conceived as a miraculous result. — Ver 22. kai Ort K.7.A.] comp. ver. 27; but here so, that from rapaxadovvrec a kindred 1 Comp. Schneckenburger, die natiirl. Theol. d. Paul. in his Beitr. p. 97 fi. 2 See, generally, on the dativus localis, Becker, Homer. Blatter, 208 f. 3 Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18 ; Jude 11; Judith xiii. 16; Ecclus. xxxv. 20. 4The announcement of the gospel forms the great epoch in the history of salvation, with the emergence of which the times of men’s being left to themselves are fulfilled. See xvii. 30; Rom. iii. 25f. Comp also He- bart, natärl. Theol.d. Ap. Paul. p. 13. For judgment Jesus has come into the world. 5 Comp. Rom. i. 20, kairoıye, as in John iy. 2, quamquam quidem, and yet. Sce also Baeumlein, Partik. p. 245 ff.; and Kriiger, Dion. H. p. 267. 6 Ecclus. xxxi. 33. 7 Thue. II. 4972. 8 Hom. Od. xxiv. 457; Plat. Polit. p. 294 E; frequently in the LXX. ® Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 167 f. ; Baeum- lein, Z.c. p. 298 ff. 10 xiii. 14, 50. 11 vy. 1, 5, 6. 12 “ Ventosae plebis suffragia!*’ Hor. Zp. i. 19. 37. 13 Dem. 388, 5. 14 Consequently in the city. It was to bea dovos SnuddAevotos ev moAcı (Soph. Ant. 36). PAUL STONED. 275 verb (Aéyovrec) must be borrowed.! — dei] namely, ex deereto divino. Comp. ix. 16. — juac| we Christians must, through many afflictions, enter into the Messianic kingdom, fac. r. Ocov, to be established at the Parousia. Comp. Matt. x. 38; Rom. viii. 17 f. ; also the saying of Christ in Barnab. ep. 7: ot VERovric ue Ideiv Kk. GWaodai pov rc Bacıreiac dgeidover BAıßevrec K. TadévTeEC Aaßeiv we. ‘* Si ad vitam ingredi cupis, afflictiones quoque tibi necessario sufferendae-sunt.’’? That, moreover, the stoning here narrated is the same as that mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 25,* is necessarily to be assumed, so long as we cannot wantonly admit the possibility that the author has here inserted the incident known to him from 2 Cor. only for the sake of the contrast, or because he knew not a more suitable place to insert it; so Zeller. It is, however, an entirely groundless fancy of Lange, that the apparent death in vv. 19, 20 is what is*meant by the trance in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff. Ver. 28. Xerporovyoavres]| Erasmus, correctly : suffragüs delectos. The ecclesiastical offices were apyai xeıporovgrai or aiperai.* The analogy of vi. 2-6 requires this strict regard to the purposely chosen word, which, resting on the old method of choice by lifting up the hands, occurs in the N. T. only here and in 2 Cor. viii. 19,° and forbids the general rendering consti- tuebant,® or eligebant,’ so that the appointment would have taken place sim- ply by apostolic plenary power,* although the word in itself? might denote eligere generally without that special mode. Paul and Barnabas chose by vote presbyters for them, ö.e. they conducted their selection by vote in the churches.'® Entirely arbitrary and erroneous is the Catholic interpretation, that it refers to the yepo%ecia at the ordination of presbyters (L?). — kar’ éxkAnoiav| distributively.” Each church obtained several presbyters, xx. 17; Phil. i. 1.'3 — rpooev£. wera vnor.] belongs to rapéevro, not, as Kuinoel sup- poses, to yeıpor. See on xiii. 9. The committing™ of the Christians of those places to the Lord,commending them to His protection and guidance, which took place at the farewell,'* was done by means of an act of prayer combined with fasting. The Kipcoc is Christ, as the specific object of faith, tic bv rerıor., not God (de Wette). Vv. 25, 26. Tlöpyn] see on xiii. 13. — Attalia, now Adalia," was a sea- port of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the Catarrhactes, built by Attalys Philadelphus, king of Pergamus.'*—’ Avrioy.] They returned to Syria, to the 1 See Kühner. II. p. 605. Buttmann, nevt. Gr. p. 330 (E. 'T. 385). Comp. Krebs, p. 225. 2 Vajikra Rabba, f. 173, 4. 3 Comp. Clem. Cor. 1.5: Ac@ac@eis. 4 Hermann, Sfaatsalterth. § 148. 1. 5 See on that passage. 6 Vulgate, Hammond, Kuinoel, and many. 7 De Wette. 8 Lihe. 2 Comp. x. 41, Lucian. Philops. 12, al. 10 Comp. Calvin in loc.; Rothe, Anf. d. Christl. Kirche, p. 150; Neander, I. p. 203. Against Schrader, V. p. 543, who finds in the appointment of presbyters a Urrepov mporepor ; sce Lechler, apost. u.nachapost. Zeitalt. 358 f. On the essence of the matter, Ritscbl, altkatk. K. p. 363, correctly remarks that the choice was only the form of the recognition of the charisma and of subjection to it ; not the basis of the office, but only the medium, through which the divine gift becomes the ecclesiasti- cal office. Comp. on Eph. iv. 11. 11 See Cornelius a Lapide, and Beelen still, not Sepp. 12 See Bernhardy, p. 240. 13 See Rothe, p. 181 ff. 14 Comp. xx. 32. 15 See on maparıdevar, Kypke, II. p. 70. 16 Comp. xx. 32. 17 See Fellows, Travels in Asia Minor, p. 133 ff. 18 Strabo, xiv. 4, p. 667. 276 CHAP. XIV., 27, 28. mother church which had sent them forth. — éfev joav mapaded. k.7.2.] from which they were commended to the grace of God for (the object) the work which they had accomplished. fev denotes the direction outwards, in which the recommendation of the apostles to the grace of God had taken place at Antioch.’ Vv. 27. 28. Zwayay.] expressly for this object. Comp. xv. 30. Calvin observes well: ‘‘quemadmodum solent, qui ex legatione reversi sunt, ra- tionem actorum reddere.’’ — yer’ airav] standing in active connection with them.” As the text requires no deviation from this first and most natural rendering, both the explanation per ipsos* and the assumption of a Hebraism nivy with DY (Luke i. 72): quae ipsis Deus fecisset,* are to be rejected. — kal örı] and, in particular, that, etc. — iwoıfe Oipav rictewc] a figurative designation of admission to the faith in Christ. Corresponding is the figu- rative use of @ipain 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. iv. 3, of the fulfiill- ing of apostolic work ; comp. also eicodoc, 1 Thess. i. 9. — xp6vov ovK öAiyov] is the object of duérpiBov, as in ver. 3 ; they spent not a little time in intercourse with the Christians. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR, (a?) Iconium. V. 1. This city was situated about sixty miles eastward of Antioch, on the road between Ephesus and Syrian Antioch. In the middle ages it was celebrated as the capital of the Seljukian Sutans. It is at present a town of considerable importance ; retains its ancient name Konieh ; contains a population of 30,090 ; and is the capital of the Turkish province of Cancarania. It is de- scribed by travellers as a scene of destruction and decay, with heaps of ruins. Scarcely anything remains of ancient Iconium save a few inscriptions and fragments of columns and sculpture built into the walls. How it appeared in the time of Paul we know not ; but it was large and populous. ‘‘ The elements of its population would be as follows : a large number of trifling and frivolous Greeks, whose principal places of resort would be the theatre and the market- place ; some remains of a still older population, coming in from the country, or residing in a separate part of the town ; some few Roman officials, civil or mili- tary, holding themselves proudly aloof from the inhabitants of a subjugated province ; and an old settlement of Jews, who exercised their trade during the week, and met on the Sabbath to read the law in the synagogue.” Thither the two strangers, driven from Antioch by wicked, crafty, and violent opposition of the Jews, came in accordance with the injunction of the Master, that when rejected in one house or city, they should go into another. 1 See xiii. 3f. Comp. xv. 40. 3 Beza, Piscator, Heinrichs. 2 Comp. x. 38; Matt. xxviii. 20 ; also 1 Cor. 4 Calvin, de Dieu, Grotius, Kuinoel, and xv. 10; and Mark xvi. 20: tov Kupiov guvep- many others ; comp. also de Wette. syouvTos. NOTES. 277 ‘ (7) An assault made. V. 5. The word öpun, as explained by Meyer, does not mean just this ; but an im- petus or strong pressure, impulse or purpose. It implies here a state of mind of which some intimation was given: ‘‘ There was a strong feeling among them ” against the apostles—a movement of some kind. The success of the apostles in Iconium was very great ; a multitude both of Jews and Greeks be- lieved. They remained there several months. We have no account of what they preached ; but doubtless in the synagogues, and from house to house, they preached that Jesus was the Christ, and that through him, and him alone, could be obtained the forgiveness of sins. They also wrought many miracles, as attestations of their divine commission and of the truth of their doctrine. Their success, however, aroused the hostility of the Jews, who were ever jeal- ous of the old faith, and opposed to the admission of the Gentiles to like privileges with themselves. They looked upon Christianity, not as the out- growth and perfection of Judaism, but as its antagonistic rival ; hence their indignation at its success, and their embittered and continued hostility to its preachers. We are informed that the Jews sent out their emissaries every- where to circulate falsehoods concerning the Christians, and to stir up the Gen- tiles against them. Of the many persecutions mentioned in the Acts, all were caused by the Jews except two. Tradition says that Paul frequently preached long and late—that his enemies brought him before the civil authorities, charging him with disturbing their households by his sorcery, and greatly troubling the city. It is probable that here, as suggested by Hackett, that they insinuated that the preachers were dangerous men, and disloyal to the empire. In the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla there is a legend given concerning Paul’s visit to Iconium, the substance of which is this; that Thecla, who was _espoused to Thamyris, was deeply affected by the preaching of the apostle ; and when Paul was put in prison, accused of being a magician, she bribed the jailer, and was allowed to visit the prisoner, by whom she was more fully in- structed in the Christian faith, which she heartily adopted. She was con- demned to die because she refused to marry Thamyris, but was miraculously delivered ; joined Paul in his missionary journeys ; finally she made her home at Seleucea, where she lived the life of a nun, and died at the age of ninety years. The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives a portrait-description of the apostle’s per- son and physiognomy, which is by no means flattering. He is represented as “a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, stout, with eyebrows meet- ing, rather long-nosed, full of grace—for sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel.” Other accounts add that he had small, piercing gray eyes. His manner was singularly winning. ‘The poverty of the casket served to assist the lustre of the jewel it contained ; the ‘plainness of the setting called attention to the worth of the gem.” (3?) Cities of Lycaonia. V. 6. Eseaping threatened violence at Iconium, the apostles went into a wilder and less civilized region. The name, Lycaonia or Wolfland, indicates only too faithfully the character of the inhabitants. Few, if any, Jews were settled NOTES. 278 CHAP. XIV. there, and we read of no synagogue in either of the towns named. The re- gion is described as wild, rugged, mountainous ; an almost Alpine country, with numerous lakes and rivers, which, with the melting of the spring snows, become suddenly rapid and dangerous torrents ; the roads were bad, and in- fested with brigands. Lycaonia is an elevated table-land, a great part of which is unwatered and sterile, and described as a dreary plain, destitute alike of trees and fresh water. Ovid, writing of the place, says: * Where men once dwelt, a marshy lake is seen, And coots and bitterns haunt the waters green.” Neither Lystra nor Derbe were large cities or places of any great importance ; hence the apostles embraced the surrounding country and villages in their field of evangelistic labor. The difficulties and obstacles in the way of the apostles were very great. Yet with unwearied zeal they evangelized the whole region. To no part of Paul’s life would the account he vividly gives to the Corinthians of his personal experience more fitly apply than to his labors here: “In perils,’’ etc. (2 Cor. ii. 26). The sites of both Lystra and Derbe are uncertain. Lystra, however, has a post-apostolie history—the names of its bishops appearing in the records of early councils. It was the home of Timothy, who in all probability was converted under the preaching of Paul at this time. Here Paul performed a miracle in perfectly restoring, by a word, a man who had been a cripple from his birth. The people marvelled ; and believing the power to be divine, they thought that two of their pagan gods had appeared in the persons of the apostles. (kK?) Gods in the likeness of men. V. 11. It was a general belief, long after the Homeric age, that gods visited the earth in the form of men. Such a belief with regard to Jupiter would be natural in such an inland rural district as Lystra, which seems to have been under his special protection, as his image or temple stood in front of the city gates. And as Mercury was the messenger and herald of the gods, especially of Jupi- ter, it was natural that he should be associated with him. He was also the god of eloquence ; and as Paul was the chief speaker, they took him for Mer- cury ; and the more quiet, and perhaps the more aged, venerable, and majes- tic looking Barnabas, they regarded as Jupiter. “* Jove with Hermes came, but in disguise Of mortal men concealed their deities.” The pagan priests, true to the functions of their office, hasten to bring oxen and garlands of flowers to crown the victims and wreath the altars, to the tem- ple at the gates, within which Jupiter was supposed specially to dwell, and there to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. The apostles, when they ascer- tained what the people and priests were about to do, were horror-stricken. Rending their clothes, they rushed out among the people and expressed their abhorrence of the proposed service. We can well imagine with what impas- sioned earnestness and vehemence Paul uttered the address of which we have only an outline. He exclaims: ‘‘ We are not gods, but men of like nature and feelings as yourselves ; that these supposed gods whom ye worship are mere vanities, and their worship debasing. We have come to declare to you the NOTES. 279 one living and true God ; that this living God made all things, in heaven above, and in the earth beneath ; that this God has never left himself without a wit- ness in the munificent gifts of nature and the benevolent dealings of his gra- cious providence.” This clear and cogent address scarcely restrained the igno- rant and superstitious people from their impious act. What a contrast be- tween the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of Lystra! When a miracle similar to this was performed by Peter, he was not deified but imprisoned. The reality of the miracle was admitted, but the apostles were straitly threat- ened. The minds of the instructed rulers of the Jews were hardened and blinded by prejudice, and they reasoned against the truth ; the ignorant peo- ple at Lystra did not reason, but came at once to a conclusion, natural in their circumstances, which, though mistaken, rebukes the vaunted wisdom of the Jewish Sanhedrim. The people were disappointed in being hindered in their idolatrous design, and were all the more ready to listen to the vile insinuations and cruel instigations of those Jews who had, with evil purpose against the apostles, come from Antioch and Iconium. ‘The fickle and faithless Lyca- onians,’’ excited and ignorant, and easily duped, listened to the Jews, and were induced to stone Paul on the very place where but just now they were ready to worship him. A similar sudden change, but in a different direction, subsequently occurred at Malta, among the barbarous people, who first thought Paul a murderer, and then immediately afterward a god. What had only been purposed by the people at Iconium was perpetrated by the inhabitants of Lystra. It is observable that we read of no injury done to Barnabas. Paul's intenser zeal and fiery eloquence doubtless provoked their special ire. He who had approved and assisted at the stoning of Stephen is now himself stoned for the same cause. Some suppose Paul to have been really dead ; others that he was only stunned, It is clearly implied, however, that his res- toration was supernatural. As soon as Paul recovered his strength the apos- tles proceeded to Derbe, distant about twenty miles. Paul, in writing to Tim- othy many years afterward, reminds him of his knowledge of his own perse- eutions ‘ at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ;” andin his catalogue of sufferings given to the Corinthians is this instance: “Once was I stoned” (2 Cor. xi. 25, and 2 Tim. iii. 11). Paley, from the various references to this event, draws a forcible argument for the authenticity of the narrative by Luke: ‘‘ Had the assault [at Iconium] been completed , had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions ; or even had the account of this transaction stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were aware of their danger and fled, a contradiction between the history and the Epistles would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent ; but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.’’ (Horas Pauline, chap. IV. No. 9.) (1?) Chosen them elders. V. 23. The meaning of the word rendered chosen has been disputed. xeiporoveo, compounded of yeis, hand, and reivo, to stretch or extend, means to stretch out the hand. Robinson gives: to stretch out or hold up the hand, hence to vote; to appoint; as also Liddell and Scott, to vole for, to elect. Bloomfield says: 280 CHAP. XIV.—NOTES. « There is, indeed, no point on which the most learned have been so much agreed as this, that yeıporovjoavres here simply denotes having selected, consti- tuted, appointed. Alford says : ‘‘ The word will not bear the sense of laying on of hands,’’ and adds : ‘‘The apostles ordained the presbyters whom the churches elected.’’ Gloag says the word admits of two meanings, to choose by election, or simply to choose. Meyer adopts the first of these meanings. Gloag decidedly prefers the second, as does also Hackett, who says: ‘‘ That formality (election by extending the hand) could not have been observed in this instance, as but two individuals performed the act in question.” Abbott says the word is used ‘‘ as equivalent to select or appoint, and understands the declaration to be that the apostles appointed elders, without any indication whether the selection was made by themselves or first by the lay members of the church, and ratified by the apostles, or by the concurrent action of,the two.’’ While, as we learn from chap. vi., the seven were chosen by the whole church, it would appear, in this instance, that these elders were chosen by Paul and Barnabas alone. Clemens gives the following rule as handed down by tradition from the apos- tles : ‘‘ That persons should be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by approved men, the whole church consenting.” This is the second mention of elders in the Acts (xi. 30). ‘The ministers of the church were called mpeoßvrepor (elders), with reference to the Jewish element in the church ; and &riokomor (overseers), with reference to the Greek element.” (Gloag.) CRITICAL REMARKS, 281 CHAPTER XV. VER. 1. repıreuvnoße] ABCD NS, min. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. have mepırundire. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; and rightly, as the witnesses are so preponderating, and the reference of the aorist easily escaped the notice of the transcribers. — Ver. 2. oöv] Tisch. Born. read dé. The wit- nesses for de preponderate. — (nrnoews]) Elz. has ovgyrycews, in opposition to decisive testimony. From ver. 7. It is also in favour of (yr. that it is inserted in ver, 7, instead of ovöyr. inA,N, min. vss., which evidently points to the originality of Gr. in our passage. — Ver. 4. ared£yd.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, read rapedéy9., according to A B D** (D* has zapedößncav) N loti: These wit- nesses preponderate, and there are no internal reasons against the reading. — $70] Tisch. reads dzé, following only BC, min. — Ver. 7. &v nuiv] Lach. Tisch. read Ev juiv, according to A B C &, min. and several yss. and Fathers. But qty is Necessary ; and on this acconnt, and because it might easily be mechan- ically changed into juiv after the preceding ‘wes, it is to be defended on the considerable attestation remaining to it. -- Ver. 11. tod Kupiov ’Inooü] Elz. has Kupiov ’Inooö Xpıorov, against preponderating evidence. Whilst the article was omitted from negligence, Xpıcroö (which also Born. has) was added in order to complete the dogmatically important saying. — Ver. 14. to övönarı] so Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have em 76 övöu.,— an exegetical expansion, against preponderating evidence. — Ver. 17. After raura Elz. has ravra, which is wanting in A BC D 8, min. and many vss. and Fathers. From LXX. Amos ix, 12, and hence it also stands before raüra in E G, min.— Ver. 18, Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have only yrword ar’ aidvos, so that this must be attached to raöra in ver. 17. This reading appears as decidedly original, and so éorr ... avrov as decidedly interpolated : partly because BC &, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. vouch for the simple yrword am’ aidvos, and those authorities which have éorz . . avrov present a great number of variations ; partly because it was thought very natural to complete yvworä ar’ aidvos into a sentence, and to detach it from ver. 17, inasmuch as no trace of yyword ar’ aiwvos was found in Amos ix. 12 ; partly, in fine, because, if éo7: . . . abrov is genuine, ver. 18 contains a thought so completely clear, pious, and unexceptionable, so inoffensive, too, as regards the connection, and in fact noble, that no reason can be conceived for the omission of &orı . . , ajrov, and for the numerous variations in the words. Lachm. has yrwordy az’ aiovos ro Kupiw ro Epyav atrod, after A D, Arm. Vulg. Cant. Ir., which betrays a still later origin than the Recepta, as the genuine yrword am’ alövos first gave occasion to the casting of the sentence in the plural form, but afterwards, in order to bring forward the special reference to the £pyov in question of the conversion of the Gentiles, the change into the singular form was adopted. Matth. has entirely erased ver. 18, without evidence. — Ver. 20. kai roi rvırron] is, following Mill, erased by Born. as & later addition ; Ambrosiaster already explains the words as such, and, indeed, as proceeding from the stricter observance of the Greeks. But thev are only 252 CHAP. Xv., 1-4. wanting in D, Cant. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Pacian, Fulgent. Hier. Gaudent. Eucher. Ambrosiast., of whom several omit them only in ver. 29. The omission is ex- plained from Lev. xvii. 13, where the eating of things strangled generally is not forbidden, but only the pouring out of the blood is made a condition ; and from the laxer view of the Latins. After ver. 20 (so, too, in ver. 29 after xopveias), D, min. vss. and Fathers have the entirely irrelevant addition from Matt. vii. 12: kai 60a (or dca dv) un OéAwow Eavrois yiveotar, éTépors um moLeiv (roveire). — Ver. 22. éxcxad.] Lachm. has caAovuevor, also commended by Griesb., according to decisive evidence, and adopted by Tisch. and Born. Rightly : the former is an interpretation. — Ver. 23. kat of adeAgoi] A BC D S* lot. 13. Arm. Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have merely adeAdoi, which Lachm. and Born. have adopted.! But the omission of «ai of is on hierarchical grounds, for which reason also 34 Sahid. have omitted kai of adeAgoi entirely. — Ver. 24. Aéyovres mepit. k. rmpeiv Tov vouov is wanting in AB DNS, lot. 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. Vigil. Bed«. Besides variations in detail. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Probably a gloss ; yet it remains surprising that it was drawn not from ver. 1, but from ver. 5, and so freely. Besides, Agyovres ... voMON might be easily passed over after SMQN. — Ver. 25. éxAega- wevovs] A B Gmin. read éxAcSauévars. So Lachm. A stylistic correction. — Ver. 28. Instead of tév Eravayk. rovrwv is to be written, with Lachm., according to preponderating evidence, tovtwy rov éx. ; Tisch. has erased rovrwv, yet only after A and some min. and Fathers. — Ver. 30. 72@ov] Lachm. and Born. read xat7A9ov, which is so decidedly attested (ABC DS) that it may not be derived from ver. 1. The compounds of épyeofuc were often neglected. — Ver. 33, anoo- reiAavras abrovs] Elz. reads arooroAovs, contrary to A B C DNS, min. and several vss. and Fathers. A more precisely defining addition, which, taken into the text, supplanted the original. — After ver. 33, Elz. Scholz, Born. have (ver. 34) : &dofe 0? TO Lida Erıueivaı abtod, to which D and some vss. and Cassiod. add: uövos dt ’Iovdas éxopevOn (so Bornemann), Condemned by Mill, Griesb. Matthaei, also deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., according to A B E GH &, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and several vss. A hasty addition on account of ver. 40.— Ver. 37. &3ovAevcaro] Lachm. reads é3ovAeT0, which also Griesb. recommended, after AB CE, min. Born., following D, reads &dovAevero. While the two verbs are frequently (comp. on v. 33) interchanged, é3o0vAeto is here to be pre- ferred on account of its far preponderant-attestation. — Ver. 40.0.0] ABD, min. vss, have Kvpiov. So Lachm. Tisch, also Born., who only omits tod, following D*. Oevö is from xiv. 26. Vv. 1, 2. The Jewish-Christian opinion, that the Gentiles could only in the way of circumcision and observance of the law—that is, in the way of Jewish Christianity—obtain the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, was by no means set aside by the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles, which had so successfully taken place since the conversion of Cornelius. On the contrary, it was too closely bound up with the whole training and habit of mind of the Jews, especially of those who were adherents of the Pharisees,* not to have presented, as the conversions of the Gentiles 1 Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. u. 2 Comp. Ewald, p. 464 f. Krit. 1860, p. 358. DELEGATES SENT TO JERUSALEM. 283 increased, an open resistance to the freedom of the Gentile brethren from the law,—a freedom which exhibited itself in their whole demeanour to the scandal of the strict legalists, —and to have made the question on which it hinged the most burning question of the time. This opposition—the most fundamental and most dangerous in the apostolic church, for the overcoming of which the whole further labour of a Paul was requisite— emerged in the very central seat of Gentile Christianity itself at Antioch ; whither some! from Judaea, tov remiorevxdtwv ard r7c aipéoewe TOV Papıcalwv,? came down with this doctrine : [fye shall not have been circumcised (xepitund., see the critical remarks) according to the custom ordered by Moses, and so have taken upon you the obligation of obedience to the whole law, Gal. v. 3, ye cannot obtain the salvation in Christ! (M?).—ordcewg® x. Cyrioewc ;* division and disputation. — itafav| namely, the adeAgoi, ver. 1, the Christians of Antioch, comp. ver. 3. — Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Chris- tianity ; here the apostles had their abode, who, along with the presbyters of the church, occupied for the Christian theocracy a position similar to that of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Grotius. The recognition of this on the part of Paul is implied in Gal. ii. 1, 2.— kai twac dddove & abrov] among whom, according to Gal. ii. 1, was Titus, not named at all in the Acts, un- less Paul voluntarily took him as companion, which is more suitable to the expression in Gal. ii. 1. — We may add that the commission of the church, under which Paul made the journey, is by no means excluded by the state- ment: kara arokdAviuv, Gal. ii. 2; see on Gal. l.c. Subtleties directed against our narrative may be seen in Zeller, p. 224 f. — Gyrnua, quaestio, i.e. question in dispute, in the N. T. only in the Book of Acts; often in Greek writers. Ver. 3. Ilporeupߣvrec] after they were sent forth, deducti, i.e. escorted for a part of the way.° Morus and Heinrichs: ‘‘rebus ad iter suscipiendum necessarjis instructi.’’ That, however, must have been suggested by the context, as in Titus iii. 13. The provision with necessaries for the journey is understood of itself,® but is not contained in the words. — roi¢ adeAdoic| They caused joy by their visit and by their narratives, not only to the Jewish-Christians,’ but to all. Vv. 4, 5. Iaped£x@noav (see the critical remarks) denotes, in keeping with the delegation in ver. 2 f., the reception, i.e. the formal receiving of the delegates as such.” Observe the prefixing of éxxAyoia ; comp. Phil. i. 1. — pet aurov]) see on xiv. 27; comp. di avrov, ver. 12. — Ver. 5 belongs to the narrative of Luke, who here records as worthy of remark, that at the very first meeting of the delegates with the church receiving them, the very same thing was maintained by some who rose up in the assembly (éfavéoryo.), 1 According to Epiphan. Haer. 26, Cerin- 5 Comp. 3 John 6; Herod. i. 111, viii. 124, thus is supposed to have been among them. 126; Plat. Menex. p. 236 D; Soph. O. C. 1663. 2 As Syr. p. has on the margin, and codd. 8. 6 Although the travellers, on account of the 137 in the text, as a certainly correct gloss, hospitality of the churches, which they visited see ver. 5. by the way, certainly needed but little, 3 xxiii. 7,10; Soph. ©. R. 634. 7 Heinrichs. 4 xxv. 20; John iii. 25. 8 Comp. 2 Macc. iv. 22. 284 CHAP. XY., 9-11. and was opposed (dé) to the narration of Paul and Barnabas öoa 6 Oeb¢ éxoince pet’ aurov, as had been brought forward by Jews at Antioch and had occa- sioned this mission. Those mentioned in ver. 1, and those who here came forward, belonged to one and the same party, the Pharisee-Christians, and therefore ver. 5 is unjustly objected to by Schwanbeck. Beza, Piscator, Wakefield, and Heinrichs put ver. 5 into the mouth of the delegates ; holding that there is a rapid transition from the oblique to the direct form, and that &Aeyov is to be supplied after é£avéor. dé. A harsh and arbitrary view, as the change in form of the discourse must naturally and necessarily have been suggested by the words, as in i. 4 and xvii. 3. That the depu- tation had already stated the object of their mission, was indeed self- evident from azedéyOyoav, and hence it was not requisite that Luke should particularly mention it. —aitotc] namely, the Gentile-Christians, as those to whom the narrative éca 6 Oeöc Er. u. ait. had chiefly reference ; not the rwac äAAovc, ver. 2,1 which is erroneously inferred from Gal. ii. — They must be circumcised, ete., has a dictatorial and hierarchical tone. Ver. & The consultation of the apostles and presbyters concerning this assertion (repi tov Aöyov rovrov, see ver. 5) thus put forward here afresh, was not confined to themselves — Schwanbeck, who here assumes a confusion of sources — but took place in presence, and with the assistance, of the whole church assembled together, as is evident from ver. 12, comp. with ver. 22, and most clearly from ver. 25, where the aröoroAoı kai of tpecBitepos Kai ol adeAool ver. 23, write of themselves: éofev num yevouévorc duofvuaddv. Against this it has been objected that no place would have sufficed to hold them, and therefore it is maintained that only deputies of the church took part ;* but this is entirely arbitrary, as the text indicates nothing of such a limitation, and the locality is entirely unknown to us. — This assembly and its trans- actions are not at variance with Gal. 11. 1 ff., in opposition to Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, where, indeed, they are presupposed as known to the readers by avroic in ver. 2, as well as by ver. 3 and ver. 5. Hofmann, N. T.. 1. p. 126, judges otherwise, but by a misinterpretation of Gal. ii. 4 ff. The words kar’ idiav dé roic doxovor, Gal. ii. 2; betoken a separate dis- cussion, different from these public discussions? (n?). Ver. 7. IoAAnc de ovlyricewc yevouévyc] These were the preliminary debates in the assembly, before Peter, to whom the first word belonged, partly by reason of his apostolic precedence, partly and especially because he was the first to convert the Gentiles, rose up and delivered a connected address. * In this previous 70447 ov£nrnoıc may have occurred the demand for the cir- cumcision of Titus, indirectly mentioned in Gal. ii. 3. See on Gal. l.c. — ag’ nuspov apxaiov] does not point to the conversion of Cornelius as to some- thing long since antiquated and forgotten.° But certainly that selection of 1 Lekebusch. 2 Mosheim, de reb. Christ. ante Const. M. p. 117, Kuinoel, Neander. 3See on Gal. /.c. ; comp. also Lekebusch, p. 294 ff. ; Lechler, p. 398 ff. ; Ritschl, alikath. EK. p. 150; Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch. p. 86 ff. ; Oertel, p. 232 #. 4There is no further mention of Peter in the Book of Acts.—-The reference to the con- version of Cornelius 1s introduced, according to Baur, simply in pursuance of the consistent plan of the author, who makes Peter thus speak after the manner of Paul. 5 Baur, I. p. 91, ed. 2. PETER’S ADDRESS. 285 Peter as the first converter of the Gentiles, viewed in relation to the entire period, during which Christianity had now existed, dated from ancient days, Acts. x. 11. — év juiv E£eAkfaro «.7.A.] He made choice for Himself among us, that by my mouth, etc. Hence éué is not to be supplied, as Olshausen, fol- lowing older commentators, holds. Others—Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Hein- richs, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, and many others—unnecessarily take év juiv for jac as a Hebraism in accordance with 2 %N2.! Beza aptly says : ‘‘ habito inter nos delectu voluisse.’? — Luke has the word ebayyéavov only here and in xx. 24, not at all in the Gospel. John also has it not. Vv. 8-10. God who knows the heart, who thus could not be deceived in the matter,* has, in reference to this their admission effected by my instru- mentality into the fellowship of the gospel and of faith (ver. 7), done two things. He has (a) positively borne matter-of-fact witness for them, to their qualification for admission, by His giving to them the Holy Spirit, as to us ;* and (0) negatively, He made in no way distinction between us and them, after He by faith, of which He made them partakers through the gospel, had purified their hearts, God would have made such a distinction, if, after this ethical‘ purification of the heart effected by faith, He had now required of them, for their Christian standing, something else, namely, circumcision and other works of the law; but faith, by which He had morally purified their inner life, was to Him the sole requisite for their Christian standing without distinction, as also with us. Observe on (a), that dove avroic k.r.A. is contempororaneous with &uaprupnoev, expressing, namely, the mode of it; and on (0), that r. 7. xafapicac is previous to the ovdév diéxpive. This is evi- dent from the course of the speech, as the faith must have been already present before the communication of the Spirit.°— Ver. 10. Accordingly as the matter now stands (viv obv). — ri meıpalere Tov Ocdv ;] i.e. why do ye put it to the test, whether God will abandon His attestation of non-observance already given to the Gentiles, or assert His punitive power against human resistance? ‘‘ Apostrophe ad Pharisäos et severus elenchus,’’ Bengel. — éxifeivat| with the design to impose, ete. — Cvyév] comp. Gal, v. 1, and Chry- sostom in loc. : ro Tov Cvyov ovöuarı Td Bap Tov mpayuaroc, of the complete ob- servance of the law, auroic évdeixvura. Contrast to this yoke : Matt. xi. 29, 30. — oi mar£pec nu] since the time of Moses. Ver. 11. ’AA@2a] A triumphant contrast to the immediately preceding öv obre of marépec muav ovTe music loxvo. Baor. — dia THC yap.t. Kup. ’I.]® Not elsewhere used by Peter. In triumphant contrast to the yoke of the law, it is here placed first. — kaf’ dv rpörov kakeivor] sc. riorevovoı cwbpvat dıa THC The éxeivoc are the Gentile-Christians, to whom the Others, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, and many older yapitog Tov Kup. 'Inoov. whole debate relates. 14 Sam. xvi. 9, 10; 1 Kings viii. 16; 1 Chron, xxviii. 4,5; Neh. ix. 7, and the LXX. at those places. So also Ewald. 2 Comp. 1. 24. 3 Comp. x. 44, x1. 15 ff. 4 Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 321, thinks that it is in the ceremonial sense, so that the idea only allusively passes over into that of ethical cleansing. But ras kapdias points only to the moral sphere. Comp. Weiss himself, p. 274 f. This moral cleansing presupposes, moreover, the reconciliation appropriated by faith; see 1 Pet. 1. 18. 5 Comp. xi. 17. 6 Comp. Rom. v. 15, i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. 1, 2, xiii. 18 ; Eph. i.2; Phil. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 2, 286 CHAP. XY., 12-17. commentators, following Augustine, against Pelagius, make it apply to mar£peg yuov. Incorrectly, as the salvation of the Jewish fathers, servati ‚Fuerunt is supplied, is quite alien from the question concerning the owrnpia of the Gentile-Christians here. But the complete equalization of both parties is most fitly brought out at the close; after its having been pre- viously said, they as well as we, it is now said, we as well as they. Thus the equalizing is formally complete.—That Peter in the doctrine of the right- eousness of faith was actually as accordant with Paul as he here expresses himself, is, in opposition to Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, to be inferred even from Gal. ii. 15 ff., where Paul acknowledges his and Peter’s common conviction, after he had upbraided the Jatter, ver. 14 for the inconsistency of his conduct at Antioch.! 7 Ver. 12. The result of this speech was that the whole assembled multi- tude (mäv 76 mAndoc) was silent, so that thus a new ov/jryo:c did not begin, and the agitation of the opponents was set at rest. A happy beginning for the happy issue. Now Barnabas and Paul could without contradiction confirm the view of Peter by the communication of their own apostolic experiences among the Gentiles, —Barnabas jirst, on account of his older and closer relation to the church. Comp. on ver. 25. — onueia k. r£para] Comp. generally also Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12, hence so much the less improbable (Zeller). Ver. 13. When these had finished speaking (o:yjoa), James, not the son of Alphaeus, but the brother of the Lord (xii. 17), a strict legalist, and highly esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, delivered his address having reference to these matters (azexpi7). He first confirmed, by a prophetic testimony, the divine call of the Gentiles brought into promi- nence by Peter, vv. 13-17, and then made his conciliatory proposal for the satisfaction of both parties— in concise, but all the more weighty language (0°). Vv. 14-17. Zvueöv] formed after the Hebrew }\YDW,? while the more usual Ziuwv* corresponds to the Rabbinical }1n°d. In the Talmud also both forms of the name are used side by side. Moreover, the original name of Peter was still the current one in the church of Jerusalem.‘ We are not to think of any intentional use of it in this passage, that Peter was not here to be regarded according to his apostolic dignity, Baumgarten. — éreoxéy. AaB. && iv. Aadv To dv. aurov] he looked to, took care for, the receiving from the Gentiles a people for His name, i.e. apeople of God, a people that bore the name of God as their ruler and proprietor. ‘‘Egregium paradoxon,’’ Bengel.*— Ver. 15. rotrw] neuter: and with this, namely, with this fact expressed by Aaßeiv & ever x.7.A., agree, ete. — kadoc yéyparta| He singles out from the Aoyoi rov mood. a passage, comp. xx. 35, in conformity with which that agreement takes place, namely, Amos ix. 11, 12, quoted freely by Luke after the LXX. Amos predicts 1 Comp. on Gal. /.c. ; also Baumgarten, p. 3 1 Chron. iv. 20. 430 f. ; Lekebusch, p. 300 ff. 4 Comp. on Luke xxiv. 34. a2 Petit. 1; LXX. Gen.) xxix. 838; Luke ii. 5 Comp. xviii. 10; Rom. ix, 24-26. 25, iii. 30; Acts xili. 1; Rev. vii. 7. ADDRESS OF JAMES. 287 the blessed Messianic era, in which not only the Davidic theocracy, fallen into decay by the division of the Kingdom, will be again raised up, ver. 16, but also foreign nations will join themselves to it and be converted to the worship of Jehovah. According to the theocratic character of this prophecy, it has found its Messianic historical fulfilment in the reception of the Gentiles into Christianity, after that thereby the Davidic dominion, in the higher and antitypical sense of the Son of David (Luke i. 32), was re-established? — yeré taira] Hebrew and LXX, : év 7H juépa éxeivy. The meaning is the same : after the pre-Messianic penal judgments, in the day of the Messianic restoration. — dvacrpéyw Kai avorxodoujow| Jehovah had withdrawn from His people ; but now He promises by the prophet : I will return and build again the fallen, by desolation, taber- nacle of David. Many assume the well-known Hebraism: iterwm (NS) aedificabo. This would only be correct were MVUN in the original ; but there stands only D’'PS, and in the LXX. only avacrjow; and the idea of iterum is very earnestly and emphatically presented by the repetition of ävorkod. and by avop#. — ryv oxnviv Aavid] The residence of David, the image of the the- ocracy, is represented as a torn down and decayed tabernacle, ‘* quia ad mag- nam tenuitatem res ejus redactae erant,’? Bengel. — örwc] not the result, but the design, with which what is promised in ver. 16 is to take place.— oi kararoıroı rov aup.] i.e. the Gentiles. The LXX., who certainly had before them another reading (MT AX DIN DANY wrt 13799), deviate consider- ably from the original text, which runs: DIS WINNS wT 1399, that they may possess the remainder of Edom ; the remainder, for Amaziah had again subdued only a part of it, 2 Kings xiv. 7. As xai mavra ta vn k.7.A. fol- lows, James might have used even these words, as they are in the original, for his object,’ and therefore no set purpose is to be assumed for his having given them according to the reading of the LXX. Perhaps they were only known to him and remembered in that reading ; but possibly also they are only rendered in this form by Luke, or the Greek document used by him, without being so uttered by James, who spoke in Hebrew. — xai rävra ra &dvn k.7.2.] kai after oi karaA. r. avip. is neeessarily explicative, and indeed, and the emphasis of this more precise definition lies on zavra ; but the fol- lowing éo’ vic has an argumentative purpose: they upon whom, i.e. seeing that, indeed, upon all the Gentiles, etc. — é' ob¢ érixéxA. T. dv. wov] quite a He- brew expression :? upon whom co oy . . « WR) is named, is uttered as nam- ing them, my name, namely, as the name of their Lord, after whom they are designated, so that they are called ‘‘ God’s people.’** They have the name already, inasmuch as the predicted future * is conceived as having already taken place, and as existing, in the counsel of God ; a praeteritum prophe- 2) ticum, as in Jas. v. 2,3. The view, in itself inadmissible, of Hitzig and 1 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1. p. 456. kakeıv as denoting an accessory naming, comp. 2Gesenius, 7’es. III. p. 1282. especially Herod. viii. 44 (obvonagönevor . . . 3The Greek would say: ot xexAnvraı (or EererAn@noav). Comp.Jas. ii. 7; Deut. xxviii. Emırexinvraı) TO Svoua pov, OF ols KexAnTat TO 10; Isa.)xiii. 19 ; Jer. xiv. 9; Dan. ix. 19; Bar. Övona mov, Or even Eb’ ols kerAnrarı 7. 6. u. On ii. 15; 2 Macc. viii. 15. erıxakeiv, to be distinguished from the simple 4 Comp. Rom. ix. 25 f. 288 CHAP. Xv., 18-20. others: “over whom my name, asthat of their conqueror, has been formerly named,” was certainly not that of James. — én’ auroöc] is here to be ex- plained not from the Greek use of the repetition of the pronoun,! but as an imitation of the Hebrew.? — 6 roıöv tavta yrwora ar’ aidvoc| Such is to be considered as the original text ; the other words, ver. 18, are to be deleted. See the critical remarks. The Lord who does these things, the rebuilding of the theocracy and the conversion of all Gentiles designed by it—known from the beginning. The yvoora ax’ aiavoc added to the prophetic words are not to be considered as the speaker’s own significant gloss accompanying the pro- phetic saying, for such a gloss would not have been so directly or so curtly added ; but as part of the scriptural passage itself. The words must at that time either have belonged to the original text, as it presented itself to James, or to the text of the LXX., as Luke gives it, or to both, as areading which is now no longer extant ;* whereas there is now at the conclusion of ver. il ody YD (LXX.: cafe ai nuepaı Tov aidvoc). — yrwora] equivalent to yvocra övra, and therefore without an article. By whom they were known from the beginning, is evident from the context, namely, by God who ac- complishes them (ro:öv) in the fulness of time. He accordingly carries into effect nothing, which has not been from the beginning evident to Him in His consciousness and counsel ; how important and sacred must they conse- quently appear! As Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ ab aeterno scivit ; quare non debemus id tanquam novum et mirum fugere.’’ Erroneously de Wette ren- ders: what was known of old, through the prophets. Opposed to this is ar’ alövoc, which also means from the very beginning in iii. 21 and Luke i. 70; and how unimportant and superfluous would the thought itself be ! : Vv. 19, 20 (29). "Eyö] For my part I vote. — rapevoyieiv] to trouble them withal, at their conversion.* — érioteiAa abtoic tov ar&xeodaı] to despatch a writing to them® that they should abstain—aim of the Emıoreilar. — ard Tov aAtoynudtwv| may be referred either to ror eidoiwov only, or to all the follow- ing particulars. The latter, as aro is not repeated with r7c mopveiac, is the more natural : therefore : from the pollutions, which are contracted through idols and through fornication, ete. arioynua, from the Alexandrian adoyeiv, polluere,° is a word entirely foreign to the other Greck ; therefore Hesychius explains it merely in reference to its present connection with rov eidwAwv : aAıoynuarwv' THC peTaAHWews TOV wapav Bvorwv. — rov eidddAwv| What James meant by the general expression, ‘‘pollutions of idols,’’ was known to his hearers, and is evident from ver. 29, where the formally composed decree required as unambiguous a designation as possible, and there- fore eidwiofirwv is chosen; hence: pollutions occasioned by partaking of the flesh of heathen sacrifices (Ex. xxxiv. 45). The Gentiles were accus- 1 Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 109 f. ; Göttling, ad. Callim. p. 19 f. 2 Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 240 f. (E. T. 280). 3 Comp. Ewald, p, 4%2, who would, how- ever, read yvworov an’ aiwvos TO Epyov avrov, 4Dem. 242. 16; Polyb. i. 8. 1, iii. 58. 6s Plut. Timol. 8; frequently also in the LXX., both with the dative and the accusative. 5 Heb. xiii. 22 ; often with Greek writers, see Loesner, p. 207. 6 LXX. Dan. i. 8; Mal.i. 7, 12; Ecclus. xl. 29; Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 145; Korai on Jsocr. D. 299. ADDRESS OF JAMES. 289 tomed to consume so much of the sacrificed animals as was not used for the sacrifice itself and did not belong to the priests, in feasts, in the temple or in their houses, or even to sell it in the shambles.! Both modes of partaking of flesh oflered in sacrifice, for which the Gentile- Christians had opportunity enough either by invitations on the part of their heathen friends or by the usual practice of purchase, were to be avoided by them as fellowship with idolatry, and thus as polluting Christian sanctity. — xai tie mopveiac] As in the decree, ver. 29, the same expression is repeated without any more precise definition, and a regulative ordinance, particularly in such an important matter, proceeding from general collegiate delibera- tion, presupposes nothing but unambiguous and well-known designations of the chief points in question ; no other explanation is admissible than that of fornication generally,*? and accordingly all explanations are to be discarded, which assume either a metaphorical meaning or merely a single form of ropveia ; namely: (1) that it denotes figuratively idolatry, and that merely the indirect idolatry, which consists in the partaking of eidwAobitwr, so that rov &idwA. and t7¢ wopv. form only one point—so, entirely opposed to the order in ver. 29, Beza, Selden, Schleusner ; (2) that it is the fornication practised at the heathen festivals, so Morus, Dindorf, Stolz, Heinrichs ; (3) that the ropvix7 Avoia is meant, the gains of prostitution offered in sacrifice, Heinsius and Ittig ; or (4) the ‘‘actus professionis meretriciae, in fornice stantis viri vel mulieris mercede pacta prostitutae et omnium libidini patentis,’’ Salmasius ; or (5) the coneubinage common among the Gentiles, Calvin ; or (6) the nuptiae intra gradus prohibitos,* incest ;* or (7) marriage with a heathen husband ;° or (8) deuterogamy.° Bentley has even recourse to conjectural emendation, namely, yorpefac or roprelac (swine’s flesh). Such expedients are only resorted to, because all the other particulars are not im- moral in themselves, but adıaoopa, which only become immoral through the existing circumstances. But the association of roprveia with three adiaphora is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which. fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favour, nay, practised without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a) thing really indifferent.’ Compare the system of Hetaerae in Corinth, 1 See on 1 Cor. viii. 1; also Hermann, got- tesd. Alterth. § xxviii. 22-24. 2 But that the apostles had here in viewa sanctification of marriage by the cognizance or approval of the rulers of the church, so that the germ of the ecclesiastical nuptial ceremony is to be found here, is very arbi- trarily assumed by Lange, apost. Zeitalt. IL. p. 185. 3 Lightfoot, comp. Hammond. 4 Gieseler in Staeudlin and Tzschirner’s Archiv. IV. p. 812; Baur, I. p. 162, ed. 2; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 129; Zeller, p. 246; Sepp, and others; also Wieseler, who, however, on Gai. p. 149, takes it generally, and only treats incest as included. 5 Hering in the Bibl. nov. Brem. IV. p. 289 ff. Teller. 6 Schwegler, nachapost Zeitalt. I. p. 127. 7 That even among the heathen the sinful- ness of sexual abuse was recognised (as Hof- mann, heil. Schr. N. 7'. I. p. 131, objects), makes no difference as regards the whole of their moral attitude and tendency. Voices of earnest and thoughtful men in Greece and Rome were raised against ail vices. Hofmann attaches to the notion of ropveia: a width which the word, as actually used, has not: “Unbridledness of natural sexual conduct, which neither knows nor desires to know 290 CHAP. XV., 20. Rome, etc., and the many forms of the worship of Aphrodite in the Greek world.! Baumgarten, Ewald, Bleek, Weiss have with reason retained the proper and in the N. T. prevailing literal sense of ropveia. — kal tov mvıkrov] i.e. the flesh of such beasts as are killed by strangling, strangulation by snares, and the like, and from which the blood is not let out.” This is based on Lev. xvii. 13, 14, Deut. xii. 16, 23, according to which the blood was to be let out from every hunted animal strangled, and without this letting out of blood the flesh was not to be eaten.* That the prohibition here refers to Roman epicurism (e.g. to the eating of fowls suffocated in Falernian wine), is very inappropriately assumed by Schneckenburger, especially considering the humble position of most of the Gentile-Christians. — kai rov aiuaroc] denotes generally any partaking of blood, in whatever form it might be found.* The prohibition of eating blood, even yet strictly observed by the Jews,° is not to be derived from the design of the lawgiver to keep the people at a distance from all idolatry—as is well known, the sacrificing Gentiles ate blood and drank it mingled with wine °—or from sanitary con- siderations, but from the conception expressly set forth in Gen. ix. 6, Lev. xvii. 11, xiii. 14, Deut. xii. 23, 24, that the blood is that which contains ‘‘ the soul of all flesh.’? On this also depended the prohibition of things strangled, because the blood was still in them, which, as the vehicle of life, was not to be touched as food, but was to be poured out,” and not to be profaned by eating.® The very juxtaposition of the two points proves that Cyprian, Tertullian, and others,® erroneously explain aiua of homicidium. With the deep reverence of the Hebrews for the sanctity of blood was essentially connected the idea of blood-sacrifice ; and therefore the prohibition of partaking of blood, in respect of its origin and importance—it was accom- panied with severe penalties—was very different from the prohibition of un- clean animals. !° The following general observations are to be made on ver. 20 compared with ver. 29:—1. The opinion of James and the resolution of the assembly is purely negative; the Gentile brethren were not to be sub- jected to rapevoyieiv, but they were expected merely azéyeofa, and that from four matters, which according to the common Gentile opinion were regarded as indifferent, but were deeply offensive to the rigidly legal Jewish-Christians. The moral element of these points is here accordingly left entirely out of account; the design of the prohibition refers only to the legal strictness of the Jewish-Christians, between whom and the moral restriction.” Thus the word, in his witnesses in favour of these words. view, applies not only to sexual intercourse in relationship, but also to sexwal conduct in marriage (9. Grotius tm loc., Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29, 13 ff. 1 See also on 1 Cor. vi. 12. 2 The omission of cat trod mvırrov in D and Fathers, though approved by Bornemann (here and in ver. 29), can only be regarded as a copyist’s error occasioned by Homoioteleuton (kat Tov... kat Tod). So decisive are the 3 Comp. Schoettgen in loc. 4 Ley. iii. 17, vii. 26, xvii. 10. xix.26 ; Deut. xii. 16,.23 f., xv. 23. 5 Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 262 f. 6 Michaelis, Mos. R. IV. § 206. 7 Lev. xvii. 13; Deut. xii. 15 ff. ® See Ewald, Alterth. pp. 51, 197; Delitzsch, bibl. Psych. p. 242 f£. 9 See Wolf in loc. 10 Comp. also Bahr, Symbol. II. p. 240. THINGS FORBIDDEN. 291 Gentile-Christians the existing dispute was to be settled, and the fellow- ship of brotherly intercourse was to be provisionally restored. The "Gentile-Christian, for the avoidance of offence towards his Jewish brother, was to abstain as well from that which exhibited the fundamental char- acter of heathenism — pollutions of idols and fornication'—as from those things by which, in the intercourse of Christian fellowship, the most important points of the restrictions on food appointed by God for Israel might be prematurely overthrown, to the offence of the Jewish-Christians. —-2. That precisely these four points are adduced, and neither more nor other, is simply to be explained from the fact, that historically, and according to the experience of that time, next to circumcision these were the stumbling-blocks in ordinary intercourse between the two sec- tions of Christians; and not, as Olshausen and Ebrard, following many ‚older commentators, suppose,* from the fact that they were accustomed to be imposed on the proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts of Noah,’ and that the meaning of the injunction is, that the Gentile- Christians had no need to become proselytes of righteousness by circum- cision, but were only obliged to live as proselytes of the gate, or at least were to regard-themselves as placed in a closer relation and fellowship to the Jewish people (Baumgarten). Were this the case, we cannot see why the decree should not have attached itself more precisely and fully to the Noahic precepts,‘ to which not a single one of the‘four points expressed belonged ; and therefore the matter has nothing at all in common with the proselytism of the gate.°— 3. That the proposal of James, and the decree drawn up in accordance with it, were to have no permanent force as a rule of conduct, is clear from the entire connection in which it arose. It was called forth by the circumstances of the times; it was to be a compromise as long as these circumstances lasted ; but its value as such was extin- guished of itself by the cessation of the circumstances—namely, as soon as the strengthening of the Christian spirit, and of the Christian moral freedom of both parties, rendered the provisional regulation superfluous. ° Therefore Augustine strikingly remarks (c. Manich. 32.13): ‘* Hlegisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequaquam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentes propter angularem illum lapidem duos in se condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo illi duo parietes, unus de eircumeisione alter de praeputio venientes, guamvis in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distine- tius eminebant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appareat : quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, 1 Comp. on the latter, Rom. i. 21 ff. phemy ; (3) murder ; (4) incest ; (5) robbery ; 2 Comp. also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 1295 (6) disobedience to magistrates ; (7) partaking Wieseler, p. 185; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. of flesh cut from living animals. Christenth. p. 571 f. 6’ Comp. also Oertel, p. 249; Hofmann, A. 3 See the same in Sanh. 56 @ } ; Maimo- Schr. d. N. T.1.p. 128 ff. nides, Tr. Melach. 9. 1. 6° Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 138 f. 4 These forbade: (1) idolatry; (2) blas- 292 CHAP. xa, AL si manu a cervice percussus nullo eruento vulnere occisus est? Ht qui forte pauci tangere ista formidant, a caeteris irridentur, ita omnium animos in hae re tenuit sententia veritatis.” In contrast to this correct view stand the Canon. apost. 63 (et rıc Eriokoroc 7 TpecBvtepog 7 Stakovoc 7 OAw¢ Tod KaraAdyov TOU ieparıkod dayn Kpéa év aiuate buxjc avrov, 7 Onpiddwrov 7 Gvyotuaiov, kadaıpei- dw" Tovro yap 6 véuocg ameimev. Ei dé Aaiköc ein, aoopitéodo), and not less the Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, and many Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 113, as also the Concil. Trull. I. Can. 67, and exegetical writers cited in Wolf.! It is self-evident withal, that not only the prohibition of xopveia, but also the general moral tenor and fundamental thought of the whole decree, the idea of Christian freedom, to the use of which merely relative limits given in the circumstances, and not an absolute ethi- cal limitation, must be assigned, have permanent validity, such as Paul ex- hibited in his conduct and teaching. —4. The Tiibingen criticism, finding in Gal. ii. the Archimedean point for its lever, has sought to relegate the whole narrative of the apostolic council and its decree to the unhistorical sphere ;? because the comparison with Gal. ii. exhibits contradictions, which cause the narrative of the Actsto be recognized as an irenic fiction. It is alleged, namely, that by its incorrect representation the deeply seated difference be- tween the Jewish-Christianity of the original apostles and Paulinism free from the law was to be as much as possible concealed, with a view to promote union. Holtzmann* more cautiously weighs the matter, but still expresses doubt.* The contradictions, which serve as premisses for the attack upon our narrative, are not really present in Gal. ii. 1 ff. For—and these are the most essential points in the question—in Gal. ii. Paul narrates the matter not in a purely historical interest, but in personal defence of his apostolic authority, and therefore adduces incidents and aspects of what happened at Jerusalem, which do not make it at all necessary historically to exclude our narrative. Moreover, even in Gal. ii. the original apostles are not in principle at variance, but at one, with Paul ;’ as follows from ver. 6, from the reproach of hypocrisy made against Peter, vv. 12, 13, which supposes an agreement in conviction between him and Paul, from the 1 Comp. also the Erlangen Zeitschr. f. Pro- test. u. K., July 1851, p.53, where the ab- stinence from things strangled and from blood is reckoned as a‘‘precipitate on the part of the external Levitical ordinances” to be pre- served in the church. 2 See besides, Baur, I. 119 ff. ed. 2, Schweg- ler, Zeller, Holsten, especially Hilgenfeld in Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal., and in his Zeitschr. SF. wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 317 f£., 1860, p. 118 £f., Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. p. 188 ff. 3 Judenth. und Christenth. p. 568 ff. * Fora defence of its historical character, see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 189 ff., and in his Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal.—who, however, still (see the article “ Galaterbrief” in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX.) identifies the journey in Gal. ii. with that mentioned in Acts xviii. 21 f., an opinion which it is impossible to maintain, comp. on Gal. il.1; Ebrard, § 125; Baum- garten, p. 401 ff.; Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. K.p. 252 ff.,ed. 2; Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 551 ff. ; Lechler, apost. u.nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 396 ff. (also in the Stud. d. Würtemb. Geistl. 1847, 2, p. 94 ff.) ; Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 103 ff. ; Thiersch, p. 127 ff. ; Lekebusch, p. 296 ff. ; Ewald, p. 469 ff. ; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 148 ff.; Hofmann, heil. Schr. N. T.1. p. 127 ff., who, however, calls to his aid many incorrect interpretations of passages in the Epistle to the Galatians ; Trip, Z.c. p. 92 ff.; Oertel, Paul in d. Apostel- gesch. p. 226 ff. 5 Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 253 f. REASONS FOR RESTRICTIONS. 293 edvuröc Cc, ver. 14, and from the speech in common, ver. 16 fl.! Further, in Gal. ii. Paul is not contrasted with the original apostles in respect of doctrine, for the circumcision of Titus was not demanded by them, but as regards the field of their operations in reference to the same gospel, ver. 9. By «ar idiav, again, Gal. ii. 2, is meant a private conference,? which had nothing to do with the transactions of our narrative ; nor is the care for the poor determined on, Gal. ii. 10, a matter excluding the definitions of our decree, particularly as Paul only describes an agreement which had been made, not in any sort of public assembly, but merely between him and the three original apostles ; the observance of the decree was an inde- pendent matter, and was understood of itself. In fine, the absence of any mention of the council and decree in the Pauline Epistles, particularly in the Epistle to the Galatians, and even in the discussion on meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Cor. viii. 10, 23 ff, is completely intelligible from the merely interim nature and purpose of the statute; as well as, on the other hand, from the independence of his apostleship and the freedom of believers from the law, which Paul had to assert more and more after the time of the council in his special apostolic labours, and always to lay greater stress on, in opposition to the Judaism which ever raised itself anew.* Indeed, the very circumstance that the proposals for the decree proceed from James, is in keeping with his position as the highly respected head of the Jewish- Christians, and is a testimony of his wise moderation, without making him answerable* for the Judaistic narrowness and strictness of his followers.°® And there could be the less scruple to consent on the part of Paul, as, in fact, by this henoticon the non-circumcision of the Gentiles had completely conquered, and he thereby saw the freedom and the truth of the gospel securely established,° while at the same time the chief vice of heathenism, ropveia, Was rejected, and the right application of the other three prohibi- tions, in accordance with the yvöcıc and ayary which his Gospel promoted, was more and more to be expected in confidence on the Lord and His Spirit.” Ver. 21.° Tap] gives the reason why it was indispensable to enjoin this fourfold aröyeodaı—namely, because the preaching of the Mosaic law, taking place from ancient generations in every city every Sabbath day by its being read in the synagogues, would only tend to keep alive the offence which the Jewish-Christians, who still adhered to the synagogue,’ took to their uncircumcised brethren, in view of the complete freedom of the latter from the law, including even these four points.!° These words thus assign 1 See evasions, on account of vmoxprocs, in Schwegler and Baur. 2 Comp. on ver. 6. 3 See on Gal., Introd. § 3. 4 Comp. Jas. i. 25, 11. 12. 5 Gal. ii. 12. 6 Gal. 1. 3 ff. 72 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 15. See, in ad- dition, on Gal. ii. 3 See Düsterdieck in the Gétting Monatschr. 1849, p. 282 ff. 9 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 291 f. 10 Lekebusch and Oertel adopt in the main this interpretation, to which Calvin already came very near. Nor 1s the explanation of Diisterdieck essentially different. Yet he un- derstands &xeı ın the sense: he has in his power, holds ın subjection, which, however, appears not to be admissible, as not the Jews generally, but the cnpvagovres, are the object 294 CHAP. XV., 22-24. a ground for the proposal on the score of necessity, corresponding to the éxavayxec in the decree, ver. 28, and, indeed, of the necessity that there must be, at least so far, accommodation to the Mosaic law. Others : Teplttov Toi¢ "Iovdaioıs ravra Erior£iieiv' ard Tov vöuov Tavra uavdävovom K.T.A., scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Lyra, and many others, and recently Neander. Out of place, as there was no question at all about an instruc- tion for the Jewish- Christians. Erasmus, Wetstein, Thiersch, and others still more arbitrarily import the idea: ‘‘ Neque est metuendum, ut Moses propterea antiquetur ;’’ or :' it is not to be feared that the Mosaic law gen- erally will be neglected and despised.” Still more freely Gieseler*® reads be- tween the lines what is supposed to be meant: “The Mosaic law already has been so long preached, and yet there are few who submit to embrace it. Now, when the service of the true God is preached without the yoke of the law, many are turning to Him, and it is indisputable that the ceremonial law is the only obstacle to the universal diffusion of true religion.’’ Lange, II. p. 188, likewise imports: ‘‘ We have nothing further to do. To assert the statutes of Moses is not our office; there are already preachers for that.’? Similarly Hofmann,‘ who, however, discovers under the words of James the presupposition as self-evident, that Gentiles, if they pleased, might along with the faith embrace also the law of Moses; to those, who wished to become Mosaic, nothing need be said about the law, because they would always have an opportunity to become acquainted with it. As if one could read-in such a very important presupposition as self-evident ! And as if Paul and Barnabas could have been silent at a proposition so entirely anti-Pauline! Further, we cannot see how what Brenske° finds as the meaning, considering the proselytes of the gate as those to whom the knpboosıw took place, is contained in the words: the xnpöcceı has the notion of publicity and solemnity, but not of novelty (Brenske), which even passages such as Gal. v. 11, Rom. ii. 21, should have prevented him from assuming. Lastly, Wieseler® finds in the words the designed inference : consequently these statutes have for long been not a thing unheard of and burdensome for these Gentiles, because there are among them many proselytes. But even thus the chief points are mentally supplied (P?). Ver. 22. ’Exdefauévovc] is not to be taken, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Kui- noel, and others, for éxAeybévrac, as the middle aorist never has a passive signification ; on the contrary,’ the correct explanation is, accusative with the infinitive : after they should have, not had, chosen men from among them, adopted the explanation of Gieseler. But in the second edition, I. p. 137, he interprets it of éye. It is the simple: he has them, they do not fail him. 1 So Grotius and Ewald, p. 472. 2 Thus in substance also Schneckenburger, Zeller, Baumgarten, Hilgenfeld. Peculiarly ingenious, but importing whatis not in the text, is the view of Bengel: ‘‘ Prophetas citavi, non Mosen, cujus consensus est aper- tior,’’ holding that James had Deut. xxxii. 21 in view. 3In Stäudlin und Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. Kirchengesch. IV. p. 312. Baur, ed. 1, also as if James wished to say: “a worship so ancient as the Mosaic is perfectly entitled to such a demand.” This, however, is m no way contained in the words, in which, on the contrary, the point is the ancient preaching and the constant reading. 4 Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 41. 5 Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 711 ff. 6 On Gal. ii. 11 ff., p. 148. 7 Comp. vez. 40. DECISION OF COUNCIL. 295 to send them, i.e. to choose and to send men." — Nothing further is known of Judas Barsabas, whom Grotius and Wolf consider as a brother of Joseph Barsabas, i. 23. Ewald considers him as identical with the person named in x. 23. Concerning Silas, .e. Silvanus,? the apostolic companion of Paul on his journeys in Asia Minor and Greece,® see Cellar. de Sila viro apost., Jena, 1773 ; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p.369. These two men, who were of the first rank and influence: among the Christians, were sent to Antioch to give further oral explanation, ver. 27. Vv. 23, 24. Tpawavrec] while they wrote, should properly agree in case with écActauévouve. Anacoluthia in carrying out the construction by partici- ples is frequent ; here it conforms to the logical subject of édofe roig x.r.A.° — dia yerpd¢ aitav| so that they were to be the bearers of the letter.—As the letter was directed not only to Antioch and to Syria, whose capital and chief church was Antioch, but also to Cilicia, we are to infer that in this province also similar dissensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians had taken place, and had come to the knowledge of the apostolic assembly.— The genuineness of the letter is supported as well by its whole form—which, with all distinctness as to the things forbidden, the designation of which is repeated exactly in xxi. 25, yet has otherwise so little official circumstan- tiality, that it evidently appears intended to be orally supplemented as re- gards the particulars—as also by the natural supposition that this impor- tant piece of writing would soon be circulated in many copies (xxi. 25), and therefore might easily, in an authentic form, pass into the collection of Luke’s sources.° — kai oi ddeAgoi] i.e. the whole church, ver. 22 (Q?). — Xaipew] the well-known epistolary salutation of the Greeks.” The letter addressed to Greek Christians was certainly written in Greek. But that it was actually composed by James® does not follow at least from Jas. i. 1, although it is in itself possible, and indeed from his position in Jerusalem even probable. The similarity in the expression of the decree with Luke i. 1, does not justify us in doubting the originality of that expression,’ as the subdivision in the protasis and apodosis was very natural, and the use of édofev almost necessary. — üvaokevalovrec] destroying, subverting, elsewhere neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. and Apocrypha. — Ayovrec weper£un. | without deiv, because in /éy. the sense of commanding is implied.!! — The rnpeiv T. vouov is the Zuyöc, ver. 10, which was imposed with circumcision, Gal. v. 3. And the vöuoc is the whole law, not merely the ceremonial part. —oi¢ ov dueoreih.]| So arbitrarily had they acted. 1 Comp. Vulg., and see Kypke, II. p. 73; Winer, p. 239 (E. T. 319 f.). 2 See on 2 Cor. i. 19. 3 xvii. 4, x. 14 f., xviii. 5, also 1 Pet. v. 12. 4 jyova., comp. Luke xxii. 26. 5 See Bernhardy, p. 463; Winer, p. 527 (E. T. 709) ; also Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 970. ® According to Schwanbeck, the letter is derived from the ‘‘Memoirs of Silas,’’ In this view, of course, it must be assumed that @vöpas yovp., ver. 22, did not stand in the text at all, or not here. 7 See Otto in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Comp. xxiii. 26. 8 Bengel, Bleek in the Stud. w. Krit. 1836, p. 1037. 9 Schwegler, Zeller. 10 But see Xen. Cyr. vi.2. 25; Polyb. ix. 31. 6, ix. 32. 8; Dem. 895.5. ‘Non parcunt iis, qui dubitationes invexerant,” Bengel. 11 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34. Comp. on xiv. 14. 296 CHAP. XY., 25-35. Vv. 25-28. Tevouévoe suod maddy] after we had become unanimous. Thus it was not a mere majority of voices: ‘‘non parum ponderis addit deereto concors sententia,’’ Grotius. On yiveoda: with an adverb in the sense of a predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 337. Comp. on John ji. 15. — BapraB. x. HaiAw] This order, after chap. xiii. almost always inverted, is justly regarded by Bleek as a proof of fidelity to the documentary source. The placing of Barnabas first was very natural to the apostles and to the church in Jerusa- lem, on the ground of the older apostolic position of the man who in fact first introduced Paul himself to the apostles. Also at xiv. 14, xv. 12, this pre- cedence has its ground in the nature of the circumstances. — avdp@roıg k.7.A. | men who have given up, exposed to the danger of death, their soul for the name, for its glorification, v. 41, of our Lord Jesus Christ. rapad. ryv poyiy, the opposite of déAew cdca r. duxyyv, Luke ix. 24, is not to be identified with rvdéva r. ıb., and the two are not to be explained from the Hebrew v5) DW, in opposition to Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen.? The purpose of these words of commendation is the attestation of the complete confidence of the assembly in the Christian fidelity, proved by such love to Christ, of the two men who had been sent from Antioch, and who perhaps had been slandered by the Judaistic party as egotistic falsifiers of the gospel.* Comp. Grotius. — kai abroüc x.7.4.] who also themselves, i.e. in person, along with this our written communication, make known the same thing orally.*— arayyéAd.| stands not for the future, against Grotius, Hammond, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, but realizes as present the time when Judas and Silas deliver the letter and add their oral report. — ra ara] namely, what we here inform you of by letter. Neander takes it otherwise : the same, that Barnabas and Paul have preached to you, namely, that faith in the Redeemer, even ‘‘ without the observance of the law, suflices,”’ ete. Against this view did Aöyov is de- cisive, by which ra aira necessarily retains its reference to what was com- municated by leiter. — ro dyiw mvevpate xat juiv] The agreement of the personal activity of the advisers themselves with the illuminating and con- firming influence of the Holy Spirit experienced by them when advising.* Comp. v. 32. Well does Calovius remark : ‘‘ Conjungitur causa principalis et ministerialis decreti.’’ Olshausen supposes that it is equivalent to r@ ay. mv. év juiv. Just as arbitrarily and erroneously, Grotius, Piscator, and many others hold that there is here a év dua dvoiv, nobis per Sp. St. Neander : through the Holy Spirit we also, like Paul and Barnabas, have arrived at the per- ception. To this is opposed &do£e, which, in accordance with ver. 22, must necessarily denote the determination of the council, and therefore forbids the reference of the «ai juiv to Paul and Barnabas, which reference, at any rate, see before on 7a aura, is remote from the context. — 7uiv] includes, according to vv. 22, 23, also the church, to which, of course, Bellarmin and 1 Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 312 C. Paul. 2 See on John x. 11. 4 Sua Aöyov, see Raphel, Polyd. 3 According to Zeller, p. 246, these com- 5 Ewald, p. 476, appropriately remarks: mendatory words are calculated bythe author ‘* The mention of the Holy Spirit, ver. 28, is for his readers, as indeed the whole book is the most primitive Christian thing imagina- held to be only a letter of commendation for ble.” u LETTER SENT. 297 other Catholics concede only the consensus taeitus.! — ra £mävaykec] the things necessary.” The conjectural emendations, &r’ dvayxy¢® and év ayaraıc,* are wholly unnecessary. That &ravayrec? is an adverb, see in Schaefer. *® The necessity here meant is not a necessity for salvation (Zeller), but a necessity conditioned by the circumstances of the time. See on ver. 20 f. Ver. 29. The points mentioned in ver. 20 are here arranged more accu- rately, so that the three which refer to food are placed together. — aré- xeodaı] is in ver. 20, as in 1 Thess. iv. 3, v. 22, Ecclus. xxviii. 8, and fre- quently in the LXX., joined with azé; but here, as usually among Greek writers, only with the genitive. The two differ “non quoad rem ipsam, sed modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem, in posteriori autem ad nos ipsos referatur.’’? —é& éy diatypoivtec éavtoic] From which, i.e., at a distance from, without fellowship with them, ye care- Fully keeping yourselves.°— eb mpafere] not: ye shall do well —so usually, also de Wette, comp. x. 33 — but, as also Hofmann interprets it according to the usus loquendi,® ye shall fare well, namely, by peace and unity in Christian fellowship. Quite incorrectly, Elsner, Wolf, Krebs, Kuinoel have understood the meaning as equivalent to cwiSfcecde, which egregiously and injuriously mistakes the apostolic spirit, that had nothing in common with the ob divacde cwdjva of the strict legalists. — éppwode| the epistolary valete.!° Vv. 31, 32. ’Em rn maparınoeı] for the consolation, which the contents of the letter granted to them. They now saw Christian liberty protected and secured, where the abrupt demand of the Jewish-Christians had formerly excited so much anxiety. The meaning cohortatio, arousing address,!! is less suitable to the contents of the letter and to the threatening situation in which they had been placed. — cai auroi] is to be explained in keeping with ver. 27; and so to be connected, not, as is usually done, with zpod. övrec, as they also, as well as Paul and Barnabas, were prophets, but with dıa Adyou 7. maperdA. x.7.A. Judas and Silas also personally, as the letter by writing, comforted and strengthened the brethren by much discourse, which they could the more do, since they were prophets.” The rapexadAecav must be interpreted like zapaxAjoe:, and so not cohortabantur, as usually." Vv. 33-35. Iloveiv xpövov] to spend a time. *— uer’ eipyvnc] i.e. so that wel- Fre (DV) was bidden to accompany them, amidst good wishes. A refer- 1 See, on the contrary, Calovius. D: ei ed mparrovaıv adırovvres, Dem. 469. 14: 2 Bernhardy, p. 328; Kypke, II. p. 75 f. 3 Salmasius. 4 Bentley. 5 Herod. i. 82; Plat. Pol. vii. p. 536 D, Conv. p. 176 E, Dem. 706. 21. 6 Ad Dem. App. IV. p. 540 f. 7 Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 225. 8Comp. John xvii. 5; Prov. xxi. 23: Starmpei er HAdbews THY WuxXHY avTod ; also the corresponding connection with amo, Ps. xii. 8; Jas. 1 27. 9 See especially Plat. Adc. i. p. 116 B: öorıs KaAQs TPaTTEL, OVXL Kai ed mparreı, Prot. P. 333 ei Tus GAAOs ED Mev EMoiNTev Vas Ev TPATTwY, Plat. Hp. 3, p. 315 B; the opposite, kak@s mpacoev, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. U, p. 629, and Grimm, s.v. ev. 10 Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 83; Hipp. ep. p. 1275, 20; Artem. iii. 44; 2 Macc. xi. 21, 33, vii. 9. Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 323 f. 11 Beza, Castalio, and others, 12 See on xi. 27. 13 Comp. Vulgate ; and see ver. 27, ra aura. 14 Dem. 392. 18. See Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Anthol. II. 3, p. 44; also Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. p. 413. 293 CHAP, XV., 36-41. ence to the formula of parting : ropetov or iraye eic eiphvnv, Or Ev eiphry! — The kai between didacx. and evayy.* is expexegetical. — röv Ady. Tov Kup. | see on viii. 25. — At this period, ver. 35, occurs the encounter of Paul with Peter (Gal. ii. 11 ff.) The quite summary statement, ver. 35, makes the non-mention of this particular incident intelligible enough, and therefore there is no reason for the fiction that Luke desired, by the narrative of the strife between Paul and Barnabas,* merely to mask the far more important difference between him and Peter.* This passing and temporary offence had its importance in the special interest of the Epistle to the Galatians, but not in the general historical interest of Luke, which was concerned, on the other hand, with the separation of Paul and Barnabas and of their working. The objections of Wieseler to the assumed coincidence of time ° have little weight. In particular, the indefinite statements of time, vv. 33, 35, 36, allow space enough. — As to the spuriousness of ver. 34, see on ver. 40 (R’). Ver. 36. Aj] see on xiii. 2. —év aic] because räcav möAı contains a dis- tributive plurality.®° — rac Exovoı] how their state is, their internal and exter- nal Christian condition. The reference to &mioxen). rovc adeAg. depends on well-known attraction. Moreover, Bengel well remarks that rüc éyovo: is the nervus visitationis ecclesiasticae. (s?.) Vv. 38, 39. But Paul judged it not right" to take with them this one who had fallen away from them from Pamphylia, etc.® Observe the uy ovura- paAaßeiv standing in sharp opposition to the ovuraparaßeiv of ver. 37, and the rovrov significantly repeated at the close. The purposely chosen azo- orävra, aud the decisive rejection which Paul founded on this falling away, even in opposition to the highly esteemed Barnabas, who did not wish to discard his cousin,® proves that the matter was not without grave fault on the part of Mark. Fickleness in the service of Christ!’ was to Paul’s bold and decided strength of character and firmness in his vocation the foreign element, with which he could not enter into any union either abstractly or for the sake of public example. —This separation was ben- eficial for the church, because Barnabas now chose a sphere of operation for himself. Ver. 39; 1 Cor. ix. 6. And as to Mark, certainly both the severity of Paul and the kind reception given to him by Barnabas were alike beneficial for his ministerial fidelity, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11. Td pév yap TavAov doBepov Emkorperbev aitév' Td dé Bapvaßa ypyorov éroter umkerı anoAsıpdmval. “ote wayovrar uev, mpög Ev dE TéAoc aravra Td Képdog (Chrysos- ı xvi. 86; Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, viii. 8 Comp. xiii. 13. Luke does not mention 48; Jas. ii. 16. the later reunion (Col. iv. 11; Philem. 24; 2 The added pera kaı Erep. moAAor, with yet 2 Tim. iv. 11), which, if the view as to the many others, shows how very great the field book being intended as a reconciliation of of labour at Antioch was. Paulinism and Petrinism were correct, must 3 vy. 37 ff. occasion great surprise, as Mark wasa disciple 4 Schrader, Schneckenburger, Baur. of Peter. 5 On Gal. ii. 11. ® Col. iv. 10. 6 Winer, p. 134 (E. T. 177). 10 Mark had been ov Xptorov apverdpevos, 7 n&iov, comp. XXvili. 22; Xen. Anab.v.5. aAAa Tov Spdmov Tov moAUv Kai Bapvv mapaımaa- 9; Mem. ii. 1. 9. kevos, Oecumenius. SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS. 299 tom). — rapofvoudc] an exasperation.' The expression is purposely chosen ; it was ook Eydpa ovdé dtAoveckia (Chrysostom). But the thing itself had its ground in the avdpwrivn dıavoia according to its relation to the difference of the character confronting it, ob yao yoav Aldor 7 EbA01, Chrysostom. Vv. 40, 41. "ExiAefauevoc Sidav| after he had chosen Silas as his apostolic companion. It is accordingly to be assumed that Silas, ver. 27, after he had returned to Jerusalem, ver. 33, and had along with Judas given an account of the result of their mission, had in the meantime returned to Antioch. But the interpolation, ver. 34 (see the critical remarks), is in- correct, as the return of Silas to Jerusalem was a necessary exigency of the commission which he had received. zZmiA£yeoda:, in the sense sibi eligere, only here in the N. T. ; often in Greek writers, the LXX., and Apocr. — mapadod. TH yap. T. Kupiov] committed to the grace of Christ (see the critical remarks). Comp. ver. 11. Not different in substance from xiv. 36, but here expressed according to a more specifically Christian form. Moreover, the notice, compared with ver. 39, leads us to infer, with great probability, that the church of Antioch in the dispute before us was on the side of Paul. — ryv Sup. «. Kıdır.] as Barnabas, ver. 39, so Paul also betook him- self to his native country ; from their native countries the two began their new, and henceforth for ever separated, missionary labours. Barnabas is unjustly reproached, by Baumgarten, with repairing to his own country, instead of to the wide fields of heathenism ; in point of fact, we know not the further course which he adopted for his labours.. NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (m?) Except ye be circumcised. V.1. These words introduce one of the most exciting and important controversies in the history of the Christian Church—the first famous controversy, which threatened the disruption of the church into two sections—a Jewish and a Gen- tile church—or, as Meyer designates them, Pharisee Christians and @entile Chris- tians. The only other topics of equal moment which have arisen are the doc- trine of the Trinity, which shook the church to its foundation in the fourth century—a question concerning the person of Christ ; and the doctrine of justi- fication by faith, which was the grand central truth of the Protestant Reforma- tion—a question concerning the work of Christ. The question which so early and so Jong agitated the primitive church was whether the law of circumcision was still obligatory or abrogated? whether it was necessary to require all to enter the church through the gate of Judaism? or, regarding these rites as superseded by a new dispensation, to open the door for all who simply be- lieved on the Lord Jesus. The conservative party held that circumcision was a divine ordinance, and asked by what authority these new teachers set aside or changed what God had established? Not only did they make circumcision a condition of church communion, but excluded the uncircumcised from the hope of salvation. So that the real question at issue between the disputants 1 Dem. 1105. 24; Deut. xxix. 28; Jer. xxxii. 37. 300 CHAP. XV.—NOTES, was whether Christianity should be confined to the narrowness of a Jewish sect, or be propagated as the religion of the world ?—the distinction, in this respect, between Jew and Gentile being forever done away. The Judaizing teachers declared that it was necessary for the Gentiles ‘‘to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.’’ Paul and Barnabas asserted that this was directly opposed to the principles of the Gospel—that the true Chris- tian doctrine is, “ that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,’’ and that ‘‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”’ The controversy waxed warm at Antioch, and, as the church at Jerusalem was the mother church, and many of the apostles were there, the congregations desired to know what was the view of the question entertained there ; so a deputation of en- quiry was sent. Paul and Barnabas, and Titus also (Gal. ii. 1), were of the embassy. (n?) Apostles and elders. VY. 6. We know not how many of the apostles were present. Peter, John, and James the Lord’s brother, and probably others were there ; as were also Paul and Barnabas, Silas, Titus, and Jude. With the apostles and elders gathered the brethren for counsel, and the decision arrived at was announced in the name of all. After some preliminary and exciting discussions, Peter arose and addressed the assembly. Partly on account of his age and eminent position, and partly because he first admitted the Gentiles to the church without cireum- cision, he speaks first. His position was one of authority, but not of primacy. And his authority was that of personal character and practical experience, noth- ing more. In his cogent and conclusive address Peter shows that the question had already been decided by God himself, since by the effusion of his Spirit he had manifested his acceptance of the Gentiles. Now therefore why tempt ye God? Seeing that we all believe that Jew and Gentile alike are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus, it is neither reasonable, nor in harmony wtth the will of God, to fetter that grace with superfluous and vexatious condi- tions, “The Spirit of God, through the apostle, now put an end to the ‘much disputing,’ and the decisive reply derived from God’s testimony had been made perceptible to all.’’ (Stier.) All the assembly kept silent and lis- tened to the account given them by Barnabas and Paul of the wonders of di- vine grace among the Gentiles. (0?) James answered. V. 13. «We, as many others, consider that this James was not the apostle James, the son of Alpheus, but James the brother of the Lord, who was not one of the twelve, but was regarded the head of the church at Jerusalem, men- tioned in xii. 17, and Gal. ii. 9.’” (Stier.) See also note oni. 14. It is gener- ally supposed that he was president of the council. He was, at least, the last to speak, and delivered the judgment of the assembly. He is spoken of in ecclesiastical history as bishop of Jerusalem, and also as a legalist or strict ob- server of the Mosaic law. In his address he confirms all that Peter had said, and shows from prophecy that God had a purpose of mercy toward the Gen- tiles ; and to insist on making a partial and temporary ritual a condition of NOTES. 301 church membership was an attempt to frustrate the purposes of God. For his part, he was prepared to admit the Gentiles, even in uncircumeision. His opinion would carry great weight, both from his reputed sanctity and sagacity, but also from his well-known Hebrew sympathies. He proposed that the Gen- tiles should not be troubled on the question of circumcision, but simply en- joined to abstain from certain things, which were either indifferent in them- selves, or immoral, and therefore to be avoided. The great end sought in this deliverance which was adopted by the assembly was the reconciliation of the hostile parties and the peace of the church. ‘‘The true meaning appears to be that the Gentiles should abstain from these things in order to avoid giving offence to the Jews ; for in every city the law is preached every Sabbath, and so these matters are brought prominently forward ; and thus, unless there be an abstinence from these particulars, the preaching of the law would perpetu- ate the offence of the Jewish to the Gentile Christians. In order, then, to maintain peace, let the Gentile Christians abstain from those aztions which are regarded by the Jews as causing pollution.’’ (Gloag.) These are substan- tially the views of Meyer presented in the text. And-Alford says: ‘‘ Living, as the Gentile converts would be, in the presence of Jewish Christians who heard those Mosaic prohibitions read, as they had been from generations past, in their synagogues, it would be well for them to avoid all such conduct and habits as would give unnecessary offense.”’ (P?) Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. V. 21. In the Acts five visits of Paul to Jerusalem are mentioned—ix. 26, xi. 30, xv. 4, xvlii. 22, and xxi. 15. In the Epistle to the Galatians two visits are mentioned—Gal. 1.18 and ii. 1. The first in each case is clearly identical. There are, however, different opinions as to the second referred to in the Epistle. All admit it cannot be either the first or the fifth mentioned in the Acts. Some suppose Paul to have made a visit which is not recorded in Luke’s narrative—possible, but not probable, Others think that in the Epistle refer- ence is made to the second visit. But the date—fourteen years after his con- version—precludes the possibility of that conjecture being correct. The fourth visit has also its advocates, but theirarguments are not at all clear or satis- factory. It is almost certain that in the Epistle the apostle refers to this visit to the council, as Meyer indicates. The result of the whole discussion is thus stated by Conybeare: “If the Galatian visit be mentioned at all in the Acts, it must be identical with the visit at which the (so-called) council took place.” ‘“ The Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit ; because, if so, the apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas the liberty which was sought for the ebayyéAvov tng axpoBvotiac ; therefore there would “ have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the same cause. And, again, the Galatian visit could not have happened after visit third ; because almost immediately after that period Paul and Barnabas ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles ; whereas, up to the time of the Galatian visit they had been working together.” This conclusion is clear and satisfactory, and is adopted not only by Meyer, but by many able commentators. 302 CHAP. XV—NOTES. (a?) Send greeting. V. 23. ~ The word used means to rejoice or be giad. It is only found elsewhere in N. T., Jamesi.1. As this letter was, in all probability, either written or dic- tated by James, this coincidence certainly suggests that he also wrote the Epis- tle that bears his name. The letter written and sent to the churches was of the nature of a compromise, framed with great sagacity and foresight as a concor- dat between the contending parties. The advocates of freedom would be sat- isfied, because circumcision and the rites of the Mosaic law were not to be in- sisted on ; the other party, influenced by the discussion, and specially by the speeches of James and of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, would accept the allowance made to their scruples in other matters. But their acquiescence in the decision was only temporary. They did not relinquish their opinions, and were soon more active than ever in disseminating them. They followed Paul everywhere ; and to the end of his life he maintained a fearless and forceful protest against their persistent attempts to infringe the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free. ‘‘The decision of the council at Jerusalem was a great step in advance. Had it been otherwise, had they decided that cireum- cision and the observance of the law of Moses were necessary, the progress of Christianity would have been impeded. But now Gentile Christianity could be freely propagated without let or hindrance : all the obstacles which stood in the way of its diffusion were removed, and the apostolic church was delivered from legal bondage. We see the immediate effects of this decision in the joy and confidence which the reading of the decree imparted to the Christians at Antioch, and in the great success of Paul in his second missionary journey. The triumph of the free Christian over the Judaizing party was one great ele- ment in the success of the Gospel.” (Gloag.) (R?) V. 34. This verse is wanting in the best mss. See critical notes by Meyer, who char- acterizes the verse as spurious. Alford says : ‘‘On every account it is probable that the words forming this verse in the received version are an interpolation.” Bloomfield writes: ‘‘This verse is omitted in several mss. and versions, and is rejected’’ by many. Jackett says: ‘‘Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, and others strike out this verse. Most of the mss. omit it or read it variously. It is a gloss probably, supposed to be required by verse 40.” Gloag says: ‘‘ Verse 34 is considered by the best critics as an interpolation, designed to account for the presence of Silas in Antioch.” There is no difficulty, but even the highest propriety, in supposing that Silas first went to Jerusalem to make his report, and then returned to Antioch, of his own accord or at Paul’s desire. This verse is omitted in the revised version. (s?) The contention of Paul and Barnabas. V. 39. They could not agree about the character of Mark and his fitness to accom- pany them on their missionary tour. Barnabas, influenced by the kindness and generosity of his disposition, and by his natural affection for Mark, as his sister’s son, was disposed to take Mark ; but Paul, viewing the matter, not on NOTES, 303 any personal grounds, and constitutionally intolerant of vacillation or weakness, thought it was not right or fitting to take with them one who had previously been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in leaving them and the work several years before. Barnabas insisted ; Paul would not yield ; and so they agreed to part. In this dispute both doubtless were at fault ; both were angry and under undue excitement ; nor is it ours to determine how far each was to be blamed, or which should be most censured. Nor need we inquire “ whether Paul was chargeable with undue severity or Barnabas with nepotism, or both, or neither, all which alternatives have been maintained.” The contention or paroxysm was of short duration, and produced no lasting effects on the mutual relations of the three men concerned. The warmth of their previous friendship, com- menced probably in boyhood, fostered by mutual acts of kindness, and con- firmed by common labors and dangers, made the breach between them all the more painful. This variance, however, did not in any degree diminish their zeal in their work, or permanently affect their regard for each other ; and it was overruled for the wider diffusion of the Gospel. Paul took Silas and went his way ; Barnabas took Mark and went his. But, as Alford observes: ‘It seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out. Barnabas appears to have gone with his nephew without any special sympathy or approval ; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assem- bled church.”’ Too much, however, may be inferred from the seeming differ- ence, as Luke had no occasion to speak particularly of the departure of Barna- bas and Mark. Barnabas henceforth disappears from the narrative of Luke altogether. But Paul in his Epistles speaks of him with the highest respect and affection ; he also afterwards commends Mark, mentions him among the num- ber of his fellow-laborers, and in his last letter to Timothy, the last he wrote, he expresses a wish to have Mark with him, as one who was profitable to him ‘for the ministry (1 Cor. ix. 6, Gal. ii. 9, Col. iv. 10, Philemon 24, and 2 Tim. iv. 11). Taylor says : ‘‘ These allusions, after all that had occurred, are equally creditable to both parties. They show that Mark had grown steady and brave, and was not above ministering to Paul ; and they prove that Paul was not so mean as to keep up an old grudge, when all that caused it had been perfectly removed.” The fact that the dispute with Peter had occurred just before this, and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the temporizing spirit, may have had some influence on the mind of Paul. Stier favors Paul in this sad matter, as does also Calvin ; Renan takes the part of Barnabas very strongly, and accuses Paul of pride, love of pre-eminence, and ingratitude. ‘‘ Barnabas,” says he, ‘‘ had not Paul’s genius, but who can say whether in the true hierar- chy of souls, which is regulated by the degree of goodness, he would not occu- py a more elevated rank ?”’ 