0 26576

3937109 S.1aVH

ee 2 arn

par - ἣ " SEE Sa

nu 3, ‘i

a ee ἢ ἂ ᾿ ! tt ν ᾿

.

https://archive.org/details/expositorsgreektO2nic : εὐ Bar 7 ao ‘ia ᾿ ae | ;

AND MRS. WILLIAM KLASSEN

MR.

nd Ave.

la Elkhart, Indiana

eve

ie ©.

, ΝΜ

Sas

ἤχων net Sa ae

iq

:

THE EXPOSITOR’S GREEK TESTAMENT

EDITED BY THE REY.

W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

EDITOR OF “THE EXPOSITOR,” “‘ THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE,” ETC.

VOLUME Il.

NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY

τ

‘ We Arse s) i i, ΣΡ ὑπ a να

᾿

ΑΝ ΝΗ

aah

AE

ΦἸ

¥

oN ὡς ἘΚ .ἰ. ἰδ

iy

i ᾿ Ἕ ἮΝ

tf an pas

‘, Sine

INTRODUCTION.

Tue AvuTHOR OF THE Book. Whoever wrote the Acts wrote also the Gospel which bears the name of St. Luke. We find writers far removed in standpoint from each other, e.g., H. Holtzmann, Einleitung®, p. 391, and Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 128, agreeing in this conviction, and appealing to the same work, Friedrich’s Das Lukas Evangelium und die Apostelgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers (1890; see commentary), in support of it. In recent years the philologist Gercke seems to be almost the only convert to the opposite view who, with Sorof, regards the author of Acts as the reviser of the δεύτερος λόγος οὗ Luke ; but his efforts in promulgating his views cannot be said to have met with any success (see Zéckler, u. s.; Theologische Rundschau, pp. 50,129: 1899; and Wendt, A postelgeschichte, Ὁ. 4, 1899).

Friedrich’s pamphlet, which contains a useful summary of the whole evidence on the subject, much of which had been previously collected by Zeller and Lekebusch (although their readings, like those too of Friedrich, sometimes require careful testing), gives instances of language, style, and treatment of various subjects which place the identity of authorship beyond reasonable doubt (see instances noted in commentary).1 At the same time it would be misleading to say that recent critics have been unmindful of the linguistic differences which the two books present, although a candid examination shows that these differences are comparatively slight (cf. Hawkins, Hore Synoptica, p. 140; Zahn, Eznleitung, ii., p. 381, 1899). In earlier days Zeller had not lost sight of those peculiarities which are entirely linguistic, and he maintains that they are not of a nature to prove anything against the same origin of the two writings, Acts, vol. ii., p. 243, E.T.

1 Amongst recent writers, Blass, in his Index ii., Acta Apostolorum, marks fifty-six words as peculiar to St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts; cf. also the list in Plummer’s St. Luke, lii., liii, The instances of words and phrases characteristic of St. Luke’s Gospel in Sir J. Hawkins’ Hore Synoptice, 1899, pp. 29-41, will enable any one to see at a glance by the references how far such words and phrases are also characteristic of, or peculiar to, Acts: see also in commentary.

4 INTRODUCTION

Who is the early Christian writer thus able to give us not only such an account of the Life of our Lord that Renan could describe it as the most beautiful book in the world (Les Evangiles, p. 283), but also an account of the origines of the Christian Church which Jiilicher regards as an ideal Church history, Einleitung, p. 270, and of which Blass could write “hunc libellum non modo inter omnes Novi T. optima compositione uti, sed etiam eam artem mon- strare, quz Greco Romanove scriptore rerum non indigna sit”? One thing seems certain, that the writer, whoever he was, represents himself in four passages, xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 inclusive, cf. also Acts xi. 28, Codex D (on which see below, and in loco), as acompanion of St. Paul. If we examine the phraseology of these sections (ninety-seven verses in all), we find that it is in many respects common to that employed in the rest of the book (Klostermann, Vindicie Lucane, p. 46 ff.; Noésgen, A fostelge- schichte, pp. 15, 16; Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 10; Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 41; Hawkins, u.s., Ὁ. 149; Spitta, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 235, 257).}

Those who deny this identity of authorship are not only obliged to face the difficulty of accounting for this similarity of style and language, but also to account for the introduction of the “We” sections at all. If the writer of the rest of the book had wished to palm himself off at a later period as a companion of St. Paul, he would scarcely have sought to accomplish this on the strength of the insertion of these sections alone, as they stand. It may be fairly urged that he would at least have adopted one of the unmistakable