304 CRITICAL REMARKS. CHAPTER XVI. Ver. 1. After yvvaınds Elz. has rıvos, which is decidedly spurious according to the evidence. — Ver. 3. tov matépa avroü, örı "HAA, brjpyev] Lachm. reads ote “EAAnv 6 ratip abtod Innpxev, according to ABC NS, min. Rightly; the Recepta is a mechanical or designed transposition into the usual mode of ex- pression by attraction. If the reading of Lachm. were a resolution of the attraction, "EAAnv would not have been placed first. — Ver. 6. dıeAdövres] A B CDE 8, min. and several vss, and Fathers have 6v7260v, and in ver. 7 for the most part dé after Ei0övres. Both are adopted by Lachm. and Born. The attestation of this reading is so preponderating, that it cannot be held as an emendation to avoid the recurrence of participial clauses. The Re- cepta, on the contrary, appears to have risen because of a wish to indicate that the hindrance of the Spirit took place only after passing through Phrygia and Galatia, which appeared necessary if Asia was understood in too wide a sense. The reading of the Vulg. presents another corresponding attempt: ‘‘transeuntes autem . . . vetati sunt.’’— Ver. 7. iS 7. B.] Elz. has kara r. B., against decisive evidence. Either a mere error of a copyist after the preced- ing «ard, or an intentional interpretation). —’Ijcot] is wanting in Elz., but supported by decisive evidence. If only zvedya were original, the gloss added would not have been ’Ijcod (for rv. ’Inoov is not elsewhere found in the N. T.), but, from the preceding, ro dyıov. — Ver. 9. The order best attested and there- fore to be adopted is: avjp Maredaév rıc Fv. So Lachm., also Tisch., and Born.; the latter, however, has deleted 7» according to too weak evidence (it was superfluous), and, moreover, has in accordance with D adopted év öpauarı . . . 560m Oost avyp k.t.2., an explanatory gloss, as also are the words kara tpdcwrov abtrov added after éorus (Born.). — Ver. 10, 6 Köpios] A BCE NS, min. Copt. Vulg. Jer. have 6 026s. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is a gloss in accordance with.ver. 7 (rveüua ’Inooö), comp. xiii. 2, or written on the margin in accordance with ii. 39. — Ver. 13. mays] Approved already by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. instead of the usual zoAeor, against which A BCD NS, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. witness. rc méAewS was written by the side of 775 riAns as a gloss (as some vss. have still T. TUANS T. nöAewS), and then supplanted the original. — évouifero mpooevxn] A** BC 8, lot. 13, 40, Copt. Aeth. have Zrouilouev mpooevxyv. So Lachm, An al- teration, because the reading of the text was not understood. From the same misunderstanding the reading in D, Epiph. 2dökeı zpocevy7 (so Born.) arose, and the translation of the Vulg., “ubi videbatur oratio esse.’’— Ver. 16, r mpocevynv] In Elz. the article is wanting, but is supported by preponderating evidence and by its necessity (ver. 13), —TII’@wv0s] AB C* D (?) &, loti. 33, Vulg. Cant, and some Fathers have zi9wva. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Correctly ; the accusative, not understood, was changed for the genitive as the more intelligible case, which was well known to the transcribers with rveüwa (comp. especially, Luke iv. 33). — Ver. 17. Instead of the second nuiv, Tisch, PAUL AND SILAS. 305 © Born. have wuiv, contrary to AC GH, min. vss. and Fathers. But Zum ap- peared less suitable, especially as a demoniacal spirit spoke from the maudiorn. — Ver. 24, Instead of elAnods read, with Lachm. and Born., Aaßov on decisive evidence. — Ver. 31. Xpiordév] is with Lachm. and Tisch, to be deleted as a usual addition (comp. on xy. 11), on the authority of AB S, min. Copt. Vulg. Lueif. — Ver. 32. kat réo1.] ABCD 8, min. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have ody rao. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, The «ai easily crept in, because with it the dative mdoz trois remained, and because xa? 6 oikds cov (ver. 31) preceded, — Ver. 34. pyaAAıdoaro] C* (?) D, min. Chrys. Oec. Theo- phyl. have 7yaAAıaro. Approved by Griesb. and adopted by Born. and Tisch. With this weak attestation it is to be regarded as an easily committed error of a transcriber. — Ver. 39. &&eA0eiv 775 m0X.] Lachm. and Tisch. read areAfeiv and T. n0A., according to AB S, min. A more definite and precise statement. — Ver. 40. pds] Elz. has eis against decisive evidence. Vv. 1, 2. Aépf. x. Atorp.] See on xiv. 6.— éxei] does not refer to both cities, as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 58, strangely assumes, but to the last named, Lystra. Here Timothy, whose conversion by Paul is to be referred to xiv. 6 f., was at that time residing (jv éxei) ; probably it was also his native rlace,' as may be inferred from ver. 2 (&uaprvpeiro ixd Tov Ev Abotporc) COM- pared with ver. 3 (jdevoav yap aravrec k.7.2.). Usually, even by Olshausen and Neander, but not by de Wette and Baumgarten, Timothy is supposed to be a native of Derbe, on account of Acts xx. 4;? éxei is referred to AépBnv, very arbitrarily, and ver. 2 is explained to mean that, besides the presupposed good report of his native city, Timothy had also the good repoit of the neighbouring cities of Lystra and Iconium ; a very forced explanation, which Theophilus and the other first readers certainly did not hit upon !— yuvaık. ’Iovd. mıor.]| The name of this Jewish-Christian was Eunice.” "Iovöaias is the adjective, John iii. 22, as also "EAAnvoc and Maxed@v, ver. 9. Whether the father was a pure Gentile or a proselyte of the gate, the language employed * and the lack of other information leave entirely undecided. — äuaprvp. | as in vi. 3. — 'Iroviw] see on xiii. 51. What were the peculiar circumstances, which had made Timothy honourably known in Iconium as well as in the place of his birth, we do not know. Ver. 5. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a pious education,° Timothy was also well adapted to be the coadjutor of the apostle from the peculiar external relation in which he stood as belonging | by parentage both to the Jewish and to the Gentile Christians. — ?aßov reptéteuer| he took and circumcised. There is no reason whatever to suppose that Paul should not have himself performed this act, which might in fact be done by any Israelite.° — dıa rovc "Iovdaiovc] namely, to avoid the offence which the Jews in the region of Lystra and Iconium would have taken, had Paul associated with himself one who was uncircumcised to go forth 1 With this Köhler also agrees in Herzog’s 2 But see remarks on that passage. Encykl. XVI. p. 168; Huther and Wiesinger 3 See 2 Tim. i. 5. leave it undecided ; but Wieseler, p. 25 f., 4 See on xi. 20. endeavours to uphold the usual view. But Timo: lo: see on xx. 4. ” 6 Comp. on Luke i. 59. 306 CHAP, XVI., 4-7. (é£eA0eiv) as his colleague in proclaiming the Messianic salvation. Paul acted thus according to the principle of wise and conciliatory accommoda- tion,' and not out of concession to the Judaistic dogma of the necessity of circumcision for obtaining the Messianic salvation.” He acted thus in order to leave no cause of offence at his work among the yet unconverted Jews of that region, and not to please Christian Judaists, to whom, if they had demanded the circumcision of Timothy, as they did that of Titus at Jerusalem,* he would as little have yielded as he did in the case of Titus. This entirely non-dogmatic motive for the measure, which was neither demanded by others nor yet took place with a view to Timothy’s own salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree, xv. 29, or with Gal. ii. 3; for in the case of Titus circumcision was demanded by others against his will, and that on the ground of dogmatic assertion, and so Paul could not allow that to be done on Titus,* which he himself performed on Timothy. This we remark in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who attack our narrative as unhistorical, because it stands radically at variance with the apostle’s principles and character, so that it belongs ‘‘ to the absolutely incredible element in the Book of Acts.’’® Chrysostom has hit in the main on the correct interpretation : oidév HabAov ovverétepov’ Gote mavra mpöc TO ovup&pov Eopa . But the canon insisted on inthe Talmud: partus sequitur ventrem,® can hardly have been taken into consideration by the apostle,’ because Timothy was already a Christian, and thus beyond the stage of Judaism; and therefore it is not to be assumed, with Ewald, p. 482, that Paul had wished merely to remove the reproach of illegitimacy from Timothy—even laying aside the fact that Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception only of the seven Canaanitish nations. The circumstance : viöc yvvarkög x.r.2., ver. 1, serves only to explain whence it happens that Timothy, whose Christian mother was known to be a Jewess, was yet uncircumcised ; the ‚father was a Gentile, and had in his paternal authority left him uncircum- cised. — Observe, according to the correct reading örı "EAAnv 6 marjp aitoo imipxyev (see the critical remarks), the suitable emphasis with which the predicate is placed first: that a @reek his father was. irdpyew in the sense of eivaı is used most frequently in the N. T. by Luke. An antithesis to gaiveoda is arbitrarily and unsuitably imported by Otto. Vv. 4, 5. Mapedidovv] orally, perhaps also partly in writing, by delivering to them a copy of the decree, xv. 23 ff. —airoic] namely, to the Gentile- Christians in the towns, which the connection requires by ¢vAdcoew. — Ta mepıErenev iva Tepitouny Kadé2n. 1 1.Cor. ix. 19. 2 Erasmus in his Paraphrase (dedicated to Pope Clement vit.) observes: Non quod cre- deret eircumeisionem conferre salutem, quam sola fides adferebat, sed ne quid tumultus oriretur a Judaeis.’? Observe this distinctively Lutheran sola fides. 3 Gal. ii. 3 f. 4 Comp. Gal. v. 2. 5 Baur, I. p. 147, ed. 2. See, on the other hand, Lechler in the Wurtemb. Stud. X1x. 2. p. 130 ff., and apost. und nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 419 ; Thiersch, Airche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 136 f. ; Lekebusch, p. 272 ff. ; Baumgarten, I. 6 See Wetstein. [p. 483 ff. 7In opposition to Thiersch and Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 102 f. 8 Ex. xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 1 ff. THEY JOURNEY TO TROAS, 307 ööyuara] Luke ii. 1, the ordinances. — io tov aroor. k.r.A.] the mention of the leaders was sufficient ; the co-operation of the church is, according to xv. 22 f., obvious of itself. — rov &v 'Iepovo.] belongs only to r. rpecBur. — Ver. 5. They developed themselves internally in stedfastness of faith, and externally in the daily increasing number of their members. On the former, comp. Col. ii. 5; xav juép. belongs to Erepıoo. r. apud ue, comp. ii. 46. Vy. 6, 7. According to the reading dı7Adov and, ver. 7, éAddvrec dé (see the critical remarks) : Now they went through Phrygia and Galatia, after they had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia ; but having come toward Mysia, they attempted, etc. Observe (1) that this hindrance of the Spirit to their preaching in Asia induced them, instead of going to Asia, to take their route through Phrygia and Galatia, and therefore the founding of the Galatian churches is correctly referred to this period ;' indeed, the founding of these may have been the immediate object aimed at in that hin- drance. The fact that Luke so silently passes over the working in Phrygia and Galatia, is in keeping with the unequal character of the information given by him generally—an inequality easily explained from the diversity of his documents and intelligence otherwise acquired —so that it appears arbitrary toimpute to him a special set purpose—Olshausen : he was hasten- ing with his narrative to the European scene of action; Baumgarten : be- cause the main stream of development proceeded from Jerusalem to Rome, and the working in question lay out of the line of this direction ;* and quite erroneously Schneckenburger : because there were no Jews to be found in those regions, and tnerefore Luke could not have illustrated in that case how Paul turned first to the Jews. Further, (2) Asia cannot be the quarter of the world in contrast to Europe, but only the western coast of Asia Minor, as in ii. 9, vi. 9. To that region his journey from Lycaonia—Derbe and Lystra, ver. 1—was directed ; but by the hindrance of the Spirit it was turned else- where, namely, to Phrygia and Galatia, the latter taken in the usual narrower sense, not according to the extent of the Roman province at that time, as Böttger, Thiersch, and others suppose.*—The hindering of the Spirit, taken by Zeller in the sense of the apostle's own inward tact, is in vv. 6, 7 to be regarded as an influence of the Holy Spirit — that is, of the objective Divine Spirit, not of ‘‘ the holy spirit of prudence, which judged the circumstances correctly,’’ de Wette—on their souls, which internal indication, they were conscious, was that of the Spirit. — xara r. Mvoiav] not: at (see ver. 8), but toward Mysia, Mysia-wards, in the direction of the border of that land. They wished from this to go northeastward to Bithynia ; for in Mysia, which, along with Lydia and Caria, belonged to Asia, they were forbidden to preach. — ro mvevua ’Incov] i.e. the ayov rvevua, ver. 6 ; see on Rom. viii. 9. Remarr.— According to the Received text (dseAfdvtes . . . éAGdvres), the ren. dering must be: having journeyed through Phrygia and Galatia, they endeavoured, after they had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia, on coming 1 Whether he also planted churches in place by means of others, Col. ii. 1, Phrygia, is unknown tous. The founding of 2 Comp. also Zeller, p. 383. the church in Colossae and Laodicea took 3 Comp. on Gal. Introd. § 1. 308 CHAP. XVI., 8-11. toward Mysia, to journey to Bithynia, ete. Comp. Wieseler, p. 31 ; Baumgarten, p. 489 ; and see regarding the asyndetic participles, which ‘‘ mutua temporis vel causae ratione inter se referuntur,’’ Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 7; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 249 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 255 (E. T. 297). Vv. 8-10. They were now between Mysia and Bithynia. To Bithynia the Spirit suffered them not to go; in Mysia they were not to preach, because it belonged to Asia. In this position of things they saw them- selves directed to the West, away from all their former sphere of action, and across to Greece. 7%is the Spirit now willed. Accordingly they had first to make for the Asiatic sea-coast, and therefore they went directly westward along the southern border of Mysia, of course without preaching, for this they were not permitted to do, and thus, having passed by Mysia (rapeASévtec tiv Movoiav), they came down to T’roas on the Hellespont, in order there to determine more precisely their further journey to the West, or to receive for this purpose a higher determination, which they might expect in accordance with the previous operations of the Spirit. And they received this higher determination by a visionary appearance! which was made to the apostle during the night (dca r. vuxröc, as in v. 19). This vis- ion ? is not to be considered as a dream, ° as is evident from the expression itself, and from the fact that there is no mention of a kar’ övap or the like, or afterwards of an ävaorac or other similar expression, but after the seeing of the vision the &{nryoauev x.7.2. comes in without further remark. Ols- hausen, however, very hastily lays it down asa settled point, that revela- tion by dreams, as the lowest form of revelation,* was no longer vouch- safed to the apostles who were endowed with the Holy Spirit, but that they must have had their visions in ecstasy, always in a waking condition. We have far too little information as to the life of the apostles to maintain this.° — Makedov] is used adjectivally.© As Macedonian the appearance announced itself, namely, by dıaßäc eic Maxed. Bord. juiv. It is arbitrary in Grotius to say that an angel had appeared, and indeed ‘“ angelus curator Macedonum.’’ Something objectively real is not indicated by öpaua 8007." — ECnrhoauev] we sought, directed our view to the necessity of procuring, first of all, the opportunity of a ship, etc. Here Luke, for the first time, includes himself in the narrative, and therefore it is rightly assumed that he joined Paul at 7’roas. He does not enter further on his personal rela- . tions, because Theophilus was acquainted with them. Olshausen arbitrarily thinks : from modesty. On and against the assumptions that Timothy * or Silas® wrote the portions in which ‘‘ we” occurs, see Introd. $ 1.— 1 öpana, ix. 10, x. 3, xviii. 9. further occurrences as regards their historical 2 Taken by Baur, I. p. 166, ed. 2, only as character. an embellishment of the history, namely, as 3 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Zeller. 2 symbolizing the desire of salvation, with which 4 ? See Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 284. not only the Macedonian population, but the 5 Comp. also ii. 17. men of Europe in general, called upon the 6 Comp. on v. 1 f. as in Thuc. i. 62. 3, i. apostle to come over to them. This view 63. 3. Zeller also, p. 251, considers as possible. It 7 Comp. x. 17. is in the connection of the entire narrative 8 Schleiermacher, Mayerhoff, Ulrich, Bleek. impossible, and simply tends to obscure the ° Schwanbeck. CALL TO MACEDONIA. 309 ovußıßafovrec x.r.A.]| because we gathered (colligebamus) as the meaning of that appearance, drew from it the conclusion,! that in it there was issued to us the call of God (see the critical remarks), and the in itself indefinite BowSyoov yuiv was the call for help to be afforded by communication of the gospel (T?). Ver. 11. Eidudpou.| having sailed from Troas, we ran by a straight course, xxi. 1. The word is not preserved in Greek writers, who have, however, evdvdpduog and as a verb, eiduTA0éw. — Samothrace, a well-known island off the coast of Thrace, in the Aegean Sea. — rn éxwotcy] die postero, used by Greek writers both with (vii. 26) and without 7u£pa.” In the N. T. it occurs only in Acts. — Neapolis, at an earlier period Datos,* a seaport on the Strymonian Gulf, opposite the island of Thasos, at that time belonging to Thrace, but after Vespasian to Macedonia.‘— On Philippi, formerly Krenides, named from the Macedonian Philip, who enlarged and fortitied it, see the Introd. to Philipp. $ 1.— porn ti¢ pepidog Maxed. KoAwvia mont | As in that district of Macedonia, divided by Aemilius Paulus into four parts, Amphipolis was the capital, and party möAıc cannot therefore in a strict sense mean capital ;* all difficulty is removed simply by connecting, and not, as is usually done,° separating, röAıc koAovia: which is the first, in rank, colony-town of the part concerned of Macedonia.” Thus it is unneces- sary, with Kuinoel, Hug, and others,” who separate wöiıc from koAwvia, to take rpaty mé2uc in the sense of a city endowed with privileges—Bertholdt com- pares the French use of bonne ville—inscriptions on coins being appealed to, in which the formal epithet rpörn is given to Greek cities which were not capitals.’ In the case of Philippi itself no special privileges are known, except the general colonial rights of the jus Jtalicwm ; nor is the title spér7y found on the coins of Philippi, it is met with only in the case of cities in Asia Minor.'’ Others take zpéry of local situation, so that they too separate moduc from koAwvia: ‘‘ Philippi was the first city of Macedonia at which Paul touched in his line of travel.’ So Olshausen and Wieseler, following Erasmus, who, however, appears to join möAıc xoA., Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Raphael, Wolf, Bengel, Eckermann, Heinrichs. In this case we have not to consider Neapolis as the mere port of Philippi (Olshausen), but with Rettig, van Hengel, ad Phil. p. 4 ff., and De Wette, to lay stress on the fact that Neapolis at that time belonged to Thrace, and to take éori whom Philippi, on account of its flourishing condition at that time, is assumed to be named 1 Comp. Plat. Hipp. min. p. 369 D, Pol. vi. p. 504 A, and Stallb. in loc. 2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464. 3 Strabo, vii. p. 330. 4 Sueton. Vesp.8; Dio Cass. xlvii. 35 ; Ptol. iii. 13. 9. 5 Liv. xlv. 29. 6 Without any reason, Wetstein imagined that after the battle at Philippi this city was raised to be the capital. From the erroneous interpretation capital arose the reading yrıs eoriv kebaAy tis Mak., moAıs KoAwvia, Which Bornemann regards as original. 7 Thus also Ewald, p. 485, according to “the first city of the province of Macedonia.” But wepis does not mean province (emapxia, xxiii. 34, xxv. 1). 8 Comp. also Baumgarten, who elaborately explains pepidos, as if ns oikovpevns stood alongside of it, so that rns Maxed. would be in apposition to T. pepidos. See also Credner, Pint. i. p. 418 f.; Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 170. ®See Eckhel, doctr. vet. num. I. 4. 282; Boeckh, Corpus inscript. I. 2, No. 335. 10 See Rettig, Quaest. Philipp. p. 5f. 810 CHAP, XVI.,. 12-15. (Luke did not write 7v) as an expression of the admitted state of things, that Philippi from that side is the first city, consequently the most easterly.* But what reason could Luke have to make such an exact geographical specification, especially with regard to such a well-known city as Philippi? It is quite at variance with his manner elsewhere. And that too with the argumentatively (quippe quae) emphatic jrıc? This applies also in opposi- tion to Grotius, who takes 7éAc¢ koAwvia together, the first colonial city, but understands porn also of the geographical situation. According to our view, there is conveyed in jrıc an explanation of the motive for their going to Philippi in particular, seeing that it is, namely, the most noteworthy colonial-city of the district, so that the gospel might at once acquire a very considerable and extensive sphere of action in Macedonia. If in itself afioud éote ToAewo 7 KOA@vEca (Chrysostom), this is yet more heightened by zpéry.—On the combination of two substantives like möAlıc Kodwvia, comp. Lobeck, Puralip. p. 344. Instead of koAwvia, the Greek uses aroı- kia Or &moıkia ; instead of mörıc koAwvia, möAıc aroıkic. — Philippi was colonized by Octavianus through the removal thither of the partisans of Antonius, and had also the jus Italiecum conferred on it.” (w’). Ver. 13. Torayéy] i.e. not, as Bornemann and Bleek suppose, the Strymon, which is distant more than a day’s journey, but possibly the rivulet Gangas,* or some other stream in the neighbourhood which abounded with springs. — ov Evouilero mpocevyy eivac| where a place of prayer was accustomed to be, i.e. where, according to custom, a place of prayer was. On vowifeodar, in more esse, to be wont.* Not: where, as was supposed, there was a place of prayer (Ewald), in which case we should have to supply the thought that the place did not look like a synagogue, which, however, is as arbitrary as it is historically unimportant. The zpocevyai were places of prayer, sometimes buildings, and at other times open spaces—so most probably here, as may be inferred from ov &vouilero eivaı—near to streams, on account of the custom of washing the hands before prayer, to be met with in cities where syna- gogues did not exist or were not permitted, serving the purposes of a synagogue.’—raic ovverd. yvvarti] the women who came together, to prayer. Probably the number of Jewish men in the city was extremely small, and the whole unimportant Jewish population consisted chiefly of women, some of them doubtless married to Gentiles, ver. 1; hence there is no mention of men being present. More arbitrary is the explanation of Calvin: ‘‘ Vel ad coetus tantum muliebres destinatus erat locus ille, vel apud viros frigebat religio, ut saltem tardius adessent ;’’ and of Schrader: the Jews had been expelled from the city. Ver. 14. Kai te x.7.4.] Also a woman was listening, etc. Avdia was a common female name,° and therefore it remains doubtful whether she re- 1 See Wieseler, p. 37 f. f. ; from Philo, in Loesner, p. 208. 2See Dio Cass. li. 4; Plin. Z. N. iv. 11; 5 Juvenal, iii. 295. See Joseph. Antt. xiv. Digest. Leg. xv. 6. 10. 23; Corp. inseript. II. p. 1005; Vitringa, 3 So Zeller, Hackett. Synag. p. 119 ff.; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. 4 See Hermann, ad Lucian. de hist. conser. _p. 26 f. p. 244; Schweighäuser, Zex. Herod. II. p. 126 ® Hor. Od. i. 8, iii. 9, vi. 20. LYDIA BAPTIZED AT PHILIPPI. 311 ceived her name ‘a solo natali.’’' — mopsvpörwäuc] 7 ra mopovpä, fabrics and clothes dyed purple, twAovoa.* The dyeing of purple was actively carried on,* especially in Lydia, to which 7’hyatira belonged,‘ and an inscription found at Thyatira particularly mentions the guild of dyers of that place.*® —oeBou. tr. dev] A female proselyte. See on xiii. 16, 43. — 74 6 Kip. dujvorse t. kapd.| Luke recognises the attentive interest, which Lydia with her heart unclosed directed to the word, as produced by the influence of the exalted Christ (6 Kvpioc) working for the promotion of His kingdom, who opened (diqvoree) the heart of Lydia, i.e. wrought in her self-consciousness, as the centre and sphere of action of her inner vital energy, the corresponding veadiness, in order that she might attend to what was preached (xpocéy. roig Aadovu.). The Jidem habere® followed, but still was not the rpooéyerv itself. Comp. on viii. 6. Moreover, Chrysostom correctly remarks : 70 wév obv avoiga Tov Oeov' ro dé mpocéyelv atic’ ote kai Yeiov kai avbporivoy qv." _She experienced the motus inevitabiles of grace, to which she offered no resistance, but with willing submission rendered the moral self-conscious compliance by which she arrived at faith.® Ver. 15. Kai 6 oixoc aity¢| Of what members her family consisted, cannot be determined. This passage and ver. 33, with xviii. 8 and 1 Cor. i. 16, are appealed to in order to prove infant baptism in the apostolic age, or at least to make it probable. ‘‘ Quis credat, in tot familiis nullum fuisse in- fantem, et Judaeos circumcidendis, gentiles lustrandis illis assuetos non etiam obtulisse eos baptismo?’’ Bengel. See also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 504 ff. But on this question the following remarks are to be made: (1) If, in the Jewish and Gentile families which were converted to Christ, there were children, their baptism is to be assumed in those cases, when they were so far advanced that they could and did confess their faith on Jesus as the Messiah ; for this was the universal, absolutely necessary qualifica- tion for the reception of baptism.’ (2) If, on the other hand, there were children still incapable of confessing, baptism could not be administered to those to whom that, which was the necessary presupposition of baptism for Christian sanctification, was still wanting. (8) Such young children, whose parents were Christians, rather fell under the point of view of 1 Cor. vil. 14, according to which, in conformity with the view of the apostolic church, the children of Christians were no longer regarded as axa 3aprou, but as äayıoı, and that not on the footing of having received the character of holiness by baptism, but as having part in the Christian ayıöryc by their fellowship with their Christian parents. See on 1 Cor. l.c. Besides, the circumcision of children must have been retained for a considerable time among the Jewish-Christians, according to xxi. 21. Therefore (4) the baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N. T.,’° is not to be 1 Grotius, de Wette, and others, ® Grotius, Kuinoel, Heinrichs. 2 Hesychius, Phot. B2bl. 201. 41. 7 Comp. 2 Macc. i.4; Luke xxiv, 45; Eph. 3 Val. Fl. iv. 868; Claud. Rapt. P. i. 274; i. 18. [427 f. Plin. H. N. vii. 57; Ael. 4. A. 4.46; Max. 8 Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. Dvr xl. 2. 9 Comp. also vv. 31, 32, 33, xviii. 8. 4 Ptol. v. 2; Plin, v. 31. 10 Not even in Eph. vi. 1, in opposition to 5 See Spon. Miscell. erud. ant, p. 113. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 192. 312 CHAP. XVI., 16-18. held as an apostolic ordinance,' as, indeed, it encountered early and long resistance ; but it is an institution of the church,? which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life® and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and, although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that con- nection. Yet, even apart from the ecclesiastical premiss of a stern doctrine of original sin and of the devil going beyond Scripture, from which even exorcism arose, the continued maintenance of infant baptism, as the objec- tive attribution of spiritually creative grace in virtue of the plan of sal- vation established for every individual in the fellowship of the church, is so much the more justified, as this objective attribution takes place with a view to the future subjective appropriation. And this subjective appro- priation has so necessarily to emerge with the development of self-conscious- ness and of knowledge through faith, that in default thereof the church would have to recognise in the baptized no true members, but only membra mortua. This relation of connection with creative grace, in so far as the church. is its sphere of operation, is a theme which, in presence of the attacks of Baptists and Rationalists, must overstep * the domain of exegesis ° and be worked out in that of dogmatics, yet without the addition of con- firmation as any sort of supplement to baptism. — ei xexpixare] if ye have judged. This judgment was formed either tacitly or openly on the ground of the whole conduct of Lydia even before her baptism,—the latter itself was a witness of it ; hence the perfect is here entirely in order, in opposition to Kuinoel, Heinrichs, and others, and is not to be taken for the present. — ei, in the sense of érei, is here chosen with delicate modesty.° — ye mor. t. Kup. elvac] that I am a believer in the Lord (Christ), i.e. giving faith to His word and His promise, which ye have proclaimed, vv. 13, 14. Comp. ver. 34, xviii. 8, where Bengel well remarks: ‘‘Ipse dominus Jesus testa- batur per Paulum.’’ — xapefidcaro|.7 The use of this purposely-chosen strong word, constraining, is not to be explained from the refusal at first of those requested,* but from the vehement urgency of the feeling of grati- tude (v?). Ver. 16. That Paul and his companions accepted this pressing invitation of Lydia, and chose her house for their abode, Luke leaves the reader to infer from kai mapeßıdoaro juac, ver. 15, and he now passes over to another circumstance which occurred on another walk to the same rpocevy7 mentioned before. What now follows thus belongs to quite another day. Heinrichs and Kuinoel assume that it attached itself directly to the pre- 1 Origen, in ep. ad Rom. lib. v.: “ Abapos- baptist. Frage, Gotha 1860, ed. 2, and Dog- tolis traditione accepit ecclesia.” mat. § 255. 2]t is the most striking example of the 5 Matt. xviii. 14; Mark x. 13 ff.; Mait. recognition of historical tradition in the evan- xxviii. 19; Johniii. 6; Rom. vi. 3f.; Col. gelical church. Comp. Holtzmann, Kanon u. ii. 12, Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21. See also Tradit. p. 399 ff. Richter in the Stud. w. Krit. 1861, p. 225 ff. 3 Comp. Ehrenfeuchter, prakt. Theol. I. p. 6 Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195. 82 f. 7 Comp. Luke xxiv. 29; 1 Sam. xxviii. 23. 4Comp. Martensen, d. christl. Taufe u. d. 8 Chrysostom, Bengel, comp, Ewald. A DEMONIAC WOMAN. 313 ceding : that the conversion and baptism of Lydia had occurred while the women, ver. 13, were waiting at the rpooevyy for the commencement of divine worship ; and that, when they were about to enter into the zpocevy, this affair with the soothsaying damsel occurred. In opposition to this it may be urged, first, that ver. 15 would only interrupt and disturb the nar- rative, especially by kai mapeßıaoaro jude ; secondly, that the beginning of ver. 16 itself (éyévero dé) indicates the narration of anew event ; and thirdly, that the instruction and baptism of Lydia, and still more of her whole house, cannot naturally be limited to so short a period.—According to the reading &yovoav rvevua ridwva (see the critical remarks), the passage is to be interpreted : who was possessed by a spirit Python, i.e. by a demon, which prophesied from her belly. The damsel was a ventriloquist, and as such practised soothsaying. The name of the well-known Delphic dragon, Hodov,! became subsequently the name of a daiudviov uavrıröv,” but was also, according to Plut. de def. orac. 9, p. 414 E, used appellatively, and that of soothsayers, who spoke from the belly. So also Suidas: &yyaorpiuvdoc, éyyao- Tpiuavrıc, bv Tiveg viv TIDwva, LodoxAgce dé orepvöuavrıw. This use of rior, corresponding to the Hebrew 338, which the LXX. render by &yyaorpiuvdoc, Lev. xix. 31, xx. 6, 27,° and also passing over to the Rabbins,* is to be assumed in our passage, as otherwise we could not see why Luke should have used this peculiar word, whose specific meaning (ventriloquist-soothsayer) was certainly the less strange to him, as the thing itself had so impor- tant allusions in the O. T. and LXX. suggesting it to those possessed of Jewish culture,® just as among the Greeks the jugglery which the ventrilo- quists ° practised was well enough known.” Without doubt, the damsel was considered by those who had their fortunes told by her as possessed by a divinity ; and that she so regarded herself, is to be inferred from the effect of the apostolic word, ver. 18. Hers was a state of enthusiastic possession by this fixed idea, in which she actually might be capable of a certain clairvoyance, as in the transaction in our passage. Paul, in his Christian view,* regards this condition of hers as that of a demoniac ; Luke also so designates it, and treats her accordingly. —roic kvpioıc] There were thus several, who in succession or conjointly had her in service for the sake of gain.’ Vv. 17, 18. The soothsaying damsel, similar to asomnambulist,’® reads in the souls of the apostle and his companions, and announces their character- istic dignity. But Paul, after he had first patiently let her alone for many days, sees in her exclamation a recognition on the part of the demon dwell- ing within her, as Jesus Himself met with recognition and homage from demons ;™ and in order not to accept for himself and his work demoniacal 1 Apollod. i. 4. 1. 6 The Evguxaets or EvpucaAetdat. 2Suidas, who has the quotation: tas re 7 See Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xlii. 16. mvevpatt Iv@wvos évOovowoas ... nélov TO 8 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. (1761. €gomevov Tapayopevaat. ® Comp. Walch, de servis vet. fatidicis, Jen. 3 See Schleusner, 7hes. II. p. 222. 10 But she was not asomnambulist. See 4 R. Salomo on Deut, xviii. 11. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 310. 5 1 Sam. xxviii. 7. 11 Mark iii. 11. 314 CHAP. XVI., 19-25. testimony, which would not of itself be hushed, at length being painfully grieved,' and turning to her as she followed him, he, in the name of Jesus Christ,? commands the demon to come out of her. Now, as the slave con- sidered Paul to be the servant of the most high God, who thus must have power over the god by whom she believed herself possessed, her fixed idea was at once destroyed by that command of power, and she was consequently restored from her overstrained state of mind to her former natural condition. Of a special set purpose, for which the slave made her exclamation, oitoz vi avd puro k.7.A.—Chrysostom : the god by whom she was possessed, Apollo, hoped, on account of this exclamation, to be left in possession of her ; Walch : the damsel so cried out, in order to get money from Paul; Ewald: in order to offer her services to them; Camerarius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel : in order to exalt her own reputation—there is no hint in the text ; it was the involuntary and irresistible outburst of her morbid- ly exalted soothsaying nature. Vv. 19-21. The first persecution which is reported to us as stirred wp on the part of the Gentiles.* — éxi rovg apyovtac . . . Toic otpatnyoic] When they saw that with the departure of the god from the slave their hope of further gain had departed (é£7/ ev), they dragged Paul and Silas, not Timothy and Luke along with*them, but only the two principal persons, to the market, where, according to the custom of the Greeks, the courts of justice were erected, to the archons.* But these, the city-judges,° must have referred the matter to the orparnyoi ; and therefore the narrative proceeds: x. mpooaya- yovres aitoicg x.7.2. The accusation amounted to revolt against the Roman political authority.—The orparnyoi are the praetores, as the two chief Roman The name has its origin from the position of the old Greek strategoi.* — ixtapdac.] to bring into utter disorder. — juav r. 762. | judav prefixed with haughty emphasis, and answering to the following “though they are Jews.’’ —‘Popaiore odor] proud contrast to the odious ’Iovdaioı imapyorrec. Calvin aptly says: “* Ver- sute composita fuit haec criminatio ad gravandos Christi servos; nam ab una parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo nihil erat magis favorabile : rursum ex nomine Judaico, quod tune infame erat, conflant illis invidiam; nam quantum ad religionem, plus habebant Romani affinitatis cum aliis quibuslibet, quam cum gente Judaica.”’—The introduction of strange re- ligious customs and usages (#37), in opposition to the native religion, was strictly interdicted by the Romans.!° Possibly here also the yet fresh im- pression of the edict of Claudius" co-operated. magistrates ° in towns which were colonies called themselves.’ 1 SLamovndeis, see on iv. 2. 2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 7. 3 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2. 4 Not different from roArrapyaı, xvii. 6. 5 Comp. Luke xii. 58, and the archons in Athens in Hermann’s Staatsalterth. § 138. 6 The duwmviri, Cic. de leg. agr. 35. 7 Diod. Sic. T. X. p. 146, ed. Bip. : Zpict. ii. 1. 26: Polyb. xxxiii. 1. 5; Spanheim ad Julian. Orat. I. p. 76, de usu et praest. num. I. p. 697, II. p. 601; Alberti, Obss. p. 253. 8 Dem. 400, 26; Aristot. Polit. vii. 8, ed. Becker, II. p. 1322; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 153; Dorville, ad Char. p. 447. 9 See on erwerAnpwre, Xiil.33 ; Plut. Coriol: 19: “ Suberat utilitas privata ; publica obten- ditur,’’ Bengel. 10 See Wetstein in loc. 11 See on xviii. 2. IMPRISONMENT OF PAUL AND SILAS. 315 Vv. 22,23. And at the same time (‘‘cum ancillae dominis,’’ Bengel) the multitude rose up, in a tumultuary manner, against them ; therefore the praetors, intimidated thereby, in order temporarily to still the urgency of the mob, commanded the accused to be scourged without examination, and then, until further orders, to be thrown into strict confinement. — repıppn£. aitov ra inarıa] after having torn off their clothes. The form of expression of ver. 23 shows that the praetors did not themselves, in opposition to Ben- gel, do this piece of work, which was necessary and customary for laying bare the upper part of the body,! but caused it to be done by their subor- dinate lietors. Erasmus erroneously desired to read airov, so that the praetors would have rent their own clothes from indignation. Apart from the non-Roman character of such a custom, there may be urged against this view the compound zepipp., which denotes that the rending took place all round about the whole body.” — éxé?evov] The reference of the relative tense is to the personal presence of the narrator.* — Paul and Silas submitted to this maltreatment, one of the three mentioned in 2 Cor, xi. 25, with silent self-denial, and without appealing to their Roman citizenship, committing everything to God ; see on ver. 37. Men of strong character may, amidst unjust suffering, exhibit in presence of their oppressors their moral defiance, even in resignation. We make this remark in opposition to Zeller,* who finds the brutal conduct of the praetors, and the non-employment by the apostles of their legal privilege in self-defence—which Paul, moreover, re- nounced not merely on this occasion, 2 Cor. xi, 25—inexplicable. Bengel well remarks: ‘‘Non semper omnibus praesidiis omni modo utendum ; divino regimini auscultandum.’ Ina similar plight, xxii. 25, Paul found it befitting to interpose an assertion of his privilege, which he here only uesd for the completion of his victory over the persecution, ver. 37,—a result which, in xxii. 25, according to the divine destination which he was aware of, he recognised as unattainable. ~ Ver. 24. The zealous jailor fulfilled the command aooaAöc rypeiv by a two- fold measure ; he not only put the accused into the prison-ward situated, more than the other wards, in the interior of the house (eic 77V écwrépav ovAarv), but also secured their feet in the stocks. —eic rd EiAov, in nervum,? i.e. in the wooden block in which the feet, stretched apart from each other, were enclosed, called also rodoxary and rodoorpaßn in Heb, 70° (w’). Vv. 25, 26. In joyful consciousness of suffering for the glorification of Christ, v. 41, they sing in the solemn stillness of the night prayers of praise to God,’ and thereby keep their fellow-prisoners awake, so that they listened to them (erykpoovro). Whether these are to be conceived as con- fined in the same écurépay ov2axyv, or possibly near to it but more to the front, or whether they were in both localities, cannot be determined. 1 Grotius and Wolf in loc. 5 Plaut. Captiv. iii. 5. 71; Liv. viii. 28. 2 Plat. Crit. p. 113 D: mepippyyvuce KvKay, 6 Job xiii. 27, xxxiil. 11. See Herod. vi. 75, Polyb. xv. 38, 4, al.; comp. Tittmann, Synon. ix. 37, and later writers, Grotius and Wetstein p. 221. in loc. 2 See Winer, p. 253 (EH. T. 337). 7 ‘*Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum animus 4 Comp. Baur. in coelo est,'’ Tertull. 316 CHAP. XVI., 26-35. Then suddenly there arises an earthquake, etc. God at once rewards—this is the significant relation of vv. 25 and 26—the joy of faith and of suf- fering on the part of Paul and Silas by miraculous interposition. The objection, which Baur and Zeller! take to the truth of this narrative, turns on the presupposed inconceivableness of miracles in general. In connec- tion with the fiction assumed by them, even the éxyxpodvto . . . déopeor is supposed only to have for its object ‘‘to make good the casual connection between the earthquake and the prayer’’ (Zeller). — ravrwv] thus also of those possibly to be found in other parts of the prison.? The reading aveAvdy (Bornemann) is a correct gloss. Vv. 27, 28. The jailer, aroused by the shock and the noise, hastens to the prison, and when he sees the doors which, one behind another, led to it open, and so takes it for granted that the prisoners have escaped, he wishes, from fear of the vengeance of the praetors, to kill himself — which, in opposition to Zeller’s objection, he may have sufficiently indicated by expressions of his despair. Then Paul calls, ete. — yayarpav| a sword, which he got just at hand ;* with the article it would denote the sword which he was then wearing, his sword. —äravrsc] Thus the rest of the prisoners, involuntarily detained by the whole miraculous event, and certainly also in part by the imposing example of Paul and Silas, had not used their re- lease from chains (ver. 26) and the opening of the prison for their own liberation. The évdade does not affirm that they had all come together into the prison of Paul, but only stands opposed to éamegevyévar. None is away; we are, all and every one, here ! — The loosening of the chains, moreover, and that without any injury to the limbs of the enchained, is, in view of the miraculous character of the event, not to be judged according to the laws of mechanics, in opposition to Gfrérer, Zeller, any more than the omission of flight on the part of the other prisoners is to be judged according to the usual practice of criminals. The prisoners were arrested, and felt them- selves sympathetically detained by the miracle which had happened ; and therefore the suggestion to which Chrysostom has recourse, that they had not seen the opening of the doors, is inappropriate. Vy. 29, 30. bara] Lights, i.e. lamps,* several, in order to light up and strictly search everything. — évrpopoc yevdu. mpooer.]| He now saw in Paul and Silas no longer criminals, but the favourites and confidants of the gods ; the majesty which had been maltreated inspired him with terror and re- spectful submission. —iva cwda| in order that I may obtain salvation. He means the owrnpia, which Paul and Silas had announced ; for what he had heard of them, that they made known ödöv owrnpiac, ver. 17, was now established in his conviction as truth. This lively conviction longs to have part in the salvation, and hissincere longing desires to fulfil that by which this participation is conditioned. Morus, Stolz, Rosenmüller render it : “in order that I may escape the punishment of the gods on account of your 1 Comp. Gfrörer, heil. Sage, I. p. 446. 3 Mark xiv. 47. 2On avedn, comp. Plut. Alex. 73: rods 4Xen. Zell. v. 1. 8; Lucian. Conviw. 15; Secpovs aveivar. Eustath ad Od. viii. p. 313. Plat. Ant. 26. ure CONVERSION OF THE JAILER. 317. harsh treatment.’’ But, if Luke desired to have ow0é and cw9fon, ver. 31, un- derstood in different senses, he must have appended to cw a more precise definition; for the meaning thus assigned to it suggests itself the less naturally, as the jailer, who had only acted as an instrument under higher direction,! could not reasonably apprehend any vengeance of the gods. Vy. 31, 32. The epanorthosis cd kai 6 oikög cov extends to riorevoov and owdhon. — They lay down faith on Jesus as the condition of owrmpia, and nothing else ; but saving faith is always in the N. T. that which has holiness as its effect, Rom. vi, not ‘a human figment and opinion which the depths of the heart never get to know,’’ but ‘‘a divine work in us which transforms and begets us anew from God,’’? without, however, making justi- fication, which is the act of the imputation of faith, to include sanctifica- tion.*— For the sake of this requirement of believing, they set forth the gospel to the father of the family and all his household.* Vv. 33, 34. Tlaparaß. aitoic . . . éhovcev| he took and washed them (x?). Vividness of delineation. Probably he led them to a neighbouring water, perhaps in the court of the house, in which his baptism and that of his household was immediately completed.’ — ano rov rAyyor| a pregnant ex- pression : so that they were cleansed from the stripes—from the blood of the in- flicted wounds, ver. 22 f.°— rapaypjua] the adverb emphatically placed at the end.’ — avayayév| We are to think of the official dwelling of the jailer as being built above the prison cells.” — rap£dnke tpdxetav] quite the Latin apposuit mensam, i.e., he gave a repast ; to be explained from the custom of setting out the table before those who were to be entertained.* — ravocki| ovv 6Aw ro oikw, Phavorinus. It belongs to rerıor. A more classical form," according to the Atticists, would have been ravoıki« or mavoınnoia." — memiarevkac TO Bew] because he had become and was a believer on God (perfect). He, the Gentile, now believed the divine promises of salvation announced to him by Paul and Silas.’? That this his wıoreverw was definitely Christian faith, and accordingly equivalent to mıoreveıw TO Kupiw, was self-evident to the reader.’* — That, after ver. 34, Paul and Silas had returned to prison, follows from vv. 36-40. Vv. 35, 36. The news of the miraculous earthquake, perhaps also the particulars which they might in the meantime have learned concerning the two prisoners, may have made the praetors have scruples concerning the hasty maltreatment. They consider it advisable to have nothing further 1 Comp. Chrysost. 2 Luther’s Prefuce to the Epistle to the Ro- mans. 3 See on Rom. i. 1%. 4 See on viii. 25. 5 This is confirmed by the fact that baptism took place by complete immersion,—in oppo- sition to Baumgarten, p. 515, who, transfer- ring the performance of baptism to the house, finds here ‘‘an approximation to the later custom of simplifying the ceremony,”’ accord- ing to which complete immersion did not take place. Immersion was, in fact, quite an essential part of the symbolism of baptism (Rom. vi.). 6 See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 276 f. (E. T. 3ER). 7 Comp. on Matt. ii. 10, and Kühner, § 863. 1. 8 Comp. ix. 39; Luke iv. 5, xxii. 67. ®Hom. Od. v. 92, xxi. 29; Polyb. xxxix. 2. 11. 10 Yet see Plat. Zryx. p. 392 C. 11 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 514 ff. See exam- ples from Philo in Loesner, p. 208. 12 Ver. 32; comp. ver. 15, xviii. 8. 13 See also ver. 32. 818 CHAP. XVI., 37-40. to do with them, and to get rid of them forthwith by releasing them. Curtly and contemptuously (roi¢ avdp. Exeivovc), in order to maintain at least thereby their stern official attitude, they notified the order by their lictors (jaBdobyouc, bearers of the fasces) to the jailer, who, with congratulatory sympathy, announces it to the prisoners. According to Baumgarten, the motives for the severity of the previous day had lost their force with the praetors during the night—a point in which there is expressed a distinction from the persistent enmity of the Sanhedrists in Jerusalem. But this would furnish an adequate ground for a proceeding running so entirely counter to the course of criminal procedure. The praetors must have be- come haunted by apprehension and ill at ease, and they must therefore have received some sort of information concerning the miraculous occurrences. — év eipyvn] happily.' Ver. 37. TIpöc airoic] to the jailer and the lictors ; the latter had thus in the meantime come themselves into the prison. — deipavrec x.7.A.] after they had beaten us publicly without judicial condemnation,—us who are Romans. This sets forth, in terse language precisely embracing the several elements, their treatment as an open violation, partly of the law of nature and nations in general,” partly of the Roman law in particular. For exemption from the disgrace of being scourged by rods and whips was secured to every Roman citizen by the Zex Valeria in the year 254 v.c.,’ and by the Lex Poreia in the year 506 v.c.,* before every Roman tribunal ;° therefore Cicero, in Verr. v. 57, says of the exclamation, Civis Romanus sum: ‘‘ saepe multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit.’? — That Silas was also a Roman citizen, is rightly inferred from the plural form of expression, in which there is no reason to find a mere synecdoche. The distinction, which was implied in the bestowal of this privilege, cannot be adduced against the historical character of the narrative (Zeller), as we know not the occasion and circumstances of its acquisition. But how had Paul, by his birth, xxii. 18, Roman citizenship? Certainly not simply as a native of Tarsus. For Tarsus was neither a colonia nor a municipium, but an urbs libera, to which the privilege of having governing authorities of its own, under the recognition, however, of the Roman supremacy, was given by Augustus after the civil war, as well as other privileges,° but not Roman citizenship ; for this very fact would, least of all, have remained historically unknown, and acquaintance with the origin of the apostle from Tarsus would have protected him from the decree of scourging.” This much, therefore, only may be surely decided, that hıs father or a yet earlier an- cestor had acquired the privilege of citizenship either as a reward of merit* or by purchase,’ and had transmitted it to the apostle. According to Zeller’s arbitrary preconceptions, the mention of the Roman citizenship 1 See on Mark v. 34; comp. on xv. 33 5 Comp. Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 2 axataxpttovs, found neither in the LXX, 6 Dio Chrys. IL. p 36, ed. Reiske. or Apocrypha, nor in Greek writers. 7 See xxi. 29, comp. with xxii. 24 ff. 3 Liv. ii.8; Valer. Max. iv.1; Dion. Hal. 8 Suet. Aug. 47. Vv. p. 292. 9 xxii. 28; Die Cass. lx. 17; Joseph. Bell. 4 Liv. x. 9; Cic. pro Rabir. 4. Jud. ii. 14. RELEASE FROM PRISON. 319 here and in chap. xxii. had only the unhistorical purpose in view ‘ of rec- ommending the apostle tothe Romans as a native Roman.’ — «ai viv Addpa qua Exßa7A.] is indignantly opposed to deipavres judg dmuooia . . . EBarov eic ouvAarzv: and now do they cast us out secretly? The present denotes the action as already begun, by the order given. Paul, however, for the honour of himself and his work, disdains this secret dismissal, that it might not appear—and this the praetors intended !—that he and Silas had escaped. On the previous day he had, on the contrary, disdained to avert the mal- treatment by an appeal to his citizenship, see on ver. 23. The usual opinion is! that the tumult in the forum had prevented him from asserting his citizenship. But it is obvious of itself that even the worst tumult, at ver. 22 or ver. 23, would have admitted a “ Civis Romanus sum,’ had Paul wished to make such an appeal. — oi yap, a22a] not so, but. It is to be analyzed thus: for they are not to cast us out secretly ; on the contrary (a72a) they are, ete. yap specifies the reason why the preceding, indignant question is put, and a?%a answers adversatively to the ob.?— aizoi] in their own persons they are to bring us out. Vv. 38, 39. ’Eooßnßncav] The reproach gontained in äxararpirovc did not trouble them, but the violation of citizenship was an offence against the majesty of the Roman people, and as such was severely punished.* — Ver. 39. What a change in the state of affairs: éAVdvte¢ . . . maperalecav, name- ly, toacquiesce, . . . éayaydvre¢ . . . potov !— éképyeoda with the simple genitive, asin Matt. x. 14. Very frequent with Greek writers since subse- quent to Homer. On rapakadeiv, to give fair words, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 13. Ver. 40. Before they comply with the &2eAdeiv r7c röAewc, ver. 39, the apostolie heartfelt longing constrains them first to repair to the house of Lydia, to exhort (raperaAscav) the new converts assembled there that they should not become wavering in their Christian confession. And from this house grew the church, to which, of all that Paul founded, he has erected the most eulogistic monument in his Epistle—in this sense also the first church which he established in Europe. — é£7230v] Only Paul and Silas, as they alone were affected by the inquiry, appear now to have departed from Philippi. Zuke at least, as the use of the third person teaches us, did not go with them. Paul left him behind to build up the youthful church. Whether, however, Timothy (vv. 1 ff.) also remained behind, cannot be de- termined. He is not again named until xvii. 14, but he may nevertheless have already departed from Philippi, and need not necessarily have rejoined them till in Beroea or Thessalonica. Remarx.—In the rejection of the entire history as history Baur and Zeller (comp. Hausrath) essentially agree ; it is alleged to be formed in accordance with xii. 7 ff., as an apologetic parallelism of Paul with Peter. But as Philip- pian persecutions are mentioned also in 1 Thess. ii. 2, the opinions formed by them concerning the relation of the two passages are opposite. Baur makes 1 1 So also de Wette. Protag. p. 343 D, and the examples in Wet- 2Sce Hartung, Partikell. II. p 48; comp. stein. Devar. p. 169, ed. Klotz; also Stallb. ad 3 Dion. Hal. xi. p. 725; Grotius ön loc. 320 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES. Thess. ii. 2 to be derived from the narrative before us; whereas Zeller, con- sidering the Epistles to the Thessalonians as older, supposes the author of the Acts to have ‘‘ concocted”’ (p. 258) his narrative from 1 Thess, ii. 2. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (1?) We endeavored to go. Y.10. «It is observable that the first person is here introduced for the first time, the author thus intimating his presence. From this it appears that Luke joined Paul’s company at Troas.’’ Meyer supposes the reason why Luke never mentions his own name throughout the entire history to be that Theophilus was well acquainted with his personal relations to Paul. Olshausen suggests, Meyer says arbitrarily, we think with great probability, a feeling of modesty on the part of Luke. Some, in view of the fact that the apostle had only recently recovered from a severe illness (see y. 6, and Gal. iv. 13), suppose ‘‘that Luke, the beloved physician,’’ accompanied him, to watch over his health. From this time till the last imprisonment at Rome, with but two brief intervals, he was the great apostle’s constant attendant. In the very last of his Epistles the apostle, writing in full view of a violent death, and forsaken by many, touch- ingly says: “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. iv. 11). Another hypothesis is that Luke makes use of a history written by Silas or Timothy; but this is not probable in itself, and if true would have produced an eariier change in the form of the narrative. These four, then—Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke—after a brief voyage from Troas, landed at Neapolis, and so the first Christian apostle landed in Europe. It is probable, however, ere this time that the gospel had been preached in Rome by some of the dispersion, but not by an apostle. Dr. Taylor writes: ‘‘ That voyage stands out by itself as unique as it is glorious. They went to plant a seed from which have sprung liberty, law, progress, and religion on that continent, and all the blessings which, in this western land, we now enjoy. The gigantic trees in the Mariposa grove sprung each from a seed no bigger than a grain of wheat, though it took them centuries to grow. Here, in the landing of Paul with the gospel at Neapolis, we have the germ out of which European and American Christianity has been developed.” (0?) The chief city. V. 12. Various opinions are held as to the meaning of this description of Philippi, nporn möAıs—the obvious meaning is chief city or capital ; but Thessalonica was the capital, or capital of that part of Macedonia where Paul then was ; but Amphipolis held that position. Some would change the reading from zpérn 775 to mpwryS, a city of the first part of Macedonia; but the authority of the mss. is against such change. Others understand the phrase to mean a chief town. Others, with Meyer, unite the two words zporn 76/15 with xo?.ovia—the first colo- nial city of the district—the most distinguished in point of importance. Many others render it the first city of Macedonia proper at which Paul arrived ; and this appears to be the correct idea. “‘ The purpose of the narrator is to define the geographical position, and not the political importance of Philippi. He means to say that to one entering Macedonia from the Thracian frontier in that district, Philippi is the first city on his route.’’ ( Taylor.) NOTES, ook (v?) She was baptized and her household. Y. 15. This verse has often been quoted as evidence that infant baptism was the practice of the apostolic age. Commentators are divided in opinion on the force of the evidence afforded. The passage in itself cannot be adduced either for or against infant baptism. It might be a presumption in favor of it. “The practice itself rests on firmer grounds than a precarious induction from a few ambiguous passages.” (Plumtre.) The subject, however, does not prop. erly fall under the domain of exegesis, but must be, as Meyer says, ‘‘ worked out in that of dogmatics, ” (w?) Into the inner prison. Y. 24. In the Roman prisons there were usually three distinct stories, one above an- other—the communiora, or upper flat, where the prisoners had light and fresh air ; the interiora, or lower flat, shut off with strong iron gates, with bars and locks ; the tullianum, or lowest flat or dungeon, the place for one condemned to die. Into this dark, damp, underground, filthy, stifling pit, after having been stripped, beaten with great severity, and bound with an instrument of torture, the unoffending preachers were thrust with unfeeling alacrity. ‘Yet over all this complication of miseries the souls of Paul and Silas rose in triumph. With heroic cheerfulness they solaced the long black hours of midnight with prayer and hymns. To every Jew, as to every Christian, the psalms of David furnished an inexhaustible storehouse of sacred song.” ‘* Never, probably, had such a scene occurred before in the world’s history, and this perfect tri- umph of the spirit of peace and joy over shame and agony was an omen of what Christianity would afterwards effect. And while they sang, and while the prisoners listened, perhaps, to verses which ‘out of the deeps’ called on Jehovah, or ‘ fled to him before the morning watch,’ or sang— ‘The plowers plowed upon my back and made long furrows, But the righteous Lord hath hewn the snares of the ungodly in pieces,’ or triumphantly told how God had ‘burst the gates of brass, and smitten the bars asunder.’ Suddenly there was felt the great shock of earthquake, which rocked the very foundation of the prison.” (Furrar.) This is the first in- stance recorded of a persecution against the Christians by the Roman authori- ties. Hitherto either the Jews themselves, or the multitude instigated by them, had persecuted the disciples ; but there had been no interference on the part of the Roman government. The accusation against them was not on religious grounds, or because they preached Jesus and the resurrection ; but it was based on political grounds, charging them with being disturbers of the peace, and teaching practices contrary to Roman customs. On this charge against the apostles Calvin writes: “This accusation is craftily composed to burden the servants of Christ. For on the one side they pretend the name of the Romans, than which nothing was more favorable; on the other, they purchase hatred and bring them in contempt by warning the Jews, which name was at that time infamous ; for, as touching religion, the Romans were more like to any than to the Jewish nation. Forit was lawful for one which was a Roman to do sac- rifice either in Asia or in Grecia, or in any other country where were idols and superstitions. They frame a third accusation out of the crime of sedition, for 322 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES. they pretend that the public peace is troubled by Paul and his company. In like sort was Christ brought into contempt (odiose traductus fuit).” (x?) And washed their stripes. \V. 33. The twofold washings—that which evidenced the true repentance, awakened gratitude, and kindly reverence of the jailer for his prisoners, and that which they administered to him, as the sign of the washing of regeneration—are placed in close and suggestive juxtaposition. As Chrysostom beautifully ex- presses it : ‘‘ &Aovoev adrodS Kad EAobm' Exeivovs piv and TAY TAnydY EAovoev, AUTOS 68 and THY duaptiGy éAovon—He washed them, and he was washed ; he washed them from their stripes, he himself was washed from his sins,” CRITICAL REMARKS. 523 CHAPTER, 2X6V i VER. 2. dueAéyeto] AB NS, min. have dveAegato (so Lachm.). DE, min. have dveAéx6n, which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted. Different altera- tions of the imperf. into the aor. (in conformity with eioynde). — Ver. 4. After oeBou. Lachm. has «ai (A D lot. Vulg. Copt.). Offence was taken at the combi- nation oeBou, 'EAAyv., and therefore sometimes ‘EAArw. was omttted (min. Theophyl. 1), sometimes kai was inserted. — Ver. 5. mpooAuß. d2 oi ’Iovd.] So Griesb. But Elz. has (nAvoavres 02 of ameıboüvres ’Iovdaioı, Kal rpooAaß. Lachm. : (mAooavres d2 of 'Iovd. kai npoAaß., which also Rinck prefers. Mat- thaei: mpooAaß. dé of ’Iovd. of areıd. So Scholz and Tisch. Still other varia- tions in codd. vss. and Fathers (D: ol d? ameobvtes ’Iovdaioı ovorpäbavres, SO Born.). The reading of Lachm. has most external evidence in its favour (A B &, min. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Syr. utr.), and it is the more to be preferred, since that of Griesb., from which otherwise, on account of its simplicity, the others might have arisen as amplifications in the form of glosses, is only pre- served in 142, and consequently is almost entirely destitute of critical warrant ; the areıdoövres in the Recepta betrays itself as an addition (from xiv. 2), partly from its being exchanged in several witnesses for amecfjoavtes, and partly from the variety of its position (E has it only after rovypovs). — ayayeiv] So H, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec. But D, 104, Copt. Sahid. have &$ayayeıv (so Born.) ; A B &, min. Vulg. : mpoayayeiv (so Lachm.); E: mpocayayew ; G, 11: avayayew. All of them more definite interpretations. — Ver. 13. After saAevovres, Lachm. and Born. have «ai tapacoovreS. So ABD, S, min. and several vss. But oad. was easily explained after ver. 8 by rap. as a gloss, which was then joined by kai with the text. — Ver. 14. os] A BE NSS, min. have és, which Lachm. has adopted. But és was not understood, and therefore was sometimes changed into éwS, sometimes omitted (D, min. vss.). — Ver. 15. After 7yayov, Elz. Scholz have airdév, against preponderating testimony. A familiar supplement. — Ver. 16. dewpoövrı] Lachm. and Tisch. read @ewpodvtos, which also Griesb. recom- mended, after A BE, N, min. Fathers. Rightly ; the dative is adapted to the auro. — Ver. 18. Instead of abro:s (which with Lachm., according to witnesses of some moment, is to be placed after einyyeA.) Rinck would prefer aizod, according to later codd. and some vss. A result of the erroneous reference of the absolute tv avacraow to the resurrection of Jesus. The pronoun is en- tirely wanting in BGN, min. Chrys, So Tisch.; and correctly, both on account of the frequency of the addition, and on account of the variety of the order. In D the whole passage örı . . . ednyyedivero is wanting, which Born. approves. — Ver. 20. Instead of ri dv, AB N, min. vss, have riva, and instead of H&Aoı: OéAer. Lachm. has adopted both. But TIAN was the more easily converted after the preceding rıva into TINA, as taira follows afterwards. The removal of the dv then occasioned the indicative. — Ver. 21. kat akovew] Lachm. Tisch. Born read 7) axovew, which according to A BD &, Vulg. Sahid. Syr, p. is to be adopted. -— Ver. 23. Instead of öv and toirov, A* B D &* 324 CHAP. XVII, 1-6. lot: Vulg. Cant. Or. Jer. have 6 and rovro. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. Rightly ; the masculine is an old alteration (Clem. already has it) in accordance with what precedes and follows. — Ver. 25. avßporivov] Elz. Scholz have avfpörur, against decisive evidence. — kai ra ravta] BG H most min. and some vss. and Fathers have cata mavra. So Mill. and Matth. An error of transcribers, to whose minds xara rävra, from ver. 22, was still present. — Ver. 26. aliuaros] is wanting in A B®, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clem. Beda, Lachm. The omission easily took place after &v0O2. Had there been a gloss, avdporov would most naturally have suggested itself ; comp. Rom. v. 12 ff. — rdv TO rp6owrov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ravros mpoowrov, according to A B D NS, min, Clem. But the article is necessary, and in the scriptio continua IIANTO was easily taken together, and ravros made of it. — mpoorerayu.] Elz. Born. read mpore- rayı., against decisive testimony. A frequent interchange. — Ver. 27. Kypıov] Griesb. Lachm. read 0¢6v, according to A B G H &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. So Tisch. and Born. But certainly an interpretation, which was here in particular naturally suggested, as Paul is speaking to Athenians. To 6ciov in D, Clem. Ir. Ambr., inserted from ver. 29, is yet more adapted to this standpoint. — kairoıye] SON. But BD GH, min. Fathers read xaiye, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. A E, Clem. read xairoı. See on xiv. 17. — Ver. 30. mäacı] A B D** E 8, min. Ath. Cyr. and vss. have mdvras. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. ; and rightly. The dative came in after avOpoemos.— Ver. 31. dıöre] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read xadörı, according to AB DE 8, min. and Fathers. Rightly ; it was supplanted by the more usual diorı. Ver. 1. Amphipolis, an Athenian colony, at that time the capital of Mace- donia prima, comp. on xvi. 12, around which on both sides flowed the Strymon. Apollonia, belonging to the Macedonian province Mygdonia, was situated 30 miles to the south-west. It is not to be confounded with Apollonia in Macedonian Illyria. Thessalonica lay 36 miles to the west of Apollonia—so called either, and this is the most probable opinion, by its rebuilder and embellisher, Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica,! or earlier by Philip, as a memorial of his subjection of Thessaly,? at an earlier period Therme,—on the Thermaic gulf, the capital of the second district of Macedonia, the seat of the Roman governor, flourishing by its commerce, now the large and populous Saloniki, still inhabited by numer- ous Jews. °— 7 ovvaywy7| Beza held the article to be without significance. The same error occasioned the omission’ of 7 in A B D x, min. Lachm. But the article marks the synagogue in Thessalonica as the only one in all that neighbourhood. Paul and Silas halted at the seat of the synagogue of the district, according to their principle of attempting their work in the first instance among the Jews (Y?). Vv. 2-4. Kara dé 76 eiwd. rö TI.) Comp. Luke iv. 16. The construction is by way of attraction (kara dé r. eiwd. aurö elonAbev 6 HavAoc), with antict- pation of the subject. ° — duedéyero abroic] he carried on colloquies with them. 1 Dionys. Hal., Strabo, Zonaras. 4 Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. w. 2 Stephan. Byz., Tzetzes. Krit. 1860, p. 360. 3 See Lünemann on 1 Thers. Introd. § 1. 5 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 133). PAUL AT THESSALONICA. 325 Thus frequently in and after Plato, with the dative or xpöc,!in which com- binations it is never the simple facere verba ad aliquem, in opposition to de Wette, not even in xviii. 19, xx. 7, nor even in Heb. xii. 5, where the pa- ternal rapakanow speaks with the children.” The form of dialogue, Luke ii. 46 f., was not unsuitable even in the synagogue; Jesus Himself thus taught in the synagogue, John vi. 25-59; Matt. xii. 9 ff. ; Luke iv. 16 ff. — ard rov ypag.| starting from the Scriptures, deriving his doctrinal propositions from them.* Is ard rov ypag. to be connected with det. abroic* or with The latter is, on account of the greater emphasis which thus falls on ürö 7. yp., to be preferred. — dıavoiy. x. raparıd.| Upon what Paul laid down as doctrine, thetically, he previously gave information, by analytical development.° Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Duo gradus, ut si quis nucleum fracto cortice et recludat et exemtum ponat in medio.” — 67 rov Xpiorov &deı (Luke xxiv. 26) x.r.2. is related to kai bre obroc K.7.2., a8 a gen- eral proposition of the history of salvation to its concrete realization and manifestation. The latter is to be taken thus: and that this Messiah, no other than He who had to suffer and rise again, Jesus is, whom I preach to you. Accordingly, Ijcove öv é. kar. bu. is the subject, and oitoc 6 Xpucréde the predicate. By this arrangement the chief stress falls on ’Inooüc k.r.A., and in the predicate oöroc, which, according to the preceding, represents the only true Seriptural Messiah, has the emphasis, which is further brought out by the interposition of &ori between oitoc and 6 Xpicréc. —éyé] em- phatic: I for my part. As to the oratio variata, see on i. 4. — rpocexdnp. | is not to be taken as middle,’ but as passive: they were assigned by God to them, as belonging to them, as pa@yrai. Only here in the N. T.* — rivec roAv tAqHoc| The proselytes were more free from prejudice than the native Jews. Vv. 5, 6. ZyAdcarrec (see the critical remarks) : filled with zeal, and having taken to themselves, namely, as abettors towards producing the intended ris- ing of the people. — ayopaioı] are market-loungers, idlers, a rabble which, without regular business-avocations, frequents the public places, subrostrani, subbasilicani.” The distinction which old grammarians make between ayopaio¢ and ayéparoc appears to be groundless from the conflicting character of their statements themselves.!° — Whether Jason is an originally Hellenic name, or only a Hellenic transformation of the Jewish Jesus, as according to Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 1 was certainly the case with the high priest in 2 Macc. i. 7, iv. 7 ff., remains entirely undecided from our want of knowl- edge as to the man himself. It was his house before which they suddenly dıavoiywv K.T.A.?? 1 Mark ix. 34; Acts xvii. 17, 2 Comp. Delitzsch in loc. p. 612. 3 Comp. xxviii. 23 ; Winer, p. 349 (E. T. 465). 4 So Vulg., Luther, and many others, Winer and de Wette. 3; Loesner, p. 209 f. % See Herod. ii. 141; Plat. Prot. 347 C, and Ast in loc. 10 Suidas : the former is 0 Ev rn ayopa avac- Tpepomevos avOpwros, the latter 7 nuepa ev 7 5 Pricaeus, Grotius, Elsner, Morus, Rosen- miiller, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Ewald. 6 Stavoiy., Luke xxiv. 32. 7 Comp. Eph. i. 11. 8 But see Plut. Mor. p.'788 D; Lucian. Amor. ayopa TeActTar, Whereas Ammonius says: the former denotes tov ev ayope Tıuwpevor, the latter tov movnpov tov Ev ayopa TEeApay.mevov ; see Göttling, Accentl. p. 297. Comp. Stepha- nus, 7hes. I. p. 430, ed. Paris. 326 CHAP. XVII., 7-15. appeared,' because this was known to them as the place where Paul and Silas were lodged. These two, however, were absent, either accidentally, or designedly after receiving information. — röv ‘Iacova x. tiwag adedo.) as accomplices, and Jason also as such, and at the same time as the responsi- ble host of the insurgents. — roAırapxac] like rovc apyovrac, xvi. 19. Designa- tion of the judicial personages acting as magistrates of the city.” — oi ryv oikovn. avaorar.] who have made the world rebellious! The exaggerative character of the passionate accusation, especially after what had already taken place amidst public excitement at Philippi, is a sufficient reason to set aside the opinion that the accusation bears the colouring of a later time, Baur, Zeller ; comp. xxiv. 5. — ävaoraröw, excito,* belongs to Alexandrian Greek.‘ Ver. 7. ‘Yrodédexrac] not secretly, which Erasmus finds in ié, but as in Luke x. 38, xix. 6. — As formerly in the case”of Jesus the Messianic name was made to serve as a basis for the charge of high treason, so here with the confessors of Jesus (oro ravrec) as the Messiah. Comp. xix. 12. Per- haps * the doctrine of the Parousia of the risen (ver. 3) Jesus had furnished a special handle for this accusation. — ovro: rävrec] ‘‘ Eos qui fugerant, et qui aderant notant,’’ Bengel. — artvavrı rov doyuar. Kaic.| in direct oppo- sition to the edicts of the emperor, which interdicted high treason and guarded the majesty of the Caesar.° — ßaoıh. Ay. Erepov elvat] Bara. in the wider sense, which includes also the imperial dignity.” Vv. 8, 9. ’Erapazav| This was alarm at revolutionary outrage and Roman vengeance. Comp. Matt. ii. 3. — %aßövres ro ixavév] Comp. Mark xy. 15, where ro ikavöv roıeiv rıvı 13: to satisfy one, so that he can demand nothing more. Therefore: after they had received satisfaction, so that for the pres- ent they might desist from further claims against the persons of the ac- cused, satisdatione accepta. Comp. Grotius. But whether this satisfaction took place by furnishing sureties or by lodging a deposit of money, remains undecided ; certainly its object was @ guarantee that no attempt against the Roman majesty should prevail or should occur. This is evident from the relation in which Aaßövrec 75 ikavöv necessarily stands with the point of complaint, ver. 7, and with the disquietude (érapazav) excited thereby. Therefore the opinions are to be rejected, that Aa£. r. ix. refers to security that Paul and Silas would appear in case of need before the court,® or that they would be no longer sheltered,’ or that they should immediately de- part.!° Moreover, it is erroneous, with Luther and Camerarius, to suppose that by ro ikavöv is meant a satisfactory vindication. Luke would certainly have brought out this more definitely ; and Aaßövrec denotes an actual receipt of the satisfaction (ro ixavév), as the context suggests nothing else. — Observe, too, how here—it is otherwise in xvi. 20—the politarchs did not 1 &mıotavtes, comp. on Luke ii. 9. 2 Boeckh. Jnscript. II. p. 53, No. 1967. moAi- rapxos is found in Aeneas Tacticus 26; else- where in classic Greek, moAtapxos. Pind. Wem. vii. 123; Eur. hes. 381 ; Dio Cass. xl. 46. 3 xxi. 38; Gal. v. 12. « Sturz, de Dial. Al, p. 146. Comp. ävaora- twoıs, Poll. iii. 91. 5 See 1 and 2 Thess. 6 On amevarrı, comp. Ecclus. xxxvi. 14, Xxxvii. 4. 7 John xix. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 12; Herodian, i. 6. 14. 8 Grotius, Raphel. 9 Michaelis, Heinrichs, comp. Ewald. 10 Heumann, Kuinoel. x PAUL AT BEROEA. 327 prosecute the matter further, but cut it short with the furnished guarantee, which was at least politically the most prudent course. Vv. 10-12. Acad r. vorr.] As in xvi. 9.— Beroea, a city in the third dis- trict of Macedonia,’ to the south-west of Thessalonica.? — arjecav] drew, so frequent in Greek writers, only here in the N. T.° They separated, after their arrival, from their companions, and went away to the syna- gogue. — evyeveorepoı] of a nobler character.* Theophyl. after Chrys.: émveckéorepot. An arbitrary limitation; tolerance is comprehended in the general nobleness of disposition. —rév év Oecoad.] than the Jews in Thes- salonica. — rö xa’ juépav| daily.” — avarpivovres tag yp.] searching the Seript- ures (John v. 39), namely, to prove: ei &yor raura, which Paul and Silas stated, oörwc, as they taught, ‘‘ Character verae religionis, quod se dijudi- cari patitur,’’ Bengel. — euoynu.] see on xiii. 50. — The Hellenic women and men are to be considered partly as proselytes of the gate who had heard the preaching of Christ in the synagogue, and partly as actual Gentiles who were gained in private conversations. Comp. on xi. 20. — 'EAAnvidov] construed with yvvarkov, but also to be referred to dvdpov.* — That the church of Beroea soon withered again, is quite as arbitrarily assumed by Baumgarten, as that it was the only one founded by Paul to which no letter of the apostle has come down to us. How many churches may Paul have founded of which we know nothing whatever ! (z’). Vv. 13-15. Kaxei] is to be connected, not with 7AAov, so that then the usual attraction would take place,” but with catetovrec ; for not the coming, but the oaAsvew, had formerly taken place elsewhere.— Ver. 14. Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away from the city, that he might journey Oc éxi tiv Gadaccay. Neither here nor elsewhere is oc redundant, but it indicates the definitely conceived purpose of the direction, which he had to take toward the sea, the Thermaic gulf.* Others® render it: as if toward the sea ; so that, in order to escape the snares, they took the road toward the sea only apparently, and then turned to the land-route. But in that case Luke, if he wished to be understood, would not have failed to add a remark counter to the mere semblance of the sop. éxi r. aA, especially as in what follows nothing necessarily points to a journey by land to Athens,” — 6 Tıu60.]) Where Timothy, supposing him to have remained behind at Philippi," again fell in with Paul and Silas, is uncertain. — &xei] in Beroea. — Ver. 15. kardıoravar] to bring to the spot ; then, to transport, to escort one.” —iva oc Tayiota K.r.A.]| See xviii, 5, according to which, however, they [Verria. Now ı Liv. xlv. 30. 2 See Forbiger, Geogr. III. p. 1061. 3 Comp. 4 Macc. vii. 8; 2 Macc. xii. 1. 4 Plat. Def. p. 413 B, Polit. p. 310 A; Soph. Aj. 475 ; 4 Macc. vi. 5, ix. 27. [329. 5 Comp. Luke xi. 3, xix. 47; Bernhardy, p. 6 See Matthaei, § 441. 7 See on Matt. ii. 22. 8 See Winer, p.573 f. (E.T. 771); Hermann, ad Philoct. 56; Ellendt, Lex Soph. Ii. p. 1004, ® Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Ben- gel, Olshausen, Neander, Lange. 10 Erasmus correctly observes: ‘‘ probabilius est eum navigavisse quia nulla fit mentio eorum, quae P. in itinere gesserit, cui fuerint tot civitates peragrandae.”’ 11 See on xvi. 40. 12 Not: who brought him in safety (Beza and. others’. Hom. Od. xiii. 274: rovs u’ éxéAevoa IIvAovöde (thus also by ship) karaoınoaı. Thuc. iv. 78, vi. 103.3; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 8. 328 CHAP. XVII., 16-20. only joined Paul at Corinth. But this, as regards Timothy, is an incorrect statement, as is clearly evident from 1 Thess. iii. 1,—a point which is to be acknowledged, and not to be smoothed over by harmonistic combina- tions! which do not tally with any of the two statements.? According to Baumgarten, Luke has only mentioned the presence of the two compan- ions again with Paul, xviii. 5, when their co-operation could again take an effective part in the diffusion of the gospel. But it is not their being to- gether, but their coming together, that is narrated in Acts xvill. 5 (AP). Ver. 16. Iapw£ivero] was irritated’ at the high degree of heathen dark- ness and perversity* which prevailed at Athens. —7ré rveüna abrov Ev auro] comp. John xi. 33, 38. — The genitive @ewpovvroc, mentally attached to aurov (see the eritical remarks): because he saw. — kareidwAov] full of images, of idols, not preserved elsewhere in Greek, but formed according to usual analogies (karaumeroc, karadevdpoc, karäxpvooc, karaAıdoc, al.). — Athens, the centre of Hellenic worship and art, united zeal for both in a pre-eminent degree, and was—especially at that period of political decay, when outward ritual and show in the sphere of religion and superstition flourished among the people alongside of the philosophical self-sufficiency of the higher scholastic wisdom among people of culture—full of temples and altars, of priests and other persons connected with worship, who had to minister at an innumerable number of pompous festivals. ° Ver. 17. Oöv] impelled by that indignation to counteract this heathen confusion. He had intended only to wait for his companions at Athens, but ‘‘insigni et extraordinario zelo stimulatus rem gerit miles Christi,’’ Bengel. And this zeal caused him, in order to pave the way for Christian- ity in opposition to the heathenism here so particularly powerful, to enter into controversial discussions® with Jews and Gentiles at the same time, not first with the Jews, and, on being rejected by them, afterwards with Gen- tiles. — &v r5 ayopa] favours the view that, as usual in Greek cities, there was only one market at Athens.” If there were two markets,® still the cele- brated ayopa kar' &£oxyyv» is to be understood,® not far from the Pnyx, the Acropolis, and the Areopagus, bounded by the oroa ro:kiAy on the west, by the Stoa Basileios and the Stoa Eleutherios on the south, rich in noble statues, the central seat of commercial, forensic, and philosophic inter- course, as well as of the busy idleness of the loungers (8°). Ver. 18. That it was Epicureans and Stoics who fell into conflict with him, '® and not Academics and Peripatetics, is to be explained—apart from the greater popularity of the two former, and from the circumstance that they were in this later period the most numerous at Athens—from the greater contrast of their philosophic tenets with the doctrines of Christianity. The one had their principle of pleasure, and the other their pride of virtue! 1 Such as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 61 f., makes. 6 See on ver. 2. 2 See Liinemann on 1 Thess. iii. 1. 7 Forchhammer, Forbiger, and others. 31 Cor. xiii. 5; Dem. 514. 10: wpyic6n Kai 8 So Otfried Müller and others. 4 Rom. i. 21 ff. [rapwévvOn. 9 Not the Zretria (n viv &orıv ayopa, Strabo, 5 See Paus. i. 24. 3; Strabo, x. p. 472; Liv. x. 10, p. 447). xlv. 27; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii. 2; and Wetstein 10 guveBadAov, comp. Luke xiv. 81. in loc. PAUL AT ATHENS, 329 and both repudiated faith in the Divine Providence.!— The opinion of these philosophers was twofold. Some, with vain scholastic conceit, pro- nounced Paul’s discourses, which lacked the matter and form of Hellenic philosophy, to be idle talk, undeserving of attention, and would have nothing further to do with him. Others were at least curious about this new matter, considered the singular stranger as an announcer of strange divinities, and took him with them, in order to hear more from him and to allow their fellow-citizens to hear him, to the Areopagus, ete. — ri av béAox . . . Aéyey] if, namely, his speaking is to have a meaning.” — 6 oreppoddyoc] originally the rook.” Then in twofold figurative meaning: (1) from the manner in which that bird feeds, a parasite ; and (2) from its chattering voice, a babbler* So here, as the speaking of Paul gave occasion to this contemptuous designation.’ — da:wovior] divinities, quite generally. The plural is indefinite, and denotes the category, see on Matt. ii. 20. Accord- ing to de Wette, it is Jesus the Risen One and the living God that are meant in contrast to the Greek gods,—an element, however, which, according to the subjoined remark of Luke, appears as imported. The judgment of the philosophers, very similar to the charge previously brought against Socrates, * but not framed possibly in imitation of it, in opposition to Zeller, was founded on their belief that Jesws, whom Paul preached and even set forth as a raiser of the dead, must be assumed, doubtless, to be a foreign divinity, whose announcer—xarayye?evc, not elsewhere preserved—Paul desired to be. Hence Luke adds the explanatory statement : örı röv 'Inoovv k. Tr. avdor. eumyy. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Alexander Morus, Selden,. Hammond, Spencer, Heinrichs, Baur,’ Lange, and Baumgarten, strangely imagine that the phi- losophers meant the 'Avacraoıc as a goddess announced by Paul.* But if Luke had aimed at this by his explanatory remark, he must have indicated it more precisely, especially as it is in itself improbable that the philosophers could, even in mere irony, derive from the words of the apostle a god- dess 'Avdoraoıc, for Paul doubtless announced who would raise the dead. Olearius referred +. avacr. not to the general resurrection of the dead, but to the resurrection of Jesus; so also Bengel. But Luke, in that case, in order not to be misunderstood, must have added airoi, which (see the criti- cal remarks) he has not done. Vv. 19, 20. ’Ex:AaBduevor] Grotius aptly says: ‘‘manu leniter prehen- sum.’’° Adroitly confiding politeness. Ver. 21 proves that a violent seiz- ure and carrying away to judicial examination is not indicated, as Adamıi ' and others imagined, but that the object in view was simply to satisfy the curiosity of the people flocking to the Areopagus. And this is evinced by the whole proceedings, which show no trace of a judicial process, ending as they did partly with ridicule and partly with polite dismissal, ver. 31, 1Comp. Hermann, Culturgesch. d. Gr. u. 7 See his Paulus, I. p. 192, ed. 2: the ironi- 2 See on ii. 12. [Röm. I. p. 237 f. cal popular wit had out of Jesus and the 3 Aristoph. Av. 232, 579. avacracıs made a pair of divinities, 4 Dem. 269.19; Athen. viii. p. 844 C. 8 Comp. also Ewald, p. 494 f. 5 See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 297. 9 Comp. ix. 27, xxiii. 19. 6 Xen. Mem.i. 1.1. 10 See in Wolf, 330 CHAP. XVII., 21-23. after which Paul departed unhindered. Besides the Athenians were very indulgent to the introduction of foreign, particularly Oriental, worships,! provided only there was not conjoined with it rejection of the native gods, such as Socrates was formerly accused of. To this the assertion of Josephus, c. Ap. 2, is to be limited: vouw 0 qv tovtTo map’ avToi¢ kerwAuuevov Kal rıuopla Kata Tov eévov eicaybvrwv Oeöv &pioto Aavatoc,—which, perhaps, is merely a generalization from the history of Socrates. And certainly Paul, as the wisdom of his speech? attests, prudently withheld a direct condemna- tory judgment of the Athenian gods. Notwithstanding, Baur and Zeller have again insisted on a judicial process in the Areopagus—alleging that the legend of Dionysius the Areopagite, as the first bishop of Athens,* had given rise to the whole history ; that there was a wish to procure for Paul an opportunity, as solemn as possible, for the exposition of his teaching, an arena analogous to the Sanhedrim (Zeller), etc. — Concerning the ‘Apevo¢ mäyoc, collis Martius so called örı mparoc "Apyc évravda éxpidn,* the seat of the supreme judicature of Athens, situated to the west of the Acropolis, and concerning the institution and authority of that tribunal, see Meursius,®° — dvvaueda yvova «.r.A.] invitation in the form of a courteous question, by way of securing the contemplated enjoyment. —ric 7 kan k.r.A.] what, as respects its more precise contents, this new doctrine, namely, that which is being announced by you. In the repetition of the article® there is here im- plied a pert, ironical emphasis. — Zevifovra] startling. Févov brodéxyouat, GAAd Kal éxrAATTw." — elogéperc] namely, whilst you are here, hence the present. — ri dv Oédo tavta eivaı] see on ver. 18, ii. 12, and Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 129 f. The plural ravra indicates the individual points, after the collective character of which ri inquires.® Ver. 21. A remark of Luke added for the elucidation of vv. 19, 20. But Athenians, ’ A@yvaior, without the article: Athenian people, collectively,’ and the strangers resident there, had leisure for nothing else than, etc. eiKxarpeiv, vacare alicui rei, belongs to the later Greek.!° The imperfect does not ex- clude the continuance of the state of things in the present, but interweaves it with the history, so that it is transferred into the same time with the latter.’ According to Ewald, Luke actually means an earlier period, when it had still been so in Athens, ‘‘ before it was plundered by Nero.’ But then we should at least have expected an indication of this in the text by Tore or raAa, even apart from the fact that such a characteristic of a city is not so quickly lost. — xawérepov] The comparative delineates more strongly © ty y N Eeviiw ov uöVov TO 1 Strabo, x. p. 474; Philostr. Vit. Apollon. vi. 7; Hermann, gotiesd. Alterth. § 12. 2 Ver. 22 ff. 3 Hus. iv. 23. 4 Paus. i. 28. 5. 5 De Areop. Lugd. Bat. 1624; Böckh, de Areop. Berol. 1826; Hermann, Sfaatsalterth. § 105. 108. On the present locality, see Rob- inson, I. p. 11 f.; Forbiger, Geogr. II. p. 937fE. 6 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 407 B. 7™Thom. Mag. Comp. Polyb. iii. 114. 4: Eevidovga mpocolbıs k. karamAnkrırn, Diod. Sic. xii. 53; 2 Macc. ix. 6; 3 Macc. vii. 3. § Krüger, § Ixi. 8. 2; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 508 C, Huthyphr. p. 15 A. 9 mavres, see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 12; Kühner, § 685, note 2. [Phryn. p. 125. 10 Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 169; Lobeck, ad 11 See on John xi. 18, and Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4.9. Comp. also the pluperfect emeye- ypanro, ver. 23. PAUL’S ADDRESS ON MARS’ HILL. 331 and vividly. The novelty-loving! and talkative? Athenians wished always to be saying or hearing something newer than the previous news.’ Ver. 22. Zrafeic Ev uéow] denotes intrepidity. —The wisdom with which Paul here could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, has been at all times justly praised. There is to be noted also, along with this, the elegance and adroitness, combined with all simplicity, in the expression and prog- ress of thought; the speech is, as respects its contents and form, full of sacred Attic art, a vividly original product of the free apostolic spirit. — kara ravra] in all respects. Comp. Col. iii. 20, 22. devordamovecrépovce | A com- parison with the other Greeks, in preference over whom Athens had the praise of religiousness.* AecoJaiuwv means divinity-fearing, but may, as the fear of God may be the source of either, denote as well real piety *® as super- stition.° Paul therefore, without violating the truth, prudently leaves the religious tendency of his hearers undetermined, and names only its source — the fear of God. Chrysostom well remarks: rpoodorotei tw Adyw" dıa TovTO eime' deisıdaruoveor£povg budc Gewpa.' Mistaking this fine choice of the expres- sion, the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, Suicer, Wolf, and others explained it: swperstitiosiores. oc: I perceive you as more God- fearing, so that you appear as such.* — vuäc bewpa] ‘‘ Magna perspicacia et parrhesia ; unus Paulus contra Athenas,’’ Bengel. Ver. 23. Avepyou.| belongs jointly to ra ceBaou. iu. — avabedp. ra ceB. by. | attentively contemplating ® the objects of your worship, temples, altars, images.!° —ayvéorw Oew)] That there actually stood at Athens at least one altar with the inscription: “to an unknown god,’’ would appear historically certain from this passage itself, even though other proofs were wanting, since Paul appeals to his own observation, and that, too, in the presence of the Athenians themselves. But there are corroborating external proofs: (1) Pausan. i. 1. 4. (comp. v. 14. 6) says: in Athens there were Bouol deav Vit. Apollon. vi. 2: Cwopovéctepov Tept TavTwY Ocov eb Aéyervy Kai Tavta 'Adyvnow, od Kai ayvooTwY Sedv Boot idpvvra. From both passages it is evident that at Athens there were several altars, each of which bore the votive inscription : ayvéorw eG." The explanation of the origin of such altars is less certain. Yet Diog. Laert. Epim. 3 gives a trace of it, when it is related that Epimenides put an end to a plague in Athens by causing black and white sheep, which he had let loose on the Areopagus, to be sacrificed on the spots where they lay down 76 rpoonkovrı See, i.e. to the god concerned, yet not known by Te ovouatouévwv ayvootov kad jpowv ; and (2) Philostr. 7See on this word, Hermann, gottesd. 6 See Bernhardy, p. 333. [Alterth. § 8. 6. 9 Heb. xiii. 7; Diod. Sic. xii. 15; Plut. Aem. P.1; Lucian, Vit. auct.2; comp. avadespnaus, Cicero, ad Att. ix. 19, xiv. 15 f. 1 Thue. iii, 38. 4. 2 Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc. 3 See Winer, p. 228 (E. T. 305). Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 115 B; Dem. 43. 7; 160. 2. 4See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 551: "A@nvatots mepıoaörtepov TL 7 Tois GAAoLs Es Ta Beta EoTL omovöns, Pausan. in Attic. 24. Comp. Soph. O. C. 260; Thue. ii. 40 f.; Eur. Her. 177, 330 ; Joseph. e. Ap. i. 12. 5 Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 58, Agesil. 11. 8. 6 Theopr. Char. 16 ; Diod. Sic. i. 62 ; Lucian. Alex. 9; Plutarch, and others. 102 Thess. ii. 4; Wisd. xiv. 20, xv. 7; Hist. Drag. 27; Dion. Hal. Ant. i. 30, v.13; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 942. 11 Lucian, Philopatr. 9 and 29, is invalid as a proof, for there the reference of the pseudo- Lucian to the "Ayvwaros ev ’Adnvaıs is based on this very passage. 332 CHAP. XVII., 24, 25. name, namely, who was the author of the plague; and that therefore one may find at Athens Bwpoic avevipove, i.e. altars without the designation of a god by name, not as Kuinoel, following Olearius, thinks, without any in- scription. From this particular instance the general view may be derived, that on important occasions, when the reference to a god known by name was wanting, as in public calamities of which no definite god could be assigned as the author, in order to honor or propitiate the god concerned (tov mpoonnovra) by sacrifice, without lighting on a wrong one, altars were erected which were des- tined and designated ayvoctw Yeo. Without any historical foundation, Eich- horn! supposed that such altars proceeded from the time when the art of writing was not yet known or in use; and that at a later period, when it was not known to what god these altars belonged, they were marked with that inscription in order not to offend any god. Against this may be urged the great probability that the destination of such altars would be preserved in men’s knowledge by oral tradition. Entirely peculiar is the remark of Jerome on Tit. 1. 12: ‘‘Inscriptio arae non ita erat, ut Paulus asseruit : ignoto Deo, sed ita: Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae, Diis ignotis et pere- grinis.” VYerum quia Paulus non pluribus Dis ignotis indigebat, sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est,’’ etc. But there is no his- torical trace of such an altar-inscription ; and, had it been in existence, Paul could not have meant it, because we cannot suppose that, at the very commencement of his discourse, he would have made a statement before the Athenians deviating so much from the reality and only containing an abstract inference from it. The dyvéorw deg could not but have its literal accuracy and form the whole inscription ; otherwise Paul would only have promoted the suspicion of orepuoAoyia. We need not inquire to what definite god the Athenians pointed by their ayvöorwo bem. In truth, they meant no definite god, because, in the case which occasioned the altar, they knew none such. The view (see in Wolf) that the God of the Jews—the obscure knowledge of whom had come from the Jews to Egypt, and thence to the Greeks—is meant, is an empty dogmatic invention. Baur, p. 202, ed. 2, with whom Zeller agrees, maintains that the inscription in the singular is unhistorical ; that only the plural, ayvworo Yeoi, could have been written ; and that only a writer at a distance, who ‘‘ had to fear no contradiction on the spot,’’ could have ventured on such an intentional alteration. But the very hint given to us by Diogenes Laertius as to the origin of such altars is decisive against this notion, as well as the correct remark of Grotius: ‘Cum Pausanias ait aras Athenis fuisse Sev dyvécrwr, hoc vult, multas fuisse aras tali inscriptione : Oc@ ayvocrw, quamquam potuere et aliae esse 1 Bibl. TII. p. 413 f. (with whom Niemeyer, Interpret. orat. Paul. Act. xvii. 22 ff., Hal. 1805, agreed). 2 But, according to Oecumenius : beots Actas kat Evpwmns Kat AcBuns Oem ayvuorw Kai Eevo. Comp. Isidor. Pelus. in Cramer, Cat. p. 292. According to Ewald, this is the more exact statement of the inscription; from it Paul may have borrowed his quotation. But the exactness is Suspicious just on account of the singular in Oecumenius; and moreover, Paul would have gone much too freely to work by the omission of the essential term AcBvys (‘the unknown and strange god of Libya”); nor would he have had any reason for the omission of the &evo, while he might, on the contrary, have employed it in some ingenious sort of turn with reference to ver. 18. PAUL’S ADDRESS. 333 pluraliter inscriptae, aliae singulariter.’’ Besides, it may be noted that Paul, had he read ayvöoroıc Veois on the altar might have used this plural expression for his purpose as suitably as the singular, since he, in fact, con- tinues with the generic neuter 6 . rovro. — On the Greek altars without temples, see Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 17.—6 oüv ayvoovvtec eicepeire, TovTo K.7.A.] (see the critical remarks) what ye therefore, according to this inscription, without knowing it, worship, that, this very object of your wor- ship, do I, éyé, with a self-conscious emphasis, make known unto you. Paul rightly inferred from the inscription that the Athenians, besides the gods, Zeus, Athene, etc., known to them, recognised something divine as existing and to be worshipped, which was different from these, however, after the manner of heathenism, they might conceive of it in various concrete forms. And justly also, as the God preached by him was another than those known heathen gods,! he might now say that this divinity, which served them in an unknown manner as the object of worship, was that which he announced to them, in order that it might now become to them yvworöc Sedc. Of course, they could not yet take up this expression in the sense of the apostle himself, but could only think of some divine being according to their usual heathen conception,” but, most suitably to the purpose he had in view, re- serving the more exact information for the further course of his address, he now engaged the religious interest of his hearers in his own public an- nouncement of it, and thereby eacited that interest the more, as by this ingeniously improvised connection he exhibited himself quite differently from what those might have expected who deemed him a karayysisuc Févwv daruoviov, ver. 18. Chrysostom aptly remarks in this respect: öpa müc deikvvor Mposılmporac avröv" ovdév Eévov, dynotv, ovdév KaLvdv Eeic~épw. — Observe, also, the conciliatory selection of evoeßeire, which expresses pious worship. evoeßeiv, with the accusative of the object,* is in classical writers, though rare, yet certainly vouched for, in opposition to Valckenaer, Porson, Seidler, Ellendt* (c?). Vv. 24-29. Paul now makes that unknown divinity known in conereto, and in such a manner that his description at the same time exposes the nullity of the polytheism deifying the powers of nature, with which he contrasts the divine affinity of man. Comp. Rom. i. 18 ff. Vv. 24, 25. Comp. vii. 48; Ps. 1. 10 ff.; also the similar expressions from profane writers.° — epareiera] is served, by offerings, etc., namely, as regards the actual objective state of the case. — rpoodeöu. rıvöc] as one, who needed anything in addition,° i.e. to what He Himself is and has. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “cum... nullius boni desideret accessionem.’’ " — abröc didodg likewise Philo, leg. alleg. II. p. 1087. 6 Luther takes rıvos as masculine, which 1 Rom. i. 22, 23; 1 Cor. viii. 4 ff. , x. 20. 2 Comp. Laufs in the Stud. und Krit. 1850, p. 584 f. 31 Tim. v. 4; 4 Macc. v. 23, xi. 5. 4See Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 727. Com- pare also the Greek acefety rı Or Tuva. 5In Grotius and Wetstein, Kypke, II. 89, and the passages cited from Porphyr. by Ullmann in the Stud.u Krit. 1872, p. 388; likewise excellently corresponds with what precedes, as with the following racı. But the neuter rendering is yet to be preferred, as affecting everything except God (in the « there is also every ris.) Comp. Clem. ad Cor. T. 52. 7 Comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 35, and Grimm in loc., 334 CHAP, XVIL., 26-28. \ «.r.A.] a confirmatory definition to oidé . . . rwöc: seeing that He Himself gives, etc. — aor] to all men, which is evident from the relation of abrd¢ . . . wavra to the preceding ovdé . . . rwöc. — Conv x. nvorv] the former denotes life in itself, the latter the continuance of life, which is conditioned by breathing. "Eurvovc Er’ eiui x. mvoac Oepuac nvew.! The dying man gpiooeı mvoac? éxrvei. * Erasmus correctly remarks the jucundus concentus of the two words.* Others assume a hendiadys, which, as regards analysis—life, and indeed breath—and form, namely, that the second substantive is subordinate, and must be converted into the adjective, Calvin has correctly appre- hended : vitam animalem. But how tame and enfeebling ! — kai ra ravra| and, generally, all things, namely, which they use. — Chrysostom has already remarked how far this very first point of the discourse, vv. 24, 25, tran- scends not only heathenism in general, but also the philosophies of heathen- ism, which could not rise to the idea of an absolute Creator, Observe the threefold contents of the speech: Theology, ver. 24 f.; Anthropology, vv. 26-29 ; Christology, ver. 30 f. Vv. 26, 27. ‘‘The single origin of men and their adjusted diffusion upon the earth was also His work, in order that they should seek and find Him who is near to all.’? —éroigoe. . . karoıkeiv]) He has made that from—pro- ceeding from—one blood, every nation of men should dwell upon all the face of the earth, comp. Gen. xi. 8. Castalio, Calvin, Beza, and others: ‘‘ fecitque ex uno sanguine omne genus hominum, ut inhabitaret’’ (after avOp. a comma). Against this is the circumstance that öpicac «.r.2. contains the modal definition, not to the making, to the producing, of the nations, but to the making-them-to-dwell, as is evident from 77¢ karoıkiac abrov ; so that this interpretation is not according to the context. — é& évic aiuaroc] See, respecting aia as the seat of life propagating itself by generation, on John i. 13. Paul, by this remark, that all men through one heavenly Father have also one earthly father, does not specially oppose, as Stolz, Kuinoel, and others, following older interpreters, assume, the belief of the Athenians that they were auröxfovec] ;* the whole discourse is elevated above so special a polemic bearing. But he speaks in the way of general and necessary contrast to the polytheistic nature-religions, which derived the different nations from different origins in their myths. Quite irrele- vant is what Olshausen suggests as the design of Paul, that he wished to represent the contempt in which the Jews were held among the Greeks as absurd. — mi av 70 zpdécwr. r. ync] refers to the idea of the totality of the nations dwelling on the earth, which is contained in rév éAvoc, every nation. — öpisac] Aorist participle contemporaneous with &roinse, specifying how God proceeded in that éoince x.7.2.: inasmuch as He has fixed the appointed periods and the definite boundaries of their, the nation’s, dwelling. Tnc karoık. ait. belongs to both—to rpoorer. kaıp., and to rac öpod. God has deter- p.199. See on this meaning of the verb es- 2 Pind. Nem. x. 140. pecially, Dem. xiv. 22; Plat. Phil. p. 20 E; 3 Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 58; Winer, p. and on the distinction of mpooöeiodai rıvos and 591 (E. T. 793). rı, Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 342 A. 4 See Wetstein in loc. 1 Eur. Here, f. 1092. PAUL’S ADDRESS, 335 mined the dwelling! of the nations, according both to its duration in time and to its extension in space. Both, subject to change, run their course in a development divinely ordered.? Others take xpoorer. carp. independently of r. karoık. aur., so Baumgarten ; but thereby the former expression pre- sents itself in perplexing indefiniteness. The sense of the epochs of the world set forth by Daniel? must have been more precisely indicated than by the simple «arpoic. Lachmann has separated mpoorerayu. into mpöc TeTayuévoug unnecessarily, contrary to all versions and Fathers, also con- trary to the reading rporerayıu. in D* Iren. interpr. — 7 épofecia is not else- where preserved, but rd dpofécvov ; see Bornemann. Ver. 27. The divine purpose in this guidance of the nations is attached by means of the telic infinitive :* in order that they should seek the Lord, i.e. direct their endeavours to the knowledge of God, if perhaps they might feel Him, who is so palpably near, and jind Him. Olshausen thinks that in Zyreivis implied the previous apostasy of mankind from God. But the seeking does not necessarily suppose a having lost ; and since the text does not touch on an earlier fellowship of man with God, although that is in itself correct, the hearers, at least, could not infer that conclusion from the simple ¢yreiv. The great thought of the passage is simply : God the Author, the Governor, and the End of the world’s history: from God, through God, to God. — wyiap . . . evporev| Paul keeps consistently to his figure. The seeker who comes on his object touches and grasps it, and has now in reality found it. Hence the meaning without figure is: if per- chance they might become conscious of God and of their relation to Him, and might appropriate this consciousness as a spiritual possession. Thus they would have understood the guidance of the nations as a revelation of God, and have complied with its holy design in their own case.” The problem- atie expression, ei üpaye, if they at least accordingly,® is in accordance both with the nature of the case—Bengel: ‘via patet ; Deus inveniri potest, sed hominem non cogit ’’—and with the historical want of success ;" for the heathen world was blinded, to which also wap. points—a word which, since the time of Homer, is very frequently used of groping in the dark or in blindness. * — kairoıye «.7.2.] although certainly He°® does not at all require to be first, sought and found, as He is not far !° from every one of us. Comp. Jer. xxiii. 23. This addition makes palpably evident the greatness of the blindness, which nevertheless took place. Ver. 28. Reason assigned (yap) for ob warp. ard &vöc «.r.A., for in Him we live, we move, and we exist. Paul views God under the point of view of His immanence as the element in which we live, ete.; and man in such intimate connection with God, that he is constantly surrounded by the Godhead and embraced in its essential influence, but, apart from the Godhead, could I karoıkia, Polyb. v. 78. 5; Strabo, v. p. 7See Rom. i. 18 ff., and comp. Baumg. p. 2 Comp. Job xii. 23. (246. 550 ff. 3 Baumgarten. 8 Od.-ix. 416; Job v.14; comp. here es. 4 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 224 (E. T. 261). pecially, Plato, Phaed. p. 99 B. 5 Comp. Luthardt, vom. freien Willen, p. 415. 9 xiv.17; John iv. 2. 6 See Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 178, 192. 10 For see ver. 28, 336 CHAP, XVII., 29-31. neither live, nor move, nor exist.! This explanation is required by the re- lation of the words to the preceding, according to which they are designed to prove the nearness of God; therefore &v abro must necessarily contain the local reference—the idea of the divine repıyöpnoıc, which Chrysostom il- lustrates by the example of the air surrounding us on all sides. Therefore the rendering per eum,” or, as de Wette more correctly expresses it, ‘* rest- ing on Him as the foundation,’?* which would yield no connection in the way of proof with the ov warpav eivar of the Godhead, is to be abandoned. In opposition to the pantheistic view, see already Calvin. It is sufficient to urge against it—although it was also asserted by Spinoza and others— on the one hand, that the transcendence of God is already decidedly at- tested in vv. 24-26, and on the other, that the év auro Louev «.7.A. Is said solely of men, and that indeed in so far as they stand in essential connec- tion with God by divine descent, see the following, in which case the doc- trine of the reality of evil * excludes a spiritual pantheism. — Gouev «. kıvovueha x. éouév| a climax: out of God we should have no life, not even movement, which yet inanimate creatures, plants, waters, etc., have, nay, not even any existence, we should not have been at all. Heinrich and others take a su- perficial view when they consider all three to be synonymous. Storr,° on the other hand, arbitrarily puts too much into Ceyev ; vivimus beate ac hilare ; and Olshausen, after Kuinoel, too much into écyév: the true being, the life of the spirit. It is here solely physical life and being that is meant ; the moral life-fellowship with God, which is that of the regenerate, is remote from the context. — twee tov Kal’ vuag moımr.] Namely, Aratus, of Soli in Cilicia, in the third century B.c.,° and Cleanthes of Assos in Mysia, a disciple of Zeno.” For other analogous passages, see Wetstein.—The acquaintance of the apostle with the Greek poets is to be considered as only of a dilettante sort ;* his school-training was entirely Jewish, but he was here obliged to abstain from O. T. quotations. — rov xa? bude momr.] Of the poets pertain- ing to you, 2.e. your poets.° —rov yap kai yévoc éouév] The first half of a hex- ameter, verbatim from Aratus /.c. ; therefore yap kai is not to be considered in logical connection with the speech of the apostle, but as, independently of the latter, a component part of the poetical passage, which he could not have omitted without destroying the verse. sumus: this Paul adduces as a parallel (oc kai rıvec . . 1Comp. Dio Chrys. vol. I. p. 384, ed. Reiske : äre ov paxpav ovö €&m Tod Oelov Sumkiomevor, aAN Ev aVTw HETW TEpUKOTES K.T.A. 2 Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 3 Comp. already Chrysostom: ov« eime: du aurod, add’ 0 Eyyvrepov Hy, ev AUTO. 4 Comp. Olshausen. 5 Opuse. III. p. 95. 6 Phaenom. 5. 7 Hymn. in Jov. 5. 8 That Paul after his conversion, on account of his destination to the Gentiles, may have earnestly occupied himself in Tarsus with Greek literature (Baumgarten), to which also Nam hujus progenies quoque . eippkacı) confirm- the BıßXAia, 2 Tim. iv. 13, are supposed to point, is a very precarious assumption, es- pecially as it is Aratus, a fellow-countryman of the apostle, who is quoted, and other quotations (except Tit. i. 12) are not demon: strable (comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 33). The poet- ical expression itself in our passage is such a common idea (see Wetstein), that an ac- quaintance with it from several Greeks poets (rıwes) by no means presupposes a more special study of Greek literature. See In- troduction to the Epistle to the Romans, § 1. 9 See Bernhardy, p. 241. PAUL’S ADDRESS. 331 ing to his hearers his own assertion, &v ait@ Zöuev . . . éouév. As the off- spring of God, we men stand in such homogeneity to God, and thus in such necessary and essential connection with God, that we cannot have life, etc., without Him, but only in Him. So absolutely dependent is our life, etc., on Him. — ov] Here, according to poetical usage since the time of Homer, in the sense of rovrov.! Paul has idealized the reference of the rov to Zeus in Aratus.—In the passage of Cleanthes, which was also in the apostle’s mind, it is said : é« cov yap yévoc éouév, Where yévoc is the accusative of more precise definition, and means, not kindred, as with Aratus, but origin. Ver. 29. Since, then, we, according to this poetical saying, are offspring of God, so must our self-consciousness, kindred to God, tell us that the Godhead has not resemblance to gold, etc. We cannot suppose a resemblance of the Godhead to such materials, graven by human art, without denying our- selves as the progenies of God.” Therefore we ought not (ou ddeidouer). What a delicate and penetrating attack on heathen worship! That Paul with the reproach, which in oüx dgeiAouev «.r.A. is expressed with wise mild- ness,* does no injustice to heathenism, whose thinkers had certainly in great measure risen above anthropomorphism, but hits the prevailing popular opinion,* may be seen in Baumgarten, p. 566 ff. — y&vog] placed first and separated from r. Ozov, as the chief point of the argument. For, if we are proles Dei, and accordingly homogeneous with God, it is a preposterous error at variance with our duty to think, with respect to things which are en- tirely heterogeneous to us, as gold, silver, and stone, that the Godhead has resemblance with them. — xapaynarı réyv. k. Evßyu. avOpdrov] a graven image which is produced by art and deliberation of a man, for the artist made it according to the measure of his artistic meditation and reflection : an appo- sition to ypvow «.r.A., not in the ablative (Bengel). — ro #eiov] the divine nature, divinum numen.° The general expression fitly corresponds to the discourse on heathenism, as the real object of the latter. - Observe also the striking juxtaposition of avfparov and ro Beiov ; for xapayu. téyv. k. Ev. avdp. serves to make the ov« dgeiAouev vouite still more palpably felt ; inasmuch as metal and stone serve only for the materials of human art and artistic thoughts, but far above human artistic subjectivity, which wishes to repre- sent the divine nature in these materials, must the Godhead be exalted, which is not similar to the human image, but widely different from it.° Vv. 30, 31. It is evident from ver. 29 that heathenism is based on igno- rance. Therefore Paul, proceeding to the Christological portion of his discourse, now continues with pév oiv: the times, therefore, of ignorance, for such they are, according to ver. 29, God -having overlooked, makes known at present to all men everywhere to repent. — ixepiddv] without noting them with a view to punishment or other interference.” The idea of contempt,* although 1 See Kühner, § 480, 5; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. 4 mpos Tovs moAAovs 6 Adyos Av aurw, Chry- II. p. 198. sostom. [C, al. 2 Graf views it otherwise, but against the 5 Herod. iii. 108, i. 82; Plat. Phaedr. p. 242 clear words of the passage, in the Stud. u. 6 Comp. Wisd. xv. 15 ff. Krit. 1859. p. 232. 7” Comp. Dion. Hal. v. 32. Opposite of 3 Bengel: “ clemens locutio, praesertim in éfopav. See also on Rom. iii. 25; Acts xiv. 16. prima persona plurali.”’ 8 Vulg.: despiciens. 338 CHAP. XVII., 32-34. otherwise linguistically suitable, which Castalio, de Dieu, Gataker, Calo- vius, Seb. Schmid, and others find in the expression, partly even with the observation : ‘‘indignatione et odio temporum . . . correptus,’’! is at vari- ance with the cautiousness and moderation of the whole speech. — rac mavrayou| a popular hyperbolical expression ; yet not incorrect, as the uni- versal announcement was certainly in course of development.” — kadsrı (see the critical remarks) : in accordance with the fact that. He has appointed a day. It denotes the important consideration, by which God was induced raviv mapayyéAhew «.7.A. Comp. il. 24.— £v dixaioc.] in righteousness, so that this is the determining moral element, in which the «pivecy is to take place, 7.e. Sixaiwc, 1 Pet. ii. 23. Paul means the Messianic judgment, and that as not remotely impending. — év avdpi] i.e. in the person of a man, who will be God's representative. — J Gpice x.7.2.] a well-known attraction : whom He ordained, namely, for holding the judgment, having afforded faith, in Him as a judge, to all, by the fact that He raised Him from the dead. The riorıv rapéyew * is the operation of God on men, by which He affords to them faith, — an operation which He brought to bear on them historically, by His having conspicuously placed before them in the resurrection of Jesus His credentials as the appointed judge. The resurrection of Jesus is indeed the divine onueiov,* and consequently the foundation of knowledge and con- viction, divinely given as a sure handle of faith to all men, as regards what the Lord, in His nature and destination was and is; and therefore the thought is not to be regarded as ‘‘ not sufficiently ideal’’ for Paul.” The opigerv 1s not, as in x. 42, the appointment which took place in the counsel of God, but that which was accomplished in time and fact as regards the faith of men, as in Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the riorıv rapéyerv, which on the part of God took place by the resurrection of Jesus, does not exclude the human self-determination to accept and appropriate this divine rap£xem.® Iliorıv mapéyecv may be rendered, with Beza and others,’ according to like- wise correct Greek usage: to yive assurance by His resurrection, but this commends itself the less, because in that case the important element of faith remains without express mention, although it corresponds very suit- ably to the rapayy£iAsı petavoeiv, ver. 30. The conception and mode of expression, to afford faith, is similar to petavorav dıdövar, V. 31, x1. 18, yet the latter is already more than rap£yew, potestatem facere, ansam praebere credendi. Ver. 32. As yet Paul has not once named Jesus, but has only endeavoured to gather up the most earnest interest of his hearers for this the great final aim of his discourse ; now his speech is broken off by the mockery of some, and by a courteous relegation to silence on the part of others. — avaoraciv vexpav| @ resurrection of dead persons, as Paul had just asserted such a case. The plural denotes the category. To take it of the general rising of the 1 Wolf. 5 De Wette. Comp. on ii. 36, iv. 27, x. 38, 2 Comp. Col. i. 23. On the juxtaposition of xii. 33. maou mavr., see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 56 f. 6 Comp. on Rom. ii. 4. 3 See Wetstein and Kypke in loc. 7 Sce especiaily Raphel, Polyb. in loc. 4 Comp. John ii. 18 f. 8 Comp. on Rom i. 4. PAUL’S ADDRESS. 339 dead at the day of judgment, is quite at variance with the context. That, moreover, the oi wey were all Hpieureans, and the oi dé Stoics, as Grotius, Wolf, and Rosenmiiller supposed, cannot be proved. Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Alford, and others hold axovoöueda cov war. mepi rourov as meant in earnest. But would not Paul, if he had so understood it, have remained longer in Athens? See xviii. 1. — The repellent result, which the mention of the resurrection of Jesus brought about, is by Baur sup- posed to be only a product of the author, who had wished to exhibit very distinctly the repulsive nature of the doctrine of the resurrection for edu- cated Gentiles ; he thinks that the whole speech is only an effect fictitiously introduced by the author, and that the whole narrative of the appearance at Athens is to be called in question —‘‘ a counterpart to the appearance of Stephen at Jerusalem, contrived with a view to a harmless issue instead of a tragical termination,’’ Zeller. But with all the delicacy and prudence, which Paul here, ın this “EAAdado¢g ‘EAAdc,* had to exercise and knew how to do so, he could not and durst not be silent on the resurrection of Jesus, that foundation of apostolic preaching ; he could not but, after he had done all he could to win the Athenians, now bring the matter to the issue, what effect the testimony to the Risen One would have. If the speech had not this testimony, criticism would the more easily and with more plausibility be able to infer a fictitious product of the narrator ; and it would hardly have neglected to do so. ; Vv. 33, 34. Oitwc] i.e. with such a result. — korrnhévrec ait@e] having more closely attached themselves to him. Comp. v. 18, ix. 26. —6’Apeoray.]| the assessor of the court of Areopagus. This is to be considered as the well-known distinctive designation, hence the article, of this Dionysius in the apostolic church. Nothing further is known with certainty of him. The account of Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. JZ. E. iii. 4, iv. 23,’ that he became bishop of Athens, where he is said to have suffered martydcm,* is unsupported. The writings called after him,° belonging to the later Neoplatonism, have been shown to be spurious. According to Baur, it was only from the ecclesias- tical tradition that the Areopagite came into the Book of Acts, and so brought with him the fiction of the whole scene on the Areopagus. — Aduapıc| wholly unknown, erroneously held by Chrysostom to be the wife of Dionysius, which is just what Luke does not express by the mere yvvy. Grotius conjectures Aauadıc (juvenca), which name was usual among the Greeks. But even with the well-known interchange of 2 and p,° we must assent to the judgment of Calovius: ‘‘ Quis nescit nomina varia esse, ac plurima inter se vicina non tamen eadem.’’ As a man’s name we find Aauapiwy in Boeckh, Inser, 2393, and Aauapyc, 1241, also Aaudperos in Pausan. v.5. 1; and as a woman’s name, Aayapéry, in Diod. xi. 26. 1 Comp. Zeller. [102. 4 Niceph. iii. 11. 2 Thucyd. epigr., see Jacobs, Anthol. I. p. 5 wept THS OUpavias iepapxias K.T.A, 3 Comp. Constiti. ap, vil. 46. 2. 6 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 179. 340 \ CHAP, XVIL—NOTES, NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (x?) Thessalonica. V.1. Having been ‘‘shamefully entreated’’ and then honorably dismissed from Philippi, Paul and two of his companions, leaving Luke at Philippi, passing through other cities, came to Thessalonica, This celebrated city, distant about one hundred miles south-west from Philippi, was beautifully situated on the slope of a hill, at the northern end of the Thermaic Gulf. It was a great com- mercial city, the capital of the province and residence of the proconsul. After the battle of Philippi, on account of its attachment to the cause of Anthony, it was made a free city. Strabo mentions it as the largest city in Macedonia. It has always been a city of importance ; at present it is considered the second city of European Turkey, and has a population of 70,000. Here the mission- aries rested, as there was a synagogue of the Jews, probably the only one in that district. After finding the means of earning his daily bread by manual toil, and a home in the house of Jason, the apostle, as was his custom, went to the synagogue, and for three consecutive Sabbaths preached to the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Some of them believed, and formed the nu- cleus of what becamea large and useful church. But the Jews as a class, from first to last, were the plague of his suffering life, and a great hindrance to his ministry. “ At Antioch and Jerusalem, Jews, nominally within the fold of Christ, opposed his teaching and embittered his days ; in all other cities it was the Jews who contradicted and blasphemed the holy name which he was preaching. In the planting of his churches he had to fear their deadly opposi- tion ; in the watering of their yet more deadly fraternity. The Jews who hated Christ sought his life ; the Jews who professed to love him undermined his efforts. The one faction endangered his existence, the other ruined his peace. Never, till death released him, was he wholly free from their violent conspira- cies or their insidious calumnies, Without, they sprang upon him like a pack of wolves ; within, they hid themselves in sheep’s clothing to worry and tear his flocks.’’ (Furrar.) Here in Thessalonica he was assaulted by a mob, in- stigated and led on by the Jews ; and he and his friends deemed it prudent that he should privately and hastily depart, lest the liberty and the lives of the brethren who had given surety for him might be imperilled. (z?) Honorable women. \V. 12. The term employed indicates that the women were of high rank and social position—among the chief people of the city. Arnot, on this passage, writes : «¢ And is there ground for gladness there? Are the upper ten thousand more precious in God’s sight than the myriads who occupy a lower place? No; this word comes from heaven, and does not shape itself by the fashion of the world. But though poor and rich are equally precious, there are times and cir- cumstances in which conversion in high places is more noted and noteworthy than conversion in a low place. The common people heard the Master gladly ; but the rulers held aloof, and boasted that they were not tinged with any trust NOTES. 341 in Jesus of Nazareth. On this very account there was great joy in their circle when a magnate joined their band. Even the Lord longed to have some of them, and looked fondly on the young rich man who came running and kneel- ing and calling him Master.’’ At Antioch in Pisidia the Jews enlisted the ser- vices of women of similar rank and position, and characterized by superstitious devoutness and ignorant zeal, to counteract the influence and usefulness of the apostles. ‘‘ This is an agency that has from the beginning been sought and used both for good and evil. Women were employed by our Lord himself for certain appropriate ministries in the establishment of his kingdom. But false teachers have in all times availed themselves of the combined weakness and strength of the female nature for their own ends. The Romish hierarchy have always made much of female agency, and especially the agency of women in high social rank. But as Christ himself employed their tenderness and pa- tience and perseverance in his own cause, he has encouraged his disciples in all ages to go and do likewise. Let woman stand on her true foundation—the family ; and forth from that citadel let her go to her daily task, wherever the Lord hath need of her daily service ; but back to the family let her ever return, as to her refuge and rest. Colonies of women, cut off from family relations and affections and duties, and bound by vows, are mischievous to themselves, and, notwithstanding superficial apparent advantages, in the long run, dangerous to the community. God made the family ; man made the convent. God's work! behold it is very good ; man’s is in this case a snare.” (Arnot.) Lately, in the Christian church in this land, the place and power of woman, both at home and abroad, has been more generally acknowledged and felt—among the young and the poor and afflicted amidst ourselves ; and in the schools and zenanas of foreign lands, her work is greatly blessed. And as a large proportion of the membership of the Protestant churches in this country are women, their work and their worth in every field of religious and charitable enterprise cannot be overestimated. (4°) Timothy. VY. 15. This is the first time Timothy is mentioned in the narrative since Paul left Philippi. ‘The probability is, however, that he was with the apostle at Thessa- loniea, as he appears to have been intimately connected with that church. (1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 2, and 2 Thess. i. 1.) Comparing xviii. 5 and 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2 our author and others suppose that there is a mistake in Luke’s narrative which cannot be explained or removed. On this Gloag writes : “ But certainly the mere omission by Luke of Timothy’s visit to Athens and return to Thessalonica is no discrepancy, as the cireum- stance had no bearing on his narrative. If Timothy had remained with the apostle, and thus had not rejoined him at Corinth, the case would have been different. But after all, the fact that Timothy came to Athens at all is a mere supposition ; it is not asserted in 1 Thess. iii. 1. The probability is that he was sent by Paul to Thessaloniea from Berea, and not from Athens; and that after his return he and Silas went directly from Berea to Corinth.”’ Those who had accompanied Paul to Athens when they returned brought back a request from him that Silas, who had remained at Berea, and Timothy, who had in the meantime gone back to Thessalonica, either from Berea or from Athens, should 342 CHAPS XVII — NOTES: go to him with all speed. ‘But Silas and Timothy do not seem to have re- joined Paul until he reached Corinth. We have no direct information what became of Luke in the meantime.” (Abbott.) Plumtree says: “As far as we can gather from 1 Thess. i. 1-3, Timothy came by himself to Athens, probably after the scene at the Areopagus, and was sent back at once with words of coun- sel and comfort to those whom he reported as suffering much tribulation.’’ Alford gives this explanation: ‘‘When Paul departed from Berea, he sent Timothy to exhort and confirm the Thessalonians and determined to be left at Athens alone, Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the work at Berea. Then Paul, on his arrival at Athens, sends a message to both to come to him as soon as possible. They did so, and find him at Corinth.” (B*) The market-place. V. 17. The Agora, or market-place, in any Greek city, was the centre of its life. The market-place of Athens was at once its Exchange, its Lyceum, and its lounge. Men of all ranks and classes, of all callings and professions, met and jostled each other in the eager, bustling throng which daily crowded it. In this same market-place, more than four centuries before, Socrates had conducted his wonderful conversational discussions. Hither Paul, after having addressed the Jews in their synagogue, went, with stirred heart, to address the idolatrous multitudes. Among the throng of curious listeners mingled many philosophers of every shade of opinion. Special mention is made of the Epicureans and Stoics. Epicurus, the founder of the one school, lived a long and tranquil life at Athens, and died at the age of 72. The leading tenet of his philosophy was that the highest good is pleasure. But as experience taught that what are called pleasures are often more than counterbalanced by the pains which they incur, he taught that all excess in sensuous delights should be avoided, His own life seems to have been characterized by generosity, general kindliness, and self-control ; many of his followers, however, adopted a life of ease and self- indulgence ; sometimes restrained by the calculations of prudence, and some- times sinking into mere voluptuousness. “ Quid sit futurum cras fuge querere, et Quem fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro appone.'’ “Strive not the morrow’s chance to know, But count whate’er the Fates bestow As given thee for gain.” (Horace.) The other school took its name, not from its founder, Zeno, but from the Stoa prekile, the painted porch, where Zeno was accustomed to teach. This school held as their chief tenet, that the highest source of pleasure is to be found in virtue. They taught that true wisdom consisted in controlling eir- cumstances and not being affected by them; that men should be alike indif- ferent to pleasure and pain. They aimed at obtaininga complete mastery, not only over their passions, but even over their circumstances. There was much that was good in each system, and the highest and noblest of the schools ex- hibited a moral and manly life. But each, in most cases, tended to degrade and degenerate the race. ‘In their worst degeneracies Stoicism became the apotheosis of suicide, and Epicureanism the glorification of lust.’’ (Furrar.) NOTES. 343 The one school was designated the school of the garden ; the other the school of the porch. The one was atheistic, the other pantheistic. Neither believed in a divine personal Providence. To them, the message of this new teacher, enforced by his fiery eloquence and informal logic, concerning Jesus and the resurrection, seemed but as idle tales and garrulous chatterings. Butas it was something new, they all wished, from curiosity, to hear something farther from him ; at least it might amuse them, if nothing more. So theyled him to Mars’ Hill, where he might more fully unfold his strange doctrines. (©?) An unknown God. VY. 23. Paul standing in the midst of a vast, curious, sneering, or indifferent throng, announced as his text an inscription he had seen on one of their numerous altars. As to the pulpit he occupied and its surroundings, Bishop Wordsworth observes: ‘‘ He stood on that hill in the centre of Athens, with its statues and altars and temples around him. The temple of the Eumenides was immediately below him , behind was the temple of Theseus ; and he beheld the Parthenon of the Acropolis fronting him from above. The temple of Victory was on his right and a countless multitude of temples and altars in the Agora and Cerami- eus below him. Above him, towering over the city from its pedestal on the rock of the Acropolis, was the bronze colossus of Minerva, the champion of Athens.’’ With deep earnestness, undaunted composure, and sublime faith in the message he had to utter, and in the Master he served, the apostle addressed the mixed and multitudinous assemblage. Anda most remarkable address he gave. His manner was courteous and winning ; his style natural and adapted to his audience ; his arguments clear and conclusive ; his illustrations ample and appropriate ; his application personal and pointed, solemn and impres- sive. “In expressions markedly courteous, and with arguments exquisitely con- ciliatory, recognizing their piety toward their gods, and enforcing his views by an appeal to their own poets, he yet manages, with the readiest power of adapta- tion, to indicate the errors of each class of his listeners. While seeming to dwell only on points of agreement, he yet practically rebukes, in every direction, their national and intellectual self-complacency.”’ (Farrar.) From the nature and dignity of man, he infers and declares the spirituality and unity of God, and the obligations under which all men are laid to worship him alone, as the Creator of all things, and in whom ‘‘ we Jive and move and have our being.”’ Then he urges all to repentance for the past, in view of a coming general judg- ment, which will be held by Jesus Christ, whereof indisputable assurance has been given by God, in raising his Son from the dead. The apostle was here interrupted by a burst of derision, and the apostle went sorrowfully away, mourning over their intellectual pride and spiritual incapacity. Some, how- ever, believed, among whom was a member of the court, who must have occupied a high position, and a woman, also probably of some distinction. Tradition tells us that this Dionysius became Bishop of Athens, and died a martyr. The success of the apostle was less in Athens than in any other city he visited, and he makes no allusion to the city or the church in it, in any of his epistles. He left Athens a despised and lonely man, yet his visit was not in vain—in its effects on his own mind, and in the results that followed from the planting of 344 CHAP: XVII.—NOTES; the grain of mustard-seed. He founded no church there, but one grew up in that city, which furnished its martyr bishop, and able apologists to the church, in the next century. ‘‘Of all who visit Athens, many connect it with the name of Paul who never so much as remember that, since the days of its glory, it has been trodden by the feet of poets and conquerors and kings. They think not of Cicero, or Virgil, or Germanicus, but of the wandering tent- maker.” (Furrar.) . The report of this able, eloquent, powerful speech, and the results which followed, was probably written by Paul’s own hand. CRITICAL REMARKS. 345 CHAPTER XVIII. Ver. 1. 6 HaöAos is wanting in important witnesses, Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. With ywpio6eis a church-lesson begins. — Ver. 2. é«] AB DEG, min. Vulg. have and. So Lachm. Tisch. Born., and rightly, on account of the decisive attestation.—On preponderating evidence, 77 r&xvn is, in ver 3, to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., instead of ryv réyvnv. — Ver. 5. TO Adyw] Elz. has tw mvevuari, in opposition to A B D E G 8, min. several vss. and Fathers. Defended by Rinck on the ground that ro A6yw is a scholion on diauapr. But it was not dıauapr., but ovveiyero, that needed a scholion, namely, 76 mveüuarı, which, being received into the text, displaced the original 76 Adyw. — Ver. 7. ’Iovorov] Syr. Erp. Sahid. Cassiod. have Titov; E 8, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. Vulg. have Titov ’Iovorov ; BD**: Tiriov I. A traditional alteration.! — Ver. 12. avOuraretovtos] Lachm. Born. read avfurdrov övros after A B DN, min. An explanatory resolution of a word not elsewhere occurring in the N. T. — Ver. 14. odv] Lachm. and Born. have deleted it according to important testimony. But it was very easily passed over amidst the cumulation of particles and between ueN and nN, especially as odv has not its reference in what immediately pre- cedes, — Ver. 15. Gjtjua] A B D** 8, min. Theophyl. and several vss. have ¢777- nara. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The singular was, in spite of the several objects afterwards named, very easily introduced mechanically as an echo of adikmua and padiovpynua. — yap] is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. in accordance with A BD 8, Vulg. Copt., as a con- nective addition. — Ver.17. After rdvtes, Elz. Born. read of "EAAnves, which is wanting in AB NS, Erp. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Bed. Some more recent codd. have, instead of it, of Iovdaior. Both are supplementary additions, according to dif- ferent modes of viewing the passage. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. karmvrnoe] Lachm. Tisch. read karnvraoav, after A B E NS, 40, and some vss. The sing. intruded itself from the context. — alroö] éxei, which Lachm. and Born, have according to important evidence, was imported as by far the more usual word. — Ver. 21. arerdééaro att. einov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read arora£a- uevoS ka) eimov (with the omission of kai before av7jy9n), after A B D E &, min. vss. Rightly ; the Recepta is an obviously suggested simplification. — dei we rüv- ToS... ei$ Iepoo.] is wanting in ABE N, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., as well as dé after tuA.v. Both are deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., and condemned already by Mill and Bengel. But the omission is far more easily accounted for than the addition of these words,—occasioned possibly by xix, 21, xx. 16, or by the rdéAw dvax. presumed to be too abrupt,—as in what directly follows copy- ists, overlooking the reference of ava@as in ver, 22, found no journey of the 1 Oceasioned by the circumstance that Justus named in i. 23 and Col. iv. 11. Wieseler does not elsewhere occur alone as a name, but judges otherwise, on @alat. p. 573, and in only asa svrname,; and that the person here Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. 276; he prefers Tırov meant must be a different person from those "Iovorov. 346 CHAP; XVEE., 1, 72 apostle to Jerusalem, and accordingly did not see the reason why Paul declined a longer residence at Ephesus verified by the course of his journey. — Ver. 25. ’Inooo] Elz. has kvpiov, against decisive testimony, — Ver 26. The order Ilpiox. x. ’Ax. (Lachm.) is attested, no doubt, by A B E N, 13, Vulg. Copt. Aeth., but is to be derived from ver. 18. — tiv Tov Geov odov] AB S, min. vss. Lachm. have 77v 606v Tov Geot ; E, vss. have Tr. 60. rod Kvpiov ; D has only ryv dddv (so Born.). With the witnesses thus divided, the reading of Lachm. is to be preferred as the best attested, Vv. 1, 2. In Corinth, at which Paul had arrived after his parting from Athens,! he met with the Jew ’AxiAac, Greek form of the Latin Aguila, which is to be considered as a Roman name adopted after the manner of the times instead of the Jewish name,’ a native of the Asiatic province of Pontus, but who had hitherto resided at Rome, and afterwards dwelt there also,’ and so probably had his dwelling-place in that city—an inference which is rendered the more probable, as his temporary removal to a dis- tance from Rome had its compulsory occasion in the imperial edict. We make this remark in opposition to the view of Neander, who thinks that Aquila had not his permanent abode at Rome, but settled, on account of his trade, now in one and then in another great city forming a centre of commerce, such as Corinth and Ephesus. The conjecture that he was a Sreedman of a Pontius Aquila,* so that the statement Tlovrırov TO yéver 1S an error,® is entirely arbitrary. Whether IpioxıA?a—identical with Prisca, Rom. xvi. 3, for, as is well known, many Roman names were also used in diminutive forms, see Grotius on Rom. /.c.—was a Roman by birth, or a Jewess, remains undecided. But the opinion—which has of late become common and is defended by Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, and Ewald—that Aquila and his wife were already Christians, having been so possibly at starting from Rome, when Paul met with them at Corinth, because there is no account of their conversion, is very forced. Luke, in fact, calls Aquila simply 'Iovdaiov, he does not say, tiva pabytiv ’Iovd., whereas else- where he always definitely makes known the Jewish Christians ; and ac- cordingly, by the subsequent rävrac rove 'Iovdaiovc, he places Aquila, with- out any distinction, among the general body of the expelled Jews. He also very particularly indicates as the reason of the apostle’s lodging with him, not their common Christian faith, but their common handicraft, ver. 3. It is therefore to be assumed that Aquila and Priscilla were still Jews when Paul met with them at Corinth, but through their connection with him they be- came Christians.’ This Luke, keeping in view the apostolic labours of Paul as a whole,’ leaves the reader to infer, inasmuch as he soon afterwards speaks of the Christian working of the two, ver. 26. We may add that the reply to the question, whether and how far Christianity existed at all in Rome before the decree of Claudius,® can here be of no consequence, 1 ywpio9., comp., i. 4. 5 Reiche on Rom. xvi. 3, de Wette. 2 See Eust. ad Dion. Per. 381. 6 See also Herzog in his Zneykl. I. p. 456. 3 Rom. xvi. 3. 7 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 578. 4 Cie. ad Famil. x. 83.4; Suet. Caes. 78. 8 See on Zom., Introd. § 2. PAUL IN CORINTH. 347 seeing that, although there was no Christian church at Rome, individual Christians might still at any rate be found, and certainly were found, among the resident Jews there. — rpoooarwc] nuper,! from wpoogaroc, which properly signifies fresh, = just slaughtered or killed, then generally new, of quite recent occurrence.” — dıa ro duareray. KA. k.t.2.] ** Judacos impulsore Chresto assidue tumuliuantes Roma expulit..’* As Chrestus was actually a current Greck and Roman name,* it is altogether arbitrary to interpret im- pulsore Chresto otherwise than we should interpret it, if another name stood instead of Chresto. Chrestus was the name of a Jewish agitator at Rome, whose doings produced constant tumults, and led at length to the edict of expulsion.® This we remark in opposition to the hypothesis upheld, after older interpreters in Wolf, by most modern expositors, that Suetonius had made a mistake in the name and written Chresto instead of Christo— a view, in connection with which it is either thought that the disturbances arose out of Christianity having made its way among the Jewish population at Rome, and simply affected the Jews themselves, who were thrown into a ferment by it, so that the portion of them which had come to believe was at strife with that which remained unbelieving ;° or it is assumed’ that en- thusiastic Messianic hopes excited the insurrection among the Jews, and that the Romans had manufactured out of the ideal person of the Messiah a rebel of the same name. While, however, the alleged error of the name has against it generally the fact that the names Christus and Christiani were well known to the Roman writers,® it may be specially urged against the former view, that at the time of the edict’ the existence of an influ- ential number of Christians at Rome, putting the Jewish population into a tumultuous ferment, is quite improbable; and against the latter view, that the Messianic hopes of the Jews were well enough known to the Ro- mans in general,’® and to Suetonius in particular.“ Hence the change” of Christus into Chrestos (Xpnoröc) and of Christianus into Chrestianus, which pronunciation Tertullian rejects by perperam, may not be imputed to the compiler of a history resting on documentary authority, but to the misuse of the Roman colloquial language. Indeed, according to Tacit. Ann. xv. 1 Polyb. iii. 37. 11, iii. 48.6; Alciphr. i. 39 ; Judith iv. 3,5; 2 Macc. xiv. 36. 2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 374 f.; Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. 't56. 3 Sueton. Claud. 25. 4 Philostr. ». Soph. ii. 11; Inscr. 194; Cic. ad Fam. xi. 8 5 Herzog, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 541, rightly defends this explanation (against Pressense). The objection is entirely unim- portant, which Margold also (Römerbr. 1866) has taken, that short work would have been made with an insurgent Chrestus at Rome. He might have made a timely escape. Ormayhe not have been actually seized and short work made of him, without thereby quenching the fire ? See also Wieseler, p. 122, and earlier, Ernesti, in Suet., l.c. 6 Wassenbergh, ad Valcken. p. 554; Kui- noel, Hug, Credner, Baur, Gieseler, Reuss, Thiersch, Ewald; also Lehmann, Stud. zur Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt., Greifsw. 1856, p. 6 ff ; Sepp, Mangold, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krif. 1867, p. 652 f.; Laurent, neutest Stud. p. 88, and others. 7 Paulus, Reiche, Neander, Lange, and oth- ers. 8 Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius himself, Ner. 16. ® Probably in the year 52, see Anger, de temp. rat. p. 118; Wieseler, p. 125 ff. 10 Tacit. Hist. v. 13. 11 Suet. Vesp. 4. 12 Attested by Tertull. Apol. 3, ad nai. i. 3, and by Lactant. Inst. div. iv. 7. 5. 348 CHAP. XVIII., 3-6. 44: ‘‘Nero .. . poenis affecit, quos . . . vulgus Christianos appellabat ; auctor nominis ejus Christus,’’ etc., it must be assumed that that inter- change of names only became usual at a later period ; in Justin. Apol. I. 4, ro Xpnoröv is only an allusion to Xpiorcavoi. The detailed discussion of the point does not belong to us here, except in so far as the narrative of Dio Cass. lx. 6 appears to be at variance with this passage and with Suet. lc. : robc Te 'Iovdaiovce mAcovacavrac aidıc, WOTE YaAET OG av Avev Tapayyc vTO TOV OxAOV opav Tye TéAEwC ElpxOjval,ovVK EEHAaCE wev, Tw dE OF TATPiW vouw Alm YOwWUEVOUG éxéAevoe uy ovvabpoilecba.! This apparent contradiction is solved by our re- garding what Dio Cassius relates as something which happened before the edict of banishment,” and excited the Jews to the complete outbreak of insur- rection.” The words wore . . . eipx@nvaı, which represent the ordinance as a precautionary measure against the outbreak of a revolt, warrant this view. From xxviii. 15 ff., Rom. xvi. 3, it follows that the edict of Claudius, which referred not only to those making the tumult,* but, according to the express testimony of this passage, to all the Jews, must soon either tacitly or officially have passed into abeyance, as, indeed, it was incapable of being permanently carried into effect in all its severity. Therefore the opinion of Hug, Eichhorn, Schrader, and Hemsen, that the Jews returned to Rome only at the mild commencement of Nero’s reign, is to be rejected. — mavtac Tove 'Iovdaiovc] with the exception of the proselytes, Beyschlag thinks, so that only the national Jews were concerned. But the proselytes of righteousness at least cannot, without arbitrariness, be excluded from the comprehensive designation. Vv. 3, 4. It was a custom among the Jews, and admits of sufficient ex- planation from the national esteem for trade generally, and from the de- sign of rendering the Rabbins independent of others as regards their sub- sistence,° that the Rabbins practised a trade. Olshausen strangely holds that the practice was based on the idea of warding off temptations by bodily activity. Comp. on Mark vi. 3, according to which Christ Himself was a Téxt@v. — dla TO Öuörexvov eivac] SC. auröv, because he (Paul) was of the same handicraft. Luke might also have written dıa rd öusrexvoc eivar.° —qoar] the two married persons. — oxyvoroıoi] is not with Michaelis to be interpreted makers of art-instruments, which is merely based on a misunderstanding of 1 Ewald, p. 346, wishes to insert ov before artificial explanation that Aquila indeed left Xxpwevous, 80 that the words would apply to the Jewish- Christians. [it otherwise. 2 Wieseler, p. 123, and Lehmann, p. 5, view 3To place the prohibition mentioned by Dio Cassius as early as the first year of Clau- dius, A.D. 41 (Laurent, neufest. Stud. p. 89 f.), does not suit the peculiar mildness and favour which the emperor on his accession showed to the Jews, according to Joseph. Antt. xix. 5.2 f. The subsequent severity supposes a longer experience of need for it. Laurent, after Oros. vi. 7, places the edict of expulsion as early as the ninth year of Claudius, A.D. 49; but he is in consequence driven to the Rome in A.D.49, but remained for some time in Italy, from which (ver. 2: amo rns ‘Iradtas) he only departed in A.D. 53. Thus he would not, in fact, have come to Corinth at all as an im- mcdiate consequence of that edict, which yet Luke, particularly by the addition of rpooda- ws, evidently intends to say. 4 Credner, Hint. p. 380. 5 Juch. xliii. 1. 2. 6 Kühner, II. p. 352; but comp. on the ac- cusative Luke xi. 8, and see on the omission of the pronoun, where it is of itself evident from the preceding noun, Kiihner, § 852 b, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 49. LABORS IN CORINTH. 349 Pollux, vii. 189, nor yet with Hug and others makers of tent-cloth. It is true that the trade of preparing cloth from the hair of goats, which was also used for tents (kcRixca), had its seat in Cilicia ;! but even apart from the fact that the weaving of cloth was more dificult to be combined with the unsettled mode of life of the apostle, the word imports nothing else than tent-maker,* tent-tailor, which meaning is simply to be retained. Such a person is also called cxyvoppagoc,* and so Chrysostom* designates the apos- tle, whilst Origen makes him a worker in leather,’ thinking on leathern tents.° — &reıde is the result of dieAéyero, xvii. 2, 17. He convinced, per- suaded and won, Jews and Greeks, here—as it is those present in the syna- gogue that are spoken of —proselytes of the gate. Ver. 5. This activity on his part increased yet further when Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia,’ in whose fellowship naturally the zeal and courage of Paul could not but grow.—The element of increased activity, in relation to what is related in ver. 4, is contained in cuveiyero ro Aöyw: he was wholly seized and arrested by the doctrine, so that he applied himself to it with assiduity and utmost earnestness.* Against my earlier rendering : he was pressed in respect of the doctine,’ he was hard-beset," it may be decisively urged, partly on linguistic grounds, that the dative with cuvéyeodac is always the thing itself which presses,’ partly according to the connection, that there results in that view no significant relation to the arrival of Silas and Timothy. — rov Xpıoröv 'Incovv, as in ver. 28. Ver. 6. The refactoriness” and reviling, which he experienced from them amidst this increased activity, induced him to turn to the Gentiles. — Extras. ra iuat.| he shook out his garments, ridding himself of the dust, in- dicating contempt, as in xill. 51. — ro alua iver . buor] sc. éAdéTw, Matt. Xxlil. 35, i.e. let the blame of the destruction, which will as a divine punishment reach you, light on no other than yourselves.” The expression is not to be ex- plained from the custom of laying the hands on the vietim,'* as Elsner and others suppose, or on the accused on the part of the witnesses ;’® but in all languages'® the head is the significant designation of the person himself, The significance here lies particularly in the conceptiop of the divine punish- ment coming from above, Rom. i. 18. — What Paul intends by the destruction » ı Plin. N. 7. vi. 28; Veget. de re mil. iv. 6; Serv. and Philarg. ad Virg. Georg. ili. 313, vo!. II. pp. 278 and 338, ed. Lion. 2 Pollux, /.c.; Stob. ecl. phys i. 52, p 1084. SPACE PH. i. Ernpealov auto Ebioravro avTo. 1 Comp. xxviii. 8; Luke viii. also Thuc. ii. 49. 3, iii. 98. 1; Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; many other passages : 37. Comp. Arrian, vi. 24. 6; Xen. Qec. i. 21, and Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 4 See also Theodoret, on 2 Cor. ii. 6: toaov- Tov iaxve kaı ypadwv 0 TKNVOppados. 5 Hom. 17 in Num. 6 Comp. de Dieu. 7 xvii. 14 f. 8 Comp. Wisd. xvii. 20, and Grimm in Joe. So in the main, following the Vulgate (‘‘in- stabat verbo’’), most modern interpreters, including Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten, Lange, Ewald. ® Comp. on Phil. i. 10 Comp. Chrysostom, reading to mvevmare . 46 , particularly Wisd. xvii. 20; Herodian i. IR22, Nel ae vie Xv. 22 12 Rom. xiii. 2. 13 Comp. 2 Sam. i. 16; 1 Kings ji. 88; Ezek. iii. 16 ff., xxxiii. 4, 7 ff. On emi or eis T. kedba- Anv, see Dem. p. 323, ult. 381. 15. On the elliptical mode of expression, see Matt. xxvii. 25; 2 Sam. i. 16; Plat. Zuthyd. p. 283 E; Arist. Plut. 526. 14 Ley. xvi. 31 ; comp. Herod. ii. 39. 15 So Piscator. 16 Comp. Heinsius, ad Ov. Her. xx. 127. 350 CHAP. XVII, 7-15. which he announces as certainly coming, and the blame of which he adjudges to themselves, is not moral corruption,’ but eternal amwketa, which is conceived as Sdvaroc,? and therefore symbolized as aiua to be shed, because the blood is the seat of life.* The setting in of this aroAeıa occurs at the Parousia, 2 Thess. i. 8. Thus Paul, as his conduct was already in point of fact for his adversaries an évderéic arwAclac,* expressly gives to them such an évdecEic. — kadapöc éyo] comp. xx. 26. — ano tov viv K.r.A.] as in xiii. 46. Ver. 7. Paul immediately gave practical proof of this solemn renunciation of the Jews by departing from the synagogue,° and went, not into the house of a Jew, but into that of a proselyte, the otherwise unknown Justus, who is not to be identified with Titus.° That Paul betook himself to the non-Jewish house nearest to the synagogue, is entirely in kceping with the profoundly excited emotion under which he acted, and with his decision of character. — ovvouopeiv] to border upon, is not found elsewhere ; the Greeks use öuopeiv in that sense. Observe, moreover, that a change of lodging is not mentioned. Ver. 8. This decided proceeding made a remarkable impression, so that even Crispus, the president of the synagogue, whom the apostle himself baptized,’ with all his family, believed on the Lord,* and that generally many Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, for the house of the proselyte was ac- cessible to both, heard him and received faith and baptism. Vv. 9-11.° But Jesus Himself, appearing to Paul in a night-vision,'° in- fused into him courage for fearless continuance in work. — Ad2ec x. un ctw. | solemnly emphatie.""— dıörı is both times simply propterea quod. — yd] Bengel well says: ‘‘fundamentum fiduciae.’’ — £rıßyoerai cou rov Kak. ce] will set on thee (aggredi) to injure thee. On the classical expression érutifecOai rıvı, to set on one, 1.e. impetum facere in alig., see many examples in Wetstein and Kypke. The attempt, in fact, which was made at a later period under Gallio, signally failed.— dıörı Aadc K.r.A.] gives the reason of the assurance, éy@ ele peta cov, kK. 0vd. Emidno. cot Tow Kak. oe. Under His people Jesus under- stands not only thoge already converted, but likewise proleptically '* those who are destined to be members of the church purchased by His blood,’** — the whole multitude of the rerayuevor eic Cwyv aidviov * at Corinth. — éravrov x. ujvac &] The terminus ad quem is the attempt of the Jews,'° and not '® the departure of Paul, ver. 18. For after Luke in vv. 9, 10 has narrated 1De Wette, who sees here an un-Pauline expression. 2 Rom. i. 32, vi. 16, 21, 23, vii. 5, 10, 13, 24, Vill. 2, 6 al. 31 Comp. on xv. 20. 4 Phil. i. 28. 5 exeıdev, Which Heinrichs and Alford after Calvin explain, contrary to the context, ex domo Aquilae. f., ver. 11 was a marginal note of Luke to nuepas ikavas, ver. 18. But ver. 11 is by no means superfluousin its present textual posi- tion, but attests the fulfilment of the promise, ver 10. 10 Comp. ix. 10. 11 Comp. Isa. Ixii.1, and see on John i. 3, 20. 12 Comp. John x. 16, xi. 52. 13 xx.28; Eph.i. 14. 6 Wieseler. 71 Cor, i. 14. 8 xvi. 15, 34. ® According to Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 148 14 xiii. 48. 15 Ver. 12. 16 In opposition to Anger, de temp. rat. p. 62 f., and Weiseler, p. 45 f. ENCOURAGED BY A VISION. sl. the address and promise of Jesus, he immediately, ver. 11, observes how long Paul in consequence of this had his residence, ö.e. his quiet abode, at Corinth,' attending to his ministry ; and he then im vv. 12-18 relates how on the other hand? an attack broke out, indeed, against him under Gallio, but passed over so harmlessly that he was able to spend before his departure yet° a considerable time at Corinth, ver. 18. — éy airoic] i.e. among the Corinthians, which is undoubtedly evident from the preceding év rq 76. r. Vv. 12, 13. Achaia, i.e. according to the Roman division of provinces, the whole of Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, so that by its side Macedonia, Illyria, Epirus, and Thessaly formed the province Macedonia, and these two provinces comprehended the whole Grecian territory, which originally had been a senatorial province,* but by Tiberius was made an imperial one,’ and was again by Claudius ® converted into a senatorial prov- ince,’ and had in the years 53 and 54 for its proconsul® Jun. Ann. Gallio, who had assumed this name — his proper name was M. Ann. Novatus — from L. Jun. Gallio, the rhetorician, by whom he was adopted. He was a brother of the philosopher L. Ann. Seneca,° and was likewise put to death by Nero.'°— karer£or.] they stood forth against him, is found neither in Greek writers nor in the LXX. — rapa r. vöu.] i.e. against the Jewish law. To the Jews the exercise of religion according to their laws was conceded by the Roman authority. Hence the accusers expected of the proconsul measures to be taken against Paul, whose religious doctrines they found at variance with the legal standpoint of Mosaism. Luke gives only the chief point of the complaint. For details, see ver. 15. Vv. 14, 15. The mild and humane Gallio’? refuses to examine into the complaint, and hands it over, as simply concerning doctrine, to the decision of the accusers themselves—to the Jewish tribunal—without permitting Paul, who was about to begin his defence, to speak. —oiv] namely, in pursuance of your accusation. — padwipy. buov] I should with reason '® bear with you, i.e. according to the context: give you a patient hearing.’ “ Judaeos Gallion sibi molestos innuit,”’ Bengel. — ei dé Inryuara . . . imac] but if, as your complaint shows, there are questions in dispute, xv. 2, concern- ing doctrine and names—plural of category ; Paul’s assertion that the name of Messiah belonged to Jesus, was the essential matter of fact in the case, see ver. 5—and of your, and so not of Roman, law. — rov ka’ ünäc] See on xvii. 28. —xpirye x.t-A.] Observe the order of the words, judge will I for my part, etc. Thus Gallio speaks in the consciousness of his political official po- 1 éxaOuce, as in Luke xxiv. 49. 1) See on ver. 15. They do not mean the law 2 e, ver. 12, marks a contrast to ver. 11. of the state ; nor yet do they express them- 3 Observe this Erı, ver 18. selves in a double sense (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 4 Dio Cass. liii. p. 704. II. p. 240). Gallio well knew what o vouos 5 Tacit. Ann. i. 76. signified in the mouth of a Jew. 6 Suet. Claud. 25. 12 Stat. Silv. ii. 7, 32; Seneca, Q. Nat. 4 7 See Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 190, 1-3. praef. 8 av@umaros, see on Xiil. 7. 13 See Plat. Rep. p.366 B; Wetstein in loc. ; 9 Tacit. Ann. xv. 73, xvi. 17. Bernhardy, p. 241. 10 See Lipsius, in Senec. prooem. 2, and ep. 14 Comp. Plat. Phil. p.18B; Rep. p. 367 D. 104; Winer, Realw. 352 CHAP. XVIII., 16-18. sition ; and his wise judgment—which Calovius too harshly designates as auérera atheistica—is after a corresponding manner to be borne in mind in determining the limits of the ecclesiastical power of princes as bearing on the separation of the secular and spiritual government, with due attention, however, to the circumstance that Gallio was outside the pale of the Jewish religious community. Vv. 16, 17. ’Ax#2Aacev] he dismissed them as plaintiffs, whose information it was not competent to him to entertain.! — Under the legal pretext of the necessity of supporting this aryAacev of the proconsul, all the bystanders— rävres, partly perhaps Roman subordinate officials, but certainly all Gentiles, therefore oi "EAAnvec is a correct gloss—used the opportunity of wreaking their anger on the leader and certainly also the spokesman of the hated Jews; they seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, even before the tribunal, and beat him. — Zwodévy¢ is by Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Hofmann,’ very arbitrarily, especially as this name was so com- mon, considered as identical with the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1; hence also the erroneous gloss oi 'Iovdaioı added to ravrec has arisen from the supposition that he either was at this time actually a Christian, or at least inclined to Christianity, and therefore not sufficiently energetic in his ac- cusation. Against this may be urged the very part which Sosthenes, as ruler of the synagogue, evidently plays against Paul;* and not less the circumstance, that the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1 was a fellow-labourer of Paul out of Corinth ; according to which, for the identification of the two, amore extended hypothesis would be necessary, such as Ewald has. Chrysostom considers him even identical with Orispus. —rov äpxıovv. | Whether he was a colleague * of the above-named Kpioroc, ver. 8, or suc- cessor to him on his resignation in consequence of embracing Christianity,° or whether he presided over another synagogue in Corinth,° remains un- determined. — kai oidév robrwv x.7.4.] and Gallio troubled himself about none of these things, which here took place ; he quite disregarded the spectacle. The purpose of this statement is to exhibit the utter failure of the attempt. So little was the charge successful, that even the leader of the accusers himself was beaten by the rabble without any interference of the judge, who by this indifference tacitly connived with the accused. See on Mark vi. 46. — Ketpauevoc T. ked.] is not to be referred to Paul, as Augustine, Beda, Eras- mus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Spencer, Reland, Wolf, Bengel, Rosen- miller, Morus, Olshausen, Zeller, de Wette, Baumgarten, Lange, Hackett, Lechler, Ewald, Sepp, Bleek, and others connect it, but to Aguila, with Ver. 18. ’Arordoceotai rwı] to say farewell to one. 1 Comp. Dem. 272. 11, 1373. 12. character would thus be the result! And 2 Heil. Schr.d. N. T. IL. ii. p. 4 f. 3 According to Hofmann, he was so linked with his people, that, although inwardly con- vinced by the preaching of the apostle, he yet appeared at the head of the furious multitude before the proconsul against Paul, because he eonld not forsake the synagogue. What a what reader could from the simple words put together for himself traits so odious! How entirely different were Joseph and Nicode- mus ! 4 See on xiii. 15. {and others. 5 Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald, * Grotius. AQUILA AND PRISCILLA. 359 Vulgate, Theophylact,! Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, Alberti, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Schneckenburger, also Oertel.” A decisive consideration in favour of this is the order of the names IIpionAda cai’ Akbdac, which * appears as designedly chosen. Luke, if he had meant the xeıpau. of Paul, would, by placing the wife first, have led the reader himself into error, whereas, with the precedence naturally given to the husband, no one would have thought of referring xecpau. to any other than Paul as the prin- cipal subject of the sentence. If, accordingly, xeıpau. is to be referred to Aguila, Luke has with design and foresight placed the names so ; but if it be referred to Paul, he has written with a strange, uncalled for, and mis- leading deviation from vv. 2 and 26.4 On the other hand, appeal is no doubt made to Rom. xvi. 3,° where also the wife stands first ;° but Paul here followed a point of view determining his arrangement,’ which was not followed by Luke in his history, as is evident from vv. 2 and 26. Accord- ingly, we do not need to have recourse to the argument, that it could not but at all events be very strange to see the liberal Paul thus, entirely with- out any higher necessity or determining occasion given from without, voluntarily engaging himself in a Jewish votive ceremony. How many occasions for vows had he in his varied fortunes, but we never find a trace that he thus became a Jew to the Jews! If there had been at that time a special reason for accommodation to such an exceptionally legal ceremony, Luke would hardly have omitted to give some more precise indication of it,° and would not have mentioned the matter merely thus in passing, as if it were nothing at all strange and exceptional in Paul’s case. Of Aguila, a subordinate, he might throw in thus, without stating the precise circum- stances, the cursory notice how it happened that the married couple joined Paul on his departure at the seaport ; regarding Paul as the bearer of such a vow, he could not but have entered into particulars. Nothing is gained by importing suggestions of some particular design ; e.g. Erasmus-here dis-. covers in obsequium charitatis toward the Jews, to whom Paul had appeared: as a despiser of their legal customs ;’° Bengel supposes” that the purpose: of the apostle was: ‘‘ut necessitatem sibi imponeret celeriter peragendi iter hoc Hierosolymitanum ;’’ Neander presupposes some occasion for the: public expression of gratitude to God in the spirit of Christian wisdom ; and Baumgarten thinks that ‘‘ we should hence infer that Paul, during his. working at Corinth, lived in the state of weakness and self-denial ap- 7 See on Rom, xvi. 3. 8 The case in xxi. 23 ff. is different. 9 Comp. xvi. 3. 10 And so insubstance Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 1 Chrysostom and Oecumenius do not clear- ly express to whom they refer keıpau. But in the Vulgate (‘‘ Aquila, qui sibi totonderat in Cenchris caput ’’) the reference is undoubted. 2 Paul. in d. Apyesch. p. 191. 8 Comp. with vv. 2 and 26. * Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. It is true that A B E 8 have also in ver. 26 Ipiox. x. ’AkvAas (SO Lachm.), but that transposition has evidently arisen from our passage. 5 Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 19. € Sec especially, Neander, p. 349, and Zeller, p. 304, Il. p. 246 f. 11 With Bengel agrees in substance Ewald, p. 502, who supposes that Paul, in order, per- haps, not to be fettered by Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. made the solemn vow of his desire to be at Jcrusalem even before Easter, and in sign thereof shaved his head, which had no connection with the Nazarite vow. and is rather to be compared to fasting. 354 CHAP. XVIII., 19-21. pointed by the law and placed under a special constitution ;’?! whereas Zeller uses the reference to Paul in order to prove a design of the writer to impute to him Jewish piety. — év Keyxpeaic] Keyypeat (in Thuc. Keyypecai) koum Kal Auumv aréxov THE TéAEwS boov EBdounkovra oradıa. Tovrw pév ody ypovTac mpoc Tove éx THE’ Aciac, mpög dé Tove Ex THC "ITahiag 7H AEyaiw, Strabo, viii. 6, p. 380. — lye yap evyfv| states the reason of xeıpau. T. xed. év K. : for he had a vow on him, which he discharged by having his head shorn at Cenchreae. — The vow itself is not to be considered as a Nazarite vow, called by Philo, evyn weyaan, according to which a man bound himself, for the glory of Jehovah, to permit his hair to grow for a certain time and to abstain from all intoxicating drink, ‘‘ Tres species sunt prohibitae Nasiraeis, immundities, tonsura et quicquid de vite egreditur,’’* and then after the lapse of the consecrated time to have his hair shorn off before the temple, and to pre- sent a sacrifice, into the flames of which the hair was cast.* For the re- demption of such a vow had to take place, as formerly at the tabernacle, so afterwards at the temple and consequently in Jerusalem ;° and entirely without proof Grotius holds: ‘‘haec praecepta . . . eos non obligabant, qui extra Judacam agebant.’’ If it is assumed ° that the Nazarite vow had in this case been interrupted by a Levitical uncleanness, such as by contact with a dead person, according to Lange, by intercourse with Gentiles, and was begun anew by the shearing off of the hair already consecrated but now polluted,’ this is a mere empty supposition, as the simple eiye yap ev yqv indicates nothing at all extraordinary. And even the renewal of an inter- rupted Nazarite vow was bound to the temple.* Therefore a proper Naza- rite vow is here entirely out of the question ; it is to be understood as a private vow (votum civile) which Aquila had resting upon him, and which he discharged at Cenchreae by the shaving of his head. On the occasion of some circumstances unknown to us,—perhaps under some distress, in view of eventual deliverance,—he had vowed to let his hair grow for a certain time ; this time had now elapsed, and therefore he had his head shorn at Cenchreae.® The permitting the hair to grow is, in the Nazarite state, according to Num. vi. 7, nothing else than the sign of complete consecration to God,” not that of a blessed, flourishing life, which meaning Bihr" im- ports ;'” nor yet, from the later view of common life, 1 Cor. xi. 14, a repre- sentation of man’s renunciation of his dignity and of his subjection to God," which is entirely foreign to the matter. In a corresponding manner is the usage in the case of the vow to be understood. For the vow was certainly analogous to the Nazarite state, in so far as one idea lay at the root of 1 [This is a literal rendering. The meaning ® Comp. Salamasius, de coma, p. 710 ; Wolf, seems to me obscure.—ED.] Cur. in loc. ; Spencer, de leg. Jud. rit. p. 862 2 Num. vi. ff. 3 Mischna Nasir, vi. 1. 10 Whence also Judg. xvi. 17 is to be ex- 4See Num. /.c.; Ewald, Alterth. p.113 ff. plained. Comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 115. Comp. on xxi. 23 ff. 13 Symbol. II. p. 432 f. 5 Num. vi., Reland, Antiquitt. p. 277. 12 Comp., in opposition to this, Keil, Ar- * Wolf, Stolz, Rosenmiiller. chäol. § \xvii. 11. 7 Num. vi. 10. 13 Baumgarten. ® See Num. vi. 10. 14 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 28 f. PAUL RETURNS TO ANTIOCH. 355 both; but it was again specifically different from it, as not requiring the official intervention of the priests, and as not bound to the temple and to prescribed forms. Neander correctly describes the cif in this passage ' as a modification of the Nazarite vow ; but for this very reason it seems errone- cus that he takes the shearing of the head as the commencement of the re- demption of the vow, and not as its termination.” See Num. vi. 5, 18; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 15, 1: rove yap 7 voow karamovovusvovc, 7 Ticw üAAarc avayxatc, ioc ebxeodaı mpd Tpıdkovra HuspOv, 7c amodwoeın yeAroıev Ovoiac, oivov te agéEacbai Kai Zuppoaodaı tac köuac, where the meaning from oc onwards is thus to be taken: ‘ They are accustomed, thirty days before the in- tended presentation of the offering, to vow that they will abstain from wine and, at the end of that period, have the head shorn.’’—A special set purpose, moreover, on the part of Luke, in bringing in this remark con- cerning Aquila, cannot be proved, whether of a conciliatory nature,*® with the assumed object of indirectly defending Paul against the charge of an- tagonism to the law, or by way of explaining the historical nexus of cause and effect,* according to which his object would be to give information concerning the delay of the departure of the apostle, and concerning his leaving Ephesus more quickly. Vv. 19, 20. Karédurev aurou] he left them there, separated himself from them, so that he without them—airéc, he on his part—went to the synagogue, there discoursed with the Jews,’ and then, without longer stay, pursued his journey. The shift, to which Schneckenburger has recourse, that airic dé properly belongs to arera£. aitoic, is impossible ; and that of de Wette, that Luke has written kaxeivouc kar&Aır. ait. in anticipation, ‘in order, as it were, to get rid of these secondary figures,”’ is arbitrarily harsh. — We may remark, that within this short abode of the apostle at Ephesus occurred the first foundation of a church there, with which the visit to the synagogue and discussion with the Jews are appropriately in keeping as the commence- ment of his operations. So much the less, therefore, is an earlier presence there and foundation of the church to be assumed.®— mi mA. yp.| for @ longer time. It was to take place only at a later period, chap. xix. Ver. 21. What feast was meant by nv éopryv ryv épyou. must remain un- determined, as dei we tavtwe does not allow us absolutely to exclude the winter season dangerous for navigation, and as the indefinite „Ju£pac ikavas, ver. 18—which period is not included in the one and a half years ’—pre- vents an exact reckoning. It is commonly supposed to be either Haster or Pentecost. The latter by Anger.° The former ® is at least not to be inferred from the use of the article ‘‘ the feast,’’ which in general," and here specially on account of the addition r7v épyou., would be an uncertain ground. The 1 Comp. Bengel. 6 As Marker (Steilung d. Pastoralbriefe, 2 Comp. Calovius: “Causa redditur, cur 1861, p. 4 f.) places the same between ix. 30 Paulus navigarit in Syriam, quia sc. votum and xi. 25. fecerat, quod expleri debebat in templo Hi- 7 See on ver. 11. erosolymitano.”’ 8 De temp. rat. p. 60 ff.,and Wieseler, p. 3 Schneckenburger, p. 66. 48 ff. 4 Wieseler, p. 203, conjecturally. 9 Ewald. SiVer.4, xy. 2,17. 10 Fritzsche, a2. Matth. p. 804. 356 CHAP. XVIII., 22-25. motive, also, of the determination indicated by dei is completely unknown. —roveiv] as in ver. 23; see on xv. 33. —eic ‘Iepoodd.|1—madw dé x.T.A. | which took place, xix. 1. Vv. 22, 23. Fourth journey to Jerusalem, according to chap. ix., xi., xv. — From Ephesus Paul sailed to Caesarea—i.e. Caesarea Stratonis, the best and most frequented harbour in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; not, as Jerome, Beda, and Lyra suppose, Caesarea in Cappadocia, against which the very word av7x0n7 serves as a proof—and from thence he went up to i Jerusalem, whence he proceeded down to Antioch. —avafBdc] namely, to Jerusalem. So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Hein- richs, Olshausen, Neander, Anger,’ de Wette, Weiseler, Baumgarten, Lange, Ewald, and others. Others refer it to Caesarea, so Calovius, Wolf, Kuinoel, Schott, and several others, and think that the word is purposely chosen, either because the city was situated high up from the shore,* or because the church had its place of meeting in an elevated locality.‘ The reference to Caesarea would be necessary, if der we mévtTwc x.T.A.,. ver. 21, were not genuine ; for then the reference to Jerusalem would have no ground assigned for it in the context. But with the genuineness of that asseveration, ver. 21, the historical connection requires that ava. x. aorac. r. éxxd. should contain the fulfilment of it. In favour of this we may appeal both te the relation in meaning of the following kar£ßr to this avaßac, and to the cir- cumstance that it would be very strangely in contrast to the hurried brevity with which the whole journey is despatched in ver. 22, if Luke should have specially indicated in the case of Caesarea not merely the arrival at it, but also the going up (?) toit. In spite of that hurried brevity, with which the author scarcely touches on this journey to Jerusalem, and mentions in regard to the residence there no intercourse with the Jews, no visit to the temple, and the like, but only a salutation of the church,® the fidelity of the apostle to the Jewish festivals has been regarded as the design of the narrative,° and the narrative itself as invented.’ The identification of the journey with that mentioned in Gal. ii. 1° is incompatible with the aim of the apostle in adducing his journeys to Jerusalem in that passage. See on Galatians. Nor can the encounter with Peter, Gal. ii. 11, belong to the residence of Paul at that time in Antioch.® — rv Tatar. x. r. dpvy.] certainly, also, Lycaonia, xiv. 21, although Luke does not expressly name it. On Eniornpißov, comp. xiv. 22, xv. 32, 41. Vv. 24-28. Notice interposed concerning Apollos, who, during Paul’s ab- sence from Ephesus, came thither as a Messianic preacher proceeding from the school of the disciples of John, completed his Christian training there, and then before the return of the apostle, xix. 1, departed to Achaia. 1 See Winer, p. 387 (E. T. 518). whom Paul now recognized it as incompatible 2 De temp. rat. p. 60 f. with his more extended apostolic mission to 3 Kuinoel and others. meddle. See Ewald, p. 503 f. 4 De Dieu and others. © Schneckenburger. 5 The so short residence of the apostle in 7 Zeller, Hausrath ; comp. Holtzmann, p. Jerusalem is sufficiently intelligible from the 69. certainly even at that time (comp. xxi. 21 ff.) 8 Wieseler. very excited temper of the Judaists, with ® Neander, Wieseler, Lange, Baumgarten. APOLLOS. 357 Ver. 24.’ *AroAAdc] the abbreviated ’AroAAdr0c, as D actually has it. His working was peculiarly influential in Corinth. — Adyioc] may mean either learned or eloquent.* Neander, also Vatablus, takes it in the former signification. But the wswal rendering, eloguens, corresponds quite as well with his Alexandrian training, after the style of Philo, and is decidedly in- dicated as preferable by the reference to vv. 25 and 28, as well as by the characteristic mode of Apollos’s work at Corinth. Besides, the Scripture- learning is particularly brought forward alongside of Aoyıornc by duvarig ov év tr. ypag. : he had in the Scriptures, in the understanding, exposition, and application of them, a peculiar power, for the conviction and winning of hearts, refutation of opponents, and the like. Ver. 25. Karnynu£voc r. 60. r. Kup.| Apollos was instructed concerning the way of the Lord, i.e. concerning Christianity as a mode of life appointed and shaped by Christ through means of faith in Him,‘ doubtless by dis- ciples of John, as follows from £rıorau. uövov tr. Batt. ’Iodvvov. How im- perfect this instruction had been in respect of the doctrinal contents of Christianity,° appears from the fact that he knew nothing of a distinctively Christian baptism. He stood in this respect on the same stage with the wadnraiin xix. 2; but, not maintaining the same passive attitude as they did, he was already—under the influence of the partial and preliminary light of Christian knowledge—full of a profound, living fervour, as if seething and boiling in his spirit, ö.e. in the potency of his higher self-conscious life, ® so that he éAade kai Edidaonev axpiBac ra repl Tov ’Inoov. What had reference to Jesus, to whom as the Messiah John had borne witness, was naturally that concerning which he had in his Johannean training received most informa- tion and taken the deepest interest. He must have regarded Jesus—His historical person—actually as the Messiah, not merely as a precursor of Him,’ which Bleek erroneously denies, contrary to the express words of the passage ; but he still needed a more accurate Christian instruction, which he received, ver. 26. The incompleteness and even the lack to some extent of correctness in his Christian knowledge, made him, with his might in the Scriptures and fervour in spirit—which latter was under the control of the former—not incapable to teach, according to the measure of his knowledge, with accuracy ® concerning Jesus, although he himself had to be instructed yet axpıß&orepov, ver. 26, in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who find here con- tradictory statements. In a corresponding manner, for example, a mission- ary may labour with an incomplete and in part even defective knowledge of the way of salvation, if he is mighty in the Scriptures and of fervent spirit. — 214A. x. édid. are simply to be distinguished as genus and species; and ı On Apollos, see Heymann in the Sdchs. Stud. 1843, p. 222 ff.; Bleck on Hebr. Introd. p. 394 ff. ; Ewald, p. 513 ff. We should know him better, if he were the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, however, re- mains a matter of great uncertainty. 21 Cor. i. 12, iii. 5 f., iv. 6 ff. 3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.198 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 116. 4 See on ix. 2. 5 Erasmus, Paraphr.: “hie Apollos erat semichristianus,”” 6 Céewy TS TVEVpaTL, See on Rom, xii. 11. 7 Baumgarten. 8 Not to be taken in a subjective sense; carefully (Beza and others), which the com- parative in ver. 26 does not suit. 358 CHAP Ovid 027, 28 axpiBac, exactly, receives its limitation by émor. pov. r. B. I. — émtorapevog pov. r. Barr. Iwdvvov] although, etc. The view, that by this an absolute ignorance of Christian baptism is expressed, is incredible in itself, and not to be assumed on account of John iii. 26. Notwithstanding, the simple literal sense is not to be interpreted, with Lange,' as though Apollos was wanting only in ‘‘ complete Christian experience of salvation and maturi- ty ;’’ but, inasmuch as he did not recognise the characteristic distinction of the Christian baptism from that of John, he knew not that the former was something superior to the latter ;? he knew only the baptism of John.* Ver. 26. Té] to which dé afterwards corresponds. ‘— jpgaro | beginning of the Immediately afterwards Aquila and Priscilla, who had temporarily settled in Ephesus,° and had heard him speak — from which they could not but learn what he lacked —took him to themselves for private instruction. — rv rod Beov ddév] the same as tiv dddv Tr. Kupiov, Ver. 25, inasmuch as the whole work of Christ is the work of God. That, also Christian baptism was administered to Apollos by Aquila, is neither to be assumed as self-evident,° nor is it to be arbitrarily added, with Olshausen, that he first received the Holy Spirit at Corinth by Paul (?). Ewald cor- rectly remarks : ‘‘there could be no mention of a new baptism in the case of a man already, in a spiritual sense, moved deeply enough.’’” The Holy Spirit had already taken up His abode in his fervent spirit,—a relation which could only be furthered by the instruction of Aquila and Priscilla. Ver. 27. AveAGeiv ei¢ tr.’ Ayaiav] probably occasioned by what he had heard from Aquila and Priscilla concerning the working of Paul at Corinth. — mpotpew. ol ad. &ypanı. roic uadyr. arod. avt.] The Christians already at Ephesus’ wrote exhorting, issued a letter of exhortation, to the disciples, the Christians of Achaia, to receive him hospitably as a teacher of the gospel. So Luther, Castalio, and others, also de Wette and Ewald. The contents of their letter constituted a Aöyoc rpotpertixéc.® But many others, as Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, following Chrysostom (rporéurovor xk. ypauuara erıdıdöaoın), refer rpotpey. to Apollos” as its object, not to the pzabyrac, ‘* sua exhortatione ipsum magis incitaverunt fratres et currenti addiderunt calcar,’’ Calvin; according to which we should necessarily expect either a defining avrév with mpotpep., Or previously BovAöuevov dé aitév. — ovveBarero| he contributed much," helped much.” This meaning, not disserwit,'? is required by the following yap. — Toig merıorevröoı| Bengel appropriately remarks: ‘‘ rigavit Apollos, non plantavit.’’ 4—0d.a tij¢ yapitoc| is not to be connected with roig remor.,® but with oweß. oat ; for the design of the text is to characterize Apollos Tappyo. Ev TH ovvay. 1 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 260. 2 xix. 3, 4. [p. 28 f. 3 Comp. Oertel, Paulus in der Apostelgesch. 4 See Winer, p. 409 (E. T. 548); Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 5. 8. 5 Ver. 18 f. 6 Erasmus, Grotius, and others, 7 See on xix. 5. 8 Doubtless but few at first, vv. 19 f. ® Plat. Clit. p. 410 D. 10 This reference is implied also in the am- plification of the whole verse in D, which Bornemann has adopted. 11 Contulit, Valg.; profuit, Cod. It. 12 Dem. 558. 13; Plat. Zegg. x. p. 905 C; Polyb. i. 2. 8, ii. 13.1; Philo, migr. Adr. p. 422 D. 13 xvii. 18. 14 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 6. 15 Hammond,de Weite, Hackett, and others. NOTES. 359 and his workings, and not the remorevk. The yapic is to be explained of the divine grace sustaining and blessing his efforts. Not only is the view of Hammond and Bolten, that it denotes the gospel, to be rejected, but also that of Raphel, Wetstein, and Heinrichs, that it signifies facundia dicendique venustas, in which case the Christian point of view of Luke, according to which he signalizes that cuveBad. roAd, is entirely mistaken. Apollos thus laboured, not by his art, but by grace. But the reception of baptism is not presupposed by this ydpic, in opposition to Grotius ; see on ver. 26. Ver. 28. Eirévwc] nervously, vigorously, also in Greek writers used of ora- tors. Comp. Luke xxiii. 10. — dcaxar72.| stronger than kar7%.; not preserved elsewhere. The dative of reference! is to be rendered : ‚for the Jews, i.e. over against the Jews, to instruct them better, he held public refutations, so that he showed, etc. —dyyocia] The opposite is idie.” It comprehends more than the activity in the synagogue.* — dia rov ypag.] by means of the Script- ‘ures, whose expressions he made use of for the explanation and proof of his proposition that Jesus was the Messiah, *Ijcovv is the subject, comp. ver. 5. —The description of the ministry of Apollos, vv. 27, 28, entirely agrees with 1 Cor. iii. 6. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (2?) Corinth. V.1. Corinth, distant from Athens about 45 miles, was situated on an isthmus, between two seas, the Aügean and the Ionian, on each of which, respectively, were the ports of Cenchrea and Lecheum. Hence called ‘‘ The City of the Two Seas,” Its favorable position rendered it a vast commercial emporium. It was also a city of great military importance, as it commanded the entrance into the peninsula. In ancient and in modern times, armies have contended for the possession of the lofty citadel of this city, called by Xenophon ‘“ The Gate of the Peloponnesus,”’ and by Pindar the ‘‘ Bridge of the Sea.” This city differed much in almost every respect from Athens. Athens was a Greek free city, Corinth was a Roman colony. Athens was a seat of learning, Corinth a mart of commerce. At Coninth, more than anywhere else, the Greek race could be seen in all its life and activity. The ancient city, so renowned in Grecian history, and which rivalled even Rome, had been destroyed and fora century lay in ruins ; but, nearly a century before the time of Paul’s visit, the city was rebuilt by Julius Cesar, and it quickly surpassed its former opulence and splendor. “Splendid buildings, enriched with ancient pillars of marble and porphyry and adorned with gold and silver, soon began to rise side by side with the wretched huts of wood and straw, which sheltered the mass of the poorer population. The life of the wealthier in- habitants was marked by self-indulgence and intellectual restlessness, and the mass of the people, even down to the slaves, were more or less affected by the prevailing tendency. Corinth was the Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire, at once the London and the Paris of the first century after Christ.’”’ (Farrar.) 1 Comp. Symm., Job xxxix. 32: SveAeyxope- 2 Xen. Hier. xi. 9. vos Ocw. 3 See xix. 9. 360 CHAP. XVIII., NOTES. It was no less notorious for vice and licentiousness than it was famous for its magnificence and refinement. For while Cicero calls it ‘‘ totius Greecize lumen,”’ the light of all Greece, and Florus designates it ‘‘ Greecize decus,” the glory of Greece,” so low had it sunk in morals, that to live like a Corinthian became proverbial for a course of wanton licentiousness and reckless dissipation. It was “a populous city, rich, brilliant, frequented by numerous strangers, centre of an active commerce. The characteristic feature which rendered its name proverbial was the extreme corruption of manners displayed there.” (Renan.) To this vast city, with its teeming mixed population of Jews, Greeks, and Romans, where strife and uncleanness prevailed, the apostle came to preach the gospel of peace and purity, and he did so with great power and success, (8) Gallio. V. 15. Gallio was the brother of Seneca, the celebrated moralist, who dedicated two of his books to him. He possessed those qualities which render a man a general favorite. He was characterized as the ‘‘dulcis Gallio.” “He was a man of fine mind and noble soul, the friend of the poets and celebrated writers. Such a man must have been little inclined to receive the demands of fanatics, coming to ask the civil power, against which they protest in secret, to free them of their enemies.’’ (fenan.) Seneca says: “Nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hie omnibus.”’ And the narrative of Luke represents him as acting in harmony with such a dis- position. In the matter brought before him, he acted the part of a wise and upright judge. The question was one which did not fall under his jurisdiction. He was unwilling to be made a party to a Jewish prejudice, or the executioner of an alien code. Paul and his accusers as religionists stood on an equality in the eye of the law. His conduct is often reproached severely, as if he had been wholly indifferent on matters of religion. Whether he was so or not is not manifested here. He simply declined to interfere in such matters. In this he was right ; though he should surely have kept the peace, and prevented the attack on Sosthenes. The view of Meyer is probably correct, that he favored the accused. The Romans regarded the Jews with mingled feelings of curiosity, disgust, and contempt. Their orators and satirists heap scorn and reproach upon them for their low cunning, their squalor, mendicancy, turbulence, supersti- tion, cheatery and idleness. And they viewed Christianity in the light of a Jewish faction. “It took the Romans nearly two centuries to learn that Christianity was something infinitely more important than the Jewish sect, which they mistook it to be. It would have been better for them, and for the world, if they had tried to get rid of this disdain, and to learn wherein lay the secret power of a religion, whlch they could neither eradicate nor suppress. But while we regret this unphilosophie disregard, let us at least do justice to Roman impartiality, In Gallio, in Lysias, in Felix, in Festus, in the centurion Julius, even in Pilate, different as were their degrees of rectitude, we cannot but admire the trained judicial insight with which they at once saw through the subterranean injustice and virulent animosity of the Jews in bringing false charges against innocent men.’’ (Färrar.) NOTES. 361 (r°) Having shorn his head. V. 18. It is a matter of dispute whether this shaving of the head refers to Paul or to Aquila. Meyer is decidedly of the opinion that it was Aquila who had the vow. He argues strenuously in favor of this view, but he very candidly gives a list of authorities on both sides, On the statement Plumptre writes thus: “ The grammatical structure of the Greek sentence makes it possible to refer the words to Aquila as well as St. Paul, but there is hardly the shadow of a doubt that the latter is meant.” Alford says: ‘“ There are, from verse 18 to 23—a section forming a distinct narrative, and complete in itself—no less than nine aorist participles, eight of which indisputably apply to Paul as the subject of the section; leaving it hardly open to question that xecpduevoc also must apply unto him.’ Taylor quotes this passage and concurs with it. On the other hand Bloomfield writes: “Al who were distinguished for knowledge of Greek and almost every editor of the N. T. have adopted the view that it refers to Aquila, which is supported by the ancient versions, and, as it invokes far more probability, and avoids the difficulties attendant on supposing Paul to be meant, it deserves the preference.’’ Howson also, in ‘‘The Life of Paul,’ says: “ Aquila had bound himself by one of those vows which the Jews often voluntarily took, even when in foreign countries,’ and ‘‘ had been for some time conspicuous, even among the Jews and Christians at Corinth, for the long hair, which denoted that he was under a peculiar religious restriction ; and before accompanying the apostle to Ephesus, laid aside the tokens of his vow.’’ He also in a note quotes Heinrichs: ‘‘ Preeferendum mihi videtur, quia constructio fluit facilior, propiusque fidem est, notitiam hanc, quae lereviter nonnisi et quasi per tran- seunam additur, de homine ignitione adjunctamesse.” Gloag thinks the view which refers the shaving of the head to Paul is the more correct. Since the time of Augustine, opinion on this question has been divided; among the scholars and commentators of the present day diversity of sentiment still ex- ists, nor can we expect unanimity in the future. In view of the whole discus- sion, we are disposed to agree with Meyer, that it was Aquila and not Paul who shaved his head. (6?) Apollos. V. 24.” Nothing is known of the previous history of Apollos, only that he was born in Alexandria, of Jewish parents. He was doubtless trained from his child- hood in the knowledge of the O. T. Scriptures; and thoroughly disciplined by the culture of the best schools in a city where literature, philosophy, and criti- cism excited the utmost intellectual activity, and which at that time was second only to Athens in influence over the current thought of the age. The philosophy of Alexandria exercised an important influence, both for good and evil, over primitive Christianity. Apollos was not only learned and mighty in the Scriptures, but he was en- dowed with a most fascinating and persuasive eloquence, and, both before and after his acquaintance with Paul, rendered good service to the cause of Christ, in Corinth and in Ephesus. He was with Paul when he wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and Paul mentions him many years afterward, in his 362 CHAP. XVIII.—NOTES. Epistle to Titus. Luther suggested the idea that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and many have agreed with him. The term Aöytog, applied to Apollos, may mean skilled in history, learned, or eloquent, the last is best suited to the context ; but, in all its senses, the word was applicable to the distinguished Alexandrian. (m?) Baptism of John. V. 25. Besides his early Biblical and literary training, Apollos had probably been instructed by some disciple of John, if not by John himself, and had been im- bued with the spirit of the trumpet-toned preacher of the Jordan, and sought to lead men to repentance, and to the reception of the Messiah, who had already come, as he proved from the received Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord--that is, the divine purpose to redeem Israel through the Messiah, whom he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be; for with great fervor of spirit and force of speech he taught accurately the things concerning the Lord Jesus, as far as he knew them. It is not to be supposed that Apollos was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Christ, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; for this was the keynote of John’s ministry ; nor that he did not know anything about Christian baptism, but only that he did not distinguish between it and that of John. The disciples of John, who were numerous and scattered, may be divided into three classes: those, including a large majority, who became disciples of Christ; those, who formed a small sect of their own, holding that John was the Mes- siah ; and those who, being removed from Palestine, held just what John taught. To this last class Apollos and the twelve disciples at Ephesus be- longed. They had not yet heard of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, though they were personally led into the truth by Him. The pious couple, who had left Corinth with Paul, took the fervent, eloquent preacher to their home, and gave him more full and accurate instruction in the gospel of Christ, its distinctive doctrines, and, though no mention is made of the fact, Aquila in all probability baptized him. Meyer thinks he was not rebaptized ; but both Hackelt and Plumptre think it more probable that he was rebaptized, and we agree with them. CRITICAL REMARKS, 363 CHAPTER XIX. . Vy. 1, 2. evpév] AB S, min. Copt. Vulg. Fulg. have eüpeiv, and then re (or dé) after eime. So Lachm. Tisch. But how easily might eipov, after 2ABeiv, be changed by transcribers into eöpeiv !— eimov, ver. 2, and 7p0s adrovs, ver. 3 (both deleted, after important witnesses, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.), have the character of an . addition for the sake of completion. — Ver. 4. uev] is wanting in A B D N, min. Vulg. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. The want of a corresponding dé ocea- sioned the omission.