1 Sir J. Hawkins not only gives us, p. 15x, seventeen words and phrases found only;in the ‘‘ We” sections and in the rest of Acts; twenty-seven words and phrases found in the ‘‘ We” sections and Luke, with or without the rest of Acts also; thirty-seven words and phrases found in the “ We” sections, and also used predominantly, though not exclusively, in the rest of Acts or Luke or either of them; but he remarks that out of the eighty-six Matthean words and phrases, ten, or rather less than one eighth occur in the “‘ We” sections; out of the thirty-seven Marcan words and phrases, six, or about one sizth; out of the 140 Lucan words and phrases, less than one third, p. 14, ff.: ‘Is it not utterly impos- sible,” he asks, p. 150, ‘‘ that the language of the original writer of the ‘ We’ sections should have chanced to have so very many more correspondences with the language of the subsequent compiler than with that of Matthew or Mark?” The expressions peculiar to the ‘‘We” sections are for the most part fairly accounted for by the subject-matter, p. 153, ¢.g., εὐθυδρομέω, κατάγεσθαι, παραλέγομαι, πλόος, ὑποπλέω. Part iii., C, Section iv., of the same book should also be consulted where the identity of the third Synoptist with a friend and companion of St. Paul is further confirmed, by the similarities between his Gospel and St. Paul’s Epistles.

INTRODUCTION 5

methods of which a Thucydides, a Polybius, a Josephus availed themselves to make their personal relation to the facts narrated known to their readers (Zahn, Eznleitung, ti., pp. 387, 426, 435).

This unknown author of Acts, moreover, whoever he was, was a man of such literary skill that he was able to assimilate the “ We” sections to the rest of his book, and to introduce cross references from them to other parts of his work, ¢.g., xxi. 8 and vi.5; and yet, with all this, he is so deficient in literary taste as to allow the first person plural in the “‘ We’ sections to remain, a blunder avoidable by a stroke of his pen.

The German philologist, Vogel, who cannot be accused of speaking with a theological] bias, states the common-sense view of the matter in pointing out that when an author of such literary skill as the author of Acts undoubtedly possessed passes without a break from the third to the first person in his narrative, every unprejudiced reader will explain it on’ the ground that the author thus wished modestly to intimate his own personal presence during certain events. This is the one natural explanation, and to this Vogel determines to adhere, until it is shown to be untenable ; and he justly pours ridicule upon the notion that the author of Acts would have interwoven into a work written in such a delicate and finished style the travel-diary of some other person without altering the pronouns (Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, pp. 12, 13).

If we are asked to believe that this first person plural was intro- duced from time to time merely for the purpose of giving an air of verisimilitude to the narrative (or in imitation of certain passages in Ezra and Nehemiah, or Tobit),! why should we not find it in the account, ¢.g., of St. Peter’s escape from prison, chap. xii., where Wendt maintains that the author probably had possession of a narrative full of details, derived probably from John Mark himself? There can be no doubt that the “We” sections are introduced for the definite purpose of marking the writer’s presence with St. Paul; we cannot, ¢.g., conclude that there is any other reason for the circum- stance that the ‘‘ We” section of chap. xvi. breaks off at Philippi, and that the following “ We” section, chap. xx., commences again at Philippi. But if this is so, how again could a later unknown writer have gained possession of a document of such high value as that comprising or embodying these “We” sections? A day-journal

1 See Weiss, Einleitung, p. 583, and Overbeck (De Wette, 4th edition), p. xliv., who both point out that the cases are not analogous, although, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld and Wendt have recently pressed them into service.

6 INTRODUCTION

left behind by an intimate companion of St. Paul must have been preserved long enough for this unknown writer to have incorporated it, or at least some of it, into his own work, and it must then have vanished altogether out of sight, although one would have supposed that a treasure so valuable would have been preserved and guarded in some Christian circle with the greatest care.!

But if we further ask who amongst the companions of St. Paul speaks to us in these ‘‘ We” sections, the testimony of critics of vari- ous schools—of critics who draw a distinction between the author- ship of the “ We” sections and the rest of the book—may be quoted in favour of St. Luke as the author of the former, if not, as we be- lieve, of the latter also. Thus Holtzmann, Einleitung *, pp. 394, 395, examines the question, and decides in favour of St. Luke as against the claims of Timothy, Silas, or Titus (so Overbeck (De Wette, 4th edit.), pp. 1., li.; Mangold, Einleitung (Bleek), p. 445; Spitta, τ. s., p. 312). Acts xx. 5, 6 may be fairly quoted as decisive against Timothy, to say nothing of the impossibility that the author of Acts should assume the character of a person in the ‘‘ We” sections, and by naming this same person elsewhere should thus distinguish him from himself (Overbeck). For Silas nothing can be said, and the advocacy of his claims is the most groundless of any of the three. He appears nowhere in the third missionary journey, an absence which would be fatally inconsistent with his presence in the “ We” sections, and he is nowhere named in any of the letters of the First Imprisonment, whereas the narrator of xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 would naturally be found amongst the companions of the Apostle during that period (of course, if xi. 27, 28 in B-text be taken into account, both Timothy and Silas are thereby excluded, Zahn, Einlettung,

p. 425). The same objection may be made to Titus, since there is no hint that he was with St. Paul at Rome (even if we allow that he may have been included in the ἡμεῖς at Antioch, xi. 27, and that, as he is not mentioned at all in Acts, the difficulties which are ‘presented by the names of Timothy and Silas do not occur in his case). Moreover, the travel-journey of Silas would have commenced rather with xv. 1, as Holtzmann urges; nor is there any reason to suppose that Silas was at Philippi during the time required (Holtz-