—Before ’Incoöv Elz. Scholz read Xpıoröv, which is deleted according to preponderating testimony. A usual addition, which was here particularly suggested by eis r. épy. — Ver. 7. dexadvo] Lachm. Born. read dddexa, it is true, accordingtoABDE NS, min., but it is a change to the more usual form. — Ver. 8. ra mepi] B D, min. vss. have repi. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. See on viii. 12. — Ver. 9. rıvös] is wanting in A B S, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch., but was, as apparently unnecessary, more easily omitted than inserted. — Ver. 10. After Kupiov Elz. has, against decisive testimony, ’In0o0, which Griesb. has de- leted. — Ver. 12. amogep.] recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., after A BE S, min. But Elz. Scholz, Born. read émigép. Occa- sioned by &ml r. dod. — ixnopeveoßa:) Elz. reads é&épyeobar an’ aitwr, against pre- ponderating evidence. The usual word for the going out of demons! and dz’ avr. was added from the preceding. — Ver. 13. kai] after rıv£s, is approved by Griesb, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A BE NS, min. Syr.; Elz. Scholz read azé, according to G H, min.; Born. reads &x, after D. Accordingly something, at all events, originally stood after twvés. But had azé or &x stood, no reason can be perceived why they should be meddled with; xai, on the other hand, might be found perplexing, and was sometimes omitted and some- times exchanged for dz6 or Ex. — öpki{o] So ABD E NS, min. Copt. Arm. Cas- siod. But Elz. has dpxifouev. Correction to suit the plurality of persons. — Ver, 14. rwes viot Sn. I. apy. éxta] Lachm. reads rıvos Sx. ’I. apy. éxta viol. Both have important evidence, and the latter is explained as a correction and transposition (Tisch. has rıves indeed, but follows the order of Lachm., also at- tested by S), the transcribers not knowing how to reconcile rıv&s with éxré, — oi] is deleted by Lachm., according to insufficient evidence. Superfluous in itself; and, according to the order of Lachm., it was very easily passed over after vioi. — Ver. 16. égadAdu.] A B &*, 104. Lachm. reads égaddu. Correctly ; the Recepta arises from the inattention of transcribers.—Before xaraxip. Elz. Scholz have xai, which is deleted according to predominant testimony. An insertion for the sake of connection. — augorépwr] Elz. has alröv, against AB D &, min. Theophyl. 2, and some vss.; aud., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., was objectionable, as before there was no mention of two. — Ver. 21. d:eAGév] Lachm. Born. read dısAdeiv, according to ADE. Resolution of the construction, by which «ai became necessary before mopeveoßaı, which, also, D has (so Born.). — Ver. 24. rapeiyero] Lachm. reads mapeixe, according to A*DE; yet D places ös before, and has previously jv 364 CHAP TKI SL after ris (so Born.). The middle was less familiar to transcribers. — Ver. 25, Elz, Scholz have 7uov ; Lachm. Tisch. Born. read juiv, according toA BD E 8, min. Vulg. Copt.Sahid. Theophyl. 2. The latter is to be received on account of the preponderance of testimony, and because 7juav would more easily sug- gest itself to unskilful transcribers, — Ver. 26. a4%«] Lachm. Born. read dard kai, after A B G, min. vss. Chrys. Both suitable in meaning; but kai would more easily after ob uovov be mechanically inserted (comp. ver, 27) than omitted. — Ver. 27. Aoyıodjvaı, u£A2eıw] Lachm. Born. read ?oyıoßmoeraı, ueAAcsı, according to weighty evidence ; but certainly only an emendation of a construction not understood. — ryv weyad.] Lachm. reads 775 ueyaleıöraros, ABEN, min. Sahid. Correctly ; the genitive not being understood, or not having its meaning at- tended to, yielded to the more naturally occurring accusative. — Ver. 29. 647] is wanting in A B &, min. Vulg. Copt. Arm., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition which easily suggested itself. — Ver. 33, mpoeßißacav]) Lachm. reads ovveßißacav, according to A B E NS, min.; Born. reads kareßi3., after D*. In this diversity cuve3i3. is indeed best attested by Codd., but yet is to be rejected as completely unsuitable. As, further, kareßiß. has only D* for it, the reading of the Recepta, which was glossed in a variety of ways, is to be retained. — Ver. 34. £mıyvövres] Elz. has Erıyvövrov, against decisive evidence. A correction in point of style. — Ver. 35. dıßporos] Lachm. Tisch. read avAporwv, according to ABEN,min.vss. The Recepta came in mechanically.—After peyad. Elz. has Geas. Condemned by decisive testimony as an addition. — Ver. 37. 0eöv] Elz. reads Gedy, against decisive testimony.—Instead of iudv, Griesb. approved, and Lachm. and Born. read, 7uov, according to A D E** 8, min. vss. But with the important attestation which öuov also has, and as the change into 7uov was so naturally suggested by the context, the Recepta is to be defended, —- Ver. 39. mepl éTépwv] B, min. Cant. have wepatrépw. Preferred by Rinck, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; and correctly, as alterations easily presented themselves for a word not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. (E has rep Erepov), and which is hardly to be ascribed to the transcribers. — Ver, 40, After zepi od Griesb. and Matth. have adopted ot, which, however, has more considerable authorities against it than for it(A G H NS). Writing of the od twice, — repi before 775 ovorp.is found in A B E N, min. vss.; it is, with Lachm., to be adopted, be- cause, being superfluous and cumbrous, it ran the risk of being omitted, but was not appropriate for insertion. Ver. 1. ’AroA%6] Concerning this form of the accusative, see Winer, p. 61 (E. T. 72). — ra avwrepıra] the districts lying more inland from Ephesus, as Galatia and Phrygia, xviii, 23.1 The reading Theophylact, ra avaroAırd, is a correct gloss. A more precise definition of the course of the journey * through the regions of Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and Sardes, is not to be attempted. — uaßnräc] i.e. as no other definition is added, Christians. It is true that they were disciples of John,* who had been, like Apollos, in- structed and baptized by disciples of the Baptist,‘ but they had joined the fellowship of the Christians, and were by these regarded as fellow-disci- ples, seeing that they possessed some knowledge of the person and doc- 1 Comp. Kypke, IT. 95. S ver. 2, 3. 2 Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 30, and de Wette. 4 Comp. xviii. 25. DISCIPLES OF JOHN. 365 trine of Jesus and a corresponding faith in Him, though of a very imper- fect and indefinite character, —as it were, misty and dawning ; therefore Paul himself also considered them as Christians, and he only learned from his conversation with them that they were merely disciples of John.! Heinrichs * thinks that they had received their instruction® and baptism of John from Apollos, and that Paul was also aware of this. But the very ignorance of these disciples can as little be reconciled with the energetic ministry of Apollos as with any already lengthened residence at Ephesus at all, where, under the influence of the Christians, and particularly of Aquila and Priscilla, they must have received more information concerning the mvevpa ay. Therefore it is most probable that they were strangers, who had but just come to Ephesus and had attached themselves to the Christians of that place. As disciples of John they are to be regarded as Jews, not as Gentiles, which ver. 2 contains nothing to necessitate.* — Observe, also, that the earlier keeping back of the apostle from Asia on the part of the Spirit° had now, after his labours thus far in Greece, obtained its object and was no longer operative. Of this Paul was conscious. Cod. D has a special address of the Spirit to this effect, —an interpolation which Borne- mann has adopted. Ver. 2. The want of the distinctively Christian life of the Spirit in these disciples must have surprised the apostle; he misses in their case those peculiar utterances of the Holy Spirit, commencing with Christian baptism, which were elsewhere observable.° Hence his question. — ei] The indirect form of conception lies at the foundation, as in i. 6. — rıorev- oavrec] after ye became believers, i.e. Christians, which Paul considered them to be.’— 422’ ob6é ei mv. dy. &. nKovo.] as the existence of the Holy Spirit at all cannot have been unknown to the men, because they were disciples of John and John’s baptism of water had its essertial correlate and intelligi- ble explanation in the very baptism of the Spirit—even apart from the O. T. training of these men, according to which they must at least have been aware that the Holy Spirit was something existing—£orıv, to be so accented, must necessarily be taken as adest, as in John vii. 39 : No, we have not even heard whether the Holy Spirit is there, already present on the earth. Ac- cordingly, they still remained ignorant whether that which John had announced, namely, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, had already taken place, and thus the rveuua äyıov had become present. The supplements, dofév, Exxvvöuevov, and the like, give the sense, just as in John vii. 39, but are quite unnecessary. The view which it takes of existence generally has misled Olshausen to import the here inappropriate dogmatic assertion: that God still stood before their minds as a rigid, self-contained, immediate unity, without their knowing anything of the distinctive attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit, necessarily conditioned by the nature of the 1 verse 3. 5 xvi. 6. 2 Comp. Wetstein, also Lange, II. p. 264. SU Cor Rt... 3 xvili. 25, 26. 7 See on ver. 1. 4 In opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 3. 366 CHAP. XIX., 4-7. % Spirit ; and, with Baumgarten, has given rise to the supposition that they were @entiles."—The question occurred to them as surprising.” Ver. 3. Eic ri] reference of the baptism : * unto what, then, as the object of faith and confession, to which you were referred, were ye baptized ? — oiv] accordingly, since the matter so stands, since ye have not even heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit. The presupposition in this eic ri oiv is, that they, baptized in the name of Christ, could not but have received the Holy Spirit. —eic 70 ’Iwavy. Bart.) in reference to the baptism administered by John, so that thus the baptism performed in our case was to be the baptism of John, in relation to which we were baptized. Ver. 4. M&v] See on i. 1. Instead of following it up by an apodosis, such as: “but Jesus is the coming One, on whom John by his bap- tism bound men to believe,” Paul already inserts this idea by rovr. gow eic r.’I. into the sentence begun by u&v, and, abandoning the „ev, entirely omits to continue the construction by dé. —éBarr. Bart, uerav.] he baptized, administered, a baptism which obliged to repentance. See Mark i. 4. On the combination of Barriga with a cognate noun.* — eic r. épy.] is with great emphasis prefixed to the iva.’ —iva mıor.] is to be understood purely in the sense of design ; saying to the people: that he administered a baptism of repentance, in order that they should believe on Him who was to come after him, i.e. on Jesus. This terse information concerning the connection of the baptism of John, which they had received, with Jesus, decided these disci- ples to receive Christian baptism. The determining element lay in roor’ Eorıv eic Tov ’Incoöv, Which Paul must have more precisely explained to them, and by which they were transplanted from their hitherto indistinct and non-living faith into the condition of a full jides explicita—from the morning dawn of faith to the bright daylight of the same. Ver. 5. Eis ro dvoua T. Kup, ’L.] on the name of the Lord Jesus, which they were to confess, namely, as that of the Messiah.* These disciples of John thus received—whether from Paul himself, or from a subordinate assistant, the text leaves undetermined’ — Christian baptism, for it had appeared that they had not yet received it. The Anabaptists have from the first wrongly appealed to this passage; for it simply represents the non-sufficiency of John’s baptism, in point of fact, for Christianity, and that purely in re- spect of the twelve persons, but does.not exhibit the insufficiency of the Christian baptism of infants. Many, moreover, of the orthodox,® in a controversial interest — both against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the distinction between the Johannean and the Christian baptism,° and also against the Anabaptists,—have wrongly attached ver. 5 to the address of the apostle: ** but after they had heard it they were baptized (by John), etc.’’ 1 On adda, in the reply, see Klotz, ad Devar, 6 Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19. p. 11 f. 7 But see for the latter view 1 Cor. i. 17; 2 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 14. comp. Acts x. 48. 3 Matt. iii. 11, xxviii. 19; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. 8 Comp. Beza, Calixtus, Calovius, Suicer, 1195/2) x11. 18.:1Gal.111.187. Glass, Buddeus, Wolf,and several ofthe older 4 Comp. Luke vii. 29, xii. 50; Mark x. 38. commentators. 5 Comp. on Gal. ii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 18. ® Trident. Sess. vii. Can. 1. BAPTISM OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES, 367 But against this it may be urged, that John did not baptize in the name of Jesus, and that de, ver. 5, stands in no logical connection at all with uev, ver. 4. On the other hand, Calvin and others have maintained, against the Anabaptists, that ver. 5 is meant not of the baptism of water, but of the baptism of the Spirit, which ver. 6 only more precisely explains; but this shift is just another, quite as utterly unexegetical, error of dogmatic pre- “ supposition. We may add, that it may not be inferred from our passage that the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity were wniformly rebaptized ; for in the case of the apostles who passed over from John to Jesus, this certainly did not take place ;! and even as regards Apollos, the common opinion that he was baptized by Aguila is purely arbitrary, as in xviii. 26 his instruction in Christianity, and not his baptism, is narrated. Indeed, in the whole of the N. T., except this passage, there is no example of the rebaptism of a disciple of John. Hence: the baptism of the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity was not considered as absolutely necessary ; but it did or did not take place according as in the different cases, and in pro- portion to the differences of individuals, the desire of the persons concerned, and the opinion of the teachers on the matter determined. With those twelve, for example, Paul regarded it as conducive to his object and requisite that they should be baptized, in order to raise them to the elevation of Christian spiritual life; and therefore they were baptized, evidently according to their own wish and inclination, as is implied in drovoavreg 62 £ßarr., whilst Apollos, on the other hand, could dispense with rebaptism, seeing that he with his fervid spirit, following the references of John to Christ and_the instruction of his teachers, penetrated without any new baptismal consecra- tion into the pneumatic element of life. If, however, among the three thousand who were baptized at Pentecost? there were some of John’s disci- ples,—which is probable,—it was their desire to be baptized, and apostolic wisdom could not leave this unfulfilled. Accordingly, the opinion of Ziegler,* ‚that those twelve were rebaptized, because they had been baptized by some Gicciple of John not unto the épyouevoc, but unto John himself, and thus had not received the true Johannean baptism, is to be rejected. They did not, in fact, answer, in ver. 3, eic röv ’Ioavrnv ! Vv. 6,7. After the baptism the imposition of the hands of the apostle * be- came the vehicle of the reception of the rveöna üyıov on the part of the minds opened by the apostolic word. The Spirit descended upon them, and manifested Himself partly by their speaking with tongues,° and partly in prophetic inspiration.® These two must, according to the technical mode of reference to them in the apostolic church attested by 1 Cor. xii.—xiv., be distinguished, and not treated as equivalent, with van Hengel, who’ finds here merely in general an expression of the inspired praising aloud of God in Christ. The analogy of the phenomenon with what occurred in the 1 John iv. 2. 8 See on xi..27. 2 ji. 38, 41. 7 Comp. on chap. ii. 10. 3 Theol. Abh. II. p. 162. 8 See his Gave d. talen, p. A ff. ; Trip, p. 4 See on viii. 15, remark, 185, follows him. 5 See on x. 46. 368 CHAP. XIX., 8-12. history of Cornelius! serves Baur? for a handle to condemn the whole narra- tive as unhistorical, and to refer it to the set purpose of placing the Apostle Paul, by a new and telling proof of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, on a parallel with the Apostle Peter. The author had, in Baur’s view, seeing that the first yAoooaıg Aa?eiv, chap. li., is exhibited in the person of Jews, and the second, chap. x., in that of Gentiles, now chosen for the third a middle class, half-believers, like the Samaritans !* With all this presumed refinement of invention, it is yet singular that the author should not have carried out his parallelism of Paul with Peter even so far as to make the descent of the Holy Spirit and the speaking with tongues take place, as with Cornelius, before baptism, on the mere preaching of the apostle! Peo- ple themselves weave such fictions, and give forth the author of the book, which is thus criticised, as the ingenious weaver. — Ver. 7. A simple his- torical statement, not in order to represent the men “ as a new Israel.’ * Ver. 8. Ilewv] is not equivalent to dıdaskwv, but contains the result of d:adey, He convinced men’s minds concerning the kingdom of the Mes- siah.° Ver. 9. But when some were hardened and refused belief, he severed himself ‚from them, from the synagogue, and separated the Christians, henceforth discoursing daily in the school of a certain Tyrannus. Tyrannus ® is usually considered ’ as a Gentile rhetorician, who had as a public sophist possessed a lecture-room, and is perhaps identical with the one described by Suidas : Tipavvog' vodıorys rept oraoewv Kk. diaipécewe Aöyov BiBAia déxa. But as the text does not indicate a transition of the apostle wholly to the Gentiles,* but merely a separation from the synagogue, and as in the new place of instruc- tion,’ ’Iovdaior, and these are named first, ver. 10, continued to hear him; as, in fine, Tyrannus, had he been a Gentile, would have to be conceived of as oeßöuevog Tov Heöv, like Justus, xviii. 7,—an essential point, which Luke ' would hardly have left unnoticed : the opinion of Hammond is to be pre- ferred, that Tyrannus is to be considered as a Jewish teacher who had a private synagogue, vn m'2." Paul with his Christians withdrew from the public synagogue to the private synagogue of Tyrannus, where he and his doctrine were more secure from public annoyance, The objection, that it would have been inconsistency to pass from the synagogue to a Rabinnical school,” is of no weight, as there were also Rabbins like Gamaliel, and Ty- rannus must be considered, at all events, as at least inclined to Christianity. —r. ö06v] see on ix. 2, xviii, 25. 1 x, 44 ff. 2J. p. 212 f., ed. 2 (with whom Zeller agrees ; and see earlier, Schneckenburger, p. 3 See Schwegler, [56 ff. 4$o Baumgarten, II. p.7, whom the very @aei ought to have preserved from this fancy. 5 Comp. on reideıw with the mere accusative of the object (Plat. Pol. p. 304 A; Soph. 0. ©. 1444), Valckenaer, ad Hur. Hipp. 1062. 6The same name in Apollod. ii. 4. 5; Boeckh, Corp. Inser. 1732; 2 Macc. iv. 40; Joseph. Anti. xvi. 10. 3, Bell. i, 26. 3; and among the Rabbis D)3)M, see Drusius in loc. [Ewald, p. 516. TAs by Lange and Baumgarten, comp. 8 See, on theother hand, xviii. 6, 7, xüi. 46. [ete. 9 axoAn, a teaching-room, often in Plutarch, 10 Comp. xviii. 7. 11 In Beth Midrasch docuerunt traditiones atque aerum expositiones,’’ Badyl. Berac. f. 17.1; see Lightf. ad Matth. p. 258 f. ; Vitrin- ga, Synag. p. 137. 12 Baumgarten. PAUL IN EPHESUS. 369 Ver. 10. ’Eri érn dvo] for two years." The three months, ver. 8, are to be reckoned in addition to this for the whole residence at Ephesus. This statement of the time is not at variance with xx. 31, if only we take the dıeria in our passage, and the rpıeria in xx. 31, not as documentarily strict, but as approximate statements.” There is not, therefore, sufficient reason to suppose, nor is there any hint in the narrative, that we are to reckon the rn Övo as not extending further than ver. 20.° — Gore mävras «.r.}.] a hyper- bolical expression. In Ephesus, flourishing by commerce and art, with its famous temple of Diana and festivals,* strangers were continually coming and going from all parts of Asia Minor, Jews and Gentiles, the latter par- ticularly for the sake of worship. The sensation which Paul made excited very many to hear him; a great sphere of labour was opened up to him, 1 Cor. xvi. 9. —"EAAnvac] comprehends here both proselytes of the gate and complete Gentiles.° The private school, which Tyrannus had granted to Paul, was made accessible by the latter also to the Gentiles, which could not have been the case with a public synagogue. Vv. 11, 12. Oo ra¢ rvyoic.| not the usual, i.e. distinguished, not to be com- pared with those of the Jewish exorcists.° The opposite : jxpai kai ai Tvyovoa mpafeıc.” On rvyör, in the sense of vulgaris, see generally, Vigerus, ed. Hermann, p. 364 ; and on the very frequent connection by way of Jitotes with ot, see Wetstein in loc.” —öore kai x.7.A.] so that also, among other things, towels and aprons were brought to the sick from his skin, and thereby the ailments were removed from them, etc. — oıuıkivdtov, not preserved else- where, the Latin semieinetium, is explained either as a handkerchief,® or usually as an apron, in favour of which is the etymology, and Martial, Zpigr. xiv. 151. Very probably it was a linen apron ® which workmen or waiters !! wore after laying aside their upper garment, and which, when they had it on, they likewise used for the purpose remarked by Oecumenius. — arö rov xpwröc avtov| so that they had just been used by him and been in contact with his skin. Luke, who also here '” distinguishes the ordinary sick from the possessed, represents the healing of the former and the deliverance of the latter as an effect, which was brought about by the cloths laid on them ; for öore down to éxzop. forms together the description of a peculiar kind of those unusual miraculous dvvausıc. Purely historical criticism, inde- pendent of arbitrary premises laid down d priori, has nothing to assail in this view, as the healing power of the apostle, analogous to the miraculous power of Jesus, might through his will be transmitted by means of cloths requested from him to the suffering person, and received by means of the faith of the latter. The truth of the occurrence stands on the same footing with 1 As ver. 8, xviii. 20, and frequently. ® Oecumenius Ev tats xepoi KaTéxovor.. . 2 Comp. Anger, de temp. rat. p. 59. mpos TO amonarreodaı Tas VypoTHTas TOD mpo- 3 Schrader, Wieseler, and others. oWTovV, olov LöpWras, mrvedov, Öakpvov K. TA 4’Edgeoia, Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 132. öwora, comp. Theophylact and Suicer, Thes. 5 Comp. on xi. %. II. p. 959. 6 Ver. 13. Comp. xxviii. 2. 10 audorepa Arvoerdy eior, Schol. ap. Matth. 7 Polyb. i. 25. 6. 11 Pignor, de serv. p. xxv. 8 Valckenaer, p. 559 f.; from Philo, Loes- 12 Comp. Luke iv. 40 f. al. ner, p. 219. Comp. 2 Macc. ili. 7. 370 CHAR. XIX, 13-19. the N. T. miraculous cures in general, which took place through the will of the worker of miracles, partly with and partly without sensible trans- mission. By relegating the matter from the historical domain of miracles, which is yet undoubtedly to be recognized in the working of Paul,! to the sphere of legends as to relics,” with comparison of v. 15, or to that ‘‘ of the servants’ rooms and houses behind,’’* the narrative of our passage is easily dismissed, but not got rid of, although a more special embellishment of it by the importunity of those seeking help, and by the pouring out of the sweat of the apostle as he worked,‘ of which the text indicates nothing, is to be set aside. Ver. 13. But some, also, of the itinerant Jewish demon-exorcisers — sor- cerers, who, for the healing of demoniacs, used secret arts derived from Solomon, and charms °— undertook,° in expectation of greater results than their own hitherto had been, and provoked by the effects which Paul pro- duced by the utterance of the name of Jesus, to use this formula with the demoniacs : J conjure you to come out, ye evil spirits,’ by Jesus, who, besides, will punish you, whom Paul announces. — éxi rovg &y.] denotes the local direction : towards the possessed, not, as Kuinoel proposes, on account of the possessed, perhaps with a design towards, of the direction of the will, in which case the vivid form of the representation is entirely overlooked. — ra mvebu. Ta mov.) are the demons concerned, then and there to be expelled. — röv ’Inoovv.]° Equivalent to 76 övöuarı tov ’I., 3 Esdr. 1. 48. Ver. 14. ’Apyep.] Whether he was a former head of one of the twenty- four priestly classes, or a past de facto high priest, remains wndecided, as this Skeuas — according to A: Skeujas, according to Ewald, perhaps m223% — is otherwise entirely unknown. —rivec . . . éxré] is by many, including Kuinoel and Olshausen, taken as some seven, i.e., about seven ; but then Luke would have placed the pronoun close to the numeral, either before or after it;’ and the merely approximate expression would not be in keeping with the significance of the number seven. The correct mode of taking it is: but there were certain sons of Skeuas, a Jewish high priest, and indeed seven, who did this. The number, not thought of at the very begin- ning, instead of rıvec, is introduced afterwards. Baur!’ converts the sons into disciples, without any ground whatever in the text. Ver. 15. But how entirely did that éreyeipyoav fail of success ın the very first instance of its application! Bengel well remarks on ver. 13: “Si semel successisset, saepius ausuri fuerant.’’ —7d mveüua] the demon, who had taken possession of the individual consciousness in the man,—By röv’Inoovv . . . Eriorauaı he recognises the power of Jesus and of the apostle over him ; by dueic dé rivec, what sort of men! &or& he shows his contempt for the presumption of his powerless—not empowered by Jesus and Paul—oppo- nents. üöueic is with depreciating emphasis placed first. 1 Rom. xv. 19 ; 2 Cor. xii, 12. 6 erexeip., see on Luke i. 1. 2 Baur, Zeller. ? Ver. 15. 3 Hausrath. 8 Comp. Mark v. 7; 1 Thess. v. 27. 4 Baumgarten. » xxiii. 23; Thuc. vii. 34.4, exra rwes, and 5 See Joseph. Antt. viü. 2.5, Bell. Jud. i. 1. see Kühner, § 633. 5 ; Krüger, § li. 16. 4. 2; Matt. xii. 27. 10], p. 215, ed. 2. SONS OF SCEVA. srl Ver. 16. ’Esaröuevoc (see the critical remarks) éx’ airove «.r.A.] having leaped upon tiem, after overpowering both he so prevailed against them, that, etc. The mode of representation is not exact, as we only see from ay@ortépwv that here of those seven but two were active, whom Luke has already conceived to himself in aurovc. According to Ewald, augor. is neuter ; on both sides, i.e. from above and from below. This would be ar’ aydotépwr, rap’ audor., augor£pn, ausor&pwdev. — yvuvovc] whether entirely naked, or merely divested of their upper clothing,! remains an undecided point. Vv. 17, 18. The first impression of this signal miscarriage of that appli- cation of the name of Jesus was in the case of the Ephesian multitude naturally fear, dread* on account of its extraordinary nature ;* and then followed universal praise of that name.* And many who, through this event now, were believers (rav merıcr.’) came, to Paul, and confessed and made known, an exhaustive description, their deeds. This open confession ® of their pre- vious practices, which had been entirely alien and opposed to the faith in Christ, was the commencement of their new life of faith. In woAoi and räs mpaé. aur. the converted sorcerers and their evil tricks are meant to be in- cluded, but not they only ;7 for it is not till ver. 19 that these exclusively are treated of. As to zpd£ere in a bad sense, comp, on Rom. viii. 13. Ver. 19. On repiepyoc, often joined in Greek writers with droroc, uäaraıog, avénroc, and the like, male sedulus, curiosus, and on ra mepiepya, what is useless, especially employed of the practices of sorcerers, see Kypke° and Wet- stein. — The article here denotes that which is known from the context. —ra¢ BiBAovc] in which the magical arts were described, and the formulae were contained. Such formulae of exorcism, carried on slips as amulets, proceeded in large quantities from the sorcerers at Ephesus ; hence the ex- pression ’Egeoia ypaupara. °— cvveforcav| The sorcerers themselves reckoned up the prices, which, indeed, others could not do. From this is partly ex- plained the greatness of the sum. — cip. apy. pup. mevre] they found™ in silver money fifty thousand, namely, drachmae.” As the word is not dpyvpiov, but apyupiov (comp. Dem. 949.1: rproxırlac Eyrarscac Apyvpiov Öpaxuäc) ; as Luke did not write for a Hebrew, and as the scene of the transaction was a Greek eity, the opinion of Grotius, Hammond, and Drusius, that shekels are meant, is to be rejected. The statement of a sum, without naming the sort of money of the drachmae, was usual with the Greeks.'” An Attic 1 See on John xxi. 7. 2 See on ii. 43. 3 On Emerege doßos, comp. Luke i. 12. 4 Comp. Luke vil. 16. 5 This rendering of tay memor. is justified by eueyaAuvero K.r.A., ver. 17. Others, as Luther (see his gloss) has misunderstood the verse. 8 €Eouod., see on Matt. iii. 6. 7 In opposition to Heinrichs and Olshausen. Sie p.95: [B. 9 Comp. reptepyagecOar, Plat. Apol. S. p. 19 Baumgarten, understand those who had al- ready previously been believers, but who had not. yet arrived at such a confession. This, however, is not reconcilable with keravora as the necessary moral condition of faith and baptism, which condition must have at an earlier period been fulfilled by those who had already at an earlier time become believers. 10 See Wetstein and Grotius én loc.; Valcke- naer. Schol. p. 564; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xlii. 17. 11 Got out as the sum, see Raphel in loc. 12 The silver drachma stands, as is well known, to the gold drachma in the proportion of 10 to 1. [Bernhardy, p. 187. 13 See Bos, Zllips., ed. Schaefer, p. 119 f.5 372 CHAP, XIX., 20-27. drachma, = 6 oboli, is about 24 kreuzers, accordingly the sum is about 20,- 000 Rhenish gulden.1—Baur, according to his presupposition, cannot but reject the whole history of the demoniac, etc., as unhistorical ; he holds even the judgment in ver. 20 as itself unworthy of the associates of an apostle ; and the following history, vv. 21-40, appears to him only to have arisen through an @ priori abstraction, the author wishing to give as splen- did a picture as possible of the labours of Paul at Ephesus. Zeller declares himself more neutrally, yet as suspecting the narrative (p. 265), as does also Hausrath, p. 86 f. Ver. 20. So (so much) with power (par force) grew, in external diffusion,” and displayed itself powerful, in the production of great effects, the doctrine of the Lord. —xata xparoc].* The reference of kpäros to the power of Christ * has occasioned the order rov Kupiov 6 Adyoc.* Vv. 21, 22. Taira] these things hitherto reported from Ephesus.* Schra- der” would strangely refer it to the entire past labours of Paul, even in- cluding what is not related by Luke, An arbitrary device in favour of his hypothesis, that after ver. 20 a great journey to Macedonia, Corinth, Crete, etc., occurred.® — Gero év ro mveu.] he determined in his spirit, he resolved.° — iv Maxed. x. ’Ay.] See on xviii. 12. — mopeveodat eis "Iepovo.] The special object of the journey is known from 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii.; Rom. xv. 25 ff. The non-mention of this matter of the collection is so much the less to be set down to the account of a conciliatory design of the book — as if it made the apostle turn his eyes toward Jerusalem on account of the celebration of the festival !'—since the very aim of the collection would have well suited that alleged tendency. !’— dei] in the consciousness of the divine determination, which is confirmed by xxiii. 11. From this consciousness is explained his earnest assurance, Rom. i. 10 ff. And towards Rome now goes the whole further development '? of his endeavours and of his destiny. He was actually to see Rome, but only after the lapse of years and as a prisoner. —’Epaorov] 2 Tim. iv. 20. Otherwise unknown and different from the person mentioned in Rom, xvi. 23.— &rioxe xpövov] he kept him- self, remained, behind for a time. — eis r. ’Aciay] does not stand for &v rH ’Ao., in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and many others, but: it denotes the direction in which this keeping back took place, toward Asia, where he was.'® Considering the frequency of this construction !# gener- ally, and in the N. T.,!" it is not to be rendered, with Winer : for Asia, in order to labour there. 1 About £1875, or $9000. 11 Sexe, 16 RVs Le 2 vi. 7, xii. 24. 12 Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12 ff.; see Lekebusch, p. $See Valckenaer, p. 565; Bernhardy, p. 280. How wndesignedly the work of the col- 241; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 23. lection remained here unmentioned, is evi- 4 Eph. i. 19. [B &*. dent from xxiv. 17. [85 ff. 5 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following A 13 Compare Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. p. 8 vv. 1-19. 14 See examples in Wetstein, and from Philo 7 Der Apostel Paulus, II. p. 85 f. in Loesner, p. 219. 8 See, on the contrary, Anger, de temp. rat. 15 Comp. the well-known es S0movs neverv, p. 64 ff. Soph. Aj. 80. ® Comp. on v. 4. 16 Comp. xviii. 21. 10 Schneckenburger, p. 67; Zeller, p. 267. 17 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 335). MANY CONVERTED. 973 Ver. 24. The silver-beater (apyvporöroc) Demetrius had a manufactory, in which little silver temples (asıdpuuara) representing the splendid! temple of Diana? with the statue of the goddess, og kPBdpia puxpa,* were made, These miniature temples must have found great sale, partly among Ephe- sians, partly among strangers, as it was a general custom to carry such min- iature shrines as amulets with them in journeys, and to place them in their houses ;* and particularly as the “Apreuic ’Egecia was such a universally venerated object of worship.* We are not to think of coins with the im- pression of the temple, in opposition to Beza, Scaliger, Piscator, Valck- enaer, as the naming of coins after the figure impressed on them ® is only known in reference to living creatures ; nor can the existence of such coins with the impress of the Ephesian temple be historically proved. Vv. 25, 26. Demetrius assembled not only the artisans (otc) who worked for him, but also the other workmen who were occupied in similar industrial occupations (ra rocadra). Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ Alii erant reyvira, artifices nobiliores, alii épydrac operaril.’? — od uövov . . . add] without kai, like the Latin non modo. . . sed, contains a climax.’ — peréor.] namely, from the worship of the gods. — örı ov eict Oeoi] The people identified the stat- ues of the gods with the gods themselves, or at least believed that the numen of the divinity filled them.” Observe the order of the words, accor- dant with their emphasis, marked also by a dislocation in ver. 26, and the scornful and bitter 6 Mavaog obtoc : that Paul there ! — deoi is predicate. How Paul looked on the heathen gods, may be seen at 1 Cor. viü. 4, x. 20. The gods, = images, were to him of course only the work of men, without any reality of that which they were intended to represent. Comp. xvii. 29. Ver. 27. And not only this matter,” this point, namely, our lucrative trade, is in danger for us of coming into contempt, but also’ the temple of the great goddess Artemis is in danger of being regarded as nothing, and there will also, he added, be brought down the majesty of her, whom, ete. — ijuiv] dative of reference, z.e. here incommodi. — eic area. 870.) i.e. to come intodis credit ; äreAeyuöc is not preserved elsewhere ; but comp. éAeyuéc, frequent in the LXX. and Apocr. — r7¢ peyaAnc| a habitually employed epithet, as of other gods, so particularly of the Ephesian Artemis." With péAdrecv the oratio recta passes into the oratio obliqua.'* — ré is and, simply annexing ; xai is also, 1 Callimach. Hymn. in Dian. 248. Isoer. Exec. IX. ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 317 2 See concerning this temple, burned by (E. T. 369). Herostratus on the nightin which Alexander 8 See Elsner, Odss. p. 453 ff. ; Wolf, Cur. ; the Great was born, and afterwards built with Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xviii. 19. greater magnificence, Hirt, d. Temp. d. Diana 9 epos, see on Col. ii. 16. 2. Ephes., Berlin 1809. 10 “Eficax sermo, quem utilitas et super- 3 Chrysostom. stitio acuit,'’ Bengel. Comp. xvi. 19. 4Dio Cass. xxxix. 20; Diod. Sic. i. 15; 11 Xen. Hph.i. 11; Alberti, Obss. p. 259. Amm. Marc. xxii. 13; Dougt. Anal. IT. p. 91. 12 Still meAAcır may also be governed by 5 Creuzer, Symbol. Il. p. 176 ff.; Preller, kıvöuv. nuiv. But in that case peAdew would Mythol. I. p. 196 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. itself simply appear very unnecessary, and the Alterth. § \xvi. 4, ixviii. 39. [an loc. passage would more fittingly after the preced- 6 Boves, puellae, pulli, testudines; see Beza ing be continued: xadaıpeiodaı te Kai K.T.A, "See Maetzn. ad Antiph. p. 129 ; Bremi, ad See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 385). 874 CHAP. XIX., 28-33. climactic: ‘‘destructumgue etiam iri majestatem,’’ etc.! — rjc peyaderdtnto¢ (see the critical remarks) is to be taken partitively, as if ri stood with it; there will be brought down something of her majesty.” Nothing of this magnificence will they sacrifice. On xadapeiv of the lowering of the honour of one, comp. Herodian. iii. 3. 4, vil. 9. 24. gv... oéBera] again the direct form of address. See on such mixing of direct and indirect ele- ments, Kuhner.* The relative applies to aurzc. Vv. 28, 29. MeyaAn 7 "Apr. ’Eg.] An enthusiastic outcry for the preserva- tion of the endangered, and yet so lucrative! majesty of the goddess. — &puyoav| namely, those who ran together along with Demetrius and his companions. — öuodvuadöv] here also: with one mind, in opposition to Dey- ling, Krebs, Loesner, and others, who think that, on account of ver. 82, it must be rendered simul; for they were at one on the point, that in the theatre something in general must be determined on against Paul and his companions for the defence of the honour of the goddess,* although specially the most might not know rivog évexev ovveAnrvbeccav.* — It is well known that the theatre was used for the despatch of public transactions and for popular assemblies, even for such as were tumultuary.° Consequently the more easy it is to understand, why the vehement crowd poured itself into the great theatre.” — ovvapräc.] First, they drew along with them the two fellow-travellers (cuvexd.) of the apostle, and then rushed into the theatre. But it may also be conceived as simultaneous ; while they carried along with them, they rushed, etc. Whether they fetched these two men from their lodgings, or encountered them in the streets, cannot be determined. — Caius is otherwise unknown, and is not identical with the Caius mentioned in xx. 4,° or with the one mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 15. — "Apiorapy.] See xx. 4, xxvii. 2; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. Vv. 30, 31. IIai%ov] whom doubtless the rioters had not found present at his usual place of abode. ‘‘ Nulla militaris audacia par huie fortitudini,’’ Bengel. — eic 7. dyuov] among the people that ran together into the theatre.* 6 Öjuoc is also among Greek writers very often the multitude.’ Contrary to the whole course of proceeding as narrated, Otto’ understands a formal assembly of the people, of which we are not to think even in the case of éxkAjoia, ver. 32.—The ten presidents of sacred rites as well as of the public games in proconsular Asia were called 'Ac:apyai, corresponding to whom in other provinces were the Tatarapyai, Bıßvviapxat, Suprapyai x-T.A. They had to celebrate, at their own expense, these games in honour of the gods and of the emperor. Each city annually, about the time of the autumnal equinox, delegated one of its citizens, and these collective dele- 1Comp. xxi. 28; Buttmann, p. 309 (E.T. 860). 2 Comp. Xen. Hellen. iv. 4. 13: trav teecxav xaßekeiv, also ii. 2. 11. 8 Ad Xen. Anab.i.3.14; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 203. “Ver. 34. & Ver. 32. [alterth. § 128. 9. © See Wetstein in Zloc.; Hermann, Staas- 7It was one of the largest, as its ruins show. See Ottfr. Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst, p. 391. ® See in loc. ® Ver. 31. 10 Nem. 383. 5 ; Diod. Sic. xvi. 84, plebs, vul- gus. See Sturz, Lew. Xen I. p. 665; Nägels- bach on the /Ziad, p 277, ed. 3. 1 Pastoralbr. p 103. TUMULT RAISED BY DEMETRIUS. 375 gates then elected the ten. It was natural that one of these—perhaps chosen by the proconsul—should preside, and hence may be explained the remark in Eusebius, 77. E. iv. 15, that Polycarp was executed under the Asiarch Philip. But the inference from our passage is historically inde- monstrable, that only one was really Asiarch, and that the pluial is to be explained from the fact that the other nine, but particularly the retired Asiarchs, like the past high priests of the Jews, bore the title,! which is in itself improbable on account of the enormous expense which in that case would have been laid on one.?— py dovvae éavtév] apprehension of danger to life. On the expression with eic of a dangerous locality, comp. Polyb. v. 14. 9. : Vy. 32, 33. Oiv] joins on, by way of inference, the description of the concourse, ver. 29, interrupted by vv. 30 and 381.—dzo . . . dado]? The following ri might have been left out,* but it is only wanting in D.°— 7 éxkAnoia| It was no évvouog éxxA., ver. 39, and accordingly, no legal popular assembly, neither an ordinary one (vöwınoc), nor an extraordinary (ci7«2A7T0c), but simply an assemblage of the people, who had flocked together of their own accord,—a concio plebis ealex et abusiva. — ovykexvu.] confused, in an uproar.° It lacked all order, guidance, self-restraint, discipline, ete. — mpoeß. AAEE. mpoßaAA. ait. 7. ’Iovd.] a vivid description of its tumultuary character. The Jews shoved (pushed) him forward from behind (xpofara.), and others, standing in front, brought or drew him out of the crowd." Grotius, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others take mpoßaAreı as to pro- pose,* but this does not at ail suffice for the lively picture of the tumult. Alexander, otherwise entirely unknown, was certainly a Christian, since only to such a one is the subsequent aroAoyeicda: suitable, not a Jew.° He is commonly, but arbitrarily, especially considering the frequency of the name, considered as identical with the Alexander mentioned in 1 A brbens a. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 14, in which case it is in its turn presupposed that the name occurring at those two passages denotes one person. Such completely indemonstrable assumptions cannot serve to prove the genuineness and time of the composition of the Epistles to Timothy, in opposition to Otto. The Alexander in our passage had, in the Christian interest, mixed among the crowd, and was pushed forward by the malicious Jews that he might make a public address and, if possible, become a sacrifice to the fury of the multitude. If we hold him to be a non-Christian Jew, which does not result from ver. 34, it is to be supposed that the Jews would be afraid that, on this occasion, they also might be attacked, and therefore pushed for- ward Alexander, an eloquent man and hostile to Paul, that he might main- 1 Salmasius, Valesius, Tillemont, Harduin, ayopav ouverpexev aAAwv GAda Kexpayotwr, Plat. and Deyling. Charm. p. 153 D : npwrwv de aAAos aAAO. 2 See generally, Spanheim, de usu et praest. 4 Kühner, § 836. note 5. num. II. p. 694: van Dale, Dissertt. ad antiq. 5 Bornemann. et. marmor. p. 273 ff. ; Winer, Realw. 1. p. 97 6 Comp. ver. 25. f.; Babington in Numism. Chronicle, 1866, 7 Er T. OxAOV mpoeß. p. 9 ff. Comp. also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. 8 See Xen. Anab. vi.1. 2%, vi. 2.6; Dem. p. 313. 519. 16; Kypke, II. p. 101 f. 3 Comp. Charit.i.5: 6 Sjmos amas eis thy 9 Beza, Grotius, Ewald, and others. 376 CHAP. XIX., 34-40. ‚ tain the innocence of the Jews to the destruction of the Christians. But Luke must have called attention to such a connection,’ and that the more as the simple aroAoyeiodaı, to make a defence, points quite naturally to the accusation of the Christians referred to. — karao. r. x.] moving his hand up and down,? for a sign that he wished to speak. — ro due | before the people.“ — djuoc is as in ver. 30, and the aro/oyeıodar cannot therefore be meant to be a defence of the Jews * and of the 6 yAoc.° Vv. 84, 35. “Ore ’Iovdaiöc &orı] Alexander was a Jewish Christian ; but his Christian position was either unknown to the mob, or they would listen to nothing at all from one belonging to the Jewish nation as the hereditary enemy of the worship of the gods. — imıyvövres] Nominative participle, hav- ing reference to the logical subject.°— kxataoreiiac| after he had quieted.’ — The ypaypyarebc, who had come up in the meantime, perhaps being sent for, is the city-secretary,* to whose office belonged the superintendence of the archives, the drawing up of official decrees, and the reading of them in the assemblies of the people.’ —ric yap «.r.A.] who is there then, ete. With yap the speaker glances back on his efforts to calm them as completely justified, The question in- troduced with yap therefore states the motive of the xataoreiAac.° Thus viv- idly does the question fit into the poistion of affairs. — rHv ’Edeciov mölıv] with patriotic emphasis. — On vewxépoc, properly temple-sweeper, temple-keep- er,'"as an honourable epithet of cities, particularly in Asia, in which the temple-service of a divinity or of a deified ruler has its principal seat.? — 7d diomertc] that which fell from Zeus. That this was the dyadya fallen from heaven,'* was obvious of itself. The image of Artemis in the temple of Ephesus—according to Vitruvius, ii. 9, of cedar ; according to Plin. xvi. 40, of the wood of the vine ; according to Xen. Anab. v. 3. 12, of gold, or at least gilt ; and according to others of ebony—was given out as such.“ On the figure of the image,! see Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. 176 ff. It represented the goddess with many breasts.!% According to our passage it must have been rescued at the burning of Herostratus, at least according to general opinion. since there is certainly no one who does not know, etc. 1 Otto, p. 108, makes up the scene more artificially, and that so as to make Alexander even the soul and the secret spring of the whole uproar. According to Hausrata, the author gives designedly only a fi agmentary account of the Jewish-Christian Alexander, because the conduct of the Jewish-Christians at that time did not suit the concilatory object of his book. 2 Comp. xii. 17, xiii. 16, xxi. 40, where, how- ever, the verb is joined with the dative, which, therefore, also D, al. (Bornemann) have here. 3 Herod. vii. 161; Plat. Prot. p. 359 A; Lucian. Gall. 3. See Bernhardy, p. 79, 4 Bengel, Ewald. 5 Otto. ® See Winer, p. 528 (E. T. 710) ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 256 (E. T. 298). 7 Plut. Mor. p. 207 E; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 9 iso sae 8 Thuc. vii. 19, 6 ypauparevs 6 Tis moAews. ? See van Dale, l.c., p. 423 f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 127. 2u, 147. 6. !oComp. Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 59, ed. 3. [A-C. 11 Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Plat. Zeyg. 6, p. 759 12 See van Dale, /.c., p. 300 ff.; Valckenaer, p. 570 f.; Krause, de civit. neocoris, Hal. 1844 ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 12. 7. 13 Eur. Iph. T. 977 ; Herodian, i. 11. 2. 14 See Spanheim, ad Callim. in Dian. 238; Wetstein ön Joc. 15 With enigmatical words on forehead girdle, and feet; see upon it Ewald, Jahrb., po 16 Multimammiam, Jerome. TUMULT QUELLED BY THE TOWN CLERK. 377 Ver. 37. Täp] justifies the expression used, xpomeréc, rashly, without con- sideration. Ver. 38. Ov] accordingly, since these men are neither robbers of temples,, etc. On éyew mpög tiva Adyov, an utterance, i.e. complaint, see examples in Kypke, I. p. 103. — ayopaioı] by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann, following Suidas, accented ayöparoı,! are judicial assemblies ; in construing it, civodo: is to be conceived as supplied.?— kai avbiraro eiow] and there are proconsuls. The plural is here also? the plural indefinite of the category. Arbitrarily Calvin and Grotius hold that the proconsul and his legate are meant. Bengel correctly says: ‘‘de eo quod nunquam non esse soleat.”’ Vv. 39, 40. But if you desire anything further thereupon, beyond matters of private law, it will be discussed, cleared up, in the lawful assembly of the veople* On repatépw see the critical remarks. '—xat yap kıvdww.] for we even run the risk of being charged with tumult—ordcewe : genitive of accusa- tion—on account of this day. yap gives the reason why the speaker in the latter case, ver. 39, has relegated the matter to the &vvouoc ExkAno. tHe onuepov is not to be connected with oraoewc.° — umdevöc alriov . raurnc] there being no reason, on the ground of which we shall be in a position to give account of this concourse. und, airiov, taken as masculine,’ would less accord with the prudence of the speaker, who with wise forbearance clothes the threatening in a form embracing others, including his own responsibility.— Very wisely, on the whole, has the politically adroit man of business, in the first instance, by way of capitatio benevolentiae praised the Ephesian worship of Diana in its unendangered world-wide fame; then from this inferred the unseemliness of such a hasty proceeding ; further, pointed Demetrius and his companions to the legal form of procedure in their case; and finally, put on the people the lasting curb of the fear of Roman punish- ment.§ — xai ravra einov x.7.A.| oürwc Eoßeoe Tov ÜUyuov' GorEp yap Padiwg &Fa- metal, obtw Kai padiog oß&vvvraı, Chrysostom.—How lightly Baur deprives this whole history of its historical character, may be seen in his Paulus, I. p- 217, ed. 2. 1 But see on xvii. 5. 2 Comp. Strabo, xiii. p. 629; Vulg.: con- ventus forenses. 3 Comp. xvii. 18. 4“ Quia magistratu eivitatis convocatur et regitur,’”’ Grotius; in contrast to this illegal concourse, comp. on vv. 32, 30. 5 Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 101B : ovöcev Gnrnoere TEPALTEPW. 6 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others. So also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 154 (E. T. 177%). Certainly the oracewo wep: is in keeping with éykaAcigOar mept Tivos, XXiii, 29, xxvi. 7. But it may be urged, on the other hand, that such a position of the preposition after the noun (Krüger, $ Ixviii. 4.2; Kühner, § 626) is not usual in the N. T., and also that the ypaunarevs in his speech was too diplomatically prudent to designate, on his part, the affair exactly as a tumult (oracıs). In his mouth it is only a concourse (svatpopy).—We may add, that in Greek writers mpooxadcta@ar, with the simple genitive, is the usual expression. 7 Vulgate. 8 vv. 35-40. 378 CHAP. XIX.—NOTES. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (1°) Ephesus. V. 1. Ephesus was the greatest city of Asia Minor, and the metropolis of a province said to embrace no less than five hundred cities. It was situated on the Cayster, and built partly on the two mountains Prion and Coressus, and partly on the valley between them. It had a commodious harbor, and lay on the main road of traffic between the east and the west, a position favorable alike to inland and maritime commerce. It was a free city of the Roman Empire, . and self-governed. It was full of elegant buildings ; and its markets were supplied with the choicest products of all lands, and adorned with works of art of every kind. They supplied the writer of the Apocalypse with the vivid and glowing description given in Rey. xviii. 12,13. Its theatre was one of the largest ever erected, said to be capable of holding 30,000 persons, The city was the resort of all nations, and its population was numerous and multi- farious, «It was more Hellenic than Antioch, more Oriental than Corinth, more populous than Athens, more wealthy and refined than Thessalonica, more sceptical than Ancyra or Pessinus. It was, with the single exception of Rome, by far the most important scene of the apostle’s toils, and was destined in after years to become not only the first of the seven churches of Asia, but the seat of one of those great (Ecumemical Councils which defined the faith of the Christian world.’ (Farrar.) The temple of Diana, built of white marble, was magnificent in extent, 425 feet in length and 220 feet in breadth, with 127 columns 60 feet high, each said to be the gift of a king, and many of them adorned with rich ornamenta- tion'in bas-relief, It was the glory of the city, and one of the wonders of the world. The sun in his course, it was said, shone on nothing more splendid. Ephesus was specially famous for two things—the worship of Diana and the practice of magic—and it was the headquarters of many defunct supersti- tions, which owed their continuance to various orders of priests. The general character of the inhabitants was in very bad repute. Renan, basing his views upon numerous ancient authorities, writes: “It might have been called the rendezvous of courtesans and viveurs. The city was full to repletion of magi- cians, diviners, mimics, and flute-players, eunuchs, jewellers, amulet and metal merchants, and romance writers. The expression, Ephesian novels, indicated, like that of Milesian fables, a style of literature, Ephesus being one of the cities in which they preferred to locate the scenes of love stories. The mildness of the climate, in fact, disinclined one to serious things Dancing and singing remained the sole occupation ; public life degenerated into bacchanalian revels. Good studies were thrown aside.’ Nothing now remains of the magnificent metropolis of Asia but a miserable Turkish village. The once thronged harbor is now a malarious marsh. The ruins alone are grand. The vast theatre may still be traced, but of the proud temple not one stone remains above another. It is said that some of the pillars may still be seen in the Mosque of St. Sophia at Constantinople. NOTES. 379 (3°) Whether there be any Holy Ghost. V.2. The persons referred to were believers in Jesus as the Messiah, but they were imperfectly instructed, and had as yet a very imperfect Christian experi- ence. From the fact that they seem to hold the same relation to John and Jesus as Apollos did, they were probably converts under his first ministry. It is not conceivable that they could have received even the baptism of John with- out knowing something of the Holy Spirit, his existence and personality ; as Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘ They could not have followed either Moses or John the Baptist without hearing of the Holy Ghost.’’ The words then must mean that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and were baptized into that faith, but they had not heard anything about the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the marvels that followed. That the question and answer both had reference to the special rather than ordinary gifts of the Spirit is obvious when we refer to verse 6, where we are told that ‘‘ the Holy Ghost came upon them ; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” The baptism of John was simply provisional and preparatory. He taught his disciples to believe in Jesus as the Messiah already come ; and belief implied obedience ; and obedience baptism in his name. Archbishop Sumner gives the following paraphrase of the passage : ‘‘ You are the disciples of Christ. Have the gifts of the Spirit been bestowed on you as on other congregations of disciples ? Have any prophesied? Any spoken with tongues? Any done wonderful works? Their answer signifies that they had not heard whether such a power of the Holy Ghost was granted at all. The Holy Ghost they knew. But they had not heard of such an efiusion of the Spirit as Paul alluded to, or known that they were to expect it.’ (K°) Exorcists. V. 13. ** Such professed exorcists were numerous in the days of the apostles. Our Lord himself alludes to them, when he says, ‘ If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?’ The Ephesians were specially ad- dicted to astrology, sorcery, incantations, amulets, exorcisms, and every kind of magical imposture, and persons of this class flocked to the city. They pro- fessed that their magical arts were derived from Solomon. Josephus refers to this, and also mentions a certain root which, being brought to those who were possessed, quickly expelled the demons from their bodies. Seven sons of Sceva, who was probably a chief ruler of the synagogue, practised this art, and impiously pronounced as a cabalistic sign the sacred name of Jesus. About this time, also, the celebrated thaumaturgist,Appolonius of Tyana, is supposed to have visited Ephesus. The worship of Diana and the practice of magic were almost indissolubly connected, and a species of writings were manufac- tured and sold to the credulous purchaser, which when pronounced were used as a charm, and when written carried as an amulet. “ Among them were the words askion, kataskion, lia, letras, damnameneus, and aéséa, which for sense and efficiency were about on a par with the daries, derdaries, astataries or ista pista sista, which Cato, the elder, held to be a sovereign remedy for a sprain, or the expulsion of the demun of blindness.’’ (Furrar.) Among such a people Paul preached the gospel of Jesus, and wrought many real miracles in his name. 380 CHAP. XIX.—NOTES. (u°) He dismissed the assembly. V. 41. There is a striking resemblance between the tumult at Ephesus and that at Philippi. They were both distinguished from all other persecutions men- tioned in the Acts, in that they were not caused by the Jews, but by Gen- tiles ; both also originated in interested motives, the loss of gain ; both were characterized by senseless rioting and cruel violence, and in both the actors were restrained from proceeding to extreme measures. At Ephesus, when the mob was at the height of excitement, wild uproar, and blind fury, the town clerk by a well-timed and admirable address appeased their wrath and dis- missed the crowd. He showed them that such senseless and noisy conduct was undignified, as the universality and magnificence of their worship was unimpeachable ; that their course with regard to these men was unjusti- fiable, as they could prove nothing illegal or criminal against them ; that it was entirely unnecessary, as other means of redress were open to them; and that it was hazardous, as it might involve them in difficulty with the Roman government. Dick suggests the following reflections on this passage: That opposition to the gospel arises from the depraved passions of men—avarice, ambition, and love of pleasure ; that the sacred name of religion has often been prostituted to serve the most infamous purposes ; that the concurrence of a multitude in support of a cause is no proof of its justice ; and that God reigns and carries on the designs of his government amid all the commotions of the world, and constrains the very wrath of man to praise him. Taylor gives these : That self-interest perverts the judgment, and that it speaks ill for a trade when its prosperity is destroyed by the success of the gospel. Schaf adds another lesson : That which profits the purse may injure the soul. CRITICAL REMARKS. 381 CHAPTER XX. Ver. 1. «ai aorac.] AB DE, min. vss. have «ai mapaxaiéoas, donao. So Lachm. Yet D has rodAd before mapaxad. (so Born.), and E kai before dorac, Other witnesses have «ai napax. aorao. re. So Rinck. mapara}, has certainly preponderant attestation in its favour, but against the internal decisive con- sideration, that no reason is apparent for its subsequent omission, whereas it might very easily suggest itself from ver. 2 and xvi. 40 asa pious marginal remark to aorao. — Ver. 4. IIößpov] is wanting in Elz., and is condemned by Mill as an addition from tradition. But it has greatly preponderant attesta- tion, and might be passed over quite as well on the ground of a varying tradi- tion, as by mistake of the transcribers on account of the similar sound of the initial syllable in the following name. — Ver. 5. otto] Lachm. reads ovro: dé, after ABE NS, min. A connective addition. — Ver. 7. nuov] Elz. has öv pabn- TOV, in opposition to A B D E, min. Chrys. Aug. and most vss. An interpola- tion on account of the following auroic. Still stronger witnesses support 7uev in ver. 8, for which Elz, has joav. — Ver. 9. kaßnuevos] Instead of this, cabetd- pevos (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested. Comp. on ii. 2,— Ver. 11. dprov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read rov dprov, according to ABC D* N*, Rightly ; the article was neglected after ver. 7, because its force was overlooked. — Ver. 15. kat ueiv. €v Tpwy., 77] ABCEN, min. have merely 77 dé So Lachm. Several vss. and some more recent codd. have «ai 77. But there was no occasion for the insertion of ueiv. év Tp., whereas its omission is very capable of explana- tion, because Trogyllium was not situated in Samos, as the context seemed to say. — Ver. 16. kexpixeı] Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to greatly preponderating evidence. But Elz. Scholz have éxpwve. A church-lesson begins at ver. 16, and therefore the tense, which has its reference in what precedes, was altered. — 7v] Lachm. reads ein, following considerable witnesses. A grammatical improvement. — Ver, 18. After mpös airov A has ouod övrwv aurov, which Lachm. adopted ; others have öuohvuadov; and others ouéce 6vTwy aitdv (so Born., according to D). Different additions for the sake of completion. — Ver. 19. Before daxp, Elz. has roAdwv, which already Griesb. rejected, according to decisive testimony. A strengthening addition from 2 Cor. ii. 4. — Ver. 22. According to decisive testimony read &yo, with Lachm, Tisch., after dedeu. — Ver. 23. ov] is wanting in Elz., but is decidedly attested, and was easily passed over as quite unnecessary. — ye] is, according to decisive evidence, to be placed after @Aipers (Lachm. Tisch.). Born. has pot Ev 'TepoooAvuoıs, according to D, vss. Lucif., and that only after pévovow. But go: is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, and év 'IepoooA. is an addition by way of a gloss ; the two, moreover, are not equally attested. — Ver. 24. AAN’ oidevds .. . Euavro] very many variations. Lachm. has aA’ obdevds Adyov Exw, oid? ToLoiuar TAY WoynY Tıniav Euavt@. Tisch. reads aAr’ obdevds Adyov moloduaı THY WuyHY Tıulav Euavro, according to BC D** N*, vss. Lucif. Born. reads essentially as Lachm., yet adding po after &xo, and pov after puyjv. The 382 CHAP: ‚IN., 14. : Recepta is founded on EGH, Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. ; but G, Chrys, have not pov. The reading of Lachm. (A D* S, min. Vulg.), as well as the Recepta, are to be considered as alterations and expansions of the reading of Tisch., which was not understood. -— After dyéuov uov Elz, Scholz have pera yapas, which is wanting in ABD, min. Lucif. Ambr. and several vss. A scholion. — Ver. 25. tod Oeoö] is wanting in A BCX, 13, 15*, 36, Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Chrys. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition, D has tov ’Incoo. So Born. — Ver. 26. éyé] Considerable witnesses have eiuı, which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted, Rightly; é¢yé came from xviii. 6. — Ver. 28. roi Kupiov] Elz. has rod Ooi, which is adhered to among recent critics (following Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Bengel, and others), by Scholz, Alford, Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 82£. The weight of evidence is eaternally de- cisive for tod Kypiv; A C* DE, 13, 15, 18, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, Copt. Sahid. Syr. p. (on the margin) Arm. Aeth. Constitutt. (ii. 61), Ir. (iii. 14), Eus. (on Isa. xxxv.), Ath. (ad Serap. 1 in ms.), Didym. (de Sp. St. 11), Chrys. Lueif. Aug. Jer. al. rod Ocod is found among uncial mss. only in B &, and, besides, only in about twenty more recent and inferior codd., and among vss. in the Vulg. Syr. p. (in the text) ; but among the Fathers in none before Epiph. and Ambros. See the more detailed statement of the evidence in Tisch. The internal decisive argument for 7. Kvpiov lies in the fact that in the Pauline Epistles &xxA. 7. Kup. never occurs, but &xkA. r. Ocod eleven times; hence at our passage the Pauline expression was written on the margin as a parallel, and then, welcome to hyper-orthodoxy (already in Ignat. ad Eph. 1, and in Tert. ad ux. ii. 3, there is found the expression blood of God, which others, even Ath, censured as unbiblical ; see Wetstein and Tisch.), was taken into the text and transmitted. This appears far more accordant with the dog- matic tendency of those times and the monastic spirit than the usual justifica- tion of tod Ocod: “Probabilius est ob sequentia mutatum, quam e scriptis Pauli illatum esse’’ (Rinck, l.c.). The readings tod Kvpiov Ocot, tod Oeod k. Kovpinv, and tod Kupiov x. cot (this latter Griesb, recommends, without, how- ever, approving it, but Matth. received it), are combinations of the original reading with the Pauline parallel written on the margin. Teller’s and van Hengel’s proposal to read only rjv Ex«A. is destitute of all critical support. — Tov aluaros Tov Idiov] Elz. has rod idiov aiuaros, in opposition to ABCDERS, min. vss. Ir. Lucif. An alteration, which arose from the adoption of r. Q¢od, in order to establish the interpretation of the blood of God. -- Ver. 29, After éyé Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have yap, against A C* D NS, min, Vulg. Fathers. The more to be rejected, as others read örı éyci (B), others éyo dé (N*), others still kai éyé. A connective addition. roöro also, which Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have after olda, has such preponderating evidence against it, and in such essential agreement with those witnesses which condemn yap, that it cannot be con- sidered as original, although, taken by itself, it might be more easily omitted than added. — Ver. 32. After tudas Elz. Scholz have adeAdoi, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted, according to A B D 8, 33, 34, 68, Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Jer. If it had been original, there is no apparent reason for its omission ; on the other hand, its insertion at this solemn passage was very natural,—oixod.] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. But Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have éroxod., against decisive testimony. A more precise definition corresponding to the persons in question; and therefore, also, DE, vss, add buds. — Ver, 35. tov Aéywr] G and more than thirty min. Vulg. Sahid. Arm, PAUL IN GREECE. 383 Aeth. Chrys. Theophyl. have ro» Aöyov. So Rinck, Others have rod Aöyov after min. ; so Bengel. Both are alterations, because only one saying of Christ afterwards follows. — The order pdAdov dıdövaı (Elz. inverts it) is decidedly attested. Vv. 1-3. Mera dé 75 rate. tr. Yöpvß.] is simply a statement of time, not, as Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Hug hold, the motive of departure, for which there is no hint in the text,! and against which the resultless char- acter of the tumult testifies. — daoracdyevoc| here of the furewell salutation, combined with kissing and embracing, vale dicere.* —aitoic] the Mace- donian Christians. —‘EAAdda] i.e. ’Ayaiav, xix. 21. Luke alternates in his use of the appellations well known as synonyms, which, after xix. 21, could occasion no misunderstanding. This against Schrader, who under- stands ‘EAA. here of the districts lying between the Peloponnesus and Thessaly and Epirus, especially of Attica, and would have the journey to Corinth only inferred from xix. 31. — rornoac re unvac rpeic] certainly for the most part in Corinth.* That Luke, moreover, gives us no information of the foundation of the church at Corinth, and of the apostle’s labours there, is just one of the many points of incompleteness in his book. — rov irootp.| namely, to Asia (ver. 4), from which he had come. The genitive depends directly on yvoun.* Ver. 4. "Axpı t7¢ ’ Aciac®] excepting only the short separation from Phi- lippi to Troas, ver. 5, where those companions (cuveirero), having journeyed before the apostle, waited for him. The statement is swmmary, not ex- cluding the sailing before from Philippi to Troas, the Asiatic emporium ; but Tittmann® erroneously judges: ‘‘eos usque in Asiam cum Paulo una fuisse, deinde praeivisse eumque expectasse.’’? Vv. 5, 6 are at variance with this. Nor is there, with Wieseler, p. 293, and Baumgarten, to be arti- ficially deduced from aypı t7¢ ’Aciac the meaning: “up to that point from which people crossed to Asia;’’ so that Luke would oddly enough have indicated nothing else than as far as Philippi. On ovvérecSat, only here in the N. T., comp. 2 Macc. xv. 2; 3 Macc. v. 48, vi. 21; very frequent in the classics. —Of Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, of Beroea, and whether he is identical with Sosipater, Rom. xvi. 21, nothing is known. The other companions were two Thessalonians, Aristarchus* and Secundus, entirely unknown ; further, an inhabitant of Derbe, Caius, thus different from the Macedonian, xix. 29; for Derbe belonged to Lycaonia ;* Timotheus, whose dwelling is supposed as known and therefore is not specified ;° and lastly, the two Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus." It was nothing but arbitrary violence, when Ernesti, Valckenaer, and Kuinoel, in order to identify 1 See on the contrary, xix. 21. have taken place for the sake of ver. 5. It is, 2 As Xen. Anab. vii. 1.8, 40; Hell. iv.1.3; however, approved by Lekebusch. Cyrop. ii. 1. 1. 6 Synon. N. T. p. 85. 3 The anakoluthic nominative, as in xix. 34. 7 xix. 29. 4 As in xiv. 9, xxvii. 20. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5. 5 See on xiv. 6. 5 The omission of äxpı 7. “Actas is not ® See on xvi. 1. [iii. 12. strongly enough attested by BN, 13, Vulg. Aeth. 10 Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv.7; 2 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. Erp Beda, particularly as it might ea-ily 11 xxi. 29; 2 Tim. iv. 20. 384 CHAP; XxX., 5-10. Caius—-how extremely frequent was the name !—with the Caius of xix. 12 and to make Timothy a native of Derbe, wished to put a comma, after Taioc and then to read Aspß. 62 Tıu.! Following the same presupposition, Ols- hausen contents himself with merely putting a point after Taioc and then taking «ai in the signification of also! And for this even Wieseler? has declared himself, appealing to the parallelism of the language, according to which, from Oeccatovx. onwards, the nomen gentilitium is always placed first. But the parallelism is rather of this nature, that the nomen gentili- tium first follows after, Bepo:, then precedes, Beooakovır., then again follows after, AcpZ., and lastly, again precedes, ’Aovav., thus in regular alternation. We may add, that no special reason for such a numerous escort is indicated in the text, and hypotheses ® referring to.the point amount to mere subjec- tive fancies. Vv. 5, 6. ‘Hyac] Luke had remained behind at Philippi, xvi. 40. Now, when Paul, on his present journey back through Macedonia, came to Phi- lippi, Luke again joined him. But the above-mentioned seven companions (oöro:) journeyed before—wherefore ? is unknown ; possibly to make prepa- rations for the further sea voyage—to Troas, and there waited the arrival of Pauland Luke. For oöro: cannot, without arbitrariness, be otherwise referred than to all the seven above mentioned, which is not precluded by xxi. 29, xxvii. 2, and thereby, no doubt, our passage is decisive against the hypothesis that Timothy speaks in the jyeic.* Hence the supporters of that hypothesis are necessarily reduced to refer, as already Beza and Wolf have done, otra merely to Tychicus and Trophimus.’ — pera räc qyuép. TOV aZ.] Paul remained over the Paschal days‘ in quietness, keeping holy the festival of his people in Christian freedom.’ — äxpıc nuep. révte] specifies Gypt tivoc® i.e. how long the Epxeodaı lasted from the sailing from Philippi, namely, up to five days.” The reading reurraio. ! is a correct gloss. — juépac éxta] a full week.*' More is not to be sought behind this simple statement of time, in opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 48 f. Ver. 7. But on the first day of the week. That the Sunday was already at this time regularly observed by holding religious assemblies and Agapae, ¥ cannot, indeed, be made good with historical certainty, since possibly the observance of the Agapae in our passage might only accidentally occur on the first day of the week, because Paul intended to depart on the iollowing- 1Heinrichs: kat Tiu. Acpß. Lachmann, whole Gentile church ; comp, also Lange, I. Praef. p. ix., conjectured cat Aep8. Tıu69. He p. 291. Such inventions are purely fanciful. places a point after Tiwod., and makes the Se, 4 See Introduction, § 1. read by him after odrot, ver. 5, to be resump- 5 Steiger on Col. p. 337; Schenkel in the tive (repeating the de after “Acvavoi), which, as Stud.u. Krit. 1841, p.§5; U.rich, Bleek, Beitr. the discourse isnot interrupted by parentheses, I. p. 52; de Wette, Lachmann, would be without motive and forced. SYASD. 59. 2p. 26, and in Herzog’s Hncykl. XXI. p. 7 Comp. Chrys. 276. 8 Heliod. iv. 19. 65. 3 According to Schneckenburger, they are ® Comp. on Luke ii. 87; Plut. Mor. p. 791 E. the collection - commissioners of the chief 10 D, Born. churches; according to Baumgarten, they 11 Comp. xxi. 4. appear, in their number corresponding to the 12 See on Matt. xxviii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. deacons in Jerusalem, as representatives of the 13 kAdoat Aprov ; See OD li. 42, PLOT AGAINST PAUL. 385 day, and since even 1 Cor. xvi. 2, Rev. i. 10, do not necessarily distinguish this day as set apart for religious services. But most probably the observance of Sunday is based on an apostolic arrangement — yet one certainly brought about only gradually and in the spirit of Christian freedom ' — the need of which manifested itself naturally, importance of the resurrection of Jesus and of the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, and indeed necessarily, in the first instance, when the gospel came to be diffused among the Gentiles who had no Sabbath festival ; and the assumption of which is indispensable for the explanation of the early universal observance of that day, rj rov 7Alov Aeyouévyn nuspa mavrwv Kara TOAELC } Aypovs uevövrav Eml TO AUTO ovv£isvoug yiveraı,” although for a long time the observance of the Sabbath along with it was not given up by the Jewish Christians and even by others’ — a circum- stance which was doubtless connected with the antignostic interest. Rightly, therefore, is the via rv caßß. in our passage regarded as a day of special observance.* The observance of Sunday was not universally intro- duced by law until a.p. 321 by Constantine.’ — airoic| to the assembled. Luke changes his standpoint, previously 7juév, as the discourse was held with the Christians of that place. — péxypt wecov.| On Sunday, not Saturday, evening they had assembled for the love-feast. On reivew and its compounds, used of long speaking, see Heind.°® Vv. 8-10. ‘Hoav dé Aaur. ix.) therefore the fall of the young man could at once be perceived. The lamps served for the lighting up of the room, for it was night ; but perhaps at the same time for heightening the solem- nity of the occasion. According to Ewald, Luke wished to obviate the evil reports concerning the nocturnal meetings of the Christians ;7 but they remained withal nocturnal and thereby exposed to suspicion. — Whether Eutychus was a young man serving,® which at least is not to be inferred from the occurrence of the name among siaves and freedmen,° the text does not say. —éx? ry¢ Yupid.| on the open window, i.e. on the window-seat. The openings of the windows in the East, having no glass, were sometimes with and sometimes without lattice-work.!? So they are still at the present day. — karadepöusvoc K.r.A.] falling into a deep sleep. Katadépecda is the proper word for this among Greek writers,! usually with eic öürvov.? Observe the logical relation of the participles: But as there sat (kadeLöu., see the critical remarks) a young man, falling, in his sitting there, into deep sleep during the prolonged discourse of Paul, he fell, overpowered by the sleep, from the third story, etc.!*— The discourse continued for a longer time'4 than the young man 1See Neander in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 8 ad Plat. Gorg. p. 465 D; Pflugk, ad Eur, 1850, p. 203 ff. 2 Justin, Apol. I. 67; comp. c. Tryph. p. 34; Ignat. ad Magnes. 9 ; Barnab. 15. 3 Constitt. ap. ii. 59. 2, vii. 23. 2, can. 66; Orig. Hom. 28 ; Eus. iii. 27. 4 See on the whole subject, Augusti, Denkw. II. p. 345 ff.; Schöne, über. die kirchl. Gebräuche, I. p. 335 ff. ; Neander, apost. K. I. p. 198; Ewald, p. 164 ff.; Harnack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 115 fi. 5 See Gieseler, X. G.I. 1, p. 274, ed. 4. Med. 1351. 7 Comp. Calvin and Bengel. 8 Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs. ® Artem. iii. 38; Phaedr, 3, prol. 10 See Winer, Realw. 11 Comp. also Aquila, Ps. Ixxv. 6. 12 Lucian, Dial. mer. ii. 4; Herodian, ii. 1. 8, ii. 9. 6. Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 2: ünvok, KOMLAT® ApnıLEvos, 13 As to em. mActov comp. on iy. 17. 14 xyiii. 20. 386 CHAP: xx, 11=17. had expected. —az6 tov ixvov] amö denotes the proceeding from, the power producing the effect,’ and the article denotes the sleep already mentioned.? — ipdy verpög]) he was taken up dead. The words affirm nothing else than that the young man actually fell down dead and was taken up dead, Chrys. : dia TovTO anodavov, iva IlavAov axovon, Calvin, Beza, and others ; recently Schneckenburger, Schwegler, Zeller, and Baumgarten ; and only so under- stood has the fall, as well as the conduct of the apostle in ver. 10 and the result, tke significance which can have induced its being narrated, namely, as a raising from the dead.” This weremark in opposition to the view which has become common, as if oc verpöc were used, ‘‘apparently dead.” * —- Eneneoev avT@ k.T.A.| not in order to examine him, but in order to revive him by his contact, in a way similar to the procedure of Elisha and Elijah.’ — um OopvBeiobe’ 7 yap yuy7 k.t.A.] Thus he speaks, obviating the consternation of those present,° when he had convinced himself of the successful inter- vention of his miraculous influence. His soul is in him, i.e. he is living! 7 puyxy abrov, not év auro, has the emphasis, not spoken without a lively feeling of victory. The young man had, in fact, been but now äyvyos. Accord- ingly there is no ambiguity of the words, in which Lekebusch asserts that we desiderate an added ‘‘ again,’’ and would explain this ambiguity on the ground that the author himself was not quite convinced of the miraculous nature of the incident.” Vv. 11, 12. On account of the discoursings the intended partaking of the Agapae*® had not yet taken place. But by the fall of the young man these discoursings were broken off ; and now, after Paul had returned to the room, he commences, as the father of a family among those assembled, the so long deferred meal —he breaks the bread, and eats, and discourses at table® until break of day, whereupon he thus, oürwc, after all that is mentioned in avaßäc . . . auync,'” leaves the place of meeting. After his departure, they, ‘‘ qui remanserant apud adolescentem, ’’ !! brought the lad alive into the room, and they, those assembled, were by this greatly ” com- forted over their separation from the apostle, who had left behind such a onueiov Of his miraculous power. — kAdoac röv (see the critical remarks) dpropv stands in definite reference to «Adca: äpr., ver, 7, and therefore the article is put. Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others erroneously hold that a breakfast is meant, which Paul partook of to strengthen him for his jour- ney, and that therefore yevoau. is subjoined. But the Agape was, in fact, a real meal, and that therefore yevodu. denotes nothing else than that Paul had begun to partake of it. It is only added to bring more prominently 1 Bernhardy, p. 222; Buttmann, newt. Gr. Pp. 277 (E. T. 322). 2 Matt. i. 24. 6 Comp. on un 8opvß., Dem. de cor. 35. 7 See, on the other hand, Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 147. 3 Baur’s criticism in the case, however, converts an event which was in itself natural into a parallel in a miraculous form with the raising of the dead narrated of Peter in chap. bx 4 De Wette ; comp. Ewald. 52 Kings iv. 34; 1 Kings xvii. 17 ff. 8 Ver.?. ® Comp. Chrysostom. 10 See, Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 262 (E. T. 306). 1 Erasmus. 12 of wetpiws, often so with Plutarch, also in Isocrates and others. SERVICES AT TROAS. 387 forward this: partaking as having at length taken place. — éuAjoag, as in Luke xxiv. 14; more familiar than dcaAcy., ver. 9.1 — Hyayov] they brought him, so that he came into the midst of them; but only now, so that thus subsequently to his revival,? he must have gradually recovered, in order to be able to return into the room. — röv raida] he must consequently have been still very youug. — Zövra] Opposed to vexpéc, ver. 9, and for the joyful confirmation of the words of the apostle, ver. 10. Ver. 13. ‘Hueic] without Paul. — "Acooc, a seaport in Mysia, south of Troas, opposite Lesbos, &#° byyAod x. dS£0¢ x. dvoavödov térov, Steph. Byz. — nv dıarerayu.] middle,* for he had so arranged, namely, that they should from thence (éxeifev) receive him on board (avadayf.).—airéc] He for his part chose the route by land, probably because he had a particular official object in view. More arbitrary are the suggestions of Calvin, that it took place valetudinis causa ; of Michaelis and Stolz, that he wished to escape the snates of the Jews; of Lange, that he acted thus in order to withdraw himself from the circle of his too careful protectors ; and of Ewald, that he did so in order to be solitary. Vv. 14, 15. Hic rv "Acoov] The element of the previous movement — the notion of coming-together — still prevails.* So also the landing ei¢ Zauov, ver. 15. — MirvAyvn, the beautiful ® capital of Lesbos, on the east coast. — avrırpb] over against.°— Kai peiv. tv Tpwy.| Thus on the same day they had sailed over from Samos, where they had touched (rapeß4A.), to Trogyllium, a town and promontory on the Ionian coast,’ distant only forty stadia, and there passed the night. On the different modes of writing the name Tpuy., see Bornemann. Vv. 16, 17. The ship was thus entirely at his disposal, probably one hired specially for this voyage. — rapar?. r. "Egecov] he sailed past: Eph.; for in the chief church of Asia, to which Paul stood in such intimate relation, and where he also would encounter his opponents,® he would have been under the necessity of tarrying too long. In order to avoid such prolonged contact with friend and foe, because on account of the aim of his journey he might not now spend the time® in Asia, he arranged the interview with the presbyters, which was to subserve the longing of his parting love as well as the exigency of the threatening future, not at the very near Trogyllium, but at Miletus, distant about nine geographical miles from Ephesus. — ei dwvar. jv avro] if it should be possible for him. Direct form of expression.’ Of another nature is the conception in xxvii. 39: ei divawro. — yévecba] in the sense of coming, asin John vi. 25.1 — méupac|] as in Matt. xiv. 10, and in the classical writers. He caused them to be summoned to him by an embassy to Ephesus, Vv. 18, 19. “In hac concione” praccipue huc insistit Paulus, ut, quos 1 Comp. x. 24. 8 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 2 Ver. 10. 9 xpovorp., comp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 3; Plut. 3 Winer, p. 246 (E. T'. 328). Mor. p. 225 B. * Kühner, II. p. 317. ; 10 Kiihner, § 846. SHor200.1.7.1, Fp. 1.11.17. f 11 Luke xxii. 40, al. Comp. xxi. 17, xxv. 15. 6 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 444. 12.On the Pauline character of this speech 7 Strabo, xiv. p. 686f.; Plin. N. 7. v. 29. (in opposition to Baur, üb. d. Pastoralor. p. 388 CHAP. XX., 18-24. Ephesi creaverat pastores, seo exemplo hortetur ad munus suum fideliter peragendum,’’ Calvin. It isa clear and true pastoral mirror.—Only the Ephesian ! presbyters were assembled ; not, as Iren. iii. 14. 2 relates, those also of the neighbouring churches, —an error which arose, perhaps, on ac- count of ver. 28, from the later episcopal dignity. — amd mpdry¢ .. . ’Aciav] belongs to the following röc . . . éyevduyv, to which it is emphat- ically prefixed,? not to érictaofe ; for the point was not the continuity of the knowledge of those addressed, but that of the apostolic conduct. .Tholuck, with justice, here calls attention to the frequency and force of the self-witness, which we meet with in Paul.* The reason thereof lies in his own special consciousness ;* and it is wrong to find in the self-witness of this speech the apologetic fabrication of a later adorer.° — The ‚first day; see xviii. 19. On ue® iv. éyevou., Comp. Vil. 88.— ro Kupiw| to Christ, as His apostles. — uera do. rareıvogp.| with all possible humility, TOAAG yap eidn THe Tameıvodpoovvnc.° — daxpiwr.| See on ver. 31. s Vv. 20, 21. ‘Qe ovdév x.r.A.] sets forth more precisely the rac. — rov u avayy.| contains the dien which would have been present in the öreor. : how I have held back (dissimulavi) nothing of what was profitable, in order not to preach and to teach it to you, etc. So also ver. 27: for I have not been holding back, in order not, etc. The un extends to bothinfinitives. That dissimulare might have taken place from the fear of men, or in order to please men.’ — On oidév treorevAdunv, comp. Dem. 54, wilt. : VrooTElAduEevoc merappnolaouaı, and 980. 22: av’ arAdc, ovdéev undéev brrooTEAAduevov und’ aiayuve- uevov, also 415. 2: wera rappyciac diadexOqva undév brooreAAöusvov, according to Becker.* — rov ovusepövrov] ‘* Haec docenda sunt ; reliqua praecidenda,’’ Bengel.® — ryv eic r. Heov uerav.]| the repentance, by which we turn to God.” It is not, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, to be referred only to the Gentiles, and riotiy x.r.2. to the Jews; for the call to this werdvo.a was ad- dressed also to the Jews, inasmuch as they were unfaithful to God, not indeed by idolatry, but by immorality and hypocrisy.!! Bengel, more- over, aptly remarks: Repentance and faith are the ‘‘summa eorum quae utilia sunt.’’ Ver. 22. ’Idov] Singular, although addressed to several.!? — éyé] apostolic sense of personal signijicance in the consciousness of his important and mo- mentous destiny. — dedeuévoc TS mveuuarı] cannot denote the shutting off of any 93), see Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 3'1/ Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; 2\ Corie seen. 305 ff.; Neander, p. 473 ff. According to Baur and Zeller, the whole speech (according to Schneckenburger, only part of it) is an apolo- getic fiction. Ewald correctly remarks: ‘‘ to doubt its historical character in general, is folly itself.”’”—Precisely this speech, and that to the Athenians, chap. xvii., bear most de- cidedly and most directly the impress of vivid ~ originality. See also Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. p. 40 ff.; Trip, Paulus, p. 206 ff. 1 ris erkAne., ver. 17. 2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 2; Winer, p. 522 (E. 11.1202). 17, al. ; comp. Trip, p. 214 ff. 41 Cor. iv. 4, xv. 10. 5 See particularly, Zeller, p. 273. ® Oecumenius. See also Theile, ad Zp. Jac. p. 6 fi. [Cor. iv. 3, al. 7 But see Gal. ii. 14, i. 10; Rom. i. 16; 1 8Isocr. p. 184C; Diod. Sic. xiii. 70; also Plat. Ap. Socr. p. 24 A; and Stallb. im Joc. ; Krebs, Odss. p. 241. 9 Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 35, xii. ¥%. 10 Comp. iii. 19, vili. 22, xxvi. 20. 11 Rom. ii. 8. Comp. Mark i. 15. 12 See on Matt. x. 16. PAUL AT MILETUS, 339 inward glimpse into the future, which is first expressed afterwards and in plain terms.! Since, moreover, the Holy Spirit first comes in at ver. 23, and since the being fettered was first to befallthe apostle in Jerusalem, ver. 23, those views are to be rejected, which explain 70 rveiua of the Holy Spirit and dedeuévoc of the being fettered. Accordingly, the words are neither to be taken as: bound to the Holy Spirit,’ i.e. dependent on Him, my first edition; nor: constrained by the Holy Spirit ;* nor: fettered, i.e. already as good as fet- tered, J go at the instigation of the Holy Spirit ;* nor yet: fettered, i.e. vin- cula praesentiens, in my spirit,” but Paul expresses his consciousness of in- ternal binding : bound, i.e. compelled and urged in my spirit, dative of more precise limitation. He knows, that as regards his journey to Jerusalem, he follows a necessity present to his higher self-consciousness and binding its freedom,—an irresistible internal drawing of his higher personal life,® . . . eldac| The relation to ver. 23 is as follows: Paul knew not specially what was to befall him at Jerusalem, but only in general it was testified to him by the Holy Spirit in every city, that bonds and afflictions were awaiting him there. Ver. 23. IlAnv örı] except that, only knowing that." — ro rveiua ro äyıov] namely, by prophets,* who made this known to me. This explanation, and not any reference to an internal intimation of the Spirit, is required by xara röAı, city by city, at which I arrive on this journey. That Luke has not as yet mentioned any such communication, does not justify the suppo- sition of an unhistorical prolepsis,’ as he has related the journey, ver. 14 ff., only in a very summary manner. Ver. 24. According to the reading aA?’ ovdevic Aöyov momwönar THY puyiy rıulav éuavt@ (see the critical remarks), this verse is to be interpreted : But of no word do I account my soul, my life, worthy for myself, i.e. the preserva- tion of my life for my own personal interest is not held by me as worth speaking 9." According to the Recepta, as also according to Lachmann, it would have to be taken as : but to nothing do I take heed, I do not trouble myself about any impending suffering, even my life is not reckoned to me valuable for myself. — oc TeAeıwoa: «.7.A.| purpose in this non-regarding of his own life : in order, not to remain stationary half-way, but to finish my course, etc.! — kai ryv dıakoviav K.r.A.] Expexegesis of the preceding figurative expres- — Ta Ev aith ı Hahn, Theol d. N. T. I. p. 412. 2 Rom. vii 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27. 3 Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Kypke, and oth- ers. 4 Oecumenius, Theophylact, who put the comma after deden. 5 Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Morus. €Comp. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette, Lange, Ewald, Hackett. On Sedeuévos, comp. Plat. Rep. viii. p. 567 C, waxapia dpa . avaykp Seberar, 7 mpoorarrer, AUTO k.T.A, 7 Plat. Phaed. p. 57 B; Soph. ZI. 418. 5 Comp. xiii. 2, xxi. 4, 11. ® Schneckenburger, p. 135. 10 On tiziav, comp. Plat. Soph. p. 216 C: Tots wev SoKovow eivar Too pndevos Tirol, ToLs 5 afıoı Tod mavtos, and on ovdevds Adyov, Herod. iv. 28 : Adyov a£évov (worthy of mention), Thuc. vi. 64. 2. 11 On Aoyov movety twos, comp. Wetstein and Kypke ; and on Aoyov Exeıv Tivos (Lachmann), Herod. i. 62, i. 62, i. 115, al. (Schweigh. Zea. Herod. II. p. 76); Theocr. iii. 32; Tob. vi. 155) 12 On Spouos, comp. xiii. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 24. On ds with the infinitive in the telic sense, see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 175, and in the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 60; Sintenis, ad Plut. Them. 26. Only here soin the N. T. 390 CHAP. XX., 25-28. sion. — ro evayy. T. xap. r. Ocov] the knowledge of salvation, whose con- tents is the grace of God, manifested in Christ. Comp. xiv. 3. Ver. 25 points back to ver. 22, now representing the separation there an- nounced, for which vv. 23, 24 have prepared them, as one of perpetuity for the life in time. — éym] emphatic, as in ver. 22,-and with deep emotion. — The olda, bre ovKéte K.r.A.,! rests, according to ver. 23, on the conviction which he has now (vöv) obtained by the communications of the Holy Spirit re- ceived from city to city concerning the fate impending over him at Jerusa- lem, that the imprisonment and affliction there awaiting him would termi- nate only with his death. And he has not deceived himself! For the assumption that he was liberated from Rome and returned to the earlier sphere of his labours, is unhistorical.* But precisely in connection with the unfolding of his destination to death here expressed by him with such certainty, there passed into fulfilment his saying pointing to Rome,* how- ever little he himself might be able at this time to discern this connection ; and therefore, probably, the thought of Rome was again thrown tempora- rily into the background in his mind. The fact, that he at a later period in his imprisonment expected liberation and return to the scene of his earlier labours,‘ cannot testify against the historical character of our speech,® since he does not refer his oida in our passage to a divinely-imparted cer- tainty, and therefore the expression of his individual conviction at this time, spoken, moreover, in the excited emotion of a deeply agitated mo- ment, is only misused in support of critical prejudgments. - With this cer- tainty of his at this time,—which, moreover, he does not express as a sad foreboding or the like, but so undoubtedly as in ver. 29,—quite agrees the fact, that he hands over the church so entirely to the presbyters as he does in ver. 26 ff. ; nor do we properly estimate the situation of the moment, if we only assume, with de Wette, that Luke has probably thus composed the speech from his later standpoint after the death of the apostle. According to Baumgarten, II. p. 85 ff., who compares the example of King Hezekiah, the olda «.7.A. was actually founded on objective certainty: God had actually resolved to let the apostle die in Jerusalem, but had then gra- ciously listened to the praying and weeping of the Gentile churches. But in such passages as Philem. 22, there is implied no alteration of the divine resolution ; this is a pure fancy. — dueic ravrec, év oic dıjAdov] all ye among whom I passed through. In his deep emotion he extends his view; with this address he embraces not merely those assembled around him, nor merely the Ephesians in general, but at the same time, all Christians, among whom hitherto he had been the itinerant herald of the kingdom. In ver. 26 the address again limits itself solely to those present. Vv. 26, 27. Aı6] because, namely, this now impending separation makes such a reckoning for me a duty. — papripouac] I testify, I affirm.® — &v 77 ou. nuépa| ‘* hoc magnam declarandi vim habet,’’ Bengel: it was, in fact, the 1 He does not say: that I shall not see you, Sxix: 21. but he says: that you shall not see me. He 4 Philem. 22; Phil. ii. 24. has not his own interest in view, but theirs. 5 Baur, Zeller. 2 See on Rom. Introd. § 1. 6 See on Gal. v. 3. ADDRESS TO THE ELDERS. 391 parting day. —orı kadap. eiyu (see the critical remarks) : that I am pure from the blood of all! i.e. that I am free of blame in reference to each one, if he, on account of unbelief, falls a prey to death, z.e. to the eternal arwäeıa. Tach one is affected by his own fault ; no one by mine. kahapöc anö? is not a Ilebraigm, 07 'P} ; even with Greek writers xadap. is not merely, though commonly, joined with the genitive,* but also sometimes with a7é.*—- ov yap vreoreı).) brought forward once more in accordance with ver. 20; so extremely important was it to him, and that, indeed, as the decisive premiss of the xadapöc eiwe x.7.A. — ryv Bovdgv rov Oeov] the divine counsel kar’ é£oyHv, t.e. the counsel of redemption, whose complete realization is the Bacidera tov Gov, the Messianic kingdom ; hence here dvayy. . . . Oeov, in ver. 24 dıauapr. . . . Ocov, and in ver. 25 knpvoo. r. BaoıA. r. Ocov, denote one and the same great contents of the gospel, although viewed according to different aspects of its nature. — räcav] the whole, without suppressing, explaining away, or concealing aught of it. Ver. 28. Oiv| Therefore, since J am innocent, and thus the blame would be chargeable on you. — éavtoic «x. 7. 7. moıuvio] in order that as well ye your- selves, as the whole church,® may persevere in the pure truth of the gospel.® On the prefixing of éavtovc, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16. — ro mv. r. ay. &0ero] This was designed to make them sensible of the whole sacredness and responsi- bility of their office. The Holy Spirit ruling in the church has Himself appointed the persons of the presbyters, not merely by the bestowal of His gifts on those concerned, but also by His effective influence upon the recog- nition and appreciation of the gifts so bestowed at the elections.’ — éri- körove, also very common with classical writers, as overseers, as stewards,® denotes the officiul function of the presbyters, ver. 17, and is here chosen, not mpecBurépovc, because in its literal meaning it significantly corresponds to the romaiverr. ‘‘Ipso nomine admonet velut in specula locatos esse,’’ etc., Calvin.” The figurative * zocuaivecv comprehends the two elements, of official activity in teaching, further specially designated in Eph. iv. 11 5" and ef the oversight and conduct of the discipline and organization of the church. For the two together exhaust the émoxoreiv.*? — On r. ExkAno. Tov Kvpiov see the critical remarks.'* With the reading rov Oecot this passage was a peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and the communicatio idiomatum against the Socinians. See especially Calo- vius. — fv mepteromoaro «.t.A.| which He has acquired, for His possession, by His own blood, by the shedding of which He has redeemed believers from 1 Comp. on xviii. 6. ® How litile ground this passage gives for 2 Tob. iii. 14. the hierarchical conception of the spiritual 3 Bernhardy, p. 174. office, see on Eph. iv. 11; Höfling, Körchen- 4 Kypke, II. p. 108 f. verf. p. 269 f. 5 Luke xii. 32 ; John x. 1 ff. 10 Tga. xl. 11; Jer. ii. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 2; § See vv. 29, 30. John x. 14, xxi. 15; and see Dissen, ad Pind. 7 See on xiv. 23. Comp. xiii. 2, 4. Ol. x. 9, p. 124. 8 The comparison of the Athenian émtoxo7roe 11 Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 2. in dependent cities, with a view to explain 12 1 Pet. v. 2. this official name (Rothe, p. 219 f.; see on 13 Comp. Rom. xvi. 16; Matt. xvi. 18. these also Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 157. 8), 14Eph. 1. 14; Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. ü. 9. introduces something heterogeneons. 392 CHAP. XX., 29-35. the dominion of the devil and acquired .them for Himself as heirs of His eternal salvation. ‘‘ Hic ergo grex est pretiosissimus,’’ Bengel.! Vv. 29, 30. ’Eyö] with similar emphasis, as in ver. 25: After my depart- ure—I know it—not only will enemies from without intrude among you— Ephesian Christians, as whose representatives the presbyters were present— who will be relentlessly destructive to the welfare of the church ; but also within the church itself, out of the midst of you, will men with perverse doctrines arise. — That by the very common figure of ravenous? wolves* is not meant. as Grotius supposes, persecutio sub Nerone, but false teachers working perniciously, is rendered probable by the very parallelism of ver. 30, and still more certain by the relation of ciceAcic. to uera THY ägıfiv pov, ‘according to which Paul represents his presence as that which has hitherto withheld the intrusion of the Av«o:,—a connection which, in the case of its being explained of political persecutors, would be devoid of truth. — a@éie is here not arrival, as almost constantly with Greek writers, but departure, going away.* Paul does not specially mean his death, but generally his removal,° on which the false teachers necessarily depended for the assertion of their influence. Moreover, his prediction without doubt rests on the observations and experiences * which he had made during his long ministry in Ephesus and Asia. He must have known the existence of germs in which he saw the sad pledge of the truth of his warning ; and we have no reason to doubt that the reality corresponded to this prediction. At the time of the composition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the false teachers may not yet have been working in Ephesus itself, but in Colossae and its neighbourhood these — they were Judaists of an Essene-Gnostic -type — had made themselves felt,” and in Asia Minor generally the heretics of the First Epistle of John and probably also of that of Jude are to be sought, not to mention those of the Apocalypse and Pastoral Epistles. The- indefinite and general expressions, in which the false teachers are here described, correspond to the character of prophetic foresight and prediction. According to Zeller, a later writer has by these sought to conceal his other- wise too glaring anachronism ; whereas Baur finds the sectarian character, such as it existed at most toward the close of the first century, so definitely delineated, that he, from this eireumstance, recognizes a vatieinium post eventum ! Thus the same expression is for the one too indefinite, and for the other too definite ; but both arrive at the same result, which must be reached, let the Paul of the Book of Acts speak as he will. — arooräv «.r.A.] to draw away, from the fellowship of true believers, after them. ‘‘ Charac- ter falsi dogtoris, ut velit ex se uno pendere discipulos,’’ Bengel.® Ver. 31. Tpyyopeire ‘‘ verbum pastorale,’? Bengel,’—and that, encouraged by the recollection of my own example, uvmuovevovreg, btu K.T.A. — Tpıeriav] 1 Comp. on Eph. i. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; 5 Discessionem, Vulgate. 1 Pet. i. 7, 19. § Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 2 Vehementes, comp. Bapvraros avraywvıarns, 7 See Introduction to Colossians, § 2. Xen. Ages. 11, 12. 8 On oricw ait., comp. Vv. 37. 3 Matt. vii. 15; Luke x.3; John x. 12, ® Comp. mpocéxeTe cavTols Kal TayTL TH * Dem. 58, pen.; Herod. vii. 58. moLu.vio, Ver. 28. DUTY OF ELDERS. 393 See on xix. 10. — pera dakpiwv] extorted both by afflictions! and by the sympathetic fervour with which Paul prosecuted his quite special (éva Ekaorov) pastoral care.? — vixra x. yuép.]| See on Luke ii. 37. vi«ra is here placed first, because it most closely corresponds to the figurative ypyyopeire. — As to the idea of vovdeoia, admonition, see on Eph. vi. 4. Ver. 32. And now I commend you to God (xiv. 23) and to the word of His grace (ver. 24),—entrust you to Him to protect and bless you, and to the gospel to be the rule of your whole conduct, —to Him who is able to build up, to promote the Christian life, and to give you inheritance, a share in the Messianic blessedness, among all who are sanctified, consecrated to God by faith. — ro dvvauévw| is, with the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, de Wette, and others to be referred to God ; so that a very natural hyperbaton occurs, according to which kai r@ Adyw tHe xäpıros avTow appears as an inserted annexation to the general and main element 76 02@ of an accessory idea, which was not to be separated from ro G<@, but which also does not prevent the continuance of the address by a more precise description of + Oc bearing on its object.” We should, in reading, lay the emphasis on 7q@ ®eo, and pass on more quickly over kalt ro Adyw . . . Others refer tw dvvau. to ro Aöyw, and understand the Aöyoc either correctly of the doctrine,‘ or erroneously, opposed to Luke’s and Paul’s mode of conception, of the personal, Johannean, Logos.’ But such a per- sonification of the saving doctrine,® according to which even the doüvar xAnpovouiav, evidently an act of God! is assigned to it, is without scriptural analogy.” — As to xAnpovouia, transferred from the allotted share in the pos- session of. Palestine (non) to the share of possession in the Messianic king- dom, see on Matt. v.5; Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11.° Vv. 33-35. Paul concludes his address, so rich in its simplicity and deeply impressive, by urging on the presbyters the complete disinterested- ness and self-denial, with which he had laboured at Ephesus, as a rizog ° for similar conduct. Reason for this: not the obviating of a Judaistic reproach," not a guarding of the independence of the church in the world ;!? but the necessity of the avrılaußaveodaı tov aodevovvrwv, Ver. 39. — apy. 7 xpvo. 7 iuar.] specification of what are usually esteemed the most valuable temporal possessions.'* — airoi| without my needing to say it to you. —xal roic oboe wer éuov] Thus also for his companions, to their necessities, he applied the gain of his manual labour. —aira:| he shows them, and certainly they were not soft and tender. — ravra üredeıfa tuir, örı] either in all points 4 I have shown to you, by my example, that ; or, all things avrov. 1 Ver. 19. 22 Cor. xi. 29, ii. 4. 3 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 459. 4 Erasmus, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Lange, and others. 5 Gomarus, Witsius, Amelot. s Jas.i. 21. 7 Comp. Col.i.12 f.; Gal. iv. 7; Luke xii. 32. [18. 8 On ey T. yyıaca., comp. xxvi. 18; Eph. i. 92 Thess. iii. 9. 10 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff.; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff., xii 14 ff, 2 Thess. iii. 8 ff. 11 Olshausen, 12 Baumgarten. 13 Comp. Jas. v. 2, 3. 14 1 Cor. x. 33 ; see on Eph. iv. 15; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402; Kühner, § 557 A.4. Lachmann, whom Klostermann follows, refers mavra to ver, 34, as Beza already proposed. But if 394 CHAP. XX., 35-88. I have showed to you, by my example, in reference to this, that, etc.! The for- mer is simpler. —oitw] so labouring, as I have done, so toiling hard.” Not: my fellow-labourers in the gospel,” which, at variance with the context, with- draws from oirwc its significance. It is the example-giving ovtwc.* — trav aodevovvrov] is, with Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Bengel, and others, including Neander, Tholuck, Schneckenburger, Baum- garten, to be explained of those not yet confirmed in Christian principles and dispositions.° These might easily consider the work of one’teaching for pay as a mere matter of gain, and thus be prejudiced not only against the teacher, but also against the doctrine.° But if, on the other hand, the teacher gained his livelihood by labour, by such self-devotion he obviated the fall of the unsettled, and was helpful to the strengthening of their faith and courage.’ This is that avrılaußavsoduı tov aodevoivrov, in which Paul wished to serve as a model to other teachers and ecclesiastical rulers. Others? render it: that they should help the poor and needy by support ; ° which meaning would have to be derived not from the usus loguendi of aodev. taken by itself, but, with Kuinoel, ‘‘ qui non possunt laborando sibi ad vitam tuendam necessaria comparare,’’ from the context.'° But the recom- mendation of liberality is remote from the context; the faithfulness and wisdom of the teacher manifesting itself in gaining his own support by labour, of which the text speaks, must have a spiritual object, like the teaching office itself !!—not the giving of alms, but the strengthening of the weak in faith. The more naturally this meaning occurs, the less would Paul, if he had nevertheless meant the poor, have expressed himself by aodevorwvrov, but rather by rrwyav or a similar word. — uvnuovevem . AauBaver| and to be mindful of the saying of the Lord Jesus, namely, that He Himself has said: It is blessed—i.e. bliss-giving ; the action itself according to its moral nature, similarly to the knowing in John xvili. 3, is conceived as the blessedness of the agent—rather (potius) to give than receive. ‘*The two being compared, not the latter, but rather the former, is the paxapiov.”” The special application of this general saying of Christ is, according to the connection in the mind of the apostle, that the giving of spiritual benefits, compared with the taking of earthly gain as pay, has the advantage in con- ferring blessedness ; and the paxapidrye¢ itself is that of eternal life according to the idea of the Messianic recompense, Luke vi. 20 ff., 38, xiv. 14. — The explanatory ör., dependent on pryzov., adduces out of the general class of röv Ady. r. Kup. a single saying”? instead of all bearing on the point.—Whether so, Paul, in ver. 24, would evidently have 7 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. said too much. especially on account of Kai Tots 8 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, ovot pet Enod. et al., including Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, 1 Ort = cis Ereivo, örı, AS in John ii. 18, ix. Olshausen, de Wette, Hackett. 17; 2Cor. i. 18; Mark xvi. 14, e¢ al. ® Comp. Eph. iv. 28. 2 Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 12. 10 Comp. Arist. Pac. 636; Eur. Suppl. 433 ; 3 Klostermann. Herod. ii. 88. See Valckenaer, ad Herod. viii. 4 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24, 26; Phil. iii. 17. 51; and Raphel, Herod. in loc. 5 Comp. Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 22; 11] Cor. ix. 12. 1 Thess. v. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 21. 12 Comp. xv. 15. § 1 Cor. ix. 12. NOTES. 395 Paul derived this saying, not preserved in the Gospels,! from oral or written tradition, remains undecided.—References to the same saying : Constitt. ap. iv. 8. 1: éel kai 6 Kipiog uaxapıov eimev eivar tov dudövra rep TOV Aaußavovra, perhaps also Clem. 1 Cor. 2: qd.0v dudövres 7 Aaußavovres. Analogous profane _ sayings’ may be seen in Wetstein. The opposite : avdyro¢ 6 didovc, euruync 0 6 AawBavwv, in Athen. viii. 5. Vv. 36-38. What a simple, true,* tender, and affecting description ! — kategiaovv] denotes frequent and fervent kissing.* —dewpeiv] to behold, is chosen from the standpoint of the ödvvouevo.. On the other hand, in ver. 25, beable. — xpoéreur.] of giving a convoy, as in xy. 3, xxi. 5. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (m?) After the uproar. Y. 1-3. Meyer correctly remarks this statement indicates the time, but not the motive, of the apostle’s departure, as he had previously determined to leave Ephesus, where he had remained longer than at any other city—three years. The extent of his success is attested by the conduct of Demetrius and his fel- low-craftsmen. The brief record given by Luke may be supplemented by a reference to the Epistles to the Corinthians, written about this time. The narrative condenses months of active labor into a single verse. The apostle having sent a deputation to Corinth, and also written a letter to that church, took an affectionate farewell of the church at Ephesus. He sailed from Ephesus to Troas, where, a door being opened, he preached for a time, while he awaited the arrival of Titus with tidings from Corinth. Titus came not, and the apostle, filled with anxiety as to the effects his severe letter might pro- duce, crossed over into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought tidings which relieved and gladdened the faithful, yet tender-hearted apostle, and was the occasion of a second letter to Corinth. Six years had elapsed since Paul first visited Macedonia, and was beaten and imprisoned at Philippi. He doubtless now revisited the scenes of his former labor ; and also during this period evangelized the western part of Macedonia, as he formerly had done the eastern. The entire province of Macedonia was evangelized, as the apostle had visited each of the four distriets into which it was divided. The three months he was in Greece—the province of Achaia— was spent mainly at Corinth, its capital. At this time and from this place he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, and probably the Epistle to the Galatians. When about to leave Cor- inth, the Jews entered into a conspiracy to take his life, probably when he was leaving the port. The plot being discovered, the apostle left by land, accompanied by several companions, among whom Luke seems to have been one, as the first person again appears in the narrative. When it is said that 1 See on the dicta äypaba of Christ, Fabric. that which the presbyters received from it, as Cod. Apocr. N. T. pp. 321-335 ; Ewald, Jahrb. that which ‘‘ the reader of the Book of Acts is VI. 40 f., and @esch. Chr. p. 288. meant to receive from the previous narrative,” 2 Artemidor. iv. 3. Zeller, p. 274. 3 It borders on wantonness to affirm that 4 Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 49; Luke xv. 20. this impression of the speech is not so much 396 CHAP. XX.—NOTES. his companions went into, or as far as Asia, “ it is not implied that they went no farther than to Asia ; Trophimus and Aristarchus and probably others ac- companied him to Jerusalem.’’ (Alford.) Luke remained with Paul at Phi- lippi till after the Passover. Whether Paul, in the exercise of his Christian liberty, kept the festival, as Meyer states, cannot be determined, though we do not think it probable. The rest of the company preceded the apostle to Troas, probably for the purpose suggested by Meyer. (n°) Tyv erkAmolav tov Kvpiov. V. 28. In his critical remarks Meyer discusses this reading at considerable length, and concludes that the evidence is in favor of xupiov. On the text he remarks : “ With the reading roi Ocoi, this passage was a peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.’’ Gloag uses the reading of Tischendorf, kvpsov, but adds “not that, in itself, it seems preferable.’’ Six different read- ings of this passage are given by Davidson; only the two already mentioned are entitled to consideration. Alford, who formerly approved of the reading kvpiov, writes : “On the whole then, weighing the evidence on both sides, see- ing that it is more likely that the alteration should have been to kvpiov than to 8e00 ; more likely that the speaker should have used O¢od than xvpiov ; and more consonant to the evidently emphatic position of the word, I have, on final revision, decided for the received reading, church of God, which on first writing I had rejected.’’ Bloomfield gives the reading, ®eoö, and prefixes the words kwpiov kat. Plump- tre favors the received reading. Wordsworth inclines to ®eod. Hackett thinks the external testimony preponderates in favor of xvpiov; but Beov agrees best with the usage of Paul. The phrase “ church of God’’ occurs in the Epistles of Paul eight times, and “churches of God” three times ; but the expressions ‘‘ church of the Lord’ and “ church of Christ” never occur in his epistles, and “ churches of Christ’’ only once. Alexander, Abbot, Jacobus, and Schaff approve the received reading, and it is retained in the Revised Version. ‘‘ Oeov is now the undoubted reading of the Vatican, and of the newly discovered Sinaitic mss. Upon the whole, we are disposed to think that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the reading riv exxAnoiav tov Be00.” (Gloag.) Though authorities are very evenly divided, we may unhesitatingly receive the text as in our English ver- sions. (0°) Paul’s farewell address at Miletus. V. 18-38. This address seems to be recorded just as it was delivered, in the words, we had almost said the tones, of the speaker. Taylor, speaking of this address, says :“‘ For depth of pathos and fervor of appeal it seems to me to be well-nigh unrivalled, even in Holy Writ. It quivers all through with emotion. There is love in every sentence, and a tear in every tone. We cannot read it without a choking utterance and a moistened eye.’’ Farrar writes thus : ‘‘ After these words, which so well describe the unwearied thoroughness, the deep humility, the perfect tenderness of his apostolic ministry, he knelt down with them all and prayed. They were overpowered with the touching solemnity of the scene. He ended his prayer amid a burst of weeping, and as they bade him NOTES. 39% farewell—anxious for his future, anxious for their own—they each laid their heads on his neck and passionately kissed him.’ ‘‘If Paul inspired intense hatreds, yet, with all disadvantages of person, he also inspired intense affec- tion.” Renan says : “ Then they all knelt and prayed. There was naught heard but a stifled sob. Paul’s words, ‘ Ye shall see my face no more,’ had pierced their hearts. In turn, the elders of Ephesus fell on the apostle’s neck and kissed him.” ‘ Tears are thrice mentioned in this short passage—tears of suffering (19) ; of pastoral solicitude (31) ; and of personal affection (37).’’ (Monod.) Paui was a man of strong convictions and great force of character ; but also pos- sessed of exquisite tenderness and a wealth of affection. If he had to endure the strongest enmities he also won for himself the deepest and most enduring friendships. At once so gigantic and so gentle, his personality was a great power, and seemed wholly to overshadow his companions and followers, though, in themselves, men of great excellence and worth, such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, Luke, and others. No man holds a higher place in the esteem and affection of the Christian world than Paul. 398 © CRITICAL NOTES. CHAPTER XXI. Ver. 3. xatnyOnuev] ABENS, 34, Vulg. al. have karn7?douev. SoLachm, A gloss. — Ver. 4. Both avevp. de (Tisch.) and 70ts before ua. (which. Beng. Matth. Rinck condemn) have decided attestation. — aitod] A EG, 68, 73 have avrois; so Lachm. Alteration to suit oirıves. “ Ubicunque in s. Ss. alroü repertum est, scrupulum legentibus injecit,” Born. — avaß.] Lachm, Tisch. read £&rıß., ac- cording to important testimony. Rightly ; the more usual word was inserted. — Vv. 5, 6. mpoonv£äueha. Kal aoraoauevoı] Lachm. and Tisch. read mpooev£a- uevor ünmoraodueda, and then xai before &meß. SOABCEN, min. Rightly. The Recepia has arisen partly through a simplifying resolution of the participle mpocevéduevor, and partly through offence at the compound aruoraleodaı not elsewhere occurring. —- Ver. 6. éxé@yuev] Lachm. reads évé3., and Tisch. dveß. The witnesses are much divided. As, however, a form with N is at all events decidedly attested, A © &* having aNeß., and B E N** eNeB. ; avéBnuev is to be preferred, instead of which &veß., the more usual word for embarking, slipped in, and éze3. was inserted from ver. 2, comp. xxviii. 2. — Ver. 8. After 222710. Elz. has of wept t. Haöiov (comp. xili. 13), against decisive testimony. With éfeA9. there begins a church-lesson. — Ver. 10. 7u6v is condemned by A B C H, min., as an addition. — Ver. 11. te aitov] ABC DEN, min. have &avrov. Approved by Griesb. Rinck, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., and rightly on account of the decisive testimony. Orig. also testifies for it (gavTov yeıpav K.r.A.). —TaS xelpas x. T. mödas] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read r. nöd. k, T. x, preferred also by Rinck, following important witnesses (not A), but evidently a transposition, in accordance with the natural course of the action. — év 'Iepovo.] Born. reads «iS 'Iepovo., but only according to D, min. Chrys. Epiph. It arose from a gloss (Orig. : ameAhövra eis "Iepovo.).— Ver. 14. On decisive evidence read with Lachm. and Tisch. tod Kupiov ro OéAnua yivécAw.— Ver. 15. émiox.] Elz. Scholz read azoox., only according to min. ; so that it must be regarded as a mere error of transcription. The decidedly attested ériox. is rightly approved or adopted by Mill. Beng. Griesb. Matthaei, Knapp, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. The readings rapaok. (C, 7. 69, 73) and droragapu. (D, Born.) are interpretations. — Ver. 20. deov] Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A B C EG 8, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and most vss. Elz. Scholz, Born. read kipiov, against these decisive witnesses.-—’ lovdai- wv) Lachm. Tisch. read év rois ’Iovdaioıs, which is to be adopted, according to A BCE, min. Vulg. Aeth. Copt. The &v 77 ’Iovdaia in D, Syr. Sahid. Jer. Aug. speaks also for this (so Born.). The Recepta was occasioned by the following TOV MENLOTEVKÖT@V, after Which accordingly in some Fathers ’Iovda/wv has found its place. N, Oec. and some min. have merely tév menior., which makes all these additions suspicious, yet the testimony is not sufficiently strong for their deletion. — Ver. 21. ravras] deleted by Lachm., according to A D* E, 13, Vulg. Copt. Jer. Aug. The omission appears to be a historical emendation, — Ver. 24. yvdécovra] Elz. reads yvooı, in opposition to ABC DEX, min. Aug. Jer. VOYAGE TO TYRE. 399 and some vss. A continuation of the construction of iva. — Ver. 25. Emeoreida- vev] Lachm. Born. read areoreihauev, according to B D, 40, and some vss. Rightly ; the Recepta is from xv. 20. —undev to un is wanting in A BX, 13, 40, 81, and several vss. Condemned by Mill and Bengel, and deleted by Lachm. But if it had been added, the expressions of xv, 28 would have been used. On the other hand, the omission was natural, as the direct instruction und?v roıodrov Tnpeiv is not contained in the apostolic decree. — Ver. 28. The form ravrayz is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted according to decisive evidence ; it is not elsewhere found in the N. T. — Ver. 31. ovyr&xvraı] Lachm. and Born. read ovyxvvera, according to A B D & (in C. ver. 31 to xxii. 30 is wanting). With this preponderating testimony (comp. Vulg. : confunditur), and as, after ver. 30, .the perfect easily presented itself as more suitable, the present is to be pre- ferred. — Ver. 32. mapaiaß.] Lachm. reads Aaßov, only according to B. — Ver. 34, é8dwv] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éxegdévovy, according to A B D E 8, min, which witnesses must prevail. — wu} Övuduevos 6€] Lachm. Tisch, Born. (yet the latter has deleted dé) read pj duvapévov 02 adrod, according to decisive testi- mony. The Recepta is a stylistic emendation. — So xpdfov, ver. 36, is to be judged, instead of which kp«govres is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred. Vv. 1, 2. ’Arooraod.] denotes the painful separation, wrung from them by the consciousness of necessity.'— On the small island Cos, now Co, or Stanchio in the Aegean Sea, celebrated for its wine and manufacture of costly materials for dress, see Kuster.?— ra Ilärapa] a great seaport of Lycia, with an oracle of Apollo active only during the six winter months.* — dıarepov] which was in the act of sailing over. For avay6jva, comp. on xii. 13. (p*). Ver. 3. ’Avagavévrec 62 tiv Kirp.] but when we had sighted Cyprus. The expression is formed analogously to the well-known construction reriorevuaı TO evayyéAcov and the like.* — evarvuorv] an adjective to aurzv.” — eic Supiav] towards Syria. — karayeodaı, to run in, to land, the opposite of avaysodaı,’ often with Greek writers since the time of Homer. — éxeice yap . . youov| for thither the ship unladed its freight ; &xeioe denotes the diree- tion toward the city which they had in view in the unlading in the harbour. — arodoprıL.] does not stand pro futuro, in opposition to Grotius, Valcke- naer, Kuinoel, and others, but jv azog. means: it was in the act of its un- lading.® Ver. 4. ”Avevpövrec] See on Luke ii. 16. The Christians there (rove pad.) were certainly only few,° so that they had to be sought out in the great city of Tyre. ravrwv . . . réxvorc, ver. 5, also points to a small number of Christians. — dia tov mveuuaroc] so that the Holy Spirit, speaking within them, was the mediating occasion. The Spirit had testified to them that a fate full of suffering awaited Paul in Jerusalem, and this in their loving 1 See on Luke xxii. 41. Gr. p. 164 (E. T. 189). [stein, 2 De Co insula, Hal. 1833. On the accusa- 5 See Kühner, $ 685, and examples in Wet- tive form, see Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 165 f. 6 See on Gal. 1. 21. 3 For its ruins, see Fellows, Asia Minor, p. ZENTREN. 125 aukeiv: dale 219 f. 8 Comp. Winer, p. 328 (E. T. 439). 4 Winer, p. 244 (E. T. 326) ; Buttmann, newt. 9 See xi. 19, xv. 3. 400 CHAP. XXI, 5-9. zealous care they took as a valid warning to him not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul himself was more fully and,correctly aware of the will of the Spirit; he was certain that, in spite of the bonds and sufferings which the Spirit made known to him from city to city, he must go to Jerusalem, xx. Ze (EO N Vv. 5, 6. ’E£apricaı] cannot here denote to jit out,’ to provide the neces- saries for the journey, partly because the protasis: ‘‘ but when we fitted out in those days’’—not : had fitted out—would not suit the apodosis, and partly because in general there was no reason for a special and lengthened provisioning in the case of such a very short voyage. Hence we must adhere to the rendering usual since the Vulgate (expletis diebus) and Chry- sostum (rAypacar): but when it happened that we completed the seven days of our residence there, i.e. when we brought these days to aclose. And that é&ap- titey was really so used by later writers, is to be inferred from the similar use of araprtifew.? — odv yuvaiéi x. Texv.] the more readily conceivable and natural in the case of the small body of Christians after so long a stay. Baumgarten finds here the design of a special distinction of the church. — éxt tov alyıal.] on the shore, because this was the place of the solemn parting. Hammond, overlooking this natural explanation, imagined quite arbitrarily that there was a zpocevy7* on the shore. — arnoraoausda (see the critical remarks) : we took leave of one another.* Lachmann *® unnecessarily con- jectures avrnoraodueda. — eic ra idıa] to their habitations.°—W hether the ship prepared for the voyage (rö rAoiov) was the same in which they had arrived, cannot be determined. Ver. 7. Atavveıv] to complete entirely, only here in the N. T., but very often in classical writers, particularly of ways, journeys, and the like. But we, entirely bringing to an end (dtavicavtec 18 contemporaneous with karmvrnoauev) the voyage, arrived from Tyre, from which we had sailed for this last stage, at Ptolemais, from which we now continued our journey by land. —r. mAoöv] from Macedonia, xx. 6. IIroAsudic, the ancient 13)’, even yet called by the Arabs eG: by the Europeans St. Jean d’ Acre, on the Mediterranean Sea, be- longing to the tribe of Asher,” but never possessed by the Jews,® reckoned by the Greeks as belonging to Phoenicia,® and endowed by Claudius with the Roman citizenship. Vv. 8, 9. Kazodp.] See on viii. 40. — What induced the travellers to make their journey by way of Caesarea? Baumgarten thinks that, as representa- tives of the converted Gentiles, they wished to come in contact on the way only with Gentile churches. No; simply, according to the text, because Philip dwelt in Caesarea, and with this important man they purposed to spend some time in the interest of their vocation. — row evayy. dvtog Er TOV éxta] Since it was not his former position as overseer of the poor, but his 1 Lucian, V. H. i. 33; Joseph. Antt. iii. 2. 6 Comp. on John xvi. 32, xix. 27; and see 2; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 17. Valckenaer, p. 581 f. 2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. 7 Judg. i. 13. 3 See on xvi. 13. 8 Hence Hiros. Gittin. f. 43. 3: “In Acone 4 Himerius, p. 184, est terra Israelitica et non.” [Welt 5UPTaefa pax ® Ptol. v. 15; Strabo, xvi. p. 758; Plin. N. Z. TO CAESAREA. 401 present position as evangelist, that made him so important to the travellers, namely, through his participation in the calling of a teacher, the words are not to be rendered : because he was one of the seven, vi. 5;* but the comma after evayy. is to be deleted (so also Tisch. Born.), and the whole is to be taken together : who was the evangelist out of the seven. He was that one of the seven, who had embraced and prosecuted the calling of an evangelist. The fact that he now dwelt at Caesarea presupposes that he no longer filled the office which he held in Jerusalem. Perhaps the peculiar skill in teaching which he developed as an emigrant? was the reason why he, released from his former ministry, entered upon that of an evangelist. To regard the words övroc éx r. éxta as an addition of the compiler,* and also to suspect 6 evayyekıoryc,* there is no sufficient reason. Hvangelists were assistant-missionaries, who, destined exclusively for no particular church, either went forth voluntarily, or were sent by the apostles and other teach- ers of apostolic authority now here and now there, in order to proclaim the evayyédwov of Jesus Christ, and in particular the living remembrances of what He taught and did,’ and thereby partly to prepare the way for, and partly to continue, the apostolic instruction.* — Euseb. iii. 31, 39, v. 24, fol- lowing Polycrates and Caius, calls this Philip an apostle, which is to be re- garded as a very early confusion of persons, going back even to the second century and found also in the Constitt. ap. vi. 7. 1, and is not to be disposed of, with Olshausen, to the effect that Eusebius used aröcroAoc in the wider sense, which considering the very sameness in name of the apostle and evangelist, would be very inappropriate. But Gieseler’s view also’ that the apostle Philip had four daughters, and that ver. 9 is an interpolation by one who had confounded the apostle with the deacon, is to be rejected, as the technical evidence betrays no interpolation, and as at all events our nar- rative, especially as a portion of the account in the jirst person plural, pre- cedes that of Eusebius. — @vyarépec raphévor] virgin ® daughters.” — rpoonr.] who spoke in prophetic inspiration, had the yapıoua of zpogyteia.'°—The whole observation in ver. 9 is an incidental remarkable notice, independent of the connection of the history; !! to the contents of which, however, on account of 1 Comp. Winer, p. 127 (E. T. 168), de Wette. apostolus, sicut Philippus.’”’ See generally, 2 viii. 5 f£., 26 ff. 3 Zeller. 4 Steitz in the Stud. w. Krit. 1868. p. 510. 5 They had thus incommon with the apostles the vocation of the evayyeAideodar ; but they were distinguished from them, not merely by the eircumstance that they were not directly called by Christ, and so were subordinate to the apostles, 2 Tim. iv. 5. and did not possess the extraordinary specifically apostolic xapic- para; but also by the fact that their ministry had for its object less the summing up of the great doctrinal system of the gospel (like the preaching of the apostles) than the communi- cation of historical incidents from the ministry of Jesus. Pelagius correctly remarks: ‘Omnis apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista Ewald, p. 235f., and Jahrb. IL. p. 181 ff.— Nothing can be more perverse han, with Sepp, to interpret the appellation evangelist in the case of Philip to mean, that he had brought the Gospel of Matthew into its present form. The evangelists were the oral bearers of the gospel before written gospels were in exist- ence. 6 Eph. iv. 11; Eus. 7.2. iii. 37. 7 Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 189 ff. 8 Intactae. On the adjective wapdevos, comp. Xen. Mem. i. 5.2: Svyatépas mapdevovs, Cyrop. iv. 6. 9; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1190. 107 5eeion xi. 27. 11 If this circamstance was meant to be re- garded (in accordance with Joel iii. 1 [ii. 281) 402 CHAP. XXI., 11-16. its special and extraordinary character, the precept in 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 1 Tim. ii. 12, is not to be applied ; nor yet is any justification of the life of nuns to be founded on it, with the Catholics.’ Baumgarten thinks that the virginity of the daughters corresponds to the condition of the church, which looks forward to her betrothal only in the future. This is exegetical trifling ? (R°). . Vv. 10, 11. ’Eruevövrov] without a subject (see the critical remarks).® — "Ayaßoc] There is no reason against the assumed identity of this person with the one mentioned in xi. 28. Luke’s mode of designating him, which does not take account of the former mention of him, admits of sufficient explanation from the special document giving account of this journey, which, composed by himself before his book, did not involve a reference to earlier matters, and was left by him just as it was ; nor did it necessarily require any addition on this point for the purpose of setting the reader right. — üpac] he took it up, from the ground, or wherever Paul had laid it. — önoac ... mödac]) as also the old prophets often accompanied their prophecies with symbolic actions.* On the symbol here, comp. John xxi. 18. —éavroi] his own; for it was not his girdle, but Paul’s. This self- binding is to be conceived as consisting of two separate acts. — ro mv. T. ay. | whose utterance I, namely, as His organ express (s°). Vv. 12-14. Oi évrémior|] the natives, the Christians of Caesarea, only here in the N. T., but classical. — ri roveite kAaiovrec ;| What do ye, that ye weep ? Certainly essentially the same in sense with ri kAaiere ; but the form of the conception is different. Comp. Mark xi. 5, also the classical oiov roeig with the participle.® — x. ovrOp. u. T. kapd.] and break my heart, make me quite sorrowful and disconsolate. The ow#pürrew had actually commenced on the part of those assembled, but the firm éroiuwe éyw x.7.A. of the apostle had immediately retained the upper hand over the enervating impressions which they felt. ‘‘ Vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu.’’ ® The verb itself is not preserved elsewhere, yet comp. Opürrew tiv poyfv, and the like, in Plutarch and others. — yap] refers to the direct sense lying at the foundation of the preeeding question: ‘‘do not weep and break my heart,” for I, I for my part, etc. Observe the holy boldness of conscious- ness in this éy. — eic 'Iepovo.]) Having come to Jerusalem." — irép tov ov. | See on v. 41, ix. 16. —jovydoaner] we left off further address.® —r. Kupiov] not ‘‘quod Deus de te decrevit,® but the will of Christ. The submission of as ‘fa sign of special grace with which the Holy Spirit had honoured this church in the unclean Caesarea”? (Baumgarten), Luke must of necessity have indicated this point of view. The suggestion, that we ought to be finding purposes everywhere without hint in the text, leads to extravagent arbitrariness. 1 See Cornelius a Lapide. Comp. Luke ii. 36. 2 According to Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 52 (and in Euseb. iii. 30. 1), some of the daughters at least were married. 3 Matthiae, § 563; Buttmann, newt. Gr.p. 271 (E. T. 316). 4Tsa. xx.; Jer. xiii.; Ezek. iv., al. See Grotius ; Ewald, Proph. I. p. 38. 5 Heind. ad Plat. Charm. p. 166 C. 6 Schaefer, ad Eur. Phoen., Pors.79. Comp. on Rom. ii. 4. 7 Comp. viii. 40. Isaeus, de Dicaeog. hered. p. 55: moAcpov, eis Ov . .. amouvnakovat. Buttman, neut. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 334). 8 Comp. xi. 18. ® Kuinoel and de Wette, following Chrysos- tom, Calvin, and others. PAUL AT JERUSALEM. 403 his friends expresses itself with reference to the last words of the apostle, ver. 13, in which they recognised his consciousness of the Lord’s will. Vv. 15, 16. ’Erioxevao. | after we had equipped ourselves—praeparati, Vulg.— made ourselves ready ; ö.e. after we had put our goods, clothes, etc., in a “proper state for our arrival and residence in Jerusalem.! The word, oc- curring here only in the N. T., is frequent in Greek writers and in the LXX. Such an equipment was required by the feast, and by the intercourse which lay before them at the holy seat of the mother church and of the apostles. Others arbitrarily, as 1f éroftya stood in the text ;* ‘‘ sarcinas jumentis imponere,’ Grotius. — röv pabyr.| sc. twéc.* —dyovtec rap’ w Zevio- Pouev Mvac.| who brought us to Mnason, with whom we were to lodge in Jeru- salem. So correctly Luther. The dative Mvdc. is not dependent on ayovtec,* but to be explained, with Grotius, from attraction, so that, when resolved, it is: äyovrec mapa Mvdoova, rap’ © Eevicd.° The participle ayovrec indicates what they by ovr7A3. o. juiv not merely wished (infinitive), but at the same time did: they came with us and brought us, etc.°— Others’ take the sense of the whole passage to be: adducentes secum apud quem hos- pitaremnr Mnasonem. Likewise admitting of justification linguistically from the attraction ;* but then we should have to suppose, without any indication in the context, that Mnason had been temporarily resident at Caesarea precisely at that time when the lodging of the travellers in his house at Jerusalem was settled with him.—Nothing further is known of Mnason himself. The name is Greek,’ and probably he was, if not a Gen- tile-Christian, at any rate a Hellenist. Looking to the feeling which pre- vailed among the Jewish Christians against Paul,!° it was natural and pru- dent that he should lodge with such a one, in order that he should enter into further relations to the church. —apyaiw wad.] So much the more confidently might Paul and his companions be entrusted to him. He was a Christian from of old, not a veögvroc, 1 Tim. iii. 6; whether he had al- ready been a Christian from the first Pentecost, or had become so, possibly through connection with his countryman Barnabas, or in some other manner, cannot be determined. 1 The erroneous reading amoox., though de- defended by Olshausen, would at most admit the explanation : after we had conveyed away our baggage (Polyb. iv. 81. 11; Diod. Sic. xiii. 91; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 16. 2), according to which the travellers, in order not to go as pilgrims to the feast at Jerusalem encumbered with much luggage, would have sent on their baggage before them. The leaving behind of the superfluous baggage at Caesarea (Wolf, Olshausen, and others), or the laying aside of things unworthy for their entrance into and residence in Jerusalem (Ewald), would be purely imported ideas. Valckenaer, p. 584, well remarks : ‘‘Putidum est lectiones tam aperte mendosas, ubi verae repertae fuere, in sanctissimis libris relinqui.” 2 Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 18. 3 Winer, p. 548 (E. T. 787) ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 138 (E. T. 158). 4 In opposition to Knatchbull, Winer, p. 201 (E. T. 268 f.), and Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42 ; and see on ii. 33. 5 See on Rom. iv. 17. Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p.177 (comp. on Rosenmiiller, Zepert. I. p. 253); Buttmann, p. 244 (E. T. 284); Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 233 f. 6 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 773; Bernhardy, p. 417. 7 Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Wolf. 8 Kühner, II. 508; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 586 ; Hermann, ad Soph. El. 643. 681. 9 Ael. V. H. iii. 19; Athen. vi. p. 264 C, 272 B; Lucian, Philops. 22. 10 vy, 20, 21. 404 CHAP. XXI., 17-28. Vv. 17-19. Tevon.] having arrived at ; xiii. 5. — ol ade2goi} the Christians, to whom we came,—Mnason and others who were with him. It was not until the following day, ver. 18, that they, with Paul at their head, pre- sented themselves to the rulers of the church. Accordingly, there is not to be found in this notice, ver. 17, any inconsistency with the dissatisfac- tion towards Paul afterwards reported ;' and oi adeA9. is not to be inter- preted of the apostles and presbytyrs.” — civ juiv] witnesses to the historical truth of the whole narrative down to ver. 26: those who combat it are obliged to represent this ovv zum as an addition of the compiler, who wished ‘‘externally to attach ’’ what follows to the report of an eye-wit- ness.°— rpd¢ ’Iakwßov] the Lord’s brother, xii. 17. xv. 13. Neither Peter nor any other of the Twelve can at this time have been present in Jerusalem ; otherwise they would have been mentioned here and in the sequel of the narrative.*——dv] roirwr a. Usual attraction. Vv. 20, 21. The body of presbyters—certainly headed by its apostolic ® chief James as spokesman—recognizes with thanksgiving to God the merits of Paul in the conversion of the Gentiles, but then represents to him at once also his critical position towards the Palestinian Jewish-Christians, among whom the opinion had spread that he taught all the Jews living in the dıaomopa among the Gentiles, when preaching his gospel to them, apos- tasy from the law of Moses. This opinion was, according to the principles expressed by Paul in his Epistles,® and according to his wisdom in teaching generally, certainly erroneous ; but amidst the tenacious overvaluing of Mo- saism on the part of the Judaists, ever fomented by the anti-Pauline party, it arose very naturally from the doctrine firmly and boldly defended by Paul, that the attainment of the Messianic salvation was not conditioned by circumcision and the works of the law, but purely by faith in Christ. What he had taught by way of denying and guarding against the value put on Mosaism, so as to secure the necessity of faith, was by the zealous Judaists taken up and interpreted as a hostile attack, as a direct summons to apos- tasy from the Mosaic precepts and institutions. See Ewald, p. 563 ff., on these relations, and on the greatness of the apostle, who notwithstanding, and in clear consciousness of the extreme dangers which threatened him, does not sever the bond with the apostlic mother-church, but presents him- self to it, and now again presents himself precisely amidst this confluence of the multitude to the feast, like Christ on his last entrance to Jerusalem. — Bewpeic| is not, with Olshausen, to be referred to the number of the pres- byters present, who might represent, as it were, the number of believers: for only the presbyters of Jerusalem were assembled with James,’ but to the Judaean Christians themselves, Christians of the Jewish land, the view of 1 Baur. time died, and risen, and ascended into heaven. 2 Kuinoel. According to other forms of the variously- 3 Zeller, p. 522. See, in opposition to this coloured legend, it occurred twelve years after wretched shift, Ewald, Jahrd. IX. p. 66. the death of Jesus. See Sepp, p. 68 ff. 4 Nevertheless, on the part of the Catholics 5 Gal. i. 19. (see Cornelius a Lapide), ‘he presence of all ® See especially Rom., Gal., and 1 Cor. the apostles is assumed ; Mary having at that DVieErwlG: ADDRESS AND VOW. 405 whose many myriads might present itself to Paul at Jerusalem in the great multitude of those who were there, especially at the time of the feast. — röcaı wupiadec| a hyperbolical expression! of a very great indefinable num- ber,? the mention of which was to make the apostle the more inclined to the proposal about to be made; hence we are not, with Baur,* to un- derstand orthodox Jews as such, believing or unbelieving. The words, according to the correct reading (see the critical remarks), import: how many myriads among the Jews there are of those who are believing, i.e. to how many myriads those who have become believers among the Jews amount. — (nAwral t. vöuov] zealous observers and champions of the Mosaic law.*— karnındnoav]) they have been instructed *® by Judaistic anti-Pauline teachers. Actual instruetion,® not generally audierunt,’ nor bare suspicion,* is expressed, — u mepiröuvew abrodc K.r.A.]|” according to the notion of commanding, which is implied in Aéywv.'!°—roic &8ecı] observing the Mosaic customs."!— The antagonism of Judaism to Paul is in this passage so strongly and clearly displayed, that the author, if his book were actually the treatise with a set purpose, which it has been represented as being, would, in quite an in- comprehensible manner, have fallen out of his part. In the case of such a cunning inventor of history as the author, according to Baur and Zeller, appears to be, the power of historical truth was not so great as to extort ‘against his will ’’!? such a testimony at variance with his design. Vv. 22, 23. Tioöv Zorı;] What is accordingly the case? How lies then the matter 23 The answer tovro roincov has the reason for it in the first instance more precisely assigned by the preliminary remark, ravtwe . . . EAnAvdac : a multitude, of such Jew-Christians, must, inevitably will, come together, assemble around thee, to hear thee and to observe thy demeanour, for, etc. That James meant a tumultuary concourse, is not stated by the text, and is, on the contrary, at variance with the sanguine dei ; but Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and many others erroneously hold that 7770. cuve20. refers to the convoking of the church, or to the united body of the different househoid- congregations—in that case ro 7276. must at least have been used. — eiyqv éy. 颒 Eavr.] having a vow'? for themselves. This &0' Eavrov represents the having of the vow as founded on the men’s own wish and self-interest, and accordingly exhibits it as a voluntary personal vow, in which they were not dependent on third persons. The use of &9' &avrov in the sense of ‚for one- self, at one’s own hand,'and the like,'® is a classical one,'? and very common, 1 But yet, comp. with i. 15, ii. 41, iv.4, Gal. must thus have continued to circumcise the j. 22, an evidence of the great progress which children that came to be born to them. Christianity had thus made in Palestine with 10 See on xv. 24. the lapse of time. 11 Comp. tov vonov dvAacowrv, ver. 23. The 2 Comp. Luke xii. 1. dative is as in ix. 31. 3T. p. 230. ed. 2. 12 Baur. 4 Comp. Gal. 1. 14. 13 See on 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Rom. iii. 9. 5 Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25; Rom. ii. 18; 1 14 So Lange. Cor. xiv. 19; Gal. vi. 6; Lucian, Asin. 48. 15 xviii. 18. [correct. ° Comp. Chrysostom. 16S reads af’ cavrHy, a gloss substantially 7 Vulg. 17 Xen. Anad. ii. 4. 10; Thuc. v. 67. 1, viii. 8 Zeller. 8. 11. q [p. 296. ® The Jewish-Christians zealous for the law 18 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 859; Kühner, II. 406 CHAP. XXL, 24-27. A yet more express mode of denoting it would be : abroi 26’ £avrov. With this position of the vow there could be the less difficulty in Paul’s taking it along with them ; no interest of any other than the four men themselves was concerned in it. Moreover, on account of ver. 26, and because the point here concerned a usage appointed in the law of Moses, otherwise than at xviii. 18, we are to understand a formal temporary Nazarite vow, under- taken on some unknown occasion.! Ver. 24. These take to thee, bring them into thy fellowship, and become with them a Nazarite—ayvictyr, be consecrated, LXX. Num. vi. 3, 8, corresponding to the Hebrew V10—and make the expenditure for them, Er’ avtoic, on their account,” namely, in the costs of the sacrifices to be procured.* ‘* More apud Judaeos receptum erat, et pro insigni pietatis officio habebatur, ut in pauperum Nasiraeorum gratiam ditiores sumtus erogarent ad sacrificia, quae, dum illi tonderentur, offerre necesse erat,’? Kypke.* The attempt of Wieseler,° to explain away the taking up of the Nazarite vow on the part of the apostle, is entirely contrary to the words, since dyvifecha, in its em- phatic connection with civ auroic, can only be understood according to the context of entering into participation of the Nazarite vow, and not generally of Israelitish purification by virtue of presenting sacrifices and visiting the temple, asin John xi. 55. —iva £vpyo.] contains the design of darav. Er’ aur., in order that they, after the fulfilment of the legal requirement had taken place, might have themselves shorn, and thus be released from their vow. The shearing and the burning of the hair of the head in the fire of the peace-offering, was the termination of the Nazaritic vow.°— kai yvooov- raı x.t.A.| and all shall know: not included in the dependence on iva, as in Luke xxii. 30. — op] as in ver. 19. —ovdév Eorı] that nothing has a place, is existent, so that all is without objective reality.’ — kai airéc] also for thy own person, whereby those antinomistic accusations are practically refuted. On oro:yeiv, in the sense of conduct of life, see on Gal. iv. 25. Ver. 25. ‘ Yet the liberty of the Gentile Christians from the Mosaic law remains thereby undiminished ; that is secured by our decree,’’ chap. xv. The object of this remark is to obviate a possible scruple of the apostle as to the adoption of the proposal. — jueic amecreiAauev (see the critical remarks), we, on our part, have despatched envoys, after we had resolved that they have to observe no such thing, nothing which belongs to the category of such legal enactments. The notion of deiv® is implied in the reference of kpivavrec, necessarium esse censuimus.® — ei un ovAaoosodaı k.T.A.] except that they should guard themselves from, etc.” On ovAaoosoYai rı Or rıva, to guard oneself from, comp. 2 Tim. iv. 15.1! — This citation of the decree of the 1 Num. vi., and see on xviii. 18. See on such 5p. 105 ff., and on Gal. p. 589. vows, Kiel, Archaol. I. § 67; Oehler in Her- 6 See Num. vi. 18. zog’s Encykl. X. p. 205 ff. 7 Comp. on xxv. 11. 2 See Bernhardy, p. 250. 8 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 f£.; Schoem, 3 Num. vi. 14 ff. ad Is. p. 397 f. 4 See Joseph. Antt. xix. 6.1. Bell. ii. 15.1; ® Comp. ver. 21. Mischn. Nasir ii. 5.6; Wetstein, ön loc.; also 10 See xv. 28. [vii. 130. Oehler, lc. p. 210. 11 Wisd.i. 11; Ecclus. xix. 9; Herod. 1. 108, NAZARITE VOW. 40% apostolic synod told Paul wh:t was long since accurately known to him, but was here essentially pertinent to the matter. And for Paul himself that portion of the contents of the decree which was in itself indifferent was important enough, in view of those whose consciences were weak,! to make him receive this reminiscence of it now without an express reservation of his higher and freer standpoint, and of his apostolic independence, —a course by which he complied with the dovieverv To kaıpo, Rom. xii. 11. Vy. 26, 27. James had made his proposal to Paul—by a public observance of a custom, highly esteemed among the Jews, and consecrated by Moses, practically to refute the accusation in question—in the conviction that the accusation was unfounded, and that thus Paul with a good conscience, without contradiction of his principles, could accept the proposal.? And Paul with a good conscience accepted it; in which case it must be pre- sumed that the four men also did not regard the Nazarite vow as a work of justification ;* otherwise Paul must at once on principle have rejected the proposal, in order not to give countenance to the fundamental error, op- posed to his teaching, of justification by the law, and not to offer resistance to Christ Himselt as the end of the law.* In fact, he must have been alto- gether convinced that the observance of the law was not under dispute, by those who regard him as an opponent of it, in the sense of justification by the law ; otherwise he would as little have consented to the proposal made to him as he formerly did to the circumcision of Titus ; and even the furnish- ing of explanations to guard his action, which Schneckenburger ° supposes that we must assume, would not have sufficed, but would rather have stamped his accommodation as a mere empty show. Moreover, he was pre- © cisely by his internal complete freedom from the law in a position, without moral self-offence, not only to demean himself as, but really to be, a gvido- owv Tov vöuov, Where this ouAdoosıv was enjoined by love, which is the fulfil- ment of the law in the Christian sense,* as here, seeing that his object was —as um Ov avtoc Wd vöuov, but as éEvvouog Xpsorov—to become to the Jews ac ’Iovdaioc, in order to win them.” Thus this work of the law—although to him it belonged in itself to the ororyeia tod xoouov *—became a form, deter- mined by the circumstances, of exercising the love that fulfils the law, which, however different in its forms, is imperishable and the completion of the law.’ The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing 11 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; Rom. xiv. 1 ff. 2 For if James had, in spite of Gal. ii. 9, re- garded Paul as a direct adversary of Mosaism. he would, on account of what he well knew to be Paul’s decision of character, have cer- tainly not proposed a measure which the lat- ter could not but have immediately rejected. It remains possible, however, that, though not in the case of James himself, yet among a portion of the presbyters there was still not complete certaınty, and perhaps even differ- ent views prevailed with regard to what was to be thought of that accusation. In this case, the proposal was a test bringing the matter to decisive certainty, which was very correctly calculated in view of the moral stedfastness of the apostle’s character. 3 They were still weak brethren from Juda- ism, who still clave partially to ceremonial observances. Calvin designates them ar nov- ices, With a yet tender and not fully formed faith. * Rom. x. 4. 5p. 65. 6 Rom. xiii. 8, 10. 71 Cor. 1x. 19 ff. SGaltives 2 1COle ll. S. 9 Matt. v 17. 408 CHAP, XXI., 27-29. with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed,! and is subject essentially to the same judgment. The action of the apostle, there- fore, is neither, with Trip, following van Hengel,* to be classed as a weak and rash obsequiousness, this were indeed to Paul, near the very end of his labours, the moral impossibility of a great hypocrisy ; nor, with Thiersch, are we to suppose that he in a domain not his own had to follow the direc- tion of the bishop ;* nor, with Baumgarten,‘ are we to judge that he, by here externally manifesting his continued recognition of the divine law, “ presents in prospect the ultimate disappearance of his exceptional stand- point, his thirteenth apostleship,’’° which there is nothing in the text to point to, and against which militates the fact that to the apostle his gospel was the absolute truth, and therefore he could never have in view a re-es- tablishment of legal customs which were to him merely oxıa tov peAAdvtwr.® Not by such imported ideas of interpreters, but by a right estimate of the free standpoint of the apostle,’ and of his love bearing all things, are we prevented from regarding his conduct in this passage, with Baur, Zeller, and Hausrath, as un-Pauline and the narrative as unhistorical.* — ovr abroi¢ ayvıodeic] consecrated with them, i.e. having entered into participation of their Nazarite state, which, namely, had already lasted in the case of these men for some considerable time, as ver. 23 shows. They did not therefore only now commence their Nazarite vow,’ but Paul agreed to a personal par- ticipation in their vow already existing, in order, as a joint-bearer, to bring to a close by taking upon himself the whole expense of the offerings. Ac- cording to Nasir. i, 3,!° a Nazarite vow not taken for life lasted at least thirty days, but the subsequent accession of another during the currency of that time must at least have been allowed in such a case as this, where the ~ person joining bore the expenses. — eioneı eic r. iep.] namely, toward the close of the Nazarite period of these men, with which expired the Nazarite term current in pursuance of the civ abrtoi¢g ayvıodeic for himself. — drayyéA- dor] notifying, namely, to the priests," who had to conduct the legally-ap- pointed sacrifices,’ and then to pronounce release from the vow.'® The con- nection yields this interpretation, not: omnibus edicens," or > with the help of friends spreading the news, which in itself would likewise accord with linguistic usage.!° — rip ExmAnpwov Tov quep. T. dyv.] i.e. he gave notice that the vowed number of the Nazarite days had quite expired, after which only the concluding offering was required. This idea is expressed by éwe ov mpoc- qvéxSy k.7.4., which immediately attaches itself to tA éxrAfpwow x.t.A. : the I xvi. 3. {981 ff. 11 Comp. Thue. vii. 73. 4 ; Herodian, 11. 2. 5; 2In the Godsgeleerd. Bijdräzen, 1859, p. Xen. Anab.i 6. 2. 3 But see Gal. ii. 6. 12 Num. vi. 13 ff. 411. p. 149. 13 The compound (internuntiare) is purpose- 5 Rom. xi. 25 ff. ly chosen, because Paul with his notice acted 8691.11. 1% as internuntius of the four men. So com- 7 1 Cor. 1ii. 21 ff. monly écayyeAAey is used in Greek writers, * See, on the other hand, Neander, p. 485 ff. where it signifies to nofify, to make known. Lekebusch, p. 275 ff.; Schneckenburger in the Comp. also 2 Mace. i. 33. Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 566 ff. 14 Grotius. ® Neander. 15 Bornemann. 40 Comp. Joseph. Beil. ii. 15. 1. 1° Luke ix. 60; Rom. ix. 17, FULFILMENT OF THE VOW. 409 Sulfilment of the Nazarite days, until the offering for each individual was pre- sented by them, so that &wc ob tpoonvéx Sy x.7.2. contains an objective more pre- cise definition of the éxzAjpwor added from the standpoint of the author: which fulfilment was not earlier than until there was brought, etc. Hence, Luke has expressed himself not by the optative or subjunctive,! which Lachmann, Praef. p. 1x., has conjectured, but by the indicative aorist, ‘the fulfilment up to the point that the presentation of the offering took place.’ Wieseler arbitrarily * makes éwe od dependent on cioneı: 7d iepdv, supplying "and remained there.’’—Observe, further, that in aurov Paul himself is now included, which follows from ovr avroic ayvıodeic, as well as that évdc éxdorov is added, because it is not one offering for all, but a separate offering for each, which is to be thought of (T°). — Ver. 27. ai éxra ju£paı] is commonly taken as: the seven days, which he up to the concluding sacrifice had to spend under the Nazarite vow which he had jointly undertaken, so that these days would be the time which had still to run for the four men of the duration of their vow. But against this may be urged, first, that the ZxrAjpooıc tov nu. T. ayv., Ver. 26, must in that case be the future fulfilment, which is not said in the text; and, secondly and decisively, that the ai éxra ju., with the article, would presuppose a mention already made of seven days.’ Text- ually we can only explain it as: the well-known seven days required for this purpose,* so that it is to be assumed that, as regurds the presentation of the offerings,° very varied in their kind, the interval of a week was usual. Incorrect, because entirely dissociated from the context, is the view of Wieseler,® that the seven days of the. Pentecostal week, of which the last was Pentecost itself, are meant. So also Baumgarten, and Schafl.” See, on the other hand, Baur,* who, however, brings out the seven days by the entirely arbitrary and groundless apportionment, that for each of the five persons a day was appointed for the presentation of his offering, prior to which five days we have to reckon one day on which James gave the counsel to Paul, and a second on which Paul went into the temple. On such a supposition, be- sides, we cannot see why Luke, in reference to what was just said, ixép évo¢ éxdotov avtov, should not have written: ai wévte yuépat.—oi ano Tr. "Aclac ’Iow).] * Paulus, dum fidelibus—the Jewish-Christians—placandis intentus est, in hostium—the unconverted Asiatic Jews—furorem incurrit,’’ Calvin. How often had those, who were now at Jerusalem for the feast of Pente- cost, persecuted Paul already in Asia !— iv ro iepo] To see the destroyer of their ancestral religion in the temple, goaded their wrath to an outbreak. —ovvéyeov] Xix. 32. Vv. 28, 29. T. rörov rovr.] vi. 14. — éte re kai "EAAyvac x.7.4.| and, besides, he has also, further, in addition thereto, brought Greeks, Gentiles, into the temple. As to re xai, see on xix. 27. That by ro iepdv we have to under- I Comp. xxiii. 12. jam paene expletis,’ etc.; also Ewald, p. 571. 2 Comp. already Erasmus, Paraph. 5 According to Num. vi. 13 ff. 3 Comp. Judith viii. 15; comp. vii. 30. 6 p. 110. and on Gal. p. 587; comp. Beza. 4Comp. Frasmus. Paraphrase: “ Totum 7 p. 243 ff. hoc septem die us erat peragendum ; quibus 8 In the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 482 ff. 410 CHAP. XXI., 30-38. stand the court of the Israelites,! is self-evident, as the court of the Gentiles was accessible to the Greeks.? —"EAAnvac] the plural of category, which ver. 29 requires ; so spoken with hostile intent. — Ver. 29 is not to be made a parenthesis. — joav yap mposwpaköreg k.r.A.] there were, namely, people, who had before, before they saw the apostle in the temple, ver. 27, seen T’ro- phimus in the city with him. Observe the correlation in which the rpoewp.* stands with Yeaoduevor, and the &v rH möReı with év ro iep@ on the one hand, and with eic rö iepdv on the other. So much the more erroneous is it to change the definite zpo, before, into an indefinite formerly, which Otto* dates back even four years, namely, to the residence in Jerusalem mentioned in xviii. 22. Beyond doubt the zpo does not point back farther than to the time of the present stay in Jerusalem, during which people had seen Trophimus with Paul in the city, before they saw the latter in the temple. — Tpdg.pov tov ’Eo£orov] see xx. 4. Among those, therefore, who accompanied the apostle äypı t7¢ ’Aciac, Trophimus must not have remained behind in Asia, but must have gone on with the apostle to Jerusalem.* — évéufov| The par- ticular accusation thus rested on a hasty and mistaken inference ; it was an erroneous suspicion expressed as a certainty, to which zealotry so easily leads ! — öv évéuufov örı] comp. John viii. 54. Ver. 30. "E£o rov iepov] in order that the temple enclosure might not be defiled with murder ; for they wished to put Paul to death, ver. 32. Ben- gel and Baumgarten hold that they had wished to prevent him from taking refuge at the altar. But the right of asylum legally subsisted only for persons guilty of unintentional manslaughter.® — éxreio3.] by the Levites. For the reason why, see above. Entirely at variance with the context, Lange’ holds that the closing of the temple intimated the temporary sus- pension of worship. It referred only to Paul, who was not to be allowed again to enter. Vv. 31-33. But while they sought to kill him, to beat him to death, ver. 32, information came up, to the castle of Antonia, bordering on the north- west side of the temple, to the tribune of the Roman cohort.* ° — ro xuArapxw] asimple dative, not for pic rov x. — &r' aitoic] upon them." — éxéd. dedjva] because he took Paul to be an at that time notorious insurgent,” abandoned to the self-revenge of the people. In order, however, to have certainty on ıOn the screen of which were columns, with the warning in Greek and Latin : un deiv aAAsbvAov Evros TOD ayiov mpoorevar, Joseph. Bell. v.5. 2. 2 Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 58 f. 5 Comp. on xxvii. 2. 6 Therefore they would hardly suppose that Paul would fly to the altar. Besides, they had him sure enough! See Ex. xxi. 13, 14; 1 Kings il. 28 ff Comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 3 The zpo is not local, as in ii. 25 (my former interpretation), but, according to the context, temporal. The usus loguendi alone cannot here decide, as it may beyond donbt be urged for either view; see the lexicons. So also is it with mpoideiv. The Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, and others neglect the zpo entirely. Beza correctly renders: antea viderant. 4 Pastoralbr. p. 284 ff. 228 f. 7 Apostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 306. ® Claudius Lysias, xxiii. 26. ® On dacıs, comp. Dem. 793. 16. 1323. 6; Pollux, viii. 6. 47 f.; Susannah 55; and see Wetstein. [II. p. 253. 10 See Bornemann and Rosenmiiller, Repert. 11 On kararpexeıv, fo run down, comp. Xen. Anab. v. 4. 23, vii. 1. 20. 12 Ver. 38. ARREST OF PAUL. 411 the spot, he asked, the crowd : tic ay ein kat ri &orı memomk.] who he might be, subjective possibility, and of what he was doer —that he had done something, was certain to the inquirer.! — eis ryv mapeußoAyv] in castra,? i.e. to the fixed quarters of the Roman soldiery, the military barracks of the fortress.? Vv. 35, 36. 'Eri r. avaßadu.] when he came to the stairs leading up to the fortress.* See examples of the form Batudc, and of the more Attic form Bacudc, in Lobeck.’— ovvéBy Baoras. auröv] brings forward what took place more markedly than the simple éGaorafero. Either the accusative, as here, or the nominative may stand with the infinitive.* — aipe aurov) The same cry of extermination as in Luke xxiii. 18.” On the plural «pafovrec, see Winer.*® Vv. 87, 38. Ei é&eore x.7:A.] as in xix. 2; Luke xiv. 8; Mark x. 2. “Modeste alloquitur,’? Bengel. —‘EAAyvioti yırworeıc] understandest thou Greek? A question of surprise at Paul’s having spoken in Greek. The expression does not require the usually assumed supplement of 2adciv,® but the adverb belongs directly to the verb y:véckecc.° — our dpa ov ei K.r.A.] Thou art not then, as I imagined, the Egyptian, ete. The emphasis lies on ovx, SO that the answer would again begin with ov.!! Incorrectly, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, and others: nonne tu es, etc. —The Egyptian, for whom the tribune had—probably from a mere natural conjecture of his own— taken Paul, was a phantastic pseudo-prophet, who in the reign of Nero wished to destroy the Roman government and led his followers, collected in the wilderness, to the Mount of Olives, from which they were to see the walls of the capital falldown, Defeated with his followers by the procurator Felix, he had taken to flight ; and therefore Lysias, in conse- quence of his remembrance of this event still fresh after the lapse of a considerable time," lighted on the idea that the dreaded enthusiast, now returned or drawn forth from his long concealment, had fallen into the hands of popular fury. — retpaxicya.] Josephus™ gives the followers of the Egyptian at rp:cuvpiove ; but this is only an apparent inconsistency with our passage, for here there is only brought forward a single, specially re- markable appearance of the rebel, perhaps the first step which he took with his most immediate and most dangerous followers, and therefore the read- ing in Josephus is not to be changed in accordance with our passage, in opposition to Kuinoel and Olshausen.!? — How greatly under the worthless 1Comp. Winer, p. 281 (E. T. 375) : Kiihner, 11 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 186. Comp. ad Xen. Anab. 1. 3. 14. 2Sce Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 30; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 377. 3 So xxii. 24, xxiii. 10, 16, 32. 4 Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8. 5 Ad Phryn. p. 324. 6 See Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 67 C. 7 Comp. Acts xxii. 22. 8 p. 490 (E. T. 660). Comp. v. 16. 9 Neh. xiii. 24. 10 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 8, Cyrop. vii. 5. 31: rovs Svpiote Eemiotapevovs, comp. Graece nescire in Cic. p. Flacco, 4. Bäumlein, Partik. p 281. 12 Joseph. Bell. ıi. 13. 5, Antt. xx. 8. 6. 13 For dıfferent combinations with a view to the more exact determination of the time of this event, which, however, remains doubtful, see Wieseler, p. 76 ff.; Stölting, Beitr. z. Ewegese d. Paul. Br. p. 190 ff. 14 Bell. l.c. is But there remains in contradiction both with our passage and with the tpropuptocs of Josephus himself, his statement, Antt. xx. 8. 6, that 400 were slain and 200 taken prisoners ; for in Bell. 1i. 18. 5, he informs us that the 412 CHAP. XXI., 39, 40. Felix the evil of banditti! prevailed in Jerusalem and Judaea generally, see in Joseph. Antt. xx. 6 f. Vv. 39, 40. Iam indeed (uév)—not the Egyptian, but—a Jew from Tarsus, and so apprehended by thee through being confounded with another, yet I pray thee, etc. —av3pwroc] In his speech to the people Paul used the more honourable word avjp.2 —oix aojuov| See examples of this litotes in the designation of important cities, in Wetstein ad loc.” A conscious feeling of patriotism is implied in the expression. — xaréo. r. x.] See on xii. 17. moaAne dé oıyYc yevou.| ‘*Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant.’’ *— 79 'Eßp. dıar.) thus not likewise in Greek, as in ver. 37, but in the Syro- Chaldaic dialect of the country,’ in order, namely, to find a more favourable hearing with the people. — We may add, that the permission to speak granted by the tribune is too readily explainable from the unexpected disillusion wlfich he had just experienced, ver. 39, to admit of its being urged as a reason against the historical character of the speech,° just as the silence which set in is explainable enough as the effect of surprise in the case of the mobile vulgus. And if the following speech, as regards is contents, does not enter upon the position of the speaker towards the law, it was, in presence of the prejudice and passion of the multitude, a very wise pro- cedure simply to set forth facts, by which the whole working of the apostle is apologetically exhibited. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (pP?) Rhodes and Palara. V. 1. The island of Rhodes was famous for its natural beauty and great fertility. So genial was its climate, that it was proverbially said the sun shone every day in Rhodes. Its chief city, of the same name, which signifies rosy, was celebrated for its excellent schools and extensive commerce. Cicero and other young noble Romans made it their university. There stood the colossal brazen statue of Apollo, one hundred and twenty-seven feet in height, which was re- garded as one of the wonders of the world. It long remained a place of im- portance, and, in the middle ages, was famous as the residence of the Knights of St. John, by whom it was rescued from the Saracens in 1310, and held by them until it was conquered in 1523 by Solyman the Magnificent. It now be- longs to the Turks, who have long oppressed the people, and its prosperity has ceased. Its gardens still, however, are filled with delicious fruits, and there are the ruins of an old fortress and the cells of the knights to be seen. greater part were either cantured or slain. I Tov aıkapıov, the daggermen, see Suicer, But this contradiction is simply chargeable to Thes. II. p. 957: the article denotes the class Josephus himself, as the incompatibility of of men. his statements discloses a historical error, 2 Schaefer, ad Long. p 408. See xxü. 3. concerning which our passage shows de- 3 Comp. Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 718. cisively that it was committed either in the 4 Virgil. Aen. ii. 1, assertion that the greater part were captured 857.019: or slain, or in the statement of the numbers ® Baur, Zeller. in Antt. l.c. NOTES. 413 At Patara, a seaport of Lycia, near the mouth of the river Xanthus, was a famous oracle of Apollo, which was held as scarcely inferior to that at Delphi, hence Horace describes the god as the ‘‘ Delius et Patarens Apollo.” Here the apostle landed, and embarked in another vessel. The place is now inruins, its harbor filled with sand-banks, its temple demolished, and its oracles dumb. “The oracles are dumb ; No voice nor hideous hum Runs through the archéd roof in words deceiving ; Apollo from his shrine Can no more divine, With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving; No nightly trance or breathéd spell Inspires the pale-eyed priests from the prophetic cell.’’ (Milton.) (a?) Disciples at Tyre. V. 4. A small church had been gathered here, probably through the labors of some of the dispersion, possibly by the preaching of Philip. While waiting for the departure of the vessel, the apostle spent a week with these disciples, and we can well imagine what a precious season they enjoyed, and we wonder not that they all—men, women, and children—came to the shore with him, nor that, having intimation of the trials and sufferings which awaited the apostle at Je- rusalem, they sought to dissuade him from going. We must ever distinguish between the divine intimations and human inferences. These disciples at Tyre had received some foreshadowings of coming affliction to Paul, yet had not received so full a revelation of the divine mind, as was given to Paul, hence their counsel was opposed to his decision. The period of seven days ‘‘men- tioned at Troas, and again at Puteoli, seems to indicate that Paul arranged to be at Troas, Puteoli, and Tyre over the Sabbath, and to partake with them of the Lord’s Supper.’’ (n°) Philip’s four daughters. VY. 9. The remarks of Meyer on this verse are just. Gloag observes : ‘‘ This remark does not seem to be merely incidentally introduced ; but is probably an indi- cation that the daughters of Philip, influenced by the spirit of prophecy, fore- told the sufferings which awaited the apostle at Jerusalem.” Howson says: “ There seems to have been an organization at Ephesus of ‘ widows’ of an ad- vanced’ age, who spent their days in charitable work in connection with the church. But we find no trace of any order of virgins in the early church.” Hackett writes : ‘‘ Luke mentions the fact as remarkable, and not as inany way related to the history. It is hardly possible that they too foretold the apostle’s approaching captivity.’’ Alford says: ‘‘ To find an argument for the so-called ‘honor of virginity’ in this verse only shows to what resources those will stoop who have failed to apprehend the whole spirit and rule of the gospel in the matter.” Alexander remarks : They “ were inspired, literally, prophesying, not as public teachers, but in private, perhaps actually prophesying in the strict sense, at the time of Paul’s arrival, i.e. predicting what was to befall him, like the Tyrian disciples.’’ ‘‘ Their virginity is probably referred to only as a 414 CHAP. XXI.—NOTES: reason for their being still at home, and not as having any necessary connec- tion with their inspiration.”’ We concur fully in the remarks of Dr. Taylor : ““ At this time his four unmarried daughters, who were possessed of the gift of prophecy, were living under his roof ; and though it is not said in so many words that they foretold what was to happen to the apostle, yet it seems likely that they also renewed the warnings which, he had already so frequently re- ceived,’’ and he justly adds in a note, there seems no foundation whatever for the notion of Plumptre that they were under a vow. Furrar says: ‘‘ The house of Philip was hallowed by the gentle ministries of four daughters, who, looking for the coming of Christ, had devoted to the service of the gospel their virgin lives.”’ (s?) Tarried many days. VY. 10. The phrase is literally more days, rendered by the words some, several, im- plying that he spent a longer time there than in other places on the way, or than he had intended to spend at least a number of days— probably two weeks. He left Philippi with the design of reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. He was at Philippi during the Passover. And from the Passover to Pentecost there are fifty days. We may reckon the time thus: From Philippi to Troas 5 days, at Troas 7. To Assos and Mitylene 1, to Chios, Samos, and Miletus 3 ; at Miletus and to Cos about 3; Rhodes and Patara 2; to Tyre 2; at Tyre7; Ptolemais 2 ; to Cesaraea 1. Making 33 days in all, leaving 17 to spend at Cesa- raea ; and to go to Jerusalem, which would not require more than 2 days. (T?) Paul purifying himself. V. 26. The views of Meyer on this act of the apostle are fully expressed, and com- mend themselves to general acceptance—that the apostle acted in full view of the absolute truth of the gospel, and in the exercise of Christian freedom and condescending charity. Alford says: ‘‘ James and the elders made this pro- posal, assuming that Paul could comply with it salva conscientiä ; perhaps also as a proof to assure themselves and others of his sentiments ; and Paul ac- cepted it salva conscientia. But this he could only have done on one con- dition, that he was sure by it not to contribute in these four Nazarites to the error of justification by works of the law.’ Paul, in compassion to the weak faith of his Jewish brethren, associated himself with four members of the church who had a vow, and this he did, without implying that it was neces- sary for any, and certainly not for the Gentile Christians, to do the same thing. Neander writes : ‘* Let us recollect that the faith in Jesus as the promised Mes- siah was the fundamental doctrine, on which the whole structure of the church arose. Accordingly the first Christian community was formed of very hetero- geneous materials. It was composed of such as differed from other Jews only by the acknowledging of Jesus as the Messiah ; of such as still continued bound to the same contracted Jewish notions, which they had entertained before ; and of such as by coming to know Jesus more and more as the Messiah in the higher spiritual sense, were becoming more completely freed from their beset- ting errors. As Christ himself had faithfully observed the Mosaic law, so the faithful observance of it was adhered to at first by all believers.’’ Farrar re- NOTES. 415 marks : “Still there were two great principles which he had thoroughly grasped, and on which he had consistently acted. One was acquiescence in things indifferent for the sake of charity, so that he gladly became as a Jew to Jews that he might save Jews ; the other that, during the short time which remained, and under the stress of the present necessity, it was each man’s duty to abide in the condition wherein he had been called. His objection to Le- vitism was not an objection to external conformity, but only to that substitution of externalism for faith, to which conformity might lead. He did not so much object to ceremonies as to placing any reliance on them. He might have wished that things were otherwise, and that the course suggested to him involved a less painful sacrifice.’’ Gloag observes : “ According to Paul’s views the cere- monies of the law were matters of indifference ; he himself appears to have observed them, though with no great strictness ; hence he felt himself at liberty to accommodate himself to the conduct of others in these indifferent things. And it was this very liberality of spirit, this freedom of action, that enabled him to comply with the request of James and the elders. Christian love, which was the grand moving principle of his conduct, caused him to accommodate himself to the views of the Jews, when he could do so without any sacrifice of principle, in order to remove their prejudices.”’ Schaff says : ‘‘ And as to Paul, he was here not in his proper Gentile-Chris- tian field of labor. His conduct, on other occasions, proves that he was far from allowing himself from being restricted in this field. He reserved to him- self entire independence in his operations. But he stood now on the venera- ble ground of the Jewish-Christian mother church, where he had to respect the customs of the Fathers, and the authority of James, the regular bishop or pre- siding elder. Clearly conscious of already possessing righteousness and salva- tion in Christ, he accommodated himself, with the best and noblest intentions, to the weaker brethren.”’ 416 CRITICAL REMARKS. CHAPTER XXL. Ver. 1. yuri] is decided by its attestation. Elz. has viv. — Ver. 2. mpooedwveı] Tisch. Born. read mpoogwvei, following D Emin. Theoph, Oec. Rightly ; the Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with xxi. 40, from which mpoceguvycev is inserted in G, min. — Ver. 3. Ev] is wanting in important wit- nesses; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non logical position occasioned the omission. — Ver. 9. xa) éudofor Ey&vorro] is wanting in A B H N, min. and sev- eral vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeo- teleuton. Had there been interpolation, Evveoi from ix, 7 would have been used. — Ver. 12. eöceßns] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other hand, BG HS, and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have evAa37/s, which Lachm, and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere transeriber’s error ; and evAaf7s is to be preferred, on account of the prepon- derance of evidence. — Ver. 16. aitrod] Elz. has rod Kupiov. against decisive attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have 'Ijcov. — Ver. 20. Zredavov] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission is to be explained by an error in copying (ZregavOY rOY). — After ovvevdorov Elz. has rj avaipéoer adrov. which, however, is wanting in A BD E 8, 40, and some vss., and has come in from viii. 1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript. Codd. N. T. p. 28). — Ver. 22. kadjkev] Elz. has xafjxov, supported by Rinck, in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 23. aöpa] D, Syr. Cassiod. have oipavov. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is too weak, and oöp. bears the character of a more precise definition of aé¢pa. — Ver. 24. eiodyeodaı] Elz. has dyeofa, against greatly preponderating evidence. EIZ was absorbed by the preceding O2. eiras is to be read instead of eizor, according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm. — Ver. 25. mpodérervar} has, among the many variations,—apo¢rewev (Elz.), mporreivavro, mpooersıyar, mpogErteivov, TpooFTevev,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore 6 yAi- apxos was still regarded as the subject. — Ver. 26. Before ri Elz. has dpa, against A B C E &, min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D GH, min. vss. Chrys. Certainly “ vox innocentissima ” (Born.), but an addition hy way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses. — Ver. 30. rapa] Lachm. and Born. read ör6, according to A B C E 8, min. Theophyl. Oec. The weight of evidence decides for $76. — After 2Avcev abr. Elz. has amd r. desudn: An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony. — Instead of ouveißeiv Elz. has é20eiv, against equally preponderant evidence. How easily might ZYN be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ZEN ! — ray ro ovvedpiov] Elz. has 6%0v 76 ovvedp. aitdv, against decisive evidence, although defended by Reiche, l.c. p. 28. PAUL’S SPEECH TO THE MOB. 41% Vv. 1-3. ’Aderdor x. mar&pec] quite a national address.! Even Sanhe- drists were not wanting in the hostile crowd ; at least the speaker presup- poses their presence. — axoboare «.r.A.] hear from me my present defence to you (w*). Astothe double genitive with axovew, comp. on John xii. 46. — After ver. 1, a pause. — £yo uév] Luke has not at the very outset settled the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct position of the uév, which was appropriate only after yeyevv. Similar ex- amples of the deranged position of vév and dé often occur in the classics.” —avatedpaypévoc . . . vouov] Whether the comma is to be placed after raity* or after Tawarını,* is—seeing that the meaning and the progression of the speech are the same with either construction—to be decided simply by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new ele- ment is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle : yeyevvnuévoc, avatedpaupévoc, meradevutvos: born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel,? instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral law. The latter after the general avaredpaun. k.7.2. brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not to be affirmed that xapa r. 76d. Tau. suits only reraid.° — rapa rove nödac] a respectful expression, 77» moAAyv mpös Tov avdpa aida detkvic,’ to be explained from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair.® The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a standing posture to their teachers,’ even if it were the case,!’ cannot be urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra."\— xara arpiß. Tov TaTpw@ov vöuov] 2.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in, living and ruling in, the ancestral law. The genitive depends on axpiß. Erasmus, Castalio, and others connect it with rerard., held to be used substan- tively: carefully instructed in the ancestral law. Much too tame, as care- ful legal instruction is after avaredp. . . . mapa r. 76d. Tauar. understood of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic force. — The rarpooc vöuoc is the law received from the fathers, i.e. the Mosaic law, but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel supposes—which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to bring into prominence the Mosaically orthodox strictness of his training ; 1 Comp. on vii. 2. 2See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 168; Winer, p. 520 (E. T. 700.) 3 Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kui- 10 But see on Luke ii: 46. 11 Matt. xxiii. 2; Vitringa, Z.c. p. 165 f. 12 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 777. 13 Tlatpwa ev Ta eK marepwv eis viovs xw- noel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette. 4 Calvin, Beza, Castalio, and most of the older commentators, Bornemann, 5 See on v. 34. 6 De Wette, 7 Chrysostom. 8 Schoettg. in Joc. Bornemann, Schol. in Luce. p. 179. 9 Vitringa, Synag. p. 166 f.; Wagenseil, ad Sota, p. 993. podvra, Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the difference of rarpwos, marpıos, and marpikds, not always preserved, however, and often ı obscured by interchange in the codd., see Schoemann, ad Is. p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. . p. 127; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. II. ps 531 f. On» TaTP@OS vonos, Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1; Joseph. . Antt. xii. 3.3; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2; Thue. viii. 76.6% marpıor vopoı. Comp. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 17. 418 CHAP. XXII., 4-21. the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the mention of Gamaliel, but not by r. zatp. vöuov. Paul expresses himself otherwise in Phil. iii. 5 and Gal. i, 14. — ydwrig Unäpx. toi Oeov] so that I was a zealot for God, for the cause and glory of God, contains a special characteristic definition to weraderuevoe . . . véuov.! ‘* Uterque locus quiddam ex mimesi habet ; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo, quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,’’ Bengel. Vv. 4,5. Tair. r. ödöv] for Christianity was in his case the evident cause of the enmity.” — äypı @avarov] Grotius appropriately remarks: ‘‘ quantum scil. in me erat.’’ It indicates how far the intention in the. édiwga went, namely, even to the bringing about of their execution. — 6 apxıep.] The high priest at the time, still living.* — uaprvpei] not futurum Atticum, but: he is, as the course of the matter necessarily involves, my witness. — nai rav ro mpeoßvr.] and the whole body of the elders.* — rpic rovc adeAgorc] i.e. to the Jews.° Bornemann: against the Christians. Paul would in that case have entirely forgotten his pre-Christian standpoint, in the sense of which he speaks ; and the hostile reference of zpéc¢ must have been suggested by the context, which, however, with the simple &mıor. deZau. mpöc is not at all here the case. — kat roc éxeice, i.e. eic Aauaonöv, dvtac| also those who were thither. Paul conceives them as having come thither, since the persecution about Stephen, and so being found there ; hence éxeice does not stand for éxei, so still de Wette, but is to be explained from a pregnant construction com- mon especially with later writers. ° Vv. 6-11. See on ix. 3-8. Comp. xxvi. 13 ff. [xavév] ö.e. of consider- able strength. It was a light of glory’ dazzling him; more precisely described in xxvi. 12. — Ver. 10. dv r£rarrai coe morzaaı] what is appointed to thee to do ; by whom, is left entirely undetermined. Jesus, who appeared to him, does not yet express Himself more precisely, but means: by God, ver. 14, — Ver. 11. öc dé on évéBrerov] but when I beheld not, when sight failed me ; he could not open his eyes, ver. 13.° Vv. 12-15. But Ananias, a religious man according to the law, attested ® by ail the Jews resident in Damascus, thus a mediator, neither hostile to the law nor unknown ! —dvdfiewov . . . avéBrewa eic abtév] avaBAérew, which may signify as well to lock up, as also visum recuperare,” has here !! the for- mer meaning, which is evident from eic aurov: look up! and at the same hour I looked up to him. We are to conceive the apostle as sitting there blind with closed eyelids, and Ananias standing before him. — zpozyerp. | has appointed thee thereto.!? — röv dixavov] Jesus, on whom, as the righteous,™ 2 Comp. Rom. x. 2. 8 Comp. on the absolute eußAcreıv, Xen. 2 Comp. on odds, ix. 2, xviii. 25, xix. 9, 23. Mem. iii. 11. 10 ; 2 Chron. xx. 24. 3 See on ix. 2. ® Praised, comp. x. 22, vi. 3. * Comp. on Luke xxii. 66, and the yepovoia, 10See on John ix. 11, and Fritzsche, ad Vv. 21. Mare. p. 328. 5 See ix. 2. 11 It is otherwise in ix. 17, 18. 6 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44; comp. ii. 39, 12 See on iii. 20 ; comp. xxvi. 16. =xi. 3. 13 2 Cor. v. 21. 7 Ver. 11. PAUL’S SPEECH. 419 the divine will to save, rd éAyua avtov, was based.1— mpöc mavr. avdp.] Direction of the 2on wäpr., as in xiii. 31: to all men.’ Ver. 16. Ti ueAReıs;] Why tarriest thou? édAdewv so used only here in the N. T.; frequent in the classics. The question is not one of reproach, but of excitement and encouragement. — aröAovoaı ta¢ duapt. cov] let thyself be baptized, and thereby wash away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by means of which the forgiveness of the sins committed in the pre-Christian life takes place.* Calvin inserts saving clauses, in order not to allow the grace to be bound to the sacrament. As to the purposely-chosen middle forms, comp. on 1 Cor. x. 2. —ériad. 7d övona aitov] Wolf appropriately explains: ‘‘ postquam invocaveris atque ita professus fueris nomen Domini, as the Messiah. Id scilicet antecedere olim debebat initiationem per bap- tismum faciendam.”’ Vv. 17, 18. With this the history in ix. 26 is to be completed. — xa? rpo- cevxou£vov uov] a transition to the genitive absolute, independent of the case of the substantive.* — éxorace:] see on x. 10. The opposite: yiveodaı év &avra, Xl. 11. Regarding the non-identity of this ecstasy with 2 Cor. xiii. 2 ff., see in loc. — ob rapadkE. o. T. wapt. mepı &uov] ep! évod is most naturally to be attached to r. uaprvp., aS waprupeiv mepi is quite usual, very often in John. Winer® connects it with zapad. Observe the order: thy witness of me. Vv. 19-21. “I interposed by way of objection ® the contrast, in which my working for Christianity, my waprvpia, would appear toward my former hostile working,’ which contrast could not but prove the truth and power of my conversion and promote the acceptance of my testimony, and °— Christ repeated His injunction to depart, which He further specially con- firmed by örı &yo eic &dvn waxpav E£aroor. oe.” ‘‘Commemorat hoc Judaeis Paulus, ut eis declararet summum amorem, quo apud eos cupivit manere lisque praedicare ; quod ergo iis relictis ad gentes iverit, non ex swo voto, sed Dei jussu compulsum fuisse,’’ Calovius. — airoi &rior.] is necessarily to be referred to the subject of rapad££ovra:, ver. 18, to the Jews in Jerusalem, not to the foreign Jews.” — iyo juny x.r.2.] Iwas there, etc. — xai auröc] et ipse, as well as other hostile persons. On ovvevdor., comp. vili. 1. — Ver. 1 Comp. iii. 14, vii. 52. 2 That is, according to the popular expres- sion: before all the world. Frequently so in Isocrates. See Bremi, ad Panegyr. 23, p. 28. But the universal destination of the apostle is implied therein. Comp. ver. 21. 3 Comp. the Homeric aroAvnaiverdaı, I. i. 113 f., and Niigelsbach in loc. Comp, ii. 38; Eph. v. 26; and see on 1 Cor. vi. 11. 4See Bernhardy, p. 474; Kiihner, § 681; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 A. 5 p. 130 (E. T. 172). * Ewald, p. 438, understands ver. 19 f. not as an objection, but as assenting : ‘‘ however humanly intelligible it might strictly be. that the Jews would not hear him.” But the ex- traordinary revelation in itself most naturally presupposes in Paul a human conception de- viating from the intimation contained in it, to which the heavenly call runs counter, as often also with the prophets (Moses, Jere- miah, etc.), the divine intimation encounters human scruples. If, moreover, the words here were meant as assenting, we should nec- essarily expect a hint of it in the expression (such as: vac, Kvpte). 7 In which I was engaged in bringing be- lievers to prison (@vAaxcg., Wisd. xviii. 4), and in scourging them (Matt. x. 17), now in this synagogue, and now in that (kara Tas ovvay.). Comp. xxvi. 11. BäyTer 221. 9 Heinrichs, 420 CHAP. XXIL, 22-29. 21. 2y6] with strong emphasis. Paul has to confide in and obey this I. — &Sarosrerö] This promised future sending forth ensued at xiii. 2, and how effectively ! see Rom. xv. 19. —eic¢ évy] among Gentiles. Vv. 22. "Axpı robrov rov Aöyov] namely, ver. 21, eime mp6g ue" mopevov, Ore eig 0vn warp. Earoor. oe. This expression inflamed the jealousy of the children of Abraham in their pride and contempt of the Gentiles, all the more that it appeared only to confirm the accusation in xxi. 23. It cannot therefore surprise us that the continuation of the speech was here rendered impos- sible, just as the speech of Stephen and that of Paul at the Areopagus was broken off on analogous occasions of offence, which Baur makes use of against its historical character. — ov yap xabjxev «.r.A.] for it was not fit that he should remain in life; he ought not to have been protected in his life, when we designed to put him to death.! Ver. 23. They cast off their clothes, and hurled dust in the air, as a symbol of throwing stones,—both as the signal of a rage ready and eager person- ally to execute the aipe axd ri¢ yao Tov rowvrov! The objection of de Wette, that in fact Paul was in the power of the tribune, counts for nothing, as the gesture of the people was only a demonstration of their own vebement desire. Chrysostom took it, unsuitably as regards the sense and the words, of shaking out their garments—ra iuarıa Exrıwaooovreg Koviopröv EBaAov' Gore Nakerwrépav yevEohaı mv Gtdow ToVTo moivor, 7 Kai voßmoaı BovAduevor TOV üpxovra. Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hackett, and others explain it of waving their garments, by which means those at a distance signified their assent to the murderous exclamations of those standing near; and the throwing of the dust at all was only signum tumultus. But the text con- tains nothing of a distinction between those standing near and those at a distance, and hence this view arbitrarily mutilates and weakens the unity and life of the scene. The jirr. 7. inar. is not to be explained from the waving of garments in Lucian ;? but—in connection with the ery of exter- mination that had just gone before—from the laying aside of their garments with a view to the stoning,* to which, as was well known, the Jews were much inclined.‘ Ver. 24. It is unnecessarily assumed by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Wette that the tribune did not understand the Hebrew address. But the tumult, only renewed and increased by it, appeared to him to presuppose some secret crime. He therefore orders the prisoner to be brought into the bar- racks, with the command ¢irac,* to examine him by the application of scourging,° in order to know on account of what offence’ they so shouted to him—to Paul.* — airo] for the crying and shouting were a hostile reply to him, 22, 23.° Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ acclamare dicuntur auditores verba 1 xxi. 31. Comp. Winer, p. 265 (E. T.) 352. 1.5.8. [275). 2 Dz saltat. 83 (but see the emendation of the passage in Bast, ad Aristaenet. epp. p. 580, ed. Boisson.); Ovid, Amor. ili. 2. 74 (when it is a token of approbation, see Wetstein). 3 Ver. 20, vil. 58. 4 vy. 26, xiv. 19; John x. 31. On pimrew ta imar., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 473 IE; Xen. Anad. 5 See Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 236 f. (E. T. 6 averageodaı, Susannah 14, Judg. vi. 29, not preserved in Greek writers, who have ééera- Geotar, 7 Xiil. 28, xxiii. 28, xxv. 18, xxviii. 18, ° Comp. xxiii. 18. * On exup. rırı, comp. Plut. Pomp. 4. x PLEA OF ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. 421 facienti.’’ 1— Moreover, it was contrary to the Roman criminal law for the tribune to begin the investigation with a view to bring out a confession by way of torture,” not to mention that here it was not a slave who was to be questioned.* As in the case of Jesus,‘ it was perhaps here also the content- ment of the people that was intended. Comp. Chrysostom : arAöc ri &£ovaig xpäraı (the tribune), «ai éxeivorg mpd¢ ydpiv moet . . . bmwc Taboete Tov Exelvwv Yvuov Adırov Ovta. Vv. 25-27. ‘Qe de mpo£teiwvav avröv roig inao.| But when they had stretched him before the thongs. Those who were to be scourged were bound and stretched on a stake. Thus they formed the object stretched out before the thongs, the scourge consisting of thongs.° Comp. Beza: ‘‘quum autem eum distendissent loris, caedendum.” ° The subject of rpo£r. is those charged with the execution of the punishment, the Roman soldiers. Following Henry Stephanus, most expositors, among them Grotius, Homberg, Loesner, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, take rporeivew as equivalent to mpofdArew (Zonaras : mporeivovorv' avti tov Toorıdkacı Kal mpoßaAAovraı) : cum loris eum obtulissent s. tradidissent. But rporeiveıv never means simply tradere, but always to stretch before, to hold before, sometimes in the literal, sometimes in a figurative’ sense. But here the context, treating of a scourging, quite demands the entirely literal rendering. Others take roic iuäcıw instrumen- tally,* of the thongs with which the delinquent was either merely bound,?® or, along with that, was placed in a suspended position.'' But in both cases not only would roi¢ iuacıv be a very unnecessary statement, but also the zpo in xpoér. would be without reference ; and scourging in a sus- pended position was not a usual, but an extraordinary and aggravated, mode of treatment, which would therefore necessarily have been here definitely noted. — ei avOp. “Pwu. k. axatdkp. K.r.4.] See on xvi. 37. The problematic form of interrogation: whether, etc.,! has here a dash of irony, from the sense of right so roughly wounded. The kai is: in addition thereto. Abo 7a éyKAtjuata’ Kat TO dvev Adyou Kai TO ‘Pwuaiov övra, Chrysostom. On the non- use of the right of citizenship at Philippi, see on xvi. 23. — Ver. 27. Thou arta Roman? A question of surprise, with the emphatic contemptuous at (V°). Vv. 28, 29. ‘Eye rodAod redaA. «.7.2.] The tribune, to whom it was known that a native of Tarsus had not, as such, the right of citizenship, thinks that Paul must probably have come to it by purchase, and yet for this the arrested Cilician appears to him too poor. With the sale of citizenship, it was sought at that time ?—by an often ridiculed abuse—to fill the imperial 1Com. xii. 22; Luke xxiil. 21; 3 Macc. 2L. 1, D. 48. 18. [vii. 13. 31.8. ibid. 4 John xix. 1. 5 Comp. bubuli cottabi, Plaut. Trin. iv. 3. 4. ® On inas of the leathern whip, comp. al- ready Hom. 7/7. xxiii. 363; Anthol. vi. 194; Artemidor. ii. 53. 7 For example, of the holding forth or offer- ing of conditions, of a gain, of money, of the hand, of friendship, of a hope, of an enjoy- ment, and the like, also of pretexts. See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 181 f.; Valck- enaer, ad Callim. fragm. p. 224. [loris.”? ® Comp. Vulg.: “ cum adstrinwissent eum 9 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, de Dieu, Ham- mond, Bengel, Michaelis, also Luther. 10 Scaliger, Zp. ii. 146, p. 362. 11 Comp. oni, 6. 12 Dio Cass. Ix. 17. 422 CHAP. XXIL, 30. chest.!— 2y& 68 Kat yeytvvmuaı] But I am even so (kai) born, namely, as ‘Pouaioc, so that my moArreia, as hereditary, is even yevvaidrepa! a bold answer, which did not fail to make its impression. — kalt 6 yA. dé &doß.] and the tribune also was afraid. On kai... 6é, atque etiam, see on John vi. 51. ‘‘Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum ; scelus, verberari ; prope parricidium necari.””” And the binding had taken place with arbitrary violence before any examination.’ It is otherwise xxiv. 27, xxvi. 29. See on these two passages. Therefore dedexoc, which evidently points to xxi. 33, is not to be referred, with Béttger* to the binding with a view to scourg- ing, on account of ver. 30; nor, with de Wette, is the statement of the fear of the tribune to be traced back to an error of the reporter, or at all to be removed by conjectural emendation.® And that Paul was still bound after the hearing,° was precisely after the hearing and after the occurrences in it in due order.’ — xai 671] dependent on £60ß. : and because he was in the position of having bound him. Ver. 30. Tö ri xaryy. rapa r. ’Iovd.] is an epexegetical definition of rd acoakéc. The article; as in iv. 21. The ri is nominative.* — éAvoev aurov] Lysias did not immediately, when he learned the citizenship of Paul, order him to be loosed, but only on the following day, when he placed him before the chief priests and in general the whole Sanhedrim.* This was quite the proceeding of a haughty consistency, according to which the Roman, notwithstanding the 2603797, could not prevail upon himself to expose his mistake by an immediate release of the Jew. Enough, that he ordered them to refrain from the scourging not yet begun; the binding had at once taken place, and so he left him bound until the next day, when the publicity of the further proceedings no longer permitted it. Kuinoel’s view, that éAvosy refers to the releasing from the ewstodia militaris, in which the tribune had commanded the apostle to be placed, bound with a chain to a soldier, after the assurance that he was a Roman citizen, is an arbitrary idea forced on the text, as /Avcev necessarily points back to dedexdc, ver. 29, and this to xxi. 33. —xarayayév] from the castle of Antonia down to the council-room of the Sanhedrim.'’? Comp. xxiii. 10. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (u?) Paul’s defence. Y. 1. In this speech to the multitude, the apostle gives a skilfully arranged ac- count of his past experience and conduct with the view of allaying the fanati- 1Comp. Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p. 1%7.—See examples of kebakaıor, 5 Rinck : dedapkws. 6 xxiii. 18. capital, sum of money,—as to the use of which in ancient Greek (Plat. Legg. v. p. 742 C) Beza was mistaken—in Kypke II. p. 116. 2 Cie. Verr. v.66. Comp. on xvi. 37. 3 During imprisonment preparatory to trial binding was legally admissible, so far as it was connected with the custodia militaris. 4 Beitr. IL. p. 6. 7 See Böttger, l.c. ; Wieseler, p. 377. 8 Comp. Thue. i. 9. 2: adıria moAAN kary- yopeıro avrod wd Tov "EAAjvwv, Soph. O. R. 529. 9 ToVS Apxıepeis Kal mav To ovveöp., COMP. Mats. xxvi. 59 ; Mark xiv. 55. 10 See also Wieseler, Beitr. 2. Würdig. d. Ev. p. 211. NOTES. 423 cal excitement of many of the Jews, and of replying to their unfounded accu- sations against him. Heavows himself to be a Jew, both by birth and train- ing ; refers to his former fierce persecutions of the Christians ; gives an ac- count of his wonderful and memorable conversion ; explains how he was bap- tized and admitted into the fellowship of the disciples by a pious Jew, and re- fers to his labors among the Gentiles. Throughout the address, he depreciates himself, exalts Christ, and makes conversion to him an epoch in a man’s life. It is interesting to note how the addresses delivered by Paul on this occasion, and when brought before Agrippa, differ from each other, and from the narra- tive given by Luke, and yet how they harmonize in all material points. The discrepancies in the several statements present no serious difficulties to any, except those who seek to find and multiply contradictions in Scripture. A eareful consideration of the object which the apostle had in view in each of his addresses will furnish a natural explanation of the various changes in the narrative of the events. In the ninth chapter we have a historical outline of the main facts of the case, and in his speeches, the apostle, drawing upon his own distinct recollection of the facts, gives prominence to such aspects of the event as were best adapted to the emergency of the occasion. Howson remarks : ‘‘ Tf indeed there were, in these instances’’—the accounts of the conversion of Cornelius and of Paul—“‘ mere reiteration in the speeches of Peter and Paul of narratives previously given, we should have no ground for casting any im- putation on the authority of the Acts of the Apostles. But, in fact, there is much more than reiteration. The same story is told more than once, but so retold as to have in the retelling a distinct relation to the speaker and the audi- ence.” It is observable that in speaking to the Jews from the stairs of the castle, Paul not only uses the Hebrew dialect, but gives a Jewish coloring to the entire narrative ; while, when addressing Agrippa and his associates in the royal hall, in keeping with the place and the parties, he gives the story a strong Gentile coloring, speaking of the hostility of the Jews, and of the persecuted Christians as saints. (v3) Art thou a Roman? Y. 27. When the apostle in his address referred to his being sent to the Gentiles, the national pride of the Jews was wounded, and their intense bigotry aroused. With a wild and cruel fanaticism, they shouted, ‘‘ Away with him, away with such a fellow from the earth ; for it is not fit that he should live.” “ Thus be- gan one of the most odious and despicable spectacles which the world can wit- ness, the spectacle of an Oriental mob, hideous with impotent rage, howling, yelling, cursing, gnashing their teeth, flinging about their arms, waving and tossing their blue and red robes, casting dust into the air by handfuls, with all the furious gesticulations of an uncontrolled fanaticism.’’ Paul was rescued from the maddened mob by Lysias, the chief captain, who, however, ordered him to be examined under the scourge. When bound and ready for the tor- ture, Paul quietly asked whether it were lawful to scourge a Roman citizen. The centurion, to whom this question was addressed, hastened to inform and warn the commandant, who came immediately to Paul, and said to him, ‘‘ Art thou a Roman ?”’ as if the fact were almost incredible, and added, “ 'The privi- lege of citizenship cost me much.” To this Paul, with great dignity replied, “I 424 CHAP, XXII.—NOTES. have been a citizen from my birth.” By the Lex Porcia, Roman citizens were ex- empted from all degrading punishment, such as that of scourging. The words, civis Romanus sum, acted like a magical charm in disarming the violence of provincial magistrates. It was the heaviest of all the charges brought by Cicero against Verres, that he had violated the rights of citizenship. ‘* Facinus est vincere civem Romanum, scelus verberare, proper parricidium necare ; quid dicam in crucem tollere?’’—It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen ; a heinous iniquity to scourge him ; next to parricide to kill him ; what shall I say to crucify him ?—and further, “Whoever he might be whom you were hurry- ing to the cross, were he even unknown to you, if he but said he was a Roman citizen, he would necessarily obtain from you, the pretor, by the simplest mention of Rome, if not an escape, yet at least a delay of his punishment.’’ According to the Roman law, it was death for any one falsely to assert a claim to the immunities of citizenship, one of which was exemption from the lash. “ Lex porcia virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit’’—The. Por- cian law removes the rod from the bodies of all Roman citizens. The claim of Paul was acknowledged. It is probable that in return for some important ser- vice rendered, or sum of money paid, Paul’s father or grandfather had ob- tained this distinction, hence Paul received it by inheritance. CRITICAL REMARKS. 425 CHAPTER XXIII. VER. 6. vids dapıcalov] approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to ABC &, min. Syr. Vulg. Tert. But Elz. and Scholz have vids apicaiov, The sing. was inserted, because people thought only of the relation of the son to the father. — Ver. 7. AaAnoavros] Lachm. reads eirövros, only ac- cording to A E 8, min. — rov Zadd.]| The article is to be deleted with Lachm. Tisch, Born. on preponderating evidence. — Ver. 9. of ypauuareis Tow u£povs TOV éapic.] A E, min. Copt. Vulg. have rıves tov bapic.; so Lachm. But BC N, min. vss. and Fathers have rivis tov ypauuarewv Tod uep,. T. Papio. ; so Born. Lastly, GH, min. Aeth. Oec. have jpaupareis tos pép. T. Papıo. ; so Tisch. At all events, rıves is thus so strongly attested that it must be regarded as genuine. It was very easily passed over after avaoravres. But with trvés the genitive rov ypaupat x.7.A. originally went together, so that the omission of r.vés drew after it the conversion of ray ypauuar. into ypauuareis (Tisch. ) and oj ypauuareis (Elz.). The reading of Lachm. is an abbreviation, either accidental (from homoeoteleu- ton) or intentional (from the deletion of the intervening words superfluous in themselves), We have accordingly, with Born., to read: rıves THv ypaunarewv Tov wep. TOv Papıo.— After ayyeAos Elz. has, against greatly preponderating testimony, u deouayouev, which was already rejected by Erasm. and Mill as an addition from v. 39, and following Griesb., by all the more recent editors (except Reiche, !.c. p. 28). — Ver. 10. evAa3n6eis] Preponderant witnesses have indeed go0f87feis, which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted ; but how easily was the quite familiar word very early substituted for evAaß., which does not elsewhere occur in that sense in the N. T.!— Ver. 11. After dapoeı Elz. has IlavAe, in opposition to A B C* E N, min. vss. Theophyl. Oec. Cassiod, Ambrosiast. An addition for the sake of completeness. Ver. 12. ovotpopyr oi ’Iovdaioı) Elz. Rinck read tivis rov ’Iovdaiwv cvotp., in opposition to ABC E 8, min, Copt. Syr. p. Aeth. Arm Chrys. Occasioned by ver. 13.— Ver. 13. momoausvo. is to be read instead of menomköres, With Lachm. Tisch. Born., on decisive testimony. — Ver. 15. After örwos Elz. has aöpıov. An addition from ver. 20, against decisive evidence. — zpos inas] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read es vuas, following ABE 8, lo" Sahid. Rightly ; zpos is the more usual. — Ver. 16. av evedpav] B G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have 76 évedpov, which Griesb. and Rinck have recommended, and Tisch. and Born. (not Lachm.) have adopted. But the preponderance of the Codd. is in favour of 17 évédpuv. The neuter was known to the transcribers from the LXX., therefore the two forms might easily be interchanged. — Ver. 20. ueAAavres] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ueAAwv, after A BE, min. Copt. Aeth. The very weakly attested Recepta is from ver. 15. N* has wéAAov, N** ueAAövrwv. — Ver. 25. mepıexovoav] Lachm, Born. read &yovoav, according to BE N, min. Neglect of the (not essential) compound. — Ver. 27. abröv] is wanting in A BE SS, min. Chrys. Oec. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. But how easily was the quite unessential word passed over !— Ver. 30. ueAAeıv écectar] Lachm. Born. have only Eoeoda:, according to 426 CHAP. XXIII., 14. ABEN, min. But the future infinitive made w£AAeıv appear as superfluous ; there existed no reason for its being added. — After éceofa. Elz. Scholz have brd Tov ’Iovdaiwv, which is deleted according to preponderant evidence as a supplementary addition. Instead of it, Lachm. and Born. have é§ avrov (with the omission of ééav775), following A E S, min. vss. But E£ avrov is also to be regarded us a marginal supplement (as the originators of the éx3ovA7 are not mentioned), which therefore displaced the original égavr7s. — The conclusion of the letter ééJwoo is wanting in A B 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; and rightly, as it is evidently an addition from xv. 29, from which passage H, min. have even éJ/wofs.— Ver. 34, After avayv. de Elz. has 6 jyeucv, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 35. éxéAevoé re] Lachm, Tisch. Born, read «ceAevoas, after A BE N**(N* has «eAedvoavtos) min. Syr. p. The Recepta is a stylistic emendation. Vv. 1, 2. Paul, with the free and firm look, arevicag ro ovvedp., in which his good conscience is reflected, commences an address in his own defence to the Sanhedrim, and that in such a way as—without any special testimony of respect! for the sacred court, and with perfect freedom of apostolic self- reliance, which is recognisable in the simple avdpec adeAooi—to appeal first of all to the pure self-consciousness of his working as consecrated to God. The proud and brutal? high priest sees in this nothing but insolent pre- sumption, and makes him be stopped by a blow on the mouth from the continuance of such discourse. — racy ovveıd. ay.] with every good conscience, so that in every case I had a good conscience, 7.e agreeing with the divine will.® — In the éyé at the commencement is implied a moral self-conscious- ness of rectitude. — teroAirevua: TH Oew] I have administered—and still ad- minister, perfect—mine office for God, in the service of God ;* dative of desti- nation. He thus designates his apostolic office in its relation to the divine polity of the church.* —6 dé apyteped¢ ’Avaviac] Ver. 4 proves that this was the high priest actually discharging the duties of the office at the time. He was the son of Nebedaeus,’ the successor of Joseph the son of Camydus,’ and the predecessor of Ishmael the son of Phabi.? He had been sent to Rome by Quadratus, the predecessor of Felix, to answer for himself before the Emperor Claudius ; he must not, however, have thereby lost his office, but must have continued in it after his return.!! As ver. 4 permits for 6 äpxıep. only the strict signification of the high priest performing the duties, and not that of one of the plurality of apxuepeic,? and as the deposition of Ananias is a mere supposition, the opinion defended since the time of Lightfoot,'* by several more recent expositors, particularly Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, Hemsen, is to be rejected,—-namely, that Ananias, deposed from the time of his suit at Rome, had at this time only 1 Comp. iv. 8, vii. 2. 8 Antt. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2. 2 Joseph. Antt. xx. Sf. [xx. 19. 9 Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. SA 13m. io, oe met. 11. 16. Comp, on 10 Antt. xx. 6. 2, Bell. ii. 12. 6. 4 Rom. i. 9. 11 See Anger, de temp. rat. p. 92 ff. 5 See on Phil. 1. 27. 12 Tn opposition to van Hengel in the Godgel. ® See Krebs, Obss. Flav. p. 244 ff. Bijdrag. 1862, p. 1001 ff., and Trip, p. 251 ff. 7 Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 2. 13 p, 119 (comp. ad. Joh. p. 1077). PAUL BEFORE JEWISH COUNCIL. 427 temporarily administered (usurped) the office during an interregnum which took place between his successor Jonathan and the latter’s successor Ishmael. Against this view it is specially to be borne in mind, that the successor of Ananias was Jshmael, and not Jonathan, who had been at an ' earlier period high priest ;! for in the alleged probative passages,? where the murder of the äpyıepeuc Jonathan is recorded, this apyep. is to be taken in the well-known wider titular sense. Lastly, Basnage * quite arbitrarily holds that at this time Ishmael was already high priest, but was absent from the hastily (?) assembled Sanhedrim, and therefore was represented by the highly respected* Ananias. —roic rapeor. auto] to those who, as officers in attendance on the court, stood beside him, Luke xix. 24. —rorr. avrov ro or.| to smite him on the mouth.° Ver. 3. The words contain truth freely expressed in righteous apostolic indignation, and require no excuse, but carry in themselves (kai ov Kay K.T.A.) their own justification. Yet here, in comparison with the calm meekness and self-renunciation of Jesus,® the ebullition of a vehement temperament is not to be mistaken. —rimtew cé u£AAeı 6 Beöc 18 not to be understood as an imprecation,’ but—for which the categorical wéAde is decisive—as a prophetic announcement of future certain retribution ; although it would be arbitrary withal to assume that Paul must have been precisely aware of the destruction of Ananias as it afterwards in point of fact occurred—he was murdered in the Jewish war by sicarii.* — roiye xexov.]| figurative desig- nation of the Aypoerite, inasmuch as he, with his concealed wickedness, resembles a wall beautifully whitened without, but composed of rotten materials within.’ — «ai oi] thou too, even thou, who yet as high priest shouldest have administered thine office quite otherwise than at such variance with its nature. — «oivov| comprises the official capacity, in which the high priest sits there ; hence it is not, with Kuinoel, to be taken in a future sense, nor, with Henry Stephanus, Pricaeus, and Valckenaer, to be accented xoıvov. The classical rapavoueiv, to act contrary to the law, is not elsewhere found in the N. T. Vv. 4, 5. Ilapeororsc] as in ver. 2. —rov apyep. T. Ocov] the holy man, who is God’s organ and minister. — ouk Ndeıv «.r.A.] I knew not that he is high priest. It is absolutely incredible that Paul was really ignorant of this, as Chrysostom,!° Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Deyling, Wolf, Michaelis, Sepp, and others '' assume under vari- 1 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 3, 5. 3. 2 Anti. xx. 8. 5, Bell. ii. 13. 3. 3 Ad an. 56, § 24. 4 Antt. xx. 9. 2. 5 Comp. as to the avrov placed first, on John Ixe ld, 1 32, OL. tion. Luke would have mentioned it, be- cause otherwise the reader could not but understand the execution as having ensued. 8 Joseph. Bell. ii. 17. 9. 9 See Senec. de provid. 6; Ep. 115; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 144. Comp. Matt. xxiii. 27. 6 John xviii. 22; comp. Matt. v. 39. ? Camerarius, Bolten, Kuinoel. Observe the prefixing of the rurreıw, which returns the blow just received in a higher sense on the high priest. That the command of the high priest was not executed (Baum- garten, Trip), is an entirely arbitrary assump- 10 Rejecting the ironical view, Chrysostom SaysS: Kat odddpa meidouar, un etdevar avTov, OTL apxvEpevs eoTL Sia pakpod méev ErraveAdovra Xpovov, un ovyyırouevov de cuvexas ‘Tovdators, Op@vra Sé kal Exelvov EV TH METW META TOAAGV (Trip. 11 Comp. also Ewald, Holtzmann, p. 684 Kat ETEPWV. 428 CHAP, XXIII, 5-7. ous modifications. For, although after so long an absence from Jerusalem he might not have known the person of the high priest—whose oflice at that time frequently changed its occupants—by sight, yet he was much too familiar with the arrangements of the Sanhedrim not to have known the high priest by his very activity in directing it, by his seat, by his official dress, etc. The contrary would be only credible in the event of Ananias not having been the real high priest, or of a vacancy in the office having at that time taken place,! or of such a vacancy having been erroneously assumed by the apostle,” or of the sitting having been an irregular one,— not at least superintended by the high priest, and perhaps not held in the usual council-chamber,—which, however, after xxii. 30, is the less to be assumed, seeing that the assembly, expressly commanded by the tribune, and at which he himself was present,* was certainly opened in proper form, and was only afterwards thrown into confusion by the further saga- cious conduct of the apostle, ver. 6 ff. Entirely in keeping, on the other hand, with the irritated frame of Paul, is the zronical mode of taking it,* according to which he bitterly enough—and adeAgoi makes the irony only the more sharp—veils in these words the thought: ‘‘a man, who shows himself so unholy and vulgar, I could not at all regard'as the high priest.’’ Comp. Erasmus.° What an appropriate and cutting defence against the reproach, ver. 4! It implies that he was obliged to regard an apyepetc, who had acted so unworthily, as an ovx apxıepevc.° Others, against lin- guistic usage,” have endeavoured to alter the meaning of ook jdevv, either: non agnosco, SO, with various suggestions, Cyprian, Augustine, Beda, Pisca- tor, Lightfoot, Keuchen, and others, or non reputabam, so Simon Epis- copius, Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, also Neander, so that Paul would thus confess that his conduct was rash. This confession would be a foolish one, inconsistent with the strong and clear mind of the apostle in a critical situation, and simply compromising him. Baumgarten has the correct view, but will not admit the irony. But this must be admitted, as Paul does not say ov« éyvwv, or the like ; and there exists a holy irony. Lange® imports ideas into the passage, and twists it thus: ‘‘ Just because it is written, Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people, and YE have cursed the high priest of our people, Christ, for that reason I knew not that this is a high priest.’ Zeller understands the words, left by de Wette without definite explana- tion, as an actual wntruth, which, however, is only put into the mouth of the apostle by the narrator. But such a fiction, which, according to the 1 But see on ver. 2. vin, Camerarius, Lorinus in Calovius, Marnix- 2This hypothesis cannot be accepted, as Paul had already been for so many days in Jerusalem; therefore the interpretation of Beelen : “ je ne savais pas, qu’il y eüt un sou- verain Poniife,’ is a very unfortunate ex- pedient. apxvep. did not require the article any more than in John xviii. 13, xi. 49, 51. 3 Ver. 10. 4 wes already in Chrysostom, further, Cal- ius, in Wolf, Thiess, Heinrichs ; comp. also Grotius. 5 Baur also, I. 237, ed. 2, recognises the ad- missibility of no other view than the ironical ; but even thus he sees in it an element of the unworthiness of the (fictitious) story. 6 2 Macc. iv. 13. 7 Comp. on vii. 18. 8 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 314. PAUL’S SPEECH. 429 naked meaning of the words, would have put a lie into the mouth of the holy apostle, is least of all to be imputed to a maker of history. The eacep- tionableness of the expression helps to warrant the certainty of its original- ity. — yeyparraı yap] gives the reason of our ov« Adeıv. In consequence, namely, of the scriptural prohibition quoted, Paul would not have spoken karoc against the high priest, had not the case of the ovi« Ydeıv occurred, by the conduct of the man. The passuge itself is Ex. xxii. 28, closely after the LXX.: a ruler of thy people thou shalt! not revile = xaxohoyeiv, xix. 9. The opposite: ed eireiv, to praise, ed Aéyew.? The senarian metre in our passage is accidental’ (w°). Vv. 6, 7. Whether the irony of ver. 5 was understood by the Sanhedrists or not, Paul at all events now knew that here a plain and straightforward defence, such as he had begun,* was quite out of place. With great pres- ence of mind and prudence he forthwith resorts to a means—all the more effectual in the excited state of their minds—of bringing the two parties, well known to him in the council, into collision with one another, and thereby for the time disposing the more numerous party, that of the Pharisees, in Savour of his person and cause. He did not certainly, from his knowledge of Pharisaism and from his previous experiences, conceive to himself the possibility of an actual “internal crisis’? among the Pharisees ;° but by the enlisting of their sectarian interests, and preventing their co-operation with the Sadducees, much was gained in the present position of affairs, especially in presence of the tribune, for Paul and his work. — év ro ovvedp. | so that he thus did not direct this exclamation (éxpazev) to any definite in- dividuals. —éya ®apıo..eiuı, vidg Papıo.] i.e. I for my part am a Pharisee, a born Pharisee. The plural bapicaiwv refers to his male ancestors, father, grandfather, and perhaps still further back, not, as Grotius thinks, to his father and mother, as the mother here, where the sect was concerned, could not be taken into account.° We may add, that Paul’s still affirming of himself the ®apıoaiov eivar is as little untrue as Phil. iii. 5, in opposition to Zeller. He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other than the religious society of the Pharisees ; and particularly in the doctrine of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession of the Pharisees, in opposition to all Sadduceeism, according to its truth confirmed in the case of Christ Himself.” His contending against the legal righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labour- ing in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself, but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodox Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism. — repi éAr. kal dvaot. verp. Eyo kpiv.| on account of hope, ete. ; hope and—and indeed, as regards its object— resurrection of the dead it is, on account of which I (éyé has the emphasis of the aroused consciousness of unjust treatment) am called in question.® 1 Future, see on Matt. i. 21. 5 Baumgarten. 2 Hom. Od. i. 302 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 8. 8 It is otherwise with Phil. iii. 5, é& “Ep. 3 Winer, p. 595 (E. T. 798). Tiveplehe 4 Ver. 1. 8 Comp. xxiv. 15, xxvi. 6-8. \ 450 CHAP. XXIII, 8-14. As the accusations contained in xxi. 28, o0roc . . . diddoxwv,’ were nothing else than hateful perversions of the proposition: “ This man preaches a new religion, which is to come in place of the Mosaic in its subsisting form ;’’ and as in this new religion, in point of fact, everything according to its highest aim culminated in the hope of the Messianic salvation, which will be realized by the resurrection of the dead:* so it follows that Paul has put the cause of the xpivoua: in the form most suited to the critical condition of the moment, without altering the ‘substance of the matter as it stood objectively.*— oräoıs tov bapic. kat Zadd.] without repe- tition of rav (see the critical remarks) : the Pharisees and Sadducees, the two parties conceived of together as the corporation of the Sanhedrim, ‘ became at variance,® and the mass — the multitude of those assembled — was divided (x°). Ver. 8. For the Sadducees, indeed, maintained, etc. — und: ayyehov whre mveuua] not even angel or spirit, generally. The unre rveuua is logically sub- ordinate to the und& ayy., inasmuch as rveüwa is conceived as being homo- geneous with ayyedoc ; for ra aupörepa divides the objects named into two classes, namely (1) avacraoıs, and (2) dyyedog and mvevua. Hence und& before ayyed. is to be defended, and not, in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 158, and Lachmann, to be changed into uyre.° In the certainly very im- portant codd.’ which have wre, this is to be viewed as a grammatical cor- rection, originating from the very old error, which already Chrysostom has and Kuinoel still assumes: augdtepov . . . Kal mepi TpLOv Aaußäverar. — The Sadducees® denied —as materialists, perhaps holding the theory of emanations —that there were angels and spirit-beings, i.e. independent spiritual realities besides God. To this category of rveiuara, denied by them, belonged also the spirits of the departed ; for they held the soul to be a refined matter, which perished (cuvagavicar) with the body.” But it is arbitrary, with Bengel, Kuinoel, and many others, to understand under mvevua anima defuncti exclusively. Reuss’? has a view running directly counter to the clear sense of the narrative. Ver. 9. The designed stirring up of party-feeling proved so successful,” 1The untruth added to these accusations, é€t te kat “EAAnvas «.7.A., Paul might here with reason leave entirely out of considera- tion. 21 Cor. xv. 3 The procedure of Paul in helping himself with dialectic dexterity was accordingly this: he reduces the accusations contained in xxi. 28 to the pure matter of fact, and he grasps this matter of fact (the announcement of the Messianic kingdom) in that form which was necessary for his object. ‘‘ Non deerat Paulo humana etiam prudentia, qua in bonum evan- gelii utens, columbae gerpentem utiliter mis- cebat et inimicorum dissidiis fruebatur,” Grotius. 4 Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. 5 xv. 2. 6 See Klotz,ad Devar. p. 709; comp. also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 315 (E. T. 867), and on Gal. i. 12. TABCEN. 8 See on Matt. iii. 7. 9 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 4, Bell. ii. 8. 14. 10 In Herzog’s Zncykl. XIII. p. 294. 11 Baur and Zeller, following Schnecken- burger, p. 144 ff., contest the historical character of this event, because the two parties had already so long been rubbing against each other, that they could not have been so inflamed by the apple of discord thrown in among them by Paul; the sequel also contradicting it, as Paul a few days after- wards was accused by the chief priest and Sanhedrim before Felix. But in this view sufficient account is not taken of the frequent- CONSPIRACY TO SLAY PAUL. 431 that some scribes,! who belonged to the Pharisaic half of the Sanhedrim, rose up and not only maintained the innocence of Paul against the other party, but also, with bitter offensiveness towards the latter, added the question : But if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel? The question is an aposiopesis,” indicating the critical position of the matter in the case sup- posed, without expressing it, guid vero, si, etc. We may imagine the words uttered with a Jesuitically-treacherous look and gesture toward the Saddu- cees, to whom the speakers leave the task of supplying in thought an answer to this dubious question. — rvevua] is not, with Calovius and others, to be taken of the Holy Spirit, but without more precise definition as: a spirit, quite as in ver. 8, where Luke by his gloss prepares us for ver. 9. — éAdAyoev| giving him revelation concerning the éAric and äväcraoıc, ver. 6. A reference precisely to the narrative, which Paul had given of his conversion at xxii. 6 ff., is not indicated. Ver. 10. My dıaoraodn] that he might be torn in pieces.” The tribune saw the two parties so inflamed, that he feared lest they on both sides should seize on Paul— the one to maltreat him, and the other to take him into their protection against their opponents — and thus he might at length even be torn in pieces, as a sacrifice to their mutual fury ! — ix£A. rö orpar. karaß. k.r.A.] he ordered the soldiery to come down from the Antonia, and to draw him away from the midst of them. The reading karaßyvaı kai is a cor- rect resolution of the participial construction.‘ Vv. 11-14. Whether the appearance of Christ encouraging Paul to fur- ther stedfastness was a vision in a dream, or a vision in a waking state, perhaps in an ecstasy, cannot be determined, in opposition to Olshausen, who holds the latter as decided ® (v?). —eic "Iepovs. and eic 'Pöu.]) The preacher coming from without preaches into the eity.* Observe also, that Jerusalem and Rome are the capitals of the world, of the East and West. But a further advance, into Spain, were it otherwise demonstrable, would not be excluded by the intimation in this passage, since it fixes no termi- nus ad quem.’ — Ver. 12. ovorpodjw] a combination,® afterwards still more precisely described by ovvwuociav, a conspiracy. That the conspirators were zealots and sicarii, perhaps instigated by Ananias himself, concerning whom, however, it is not demonstrable that he was himself a Sadducee, as Kuinoel thinks, is not to be maintained. Certainly those Asiatics in xxi. 27. were concerned in it. — oi "Iovdaior] the Jews, as the opposition. This general statement is afterwards more precisely limited, ver. 13. — avedeu. Eavrovc] ly quite blind vehemence of passion, when suddenly and unexpectedly aroused, in parties whose mutual relations are strained. As this vehemence, particularly in the presence of the tribune, before whom the sore point of honour was touched, might easily overleap the boundaries of discretion and prudence ; so might the prudent concert for a joint ac- cusation subsequently take place, when the fit of passion was over. Comp. also Baum- garten, II. p. 197 f. 1 ‘Os partis suae,”’ Bengel. 2 Comp. on John vi. 62; Rom. ix. 22. 3 Comp. Symm., 1 Sam. xv. 33 ; Herod. iii. 13 ; Dem. 136. 15 ; Lucian, Asin. 32. 4 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774. 5 See on xvi. 9. ® Comp. Mark xiv.9. See on Mark i. 39, also on ix. 28, xxvi. 20. 7 In opposition to Otto, Pastoralor. p. 171. 8 xix 40; 1 Macc. xiv. 44; Polyb. iv. 34.6 452 CHAP. XXIII., 15-23. they cursed themselves, pronounced on themselves, in the event of transgres- sion, the D77, the curse of divine wrath and divine rejection, declaring that they would neither eat nor drink! until, etc. See on similar self-impreca- tions, which, in the event of the matter being frustrated, without the per- son’s own fault, could be removed by the Rabbins, Lightfoot i loe., Selden.” — we] with the subjunctive, because the matter is contemplated directly, and without av.*— Ver. 14. roic apy. x. r. mpeoß.] That they applied to the Sadducean Sanhedrists, is evident of itself from what goes before. — avabéu. avadeuatic.]| Winer, p. 434 (E. T. 584). Ver. 15. ‘Yueic] answering to the subsequent jueic dé. Thus they arrange the parts they were to play. — civ ro owveöpip] non vos soli, sed una cum col- legis vestris, of whom doubtless the Pharisees were not to be allowed to know the murderous plot, quo major significationi sit auctoritas, Grotius. — érw¢ avTov k.t.A.| design of the éugavicate tr. yA. From this also it follows what they were to notify, namely, that they wished the business of Paul to be more exactly taken cognisance of in the Sanhedrim than had already been done.*— rov aved. ait.| The design of Erornoi Eouev.’— mpd tov Eyyloaı avt.| so that you shall have nothing at all to do with him. Vv. 16-20. Whether the nephew of Paul was resident in Jerusalem ; whether, possibly, the whole family may have already, in the youth of the apostle, been transferred to Jerusalem, as Ewald conjectures, cannot be de- termined (z*). — zapayev.] belongs to the vivid minuteness with which the whole history is set forth.— Ver. 18. The centurion on military duty, without taking further part in the matter, simply fulfils what Paul has asked. — 6 d£ouıoc IlavAoc] he is now, as a Roman citizen, to be conceived in eustodia militaris.° — Ver. 19. émidaB. de race xeıp.] ‘ut fiduciam adoles- centis confirmaret,’’ Bengel. — davaywp. Kaz’ idiav] in order to hold a private conversation with him, he withdrew, with him, without the addition of a third person, perhaps to a special audience-chamber.’ — Ver. 20. örı] recita- tive. — ovvébevto] have made an agreement to request thee.’— d¢ uEAR.] i.e. under the pretext, as if they would.’ Vv. 21, 22. And now" they are in readiness to put into execution the avekeiv abröv,!! expecting that on thy part the promise, to have Paul brought on the morrow to the Sanhedrim, will take place. — éxayy. is neither jussum” nor nuntius,'* but, according to its constant meaning in the N. T., promissio. — éxiad.| he commanded to tell it, to divulge it, to no one.!* — éved. mp6g pe] Oratio variata. See on i. 4. Ver. 23. Ato riväc] some two; see on xix. 14.% It leaves the exact num- 1 yevoactar, ver. 14, expresses both. 9 See Pflugk, ad Zur. Hec. 1152. It is other- 2 de Synedr. p. 108 f. wise in ver. 15: in the opinion, as, etc. 3 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 499; Winer, p. 279 10 cat vov, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135. (E. T. 371.) 11 Comp. ver. 15. 4 Comp. xxiv. 22. 12 Münthe, Rosenmiiller. 6 2 Chron. vi. 2; Ezek. xxı. 11; 1 Macc. iii. 13 Beza, Camerarius, Grotius, Alberti, Wolf ; 58, v. 39, xiii. 3%. Comp. also ver. 20. Henry Stephanus even conjectured amayy. ® Comp. on xxii. 30. See on xxiv. 27. 14 Comp. Dem. 354. 23; Judith vii. 9; not 7 Comp. Luke ix. 10. elsewhere in N. T. _ [vii. 19. 8 Comp. on John ix. 22. * 15 Comp. Thuc. viii. 100. 5: rıvesöVo. Luke RESCUED BY LYSIAS. 433 ber in uncertainty.!— So considerable a force was ordered, in order to secure against any possible contingency of a further attempt. — orpariérac] is, on account of the succeeding irreic, to be understood of the usual Roman infantry,’ milites gravis armaturae, distinguished also from the peculiar kind of light infantry afterwards mentioned as defvoAd Bor. — deEwAd Bove] a word entirely strange to ancient Greek, perhaps at that time only current colloquially, and not finding its way into the written language. It first occurs in Theophylactus Simocatta,* and then again in the tenth century.* At all events, it must denote some kind of force under the command of the tribune, and that a light-armed infantry, as the de£ıoR. are distinguished both from the cavalry and from the orparıör. That they were infantry, their great number also proves. It is safest to regard them as a peculiar kind of the light troops called rorarii or velites, and that either as jacula- tores, javelin-throwers,° or funditores, slingers, for in Constant. Porpbyr.® they are expressly distinguished from the sagittarii, or bowmen,’ and from the targeteers, the peltastae, or cetrati.* Detailed grounds are wanting for a more definite decision.” The name degvo/., those who grasp with the right hand, is very naturally explained from their kind of weapon, which was restricted in its use to the right hand,-it was otherwise with the heavy- armed troops, and also with the bowmen and peltastae. This word has frequently been explained! halberdiers, life guardsmen, who protect the right side of the commander, to which, perhaps, the translation of the Vul- gate :"! lancearios, from the spear which the halberdiers carried, is to be re- ferred. Already the Coptic and Syriac p. translate stipatores. Meursius,'? on the other hand: military lietors."” But even apart from the passages of Theophyl. Simocatta, and Constant. Porphyr., of whom the latter particu- larly mentions the defo. alongside of the purely light-armed soldiers, and indeed alongside of mere ordinary soldiers: the great number of them is decisive against both views. For that the commander of a cohort should have had a body-guard, of which be could furnish two hundred men for the escort of a prisonor, is just as improbable, as that he should have had as many lictors at his disposal. On the whole, then, the reading de£ioß6Aovg in A," approved by Grotius and Valckenaer, is to be considered as a correct | 1 Kriiger, § li. 16. 4. 2 reCot arparıwraı, Herodian, i. 12. 19. 3 In the seventh century. The passage in question, iv. 1, is as follows: mpoortarret de kat Öe£ıoAaßoıs Övvaneoıv ixvnAareıv K. Tas arpamovs macas Katachdadigeodar. From this it only follows that they must have been a light-armed force. {Wetstein). 4In Constant. Porphyr. Themat. i. 1 (see 5 Liv. xxii. 21. 8 oi Se Acyouevot Touppapyar Eis Umovpyiav THY atpatnyav Eraxömoarv. afiwna Tov Exovra vd’ Eavrov oTpatiwras Tofo- opous TevTakoctous, Kat MEÄATATTAS TPLAaKOTLOVS, nat defvoAaBous exatov. 7 To£obop. Innaiveı de tovovtov 8 See Liv. xxxi. 36. ® Ewald, p. 577, now explains it from Aaßn, grasp of the sword ; holding that they were spiculatores cum lanceis (Sueton. Claud. 35) ; and that they carried their sword, not on the left, but on the vight. But we do not see why this was ‘necessary for the sake of using their spears by the right hand. The sword on the left side would, indeed, have been least a hindrance to-them in the use of the spear. Earlier, Ewald took them to be slingers. 10 Following Suidas : rapabvAares. 11 Also Ath. and Sahidic. 12 In the Glossar. 18 “ Manum nimirum injiciebant maleficis.””, 14 Syr. jaculantes dextra; Erp. jaculatores. 454 CHAP. XXIII., 24-35. interpretation, whether they be understood to be javelin-throwers or sling- ers. — ard Tpirng pac re vurröoc] from this time, about nine in the evening, they were to have this force in readiness, because the convoy was to start, for the sake of the greatest possible security from the Jews, at the time of darkness and of the first sleep. Ver. 24. Kravy re rapacrzoa| still depends on eirev, ver. 23. The speech passes from the direct to the indirect form.! — xryvn] sarcinaria jumenta.* Whether they were asses or pack-horses, cannot be determined. Their destination was: that they, the centurions to whom the command was given, should make Paul mount on them, and so should bring him uninjured to Felix the procurator. The plural number of the animals is not, with Kuinoel, to be explained ‘in usum Pauli et militis ipsius custodis,’’ but, as iva &rıß. r. Mav. requires, only in usum Pauli, for whom, as the convoy admitted of no halt,® one or other of the «ryvy was to accompany it as a reserve, in order to be used by him in case of need. — On Feliz, the freedman of Claudius— by his third wife son-in-law of Agrippa I. and brother-in-law of Agrippi IL., and brother of Pallas the favourite of Nero,—that worthless person, who "per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio in Judaea provincia exercuit,'’* and after his procuratorship was accused to Nero by the Jews of Caesarea, but was acquitted through the intercession of Pallas, see Walch.° Vv. 25, 26. Tpärac] adds to eirev, ver. 23, a contemporaneous accom- panying action. Such passports, given with transported prisoners, were called at a later period, in the Cod. Theodos., elogia. — repiéy. r. rumov rovr.] which contained the following form ; ruroc,° the same as rpöroc, elsewhere,” corresponds entirely to the Latin exemplum, the literal form, the verbal con- tents of a letter.*— The lie in ver. 27° is a proof that in what follows the literal expression is authentically contained ; therefore there is no reason, with Olshausen, to regard the letter as a literary production of Luke. A documentary source, it is true, from which the verbal form came to him, cannot be specified, although possibilities of this nature may well be imagined.— ro kpariorw] See on Luke, Introd. § 3. Vv. 27-30." ovadrynof.| without the article: after he had been seized. Ob- serve, that Lysias uses not rdv dvOpwrov, but with a certain respect, and that not only for the Roman citizen, but also for the person of his prisoner, r. avdpa. — E£eılöumv avrov, uahov örı ‘Pow. &orı] contains a cunning falsification of the state of the facts ;!° for ver. 28 comp. with xxii. 30 proves that the tribune did not mean the second rescue of the apostle, xxiii. 10. There- fore the remark of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that ua@dv denotes ‘‘nul- 1 See on xix. 27. 7 Kypke, II. p. 119; Grimm. on 1'Macce. xi. 2 Caes. Bell. civ. i. 81. 29. 3 vv. 31, 32. 8 Cic. ad Div. x. 5: “literae binae eodem 4 Tac. Hist. v. 9. exemplo.” 5 Diss. de Felice Judaeor. proour. Jen. 1747 ; 9 See in. loc. Ewald, p. 549 ff.; Gerlach, d. Röm. Statthalter 10 Comp. xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25. {19 ff. in Syr. u. Jud. p. 5 f£. 11 See xxi. 30-34, xxii. 26, 27, 30, xxiii. 1 ff., 63 Macc. iii. 30. 12 xxi. 31-84 and xxii. 25 ff. PAUL INTRODUCED TO FELIX. 435 lum certum tempus’’ but merely xa? &uadov generally ;! and so is Beza’s proposal to put a stop after avréy, and then to read: nadov dé bre K.T.A. — auröv.” — Ver. 30. umvvleiong . . . éceodac] The hurried letter-writer has mixed up two constructions : (1) uyvudeione dé poe ErıßovAns tHe weAAobonc Eoeo- Var, and (2) ugvudévtog ? dé poe EmißovAmv péddev EceoSa.* Similar blendings are also found in the classics.° As to the import of pyview, see on Luke XX. ole Vv. 31-34. Antipatris, on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, built by Herod I., and named after his father Antipater, was 26 miles, thus 51 geographical miles, distant from Caesarea.° — dıa t7¢ vurröc] as in xvii. 10. Inexact statement @ potiori ; for, considering the great distance between Jerusalem and Antipatris, about 8 geographical miles, and as they did not set out from Jerusalem before nine in the evening,’ besides the night a part of the following forenoon must have been spent on the journey to Anti- patris, which roust, moreover, be conceived of as a very hurried one ; yet the following night is not, with Kuinoel,* to be included. — Ver. 32. édcavtec¢ «.7.A.| thus from their own foresight, because such a strong force was un- necessary at the distance which they had reached, and might be required in case of an uproar at Jerusalem, not according to the literal command of the tribune, ver. 23. — rove imreic] not also the defvoAdBovc, Whom they took back with them, as may be concluded from their not being mentioned. — Ver. 33. oirwes] ‘tad remotius nomen, secus atque expectaveris refertur.’’° —kai t. Hai.) simul et Paulum. — Ver. 34. Felix makes only a preliminary personal inguiry, but one necessary for the treatment of the cause and of the man, on a point on which the elogium contained no information. — roiac| is qualitative: from what kind of province. Cilicia was an imperial province. Ver. 35. Avaxotcoua] denotes the full and exact hearing,’ in contrast to what was now held as merely preliminary. — 76 rparröpıov rov 'Hp.] was the name given to the palace which Herod the Great had formerly built for himself, and which now served as the residence of the procurators. From our passage it follows that the place, in which Paul was temporarily kept in custody, was no common prison,!! but was within the praetorium. The determination of the manner of the custodia reorum depended on the pro- curator,” and the favorable elogium might have its influence in this respect. 1 Nor does it mean, as Otto suggests: “on which occasion (in consequence of which) I learned.” The Vulgate, Erasmus, and Cal- vin correctly render : cognifo, comp. Phil. ii. 19. Beza also correctly renders by edoctus, with the remark: “* Dissimulat ergo tribunis id, de quo reprehendi jure potuisset.’’ Cas- talio anticipated the misinterpretation of Gro- tius and Otto: ‘‘eripui ae Romanum esse didıei.” And so also Luther. The padwr ore «.r.A. is nothing else than émvyvots tre ‘Pw- patos eotı XxXii. 29. Comp. xvi. 38. 2 Compare on this resumption after a long intervening sentence, Plat. Rep. p 398 A; and see, moreover, Matthiae, § 472; Winer, p. 139 f. (E. T. 184.) 3 Comp. Polyaen. ii. 14 1. 4 See Grotius in loc.; Fritzsche, Conjectur. I. p. 39 f.; Winer, p. 528 (E. T. 710.) 5 Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 18. 8 See Robinson, III. p. 257 ff.; Ritter, Hrd*. 7 Ver. 25. [XVL. p. 571. 8 Against ver. 32. ® Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 368. 10 Xen. Oec. 11. 1. Cyrop. iv. 4.1; Polyb. iii, 15.4; Dorvill. ad Char. p. 670. lly, 18. 12 LT. 1, D. xlviii. 3. 436 CHAP. XXIII.—NOTES, Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (w?) I did not know that he is the high priest. V. 5. Scarcely had the apostle commenced his defence before the Jewish council, when Ananias, the high priest, in a spirit of injustice and brutality which characterized his general conduct, ordered him to be smitten on the mouth. ‘“ Stung by an insult so flagrant, an outrage so undeserved, the naturally chol- eric temperament of Paul flamed into that sudden sense of anger, which ought to be controlled, but which can hardly be wanting in a truly noble char- acter.” And he exclaimed, “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” His attention being directed, by some one standing by, to his severe utterance, he immediately ‘‘ apologized with exquisite urbanity and self-control.’’ Meyer thinks the apostle’s reply was ironical ; but this seems inconsistent with the character of the apostle, and the appeal to Scripture would in that state of mind be akin to irreverence. Numerous other explanations have been offered, the most satisfactory, though not free from objections, is that given by Bengel, Neander, Hacleett, Schaff, Howson and others ; which supposes that Paul meant that he did not recollect or consider that it was the high priest whom he was addressing. Gloag also approves, generally, of this solution. Farrar suggests that ‘‘ in a crowded assembly he had not noticed who the speaker was. Owing to his weakened sight, all that he saw before him was a blurred white figure, is- suing a brutal order, and to this person, who, in his external whiteness and in- ward worthlessness, thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulchre, he had addressed his indignant denunciation. That he should retract it, on learning the hallowed position of the delinquent, was in accordance with that high breeding of the perfect gentleman, which in all his demeanor he habitually displayed.” This is the view which Alford, though not entirely satisfied with it, prefers. We concur with Taylor, who adopts this view, that Paul did not know what person had given the command to smite him, and adds, “If [am asked for an explanation of this ignorance of Paul, I find it in one or other of three suppositions : either the high priest did not wear the official robes by which he was usually distinguished ; or he was not at that time president of the council ; or, more simply still, the near-sightedness of the apostle prevent- ed him from recognizing the official dignity of the man who spoke so roughly.” After discussing at length the various hypotheses concerning the meaning of the words used by Paul, Eadie comes to the conclusion: “ that the apostle had not the knowledge present to his mind that it was the high-priest whom he was addressing. He does not formally apologize, but perhaps he intimates that the words might have been differently couched, that he might have ut- tered the malediction more solemnly, and with less of personal feeling mingled up with it. Nor does he retract it, though he may regret that it did fall upon a successor of Aaron.” (x?) Pharisees and Sadducees. VY. 7. The apostle, perceiving from the interruption which had already taken place, that all hope of a full hearing or fair treatment was vain, with com- mendable policy threw an apple of discord into the council. He knew that NOTES. 437 the council was composed of Pharisees—with whom he held many things in common, such as the resurrection of the dead, the coming of the kingdom of God, the advent of the Messiah, and the intercourse of God with men, by means of angels, visions, and dreams—and of Sadducees, who denied all these doctrines and the idea of the supernatural generally. Therefore he said, ‘‘ Iam a Pharisee, and am being judged about the hope of the resurrection.” The two parties, which had long entertained toward each other an internecine enmity, now disagreed, and the strife became so violent that the apostle’s life was again in jeopardy ; but the chief captain interfered, and rescued him out of their hands. Josgphus says : ‘‘ The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skilful in the exact explication of their laws. These ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. The Sadducees take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil, and they say that to act what is good or what is evil is at men’s own choice. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishment and reward in Hades.’’ Some, as Furrar, question the propriety of the course pursued by Paul at this crisis. But Alford justly says, ‘‘ Surely no defence of Paul for adopting this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of mind.” Thomas writes: “Do not get a wrong impression of Paul's policy. Though we have seen him on various occasions displaying great accommoda- tiveness—now taking part in a Nazarite’s vow, in order to disarm the unrea- soning hostility of his countrymen ; now putting forward all the considera- tions which truth would authorize, in order to conciliate the mind of his Jew- ish audiences ; now availing himself of his Roman citizenship, in order to avoid the infliction of a cruel and unjust torture ; and now, in the case before us, taking advantage of the doctrine that divided his judges, in order to avoid their verdict of condemnation—in none of these strokes of policy is there the slightest approach to the disingenuous, the evasive, the shifting. In all there is an unbending honesty and an invincible courage.” (x?) The Lord stood by him. VY. 11. We have in the Acts the record of three such experiences in the life of Paul, after the Lord Jesus was seen of him on his way to Damascus. One in Cor- inth, when he was “in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling ;’ one on board the vessel during a long severe storm at sea ; and another in the pres- ent instance. On this passage Alford has the following excellent remarks : “ By these few words, the Lord assured him of a safe issue from his present troubles, of an accomplishment of his intention of visiting Rome, of the cer- tainty that he should preach the gospel and bear testimony there. So that they upheld and comforted him in the uncertainty of his life from the Jews, in the uncertainty of his liberation from prison at Cesarea, in the uncertainty of his surviving the storm in the Mediterranean, in the uncertainty of his fate on arriving at Rome. So may one crumb of divine grace and help be multi- plied to feed five thousand wants and anxieties.’’ Jacobus says on this verse : “It was a personal appearing of our Lord to Paul, not in a dream, but in an 438 CHAP, XXIII,—NOTES. apparition, in which he was seen by Paul, as standing beside him, and was heard as addressing him.’ Alexander says: “Standing by, or over, him, per- haps as he lay upon his bed, though not necessarily in a dream, but rather in a waking vision.” He regards this divine message to Paul as an unqualified approval of the course he had been led to take before the council. In this opinion Barnes concurs : “ The appearance of our Lord in this case was a proof that he approved the course which Paul had taken before the Sanhedrim.”’ (z?) Paul’s sister’s son. V. 16. This is the only direct reference in Scripture to Paul’s family. It is uncer- tain whether Paul’s sister resided in Jerusalem, or whether the young man may have come up to Jerusalem with Paul, or had been sent thither for his educa- tion, as his uncle was before him. We know not even whether the act of kindness was prompted merely by natural affection, or by Christian sympathy as well. All that we know is that this obscure youth, probably only a lad, ren- dered to his celebrated uncle a very important service, the mention of which has immortalized his memory. CRITICAL REMARKS, 439 CHAPTER XXIV. Ver. 1. tov mpeoß.] Lachm. and Born. read zpeo3. rwov, according to A B E 8, min. Sahid. Arm. Sahid. Arm. Syr. p. Vulg. Theophyl. rıvöv was written on the margin as a gloss (see the exegetical remarks). — Ver. 3. karop9oudrov] Lachm. and Born. (following ABE N)read diopfouarov. which already Griesb. recommended. - Neither occurs elsewhere in the N. T. The decision is given by the preponderance of evidence in favour of dı0p9., which, besides, is the less usual word, — Ver. 5. orüoıw] A B ES, min. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have ordoes. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. And rightly ; oraoıv was easily enough occasioned by the writing of ordois instead of oraoeıs (comp. NS). — Vv. 6-8. From xai kara to &rl oeis wanting in ABGH NS, min. vss. Beda, And there are many variations in detail. Condemned by Mill, Beng., Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; it is a com- pletion of the narrative of the orator. Had the words been original (Matth. and Born, defend them), no reason can be assigned for their omission. For Katd T. met. vou. HOA. Kpivecv in the mouth of the advocate who speaks in the name of his clients could be as little offensive as the preceding éxpatijoauev ; and the indirect complaint against Lysias, ver. 7, was very natural in the rela- tion of the Jews to this tribune, who had twice protected Paul against them. But even assuming that this complaint had really caused offence to the tran- scribers, it would have occasioned the omission of the passage merely from mapeidov, not from kai kara.— Ver, 9. ovverißevro] is decidedly attested, in opposition to the Recepta ouveßevro. — Ver. 10. eüßvuuörepov] A B E N, min. Vulg. Ath. have ei$vuws. Approved by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel ; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But how much easier it is to assume that the reference of the comparative remained unrecognised, than that it should have been added by a reflection of the transcribers !— Ver. 11. &v ‘Iepovc.] Lachm. Tisch, Born. have, and also Griesb. approved, eS Iepovo., according to A E H NS, min, This weight of evidence is decisive, as according to the difference in the rela- tion either preposition might be used. Ver. 12. éxicicracw] Lachm. reads éxiotao.v, according to ABE &, min. A transcriber’s error.— Ver. 13. After dtévavrac Lachm. and Born. have cou, according to A BE &, min., and several vss. Some have it before div. ; others have, also before duv., sometimes por and sometimes we (so Mill and Matth.). Various supplementary additions. — Ver. 14. rois Ev ToiS] Elz. has merely év rois. But against this the witnesses are decisive, which have either ro15 év rois (so Griesb., Scholz, and others) or simply rois (so Lachm. Tisch. Born., following Matth.). If rois &v rois were original (so N**), then it is easy to explain how the other two readings might have originated through copyists—in the first instance, by oversight, the simple rois (A GH &* vss. Theophyl. Oec.), and then by way of explanation 2» rois (B). If, on the other hand, rois were original, then indeed the resolution of the dative construction of the passive by év might easily come into the text, but there would be no reason for the addition of rois before év.— Ver. 15. After ‘440 CHAP. XXIV., 1-3. &oeodaı Elz. Scholz have vexpdv which, in deference to very important evidence was suspected by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, A supplemen- tary addition. — Ver. 16. kat aurös] so ABCEG N. min. vss. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have 02 airés. The reference of kai was not understood, and therefore sometimes de, sometimes ö2 kai was put. — Ver. 18. év ois] ABC E N, min. have &v ais, which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. But the fem., in spite of the preponderance of its attestation, betrays its having originated through the preceding mpoodopus. — twis dé] Elz. has merely rıves, against decisive testi- mony. The dé was perplexing. — Ver. 19. éde.] BG H, min. Sahid. Aeth. Slav. Chrys. 1, Oec. have dei. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Beng. and Matth. But éde: is preponderantly attested by A C E NS, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. 1, Theoph., and is much more delicate and suitable than the de- 'manding dei. — Ver. 20. ri] Elz. has ei 11, against decisive witnesses, From ver. 19. — Ver. 22. aveßaA. 62 ait. 6 7A1=] Adopted, according to decisive tes- timony, by Griesb. and all modern critics except Matth. But Elz. has akovoas d? raüra 6 ®. ave. aitots, which Rinck defends. An amplifying gloss. — Ver. 23. aitév] Elz. has tov IladAov, against decisive attestation. — 7) mpooepyeodaı] wanting in A BCE N, min., and several vss. ; amplifying addition, perhaps after x. 28. — Ver. 24. After 77 yvvaıni Elz, has aurov, and Lachm, : 77 wWia yvvaıkt, The critical witnesses are much divided between these three readings ; indeed several, like A, have even iia and aitod. Butin view of this diversity, both idia and aurov appear as additions, in order to fix the meaning conjux on TH yvvaıki. — After XpıoröovB E G &* min. Chrys. and several vss. have ’Inooör, which Rinck has approved, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. A frequent addition, which some vss. have before Xpıorov. — Ver. 25. tov ueAAovroS kpiuaros] “tod kpiuaros Tov wéAAovtos (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested, and therefore to be adopted. So also Elz., which, however, adds £osoda: (deleted by Scholz) ; and Tisch. has again inserted it, following G H min, and some Fathers. The word, just as being in itself quite superfluous, would have to be received, if it were more strongly attested. — Ver. 26. After NlavAoo Elz. has 67S Aton airov, against preponderating testimony. A gloss. — 27. ydpitas] Lachm. and Born. read yapıra, according to ABC S8* and some min, ; E G N** min. have yap. Thus for ydpitas there remains only a very weak attesta- tion (H, min, and some Fathers ; no vss.). The best attested reading, yapi7a, is the more to be adopted, as this accusative form, not elsewhere used in the N. T. (although to be read also in Jude 4), could not but occasion offence, Ver. 1. Mera dé révre ijuép.| The point of commencement is not to be reck- oned, with Cajetanus, Basnage, Michaelis, Stelz, Rosenmüller, Morus, Hildebrand, as the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem, —an opinion which has arisen from an erroneous computation of the twelve days in ver. 11,—nor yet with Calovius, Wetstein, and others, as the arrival of Paul at Caesarea, but as! his departure for Caesarea, We may add that the popular mode of expression does not necessarily denote that the fifth day had already elapsed, but may just as well denote on the fifth day.” That the latter view is to be assumed here, see on ver. 11. — era tov mpeoß,] of course, not the whole I Sce on ver. 11. ®2Comp. Matt. xxvii. 63, and see on Matt. xii. 40. PAUL ACCUSED BY TERTULLUS. 441 Sanhedrists, but deputies who represented the council. It is obvious, withal, that the two parties in the Sanhedrim, after the variance temporarily aroused between them,! had in the interval bethought themselves of the matter, and united against the common enemy, in order to avert his eventual ac- quittal by the Roman authority.—Tertullus, a common Roman name,? was an orator forensis,® a public causidicus. Such speakers, who were very nu- merous in Rome and in the provinces, bore the classical name of the public orators : prropec,* in the older Greek ovvijyopor,® the advocates of the accusers. — ived. TO Hy. Kava Tov I1.] they laid information before the procurator against Paul. That this took place in writing, by a libel of accusation,® is not ailirmed by the text, which, by kar&ßn and the «A7Oévroc d& aurov immediately following, does not point to more than oral accusation.” The reciprocal rendering, comparuerunt,® is an unnecessary deviation from the usage in the Nee xxii 15, 22, xxv. 2, 15; John xiv. 21 f.; Heb. xi. 14, and else- where also not capable of being made good.° (a!) Vv. 2, 3. After the accusation brought against Paul the accused is summoned to appear, and now Tertullus commences the address of accu- sation itself, and that, after the manner of orators,’ with a captatio benevo- lentiae, yet basely flattering, to the judge. — The speech, embellished with ‘rhetorical elegance, is to be rendered thus: As we are partaking, con- tinuously, of much peace through thee, and as improvements have taken place Sor this people on all sides and in all places through thy care, we acknowledge it, most excellent Felix, with all thanksgiving. Observe here, (1) that the orator with moAAnc eipyung «.t.2. praises Felix as pacator provineiae, which it was a peculiar glory of procurators to be ;"! (2) that the object of arodeyöueda is evident of itself from what precedes; (3) that ravry re kat ravrayov is not to be referred, as usually, to arodey., but, with Lachmann, to y.voyévor, because, according to the flattering character of the speech, dipdop. you. ‚requires a definition of degree, and it is arbitrary mentally to supply woA26v. — Öiopdouara (see the critical remarks) are improved arrangements in the state and nation.” xkaropdouara would be successes, successful accomplish- ments. '* — xdvry] only here in the N. T., not semper, but towards all sides, quoquoversus, as in all classical writers ; with iota subscriptum, in opposition to Buttmann and others.'’® — On arod£yeodar, probare, *“ admittere cum as- sensu, gaudio, congratulatione.’’ *—How little, we may add, Felix, although he waged various contlicts with sicarii, sorcerers, and rebels, '7 merited this 1 xxiii. 6 ff. 2 See Wetstein. 3 See Barth, ad Claudian. p. 76. 4See Photius, p. 488, 12; Thomas Mag., Suidas. 5 Dem. 1137. 5, 1849. pen.; Lucian. 7ox. 26 ; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 142, 14. 6 Camerarius, Grotius. 7 Comp. xxiii. 15 xxv. 2, 15. 8 Beza, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others, following the Vulgate. ®Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmüller, Re- pert. II. p. 271; Krebs, p. 252 f. 10 See Grotius in Joe. 11 See Wetstein. 12 Comp. Polyb. iii. 118. 12: ai ray woArrevpd- av dvopdwcers, Arist. Pol. iii. 13; Plut. Num. 17, al. On the Greek idiom of the word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 250 f. 13 See Raphel, Polyh. in loc. ; Lobeck, l.c. 14 Vulgate and others. 15 See Ellendt, Zea. Soph. II. p. 493. 16 Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 66 ; sce Loesner, p, 229; Krebs in loc. 17 Joseph. Bell. ii. 13. 2, Antt. xx. 8.5f. 442 CHAP. XXIv., 4-11. "praise on the whole, may be seen in Tacitus ;* and what a contrast to it was the complaint raised against him after his departure by the Jews before the emperor !? Ver. 4. That, however, I may not longer, by a more lengthened discourse than I shall hold, detain thee, keep thee from thy business.* — Aesövrov is not to be supplied with ovvröuwc,* but it contains the definition of measure to dxovca. The request for a hearing of brief duration is, at the same time, the promise of aconcise discourse. — 7 of énvesx.| with thy, thine own pe- culiar, clemency.® Vv. 5-8. Kai xara ... &mi o& is to be deleted. See the critical re- marks (B*).—ebpövrec yap k.r.A.] The structure of the sentence is anacoluthie, as Grotius already saw. Luke has departed from the construction ; instead of continuing, ver. 6, with &xparyoauev aitév, he, led astray by the preced- ing relative construction, brings the principal verb also into connection with the relative.° — The yap is namely.’ — Examples of Aoıuöc and pestis, as designating men bringing destruction, may be seen in Grotius and Wet- stein. — riv oikovu.] is here, in the mouth of a Roman, before a Roman tribunal, to be understood of the Roman orbis terrarum.” — mpwroorärnv] front-rank man, file-leader.*° — rov Nalwpaiwv] a contemptuous appellation of Christians as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whose presumed de- scent from Nazareth stamped Him as a false Messiah.!!— öc kai r. iepov k.T.2.] who even the temple, etc. —Ver. 8. rap’ od] refers, as the preceding mention of Lysias is spurious, to Paul, to whom, however, it could not have been referred, were the preceding portion genuine, in opposition to Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Limborch, Rosenmiiller, who have, moreover, arbitrarily understood dvaxpivac of a quaestio per tormenta ; it denotes judicial examination generally. —6év] = 4@ by attraction—That we have not before us the speech of Tertullus, in a quite exact reproduction is obvi- ous of itself, as the source of the narrative could only be the communica- tion of Paul. The beginning, so much in contrast with the rest, is doubt- less most faithfully reproduced, impressing itself, as it naturally did, alike as the commencement of the imposing trial and by reason of the singularly pompous flattery, with the most literal precision on the recollection of the apostle and, through his communication, on the memory of Luke. Ver. 9. Suverévevto «.r.A.] but the Jews also jointly set upon him ; they united their attack against Paul with that of their advocate, inasmuch as they indicated the contents of his statements to be the true state of the case.13 — gaoxovte¢] comp. xxv. 19; and see on Rom. i. 22, 1 Hist. v. 9, Ann. xii. 54. Vleet 2 Joseph. Antt. xx. 8.9 f. 7 See on Matt. i. 18. 3On eykorteı, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 8 Grimm on 1 Macc. x. 61. 600 f. emi wActov, as in xx. 9: Judith xiii. 1. 9 See on Luke ii. 1. See on iv. 17. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 572 B: em 10 Thue. v. 71. 2, and Krüger in loc. mAcov c&yx nev eimeiv. 11 John vii. 42. 4 Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. 12 Comp. erı re kai, Xxi. 28. 5 See on 2 Cor. x. 1. 13 Comp. on ovvemctivepar, Plat. Phil. p. 16 ® Comp. Winer, pp. 330, 528 (E. T. 442,710); A; Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2.33 Polyb. i, 31. 2, ii. 3, Buttmann, p. 252 (E. T. 293). Comp.on Rom. 6; also in the LXX. PAUL’S DEFENCE, 443 € Ver. 10. In what a dignified, calm, and wise manner does Paul open his address ! — ix moAAav érov] therefore thou hast an ample judicial experi- ence as regards the circumstances of the nation and their character. ‘‘ Novus aliquis praeses propter inscitiam forte perculsus esset tam atroci delatione,’’ Calvin. — Felix entered on the procuratorship after the ban- ishment of his predecessor Cumanus, in the year 52.' Even in the time of Cumanus he had great influence, particularly in Samaria, without, how- ever, being actually governor of that country, as is incorrectly stated in Tac. Ann. xii. 54 in contradiction to Josephus, or of ‘Upper Galilee, as is erroneously inferred by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, and others.” He was thus at this time * probably in the seventh year of his procuratorship.* — xpitiv] is not, with Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others (after DIV), to be taken generally as praefectus, rector, but specially as judge ; for the judicial position of Felix in his procuratorship was the point here concerned.® — eudyuörepov] the more cheerfully, namely, than I would be able to do if thou wert still new in this judicial office. — ra repi &uavrov aroAoyovuaı] I bring forward in defence the things concerning myself.° Ver. 11. Paul adds a more special reason subordinate to the general one (ver. 10), for his euduuörepov . . . amoAoyoüuar. Since he had returned from abroad only twelve days ago, and accordingly the ground of facts on which they wished him condemned ’ was still quite new, the procurator, with his long judicial experience among the Jewish people, could the less avoid the most thorough examination of the matter. —ov rAeiove . . . auépar dexadvo] without 7, which Elz. has as a gloss.*—aq@’ 7¢ avéByv| from the day on which? I had come up. This is the day of the accomplished avaßaiveı, the day of the arrival, not of the departure from Caesarea.’ As to the reckon- ing of the twelve days, it is to be observed : (1) That by the present ¢icv the inclusion of the days already spent at Caesarea is imperatively required. Hence the assumption of Heinrichs, Hildebrand, and others is to be re- jected as decidedly erroneous: ‘* Dies, quibus P. jam Caesareae fuerat, non numerantur ; ibi enim (!!) in custodia tumultum movere non poterat.’’ ” (2) That ov zAeiove eicı permits us to regard as the current day on which the discussion occurred, either the twelfth or the (not yet elapsed) thirteenth ; 1 According to Wieseler, 53; see Joseph. ANTEX 1. 2 From Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 8. See Anger, de temp. rat. p. 88; Wieseler, p. 67 f. ; comp. also Gerlach. /.c., p. 75; Ewald, p. 549. 3 See Introduction, § 4. 4 To reduce the éx moAAav Erwv to three years (Stölting, Beitr. 2. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. p. 192), even apart from the duration of the govern- ment of Felix being thereby assumed as much too short (ver. 27), is rendered exegetically im- possible by the expression itself. For acaptatio benevolentiae, so d«finite (érav) a statement of time, if by woAAwv were meant only three years, would be very inappropriate, as the words would contain a flat untruth. How easily would a more flexible expression have presented itself for such a purpose, such as ek moAAoD xpovov, Or €& ikaywy (OT mAcıovwy) erwv | 6 On the participle with erıoran., see Winer, p. 324 (E. T. 435). 6 Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 54 B, Phaed. p. 69 D, Conv. p. 174 D, and Stallb. in loc., Pol. iv. p. 420 B, 453 C ; Dem. 227. 13, 407.19; Thue. iii. 52. 4. 7 To Lepoy Ereipage BeByA@oar, COMP, XXi. 28. 8 See on iv. 22. 9 ad’ ns, SC. Nuepas, COMP. ON 1. 2, 22. 10 Wieseler. Comp. xi. 2; Kühner, § 444; Winer, p. 258 (E. T. 343). 11 Kuinoel. 444 CHAP. XXIv., 12-15. > as, however, Paul wished to express as short a period as possible, the latter view is to be preferred, There accordingly results the following calcula- tion :— I. Day of arrival in Jerusalem, xxi. 15-17. II. Meeting with James, xxi. 18 ff. VI. J Arrest of the apostle, xxi. 27 ff. VIII. Paul before the Sanhedrim, xxii. 30, xxiii. 1-10. . ) Jewish conspiracy and its disclosures, xxiii. 12 ff. On the same | day Paul, before midnight, is brought away from Jerusalem, | xxiii. 23, 31. X. L Mera dé mevre juépac K.T.A., XXiv. 1. XI. | XI | XAT: ) The current day. It further serves to justify this calculation: (1) that it sufficiently agrees with the vague statement in xxi. 27: cc 68 EueAAov ai Extra juépar ovvreisiodar, to place the arrest on the jifth day of that week ; (2) that, as terminus a quo for pera révte juépac, Xxiv. 1, the ninth day may not only be assumed gen- erally, because the immediately preceding section of the narrative, xxiii. 81 ff., commences with the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, but is also specially indicated by the connection, inasmuch as this pera wévre juép. SO COr- responds to the 7H dé éxatpiov, xxiii. 32, that there is presented for both statements of time one and the same point of commencement, namely, the day on which the convoy, after nine in the evening, left Jerusalem. Anger? deviates from this reckoning in the two points, that he places as the first of the five days, xxiv. 1, the day of the arrival at Caesarea ; and he does not include at all in the reckoning the day on which Paul came to Jerusalem, because Paul reached it, perhaps, only after sunset. But the former is un- necessary,” and the datter would not only be at variance with Paul’s own words, aq’ 75 avéBnv mpookvvno. év "Iepovc., ver. 11, by which the day of ar- rival was included, but also would bring the reckoning of the apostle into contradiction with xxi. 17, 18 (rj dé Zriovon). Wieseler ® has reckoned the days in an entirely different manner—but in connection with his opinion, not to be approved, that the érra juépar in xxi. 27 are to be understood of the Pentecostal week—namely : two days for the journey to Jerusalem ; the third day, interview with James ; the fourth, his arrest in the temple, Pen- tecost ; the jifth, the sitting of the Sanhedrim; the sizth, his removal to Caesarea ; the seventh, his arrival there ; the twelfth, the departure of Ana- nias from Jerusalem, xxiv. 1; the thirteenth, the hearing before Felix. — xpooxvrycuv| thus with quite an innocent and legally religious design. — eic 'Iepovo.] (see the critical remarks) belongs to avéByv. 1 De temp. rat. p. 110. 2 See above, 3p. 103 f.., and on Gal. p. 588. PAUL’S DEFENCE. > 445 Vv. 12-21. In the following speech Paul first disclaims the accusations of his opponents generally and on the whole as groundless ;! then gives a justifying explanation of the expression rpwrooratyy rjc Tov NaLwp. aipéc., by which they had maliciously wished to bring him into suspicion ;* and lastly refutes the special accusation : «ai ro iepov Ereip. BeßnAooaı.* Vv. 12, 13. ’Eriovoraoıw] uproar.* — Both after obre év taic ovvay. and after ovte kata ryv mo, throughout the city, eupov ue mpdg rıva diakeyöuevov, 7 Emiov- oTacın rorwoüvra öxAov is mentally to be supplied.° Vv. 14, 15. Aé] opposes the positive confession, which now follows, to the preceding merely negative assurance ;° but, doubtless, I confess: ‘‘ Asa Christian I reverence the same God with the Jews, follow the same rule of faith, and I have the same hope on God, that there shall be a resurrection,”’ etc. Thus, notwithstanding that malicious rpwroorarnv rc Tov Nat. aip., I am in nowise an enemy of the existing religion, protected by the Roman laws! And with full truth could this ‘‘confessio ingenua, voluntaria, plena’’‘ be furnished by Paul,* as he recognised in Christianity the com- pletion of the divine law and the fulfilment of the prophets ; and this rec- ognition, as regards the law, necessarily presupposes the belief in all that is written in the law, namely, in its connection with the fulfilment effected by Christ,’ although the law as arule of justification has reached its end in Christ.!° — xara tiv ödov K.7.A.] according to the way, which, etc., according to the Christian mode of life,!! — 7» Aéy. aipeoıv] for Tertullus had, ver. 5, used cipeo:c, in itself a vor media, school, party,'” in a bad sense, a schismatic party, sect. — 0 rarpow Oew] the God worshipped by the ancestors of my nation and from them received.!? How inviolable were even to the heathen their ancestral gods ! 4 — morebwv «.7.A.] is now that which is emphatically indicated by ovrw : in this way: namely, believing all things, etc.’° — xara tov vouov | throughout the law-book. — éArida iywv| contains a characteristic circum- stance accompanying miorewv mace K.T.A.—Kal avtot oizor| even they them- selves there, is spoken deıkrıroc to those present as the representatives of the nation in the transaction. It was natural that this point of view in its gen- erality, should admit no reference to the Sadducean deviation from the national belief of the resurrection, or at all to special differences concerning this dogma. It is just as certain that Paul understood dıraiov and adikwv morally, and not according to the sense of the self-conceit of the descendants of Abraham.'* — rpooö£xovraı] expectant. The hope is treated as objective.” lyv. 12, 13. 10 Rom. =. 4. 2 vv. 14-16. WSK 4, IR 2 REx, 28. 8 vv. 17-21. (Ap. i. 20. 12 See Wetstein on 1 Cor. xi. 19. IS Be. 14 See Wetstein and Kypke. II. p. 122 f., and on the expression, very common also among ALXX. Num, xxvi. 9, xvi. 40; Joseph. c. 5 See examples of mapacrnaar, to present, i.e. to make good, to prove, in Kypke, II, p. 121 f.; Morus, ad Longin. p. 43; and from Philo in Loesner, p. 230 f. 6 vv. 12, 13. 7 Bengel. In opposition to Baur and Zeller; also Schneckenburger, p. 147 f. ® Comp. Rom. iii. 31, xiii. 8 ff. ; Gal. iii. 34. the Greeks, Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1206, 769 ff. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. 538 f. 15 Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmüller, Re- pert. II. p. 277; Bernhardy, p. 284. 16 Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff.). Comp. on Luke xiv. 14. 17 See on Rom, viii. 24. Comp. Eur. Alc, 446 CHAP, XXIV., 16-22. Ver. 16. ’Ev robrw] on this account, as in John xvi. 20. It refers to the whole contents of the confession just expressed in vv. 14, 15, as that on which the moral striving, which Paul constantly (dıaravr.) has, has its causal basis. — xa auröc] et ipse, like other true confessors of this faith and this hope. — aoxo] I exercise myself, i.e. in eo laboro, studeo ;* often also in classical writers with the infinitive.? — rpöc rov Beöv x.7.2.] ethical reference.*® The good conscience, xxiii. 1 is conceived as having suffered no offence,‘ i.e. as unshaken, preserved in its unimpaired equilibrium, Ver. 17. A’ érév dE mAcıdvov] interjectis autem pluribus annis. The dé leads over to the defence on the special point of accusation in ver. 6. Regarding dıd, after.© Paul means the four years, which had elapsed since his last visit to Jerusalem.* How does the very fact of this long alibi, preceding the short period of my present visit, witness against that accusation ! — eic ro &3vo¢e uwov| for my nation. What a contrast in this patriotic love to the hostile calumnies of his accusers! And Paul might so speak, for the Greek and Asiatic contributions which he had brought’ were destined for the support of the Jerusalem Christians, who for the most part consisted of native Jews. If he conveyed alms for these, he assisted in them his nation, in doing which he cherished the national point of view, that the Gentiles, having become partakers of the spiritual blessings of the Jews, owed cor- poreal aid to these in turn.* — mpoogopäc] i.e. festival offerings. The perform- ance of these had been among the objects of the journey. The taking on him the Nazarite offerings was only induced after his arrival by eircum- stances. Whether Paul defrayed the expenses of the Nazarite offerings from the contribution-moneys,? is neither here nor elsewhere said, and can- not be determined. Vv. 18, 19. "Ev oic, during which, applies to the zpocdopdc, during which sacrificial occupations.’’ ‘‘Graeci, licet alius generis nomen praecesserit, saepe neutro plurali pronominis utuntur, generalem vocabuli notionem respicientes. ’?!°— jjyviouévov] purified, asa Nazarite,'! thus, in an unobjection- able and holy condition, without multitude and without tumult. — A point is not, with Griesbach, Scholz, and de Wette, to be placed after Sopi ov, because otherwise tivéc dé «.7.A. would be an imperfect sentence, which the simplicity of the structure of the discourse? does not justify our assuming. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann have correctly put only a comma, It is accordingly to be explained in such a way, that Paul with eipov .. . 131; Job ii. 9; Isa. xxviii. 10; Tit. ii. 13; and comp. on Gal. v. 5. 1 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 389 C. 2 See Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. p. 439. 3 Rom. v. 1. 4 ampock., here passive, comp. on Phil. i. 10. 5 Not while (in opposition to Stilting, Beitr. 2. Exegese d. Paulin. Briefe, 1869, p. 163 f ), as if Paul would say : while I have done this (the aoxety K.r.X.) already for several years : which neither stands in the text, nor would be snitable after the Stamavtos already express- ing far more. Bengel gives correctly the practical significance in this statement of time. See on Gal. ii. 1. 6 xviii. 22. 71 Cor. xvi. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. viii.9; Rom. xy. aD: 8 Rom. xv. 27. ® Baumgarten. 10 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 14. Comp. Matthiae, p. 987; Poppo, ad Thue. iii. 97. 3. 11 See xxi. 27. 12 It is otherwise in ver. 5 f. HIS CONFINEMENT. 447 rw&t de K.r.%. glances back to what was said in ver. 5 f., which had sounded as if the Sanhedrists had found him. On the other hand, rivic dé forms the contrast, introducing the actual position of the matter, in which dé withal refers to suppressam aliquam partem sententiae,' thus: Thereupon there found me—not these, as they asserted, ver. 5,—Qut doubtless certain Asiatic Jews.” — ide] The sense of the praeterite, and that without äv, is here essential; for the Asiatics must have appeared, like the Sanhedrists, before the procurator, if they, etc. That this did not happen, isa fact of the past.? — ei rı Eyoıev, in so far as they should have ought, subjective possibility. On & with the optative, and in the following sentence the indicative, see Bernhardy.* Vv. 20, 21. Or else? let these there, pointing to the Sanhedrists present, say what wrong they found in me, while I stood before the Sanhedrim, unless in respect to this one exclamation, which I made, ete. — ordvroc pov «.7.2. forbids us to refer otra to the Asiatic Jews, ver. 18.°—7) repi pace raurnc gwr7c| The comparative 7 after ri without 4220 is found also in the classics.’ The article is not placed before gwvjc, because the sense is: epi raurnc wag ovong gwrvic.® The exclamation, xxiii. 6, was really the only one which Paul had made in the Sanhedrim. epi refers back to adixnua. In respect of this ex- clamation I must have offended, if they have found an adiknua inme! In this one exclamation must lie the crime discovered inme! A holy irony. — 7c instead of 7v, attracted by gwr7jc.° Ver. 22. With the frank challenge to his accusers! Paul closes his speech. But Felix, who declares that he wished still to institute a further examina- tion of the matter with the assistance of Lysias, decides for the present on an adjournment: aveBarero avitoic, ampliavit eos, both parties. He pro- nounced until further investigation the non liquet,"' and for the time being adjourned the settlement of the accusation.!? — axpiBéotepov eidd¢ ra rept THC ödov] The only correct interpretation is: because he knew more exactly what referred to Christianity.4% As Felix had been procurator for more than six years, and as Christianity was diffused everywhere in Judaea, even in Caesarea itself, it was natural that he shduld have an axpıß&orepov Knowl- edge of the circumstances of that religion than was given to him in the present discussion ; therefore he considered it the most fitting course to leave the matter still in suspense. In doing so he prudently satisfied, on the one hand, his regard for the favour of the Jews! by not giving Paul his liberty ; while, on the other hand, he satisfied his better intelligence about 1 Hermann, ad Philoctet. 16. 8 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 7.5. Comp. 2 Comp. Bornemann, Schol.in Luk. p. 184, and in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 278. 3 Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 187 (E. T. 216 f.). 4p. 386 f.; Winer, p. 276 (E. T. 367). ® As certainly those absent can make no statement, comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126 f. 6 Ewald. Comp. ver. 15. 7 Alciphr. Zp. iii. 21; Plat. Crit. p. 53E; Kühner, § 747, A. 1. Comp. on John xiii. 10. Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. 18 A, Gorg. p. 510 D. ® Buttmann, newt. Gr. 247 (E. T. 287). 10 yy. 20, 21. 11 Cie. Cluent. 28, Brisson. formul. 12 See on the judicial term avaBaddcodar (Dem. 1042 ult.), Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p. 123 f. 13 Ver. 14. 14 Comp. ver. 27. 448 CHAP. XXIV., 23-27. Christianity, by which, notwithstanding his badness in other respects, he felt himself precluded from pleasing the Jews and condemning the apostle. This connection, which in essentials the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others! have expressed, has been often mis- taken. Beza and Grotius, followed by Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and Ewald, regard dxpiBéorepov . . . ddov as part of the speech of Felix : ‘* Ubi exac- tius didicero, quid sit de hac secta, et ubi Lysias venerit, causam illam ter- minabo.? But so late a bringing in of the eizév is entirely without prece- dent in the N. T.? Michaelis and Morus resolve eidé¢ by guamquam ; not- withstanding his better knowledge of Christianity, Felix did not release Paul. But this resolution is the less suggested by the relation of the parti- ciple to the verb, as afterwards, ver. 23, the specially mild treatment of the apostle is expressly stated. According to de Wette,‘ the sense is: ‘As he needed no further hearing of the accused, and it was only necessary now to hear the tribune.’’ But the reference to the tribune is only to be re- garded as a welcome pretext and evasion; an actual hearing of Lysias would have been reported in the sequel of the history. Lastly, Kuinoel errone- ously renders: when he had inquired more exactly, which eidé¢ does not mean. — 7d kal’ iuac] your matters, not: your misdeeds,° as if it were ra xa? buav.® Ver. 23. Avavaé.] belongs, like eizév, to aveBar_ero ; and, yet ré has prepon- derant testimony against it, having given orders.’—rnpeiodaı avtov k.r.A.] that he should be kept in custody and should have relaaation. He was to have rest,® to be spared all annoyance.” Usually äveoıv is understood of release from chains, eustodia libera, ovdaxy üadeconoc;,! but without indication of this special reference in the text, and against ver. 27. From ro éxarovrdpyy it is rather to be inferred that the present custody was the usual cwstodia militaris, in which, however, Paul was to be treated with mildness and to be left with- out other molestation. — kai undéva kwAveıw] the construction is active: and that he, the centurion, should hinder no one. —rév idiwv aurov] is not to be understood of the Jewish servants of the procurator, but of those belonging to the apostle, They were his friends and disciples, among whom were per- haps also relatives.!' They were allowed to be at hand and serviceable for the satisfaction of his wants. Ver. 24. Ilapayev.] denotes the coming along of Felix and Drusilla to the prison,’ where they wished to hear Paul. Grotius thinks that it refers to the fetching of Drusilla as his wife, which took place at this time. But this must have been more precisely indicated, and is also not chronologically 1 Comp. Bengel: ‘‘consilia dilatoria, tuta 8 “ Requiem,’ Vulgate. mundo in rebus divinis.” ® Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p.590 B: xaAaceı re 2 Grotius. kar avegeı. Polyb. i. 66. 10: aveots cat axoAN. 3 See also Bornemann, and Rosenmiiller, Joseph. Anté. xviii. 6. 10: dvAaxh ev yap «ai Repert. II. p. 281 f. THPNCLS HV, META MEVTOL avETEWS THS Eis THY 4 Comp. Wetstein. diaırav. So correctly also Wieseler, p. 381. 5 So Böttger, Beitr. II. p. 12, as a threat to 10 Arrian. ii. 15.7; see on it, Geib, Gesch. the Jews. d. Rim. Criminalprocesses, p. 562 f. ® On d:ayveso., comp. xxiii. 15. 31 xxiii. 16. 7 Comp. keAevoas, Xxiii. 35. 12 xxiii. 35. ADDRESS BEFORE FELIX AND DRUSILLA. 449 suitable, as the marriage of Felix with Drusilla occurred much earlier.! — On the beautiful Drusilla, the third wife of Felix,” the daughter of Agrippa I. and sister of Agrippa 11., who was at first betrothed to Antiochus Epiphanes, the prince of Commagene, but afterwards, because the latter would not allow himself to be circumcised, was married to Azizus, king of Emesa,* and lastly was, with the help of the sorcerer Simon, estranged from her husband and married by Felix, whose first wife, according to Tac. Hist. v. 9, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra,‘ is said to have been also called Drusilla.® — pereréup. 7. IL.] certainly at the desire of his Jewish wife, whose curiosity was interested about so well-known a preacher of Christ. Vv. 25, 26. What a sacredly bold tidelity to his calling! Before one, who practised all manner of wnrighteousness and incontinence—the victim of his lust sat beside him !—‘‘ cuncta malefacta sibi ömpune ratus,’’ ° Paul, his defenceless prisoner, discoursed on righteousness, continence, and the impend- ing last judgment. Such is the majesty of the apostolic spirit in its anödeı£ıc.? The extraordinary phenomenon strikes even the heart of Felix ; he trem- bles (c*). But his ruling worldliness quickly suppresses the disturbing promptings of his conscience ; with the address of a man of the world, the conference is broken off; Paul is sent back to his prison; and Felix—re- mains reprobate enough to expect from such a man, and in spite of the Lex Julia de repetundis, a bribe, and for this purpose in fact subsequently to hold several conversations with him. — ro viv &yov] for the present.” — xaipov dé petar.| tempus opportunum nactus. Here consequently Paul had spoken aratpoc.’— A comma only is to be placed after peraxa2. oe, as EArilwv, ver. 26, does not stand for the finite verb, but is a further definition to arexpidn. Also before dio, wherefore, a comma only is to be placed. — ypyuara] Certainly Felix had not remained in ignorance how the love of the Christians had their money in readiness for Paul. ‘‘Sic thesaurum evangelii omisit infeliz Feliz,” Bengel. Ver. 27. Avetiac dé mAnpwß. | namely, from the commencement of the imprison- ment at Caesarea.—On the time of the accession of Festus, 61; see Introd. $4.'° — yäpıra (see the critical remarks) xatafécba, to lay down, deposit, thanks for himself, i.e. to earn for himself thanks," to establish claims to their gratitude. An old classical expression.’ Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ Est locutio bene Graeca 158 or 54. See Wieseler, p. 80. 2 Suet. Claud. 28. 3 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1. 4 Suetonius, Jc., calls him “trium regi- narum maritum.’’ We know only the two. 5 See Gerlach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 68 f.; Ewald, p. 556 ff. 6 Tac. Ann. xii. 54. 71 Cor. ii. 4. 8 See Kypke, II. p. 124; Bornemann and Rosenmiiller, Repert. II. p. 282. 92 Tim. iv. 2. 10 What Wieseler has further urged in favour of the year 60 in his most recent learned investigation (Beitr. 2. Würdig. d. Evang. p. 322 ff.) does not remove the chief objection that, according to Josephus, Poppaea, about the time (kata Tov Kapoor) that Festus succeeded, was no longer the mistress, but the wife of Nero. Especially when the discourse is of an empress, n yvvn is least of all to be lightly passed over ; on the contrary, ıt is to be presumed that the ex- pression is meant, and is to be understood, strictly. 1 xxyv.'9. 12 Herod. vi. 41. 33. 1. See Krüger on Thuc. i. 450 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES. . . . quales locutiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non alios inducit loquentes, sed ipse loquitur, et quidem de rebus ad religionem non perti- nentibus.’’ The form ydpira, only here and in Jude 4 in the N. T., is also found in classical poets and prose writers, although less common than yapır. — dedeuévov] According to what was remarked on ver. 23, Paul had not hitherto been released from chains ; and therefore we have not to suppose that Felix on his departure changed the captivity of the apostle, which was previously free from chains,’ into the eustodia militaris allowable even in the case of Roman citizens, in which the prisoner was bound by a chain to the soldier who kept him. This period of two years in the life of the apostle, we may add, remains to us, as far as the Book of Acts goes, so completely unknown, that we are not ina position? to maintain that no letters of his from that interval could be in existence. — Of Porcius Festus, the better successor of Felix, little is known except his energetic measures against the sicarii.* He died in the following year, and was succeeded by Albinus, whose knavery was yet surpassed by that of his successor, Gessius Florus, Norres BY AMERICAN Eprror. (a) Tertullus began to aecuse. VY. 2. Lysias, the chief captain, had sent Paul under a strong military escort to Cxsarea to appear before the Roman governor Felix. Thus Paul returned to that city in a very different style from that in which he left it, a short time before. Then he was attended by a little caravan of humble disciples, now in the midst of a Roman body-guard, with all the pomp of martial display. Then, however, as a preacher bound, but only in spirit, to go to Jerusalem ; now, as a prisoner bound in chains, destined to along imprisonment. The officer in charge took Paul at once to the governor, and delivered the letter which had been intrusted to him by Lysias. Felix read the letter, inquired to what proy- ince the prisoner belonged, and intimated his intention of trying the case when his accusers arrived. The Jews, probably because ignorant of Roman law, engaged the services of a Roman barrister of eminent ability, persuasive eloquence, and probably of great reputation, to make the charges against the apostle. From the outline given of his speech, he was evidently a practised pleader, and a voluble, plau- sible orator. Augustine says : ““ Eloquence is the gift of God, but the eloquence of a bad man is like poison in a golden cup.’’ He commences with a fulsome and flattering compliment to Felix, which he certainly little deserved, since, though he suppressed some bands of brigands with much vigor and decision, he kept a number of sicarii in his employment, and inflamed the dissatisfac- tion and fanned a spirit of sedition among the Jews. He was both covetous and cruel, and was one of the worst governors ever placed over Judea. He is reported to have been more criminal than the very robbers whom he put to 1 But see on ver. 23. 3 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8.9 f. to xx. 9.1, 2 With Ewald and Otto. Beil. ii. 14. 1. NOTES. 451 death, “ipse tamen his omnibus erat nocentior.” Next Tertullus apologizes for intruding even for a brief space upon the time and attention of the governor, and proceeds to make his charges against Paul, which were threefold : First, he accuses him of sedilion; as being a pest in the community, a disturber of the peace, and one who excited factions among the Jews. The next count in the indictment was heresy ; as being a ringleader in the sect whom he contemptu- ously calls the Nazarenes—a term of reproach, here first used, which has been often applied to the followers of Christ. Jews and Mohammedans both still use it. This charge had at least the merit of truth, as Paul was unquestionably a standard-bearer among those thus stigmatized. The last accusation was, sac- rilege ; as going about to profane the temple—a serious charge, but utterly un- founded. Having thus made an orderly and formal indictment against the apostle of treason against Rome, schism against Moses, and profanity against the gods, the clever and crafty advocate insinuates that the Sanhedrim would have judged Paul righteously had Lysias not interposed, and further gets the elders to assent to all he had stated. The governor intimated to Paul that he might now reply to the charges laid against him. “ Nou ignoravit Paulus artem rhetorum movere laudendo.’’ He first states that he could proceed with his defence more cheerfully and hopefully because, for so long a period, his judge had been cognizant of affairs in Judea. He replies to each of the charges and refutes them in succession. He had not caused any disturbance of the public peace, or raised any opposition to the Roman law ; he had only been a few days in the country, and he challenged any one to prove that he had said or done anything contrary to the law; he had excited no tumult in the temple, in the synagogues, or in the city. As to the charge of schism, he frankly avowed that after the way they called the sect of the Nazarenes he worshipped the God of his fathers, the God of the Jews. As Lange expresses it, “ By these words Paul maintains that, along with his Christian faith, he was a true Jew ; for Chris- tianity is the fulfilment and truth of Judaism.”’ As to the charge of polluting the temple, it was utterly baseless, as after an absence of years he had gone thither, had purified himself, for the pur- pose of presenting offerings, and had been guilty of no act of. impropriety whatever ; and he closed by challenging any member of the Sanhedrim present to say whether, when on trial before that council, any such accusation had been laid against him, and stated further that the only disturbance arose among themselves concerning the doctrine of the resurrection, which the ma- jority of them believed in, as he did. The reply of the apostle was conclusive and triumphant, and he ought to have been acquitted at once, but Felix remand- ed him to jail for further examination. (Bt) According to our law, etc. V. 6. On the genuineness of this passage Alford encloses it in brackets and writes: ‘“ The phenomena are common enough in the Acts of unaccountable insertions, But in this place it is the omission which is unaccountable, for no similarity of ending, no doctrinal reason can have led to it.” Hackett says: ‘‘ The pas- sage is of doubtful authority.’’ ‘‘ It is urged for the words that their insertion answers no apparent object, and that they may have been dropped accidental- ly.” Plumptre remarks : ‘‘ The word may have been either the interpolation of a 452 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES. scribe, or a later addition of the writer.” Gloag observes : ‘‘ The genuineness of the entire passage has been calledin question. The external evidence is de- cidedly against its reception. On the other hand the internal evidence is rather in favor of the words. Without them the speech of Tertullus is apparently de- fective, and awkward in point of construction.’’ Wordsworth considers the pas- sage genuine and Jacobson says : ‘‘ The clause is recognized by the Syriac and the Vulgate, and the report of the speech is exceedingly brief and meagre with- out it.’’ (ct) Felix trembled. V. 26. Felix by vile means had seduced the wife of Azizas, the daughter of Herod Agrippa, from her allegiance to her husband, and had married her. Probably at her request, as she could scarcely be entirely ignorant of the events con- nected with the disciples and their persecutions, Felix sent for Paul, to hear from him concerning his beliefs ; and right nobly did the dauntless apostle discharge his duty. Paul had been often summoned before Felix. Now Felix is arraigned before Paul. Andas the prisoner reasoned before the governor and his princess, both of them notoriously and consciously guilty, the cruel, rapacious, and blood-stained ruler was profoundly stirred and agitated. Looking back on his stained past, and constrained for a moment to peer into the future certain retribution, he trembled. And well he might, for testimony the most irrefragable from both Jewish and Pagan sources show ‘‘ how greedy, how savage, how treacherous, how unjust, how steeped with the blood of private and public massacre’? he had been during his government of Samaria and Palestine. Tacitus says that in “the practice of all kinds of lust, crime, and cruelty, he exercised the power of a king, with the temper of a slave.’’ He trembled, but he trifled with his awakened conscience and said,‘‘ Go.” Better far that a man’s conscience should never be awakened at all, than that it should be awoke with its reproofs, and be disobeyed. Dr. Taylor deduces the following lessons from the incident : The twofold power in conscience to sustain and condemn, as il- lustrated by Paul and Felix ; the danger of stifling conviction ; the hypocrisy of procrastination, the fettering influence of sin. “To-morrow and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death.” CRITICAL REMARKS. 453 CHAPTER XXV. Ver, 2. 6 apyrepevs] of dpxıspeis is decidedly attested. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The singular arose from xxiv. 1. — Ver. 4. eis Kavoup.] so Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testi- mony. Elz. Scholz have &v Ka:capeca. An interpretation. — Ver. 5. rovrw] A B C E38, min. Arm. Vulg. Lucifer. have drorov. So Lachm. and Born. But how easily, with the indefiniteness of the expression ei rı Eoriv Ev K.7.A., Was üromov suggested as a gloss, perhaps from a recollection of Luke xxiii. 41! This then supplanted the superfluous rourw. Other codd. have rovtw aromov. And atorov is found variously inserted. — Ver. 6, od mAeiovs oxTd 7 dera] so Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, Born. But Elz. has rAeiovs 7 déxa, in opposition to ABC 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. As the oldest codd., in which the numbers are written as words, likewise all the oldest vss. (of which, however, several omit oi’, and several ob rAeiovs), have örro, it is very probable that in later witnesses the number written by the numeral sign 7 was absorbed by the following 7. Finally, the omission of od was suggested by &v rayeı, ver. 4, as it was thought that dıarpinpas de... . dena must be taken as a contrast to év rayer (he promised to depart speedily, yet he tarried, etc.),— Ver. 7. airıduara] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. read aitıouara, which is so decidedly attested that, notwith- standing that this form does not occur elsewhere, it must be adopted. — ¢épov- tes Kata Tob IlavAov] Lachm, Tisch. Born. read karadepovres, following A BC &, lot. 40, Vulg. Lucifer. The Recepta is one interpretation of this; another is émidép. ro I. in E. — Ver. 11. yap] ABCE 8, min. Copt. Slav. Chrys. Theo- phyl. 2, have oöv, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. Rightly ; ei u2v obv adırö seemed entirely at variance with the pre- ceding oidév mdinnoa. — Ver. 15. dirnv] AB NS, min. Bas. have xatadixnv. Rec- ommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. An interpretation. — Ver. 16. After @v0pwrov Elz. Scholz have eis anwAsıav. It is wanting in pre- ponderating witnesses, and is an addition of the nature of a gloss. — Ver. 18, &r&pepov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read é¢epov, according to decisive testimony. — After iz v. éyo A C* have movnpav (so Lachm.), and BE N** rovnpdv (so Born.). Two different exegetical additions. — Ver. 20. rovrwv] has decisive attestation. But Elz. Scholz have roörov, which (not to be taken with Grotius and others as the neuter) was occasioned by the preceding 6 IavAos and the following ei BovAorro. —Ver. 21. avarsın)oisto be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., accord- ing to preponderating testimony, instead of réu)w. The reference of the com- pound was overlooked. — Ver. 22. &$n, and afterwards o dé, are deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to A B N; andrightly. They were added by way of completion. — Ver. 25. karalaßöwevos] Lachm. and Born. read karsAaßöunv, following AB CE N**loti, Vulg. Copt. Syr., which witnesses also omit kai before aitod. A logical emendation. — Ver. 26. oxö, te yparpac] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read oyo, ti ypéw according to ABC, min. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the preceding. = 454 ; CHAP. Xxv., 1-11. Ver. 1. Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed. — &mıßaivew, with the dative.’—7H £rapxia ;” for the procurators were also called Zrapgxoı.? | Vv. 2, 3. ’Evedavıoav x.7.4.] See on xxiv, 1. — oi äpxıepeic] see the critical remarks, as in xxii. 80; consequently not merely the acting bigh priest,* who at that time was Jshmael, son of Phabi, and successor of Ananias.® — Kai ol mporoı Tv "Iovdaiwv] thus not merely the mpeoBitepo, xxiv. 1. The opposition now came forward in a larger spiritual and secular representation of the nation against the enemy of the nationul religion. It is true that most of these rporo: were without doubt Sanhedrists, and therefore also Festus names them directly @ potiori rpecBitepa ;° but this does not justify the assertion of Grotius, that Luke here uses rporo: as equivalent to rpeoß. So also de Wette and Ewald. Ver. 5 is opposed to this view. — aitotwe- vor yap K.T.A.| desiring for themselves favour against him." — orac x.t.2.| The design of mapexäA. air. — évédpav moivvreg x.7.2.] an accompanying definition to rapexddovy . . . "IepovoaAnu, giving a significant explanation of the pecu- liar nature of this proceeding : inasmuch as they thereby formed a snare, in order to put him to death, through assassins, by the way. Ver. 4. For the reasons of the decision, see ver. 16. — By rypeiofa . . . éxrropevecba, the reply of refusal: ‘‘ Paul remains at Caesarea,’’ is expressed indirectly indeed, but with imperative decidedness. Observe in this case the rypeicfa emphatically prefixed in contrast to wetaréuy., ver. 3. — Fic Kaoap.| In Caesarea, whither he was brought in custody.* — Notice the contrast between the Jewish baseness and the strict order of the Roman government. Ver. 5. The decidedly attested order of the words is: oi obv év ipiv dnow dbvatot.® of duvatot év iu. are: the holders of power among you, i.e. those who are invested with the requisite official power, for making a public com- plaint in the name of the Jewish nation. Thus the usual literal meaning of duvaréc is to be retained, and it is neither to be explained, with Erasmus, as idonei ; nor, with Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Homberg: quibus commodum est; nor, with Bengel: those who are strong for the journey; nor, with Er. Schmid and Wolf :!° quibus in promptu sunt accusandi capita. Certainly if of mporoı, ver. 2, were the same as oi rpeoBirepor, then of duvaroi év bpiv would be unsuitable, as those persons in power were just the Sanhedrists ; wherefore oi rparo: must include also other prominent persons. —ovyraraß.] having gone down with me." — ei rı éoriv] namely, an object of accusation. 1 See Thue. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. i. 19; Diod. BESTX PP) Seat, 164 xvi. 66; Pind. Nem. iii, 19. 9 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann. 2 xxiii. 34. See on similar intervening insertions of ¢yct, 3 See Krebs in loc, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 13 ; Bornemann, 4 As in xxiv. 1. ad loc.; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 472 D. 5 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. 10 Comp. Castalio, de Dieu, and others. SoVer.15: 11 Thuc. vi. 30. 2; Diod. xii. 30; Wied. x. 7 Com, ver. 15. 13 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 398. \ > PAUL’S TRIAL AND APPEAL. 455 Vv. 6,7. Avatpiac . . . dexa] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at that time among the Jews at Jerusalem (év airoic), not merely the time that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal. — repuéotyoav| stood round Paul, as is evident from the preceding repay. dé airov.' Grotius and Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to 7d Bjywa.— moAAü kal k.t.A.] aS in John xx, 30. —aitiduara {see the critical remarks), instead of airıquara, accusations, is not elsewhere preserved.” — katagépovrec (see the critical remarks), they brought against him.* Ver. 8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated For his vindication, that, ete.* — ovre x.7.4.| These were consequently the three principal points to which the roAAd Kai Bapéa airıöuara of the Jews referred,°’ to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly against Jesus. Ver. 9. Xäpıv xatabécha] see on xxiv. 27.—OéAerg . . . Em pod; Grotius correctly renders : visne a Synedrio judicari me praesente? For that Festus meant a xpivectlac by the Sanhedrim, is evident of itself from eic 'Iepoc. avaB. and éxet, — Er’ éuoi] coram me. Bengel aptly observes: hoc Festus speciose addit.—Paul must be asked the question, @éAecc, because he had already been delivered over to the higher Roman authority, and accord- ingly as a Roman citizen could not be compelled again to renounce the Roman tribunal.—If Festus had previously ° without ceremony refused the request of the Jews, which was at variance with the course of Roman law, he now shows, on the other hand, after they had conformed to the ordi- nary mode of procedure, that he was quite willing to please them. Cer- tainly he could not doubt beforehand that his @éAe¢ would be answered in the negative by Paul; yet by his question he made the Jews sensible at least that the frustration of their wish did not proceed from any indisposi- tion on his part. / Ver. 10. Paul gives a frank and firm refusal to that request, both posi- tively—éni tov Biju. Kaio. x.7.A.—and negatively—’Iovdaiovg oidév «.r.A., to the Jews I have committed no offence. —ixi r. Byu. Kaicapoc| for ‘‘ quae acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Caesaris, sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cae- sare ipso gesta sint.’ —xdddwov] namely, than appears to follow from your question. Paul makes his judge feel that he ought not to have proposed that B&Asıc «.7.A. to him at all, as it could not but conflict with his own better conviction. Ver. 11. From his preceding declaration that he must be judged before the imperial tribunal, and not by Jews, Paul now reasons® that he accord- ingly by no means refuses to die, if, namely, he is in the wrong; but in the opposite case, etc. In other words: “ Accordingly, I submit myself to the penalty of the Roman law, if I am guilty; but, if,’’ ete. And, in order to be sure of the protection of Roman law, amidst the inclination of 1 Comp. ver. 18. [of airianıs. 5 Comp. xxi. 28, xxiv. 5 f. 2 Yet Eust. p. 1422, 21, has airiwocıs instead 6 Ver. 4. 3 Gen. xxxvii. 2; Deut. xxii. 14. 7 Ulpian Z. 7. D. de offic. procuratoris. 4 On arodoyetoGar with örı (more frequently 8 ody, as the correct reading instead of yap, with os), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22. see the critical remarks. 456 CHAP. xxv., 12-18. Festus to please the Jews, he immediately adds the appeal to the Empe- ror (DY).— ei... adırö]) If T am at fault.‘ The idea of the word presup- poses the having done wrong,” therefore the added kai äfıov dav. rérp. Con- tains a more precise definition of adicé, and that according to the degree. —ob maparroduaı #.r.A.] non deprecor.*— ro arxodaveiv] ‘id ipsum agi, notat articulus.’’ 4*— ei d& obdév Earıv ov] but if there exists nothing of that, of which they, etc. dv is by attraction for robrev 4.° —divara] namely, according to the possibility conditioned by the subsisting legal relations. — avroic xapicacta to surrender me to them out of complaisance.° — Kaicapa éxixad.| I appeal to the Emperor." Certainly the revelation, xxiii. 11, contributed to Paul’s embracing this privilege of his citizenship.* ‘‘ Non vitae suae, quam ecclesiae consulens,’’ Augustine accordingly says, Hp. 2. Ver. 12. The conference of Festus with the council acting as his advi- sers, as may be inferred from the answer afterwards given, referred to the question whether the ZrixAnsıc of the Emperor was to be granted without more ado. For in cases of peculiar danger, or of manifest groundlessness of the appeal, it might be refused.* The consiliarii* of the provincial rulers were called also tdpedpor, assessores.1! — After éxixéxa., the elsewhere usual note of interrogation, which simply spoils the solemnity and force of the answer, is already condemned by Grotius.—Baumgarten thinks that, from the appeal to Caesar, which in his view will not have been pernicious to Paul, and from xxvii. 24, it may be inferred that the Acts of the Apos- tles is decidedly favourable to the supposition of a liberation of Paul from Too rash a conclusion. Neither the appeal To Rome he wished to go (appeal), and the Roman imprisonment. nor xxvii. 24 points beyond Rome. was to g0, xxvil. 24. Ver. 13. This Marcus Agrippa was the well-meaning, but too weak, Herod Agrippa ı1., son of the elder Agrippa, grandson of Aristobulus, and the great-grandson of Herod 1. Soon after the death of his father’? he received from Claudius, at whose court he was brought up," the principality of Chalcis, and instead of this, four years afterwards,“ from the same emperor, the former tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, along with the title of king ;!° and at a later period, from Nero, a further considerable increase of territory. He did not die till the third year of Trajan, being the last- reigning prince of the Herodian house.! — Bepvikn, also Beronice and Bere- 1 See Krüger, Index. Xen. Anab. ; Jacobitz, ad Luc. Tim. 25, p. 25 f.; Heind. ad Plat. and others : Ebıevaı. 8 See Grotius in loc.; Krebs, de provocat. Protag. § 4, p. 463 f. 2 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 5. 12. Comp. Joseph. Vit. 29; Herod. i. 24: Wuxnv Se maparreöuevov. Lys. adv. Sim. § 4: afın SE... et méev Adık®, undenuas ovyyvapuys Tuyxaveıv. * Bengel. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 226 (E. T. 262). 5 Comp. xxiv. 8; Luke xxiii. 14. 6 See on iii. 14. 7 See examples from Plutarch of &rıkaA. in Wetstein; also Plut. @raech. 16; in Dem. Pauli ad Caes. in his Opusc. p. 143 ff. 9 See Geib, /.c. p. 684 f. 10 Suet. Z%d. 33. 11 Suet Galba, 19. See generally, Perizonius, de Praetorio, p. 718; Ewald, p. 326. 12 xil. 23. 13 Joseph. Anét. xix. 9. 2, xx. 1.1. 14 A.D. 53. 15 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1. 16 See Ewald, p. 555 ff.; Gerlach in the Zu- ther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 62 ff. FESTUS AND AGRIPPA. 457 nice,’ was his sister, formerly the wife of her uncle Herod the prince of Chal- cis, after whose death she lived with her brother,—probably in an incestuous relation,’—a state of matters which was only for a short time interrupted by a second marriage, soon again dissolved, with the Cilician king Pole- mon.’ At a later period still she became mistress of the Emperors Ves- pasian and Titus.* — doracéuevoc] It was quite in keeping with the relation of a Roman vassal, that he should welcome the new procurator soon after his accession to office. Ver. 14. The following conversation between Festus and Agrippa most naturally appears not as a communication by an ear-witness,” but as drawn up by Luke himself as a free composition; for he had the materials for the purpose in his accurate information, received from Paul, as to the occurrence set forth in ver. 7 ff. — av&dero] he set forth, enarravit, Gal. ii. 2. His design in this was ° to learn the opinion of the king ; for Agrippa, as an Idumean, as belonging himself to Judaism,’ and especially as chief over- seer of the temple and of the election of high priest,* was accurately acquainted with the state of Jewish affairs. Vv. 15, 16. Airoiuevor x.r.A.]| asking for punishment against him. That dixnv® is so to be taken, according to its very frequent use by the classical writers,’ is shown by ver. 16.''— zpiv 7] refers to the conception of con- demnation contained in yapigecda:. As to the principle of Roman law here expressed, see Grotius.'” On the optative with zpiv after a negative clause, when the matter is reported ‘‘ wt in cogitatione posita,’’ see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726. Vv. 17-20. After they had therefore come together here,® I made no delay, etc. !4 — Ver. 18. epi ou] belongs to cravévrec.!® — aitiav égepov (see the criti- cal remarks) : they brought no accusation. 'The classical expression would be air. éxipéperv.'° — ov, instead of Ereivav 4, itevdovv éyo] In the case of a man already so long imprisoned, and assailed with such ardent hostility, Festus very naturally supposed that there existed some peculiar capital crimes, chiefly, perhaps, of a political nature. It is true that political charges were also brought forward,’’ but ‘‘hinc iterum conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias, ut in judicii rationem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet,’’ Calvin. — Ver. 19. repi tHe idiac dewowdarn.] concerning their own religion. Festus prudently uses this voz media, leaving it to Agrippa to take the word in a 14.2. equivalent to Pepevikn, Sturz, Dial. 11 Comp. the passages with air. dcx. in Wet- Maced. p. 31. stein. 2 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 3. 12 in Joc., and on xvi. 37. Likewise as to $3 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 5. the Greek law, see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. 4 See Gerlach, /.c. p. 160. 5 Riehm, Kuinoel. 13 To Caesarea, just as in ver. 24. 6 See ver. 26 f. 14See examples of avaBoAnv roveto Oar (comp. 7 Comp. xxvi. 27; also Schoettg. Hor. p. avaBaddcoOat, xxiv. 22) in Wetstein. 481. 15 Comp. ver. 7%. 8 Joseph. Antt. xx. 1. 3. ® Comp. 2 Thess. i. 9; Jude 7. 10 See Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 162 f.; Ast, Lex Plat. I. p. 538. 16 Herod. i. 263; Thuc. vi. 76; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 856 E; and often in the orators, or éxayew Dem. 275, 4). 17 Ver, 8. 458 CHAP. XXV., 21-27. good sense, but reserving withal his own view, which was certainly the Roman one of the Judaica superstitio.! — Ipv] that he lives, namely, risen and not again dead. Moreover, the words xai zepi rıvog "Iyoov . . . Cyv bear quite the impress of the indifference and insignificance which Festus attached to this very point, inasmuch as, in regard to the reVvyxdroc, he does not even condescend to designate the mode of death, and, as regards the (jv, sees in it an empty pretence.?— Ver. 20. amopoipuevoc] but I, uncer- tain on my part. Quite in accordance with the circumstances of the case— for before the king Festus might not lay himself open to any imputation of partiality—Luke makes the procurator keep silence over the real motive of his proposal, ver. 9. — cic tiv rept tobtwr Ihr.) regarding the investigation to be held on account of these to me so strange matters.” Instead of eic rw «.T.A.,* Luke might have written only av k.r.A.,° or rH¢ K.7.2.° Ver. 21. After, however, Paul had appealed to be kept in ward” for the cog- nizance® of Augustus, etc. — npmdnvaı] 1s not equivalent to eic 7d rypmd.,” but it is the contents of the expressed appeal, namely, the legal demand which it contained. After this appeal had been in law validly made, no further proceedings might be taken by the authorities at their own instance ‘against the appellant.!? — airév] is not to be written airdé», as there is no reflexive emphasis. — Zeßaoröc] Venerandus, the Lat. Augustus, the well- known title of the emperors since the time of Octavianus.!! — éw¢ ov ava- ru» (see the critical remarks !?) is direct address." Ver. 22. The narrative of Festus has excited the Jewish interest of the king, so that he also, on his part (k. auröc), wishes to hear the prisoner. — éBovadunr] quite like our: J wished,‘ namely, if it admitted of being done." Calvin erroneously infers from the imperfect that Agrippa had previously cherished a wish to hear Paul, but had hitherto refrained from expressing it, in order not to appear as if he had come for any other reason than to salute Festus. — aipiov axotcn . . . avtov] The wish of the king is very welcome to the procurator. Why? see ver. 26. Ver. 23. avracia, show, pomp, raparoury.'’—rd axpoarhpiov " is the audience- chamber appointed for the present occasion. That it was, as is assumed, just the usual judgment-hall, is at least not conveyed in the words. — oiy Te Tog K.T.A.| Té18 placed after civ, not after yAcdépy., because the civ 1 Quinctil. iii. 8. Comp. on xvii. 22. 2 ébackev, COMP. XXIV. 9. [vi. 16. 2. 3 ¢éyrnots, in the judicial sense, as in Pol. 4 Comp. Soph. Trach. 1233. 5As A H actually read. Heind. ad Plat. Crat. p. 409 C. 6 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 557 D. 7 Ver. 4. 8 Judicial decision, Wisd. iii. 18, and often in the classical writers. 9 Grotius, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others. 10 See Wetstein on ver. 11. 11 See generally, Fincke, de appellationib. Caesarum honorif. et adulator. usque ad Ha- drian., Regiom. 1867. avros yevönevos apyn oeßaopod Kat Tots ereıra, Philo, Leg. ad Ca- tum p. 1012. Vell. Paterc. ii. 91; Dio Cass, liii. 16; Herodian, ii. 10. 19, iii. 13. 7; Strabo, Vii. p. 291. 12 On avamepreıv, to send up, of the trans- port of prisoners to Rome, comp. Polyb. 1. 7. 12, xxix. 11.9; Lucian, 7oxr. 17; and Jacoh inloc. See also on Luke xxiii. 7. 13 Comp. on xxiii. 12. 14 Germ. : ich wollte. 15 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; Gal. iv. 20. See Wi- ner, p. 265 f. (E. T. 353). 16 1 Macc. ix. 37, ambitio (Nep. x. 2. 2). See Polyb. xv. 25. 5, Xvi. 21. 1, xxxii. 12. 6 ; Diog. L. iv. 53; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 152; and Wetstein. 17 Plut. Moral. p. 45 F, 937 D. Cat. 22. AUL AND AGRIPPA, 459 is again mentally supplied before avdpaoı.! By roic yiAcdpyouc, there were Jive cohorts, and therefore five tribunes in Caesarea—and by üvdpaoı . . . moAewe are meant the principal military and the prominent civil personages of the city. — Instead of roic kar’ &$oxnv ovcı, a classical writer would say roig E£öyoıg OF ELOYwWTATOLC.” Vv. 24, 25. Oewpeite| Indicative. — ray 76 72700¢] appears to conflict with vv. 2 and 15, and is at all events an exaggeration. But how natural is it to suppose that the persons there named were accompanied by an impetuous crowd! Hence also im:Podrtec. On évérvydv po, they have approached me, in a hostile spirit towards him.” On évddde, comp. xxv. 17. —xai aurov dé tovtov| and, on the other hand,* this person himself, itemque ipse ille. Vv. 26, 27. "Acoaréc rı] something trustworthy, whereby the emperor, 6 kbpioc, Dominus, the appellation declined by Augustus and Tiberius, but ac- cepted by their successors, * may inform himself certainly concerning the state of matters. Such a fixing of the real airia had not been possible for the pro- curator, who had to draw up the literae dimissoriae, so long as the proceed- ings were constantly disturbed and confused by intentional fabrications of the Jews. — ävaxpio.] A preliminary examination, ‘‘judicis edocendi causa.”°— In oyö rı ypdww (see the critical remarks) ypdyo is the fu- ture :” what I am to write. — @)0yov] unreasonable, absurd.” Without eivar.” — räc kar’ abrov airiac] This was just the aogaréc, which was still wanting to the procurator. Without having made himself clear as to the contents of the charges brought against Paul, he would have been obliged frankly to report to the emperor that he was in ignorance of them. Olshausen, however, is hasty in holding that, with the placing of the apostle before Agrippa the prediction of the Lord!” wasnow for the first timefulfilled. We know far too little of the previous history of the other apostles to take this ground. Perhaps the elder James and Peter had already stood before Herod." But Paul stood here for the first time before a king, who, how- ever, is by no means to be considered as the representative of the power of the heathen world, as Baumgarten supposes, as Agrippa was himself a Jew,” ruled over the Jews, was by Paul addressed as a Jew," and was, in fact, even regarded as representative of the Jews." 1 See Schoemann, ad Isae. p. 325 f. ; Stallb. 7 See on Phil. i. 22. ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. 8 Thuc. vi. 85. 1, Plat. @org. p. 519 E, Apol. 2 On the periphrastic kara, see Winer, 396 p.18C. (E. T. 528). 9 See Sauppe, and Kühner ad Xen. Mem. 3 Comp. 1 Macc. viii. 32, x. 61; 2Macc. iv. i.1.5. 36. [51. 10 Matt. x. 18; Mark xiii. 9. 4xai... S€as in xxii. 29; see on John vi. 11 Agrippa I., xii. 2, 3 f. 5 See Wolf and Wetstein, also Dougt. Anal. 12 See on ver. 14. p. 96; Fincke, 2.c. 13 xxvi. 3, 27. 6 Grotius. See also Heind. ad Plat. Phaedr. 14 See map’ twiy xxvi. 8. p. 277 E.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 141.1. 460 CHAP. XXV.—NOTES. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (p‘) Tappeal to Cesar. V.11. For two years the mercenary and unprincipled Felix kept Paul in prison at Cxsarea. It has been supposed by some that during this period, Luke, hav- ing free access to Paul, wrote his gospel, and perhaps a part of the Acts under his direction. On account of a formal impeachment by the Jews, Felix was re- called to Rome to answer their accusations, and Festus, a man of a very differ- ent character, was appointed as his successor. He seems to have been an up- right and honorable man, who entered upon the duties of his office with energy, activity, and decision. Owing to the excited state of mind among the Jews at the time, and their embittered feelings against Paul, his case was at once brought before Festus. The new governor without delay visited Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the province, with a view to become acquainted with the characteristics of the people whom he had been appointed to govern. When there, the chief men among the Jews came to him, and asked, as a special favor, that he would give judgment against Paul at once, or order him to be sent to Jerusalem for trial. This was done with the sinister design of as- sassinating him while on the way. The answer of Festus was dignified and worthy of the office he held : ‘‘ Let his accusers come to Cesarea, and he shall be tried there.’ As soon as Festus returned Paul is brought again before the court. The Jews passionately and clamorously reiterate their former charges of treason, heresy, and sacrilege, which the apostle meets with a calm and em- phatic denial. With the view of putting an end to a scene so disorderly and offensive to his sense of Roman decorum, Festus asks Paul whether he was willing to transfer the question from Roman back to Jewish jurisdiction. Paul’s reply is prompt and decided, and reveals the dauntless and heroic spirit of the man. “Iam either guilty or not ; if guilty, I fear not the sentence of death from the tribunal at which I now stand ; but if I am innocent, as a Ro- man citizen, no man can deliver me into the hands of the Jews ; I appeal to Cesar.’ The right of appeal from a subordinate court to the emperor was one of the privileges of citizenship ; and no unnecessary impediment could be interposed against such appeal. Festus therefore, having consulted his coun- sellors, granted the appeal and said, “ Unto Cesar thou shalt go” —“ Casarem appellasti ; ad Caesarem ibis.” So Paul was again remanded to prison until ar- rangements could be made to forward him to Rome. Particular importance was attached to the right of appeal from the judgments of provincial magis- trates. The magic power of this one word appello is described as similar to that of the talismanic phrase, Civis Romanus sum. Indeed the two things coin- cided. (Alexander.) (z') Unto my lord. V. 26. ‘O xvpioc—dominus—lord. Gloag says: “In the use of this title we have an instance of the extreme accuracy of the historian of the Acts.” This title was declined by the first two emperors, Augustus and Tiberias. Caligula ac- cepted it, but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Of NOTES. 461 Augustus, Tertullian writes: “ Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat’’— Augustus, the founder of the empire, did not wish any one to call him lord. And Suetonius writes : “ Dominum se appellari, ne a liberis quidem, aut nepotibus, vel serio vel joco, passus est” —He suffered not him- self to be addressed as lord, even by his own children or grandchildren, whether in jest or earnest. Antoninus Pius was the first who put this title on hiscoins. Polycarp, who was acontemporary of some of the apostles, and who suffered martyrdom at an advanced age, refused to utter it. 462 CRITICAL REMARKS, CHAPTER XXVI. Ver. 1. ixép] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read repi, upon decisive evidence. — Ver. 3. After deouaı Elz. Scholz have oov, which is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to AB E 8, min. Aeth. Syr. p. Arm, Vulg. A supplementary addition. — Ver. 6, eis] Elz. Scholz have mpés. eis has A BE 8, min. in its favour; is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; pos is explanatory, in accordance with xiii. 32. — After rar. ABC E 8, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and many vss. have judv. Adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm., and in view of the considerable preponderance of testimony, rightly. The unnecessary pronoun was easily passed over. — Ver. 7. The critically established order of the words is: éyxaAodua d70 lovdaiwy (not vr6 tav ’Iovd., as Elz. has) BaoiAed. So Lachm. Born. Tisch. ’Ayoirra, which Elz. and Scholz have after GaovAci, is an addition opposed to greatly preponderant testimony, — Ver. 10. dvAaxais] decisive witnesses have év gvd. ; so Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver, 12. &v 0i5 kai] kai is wanting in A BC EJ x, min. and sev- eral vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. ; and on that preponderating testi- mony with the more right, as the frequent «ai after the relative was easily added mechanically. — 77s mapa röv] Lachm. and Born. have merely rtév, ac- cording to A. E J, min. vss. (B 8% omit only rapa). But 775 might be just as easily left out after the syllable ns, as mapa might be overlooked as super- fluous. If only röv stood originally, there was no reason why it should be completed from ver. 10. Therefore the Recepta is to be retained. — Ver. 14. Aahoicav xpdoue k. A€yovoav] Lachm. and Born. read Aeyovoav mpds ue, following AB CJ &, min. vss., to which also E, min., having gwv7s Aeyotons mpdS pe, are to be added. But the comparison of ix. 4, xxii. 7, occasioned the abbrevi- ation. — Ver, 15. 6 dé] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 6 62 KupoS, according to very considerable testimony. The Recepta is from ix. 5 (see the critical re- marks thereon). — Ver. 16. eides] B C* (?) 137, Arm. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug. have eldés we. More precise definition, although defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 360. — Ver. 17. Instead of 2y6, Elz. Scholz have viv, against decisive testimony. — Ver, 20. After mpörcv Lachm. Born. Tisch. have re as in AB 8. Inserted for closer connection with «ai 'Iepoo.. Comp. the following Te... kai.— eS müocav] eis is wanting in AB S, and is deleted by Lachm., but is indispensable, and might be easily enough passed over after the syllable os, — Ver. 21. The article is wanting before ’Iovdaio. in BG N*, which Butt- mann approves: it was easily overlooked on account of the similarity of the following syllable, but would hardly be added, comp. vv. 2, 3, 7.— Ver. 22. mapa] a7é has the stronger attestation (Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — paptupotuevos] ABGH 8, min. Chrys. Theophyl. have waprvpöuevos. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A correction. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 25. 6 dé] Lachm. and Born. read 6 68 IaiAos, which, indeed, has important attestation, but has the suspicion of having arisen from the very usual practice of writing the name on the margin. — Ver. 28. é¢7] is to be deleted, with Lachm. PAUL’S ADDRESS. 463 Tisch., according to important witnesses (including 8). — yev£cdaı] Lachm. and Born. read rovjoaı, after AB 8, loti. three min. Copt. Syr. p. (on the mar- gin). This variation is connected with the reading IIEIOHI (instead of reideıs), but which is found onlyin A, and along with meıjoa: is of the nature of a gloss.! — Ver. 29. m01%6]J Lachm. Tisch. Born. read weydAw, after AB NS, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Rightly ; 70% involuntarily intruded itself as a con- trast of dAiyw. —Ver. 30. avéorn te] Elz. has kai radra eimövros abtod avéotn, against AB N, min. Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. An amplification. Vv. 1-3. 'Erıro£rerai cor] it is, herewith, permitted to thee to speak for thy- self, i.e. to defend thyself.? — éxreivac tyv xeipa] after stretching forth his hand, is not equivalent to the karaosioac tH xeıpt, xü. 17, xili. 16, in opposi- tion to Er. Schmid and Hammond, because this latter had for its object the ovyav of the hearers ;* but it conveys a trait descriptive of the solemnity of this moment: Paul comes forward in the attitude of an orator, with all the ingenuousness and candour of a good conscience, although the chain hung on his hands.* Comp. in contrast to the simple gesture of Paul, the artificially rhetorical one in Apuleius :° ‘‘ Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum con- format articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit."” According to Lange’s fancy, it is an intimation that ‘‘he stretched out his hand at length for once to an intelligent judge.’’ — How true and dignified is also here ° the conciliatory exordium, with which Paul com- mences his speech ! — id 'Iovdaiwy] by Jews, generally, not: by the Jews, comp. xxv. 10. In regard to Jewish accusations, Paul esteemed himself fortunate that he was to defend himself before Agrippa, as the latter was best informed about Jewish customs and controversies. — Ver. 3. wärıora yvbornv bvta ce] as thou art most, more than all other authorities, cognizant. The speech, continuing by a participial construction, is joined on in an ab- normal case, as if an accusative expression had been previously used.” The view of Bornemann is very harsh, as dıö déoua entirely closes the previous construction, and commences a new sentence of the speech : that Paul has put the accusative, because he had it in view to continue subsequently with aité . . . akovoai nov, but omitted to do so on account of nüvw ... Inrnuarov. —Kata ‘Iovd.| among Jews throughout.® Vv. 4, 5. Mé» ody] introduces, in connection with the preceding exor- dium, the commencement now of the defence itself.” — Bioow] manner of life.° Not preserved in Greek writers. — r7v am’ apxäc . - » ‘Iepoo.] a sig- nificant epexegesis of ryv &x vedryroc, for the establishment of the following ioacı K.T.A. — mpoywookovtec . . . Papicaioc] my manner of life... know all Jews, since they knew me from the outset, since the first time of my be- ® Comp. xxiv. 10. 7 Such as mpos ce . .. amodoyerodar, Plat. Apol. p. 24B. Less simply Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 272 (EB. T. 317). See on Eph. i. 18, and 1 Expressing the meaning: thow believest to make me a Christian. Nevertheless Lach- mann, Praef. p. x. considers the reading of A as correct. (7. 16. 2 Comp. Soph, Aj. 151, HZ. 545; Xen. Hist. i. Sl. wel fi 2 Vier.29) 5 Metamorph. ii. p. 54. Stallb. ad. Plat. Rep. p. 386 B. 8 See Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 499). % See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 181. 10 Ecclus. Praef. 1, Symm. Ps. xxxviü. 6. 464 CHAP. XXVI., 6-10. coming known—namely, that I, according to the strictest’ sect of our religion (Opnoxsiac), have lived as Pharisee. This ®apıoaiog, calling that axpıp. aipeouw by its name, stands with great emphasis at the close. Notice generally the intentional definiteness with which Paul here describes all the circumstances of the case, to which belongs also the emphatic repetition of r7u.” — In rpo- ywook., mpo, before, contains the same conception, which is afterwards still more definitely denoted by dvwfev. They knew Paul earlier than merely since the present encounter, and that indeed ävudev, from the beginning,* which therefore, as it refers to the knowing and not to &£yoa, may not be explained : from my ancestors.* — tüv 0éAwor uaprvpeiv] if they do not conceal or deny, but are willing to testify it. ‘‘Nolebat autem, quia persentis- cebant, in conversione Pauli, etiam respectu vitae ante actae, eflicacissimum esse argumentum pro veritate fidci Christianae,’’ Bengel.° Vv. 6, 7. As I was known from of old by every one as a disciple of the strictest orthodoxy, so it is also now far from being anything heterodox, on account of which I stand accused (éoryKa xpivduevoc),—it is the universal, ardently-cherished, national hope, directed to the promise issued by God to our fathers. — ir’ &iridı] on account of hope toward the promise, etc. That Paul means the hope of the Messianic kingdom to be erected, the hope of the whole eternal «Aypovouia,® not merely the special hope of the resurrec- tion of the dead,’ the following more precise description proves, in which the universal and unanimous solicitude of the nation is depicted. He had preached of this hope, that the risen Jesus would realize it,* and this was the reason of his persecution.*® — ei¢ tob¢ rarzépac ju@v] issued to our Fathers. On the order of the words, the participle after the substantive, see Kühner.'® — eic qv refers to the éxayyeAia. — 7d dwderapviov nudav] our twelve-tribe-stock, & theocratically honourable designation of the nation as a whole.!! The word is also found in the Protevang. Jacobi, 1: 75 dwderaoknrrpov tov ’Iopani.” To understand the expression historically, it need only be remarked, that even after the exile the collective body of the people actually consisted of the twelve tribes ; in which view the circumstance, that ten tribes did not re- turn from the exile, did not alter anything in the objective relation, and could not destroy the consciousness, deeply interwoven and vividly bound up by history and prophecy with the whole national character, that every Jew, wherever he was, belonged to the great unity of the dwderaovAov, —to say nothing of the fact that all the members of the ten tribes did not go into exile, and of the exiled all did not jointly and severally remain in exile. The question, therefore, as to the later fate of the ten tribes * does not belong to this place. —év éxreveia x.7.2.] with constancy attending to the SS 9 See also xxviii. 20. 2 See Bornemann in loc. 10 Ad Xen. Anab. v. 3. 4. 3 Luke i. 3. 11 Comp. Jas. i. 1. 4 Beza. 12 See Thilo in loc., p. 166 f. ; Clem. 1 Cor, 5 Comp. xxii. 19 f. 55, comp. chap. 31, p. 76. 6 Heb. ix. 15. 13 Quite analogous is dexabvAos, Herod. v. 7 Grotius. 66 ; comp. rerpabvAos in the same place. 8 Comp. xiii. 32 f. 14 See especially Baumgarten. THE RESURRECTION. 465 worship of God, as well by the VDA, saerifieium juge,!' as by prayer and every kind of adoration. Comp. on Luke ii. 37, where also, in order at once to give prominence to the earnestness of the constant worship, vurra precedes. — karavrjoaı] to arrive, as if at a goal, which is the contents of the promise.” The conception Aaußaveı ryv éxayyed.2 is analogous. The reali- zation of the Messianic promise is also here represented as attaching itself {o the pious preparation of the nation.*— iro ’Iovdaiov] by Jews! placed at the end, brings into emphatic prominence the contrast. The absurdity and wickedness of being impeached by Jews concerning the hope of the Messianic kingdom were to be made thoroughly palpable. Ver. 8. The circumstance that Paul made the resurrection of Jesus the foundation of his preaching of the Messianic kingdom, had specially pro- voked the hatred of the Jews. This resurrection they would not recog- nise,” and therefore he continues—in his impassioned address breaking away from what had gone before, and in the person of the Jewish king addressing the Jews themselves as if present (rap’ iuiv)—with the bold inquiry: Why is it esteemed as incredible with you? ete. Beza and others, also de Wette and Lange, place after ri a note of interrogation: How? Is it incredible? etc. But it tells decisively against this view that the mere ri is not so used ; ri yap, ri otv, or ri dé would be employed. — ei 6 Ocd¢ vexp. éyeiper| if God, as He has done in the instance of Jesus, raises the dead.® ei is neither equivalent to örı,’ nor is it the problematic whether ;* the more especially as the matter under discussion is not that of doubt or uncer- tainty on the part of the Jews, but that of their definite unbelief, which is absurd. Vy. 9, 10. In consequence of this unbelief (uév oöv), I myself was once a decided opponent of the name of Jesus.— édofa £uavro] mihi ipsi videbar. See examples in Wetstein. The view of Erasmus, Calovius, de Dieu, and Vater, who connect äuavro with deiv, is to be rejected; for deiv with the dative, although not without example in classical writers,’ is foreign to the N. T. éguav7 has the emphasis of his own personal opinion : I had the self-delusion, that I ought to exert myself. ‘‘ Tanta vis errantis conscien- tiae,’’ Bengel. — rpöc 76 övoua] in reference to the name, namely, in order to suppress the confession and invocation of it. Observe how Paul uses ’Iyoov tov Naswp. according to his standpoint as Saul. —6]) which 707%a évavtia mpatat I also actually did.'° This is then more particularly set forth by kat (and indeed) roddovc «.7.2. Mark the difference between rpaoosıv and roıeiv.‘ —tov ayiwv| spoken from the Christian standpoint of the apostle, with grief. The éyé also has painful emphasis — avarp. re ait. xathveyKa yjoov| and when they were put to death, when people were on the point of executing them, J have given vote thereto, caleulum adjeci, i.e. I have as- 1 See Ewald, Alterth. p.171. 7 Luther, Beza, Grotius, and others. 2 Comp. on Phil. iii. 7. 8 De Wette and others. 3711.23; Gal: iil: 14; Heb. ix. 15, xi. 18, ® Xen. Dem. iii. 3. 10, Anab.iii. 4. 35, Oecon. 4 Comp. iii. 20 f. vii. 20; see Kühner, § 551, note 5: Schoem. 5 xxv. 19. 10 Comp. Gal. ii. 10. [ad Is. p. 380. ® Comp. Vulgate, Erasmus, and others. 11 See on John iii. 20. 466 CHAP, XXVE, 20. sented, ovveudöknoa, xxii. 20. The plural avap. air. is not, with Grotius, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred merely to Stephen, but also to other unknown martyrs, who met their death in the persecution which began with the killing of Stephen." Elsner and Kypke make the genitive de- pendent on karjveyka, and in that case take xara- in a hostile reference.? Harsh, and without precedent in linguistic usage ; dvamp. air. is the geni- tive absolute, and xarzv. is conceived with a local reference, according to the original conception of the w7eoc, the voting-stone, which the voter de- posits in the urn. Classical authors make use of the simple gépecv yjoov,* also of diagépery, OT éxidép., OF avagép., Or éxoép. p. But to karapepeıv in our passage corresponds the classical rıdevar y7pov.* Vv. 11-13. Kara rdécac r. ovvay.| throughout all the synagogues in Jeru- salem, going from one to another and searching out the Christians in ail.® —rimwpav avtoig| taking vengeance on them, dragging them to punishment.® The middle is more usual. — BAacedyueiv] namely, tov ’Incoov, which is obvi- ous of itself, as the object of the specific reverence of Christians.” Whether and how far this yvayral. BAacd. was actually successful, cannot be deter- mined. — &oc kal eic Tac E£o möreıc] till even unto the extraneous cities, outside of Palestine. By this remark the following narrative has the way signifi- cantly prepared for it. — év oic] in which affairs of persecution.* — per’ &£ovo. x. éxitp.| with power and plenary authority.” ‘* Paulus erat commissarius,”’ Bengel. — jjuépac uécac] At noon, ueonußpiac,!® genitive of the definition of time.’ On the non-classical Greek expression „Eon juépa, see Lobeck."? — kara tHv odöv] along the way. — ixéip 7. Aaump. T. mAtov] surpassing the bright- ness of the sun. Vv. 14, 15. See on ix. 4 ff.; comp. xxii. 7 f. —7q 'Eßp. dat.) It was natural that the exalted Christ should make no other language than the native tongue of the person to be converted the medium of his verbal reve- lation. Moreover, these words confirm the probability that Paul now spoke not, as at xxi. 40, in Hebrew, but in Greek. — oxAnpov co Tpöc Kévtpa Aakri- Cew| hard for thee, to kick against goads! i.e. it is for thee a difficult under- taking, surpassing thy strength, and not to be accomplished by thee," that thou, as my persecutor, shouldest contend against my will. ‘H dé tpoxy ard Tav Body’ TOV yap ol Arakrot KaTa THY yewpyiav kevrpıSöuevor imo GpovvToG, AaKTi- Govar TO KévTpov Kat uaAAov minrtrovraı.!® Vv. 16-18. *AAAa] ‘‘ Prostravit Christus Paulum, ut eum humiliaret ; nunc eum erigit ac jubet bono esse animo,’’ Calvin. — eic rovro yap] eic TovTo 1 Comp. viii. 1, ix. 1. 10 Comp. xxii. 6. 2 Comp. karaymdigeır. (quently. 11 Bernhardy, p. 145. 3 Plat. Legg. vi. p. 766 B, p. 767 D, and fre- 12 Ad. Phryn. p. 55 f. 4Plat. Tim. p.51 D; Eur. Or. %54; Dem. 13 xxv, 8, viii. 36. 362. 6, and frequently. 14 See Winer, p. 376 (E. T. 502). 5 Comp. xxii. 19. 15 Compare Gamaliel’s saying, v. 39. 6 Soph. O. R. 107. 140; Polyb. ii. 56. 15. 16 Schol. ad Pind. Pyth. ii. 173. Comp, Comp. xxii. 5, and Wetstein in loc. Aesch. Agam. 1540 (1624): mpos kevrpa un 7 Jas. ii. 7; comp. Plin. Zp. x. 97; Suicer, Aarrıde. See other examples from Greek and Thes. 1. p. 657. Roman writers in Grotius and Wetstein ; also 8 Comp. xxiv. 18. Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. 331; Elmsl. ad * Polyb. iii. 15. 7; 2 Macc. xiii. 14. Eur. Bacch. 794. PAUL’S ACCOUNT OF HIS CONVERSION. 467 points emphatically to what follows, zpoyerpicacPar x.7.2., and yap assigns the reason for what precedes, avaormdı K.r.A.. — tpoyxerp.| in order to appoint thee.' He was, indeed, the oxevog éxAoyic, ix. 15. — dv re debjcouai oo] av is to be resolved into rovrwv a; but doFjooua is not, with Luther, Bengel, and others, including Bornemann, to be taken as causative, videre faciam, but purely passive, J shall be seen. The 4 contained in dv is equivalent to dv 4, on account of which.” Consequently : and of those things, on account of which I shall appear to thee, tibi videbor.* — £Satpovuevög ce] is an accompanying defi- nition to doHjcouai cur: rescuing thee, as thy deliverer, from the people, i.e. kat’ &£oyjv, the Jewish nation, and from the Gentiles, from their hostile power.‘ Calvin appropriately says: ‘‘ Hic armatur contra omnes metus, qui eum manebant, et simul praeparatur ad crucis tolerantiam.’’ — cic otc] is not, with Calvin, Grotius, and others, to be referred merely to röv &dvav, but, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette, to tov ?aov k. r. &Hvov together, which is required by the significant bearing of vv. 19, 20. — azoc- véA2w| not future, but strictly present. — dvoitar dofaAuov¢e aur@ov) contains the aim of the mission. And this opening of their eyes, i.e. the susceptibility for the knowledge of divine truth,’ which was to be brought to them by the preaching of the gospel,® was to have the design: tov éxiotpépa, that they may turn themselves ; on account of ver. 20, less admissible is the ren- dering of Beza and Bengel : ut convertas, ad oxörovc ei¢ pac, from darkness to light, i.e. from a condition, in which they are destitute of saving truth, and involved in ignorance and sin, to the opposite element, kai (arö) tij¢ ESovoiag tov Latava «.7.A. The two more precise definitions of Zriorpäypa: apply to both, to the Jews and Gentiles ; but the latter has respect in its predomi- nant reference to the Gentiles, who are äfeoı év tO köouw,' under the power of Satan, the dpyev tov Koouov tobtov, Eph. ji. 2.— rov Aaßeiv aitodve ageoww . . . e¢ iué] This now contains the aim of tov ämiorp£ipa: «.7.A., and so the ultimate aim of avoifaı 6¢bahuoi¢ aitov.— KAjpov Ev Toic Wytaou.] See on xx. 82. — rioreı TH eig Zu] belongs to Aaßeiv. Faith on Christ, as the subjective condition (causa apprehendens) of the forgiveness of sins and the attainment of the Messianic salvation, is with great emphasis placed at the close ; the Form also of the expression has weight. Vv. 19,° 20. "Ofev] ZHence,* namely, because such a glorious ministry has been promised to me. — ov« &yevöunv] i.e. non praestiti me.'!° — Observe the address to the king, as at ver. 13 in the narrative of the emergence of the Christophany, so here immediately after its close ; in both places, for the purpose of specially exciting the royal interest. — 7 oipaviy örraoia] the heavenly vision, because it came oipavéfer."! — eic macav re rmv yop. 7. "Tovd.] 1 See on iii. 20, xxii. 14. Gal. i. 4, LXX. and Apocr. ; Dem, 256. 2, al.) 2 See Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. p. 174 A; El- 5 The opposite : xxviii. 27; Rom. xi. 8. lendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 374; especially Soph. 6 Ver. 23. Oed. T. 788, where Sv uev ixounv is likewise 7 Eph. ii. 12. to be resolved into rovrwv du’ & ikounv. 8 Ver. 19 proves the resistibility of the in- 3 Comp. Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 329), who, how- _ fluences of grace. ever, without reason, contradicts himself, p. 9 Matt. xiv. 7. 135 (E. T. 178). 10 See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4. 4 On e£aıp., comp. Vii. 10, xii. 11, xxiii. 27; 11 Ver. 13. 468 CHAP, XXVI., 21-24. The statement is threefold: I preached, (1) to them in Damascus; (2) to the city Jerusalem, "IepoooAuuorc, simple dative, no longer de on év, and unto all the land of Judaea ;' (8) to the Gentile.” Thus Paul indicates ' his whole ministry from his conversion till now.* Consequently there is here no contradiction with Gai. i, 22.4 It was also the interest of the apostle, persecuted by the Jews, to put his working for the Jews into the fore- ground. The shift to which Hofmann, J/.c., resorts, that the apostle does not at all say that he has preached in all Judaea—he certainly does say so —but only that his preaching had sounded forth thither, is the less re- quired, as he here summarily comprehends his whole working. — zpdcoovrac] aceusative.’ — Paul certainly gives the contents of his preaching in a form reminding us of the preaching of the Baptist ;° but he thus speaks, because he stands before an assembly before which he had to express himself in the mode most readily understood by it, and after a type universally known and venerated, for the better disclosure of the injustice done to him (évexa robrwv, ver. 21!); to set forth here the pvorjpiov of his gospel, with which he filled up this form, would have been quite out of place. Without reason, Zeller and Baur’ find here a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith alone ; an opinion which ought to have been precluded by the very rioreı Th eic éué, ver. 18, which leaves no doubt as to what was in the mind of the apostle the specific qualification for petavociv . . . mpdooovrac. Vv. 21, 22. "Evera toirwv.] because I have preached this peravoeiv and Eniorp£deıw among Jews and Gentiles. — dıayeıp.] Beza correctly explains: ‘‘manibus suis interficere.’’*— évxovpiac oiv . . . Ocov] This oöv infers from the preceding Zreıp. diayerp. that the Zoryka aype tHe juép. Tabtye 1S effected through help of God, without which no deliverance from such ex- treme danger to life could come. Observe withal the triumphant éoryxa, I stand, keep my ground ! — naprvpovuevos uirpo te kat ueyaAw] as one witnessed to by small and great, i.e. who has a good testimony from young and old.’ Accordingly, uaprvpouuevoc is to be taken quite regularly as passive, and that in its very current sense ;!® while wxp& and ueyaAw are the datives usual with the passive construction."! The wsual rendering, following the Vul- gate: witnessing to small and great,” i.e. ‘‘instituens omnis generis hom- ines,’’! arbitrarily assumes a deviation from linguistic usage, as waprupeiodar is always used passively, on which account, in 1 Thess. ii. 12, the reading 1 eis, as in Luke viii. 34, and frequently ; see 8 See on v. 30. Comp. xxi. 30, 31. on ix. 28, xxiii. 11. 9 viii. 10. 2 The mparov belongs only to rots ev Aapa- 10 As in vi. 3, x. 22 al. exe, not also to ‘IepoooA. (Hofmann, N. 7. 11 See on Matt. v. 21, instead of which imo I. p. 118), as between Damascus and Jerusa- is used in x. 22, xvi. 2, xxii. 12. lem, in the consciousness of the apostle (Gal. 12 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Bengel, and i. 18), there lay an interval of three years. others take xp. 7. x. peyaA. in the sense of 3 See ver. 21. rank: to persons of low and of high degree. 4 Zeller. This is historically unsuitable to the correct 5 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; view of kaprupovn., as Paul was despised and Kühner, ad Mem.i.1.9; Breitenb. ad Oecon. persecuted by the great of this world. The i. 4. wisdom, which he preached, was not at all 6 Luke iii. 8. theirs, 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff. 7 Bee also his neutest. Theol. p. 333. 13 Kuinoel, PAUL’S REPLY TO FESTUS. : 469 naprupöuevo: is necessarily to be defended.’ See Rinck,? who, however, as also de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald, declares for the reading paprupdu. ; this, although strongly attested (see the critical remarks), is an old, hasty emendation, which was regarded as necessary to suit the dative. But in what a significant contrast to that deadly hatred of his enemies appears the statement :* ‘‘ By help of God I stand till this day, well attested by smalt and great’?! The following words then give the reason of this paprupot- pevog : because I set forth nothing else than what (ov = tobttwv a) the prophets, etc. — pedAdvrov] On the attraction, see Lobeck ;* and on the expres- sion ra u£AAovra yiveodar, Jacobs.® Ver. 23 is to be separated simply by a comma from the preceding: What the prophets and Moses have spoken concerning the future, whether — whether, namely—the Messiah is exposed to suffering, etc. Paul expresses himself in problematic form (ei), because it was just the point of debate among the Jews whether a suffering Messiah was to be believed in,° as in fact such an one constantly proved an offence unto them.’ ‘‘ Res erat liquida ; Judaei in quaestionem vocarant,’’ Bengel. Paul in his preaching has said nothing else than what Moses and the prophets have spoken as - the future state of the case on this point; he has propounded nothing new, nothing of his own invention, concerning it. zaßnröc, passibilis,® not, however, in the metaphysical sense of susceptibility of suffering, but of the divine destination to suffering: subjected io suffering.” The opposite arabic in classic writers since the time of Herodotus.’ — The other point of the predictions of Moses and the prophets, vividly introduced without a con- necting particle, in respect of which Paul had just as little deviated from their utterances, is : whether the Messiah as the first from the resurrection of the dead, as the first for ever risen, as mpwrörorog Ex TOv vexpov," will proclaim light? to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. The chief stress of this sen- tence lies on mpéroc é& avacr. verp@v ; for, if this was, in accordance with the O. T., appropriated to the Messiah as characteristic, thereby the oxavdadov of the cross of Christ was removed. After His resurrection Jesus proclaimed light to all the Gentiles by his self-communication in the Holy Spirit, whose organs and mediate agents the apostles and their associates were. Ver. 24. While he was thus speaking in his defence, Festus said with a loud voice,® Thou art mad, Paul! ravra is to be referred to the whole defence, now interrupted by Festus—observe the present participle—but in which certainly the words spoken last (obdéy éxrd¢ x.r.A.) were most unpalatable 1 See Lünemann in loc. 2 Tucubr. crit. p. 91. 3 Ver. 21. amoßaAdvras. 10 Comp. Justin. c. Tryph. xxxvi. p.133D: madmtos Xpratos mpoebnrteudn meAdeır eivaı, 4 Ad Aj. 1006; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 261 (E. T. 305). 5 Ad Philostr. p. 630. _ * John xii. 34. - 71Cor.1.3; Gal. v. 11. 8 Vulgate. 2Plut. Pelop. 16: 1d Oynrov Kat wabyrov 11 Col. i. 18; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 33. 12 Asin ver 18. 13 See on Eph. ii. 17. 14 Comp. on Col. i. 12. 15 ney. TH dwrn, See on xiv. 10. 16 As to dmodoy. rı, see on Luke xii, 11. 470 CHAP. XXVI., 25-28. to the cold-hearted statesman, and at length raised his impatience to the point of breaking out aloud. His profane mind remained unaffected by the holy inspiration of the strange speaker, and took his utterances as the whims of a mind perverted by much study from the equilibrium of a sound understanding. His paivy! was indignant earnestness ; with all the more earnestness and bitterness he expressed the idea of eccentricity by this hyperbolical waivn, the more he now saw his hope of being enlightened as to the true state of matters grievously disappointed.’ That solicitude of the procurator,? which naturally governed his tone of mind, was much too anxious and serious for a jest, such as Olshausen takes it to be. Nor does peyddn Th gov suit this, on which Chrysostom already correctly remarks : otto jv x. öpyns } dovn. The explanation, thou art an enthusiast! is nothing but a mistaken softening of the expression.” However the furor propheti- cus may be nourished by plunging into roAA& ypaunara, the paivy in this sense is far less suited to the indignation of the annoyed Roman ; and that Paul regarded himself as declared by him to be a madman, is evident from ver. 25 (dAybeiacg x. owdpoc.).—Ta moAAd ce ypäuuara] multae literae,* the much knowledge, learning, with which thou busiest thyself.°. Not: the many books, which thou readest,° for, if so, we cannot see why the most naturally occurring word, ßıßAia or BißRoı, should not have been used.—The separation of 707%a from ypau. by the interposition of ce puts the emphasis on roAAd. Bengel correctly adds: ‘‘ Videbat Festus, naturam non agere in Paulo ; gratiam non vidit.”’ Ver. 25. ‘0 dé] wera érceckeiacg amorpıvöuevoc, Chrysostom.—aanbeiac k. cwdpoo. phuata| words, to which truth and intelligence, sound discretion, belong. arnBeıa may doubtless accompany enthusiastic utterance, but it is a characteristie opposed to madness. For passages in the classics where owopootvy is opposed to wavia, see Elsner and Raphel.” — aropߣyyouaı] ‘* aptum verbum,”’ Bengel. See on ii. 4. Ver. 26. In proof (ydép) that he spoke truly, and in his sound mind, Paul appeals to the knowledge of the king, in quo plus erat spei, Calvin. — rept rovrwv and rı tobrwy refer to what Paul had last said concerning the Mes- siah, which had overpowered the patience of Felix and drawn from him the waivn.® rovro is the same, but viewed together as an historical unity. éxiotaat With repi is not found elsewhere in the N. T., but often in Greek writers. — ovd&v] like nihil, in no respect” Taken as accusative of object, it would be inappropriate, on account of ri ;!° while, on the.sther hand, B has not ri.—Observe also the correlates &rioraraı and Aavdaveıw placed at the beginning. — ot . . . év ywvia| A litotes: not in a corner (év kpuxt@), but publicly in the sacred capital of the nation." 1 Comp. Soph. O. R. 1300: tis a’, & rAnnor, 7 Plat. Prot. p. 323 B: 6 éxet cwdpoovvny mpogeßn maria. NyoDvro eivar TAANIN Acyeır, evravda paviarv. 2 xxv. 26. Comp. also Luke viii. 35 ; 2 Cor. v. 13. 3 So Kuhn (in Wolf), Majus (Obss. IY. p. 8 Comp. on tadra, ver. 24. 11 ff.), Loesner, Schleusner, Dindorf. ® Kühner, ad Xen. Anad. vi. 6. 12. 4 Vulgate. 10 Hence A E N** min. omit it (so Lachmann 5 See on John vii. 15. and Bornemann. 6 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand. 11 See examples in Wetstein. 2 PAUL’S APPEAL TO AGRIPPA. 471 Ver. 27. Instead of adding to the ‘‘ for this was not done in a corner’? as a second reason, ‘‘and the prophets in whom the king believes have fore- told it,’’ in the increased vehemence of his impassioned discourse! Paul turns to the king with the question: Believest thou the prophets? and im- mediately himself answers the question with confidence : I know that thou believest ! Thus with fervent earnestness he suddenly withdraws the sacred subject from merely objective contemplation, and brings it as a matter of conscience home to the king’s consciousness of faith. Paul could reason- ably say without flattery, oida, dre mioreverc, since Agrippa, educated as a Jew, could not have belief in the truth of the prophecies otherwise than as a heritage of his national training, although it had in his case remained simply theory, and therefore the words of the apostle did not touch his heart, but glanced off on bis polished and good-natured levity. Ver. 28. The king is of course well-meaning enough not to take amiss the burning words, but also, as a luxurious man of the world, sufficiently estranged from what is holy instantly to banish the transiently-felt impres- sion with haughtily contemptuous mockery. The conduct of Pilate in John xviii. 88 is similar to this and to ver. 32. —év oAiyo is to be taken as neuter, and without supplement,* namely : With little (év, instrumental) thou persuadest me to become a Christian! This sarcasm is meant to say: ‘‘ Thus summarily, thus brevi manu, you will not manage to win me over to Christian- ity.’? Appropriately, in substance, Oecumenius : &v d2iyw" Tourécte OV öAiywv pyuatov, év Bpax&cı Aöyoıc, Ev oAtyn diWackahia, Ywpi¢ ToAAOV mövov Kai ovvEeyod¢ diaAézewc. Most expositors either adopt the meaning * sometimes with and sometimes without the supplement of ypévw: in a short time;* or:° pro- pemodum, parum abest, quin. So also Ewald, who calls to his aid the 3 of value, for a little, i.e. almost. But in opposition to the view which takes it temporally, may be decisively urged the reading weyddAw, to be adopted instead of 707X6 in ver. 29 (see the critical remarks), an expression which proves that Paul apprehended é» dAiyw in a quantitative sense ; and there is no reason in the context for the idea, to which Calvin is inclined, following Chrysostom, that Paul took the word in one sense and the king in another. ‘The same reason decides against the explanation propemodum, which also is not linguistically to be justified, for there must have been used either öAiyov,° oY öAiyov dei OY Tap’ dAiyov." — Lastly, that the words of the king are to be taken ironically, and not, with Heinrichs and many other expositors, as an earnest con? ‘sion, is evident even from the very improbability in itself of such a confession in view of the luxurious levity of the king, as well as from the name Xpioriavév, which, of Gentile origin,® carries with it in the mouth of 1Comp. Dissen, ad Dem de cor. pp. 186, 5 Chrysostom, Valla, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 2 As in Eph. iii. 3 (see ön loc.). [346. Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, and others, to 8 Calvin, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ne- which also the modica ex parte of Erasmus ander, de Wette, Lange. comes in the end. 4 Pind. Pyth. viii. 131; Plat. Apol. p. 22 B; 6 Plat. Prot. p. 361 TC, Phaedr. p. 258 E; and see the passages in Raphel, Polyb. ; comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 563 B (Wolf, ad Dem. the analogous 6c’ oAiyov, Thuc. i. 77.4, ii 85. Lept. p. 238). 2, iii. 43. 3; Schaefer, ad. Bos. Ellips. pp. 101, * Bernhardy, p. 258. 553; and see on Eph. iii. 3. 8 See on xi. 26. 472 CHAP. XXVI., 29-32. a Jew the accessory idea of heterodoxy and the stain of contempt.’ Schneck- enburger also would have the expression to be earnestly meant, but in fa- vour of the apologetic design imputed to the Book of Acts (F*). Ver. 29. In the full consciousness of his apostolic dignity, Paul now upholds the cause of the despised Xproriavov yevéoda as that which he would entreat from God for the king and all his present hearers, and which was thus more glorious than all the glory of the world. — eigaiuyy av ro 0:6] 7 would indeed, in case of the state of the matter admitting it, pray to God.? Eiyeoda; with the dative, to pray to any one, only here in the N. T., but very frequently in classical writers. — In what follows o7uepov belongs to r. akovovrac p., not to yevéoda,*® as is to be inferred from év weyadw. — kai Ev bdiyw Kat Ev ueyaAo ov pdvov cé x.t.2.1 that as well by little as by great,—whether in the case of one, little,* and in the case of another, much,° may be em- ployed as a means for the purpose,* — not merely thou, but also all . . . were such also as I am, Christians. On xayo, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 7.7 — rapexröc Tov deou@v toitwv| The chains which had bound him in prison, and were again to bind him,* chaining him, namely, after the manner of the custodia mili- taris to the soldiers who watched him, he bore now hanging down freely on his arm.” The rapexröc «.7.2., although to the apostle his chains were an honour,'® is ‘‘ suavissima Zridepareia et exceptio,’’ !! in the spirit of love. Vv. 30-32. Perhaps this bold, grand utterance of the singular man had made an impression on the king’s heart, the concealment of which might have occasioned embarrassment to him, had he listened any longer : Agrippa arose and thereby brought the discussion at once to a close. With him arose, in the order of rank, first the procurator, then Bernice, then all who sat there with them (oi cvyxadjuevoe abrtoic). After they had retired from the audience chamber (ävayopyjoavrec), they communicated to each other their unanimous opinion, which certainly amounted only to the superficial political negative : this man, certainly by the most regarded as a harmless enthusiast, practises nothing which merits death or bonds. But Agrippa delivered specially to Festus his opinion to this effect: this man might, already, have been set at liberty,” if he had not appealed unto Caesar, by which the sending him to Rome was rendered irreversible. '* — mpaooeı] practises, anIGECiasbve Ge év neyaAo. Ewald, likewise following the 2See on this use of the optative with av, Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 34 f.; Bernhardy, p. 410; Kriiger, § 54, 3. 6. 3 Chrysostom. 4 See on ver. 28. 5 Komos Kk. movos ev TH SiSacKaAca, Oecume- nius, reading Ev moAA@. ® The interpreters who take *v dAiy» as brevi tempore (see on ver. 28) here translate (according to the reading woAA@): “beit for short or for long’’ (de Wette). Those who tike ev oAryw as propemodum, translate : ‘non propemodum tantum, sed plane’ (Grotius). With our view of er oAcyw, the reading ev moAAw makes no difference of meaning from reading év pey., takes ev also here consist. ently in the sense of value: by Ziftle and by much, that is, by all I wish, etc. 7 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 158. 8 Comp. on xxiv. 3, 27, xxviii. 30. ° Comp. Justin. xiv. 4, 1. 10 Eph. iii. 1, iv. 1; Philem. 1. Comp. Phil. Dir t. 11 Bengel. 12 Not “dimitti poterat,’” Vulg. Luther, and others. See in opposition to this, and on the expression without av, Buttmann, neut. Gr. pp. 187, 195 (E. T. 216, 226). Comp. also Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 480, ed. 3. 13 See Grotius. NOTES. 443 Grotius rightly remarks: ‘‘agit de vitae instituto :’? hence in the present.‘ — The “recognition of the innocence of the apostle in all judicatures’’? is intelligible enough from the truth of his character, and from the power of his appearance and address ; and, in particular, the closing utterance of Agrippa finds its ground so vividly and with such internal truth in the course of the procecdings, that the imputation of a set purpose on the author’s part * can only appear as a frivolously dogmatic opinion, proceed- ing from personal prepossessions tending in a particular direction. The apostle might at any rate be credited, even in his situation at that time, with an azddecEce rveluaros K. Övvanewc, 1 Cor. il, 4. NoTES py AMERICAN EDITOR. (Ft) Almost thou persuadest me. Y. 28. While Festus was in a state of perplexity in respect to Paul, a distinguished visitor came to congratulate him on his accession to his exalted position. This was Agrippa, the great grandson of Herod the Great, and at that time King of Chaleis. Subsequently his kingdom was greatly enlarged. He was the brother of the infamous Drusilla, who lived with Felix, and of the equally infamous Bernice, who lived with himself, and who accompanied him at this time to the city which their great-grandfather had built, and where he miserably perished. During their visit Festus took occasion to refer to the perplexing case of the prisoner Paul ; he informed Agrippa of the madness which seemed to inspire the Jewish people at the mere mention of the name of Paul, and of the futile results of the trial just concluded. He stated further that the questions at issue pertained to their own religious or superstitious observances, and to one Jesus, who had been crucified by them, but whom Paul affirmed to be alive, and further that the prisoner had declined to be tried again by the Sanhedrim and had appealed to the emperor. On hearing this recital Agrippa expressed a wish to hear the man. So Fes- tus, willing to gratify his princely guests, ordered the auditorium in the palace to be prepared, and invited the officers of the army and the chief men of the city to attend ; and as the herods were vain and fond of show, he arranged a gorgeous procession, so that Agrippa and Bernice came in royal state, ‘‘ she, doubtless, blazing with all her jewels, and hein his purple robes, and both with the golden circlets of royalty around their foreheads.” Into the presence of this vain, weak king and his radiantly beautiful but notoriously profligate companion, and the vast, brilliant assemblage Paul, shackled and pale from long imprisonment, is brought. Festus opened the proceedings, which were in no sense a trial, as the appeal to Cesar arrested all further legal proceedings, with stating the reasons for calling such an assembly, and by making some complimentary allusions to Agrippa, stating also clearly that he found the prisoner had done “nothing worthy of death.” ı Comp. John iii. 20; Rom. i. 32 al. ; John 3**TIn order that, with the Gentile testi- “Vil. 51 monies, xxv. 18, 25, a Jewish one might not 2 Zeller, comp. Baur. be wanting,” Zeller. ANA CHAP. XXVI.—NOTES. The king intimated that Paul might now make his address. The apostle, undaunted by the pompous inanities of reflected power around him, with calm dignity and perfect self-possession makes his own defence against the charge of heresy, and specially offers a powerful plea for the truth of Christianity. He expressed himself as pleased to have the privilege of speaking in the pres- ence of one who, from his training, was a competent judge of the questions at stake. He asked for a patient hearing, and once more narrated the familiar story of his wonderful conversion from the bigoted, fiery, persecuting spirit he had formerly manifested against Christ and his followers, to a firm belief that the Messianic hopes of his people had been actually realized in Jesus of Naz- areth, who had risen from the dead. He showed that he was no heretical schismatic, but had kept the law of Moses, and firmly believed that the promise given to the Jews of a Messiah was now fulfilled ; that the very thing for which he was accused was the great hope of the Jewish nation ; that the cause he now espoused he once hated, and conscientiously and violently per- secuted with a zeal and bitterness more intense than their own; that this change in his convictions and the commission he received to preach Jesus and the resurrection were divine ; and that his work was in strict accordance with the prophets of the Old Testament. Festus, struck by the earnest enthusiasm of the eloquent prisoner, interrupts him with the excited exclamation, “ Paul, thou art mad ; these writings have turned your brain!’’ Paul with perfect calmness and exquisite courtesy re- plies, ‘‘ lam not mad, most noble Festus ; what I have said is the sober, well- attested truth, as the king himself can witness, for these marked events did not take place in a corner.” Then turning to the king he asked, ‘‘ Believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Agrippa, unwilling to be led into a discussion of this kind, replied with good-natured contempt, a scarcely suppressed smile, and courtly wit, perhaps with derisive irony, ‘‘ You will soon be waking mea Christian !” Paul, casting his eye over the splendid and numer- ous audience, gave a most earnest and sincere reply to the bantering jest of the king. Raising his manacled hand, he said : ‘‘ I would have wished God, both in little and in much, not only thee, but also all those hearing me to-day, to become such as I also am, except these bonds.” *“No more he feels upor his high-raised arm The ponderous chain, than does the playful child The bracelet, formed of many a flowery link ; Heedless of self, forgetful that his life Is now to be defended by his words, He only thinks of doing good to them That seek his life.” (Graham.) After a brief consultation with each other Festus and Agrippa agreed that Paul might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Cesar ; but now, to Cesar he must go. The answer of Agrippa to Paul has been variously rendered as the language of sincere conviction, bitter irony, or courtly jest. Some render the phrase évodiyw, almost ; others, with Meyer, render the clause, with few words, or lightly ; some render : in a littie time, which may be taken either in earnest or in jest ; others render : in a small measure, or somewhat. As to the spirit of the reply, the general opinion of recent critics concurs with Meyer, that the words were ut- NOTES. 475 tered in irony or jest. Alford, Eadie, Lange, Abbott, Plumptre, Schaff, Bloomfield, Hackett, and Taylor substantially agree with Meyer ; on the other hand, Calvin, Bengel, Stier, Alexander, Jacobus, Barnes, and Thomas, with some variations, agree in regarding the language as sincere. The Revised Version is decidedly in favor of Meyer's view, ‘‘ With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian.” 476 CRITICAL REMARKS. CHAPTER XXVL. VER. 2. uweAAovrı] So AB NS, min. and most vss. Approved by Mill., Bengel, and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, The usual péAdovres is an alter- ation in accordance with the preceding ZrıBavres. — TovS] Lachm, reads eis rovs, following AB S min. Other codd. have ézi. Different supplementary addi- tions. — Ver. 3, mopevdevra] Lachm, reads ropevdevrı, following AB N min. A hasty correction on account of émétpeye. — Ver. 12. xarxeidev] Lachm. and Scholz read £xeidev, following ABG N min. vss. Chrys. But the want of a reference of the «ai in what goes before easily occasioned the omission. —Ver. 19. éApupav] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm, and Born., after A B C'8, min. Vulg. The Recepta is éApipayev. As this might just as easily be inserted on account of aitdyepes, as Eprpav on account of éxovoivto, the preponderance of witnesses has alone to decide, and that in favour of &öhun)av. — Ver. 23. The order tavty 7H vurri (Lachm. Tisch. Born., also Scholz) is decidedly attested. *Ayyedos is to be placed, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., only after Aatpevw (A BC &, min.) and &yo is to be adopted (with Lachm. and Born.) after eiui, on the evi- dence of A C* N, min. vss. ; it might very easily be suppressed before 6. — Ver. 27. Ey&vero] A, loti 68, Vulg. have ézeyévero. So Tisch. ; and rightly, as the very unusual compound (only again in xxviii. 13) was easily neglected by the transcribers, — According to preponderating attestation, cava (instead of eis) is to be read in ver. 29 with Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; comp. vv. 17, 26, 41. — Ermeoouev] Elz. has éxzéowowr, against decisive testimony. Alteration to suit the following yiyovro. — Ver. 33. mpoolaßöusvoı] Lachm. reads mpooAaußavöuevoı, merely in accordance with A, 40. But the part. pres. is to be viewed as an al- teration to suit mpoodokövres. — Ver. 34. wetadaBeiv] Elz. has rpooaßeiv against preponderant testimony. From ver. 33. — reseita:] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Born. read aroAeiraı, which indeed has weighty attestation in its favour, but against it the strong suspicion that it was borrowed from Luke xxi. 18. This tells likewise against the Recepta éx, instead of which 476 is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. It is less likely that reoeira: should have been taken from the LXX. 1 Kings i. 52; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11. — Ver. 39. éBovaetoavto] Lachm. and Born. read 23ovAsvovro after B C 8, 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) &ßovAovro in A, min, — Ver. 41. röv kuudrov] has in its favour C G H N** dnd all min. Chrys. and most vss., and is wanting only in A B 8*. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. There is, however,—especially as with 775 Aıas 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 con- founded this rév with the röv of ver. 42 and thus overlooked rov kvuarwv, Besides, it would have more naturally suggested itself to a glossator to write on the margin 775 Oaddoo. than r. kvudrov, which does not again occur in the whole narrative of this voyage. — Ver, 42. Elz. has dıadöyoı. But Griesb. Lachn. VOYAGE TO ITALY. AT Tisch. read dıadüyn, which is attested, indeed, by ABC 8, min., but has arisen from the usual custom of the N. T. in such combinations to put not the opta- tive, but the subjunctive. — On the variations in the proper names in this chapter, see the exegetical remarks, Ver. 1.* Tov arorieiv juac] contains the aim of the éxpify. ‘‘ But when, by Festus, decision was made, to the end that we should sail away.” The nature of the ‘‘ becoming resolved”? (kpiveoda:) implies that the object—the contents of the resolution—may be conceived as embraced under the form of its aim. The modes of expression: xeAevewy iva, eimeiv iva, OéAew iva, and the like, are similar; comp. ver. 42, Sovd) éyévero, iva.” —7juac] Luke speaks as a fellow-traveller. — zapedidovv] namely, the persons who were entrusted with the execution of the &xpißr. — Er£povc is purposely chosen, not dAdAovc, to intimate that they were prisoners of another sort, not also Christians under arrest.* érepoc in xv. 35, xvii. 34, also is to be similarly taken in the sense of another of two classes, in opposition to de Wette. — oreipng Zeßaor.] cohortis Augustae, perhaps: the illustrious, the imperial, cohort. Zeßaor, is an adjective.* Probably, for historical demonstration is not possible, it was that one of the five cohorts stationed at Caesarea, which was regarded as body-guard of the emperor, and was accordingly employed, as here, on special services affecting the emperor. We have no right, considering the diversity of the names used by Luke, to hold it as identical wlth the oreipa ’Iradıry, x. 1, so Ewald. Weiseler ® finds here the cohors Augustanorum, imperial body-cohort, at Rome, consisting of Roman equites, of the so-called evocati,° whose captain, Julius, he supposes, has been at this very time on business at Caesarea, and had taken the prisoners with him on his return. In this way the centurion would not have been under the command of Festus at all, and would have only been incidentally called into requisition, which is hardly compatible with the regulated de- partmental arrangements of Rome in the provinces ; nor is there in the text itself, any more than in the oreipa 'IraAıry, x. 1, the least intimation that we are to think of a cohort and a centurion, who did not belong at all to the military force of Caesarea. Schwarz,” with whom Kuinoel agrees, con- ceived that it was a cohort consisting of Sebastenes, from Scbaste, the cap- ital of Samaria, as in fact Sebastene soldiers are actually named by Josephus among the Roman military force in Judea.* But the calling a cohort by the name of a city, the cohort of Sebaste, 1s entirely without ex- 1 Comp. on chap. xxvii. the excellent trea- tise of James Smith, The Voyage and Ship- wreck of St. Paul, London 1848, ed. 2, 1856; Vömel, Progr., Frankf. 1850; in respect of the language, Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. VII. —In Baumgarten there is much allegoriz- ing and play of fancy; he considers the apostle as the trwe Jonah, and the ship's crew as a representative of the whole heathen world.— Hackett treats chap. xxvii. with special care, haying made use of many accounts of travels and notes of navigation. 2 See also Luke iv. 10. 3 Comp. Luke xxiii. 32; Tittmann, Synon. NV. T. p. 155 f.; and see on Gal. i. 7. 4 Comp. Acunv Seßacr. in Joseph. Antt. xvii- 5.1: the imperial harbour (in Caesarea). 5 Chronol. p. 351, and Beitr. z. Wiirdig. a. Ev. p. 325 (comp. Wetstein). 6 Tac. Ann. xiv. 15; Sueton. Nero, 25 ; Dio, Ixi. 20, 1xiii. 8. 7 De cohorte Ital. et Aug., Altorf, 1720. 8 Antt. xx. 6. 2, Bell. ii. 12. 5. 478 CHAP. XXVII., 1-8. ample ; we should necessarily expect Zeßaornvöv,! or an adjective of locality, such as Seßaorzvn, after the analogy of ’IraAıry, x. 1. — Nothing further is known of the centurion Julius. Tacitus? mentions a Julius Priscus as cen- turion of the Praetorians ; but how extremely common was the name ! Ver. 2. ’Erıßävrec] with dative, see on xxv. 1.—rAoip ’Adpau.] a ship which belonged to Adramyttium, had its home there, the master of which resided there. ’Adpayirriov, or ’Adpauirrecov,® was a seaport of Mysia, and is not to be confounded with Adrumetum on the north coast of Africa,* be- cause amidst all the variations in the codd. (’Adpauvvrıvo, ’Adpauvvrmvo, ’Arpauvryvo, ”Adpauuvrwo) the v in the middle syllable is decidedly pre- ponderant. —éAdovte rAciv x.t.A.] The ship, certainly a merchant-ship, was thus about to start on its homeward voyage. The prisoners were by this opportunity to be brought to the Asiatic coast, and sent thence by the opportunity of another vessel® to Italy. —roi¢ xara 7. ’Aciav réxovc] to navigate the places situated along Asia, on the Asiatic coast.° — "Aptorapxov]” Thus he also had from Asia® come again to Paul; Trophi- mus° already joined him at Jerusalem. But whether Aristarchus accom- panied Paul as a ‚fellow-prisoner '' does not follow with certainty from Col. ive 1022 i Ver. 3. Eic Sidéva] unto Sidon, into the seaport.’? — ypyodaı rıvi] to have intercourse, fellowship, with any one.” The fact that the centurion treated Paul so kindly may be sufficiently explained from the peculiar interest, which a character so lofty and pure could not but awaken in humane and unprejudiced minds. It may be also that the procurator had specially enjoined a gentle treatment. — ropevdévra is to be analysed as accusative with infinitive.’* — rpöc r. giAove] Without doubt Paul had told the cen- turion that he had ‚friends, namely, Christian brethren,’® in Sidon. Still the centurion would not leave him without military escort, as indeed his duty required this.*® Vv. 4, 5. "Yremievo. tr. Kirpov] We sailed under Cyprus, so that we re- mained near the shore, elevated above the levelof the sea, because the (shifting) winds were contrary, and therefore made a withdrawal to a dis- tance from the northern shore not advisable. —xarad r. Kuidix.] along. Just so ver. 7,—xkar& Laduovyv ; comp. ver. 2.—Miépa] or, as Lachmann, following B, reads, Möppa—it is neuter, yet the feminine form was also used'’—was a seaport of Lycia, only twenty stadia from the coast.'8 The 1 Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 5: ‘‘ tAnv imméwy kakov- ® See on xxi. 29. pevnv YeBaotnvarv.”” 10 Ewald. 2 Hist. ii. 92, iv. 11. 11 See in loc. 3 For several other modes of writing the 12 Comp. xxi. 3, xxvi. 12. name, see Steph. Byz. s.v.; Poppo, ad Thue. 13 See Wetstein, and Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 101. I. 2, p. 441 f. 14 See on xxvi. 20, and Lobeck, ad Soph. 4 Grotius, Drusius, Richard Simon. Aj. 1006. ‘ 5 Ver. 6. 15 ix, 19. ® On the accusative, see Winer, p. 210 (E. T. 1° Comp. Grotius, “ cum milite.” 280); Thuc. vi. 63. 2: mAdovtes Ta TE Emekeıva 17 See Steph. Byz. s.v. THs ZıreXias. Pausan. 1. 35. 18 Strabo, xiv. p. 981. Forbig. Geogr, Il. p, 7 See xix. 29, xx. 4; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. 256. 8 xx. 4, FAIR HAVENS. 479 readings Atotpa or Avorpav,' and Spipvav,? are explained from want of ac- quaintance with that name of a town. Vv. 6, 7. Whether the Alexandrian ship was freighted with grain, which at least is not to be proved from ver. 38, or with other goods, cannot be determined ; as also whether it was by wind and weather, or affairs of trade, that it was constrained not to sail directly from Alexandria to Italy, but first to run into the Lycian port. — r?£ov] It was already on its voyage from Alexandria to Italy. —éveZ. juäac] he embarked us, put us on board, a vor nautica® (G*). See examples in Palairet and Wolf. — Ver. 7. But when we had made slow way for a considerable number of days, and had come with difficulty toward Cnidus, into its neighbourhood, thus in the offing, having passed along by Rhodes, so that the wind did not allow us to land at Cnidus, we sailed under Crete, near Salmone. The wind thus came from the north, so that the vessel was drawn away from Cnidus and downward towards Crete.—rpoceovroc] finds a definite reference in the immediately preceding «ata ryv Kvidov, and hence the view of Grotius, following the Peshito, that rectwm tenere cursum should be supplied, is to be rejected. — Cnidus was a city of Caria on the peninsula of Cnidia, celebrated for the worship of Aphrodite and for the victory of Cimon over Pisander.* — The promontory LaAuorn, on the east coast of Crete, is called in Strabo,° SaApdvor, and in Dionys.® Yaduwric. Ver. 8. Ilapatéyecta:] corresponds entirely to the Latin legere, oram, to sail along the coast.” This keeping to the coast was only with difficulty (udduc) successful. — aurzv refers to 7. Kpyrmv. — Nothing is known from antiquity of the anchorage KaAoi Aiuévec—Fair Havens ® (H‘). — The name is perhaps, on account of ver. 12 (davevférov «.r.A.), to be considered as euphemistic. The view that the place is identical with the town called by Stephanus Byzantinus Ka? ax7#, is improbable, because the Fair Havens here was not a town, as may be inferred from the appended remark: & The preterite belongs to the graphic de- They saw the neighbouring city.° éyyie qv mörıc Aac. — jv] not Eori. scription. The town Aacaia also is en- tirely unknown ; hence the many variations, Aacéa,!! "Araoca,!” Thalassa,!? Thessala.'* The evidence in support of these other forms is not strong enough to displace the Recepta,'® seeing that it is also supported by B x*, which has Aaooala. Beza conjectured ’EAaia ;1% but such a conjecture, es- pecially in the case of Crete with its hundred cities, was uncalled for. ı AN, Copt. Vulg. Fathers. 231, Beda. 3 Baumgarten, IT. p. 373 f., collects the nau- tical expression of this chapter, adducing, however, much that belongs to the general langnage. 4 See Forbiger, Geogr. II. p. 221. Bis Dp: Kal 6 Perieg. 110. 7 Diod. Sic. xiii. 3, xiv. 55. 8 It is certainly the bay still called Zimenes ka’, Pococke, Morg. II. p. 361. Comp. Smith, p. SS, ed. 2. See, moreover, on the above localities generally, Hoeck, Kreta, I. p. 439 ff. ®Comp. Krüger, and Kühner, Ad Xen. Anab. i. 4.9; Breitenb. ad Xen. Hier. ix. 4. 10 Yet see on ruins with this name, Smith, Pp. 262. 11 B. min.: so Tischendorf. 12 A, 40, 96, Syr. p. on the margin; so Gro- tius, Lachmann, Ewald. 13 Vulgate, Aethiopic. 14 Codd. Lat., et al. 15 G. H. 16 Plin, N. Z. iv. 12. ” 480 CHAP. XXVII., 9-14. Ver. 9. 'Ixavov dé xp. dıay.] namely, since the beginning of our voyage. — m%oös] See on this late form, instead of 740d, Lobeck.! — dua rd kai r. vnoreiav On maper.] because also, even, the fasting was already past.” The vnoreia, kar’ &£oxfv, is the fasting of the great day of atonement, which occurred on the 10th of Tisri.* It was thus already after the autumnal equinox, when navigation, which now became dangerous (éogad.), was usually closed.*— rapjver 6 II.] He had experience enough for such a counsel.° Vv. 10, 11. Oewpé] when I view the tumult of the sea. —örı . . . méAAewv &oeodaı) A mixing of two constructions, of which the former is neglected as the speech flows onward.® — pera bBpewc] with presumption. Paul warns them that the continuance of the voyage will not take place without temer- ity. Accordingly werd ößp. contains the subjective, and (wera) roAAje Cyuiac ov uövov x.t.A. the objective, detriment with which the voyage would be attended. The expositors—Ewald, however, takes the correct view— understand werd iBp. of the injuria or saevitia tempestatis. But as the defi- nition tempestatis has no place in the text, the view remains a very arbi- trary one, and has no corresponding precedent even in poets.’ The whole utterance is, moreover, the natural expression of just fear, in which case Paul could say juév without mistrusting the communication which he re- ceived in xxiii. 11; for by roAAjce the Cyyia rav woyor is affirmed, not of all, but only of a great portion of the persons on board. He only received at a later period the higher revelation, by which this fear was removed from him.* He speaks here in a way inclusive of others (juov), on account of their joint interest in the situation. A special ‘‘ entering into the fellow- ship of the Gentiles ’’° is as little indicated as is the assumption that he did not preach out of grief over the Jews. The present time and situation were not at all suitable for preaching. — &reidero wärdov] rois éurreipwe Eyouvor narov mpd¢ TO mAeiv, 7 Erıßarn ameipw vavrınjc, Oecumenius. So the opposite view of the steersman and captain of the ship, vaixAnpoc, prevailed with the centurion. By reason of the inconvenience of the haven for wintering, the majority of those on board came to the resolution, etc., ver. 12. Ver. 12. ’Avev6érov] not well situated, Hesychius and Suidas, elsewhere not found; the later Greeks have dicfetoc. They ought, according to the counsel of Paul, to have chosen the least of two evils. — xpid¢ rapa- xeyaciav] for passing the winter.‘ — kareidev] also from thence. As they had not hitherto lain to with a view to pass the winter, the resolution come to by the majority was to the effect of sailing onward from thence also. — 1 Ad Phryn. p. 453, Paralip. p. 173. 2 According to Bleek and de Wette, this 6 See Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 63 C ; Winer, p. 318 (E. T. 426), Raphel, Polyb. in loc. Jewish definition of time, as well as that con- tained in xx. 6, betrays a Jewish-Christian author. But the definitions of the Jewish calendar were generally, and very naturally, adopted in the apostolic church, _ Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 18. 8 Lev. xvi. 29 ff., xxiii. 26 ff. 4 Sce Wetstein, SSICOLISIN ED: Comp. on xix. 27, xxiii. 23 f. 7 Comp. Pind. Pyth. i. 73: vavaiorovov uBpiw idwov, Anthol. ili. 22.58 : Seicaca HaAarrns Ußpır. 8 See vv. 23, 24. ® Baumgarten. 10 Diod. Sic. xix. 68, and more frequently in Polybius. Comp. xxviii, 11. 11 On édevto BovAyv, comp. Judg. xix. 30; Ps. xiii. 3. FROM MYRA TO CRETE. 481 eiruc divarvro] &.e. in order to try, whether perhaps they would be able.‘ — The haven doivE is called in Ptolem. iii. 17, ®orvırovs, and the adjacent town boivı£. Stephanus Byzantinus, on the other hand, remarks : ®owıkovc mörıc Korn. Perhaps the two names were used in common of the haven and the city. Whether the haven was the modern Zutro, is uncertain.? — PAerew] quite like spectare, of the direction of the geographical position.’ — Aip is the Africus, the south-west wind, and Xöpoc the Caurus, the north-west. The haven formed such acurve, that one shore stretched toward the north-west and the other toward the south-west (1*). Ver. 13. But when gentler south winds had set in’—this was the motive of the following défavrec. As, namely, Fair Havens, where they were, and also Phoenix farther to the west, whither they wished to go, lay on the south coast of the island, the south wind was favourable for carrying out their resolution, because it kept them near to the coast and did not allow them to drift down into the southern sea. — xerparnkövar) to have become masters of their purpose, that is, to be able safely to accomplish it. Examples in Raphel, Polyb. —apavrec] namely, the anchor, which is understood of itself in nautical language : they weighed anchor.° — acoov mapeity. Tr. Kpar.] they sailed closer, than could previously, ver. 8, be done, along the coast of Crete. ücocov, nearer, the comparative of äypı, is not only found in poetry from the time of Homer, but also in prose.” The Vulgate, which Erasmus follows, has: cum sustulissent de Asson, so that thus AZZON is connected with äpavrec and regarded as the name of a city of Crete ;° hence also Elz., Mill, Scholz have 'Aooov, as a proper name. But as this translation is at variance with the words as they stand, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, and several older expositors have taken "Accov as the accusative of direction : cum sustulissent Assum. But, even if the little town had really been situ- ated on the coast, which does not agree with Plin. /.c., the expression would have been extremely harsh, as äpavrsc does not express the notion of direction ; and not only so, but also the mere accusative of direction without a preposition is only poetical,’ and is foreign to the N. T. Ver. 14. *EGate] intransitive: fell upon, threw itself against it; often in the classical writers after Homer. — ar’ auryc] refers to the nearest antecedent Kpyrmw, not’ to rpobéc. — äveuoc rugwviröc] The adjective is formed from ruo&v, a whirlwind, and is found also in Eustathius.!! — Eipo- KAbdwv] the broad-surging, from eipoc, breadth, and Kaito. It is usually ex- plained: Zurus fluctus exeitans, from Eöpoc, the south-east wind, and xAbdov. But this compound would rather yield an appellation unsuitable for a wind: south-east wave, fluctus euro excitatus. EöpvrAbdwv.'” from eipic, 1 See Hartung, Partikell. IL. p. 206. 1, al. [iv.12. 2 In opposition to Smith, p. 88, see Hackett. 3 See Alberti, Odss. p. 274; Kypke, I. p. 134 f. 4 See Kapp, ad Aristot. de mundo Exc. II. 5 uromvevac., Arist. probl. viii. 6; Heliodor. iii. 3. 6 See Bos, Zllips., ed. Schaefer, p. 14 f. 7 Herod. iii. 52, iv. 5; Joseph. Antt. i. 20. 8"Agos in Steph. Byz., Asus in Plin. H. N. ® Kühner, II. p. 204. 10 Luther. 11 See Wetstein. 12 Defended by Toup, Hmend. in Suidam. IIT. p. 506. Comp. Etym. M. p. 772, 31: ruday yap éare y TOV avemov opddpa TVvoN, Os Kai EVpUK~ Avéwy KadetTat. 482 CHAP. XXVII., 15-1%. according to the analogy ef edpuxpeiur, eipruédov, edprdivyc, ete., would eer- tainly be more suitable to the explanation broad-surging ; but on this very account the reading EvpuxAidwv in B** 40, 133, is not to be approved with Griesbach, but to be considered as a correction. Lachmann and Borne- mann, followed by Ewald, Smith, and Hackett, have Evpaxidwv, according to As (Vulg. Cassiod.: Huroaquilo), which also Olshausen, after Eras- mus, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, approves ; the best defence of this reading is by Bentley, in Wolf, Cur. This would be the east-north-east wind ; the compound formed, as in eupövoros,! euroauster, euroafricus. But the words of the text lead us to expect a special actual name (Kadoby.) of this particular whirlwind, not merely a designation of .its direction. It is difficult also to comprehend why such an easily explicable name of a wind as Huroaquilo, evxpaxidwv, should have been converted into the difficult and enigmatic EbporAbdwv. Far more naturally would the converse take place, and the EöporAbdwv, not being understood, would be displaced by the sim- ilar EvpaxiAwy formed according to the well-known analogy of Eipévoroc K.r.A.; so that the latter form appears a product of old emendatory conjec- ture. Besides, EvpaxiAwr, if it were not formed by a later hand from the original EvporAvdov, would be an improbable mixture of Greek and Latin, and we do not see why the name should not have had some such form as EipoBopéac ; axibAwv = aquilo, is nowhere found (9°). Ver. 15. Zvvapracd.] but when the ship was hurried along with the whirl- wind. — On ävrogdarueiv, to look in the face, then to withstand.” — éxiévrec] may either, with the Vulgate, data nave flatibus ferebamur, Luther, Elsner, and many others, be referred to 7d mAoiov, or be taken in a reflexive sense :*® we gave ourselves up and were driven.* The former is simpler, because r. rAolov precedes. Ver. 16. KAaödn, or according to Ptol. iii. 7 KAaidoc, or according to Mela ii. 7 and Plin. iv. 20 Gaudos, according to Suidas Kavdé, was the name of the modern Gozzo to the south of Crete. From the different forms of the name given by the ancients must be explained the variations in the codd. and vss., among which Kaöda is attested by B s** Syr. Aeth. Vulg., adopted by Lachmann, and approved by Ewald. We cannot determine how Luke originally wrote the name; still, as most among the ancients have transmitted it without A, the 2, which has in its favour AG H x* vss. and the Greek Fathers, has probably been deleted by subsequent, though in itself correct, emendation. -—rjc oxaonc] they could scarcely become masters *® of the boat, belonging to the ship, which swam attached to it, when they wished to hoist it up,° that it might not be torn away by the storm. Ver. 17. And after they had drawn this up, they applied means of protection, undergirding the ship. This undergirding * took place, in order to diminish 1 Gel. ii. 22. 10. 5 mepırpareis, Simmias in the Anthol. I. p. 2 See Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 57. Comp. 137, Jacobs. Ecclus. xix. 6; Wisd. xii. 14. 6 Vv. 17, 30. 3 Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Kypke. 7 Polyb. xxvii. 3. 3. 4 Comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. 250. A STORM AT SEA. 483 the risk of foundering, by means of broad ropes,! which, drawn under the ship and tightened above, held its two sides more firmly together.” By Bontleiace is to be understood all kinds of helpful apparatus * which they had in store for emergencies, as ropes, chains, beams, clamps, and the like. The referring it to the help rendered by the passengers,’ which was a matter of course amidst the common danger, makes the statement empty and un- necessary. — soßolusvol re x.7.A.] and fearing to strike on the nearest Syrtis. It is entirely arbitrary to understand 737» LYiprw, without linguistic prece- dent, in the wider sense of a sandbank,° and not of the African Syrtis. Of the two Syrtes, the Greater and the Lesser, the former was the nearest. As the ship was driven from the south coast of Crete along past the island of Clauda, and thus ran before the north-east wind, they might well, amidst the peril of their situation, be driven to the fear lest, by continuing their course with full sail, they might reach the Greater Syrtis ; and how utterly destructive that would have been ! 7 — ixrirrew, of ships and shipwrecked persons, which are cast, out of the deep, navigable water, on banks, rocks, islands, shoals, or on the land, is very common from Homer onward.* — ro orevoc] the gear, the tackle, is the general expression for all the apparatus of the ship.” The context shows what definite tackle is here meant by specify- ing the aim of the measure, which was to prevent the ship from being cast upon the Syrtis, and that by withdrawing it as far as practicable from the force of the storm driving them towards the Syrtis. This was done by their lowering the sails, striking sail, and accordingly choosing rather to abandon the ship without sails to the wind, and to allow it to be driven (otrw¢ é¢épovro), than with stretched sails to be cast quickly, and without further prospect of rescue, on the Syrtis. Already at a very early date ro oxevoc Was justly explained of the sails, and Chrysostom even read ta iorıa. According to Smith, the lowering of the rigging is meant, by which the driving of the ship in a straight direction was avoided. But this presup- poses too exact an acquaintance with their position in the storm, consid- ering the imperfection of navigation in those times; and both the follow- ing description, especially ver. 20, and the measure adopted in ver. 29, lead us to assume that they had already relinquished the use of the sails. But the less likely it is that in the very exact delineation the account of the striking of the sails, which had not hitherto taken place, in opposi- tion to Kypke and Kuinoel, should have been omitted, and the more defi- nitely the collective meaning is applied in 7d oxeüoc, the more objectionable 1 vmolwnara, tormenta. 2 Yet it is doubtful whether the procedure was not such, that the ropes ran ina horizon- tal manner right round the ship (Boeckh, Stallb. ad Plat. l.c.). But see Smith. Comp. 4See Wetstein. 5 Grotius, Heinsius, and others. 6 Bis, Tatvia, Epa, oTH OS. 7 See Herod. iii. 25 f., iv. 173; Sallust. Jug. 78 f. ; Strabo, xvii. p. 834 f. Plat. Rep. p. 616 C: oloy ra Umolunara Tov Tpınpwv, ovUTw macav £vvexwv Thy mepıbopar ; Athen. v. 37; and see generally Boeckh, Ur- kunden üb d. Seewesen des Attischen Staats, p. 133 ff.; Smith (The Ships of the Ancients), p. 173 ff. ; Hackett, p. 426 fl. 3 Aristot. Bhet. ii. 5. 8 Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 239; Stallb. ad Piat. Phil. p. 13 D. 9 Plat. Crit. p. 117 D3; cxevav öca tpijpece mpoonkeı, Dem. 1145. 1: oxen Tpınpapxıra, 1145. 9; Xen. Oee. viii. 12. Polyb. xxii. 26. 13; and see Hermann, Privatalterth. § 50. 20. 484 CHAP. XXVII., 18-25. appears the view of Grotius, Heinsius, Kuinoel, and Olshausen (after the Peshito), that 7d cxevoc is the mast. Still more arbitrary, and, on account of égépovro, entirely mistaken is the rendering of Kypke: ‘‘ demittentes ancoram,’’ and that of Castalio and Vatablus: ‘‘demissa scapha ;’’ see, on the other hand, ver. 30. ‘ Vv. 18, 19. ’Exßoryv &mowvvro] they made a casting out, i.e. they threw overboard the cargo.! For the lightening of the vessel in distress, in order to make it go less deep and to keep it from grounding, they got rid ir the first instance of what could, in the circumstances, be most fitly dis- pensed with, namely, the cargo; but on the day after they laid hands even on the oxevy tov mAoiov,” i.e. the ship's apparatus,—the utensils belonging to the ship, as furniture, beds, cooking vessels, and the like. The same collective idea, but expressed in the plural, occurs in Jonahi. 5. Others? understand the baggage of the passengers, but this is at variance with rov mAotov ; instead of it we should expect juév, especially as auröxyeıpes pre- cedes. Following the Vulgate, Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, includ- ing Olshausen and Ewald, understand the arma navis, that is, ropes, beams, and the like belonging to the equipment of the ship. But the tackling is elsewhere called ra ör?a, or ra cxety, from oxevos, and just amidst the danger this was most indispensable of all.—airéyerpec] with our own hands,* gives to the description a sad vividness, and does not present a contrast to the conduct of Jonah, who lay asleep,’ as Baumgarten in his morbid quest of types imagines. Ver. 20. Myre dé jAiov x.7.4.] For descriptions of storms from Greek and Roman writers, which further embellish this trait, see Grotius and Wetstein.*® — inıkeiodaı) spoken of the incessantly assailing storm.” — Aoımöv] ceterum in reference to time, ö.e. henceforth.* — juac| not juiv, which would not have been suitable to Paul,’ nor yet probably to his Christian companions. Vv. 21, 22. The perplexity had now risen in the ship to despair. But, as the situation was further aggravated by the fact that there prevailed in a high degree (oAAjc) that abstinence from food which anguish and despair naturally bring with them, Paul came forward in the midst of those on board (év u£ow airov), in the first instance with gentle censure, and after- wards with confident encouragement and promise. — On äoıria, jejunatio, comp. Herod. iii. 52 ; Eur. Suppl. 1105 ; Arist. Hth. x. 9 ; Joseph. Anté. xii. 7. 1.1°— röre] then, in this state of matters, as in xxviii. 1.11 — orafeic «.r.A.] has 1 Had the ship been loaded with ballast, and this been thrown out (Laurent), we should have expected a more precise designation (£pra). The oxevn, too, would not have been included in the category of things thrown out at once on the following day, but after the ballast would have come, in the first instance, the cargo. The ship was without doubt a merchant-vessel, and doubtless had no bal- last at all. Otherwise they certainly would have commenced with throwing the latter out, but would not thereupon have at once passed to the oxevn. Dem. 926. 17; Aesch. Sept. 769; Arist- Eth. iii.1; Pollux, i. 99; LXX. Jonahi.5. 2 Diod. Sic. xiv. 79. 3 Wetstein, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel. 4 Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 1160. 5 Jonah i. 5. 6 Virg. Aen. i. 85 ff., ii. 195 ff. ; Ach. Tat, ii. 2, p. 234, al. 7 See Alberti, Odss. 279; Wolf, Cur. § See Vigerus, p. 22, and Hermann thereon, p. 706; Kühner, ad Anab. ii. 2. 5. eat elle 10 Vulg. 11 So also in the classics after participles, Xen. Cyr.i. 5.6; Dem. 33. 5, 60. 18. PAUL’S ADDRESS ON BOARD. 485 here, as in xvii. 22, li. 14, something solemn. —airév] not judy; for the censure as well as also primarily the encouragement was intended to apply to the sailors, — idec pév] it was necessary indeed. This u£v does not stand in relation to the following xa/, but the contrast—possibly : but it has not been done—is suppressed.’ Bengel well remarks: ‘kat modestiam habet.’’ — kepdgoat x.t.2.] and to have spared us this insolence” and the loss suffered. tavtyv points to the whole present position of danger in which the ifpxc, wherewith the warnings of the apostle were despised and the voyage vent- ured, presented itself in a way to be keenly felt as such. xepdaivew, of that gain, which is made by omission or avoidance.* The evil in question is con- ceived as the object, the non-occurrence of which goes to the benefit of the person acting, as the negative object of gain. Analogous to this is the Latin lucrifacere, see Grotius.* — aroßoAy yap wuyie x.7.A.| for there shall be no loss of a soul from the midst of you, except loss of the ship, i.e. no loss of life, but only the loss of the ship. An inaccuracy of expression, which con- tinues with 7A7v, as if before there had simply been used the words aroß. yap ovd. &oraı.’— To what Paul had said in ver. 10, his present announce- ment stands related as a correction. He has now by special revelation learned the contrary of what he had then feared, as respected the appre- hended loss of life. Vv. 23-25. “Ayyedoc] an angel (K*). But naturally those hearers who were Gentiles, and not particularly acquainted with Judaism, understood this as well as roi Ocov x.r.A. according to their Gentile conception, of a mes- senger of the gods, and of one of the gods. — od eiui Eyo, @ Kai arpeiw] to whom I belong, as His property, and whom I also, in accordance with this belonging, serve.° Paul thus characterizes himself as intimate with God, and therewith assures the credibility of his announcement, in which row @cov with great emphasis precedes the dyyedoc¢ «.7.A. (see the critical re- marks). On éyé (see the critical remarks), in which is expressed a holy sense of his personal standing, Bornemann correctly remarks: ‘‘ Pronomen Paulum minime dedecet coram gentilibus verba facientem.’’ — keydpiorai cot 6 Ge6c] God has granted to thee, i.e. He has saved them, according to His counsel, for thy sake.’— Here, too,* the appearance, which is to be re- garded as a work of God, is not a vision in a dream. The testimony and the consciousness of the apostle, who was scarce likely to have slumbered and dreamed on that night, are decisive against this view, and particularly against the naturalizing explanation of Eichhorn,® Zeller, and Hausrath. De Wette takes objection to the mode of expression xeyapiora x.r.4., and is inclined to trace it to the high veneration of the reporter; but this is unfair, as Paul had simply to wtter what he had heard. And he had heard, that for his sake the saving of all was determined. Bengel well remarks: 1See Kiihner, § 733, note, p. 430; Baeum- Phryn. p. 740 f. lein, Partik. p. 163. Comp. on xxviii. 22. 5 Comp. Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 789]. 2 See on ver. 10. § Comp. Rom. i. 9. 3 See examples in Bengel, and Kypke, II. 7 See on iii. 14. p. 139 f. 8 Comp. on xvi. 10. 4 On the form kepdjoar, see Lobeck, ad ® Bibl. III. p. 407, 1084. 486 CHAP. XXVII., 26-34. “Non erat tam periculoso alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur P., que necessario dicebat, gloriose dicere.”’ — oürwc ka’ öv rp.] comp. 1. 11. Ver. 26. But—dé, leading over to the mode of the promised deliverance— we must be cast! on some island. This assurance, made to Paul probably through the appearance just narrated, is verified ver. 41 ff. But it is lightly, and without reason assigned, conjectured by Zeller that vv. 21-26 contain a vaticinium post eventum on the part of the author. Vv. 27-29. But after the commencement of the fourteenth night, namely, after the departure from Fair Havens,? while we were driven up and down* in the Adriatic sea, about midnight, the sailors descried, etc. The article was not required before the ordinal number,‘ as a special demonstrative stress® is not contemplated, but only the simple statement of time. On wog éreyé- vero (see the critical remarks), the night set in.°—é’ Adpiac] here and frequently, not in the narrower sense’ of the Golfo di Venetia, but in the wider sense of the sea between Italy and Greece, extending southward as far as, and inclusive of, Sicily.2—poodyew] that it approaches to them.” The opposite is See Smith and the passages in Kuinoel. The conjec- ture of the sailors (ürevöovv) had doubtless its foundation in the noise of the surf,” such as is usual in the vicinity of land. — On Borilew, to cast the sounding lead,'' and on öpyvıd,'” a measure of length of six feet, like our fathom. — diacthoavtec| note the active: having made a short interval, i.e. having removed the ship a little way farther.’ — dexarvre] With this de- crease of depth the danger increased of their falling on reefs,” such as are frequent in the vicinity of small islands. —réooapac].*° For the different expressions for casting anchor, see Poll. i. 103 (1°). Ver. 30. While they were lying here at anchor longing for daylight, mbxovro huépav yevécba, ver. 29, the sailors, in order with the proximity of land to substitute certainty for uncertainty, make the treacherous attempt to escape to land in the boat, which they had already let down under the pretence of wishing to cast anchor from the prow of the ship, and thus to leave the vessel together with the rest of those on board to their fate. Cer- tainly the captain of the vessel,!’ whose interest was too much bound up with the preservation of the ship, was not implicated in this plot of his servants ; but how easily are the bonds of fidelity and duty relaxed in avayopeiv, recedere. 1 éxmececv, See on Ver. 17. 2 Comp. vv. 18, 19. notus.’’ Horat. Od. i. 3. 15. 9 “*Tucas optice loquitur nautarum more,’ 3 S.adep., see the passages in Wetsteinand Kypke. See Cic. Quaest. acad. iv. 25. Kypke, II. p. 141, and Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 10 Smith. 410 E. 11 BoAis, in Herodotus karareıparmpia. See 4 Poppo, ad Thue. ii. 70. 5. the passages from Eustathius in Wetstein. 5 Ameis on Hom. Od. xiv. 241. 12 Concerning the accent, Göttling, p. 138. 6 Comp. Herod. viii. 70; Thuc. iv. 25; 13 See Herod. ii. 169; Beckh, meirol. Un- Polyb. i. 11. 15, ii. 25. 5. ters. p. 210 ff. 7 Plin. iii. 16. 20. 14Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 41 [E. 8 Comp. Scherzer, statistisch commercielle Ergebnisse, p. 51: “ During the European win- ter a sailing vessel may be often forced to lose fourteen days or more by a persistent south- east wind in the Adriatic Gulf.” See For- biger, Geogr. II. p. 16 ff. ‘‘ Hadriae arbiter T. 47]. 15 kata Tpayxeis TOTOUS. 16 Comp. Caes. Bell. civ. i. 25: “‘ Naves qua- ternis ancoris destinabat, ne fluctibus move- rentur.”’ 17 The vavkAnpos, ver. 11. FEARS AND HOPES. 48% vulgar minds when placed in circumstances of perilous uncertainty, if at the expense of these bonds a safe deliverance may be obtained !— rpogdcer ÖC . . . pedddvtwv] The genitive is absolute, subordinate to the preceding yadac., and mpodaoeı! is adverbial,” as in classical writers the accusative mpödacıv more commonly occurs.* Hence: on pretence as though they would, etc. — irreivew] eatendere.t They affected and pretended that by means of the boat they were desirous to reach out anchors® from the prow, from which these anchors hung, ° into the sea, in order that the vessel might be secured not only behind,’ but also before. Incorrectly Laurent renders : ‘‘ to cast out the anchors farther into the sea.’ Against this, it is decisively urged that ayxipac is anarthrous, and that é« tpépa¢ stands in contrast to &x mpbuvns, ver. 29. Vv. 31, 32. Paul applied not first to the captain of the vessel, but at once to the soldiers, because they could take immediately vigorous measures, as the danger of the moment required ; and the energetic and decided word of the apostle availed. —oira . . . turic] Correlates. Paul, however, does not say jueic, but appeals to the direct personal interest of those addressed. — owljvat ov divacbe] spoken in the consciousness of the divine counsel, in so far as the latter must have the fulfilment of duty by the sailors as the human means of its realization (M*). — éxzeceiv] to fall out. We are to think on the boat let down into the sea,* yet hanging with its fastened end to the ship—when the soldiers cut the ropes asunder. Ver. 33. But now, when he had overcome this danger, it was the care of the prudent rescuer, before anything further, to see those on board strength- ened for the new work of the new day by food. But until it should become day,—so long, therefore, as the darkness of the night up to the first break of dawn did not allow any ascertaining of their position or further work,— in this interval he exhorted all, etc. —teccapeck. of. juépav K.T.2.] waiting, for deliverance, the fourteenth day to-day, since the departure from Fair Havens, ye continue without food. äcıroı holds with dıarer. the place of a participle.® — und&v mpooraß.] since ye have taken to you (adhibuistis) nothing, no food. This emphatically strengthens the äoıro.. That, however, the two terms are not to be understood of complete abstinence from food, but relatively, is self-evident ; Paul expresses the ‘‘ insolitam cibi abstinentiam’’ !° earnestly and forcibly.” Ver. 34. Ilpöc tH¢ ier. owr.] on the side of your deliverance, e salute vestra, i.e. corresponding, conducing to your deliverance.'2 Observe the emphatic iperépac ; your benefit I have in view. — oidevdc yap x.r.A.] assigns the reason 1Comp. Luke xx. 47; Thue. v. 53. 1, vi. ® See the passages in Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 2 Bernhardy, p. 130. (76. 1. 437] ; Krüger on Thue. i. 34. 2, and Kühner, 3 Dory. ad Charit. p. 319; Krüger on Thuc. ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 2. iii. 111.1, on os, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and 10 Calvin. see Xen. Anad. i. 2. 1. 11 Comp. moAA7s, ver. 21. 4Vulg. 12 Comp. Thue. iii. 59. 1, v. 105. 35 Plat. 5 ** Rune eo usque prolato,” Grotius. Gorg. p. 459 C; Arr. An. vii. 16.9. See on, 6 Pind. Pyth. iv. 342, x. 80. : this use of zpés with the genitive (only found, 7 Ver. 29. ; here in the N. T.), Bernhardy, p. 264; Winer, 8 Ver. 30. p. 350 [E. T. 467 f.]. 488 CHAP, XXVII., 35-40. for the previous mpöc r. üner£p. cwrypiac. For your deliverance, I say, for, etc. In this case their own exertions and the bodily strengthening neces- sary for this purpose are conceived as conditioning the issue. — On the proverbial expression itself, which denotes their being kept utterly exempt from harm, comp. Luke xxi. 18; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52. Vv. 35, 36. Like the father of a family* among those at table, not, as Olshausen and Ewald suppose, notwithstanding that most of the persons were heathens, regarding the meal as a Christian love-feast, Paul now, by way of formal and pious commencement of the meal, uttered the thanks- giving-prayer—for the disposition towards, and relative understanding of, which even the Gentiles present were in this situation susceptible—over the bread,? broke it, and commenced to eat (jjpEaro éofiew). And all of them, encouraged by his word and example, on their part followed. — mpooeAäß. rpodns] partook of food.? It is otherwise in ver. 33, with accusative. Ver. 37. And what a large meal was thus brought about !— The number 276 may surprise us on account of its largeness ;* but, apart from the fact that we have no knowledge of the size and manning of the Alexandrian ship, ver. 6, it must, considering the exactness of the entire narrative, be assumed as correct ; and for the omission of dvaxéova the single evidence of B, which has öc, is too weak. Ver. 38. Now, seeing that for some time, and in quite a brief period must the fate of those on board be decided, further victuals were unneces- sary—now they ventured on the last means of lightening the ship, which, with the decreasing depth,* was urgently required for the purpose of driv- ing it on to the land, and cast the provisions overboard, which, considering the multitude of men and the previous aoırla, was certainly still a con- siderable weight. Chrysostom aptly remarks: ottw Aoımov 75 Trav Eppubav Emil tov TlavAov, Sc kat tov oirov éxBareiv. Ziros may denote either corn, or also, as here and often with Greek writers, provisions particularly prepared from corn, meal, bread, etc. Others® have explained it as the corn with which, namely, the ship had been freighted. But against this it may be urged, first, that this ‚freighting is not indicated ; secondly, that xopeo@. dé rpodjc corresponds to the throwing out of the provisions, and not of the Sreight ; and thirdly, that the throwing out of the freight had already taken place,? as this indeed was most natural, because the freight was the heaviest. Ver. 39. Tyv yijv ov‘ éxeyivwor.] i.e. when it became day, they recognised not what land it was; the land lying before them (rj yjv) was one un- known to them. — köArov dé twa Katevdovv Exovra alyıalöv] Thus Luke writes quite faithfully and simply, I might say naively, what presented itself to the scrutinizing gaze of those on board : but they perceived a bay which had a beach. A bay and a beach belonging to it—so much they saw at tne un- known land, and this sufficed for the resolution to land there, where it was 1 Comp. Luke xxiv. 39. [vi. 11. 5 Ver. 28. 2 Matt. xiv. 19, xv. 36; Mark viii. 6; John 6 Erasmus, Luther, Beza, et al., including 3 Comp. Herod. vili. 90. Baumgarten, Smith, Hackett. 4 See Bornemann in loc. 7 Ver. 18. SHIPWRECK. 489 possible. Observe that aiyrarde is a flat ae) ‘thus suitable for landing, in distinction from the high and rugged d«77.2 Hence it is not even neces- sary, and is less simple, to connect, with Winer, eic öv «.7.2. as modal defi- nition of aiy:ad. closely with the latter: ‘‘a shore of such a nature, that,” etc. — eig bv] applies to alyıad. See ver. 40. For examples of é£w6eir, used of the thrusting a ship from the open sea on to the land, navem ejicere, expellere, see Wetstein. On St. Paul’s Bay, see the description and chart of Smith. Ver. 40. A vivid description of the stirring activity now put forth in making every effort to reach the shore. 1. They cut the four anchors round about (mepıeAövrec), and let them fall into the sea, in order neither to lose time nor to burden the ship with their weight. 2. At the same time they loosened the bands, with which they fastened the rudders to the ship in order to secure them while the ship lay at anchor from the violence of the waves, for the purpose of now using them in moving on. 38, They spread the top-sail before the wind, and thus 1ook their course (Kaze yor) for the beach (cig tov aiysaddv). — eiwv] is to be referred to the dyxépac, which they let go by cutting, so that they fell into the sea. Arbitrarily, following the Vulgate (committebant se), Luther, Beza, Grotius take it as eiov TO mAoiov tévat eig nv Baraccav.”’— That trav rydaAiov is not to be taken for the singular, but that larger ships had two rudders,* managed by one steersman.* — 6 apréuwv] not elsewhere occurring in Greek writers as part of a ship, is most probably explained of the top-gallant-sail placed high on the mast.° Labeo points to this view: ‘‘Malum navis esse partem, arte- monem autem non esse, Labeo ait,'’° in which words he objects to the con- founding of the artemon with the mast : the mast constituted an integral part of the ship, but the artemon did not, because it was fastened to the mast. Luther’s translation: ‘‘mast,’? is therefore certainly incorrect. Grotius, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Smith, explain it of ‘the small sail at the prow of the ship.’’ In this they assume that the mast had already been lowered ; but this is entirely arbitrary, as Luke, although he relates every particular so expressly, has never mentioned this.® Besides, we cannot see why this sail should not have been called by its technical name dédov.° Hadrianus, Junius, Alberti, Wolf, and de Wette understand the mizzen-sail at the stern, which indeed bears that name in the present day,!° but for this éridpouoc," is well known to be the old tech- nical name. — 77 rveobcy] sc. aipa, has raised itself quite to the position of a substantive. The dative indicates the reference; they hoisted up the 1 Matt. xiii. 2; and see Nägelsbach on the liad, p. 254, ed. 3. 2See Hom. Od. v. 405, x. 89; Pind. Pyth. iv. 64; Lucian, Zow. 4. 3 Aelian, V. H.ix. 40. _ 4 See Smith, p. 9, also Scheffer, de milit. nav. ii.5; Boeckh, Urkunden, p. 125. B Bee especially Scheffer, de milit. nav. ii. 53 Forcellini, Thes. I. p. 231. § In Jabolen. Dig. lib. 1. tit. 16, leg. 242. 7 Segelbaum. 8 Comp. on ver. 17. ® Polyb. xvi. 15.2; Diod. xx. 61; Pollux, 1.91; Liv. xxxvi. 44, xxxvii. 30; Isidor. Orig. xix. 3; Procop. Bell. Vandal. i. 1%. 10 Italian, Artimone; French, voile d’arti- mon ; see Baysius, de re nav. p. 121. 11 Pollux i. 91. 12 See examples in Bos, Z7., ed. Schaefer, pp. 82, 40. 490 CHAP, XXVII., 41-44. sail for the breeze, so that the wind now swelled it from behind. For exam- ples of &raipew, for hoisting up and thereby expanding the sail, and for xaréyew to steer towards, see Kypke, II. p. 144. Ver. 41. But when they had struck upon a promontory.’ — It is altogether arbitrary to abandon the literal import of d.fé2accoc, forming two seas, or having the sea on both sides, bimaris,” and to understand by römos dıdar. a sandbank or a reef, situated after the manner of an island before the entrance of the bay. This view is supposed to be necessary on account of ver. 43 f., and it is asked: ‘‘quorsum enim isti in mare se projicerent, si in ipsum litus navis impegerat prora?’’* But the promontory, as is very fre- quently the case, jutted out with its point under the surface of the water, and was covered to so great an extent by the sea, that the ship stranding on the point was yet separated from the projecting dry part of the isthmus by a considerable surface of water ; hence those stranded could only reach the dry land by swimming. Even in Dio Chrys. v. p. 83, by which the signification of reef is sought to be made good, because there rpayéa x. dıda- Aatta x. ramviaı (sandbanks) are placed together, d:#aA. is not to be taken otherwise than röroc 104%. here. — Eröreıhav] éxoxéAXew may be either tran- sitive: to thrust the ship on, to cause it to strand,* or intransitive: to strand, to be wrecked.® As rv vaiv is here added, which in the intransitive view would be the accusative of more precise definition, but quite super- fluous, the transitive view is that suggested by the text: they thrust the ship upon, they made it strand. Lachmann and Tischendorf, following A B* C, have éréxe:Aav, from éruxéd2w, to push to the land, navem appellere. But neither does this meaning suit, as here it is the ship going to wreck that is spoken of ; nor can proof be adduced from the aorist form é7éxe:Aa.® — épeicaca] having fixed itself. On £psidew, used also by the Greeks in an intransitive sense, comp. Prov. iv. 4. — 4 dé mpiuva éAbeto «.r.A.] for the promontory had naturally the deeper water above it the farther it ran seawards, so that the stern was shattered by the power of the waves. This shipwreck was at least the fourth” which Paul suffered. Vv. 42-44. Now, when the loss of the ship was just as certain, as with the proximity of the land the escape of those prisoners who could swim was easily possible, the soldiers were of a mind to kill them; but the cen- turion was too much attached to Paul to permit it.° Not sharing in the apprehension of his soldiers, he commanded that all in the ship who knew how to swim should swim to land, and then the rest, to whom in this way assistance was ready on shore, were to follow partly on planks and partly on broken pieces of the ship. — fovdy éyévero, iva] there took place a project, in the design, that, etc. ; comp. on ver. 1, and see Niigelsb. on the Iliad, p. 1 As to mepim., comp. on Luke x. 30. see Bornemann. In Polyb. iv. 31. 2, &mıreAXorv- 2 See the passages in Wetstein. res has been introduced by copyists’ mistake 3 Calovius; compare Kuinoel. 72 Cor. xi. 25. [for EroreAAorvres. 4 Herod. vi. 16, vii. 182; Thuc. iv. 26. 5. 8 In this remark, ver 43, Zeller conjectures 5So Thuc. viii. 102.3; Polyb. i. 20. 15, iv. very arbitrarily a later addition to the original 41. 2, and see Loesner, p. 240. narrative, which was designed to illustrate the ® Hom. Od. ix. 138, 148, vili. 114: éméxeAca, influence of the apostle upon the Roman. ALL ON BOARD SAVED. 491 62, ed. 3, who on such modes of expression appropriately remarks that the ‘‘ willis conceived as a striving will.’ — amoppirre, to cast down, intran- sitive, in the sense of se projieere.! — kai rovg Aormovg] sc. &£ıevar (e mari) éxi THY yijv. — éri caviow| on planks, which were at hand in the ship. — &ri rıyav TOV ano Tov Thoiov| on something from the ship, on pieces which had partly broken loose from it by the stranding, so forming wreck (vavayıov, Epeirıov), and were partly torn off by the people themselves for that purpose. &mi denotes both times the local being upon, and the change between dative and genitive is to be regarded as merely accidental.? — In the history of this final rescue, Baumgarten, II. p. 420, has carried to an extreme the arbitrariness of allegorico-spiritual fiction. Remark 1.— The extraordinarily exact minuteness and vividness in the nar- rative of this whole voyage justifies the hypothesis that Luke, immediately after its close, during the winter spent in Malta, wrote down this interesting description in the main from fresh recollection, and possibly following notes which he had made for himself even during the voyage — perhaps set down in his diary, and at a later period transferred from it to his history. Remark 2.—The transition from the first person —in which he narrates as a companion sharing the voyage and its fortunes—into the third is not to be con- sidered as an accident or an inconsistency, but is founded on the nature of the contents, according to which the sailors specially come into prominence as subject. See vy. 13, 17, 18, and 19, 21, 29, 38-41. Remark 3. If the assumption of the school of Baur as to the set purpose animating the author of the Acts were correct, this narrative of the voyage, with all its collateral circumstances in such detail, would be a meaningless bal- last of the book. But it justifies itself in the purely historical destination of the work, and confirms that destination. Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. (6?) And he put us therein. V. 6. In no ancient literature have we, in so small a compass, such a minute de- scription of a voyage and shipwreck as is contained in this chapter of the Acts, and the account abounds in nautical phrases and words. To account for the great minuteness of detail with which the voyage is described it has been sup- posed that Luke kept a diary during the voyage and used it in his history. The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, by James Smith, Esq., of Jordan Hill, a work of European reputation, gives a full explanation and illustration of the entire voyage. “ Mr. Smith has applied his nautical knowledge to the elucida- tion of this chapter, and by so doing has furnished us with a new and inde- pendent argument in favor of the authenticity of the Acts.” Hackett is also particularly full and minute on this and the following chap- ter. The Greek words éve3iBacev jude eig aurö, rendered put us therein, is a nauti- 1 See Schaefer, ad Bos Eıl. p. 127. 2 See Bernhardy, p. 200 f.: Kühner, § 624, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20. 492 CHAP. XXVII.—NOTES. cal phrase, and means put us on board of it. -Hackett remarks : ‘‘ It will be ob- served that Luke employs such terms with great frequency, and with singular precision. He uses, for example, not less than thirteen different verbs which agree in this, that they mark in some way the progression of the ship, but which differ, inasmuch as they indicate its distance from the land, rate of movement, direction of the wind, or some such circumstance. With the ex- ception of three of them, they are all nautical expressions.”’ Doubtless the writer learned the use of such terms from the sailors themselves. (mt) Fair Havens. Y. 8. On this harbor-Alford writes : ‘‘ The situation of this anchorage was ascer- tained by Pococke from the fact of the name still remaining.’’ ‘‘ In searching after Lehena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of greater consequence because mentioned in Holy Scripture and also honored by the presence of St. Paul, that is the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea ; for there is a small bay about two leagues to the east of Matala, which is now called by the Greeks good, or fair, havens.’’ Mr. Smith in quoting this pas- sage adds : ‘‘ The most conclusive evidence that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture is that its position is precisely that where a ship, circumstanced as St. Paul’s was, must have put in.” Hackett observes : “ This harbor consists of an open roadstead, or rather two roadsteads contiguous to each other, which may account for the plural desig- nation. It is adapted also by its situation to afford the shelter in north-west winds, which the anchorage mentioned by Luke afforded to Paul’s vessel. Nautical authorities assure us that this place is the farthest point to which an ancient ship could have attained with north-westerly winds, because here the land turns suddenly to the north.” Gloag says that Rev. G. Brown iden- tified the exact situation of Lasea, in the year 1856. He ascertained that the natives of Crete gave the name of Lasea to some ruins on the coast about five miles east of Fair Havens. Two white pillars and other remains still mark the spot. (1) Toward the north-west and south-west. V. 12. On this phrase which he renders, Jooking down the south-west and north- west winds, i.e., in the direction of these winds, viz., north-east and south-east, Alford writes : *‘ For Aiy and yapoc are not quarters of the compass, but winds ; and «ard, used with a wind, denotes the direction of its blowing—‘ down the wind.’ "This interpretation, which I was long ago persuaded was the right one, I find now confirmed by the opinion of Mr, Smith.” Hackettin a note says : ‘‘ As this question has excited some interest, it may be well to mention how it is viewed in works published since 1850. Humphrey (1854) says that Mr. Smith’s passages are not quite conclusive as to BAérovta kata Aida. He supposes Phee- nix to be the modern Phineka which opens to the west, and thus adopts the common explanation of the phrase. Alford (1852), agrees with Smith. [And he adds to his note on verse 12, this statement : “ See Professor Hackett’s note, impugning the above view and interpretation. I cannot observe on it, as it has only come to hand as these sheets are being printed, but it does not alter NOTES. 493 my opinion.’’—Am. Ed.] Howson would admit an instance of thet usage in Josephus, but says the other alleged proofs are untenable or ambiguous. He mediates between the two opinions by suggesting that the point of view (3rerovra) is from the sea and not the land, so that cara Aisa would have its ‘usual meaning, and yet the harbor open toward the east like Lutro. Words- worth has a copious note on this question. He reviews the arguments on both sides, and sums up with the result that we should not abandon the ancient in- terpretation, or at all events should suspend our decision till we have more complete topographical details for forming it. Gloag says : ‘‘ There is a differ- ence of opinion regarding the exact situation of the ancient Phoenix. Lutro, Sphakia, and Franco Castello, places on the south coast of Crete, to the west of Cape Matala, have each been fixed upon. Most modern commentators are now agreed that the modern part of Lutro is meant.”’ He adds that Spratt informs us that a wide bay, a little to the west of it, is still known by the name of Phoenix, and says: “ Most probably it is this bay to the west which is meant, as the haven of Lutro is open to the east, and therefore does not suit the description of it given by Luke, as looking toward the south-west and north-west, whereas the bay of Phoenice does, being open to the west.” Ina note he adds further : “‘ This view, that Phenix is not Lutro, but the adjoining bay to the west, is also adopted by Humphrey and by Bishop Wordsworth.” (34) Euroclydon. V. 14. Gloag remarks on this word : “‘ Alford thinks that it is a corruption by the Greek sailors of eipaxt2wv, as the last part of that word was not Greek, but Latin. The addition 6 kaAovuevoc denotes that it was a popular name given to the wind by the sailors, just as a similar wind in the Mediterranean is now known to our seamen by the name of the Levanter.” Hackett thinks the name of the wind denotes the point from which it came, and should probably be written eüparvAwv, Euroaquilo, as in the Vulgate, a north-east wind, and says the in- ternal evidence favors that form of the word. In this opinion Alexander, Jacob- son, Jacobus, and Plumptre substantially concur. The Revised Version gives the name Euraquilo, which Abbot and Taylor also approves. In popular language it was a north-easterly gale. Schaff says: ‘‘ We here naturally think of the beautiful stanza of the Greek hymn of Anatolius containing the word Euroc- lydon. “+ Ridge of the mountain wave, lower thy crest ip Wail of Euroclydon, be thon at rest ! Sorrow can never be, darkness must fly, Where saith the Light of light, Peace! ItisI!’” (x) The angel of God. V. 23: The literal rendering is, as in the Revised Version, an angel of the God, whose lam. The ministry of angels is frequently referred to in the Acts. This form of expression is natural in addressing idolaters, to whom the idea of an angel was familiar, as a messenger from the gods, but who had no idea of the one living and true God. This vision was to Paul a source of strength and presence of mind, which he was able in some degree to impress on others. 494 CHAP. XXVII.—NOTES. Stier says : “ How beautiful is the quiet certainty of the apostle amid the dangers of the raging sea. Jam od’s is the loftiest and inmost confidence of piety ; I serve him is the consequent appeal to the vitality of his worship.” Howson characterizes this statement of the apostle as ‘‘ one of the noblest ut- terances that ever came from the lips of man, and made more remarkable by the circumstances under which the words were uttered.” (14) They cast four anchors out of the stern. V. 29. Some suppose that the four anchors here mentioned wasa four-fluked anchor ; but large vessels often carried several anchors. Athenzus mentions a ship that had eight iron anchors, and the quotation from Cesar by Meyer refers to ships made fast by four anchors. In general the ancients, like the moderns, an- chored from the bow. The reason why anchors in the present instance were cast from the stern was that in that way the progress of the ship would at once be stopped without swinging round. ‘‘ In the battles of the Nile and of Copenhagen, Nelson had his ships anchored from the stern, and the fact de- rives peculiar interest from the statement that he had been reading Acts xxvii. on the morning of the engagement.” (Plumptre.) Having cast out the anchors they wished for day. These words vividly por- tray the straw cf hope and fear which made them almost cry: ‘‘ And if our fate be death, give light and let us die.” (m?) Eixcept these abide, ye cannot be saved. VY. 31. Notwithstanding the divine assurance to Paul, means were necessary, and these were ordained as well asthe end. Paul’s vigilance and the seamen’s skill and labor were required to effect the divine purpose. Mier says: ‘We see, therefore, that God’s promises are conditional ; in this case, the use of ordinary means anda faithful perseverance in duty to the very last were both requisite.’’ Calvin on this verse writes: “ Paul doth not dispute, in this place, precisely of the power of God, that he may separate the same from his will and from means ; and surely God doth not, therefore, commend his (strength or) power (virtutem suam) to the faithful, that they may give themselves to sluggishness and carelessness, contemning means orrashly cast away themselves when there is some certain way of escape. And yet for all this it doth not follow that the hand of God is tied to means or helps, but when God appointeth this or that means to bring anything to pass, he holdeth all men’s senses that they may not pass the bounds which he hath appointed.” Dr. Chalmers, in a sermon on Acts xxvii. 22 and 31, says: ‘‘ There is no incon- sistency between these verses. God says in one of them, by the mouth of Paul, that these men were certainly to be saved, and Paulsays in the other of these verses that unless the centurion and others were to do so and so, they should not be saved. In one of the verses, it is made to be the certain and unfailing appointment of God. In the other it is made to depend on the cen- turion. There is no difficulty in all this, if you would just consider that God, who made the end certain, made the means certain also. Itis true that the end was certain to happen, and it is as true that the end would not happen without the means, but God secured the happening of both, and so gives sure- NOTES. 495 ness and consistency to the passage before us.” He also says: “ There must be a sad deal of evasion and of unfair handling with particular passages to get free of the evidence which we find for the doctrine of predestination in the Bible. And independently of Scripture altogether, the denial of this doe- trine brings a number of monstrous conceptions along with it. It supposes God to make a world, and not to reserve in his own hand the management of its concerns. Though it should concede to him an absolute sovereignty over all matter, 1t deposes him from his sovereignty over the region of created minds, that far more dignified and interesting portion of his works. The greatest events of the history of the universe are those which are brought about by the agency of willing and intelligent beings, and the enemies of the doc- trine invest every one of these beings with some sovereign and independent principle of freedom, in virtue of which it may be asserted of this whole class of events, that they happened, not because they were ordained of God, but because the creatures of God, by their own uncontrolled power, brought them into existence. At this rate, even He to whom we give the attribute of omnis- cience is not able to say at this moment what shall be the fortune or the fate of any individual, and the whole train of future history is left to the wildness of accident. All this carries along with it so complete a dethronement of God, it is bringing his creation under the dominion of so many nameless and undeter- minable contingencies, it is taking the world and the current of its history so entirely out of the hands of him who formed it, it is withal so opposite to what obtains in every other field of observation, when instead of the lawless- ness of chance, we shall find that the more we attend the more we perceive of a certain necessary and established order, that from these and other considera- tions which might be stated the doctrine in question, in addition to the testi- monies which we find for it in the Bible, is at this moment receiving a very general support from the speculations of infidel as well as Christian philoso- phers.’”’ 496 CRITICAL REMARKS, CHAPTER XXVIII. Ver. 1. éxéyvwoav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éxéyvwuev, according to ABC S, min, and most vss. Rightly ; the third person was introduced with a ret- rospective view to xxvii. 39, through the connection with the concluding words of xxvii. 44. — Ver. 2. avdwavrec] Lachm. Born. read dwarrec, according to A BCS, min. But AN was liable to omission even in itself, and especially. through the preceding N. — Ver. 3. é«] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read dé, which is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted. — dvefe/40ica] So Tisch. Born. Scholz, according to A G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. But Elz. and Lachm. have é€eAMoica. The double compound was the more easily neglected as it was not elsewhere known from the N. T.-- Ver. 5. drorivafac] arorıvafauevos, although adopted by Scholz and Tisch., is not sufficiently attested by A G H, min. — Ver. 10. 7)v xpeiav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have rüc ypeiac, according to A B J NS, min, A gloss on Ta mpd¢ tiv xpelav, after xx. 34. — Ver. 14. &m’ adroic] Lachm. and Born., following A BJ S, min., read zap’ airoic, which was introduced as ex- planatory. — Ver. 16. 6 &karovrapyoc . . . orparomedapyn] is wanting (so that the passage continues : éretpdvy ro I.) in A B 8 lot 40, Chrys. and most vss. Con- demned by Mill, Bengel, and other, suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Defended especially by Born. in Rosenm. Repert. Il. p. 301 f. The words, attested by G H and most min. Ar. p. Slav. Theophyl. Oec., have cer- tainly the suspicion of being an expansion. Yet in opposition to their rejec- tion 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 ra orparored., would probably have written the more readily occurring plural; and thirdly, that in transcribing one might very easily pass from éxarovrAPXOS directly to orparoweSAPXH, which corruption would then produce the form of Lachmann’s text. — Ver. 17. airév] Elz. has rév IlaöXov, against AB SS, min. Chrys. and several vss. The name came in, because in ver. 17 a separate new act of the history commences ; therefore also Chrys. has once, and indeed at the beginning of a homily, r. Ilai2. — Ver. 19. karnyopjoaı) A B S, min. have karnyopeiv, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have adopted. Rightly : catyyopjoac is a mechanical alteration, in conformity with ärıral&saodaı. — Ver. 23. 7kov] A B NS, min. have 7A90v. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The extremely common word has been involuntarily substituted for the classical imperfect 7xov, not elsewhere occurring in the N. T. — ra repi] Lachm. Tisch, Born. have only zep/, following AB H NS, min. vss. Comp. on viii. 12, xix. 8. — Ver. 25. 7uov] AB N, min. vss. Fathers have öuöv, which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is justly supported by Born. The tone and con- tents of the speech, conveying censure and rejection, involuntarily suggested the second person to the transcribers. Comp. vii. 51 f. — Ver. 27. idowuar] A B G HS, min. Theophyl. have iäoouaı, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; see on John xii. 40. — Ver. 28. rö cwr7p.] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read roüro Tö owrnp., according to A B X*, min. Chrys. and several vss. The PAUL AT MALTA. 497 omission of rojro, which has no express reference in the text, is quite in keep- ing with the inattention of transcribers. — Ver. 29 is entirely wantinginABE NS, lot! 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 trans- action (according to ver. 25). Yet it is saved from complete rejection by the fact, that here also in detail there are only found very immaterial variations. — Ver. 30. After éuevve de, instead of which there is to be read, with Tisch., ac- cording to B S, lot 13, evéwerver de, Elz. has o IlavAoc, against witnesses of very considerable importance. See on ver. 17. V. 1. Tore] then, after our rescue, we recognised ; looks back to xxvii. 39. — That by Mediry is to be understood the well-known Malta! (s*), and not —as some of the older commentators? would infer partly from év r@’ Adpia, xxvii. 27, partly from ßapßapoı, ver. 2, and partly from the observed fact, which, though true in the present day, cannot at all be made good for those times, that there are no venomous serpents in Malta—the island now called Meleda in the Adriatic Gulf, not far from the Illyrian coast,* is proved as well by the previous long tossing about of the ship, which was hardly possible with a continued storm in the Adriatic Gulf, as more es- pecially by the direction of the further voyage.* The local tradition, also, in Malta, is in favour of it.° In the Act. Petri et Pauli 1, the island is called Tavdouedéry. Ver. 2. Bapßapoı] from a Roman point of view, because they were neither Greeks nor Romans, but of Punic descent, and therefore spoke a mixed dialect, neither Greek nor Latin. It was not till the second Punic war that Malta came under the dominion of the Romans.® — ov r. ruyoücav] See on xix. 11.—poceAa3.] they took us to themselves.” — dia r. veröv Tr. épect. ] on account of the rain which had set in.® — wüxoc] thus to be accented, al- though in opposition to a preponderance of codd.,° not wi yor. Ver. 3. ’Amo r. Oépu.| (see the critical remarks) on account of the heat. The reading é« would have to be rendered : from out of the heat.— dezeA- fovca].'' It denotes that the viper came out from the brushwood in which it was, and through the layer of the same which was above it.!* — kaßyıwe tie xetpoc avtov] it seized on his hand. The reading kafmbaro, recommended by Griesbach, following C, min. Chrysostom, a/., appears to be an emendation. That this «ade took place by means of a bite, Luke himself makes sufli- ı Diod. Sic. v. 12; Strabo, vi. 2, p. 277; 8 Comp. Polyb. xviii. 3.7: dıa tov ebeotwrta Cic. Verr. vi. 46 ; Ovid. Fast. iii. 567 f.: Fertilis est Melite, sterili vicina Cosyrae, Insula quam Libyci verberat unda freti. 2 Following Constantin. Porph. d. admin- istr. imper. p. 36 (see in Wolf, and in Winer, Realw.). 3 Apoll. Rhod. Avg. iv. 572. 4 vv. 11, 12. 5 Beza on xxvil. 41 ; Smith, Vömel, Hackett. 6 Liv. xxi. 51. 7 Comp. on Rom. xiv. 1. Codov. 9 See Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 44. See Hom. Od. x. 555 ; Soph. Phil. 17. 10 On the late form depuy, instead of Yeppa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p 331; see Winer, p. 348 (E. T. 465); Hermann, ad Arist. Nub. 834. 11 Plat. Pol. iii. p. 405 C; Phaed. p. 109 E; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 38; 2 Sam. ii. 23. 12 See Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 38. {ad Aj. 700. 13 Comp. Arr. pict. ‘iii. 10. 20; Lobeck, 498 CHAP. XXVIII., 4-6. ciently evident in ver. 4 by xpeudnevv . . . Ex tHE xeipöc aiTrov; but it follows decidedly, and without rashly leaping to a conclusion, from the judgment, from the expectation, and from the subsequent éAeyov Yeöv air. eivac of the Melitenses, vv. 4, 6, in all which it is necessarily presupposed that they, the near bystanders, had actually seen the bite of the serpent. From this at the same time it follows just as certainly, that the animal must have been definitely known to the islanders as a poisonous viper. Hence we must reject the view of Bochart :! ‘ illigavit se etc., nempe wt . . . mor- deret, sed eam cohibuit Deus, sicut, leones illos, Dan. vi. 22,’? and of Kui- noel :? ‘‘erat autem vipera ista aut non venenata, etsi Melitenses eam pro venenata habuerint, aut si erat, insinuavit quidem se Pauli manui, non vero momordit.’ The Jatter, also hinted at by Ewald, follows least of all from éxadev ovdév kaxdv, ver. 5, by which the very absence of result, brought about by special divine help, is placed in contrast with the poisonous bite. Nevertheless, Lange* supposes that the reptile may have hung encircling his hand without biting, and Lekebusch, p. 382, that Luke had in view the alternative contained in Kuinoel’s explanation. Indeed, according to Hausrath, the judgment in ver. 5 is only ascribed to the islanders by Luke. They were, as he thinks, aware that there were no poisonous serpents with them, and that thus the bite was not dangerous. Vv. 4, 5. Ex t7¢ acıp. ait.} from his hand, so that it hung fastened with its mouth in the wound.‘ — rävrwuc voveuc tot x.r.A.| he is at all events a murderer, etc. From the fact that the stranger, though he had escaped from shipwreck, yet had now received this deadly bite, the people inferred that it was the work of Aix,, who was now carrying out her sentence, and requiting like with like, killing with killing. Perhaps it had been already told to them that Paul was a prisoner ; in that case their inference was the more natural. The opinion of Elsner, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, and Lange accede, that the people might have deduced their inference from the local- ity of the supposed bite, according to the idea that punishment overtakes the member with which a crime is committed,° is to be rejected for the very reason, that in fact from a bite on the hand any other crime committed by the hand might quite as well be inferred. — eiaoev] not sinit,® but sivit ; they regard the bite as so certainly fatal.—On the goddess Aixy, the avenger of crime,’ Justitia, the daughter of Zeus,*and f£bivedpoc or mapedpoc.” How the islanders named the goddess to whom Luke gives the Greek name Ai«y, or whether perhaps they had received the Greek Aix among their divinities, is not to be decided. — On the active arorıvacosı, to shake off, comp. Luke Ix. 5; Dam, 1.7. Ver.6. But when they waited long, not expectassent, and saw, etc. On ärorov of abnormal corporeal changes, see examples in Wetstein and Kypke. Not 1 Hieroz. ii. 3, p. 369. 7 Hesiod. Cp. 256 ff. 2 Comp. Heinrichs. 8 Hesiod. Theog. 902. 3 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 344 f. ® Soph. Oed. Col. 1384; Arrian. iv. 9. See ‘Comp. Kühner, § 622 ce. Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. iii. 2. 32; Ellendt, 5 Spanheim, ad Callim in Cer. 64. Lew Soph. 1. p. 432; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 1X. p. 6 Vulgate, Luther, and others. 345, CURES DISEASES. 499 even the expected swelling (rıurp.) occurred. — eic auröv yuvdu.| taking place on him.! — ueraßarreodaı) to turn themselves round, to change, often used even by classical writers to express change of view or opinion, without, however, supplying r7v yrounv.? — Beov aurov eivaı] The good-natured people, running immediately into extremes with the inferiority of their rational training, think that he is a god appearing in human form, because they could not reconcile the complete want of result from the poisonous bite of the viper, well known to them in its effects, with the knowledge which they had de- rived from experience of the constitution of an ordinary human body. 'YrepBory time worep nal TOV ÖxAwv Tov Ev Avkaovia.” DBengel well remarks “aut latro inquiunt aut Deus . . . ; datur tertium ; homo Dei.’? The peo- ple themselves do not say (ßeöv) that they meant a definite, particular god.* Zeller finds in ver. 6 simply an unhistorical addition “ in the miraculous style of our chap. xiv.,’’ which character belongs still more decidedly to the cures in vv. 8 and 9. Vv. 7-10. The otherwise unknown Publius, the rpéaro¢ ryc vicov, is to be considered as the chief magistrate of the island. But this is not so much to be proved from the inscription, discovered in Malta, quoted by Grotius and Bochart, Geogr. ii. 1. 26— ... IIPOYAHNZ. INNEYS. POM. NPQTOS. MEAITAIQN . . .—as it may, both in that inscription and in this passage, be justly inferred from the nature of the case itself; for certainly the Roman governor, that is, the legate of the praetor of Sicily, to which praetorship Malta belonged,® had the jirst rank on the small island. — avades. juac| Ver. 10 proves that this #ua¢ applies not to the whole ship’s company,° but to Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus.” Certainly the wonderful course of things in connection with the bite of the viper had directed the interest of the humane man to Paul. And Paul repaid his kindness by the restoration of his sick father. — Ver. 8. mvperoic] The plural denotes the varying fever fits.° Observe how accurately Luke as a technical eye-wit- ness designates the disease. — dvoevrepia] dysentery.° Yet the later neuter form dvoevrepiw '" is so strongly attested that it has been rightly adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann. — Vv. 9, 10. ideparevovro] namely, by Paul, ver. 8.'! The conjecture, based on the following jac, ver. 10, that Luke as a physician was not unconcerned in these cures,!* is not only against the analogy of ver. 8, but altogether against the spirit and tendency of the narrative, and indeed of the book. — moMMaic Tinaic Erin. 1See on Luke iv. 23; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 786 C: at cis capxa . . ylvomevar Kivygets. 2 Dem. 205. 19, 349. 25, and see Kypke. 3 xiv. 11 ff., Chrysostom. 4 Grotius, Heinsius, Alberti conjecture Her- cules adcé&ixaxos; Wetstein, Aesculapius ; Sepp, one of the two. 5 Cic. Verr. iv. 18. 6 So Baumgarten. 7 xxxvii. 2. 8 Dem. 1260. 20 ; Lucian, Philops. 9. ® Herod. viii. 115; Plat. Tim. p.86; A: see Cels. iv. 15. 10 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 518. 11 From the popular representation, ver. 9, it is not to beinferred, with Baumgarten, that not a single sick person remained uncured in the island. This Luke would have known how to bring out with corresponding empha- sis, especially if he, like Baumgarten, had thought on the fulfilment of Ex. xv. 26, and had conceived to himself Malta in a fanciful manner ascmblematic of the completed king- dom of God. 12 Lekebusch, p. 382. 500 CHAP. XXVIII., 11-15. jnäc K.7.A.] They honoured us with many marks of honour ; and when we set sail, were on the point of sailing, they placed on the ship what was neces- sary, provisions, and perhaps also money and other requisites for the jour- ney. Many expositors render rınaig Eriu., muneribus ornarunt ; but in that case, as in Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, the context must undoubtedly have sug- gested this special showing of honour, by rewards.' Even in the well- known honos habendus medico® the general honos is not to be exclusively restricted to the honorarium. In 1 Tim. v. 17 also tio is quite generally honoris. While the very command of Christ, Matt. x. 8, is antagonistic to the explanation praemiis ornarunt in our passage, the context is also against it, which represents the actual aid ® as a proof of gratitude different from that quite general roAAaic timaic Erin. Tuac, both in point of substance * and in point of time.° — Tradition makes Publius afterwards bishop of Malta.° Ver. 11. Mapaciuw Arooxobporc] xapac. is not an adjective, marked with the Dioseuri, as the adjective mapaonuos has always a derogatory reference, e.9. falsely stumped, stigmatised, ill-famed, etc., but a substantive, so that the dative is connected with dvjySnyev : we put to sea. . . with a sign, which was the Dioscuri. An image of the Dioscuri was, namely, the ship’s device, i.e. the mapaonuov,” the insigne of the ship. This name was given to the image of a divinity, of an animal, or of any other selected object, which was to be found either painted or sculptured on the prow.*— For such a mapdaonuov the image of the Dioscuri was very suitably chosen, as Castor and Pollux’ were honoured as the dpwyovaita and generally as protectors in dangers.’? On the forms under which they were represented, see Miiller." On the modes of writing Avécxovpor and Azdcxopo:, see Lobeck.’? — The men- tion of the ship’s sign belongs to the special accuracy of the recollection of an eye-witness. According to Baumgarten, Luke designs to intimate ‘that in' this vessel there did not prevail that former presumptuous security, but confidence in a superhuman protection and assistance.’’ So much the more arbitrarily invented, as we know not what rapäonuov the wrecked ship had. Luke has noticed the sign in the case of the one, and not in the other. It is conceivable enough, even without assuming any set purpose, that after the surmounted disaster his attention was the more alive to such a special feature in the ship in which they now embarked. Vy. 12-14. The voyage proceeded in quite a regular course from Malta to Syracuse, and from that to Rhegium,' now Reggio, in the Sicilian Straits, 1 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 19. 2 Cie. ad Div. xvi. 9. 3 EmedevTo Ta POS T. XpElav. + . Ta Wpos THY Xpeiav, 5 avayoy.evors. ® Martyrolog. 21 Jan. 7 Plut. Mor. p. 162 A, and see Wetstein, or ériayov, Herod. viii. 88. 8 Lucian, Vav.5. See on this, as well as on the distinction from the image of the Tutela navis at the stern, Ruhnken, de tutel. et ins. nav. p. 5, 42; Drackenb, and Ruperti, ad Sil. % Tıuais . dé. xiv. 84; the interpreters, ad Hor. Od. i. 14. 14; Stan]. ad Aesch. TI. p. 751. %“Fratres Helenae, lucida sidera,” Hor. Od. i. 8. 2. 10 See Wetstein and Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1231 f. 1t Archäol.$ 414. 12 Ad Phryn. p. 235; Pflugk, ad Eur Hee. 943. 13 Odev mepıeAdövres: from which after we had come round, from Syracuse round the eastern coast of Sicily. Not: afler we had VOYAGE TO ROME. 501 and then through the Etruscan Sea to Puteoli, now Puzzuolo, near Naples. — éniyevouévov Nörov] when thereupon south wind, which favoured the voyage, had arisen. — The force of ézi is, in all places where Zmıyiveodaı occurs of wind,' not to be overlooked. — devrepaio.] as persons, who were on the second day, 2.¢. on the second day.” — ade2.gov¢] Thus Christianity was already at that time in Puteoli, whether coming thither from Rome, or perhaps from Alexandria ? — Ver. 14. rapexAgSypev Er’ avroig éxiueivar] we were invited to remain with them. — in’ avroic] beside them.” Rinck,* as also Ewald, pre- fers the reading éxueivavrec, and takes? rapsxa. én’ aitoic together : we were refreshed in them; but the participle is much too weakly attested, and without doubt has only come into the text through this view of rapexa. — Kai ovTus eig T. “Pau. jAd.] and thus, after we had first tarried seven days at Puteoli, we came to Rome. épyecda is neither here, in opposition to Beza, Grotius, de Dieu, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and many others, nor elsewhere in the N. T. ire, not even in John vi. 17, where the imperfect is to be observed ; but Luke narrates the arrival at Rome, and then in ver. 15 inserts by way of episode something special, which stood in close connection with this arrival ; hence he again joins on ver. 16 by öre dé 7AVopev eic 'P. to ver. 14. Observe at the same time that in ver. 14 ei¢ r. 'Pou., as the final aim of the voyage, but in ver. 16 ;Adouev, has the emphasis. — Moreover, the conces- sion of a seven days’ stay, so near to the end of the journey, testifies how much Paul possessed the love and confidence of the centurion. The Book of Acts, however, gives us no information at all how Christianity was planted in the Italian cities and in Rome. Ver. 15. Oi adeAgoi] Considering the largeness which we must assume the church at Rome to have attained, according to Rom. xvi. 3 ff., probably a numerous representation of it is to be conceived as present. — zuiv] appro- priating dative of the pronoun.® — äypıs "Arriov d. x. Tpıöv raß.] Kai: and, respectively. Luke narrates from the standpoint of the travellers. These came first to Forum Appii, a village on the Via Appia, 43 miles from Rome, and then'to Tres-tabernae, Three-booths, an inn ten miles nearer to Rome ; in both places they were received by the brethren, who thus went to meet them in two detachments. As they had tarried seven days at Puteoli, the Roman Christians might have obtained information timeously enough in order to come so far to meet them with the speed of love and reverence. —eciyap. r. Gee FAaße Yapooc] How natural was it that Paul, to whom Rome, this éxitouy tic olxovnévyc’? had for so long been in view as a longed-for goal of his labours,® should now, at the sight of the brethren, who had thus from Rome carried their love forth to meet him, glow with grati- tude to God, and in this elevated feeling receive confidence as to the devel- sailed round about (Lange, comp. Smith). 7H otpatia, Cyrop. v. 3. 52; Plat. Lach. p. Luke does not express himself with charto- 4 Lucubr. crit. p. 98. [144 A. graphic accuracy. 5 Comp, Bengel. 1 Asin Thue. iv. 30. 1, e¢ al. 6 See Bernhardy, p, 98. Comp. John xii. 2 Herod. vi. 106. Comp. on John xi. 39; 13; Matt. viii. 34; Judith v. 4. Phil. iii. 5. 7 Athen. Deipnos. i. 20. 3 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 2.1: éwémevov ext 8 xix, 21, xxiii. 11; Rom. i. 9 ff. 502 CHAP, XXVIII., 16-21. opment of his fate and as to his new sphere of work ! According to Baum- garten, it is true, he saw at the same time in the Roman church, not founded by any apostle, ‘‘the identity and continuity” of the Pentecostal church—ot all which the text contains not a hint, as, indeed, such a fancy as to the founding of the church is by no means justified by the circumstances of the case being unknown to us. Ver. 16. The two praefeeti praetorio, commanders of the imperial body- guard, had the duty of providing for the custody of accused persons handed over from the provinces to the Emperor.’ That there was at that time only one praefect, namely Burrus, who died before the beginning of March 62, and after whose death there were again two, does not follow from the söngu- lar rö orparor, in opposition to Anger, Wieseler, and others.” It is to be taken as: ‘to the praefectus praetorio concerned,’’ namely, who then had this duty of receiving,* and to whose dwelling, therefore, the centurion repaired with a view to deliver over the prisoners. This does not suppose, as Wieseler objects, that the praefect received them in person ; he had his subalterns. — ka’ &avröv] for himself, apart from the other prisoners.* This special favour is explained partly from the report of Festus, which certainly pointed to no crime,° and partly from the influence of the centurion who respected Paul, and would specially commend him as having saved the lives of all on board. — civ ro. . . orparıorn] This was a practorian,° to whom Paul, after the manner of the custodia militaris, was bound by the arm with a chain.” I Ver. 17. On the interview which now follows with the Jews it is to be observed : (1) that Paul even now remains faithful to his principle of try- ing his apostolic ministry in the first instance among the Jews, and thereby even as a prisoner complying with the divine order of the way of salvation : "Iovdaiw re mporov Kai "EAMnvı, Rom. i. 16, and with the impulse of his own love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., which the painful experiences of the past had not weakened. (2) He does this after three days, during which time he had without doubt devoted himself, first of all, to the Roman Christians.*® (3) The fact that he commences his interview with the Jews by a self-justi- Jication is—considering the suspicion with which he, as a prisoner, must have been regarded by them—natural and accordant with duty, and does not presuppose any ulterior design, such as: to prevent a prejudicial influ- ence of the Jews on his trial. (4) The historical character of these dis- ı Plin. Hp. x. 65; Philostr. Vit. scholast. ii. apostles. A disagreement between Paul and 82. the Roman church (Schneckenburger, p. 122) 2 See Introduction, § 4. 3 Comp. 6 iepevs, xiv. 13. 4 See vv. 23, 30. 6 XXV..20, XXVi. 31. 6 Grotius in loc. ; Krebs, Opusc. p. 151. f. 7 Ver. 20. See on xxiv. 27. 8 That Luke gives no further information concerning the Roman church cannot surprise us (in opposition to Zeller, p. 373), as the theme of his book was the ministry of the is not at all to be thought of; the church was not Judaizing, but Pauline. According to Zeller, the author has desired to make Paul appear as the proper founder of that church. But this is erroneous on account even of ver. 15, where, it is true, Zeller understands only isolated believers from Rome, who are as- sumed therefore not to presuppose any church there, as referred to. See, on the contrary, Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 66 f. CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS. 505 cussions with the Jews has unjustly been denied, and they have been wrongly referred to the apologetic design of the author.! See the details below at the passages appealed to. — wera yuép. tpcic¢] in which he might sufficiently occupy himself at the outset with the Roman Christians who came to him, as doubtless, in opposition to Zeller, he did in conformity with his long-cherished desire to see them.’ — rov¢ dvta¢ rov ’Iovd. mp&rovg] the existing * chiefs of the Jews* i.e. the Jewish leaders at that time in Rome. — ovdév évavtiov x.r.A.] although I have done nothing, etc. This Paul could say, as he had laboured only to conduct the nation to the salvation ap- pointed for it, and only to bring the Mosaie institutions to their Messianic mAnpwoıc. His antagonism to the law was directed against justification by the law. This, and not the abolition of the law in itself, was his radical con- trast to the Jewish standpoint, in opposition to Zeller.°— rov ‘Pwyaivr| refers to the procurator in Caesarea, who represented the Romans ruling over Palestine. Vv. 18, 19. This observation of the apostle, disclosing his presence at Rome thus brought about as a position of necessity, completes® the narra- tive of xxv. 9. After his vindication’ we are to conceive, namely, that Festus expresses his willingness to release him ; this the Jews oppose,* and now Festus proposes that Paul should allow himself to be judged in Jeru- salem,’ whereupon the latter appeals to Caesar.*° —oty oc Tov i3vove . . karyyopeiv] thus purely on the defensive, and not in unpatriotic hostility. —éywv and the present infinitive (see the critical remarks) refer to what Paul has to do now in Rome. Ver. 20. Therefore, because I am here only as a constrained appellant, and entirely free from any hostile effort, I have invited you, to see you and to speak with you. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Schott take it otherwise: “ vos rogavi, ut me viseretis et mecum colloqueremini.’’ But the supplying of me and mecum is arbitrary, seeing that, in fact, öuac and div are naturally suggested by the directly preceding imac; besides, it is far more in keep- ing with courtesy for Paul to say that he desired to see and speak with them, than that he had requested them to see and speak with him. — évexev yap tHe éAridoc x.7.A.] now contains the more special reason, in a national point of view so highly important, for the arrangement of this interview. — The éAric tov "Iopaya is to be taken entirely, as in xxvi. 6, of the Mes- sianie national hope. — On repixecuac with accusative comp. Heb. v. 2.1 Ver. 21. This answer of the Jews makes it probable that Paul in his dis- course had definitely snggested that they might perhaps have received written or oral insinuations concerning him from Judaea.—It appears al- most incredible that neither took place, but we have to weigh the follow- 1 Baur, Zeller. 8 xxviii. 19. 2 Rom. i. 11 ff. 9 xxv. 9. 3 Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. MWiso.q 75 101, * Comp. Luke xix. 47; Acts xiii. 50, xxv. 2. 11 Kypke, Obss. II. p. 147 ; Jacobs, ad An- 5 Comp. on xxiv. 14. thol. 1X. p. 75; on Tr. dAvow Tavr., comp. xxvi. 6 Comp. xxv. 25, 29. BERRY. 8: 504 CHAR XXVIII. , 21,022: ing considerations :—(1) Before the appeal the Jews had no ground inducing them to make communications regarding him to the Roman Jews in partic- ular, because they could not conjecture that Paul, then a prisoner in Caes- area, and whom they hoped to destroy presently, would ever come into contact with their brethren in the distant West. (2) After the appeal it was hardly possible for the Jews to forward accounts to Rome before his arrival there. For the transportation of the apostle, which followed at any rate soon after the entering of the appeal,’ occurred so late in autumn, and so shortly before the closing of the navigation,” that there is extreme improb- ability in the supposition of another vessel having an earlier opportunity of reaching Italy than Paul himself, whose vessel in spring, after the open- ing of the navigation, had to sail only the short distance between Malta and Puteoli, and that, too, with a favourable wind.* (3) There remains, therefore, only the possible case, that during Paul’s two years’ imprison- ment at Caesarea evil reports concerning him might have come to the Roman Jews in some accidental way, not officially, by means of private letters or Jewish travellers. Indeed—considering the lively intercourse between Judaea and Rome, and the great noise which the labours of the apostle had made for many years, as well as the strong opposition which he had excited amoung the Jews—it can by no means be supposed that these labours and this opposition should have continued unknown to the Roman Jews.* But the mporo: of the Roman Jews here proceed with re- serve under dread of possible eventualities, and prudently fall back upon the official standpoint ; and so they afirm—what, taken in all the strict- ness of the literal sense, might certainly be no untruth—that they on their part (jueic) had neither received letters concerning him, nor oral notification or statement? of anything evil concerning him. The more impartial they thus appear and maintain a politic spirit of frankness, the more openly, they at the same time hope, will Paul express his mind and disclose his purposes.® Zeller therefore too rashly seizes on the seeming contradiction to truth in ver. 21, as warranting the inference that the non-historical character of the narrativeisevident.” The explanation also to which Olshausen has recourse appears erroneous: that by the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius, the connections, which the Jews of Jerusalem had with them, were broken off ; that only very slowly and secretly the Roman Jews re- turned in the first years of Nero; and that therefore those who were in Palestine were not properly informed of this situation of matters in Rome, 3 xxv. 13, xxvii. 1. 2 xxvii 9. 3 xxviii. 13. 4 It has indeed been thought that the Jews in their plot against the life of the apostle: might have had a motive for not allowing their exasperation against him to become notorious, least of all at Rome (see Lange, apostol. Zeit- alt, I. p. 106). But ever granting this arbitra- rily assnmed calculation on their part, the hostile disposition in Judaea was much too general (xxl. 21) to admit of control over the spread of the hostile report to a distance. 5 €Aad.: “in sermone quotidiano.”’ 6 Ver. 22. 7 Comp. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 785, who suggests that the author wished to evade tonching on the wide opposition be- tween Paul and Jewish Christianity. But merely fo evade this point, he would have needed only to suppress vv. 21, 22, instead of putting such a surprising expression into the mouth of the Jews. CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS, 505 and accordingly made no notification concerning Paul to that quarter. Even a priori, such a strange ignorance of the Jews as to the fortunes of their very numerous countrymen’ in the capital of the world is very im- probable ; and, from a historical point of view, that expulsion of the Roman Jews had occurred so many years before, and the edict of banishment was at all events only of such temporary force? that the renewed toleration of the Jews, permitted either expressly or tacitly, is to be placed even under the reign of Claudius.* Ver. 22. ’Agioimev dé] But we judge—so as, in such lack of information from other quarters, to be better instructed concerning the circumstances in which thou art placed—it right *—as a claim which, as matters stand, is no more than right and proper—to learn from thee—rapä cov has emphasis— etc. — a dpoveic] &.e. what principles and views thou pursuest. — repi uév yap rac aipéa. tavt.| for of this party certainly.® raurnc has its reference in the more precise expressions, with which Paul must be presumed to have ac- companied his évexev yap tie EAridoc 7. ’Iapaga. In the u£v without dé the tacit contrast is to be mentally supplied: “ Although thou thyself art un- known to us.” ° The yép grounds the afıovuev x.t.2. on the apparently im- partial interest of obtaining more particular information.—At first view, it must appear strange that these Jewish zporoa in Rome betray so little ac- quaintance, or nene at all, with the great Christian church at Rome, which consisted, at any rate in part, of Jewish Christians. This difficulty is not solved by the arbitrary * assumption that, after the return of the Jews ex- pelled by Claudius, the Jews and Christians kept aloof from each other and thus gradually lost acquaintance with one another ;* nor yet by the circum- stances of such a great city as Rome, amidst which the existence of the Christian community might well have escaped the knowledge of the rich worldly Jews,*’—which, considering the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, would a priori be very improbable. It is rather to be explained, like the expression in ver. 21, from a cautious sort of official reserve in their demeanour, not exactly hypocritical ' or intimidated by the Claudian measures,!! but in which withal the Jewish contempt for Christianity gener- ally is apparent. The representation here given, according to which those Jews simply avoid any sort of expression compromising them, is by no means to be used, with Baur and Zeller, against the historical truth of the occurrence. Its historical character, on the contrary, gains support from the Epistle to the Romans itself, which shows no trace that in Rome Chris- tianity had been in conflict with the Jews;'? and therefore de Wette is wrong in his remark that, if Luke had only added «ai rap’ juiv to mavrayoi, there would have been no ground of offence (0%). 1 Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6: Suet. Tid. 36: Philo, Gr. p. 313 (E. T. 365). leq. ad Caium. p. 568; Tac. Ann. ii. 85. 7 Comp. also on ver. 21. 2 See on xviii. 2, and Anger, temp. rat. p. 8 Olshansen ; comp. also Kling in the Stud. 118 f. u. Krit. 1837, p. 302 ff. 3 See, moreover, on Rom. Introd. $ 2. 9 Neander. 4 xv. 38. 10 Tholuck. 5 As to aipeo., see on xxiv. 14. 11 Phi:ippi, comp. Ewald. ® Comp. on xxvii. 21 ; also Buttmann, newt. 12 Sce Rom. Introd. $ 3. 506 CHAP. XXVIII., 23-31. Ver. 23. Eig ryv Eewar] to the lodging, i.e. the dwelling which, after his arrival at Rome! he was allowed to occupy with a friendly host.” At a later period he obtained a hired house of his own.” Whether the £evia was the house of Aguila,* cannot be determined. — mAslovec] a greater number than were with him on the former oecasion. — reidwv «.7.4.] and persuading them of what concerns Jesus. meidwv is neither to be taken as docens with Kuinoel,*® nor de conatu with Grotius. Paul reaily did on his part, subjectively, the reidew, persuadere ; that this did not produce its objective effect in all his hearers, does not alter the significance of the word.* —aro . . . Tov vöuov «.7.a.]| starting from it, linking his reidewv to its utterances.’—The opinion of Béttger,’ that Paul was liberated between vers. 22 and 23 is refuted by ver. 30, compared with ver. 16, as well as by Phil. i. 13 ff., since the Phi- lippian Epistle was not written in Caesarea, as Böttger judges.° Vv. 25-27. ’AreAtovto] they departed,” they withdrew. The imperfect is graphic. — eimövroc 7. II. prua év] after that" Paul, immediately before their departure, had made one utterance. év: one dictum, instead of any further discourse : it makes palpable the importance of this concluding saying. Then follows this pyua év in the oratio directa (with or.) as far as ver 28.— karoc] because completely justified as appropriate by the latest result before them.’ — ro rvevua ro üyıov] ‘‘ Quod Spiritum sanctum loquentem inducit potius quam prophetam, ad fidem oraculi valet.’’!’—zpic rovg ratépac yuov] to our fathers ;'* for the divine command imparted to Isaiah, ropevdyre K.T.A., was as such made known to the fathers.—Isa. vi. 9, 10, almost exactly ac- cording to the LXX., has its Messianic fulfilment in the obduracy of the Jews against the gospel,’°—a fulfilment which Paul here announces to the obdurate, so that he recognises himself as the subject addressed by With hearing, auribus, ye shall hear, and certainly not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and certainly not perceive. For the heart, the spiritual vitality, of this people had become fat—obdurate and sluggish, see on Matt. l.e.—and with their ears they have become dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, in order that they may not perceive with the eyes, or hear with the ears, or understand with the heart, or turn themselves, to me, and I, i.e. God, should heal them, of their spiritual malady, by forgiveness and sancti- fication.’—eiröv (Elz, ein) is oxytonon."® TOpPEVO ATL. TVier 116: (thinking possibly of his conversion) in the 2 Philem. 22. hardening. as with nuorv in1 Cor, x. 1 (in op- SaVierso0: position to Baumgarten). It is the simple 4 Olshausen, 5 Comp. on xix. 8, 6 Comp. on vii. 26; Rom. ii. 4. 7 Comp. on xvii. 2. SP Beir alps ths ® See also Wieseler, p. 411 ff. 10 Polyb. ji. 34. 12, v. 98. 6, and frequently. 11 Not when, see ver. 29. 12 Comp. Matt. xv. % 13 Calvin ; 2 Pet. i. 21. 14 By nuov Paul as little includes himself expression of Israelitish fellowship. Rom. ıv. 1. 15 Matt. xiii. 14f. ; John xii. 40. 16 See on Matt. Z.c. 17 On the expression, comp. Dem. 797. 3: Öpwvras N Opav Kal Akovovras min akoveır, Aesch. Prom. 448: kAvovres ovK 7Kovorv, Ja- cobs, Del. epigr. vii.1.4 f.; Soph. O. R. 371: tupdos TAT’ OTA TOV TE VOUY Ta T' onmar' Et. — 18 See Goettling, Lehre vom Accent, p. 53; Winer, p. 50 (E. T. 58) ; Bornemann in loc. Comp, PAUL’S CAPTIVITY. 507 Vv. 28, 29. Oiv] because ye are so obdurate and irrecoverable. — érz roic é0veow «.7.A.] that by my arrival at Rome this (rovro, see the critical re- marks) salvation of God, i.e. the Messianic salvation bestowed by God, which is meant in this prophecy, has been sent, not to you Jews, but to the Gentiles.‘ —avroi] they on their part quite otherwise than you. — kai axoboovraı] name- ly the announcement of salvation, which conception is implied in areoraAn as its mode.” «ai, etiam: non solum missa est iis salus, sed etiam audient, give ear.” Bengel appropriately observes: ‘‘ Profectionem ad gentes de- claraverat Judaeis contumacibus Antiochiae xiii. 46 ; Corinthi xviii. 6, nune tertium Romae ; adeoque in Asia, Graecia, Italia.’’—Ver. 30. év idio pio8dp.] i.e. in a dwelling belonging to himself by way of hire. This he had ob- tained after the first days when he had lodged in the £evia, ver. 23; but he was in it as a prisoner, as follows from ver 16, from kai azedéyero «.7.2., and from axwAitwc, ver. 31, nemine prohibente, although he was a prisoner.‘ To procure the means of hiring the dwelling must have been an easy matter for the love of the brethren, and support came also from a distance.* — rävrac] Christians, Jews, Gentiles; not merely the latter, as Baumgarten arbitrarily limits the word, while with equal arbitrariness he finds in ver. 31 a pointing to the final form of the church, in which the converted Israel will form the visible historical centre around which the Gentile nations gather, and then the Parousia will set in. This modern view of Judaistic eschatology has no support even in Rom. xi. 27 ff. (p*). Ver. 31. Solemn close of the whole book, which is not to be regarded as incomplete.* The Gospel also concludes with a sonorous participial end- ing, but less full and solemn. —xkypiccwy x.t.2.| thus his word was not bound in his bonds.? — dkwAirwe]® ‘‘ Victoria verbi dei. Paulus Romae, apex evangelii, actorum finis,’’ Bengel (Q). Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. (n®) Melita. V.1. When the passengers and erew of the ill-fated, stranded vessel had all safely landed, they discovered they were on anisland named Melita, or Malta, as it is now called. There can be no doubt that this was the island where the apostle and his companions spent the winter months. It has been objected that there are now no poisonous reptiles on the island, or brushwood of any kind, but both may have abounded at that time, when the island was less pop- ulous, and not fully eultivated. The people were not barbarous in any other sense than in using a different language, the Punic. Even at present the Mal- tese have a peculiar dialect, a mixture of Arabic and Italian. The inhabitants kindly welcomed the shipwrecked travellers, and, as they were shivering from 1 Comp. Luke ii. 30, iii. 6. 5 Phil. iv. 10 ff. 2x. 36, xiii. 26. 8 See Introd. § 3. 3 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 24. 72 Tim. ii. 9. 4 Comp. Phil. i. 7. ® Plat. Crat. p. 415 D; Herodian. i. 12. 15. 508 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. the wet and the cold, they built for thema fire. Paul, ashe did when on board, gave his personal aid, and gathered some brushwood or sticks, whence came out a viper which bit him. Allattempts to show that either the serpent did not bite Paul’s hand, or if it did, it was not venomous, are justly characterized by Alford as “ the disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-rationalists.”’ The natives seeing this, with some innate ideas of a righteous retribution, at once imagined he was a murderer, whom divine vengeance thus overtook. They expected that he would have fallen down suddenly dead. Sudden collapse and death ensue often from the bite of serpents. Shakespeare speaks as a true naturalist of the asp-bitten Cleopatra : “Trembling she stood and on the sudden dropped.” Plumptre, in illustration, quotes the following stanza translated from Lucan: _, ‘*Nasidius toiling in the Marsian fields The burning Prestes bit—a fiery flush Lit up his face and set the skin a stretch, And all its comely grace had passed away.” No unpleasant results, however, following in the case of Paul, they changed their minds and said he was a god. Here the apostle during his stay per- formed many miraculous cures, which called forth the gratitude and gifts of the people. Doubtless also Paul lost no opportunity of preaching the great Healer, in whose name he performed such wonderful cures. About the month of February, a.p. 61, Paul and his companions started again for Rome, in a corn ship, whose sign was Castor and Pollux, twin sons of Jupiter and Leeda, re- garded as the tutelar deities, Oeoi owripec, of sailors, and described by Horace as fratres Helenz lucida sidera. The constellation Gemini, the Twins, is named from them. The ancients identified them with the phosphoric lights, sometimes seen on the masts of ships, which promise a fair wind and a pros- perous voyage, and which are now called the fires of St. Elmo. Touching at Syracuse and at Rhegium, they came, after a prosperous: sail of 180 miles, to Puteoli, which lies on the northern part of the Bay of Naples, and is described as one of the loveliest spots on earth. Here the apostle spent a whole week with brethren. (0%) This sect . . . spoken against. V. 22. The apostle received a most affectionate welcome from the brethren in Rome, Some of them having gone as far as Appia Forum and the Three Booths, distant from Rome respectively about forty and thirty miles, to greet him. His sen- sitive spirit deeply felt this kindness, and he was greatly cheered by it. At last his long-cherished desire to visit Rome is realized. But in a way he had never dreamed of. He had not imagined that ‘‘ when he went to the City of the Seven Hills he should enter it as a prisoner chained to a soldier of the Augustan cohort.’’ Yet in his visit to the metropolis of the world, trying, and seemingly hopeless as the circumstances were, Paul accomplished all that he had earnestly desired. For, as he writes from his prison, all that happened to him proved favorable for the furtherance of the gospel. He had not the same opportunities which he found at Athens or at Ephesus. No great hall or hippodrome or even synagogue was open fdr his ministrations, He was not even at liberty to go NOTES. 509 from house to house, to the Forum, or the market-place, but he diligently used such opportunities as were within his power, and was eminently successful among the Gentiles, specially. with the soldiers who guarded him, and even with those of the royal household. Shortly after his arrival, he sent for the chief men among the Jews, rulers of the synagogue, and heads of Jewish fam- ilies, and, fearing they might have heard some reports injurious to him, he fully explained the cause of his coming among them as a prisoner. A time being appointed, many came to hear his account of the gospel of the Crucified, and a whole day was spent in the discussion. It must have been a striking and most impressive scene, such an audience in such a place, listening to a preacher in chains—the man and his theme alike wonderful. He spoke of a King whose kingdom was grander, more extensive, and more enduring than the Empire of the Cxsars. A fire was kindled in Rome that day which rap- idly spread thronghout the empire. The sect then so bitterly spoken against and so ably vindicated by Paul, exists still, and is winning its way to the conquest of the world for Christ. In his conferences with the Jews, the apos- tle exhibited the satisfactory and conclusive evidences of the truth of the gos- pel, unfolded the ample provision which it makes for all the deepest wants of the human heart, and illustrated the happy influence it exerts on all human re- lations and interests. He expounded and testified and persuaded them con- cerning Jesus. The majority did not favorably receive his message, but some were convinced and embraced Christianity. (e*) Two whole years in his own hired house. V. 30. All this time Paul was a prisoner of state, and all his expenses were, doubt- less, cheerfully defrayed by friends in Rome and elsewhere. During the day he was chained to a soldier, and, in the night, guarded bytwo or more. From notices in the epistles written during this imprisonment we learn that several Christian friends, some of whom were very dear to him, were with Paul—Luke, Timothy and Mark, Epaphras, Aristarchus and Tychicus. His chief employ- ment was preaching the gospel. Many a soldier who for six hours was chained to the arm of the apostle had occasion to bless God that such a privilege had been his, and not a few of them, doubtless, became true soldiers of the cross and spread the good tidings through the army, and, as a consequence, more or less over the land. Many of the brethren also ‘‘ waxing confident by his bonds, were much more bold to speak the word without fear.”’ From the salutation and allusions contained in the Epistles to the Ephe- sians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, critics are generally agreed that they were written during these two years’ imprisonment. There is a simple grandeur in the concluding sentence of this history which is very impressive. ““ The mention of the kingdom had been a matter of odium in the eyes of Pilate.” Now Rome bears its being publicly stated. ‘ The victory of the Word of God. Paul at Rome forms the (apex) climax, or crowning point, of the gospel preaching, and the end of the Acts which Luke otherwise might have easily brought on to the death of Paul. He began at Jerusalem, he ends at Rome.” (Bengel.) A great many reasons have been imagined why Luke concludes his narrative without giving any account of the end of Paul. Conjecture is as various as it is 510 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. vain. Some suppose that Luke intended to write a third treatise, but was pre- vented by his death ; others that the narrative was carried up to the time that Luke wrote. Plumptre with others suggests that the subsequent events were already known to Theophilus, who was an Italian convert ; but the most prob- able opinion is that Luke had accomplished the purpose he had in view in writing. The Acts give an account of the rise of the gospel at Jerusalem, and closes with its reception at Rome. The writer’s work was done; hence, “ with an emphatic and artistically formed sentence, he concludes his history.” (a!) Paul’s second imprisonment. However slight may be the grounds of direct testimony it has generally been believed in all ages, that about the beginning of the year a.p. 64, St. Paul was tried, acquitted, and liberated, and that after some years of liberty and labor, he was a second time brought a prisoner to Rome, and there suffered martyr- dom. The arguments in favor of a second imprisonment are drawn from two sources : the ancient traditions of the church, and allusions contained in the pastoral epistles. The unanimity of the ancient church on this point is very remarkable, yet it is by no means conclusive ; though such authorities as Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Jerome are quoted. The evidence to be gathered from the pastoral epistles is clearly in favor of a second im- prisonment. All who maintain the genuineness of these epistles are con- strained to adopt this view, or to resort to some more improbable suppositions to explain the statements they contain. On the genuineness of the pastoral epistles see Excursus IX. to Farrar’s Life of Paul, which concludes with the following sentence : “ Pauline in much of their phraseology, Pauline in their fundamental doctrines, Pauline in their dignity and holiness of tone, Pauline alike in their tenderness and severity, Pauline in the digressions, the construc- tions, and the personality of their style, we may accept two of them with an absolute conviction of their authenticity, and the third—the first Epistle to Timothy, which is more open to doubt than the others—with at least a strong belief that in reading it we are reading the words of the greatest of the apos- tles.” Fora reply to Davidson in his Introduction to the New Testament, in which he presents every argument against the Pauline authorship of these epistles and the credibility of Luke as a historian, and also to the suppositions of Renan, see Westcott and Leathes and Howson’s Appendix I. For the argu- ment drawn from the historical circumstances, the reference to certain heresies, and the advanced organization of the church alluded to and implied in the pastoral epistles, I refer to Morrison and to Taylor, who strongly advocates the certainty of a second imprisonment, and says: ‘‘ So without regard to tra- dition, and solely on the ground of the evidence which may be distilled from the pastoral epistles themselves, I have adopted the view that shortly after the time at which Luke’s narrative in the Acts concludes, Paul was set at liberty by Nero ; and that, after an interval of four or five years’ duration he was again carried to Rome as a prisoner and put to death.’’ Plumptre, in an ex- cursus appended to his Acts, says : ‘‘ If we accept the pastoral epistles as gen- uine, we are led partly by their style, partly by the difficulty of fitting them into any earlier period of St. Paul’s life, partly by the traces they present of a later stage of development, both of truth and error, to assign them to a date subsequent to the two years of the imprisonment of chap. xxiii. 30.” NOTES. 511 The life of the great apostle, in the interval between the two imprisonments, is involved in uncertainty. He probably visited Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, Crete, and Spain. Jerome informs us that Paul was beheaded in the fourteenth year of Nero, a.p. 68, the same year in which Peter was crucified—Paul’s right of citizenship exempted him from that form of martyrdom. ‘Thus, in all prob- ability, died the most illustrious of all Christian missionaries, the prince of the apostles, the noblest of the noble army of martyrs.’’. Many ideal portraits have been drawn of this gifted, many-sided, wonderful, heroic, Christlike man, One writes : “ Courteous he was and grave ; so meek in mien It seemed untrue, or told a purpose weak ; Yet in the mood, he could with aptness speak, Or with stern force, or show of feelings keen, Marking deep craft, methought, or hidden pride : Then came a voice—St. Paul is at thy side.” Another writes : ““The third who journeyed with them, weak and worn, a Blear-eyed, dim-visioned, bent and bowed with pain, We ıooked upon with wonder.” **So they came; So entered he our town; but ere the sun Had lit the eastern clouds, a fever's chill Fell on him ; parched thirst and darting throbs Of keenest anguish racked those weary limbs ; Ilis brow seemed circled with a crown of pain; And oft, pale, breathless, as if life had fled, He looked like one in eestasy, who sees What others see not ; to whose ears a voice, Which others hear not, floats from sea or sky. And broken sounds would murmur from his lips, Of glory wondrous, sounds ineffable, The cry of Abba, Father, and the notes Of some strange chant of other lands. So stricken, prostrate, pale, the traveller lay, So stript of all the comeliness of form, Men might have spurned and loathed him passing on To lead their brighter life—and yet we stayed ; We spurned him not, nor loathed ; through all the shroud Of poverty and sickness we could see The hero-soul, the presence as of One Whom then we knew not. When the pain was sharp, And furrowed brows betrayed the strife within, Then was he gentlest. Even to our slaves He spoke as brothers, winning all their hearts By that unwonted kindness.”’ “God buries his workmen, but carries on their work.” The emperors are dead. The Roman Empire has passed away. The City of the Seven Hills is shorn of her power and glory. The brutal and infamous Nero is remembered only to be detested and execrated, but the martyred apostle lives in all the churches of Christendom to-day ; and is revered by millions as the greatest of human teachers. The kingdom too which he sought to extend and establish, despite all opposition, is mightier now than when he proclaimed it. It isa kingdom which cannot be moved, for it is built upon a rock—on Christ Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, who shall yet return and claim it for his own. 512 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. (rt) Evidential value of the Acts. On this subject Dean Howson has published a volume of lectures. The fol- lowing extract is from an article by Professor Matthew B. Riddle: «The study of the Book of the Acts suggests two very important points bearing on the historical accuracy of the Gospels. The most obvious one is, that if it is itself a true story,—even true in general,—the weapon used by the early preachers was fact,—fact about Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. “« Granting the exactness of the history we have, in its particular refer- ence to the main events of our Lord’s life, what is equivalent to a fifth Gospel. There is, too, this added element, namely, a more specific explanation of the purpose and significance of these facts. “Minute usages, topographical peculiarities, and kindred points, may be found in nearly every paragraph, and each and every such reference can be used as a test of accuracy. The test has been applied. Volume after volume has been written on the subject. Every journey has been retraced, every voyage has been re-made, for the express purpose of verifying the narrative. Sometimes it has been thought that the writer made a mistake, but in nearly every such instance renewed investigations, in a few cases new discoveries by travellers, have shown the accuracy of the record. It has fairly stood every test, and may well be regarded as the book of history (of all times) which has been proven most exact. Others may be as accurate ; none have been proven more so. It will be fair to infer that such accuracy would have been impossible had the book been written very long after the date at which its story ends, A.D. 63, thirty-three years after the death of Jesus Christ. This view is con- firmed by the use which the writer makes of the pronoun ‘we.’ Is it probable that he took the trouble to be so careful in telling the truth about towns and temples, harbors and currents, and yet carelessly left this pronoun to suggest a falsehood about persons? «Tt might be said that such a book could be constructed like a historical romance, after a lapse of fifty or ahundred years. But this isto the last degree improbable. Walter Scott and Thackeray have written the finest and most accurate historical romances, and Shakespeare has furnished the grandest historical dramas. But not one of these three geniuses has succeeded in con- structing a piece of literature which stands the test as the Book of Acts has done. Their memory constantly fails them, and their want of accurate knowl- edge betrays itself repeatedly. Were the Book of Acts a romance, its author - must have been a genius unequalled in literature. Of all the Christian centuries, the second century shows fewest men of genius; and yet we are asked to be- lieve that some one in that age polished up the Gospels into their present shape, and concocted the most accurate of historical romances. It is far easier to believe that Luke is the author of the work. “The ‘evidential value’ of the Book of Acts consists mainly in this: That it offers presumptive evidence of the strongest character in regard to the main facts of the gospel history, and in particular proves that the author of the third Gospel, being the author of this book also, is a writer of tested accuracy, who tells the exact truth about Jesus Christ. Knowing so well how to be accurate, if he is false in his story about Jesus Christ, he is wilfully and awfully false. One must be far gone in hatred of Christ and his cause not to shrink from this last position,” ot i y Nel | N un s Date Due re: 2 ‘ ; 7 is a 1A / Dr 5 Het xh ET ae So eh a ee APs HARA ” ere r aps « ro%’%e# ‘ro! 0 aA TH l ate g “ t 2 „A Ly on 5 fd Sa === nw, A ced gr Le. i Oo} Ld road = > = 7! 8» pO [PM ln vum Te | O} gilt bi fe] x | & a ere | rw \ I h {| i |