1 This, no doubt, presents less difficulty to advanced critics who find it apparently easy to credit that the Pastoral Epistles contain fragments of genuine letters of St. Paul, and that these letters having supplied the fragments to the Pastorals were themselves no longer cared for or regarded (McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 407, Hn, and, on the other hand, Dr. Salmon. Introd., p. 408).

INTRODUCTION 7

mann, uv. 5. p. 395). See further Zahn, w.s., pp. 351, 388, 425; Lightfoot, B.D.%, i., 32.

But if the author of these sections is to be found amongst the intimate companions of St. Paul, and amongst those who were with him in Rome, no one fulfils the conditions better than St. Luke. Even Jiilicher, who declines to decide positively which of the four companions, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Luke, was the author, considers that if it was St. Luke, we have in that fact the best explanation that his name remained attached to the Third Gospel and Acts alike, Einleitung, p. 269. The writer of Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 evidently accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and that St. Luke was with the Apostle at the time of his first captivity we learn on the authority of two Epistles which very few of the best critics would now care to dispute, Col. iv. 14, Philem. ver. 24.

But the writer of Acts has not felt the need of using the Epistles of St. Paul as sources for his work, although they were the most weighty documents for the history which he professes to describe. There are numbers of undesigned coincidences between the letters and the history, and Paley, in his Hore Pauline, has done invalu- able service in drawing attention to them. But still Acts is written independently of the Epistles, and it cannot be said that any one letter in particular is employed by the writer. Yet this would be inconceivable if the former work was composed 100-120 a.p., especi- ally when we remember the knowledge of the Epistles displayed by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, by St. Ignatius or St. Poly- carp (Harnack, Chron., i., 249). Moreover the writer, whoever he was, was beyond all doubt intensely interested in St. Paul, and it is strange that he should not have made use of his letters, when we remember the impression which they made upon those contemporary with the great Apostle, cf. 2 Cor. x. 10, 2 Pet. iii. 15 (Zahn, wu. s., p. 412).

Ἐ this relation between Acts and the Pauline Epistles not only shows that the former was written before the close of the first century, but that the author stood sufficiently near to St. Paul to be able to write without enriching his knowledge by references to the Apostle’s letters. This, however, becomes natural enough on the supposition that the writer was a Timothy, or a Titus, or a Luke. If, however, the two former are excluded, probabilities again point to Luke (Zahn). (For recent writers who deny the acquaintance of the author of Acts with St. Paul’s Epistles we may refer to Wendt, Felten, McGiffert, Harnack, Zahn, Jiilicher, Rackham.) And we thus come into line with early Church tradition which referred the third

8 INTRODUCTION

Gospel and the Acts to Luke, the beloved physician, the friend of St. Paul, cf. Frag. Murator., and Iren., Adv. Her., iii., 14.

But Luke, we have been recently reminded, was not an uncom- mon name, and many Christians may have borne it in the latter part of the first century (McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 435). But not only is the above tradition precise in its mention of Luke as a physician ; the writings attributed to him bear upon the face of them indications of the hand of a medical man. No reference, however, to the possi- bility of this is made by Dr. McGiffert. He tells us, p. 239, that nowhere is the source used by the author of Acts marked by anything like the vividness, preciseness, and fulness of detail that characterise the “We” sections.!_ The writer of these sections was not Silas or Timothy, but ‘‘the unknown author of the ‘ We’ passages,” p. 239. This unknown author was evidently the intimate companicn of St. Paul, and of his other companions in Rome none is more likely to have written the personal notes of travel than Luke, who seems indeed to have been the nearest and dearest to the Apostle of all his friends (pp. 434, 435). The inference from all this, coupled with the tradition of

1« Tf there is one narrative of the N.T. which more than another contains internal proof of having been related by an eye-witness, it is the account of the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul,’ Salmon, Introd., p. 5, and this judgment based upon the valuable monograph of James Smith (himself a Fellow of the Royal Society) ot Jordan Hill, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th edit., revised and corrected, 1880, has received fresh and remarkable confirmation, not only from English but from German and French sources of a technical and professional kind: e.g., Dr. Breusing, Director of the Seefahrtschule in Bremen, published in 1886 his Die Nautik der Alten with a close examination verse by verse of the narrative in Acts xxvii., and he has been followed precisely on the same lines by J. Vars, Professor in the Lycée of Brest in his L’Art Nautique dans l’antiquité, 1887. Both writers make constant reference to Smith’s work, although they often differ from him in technical details, and references to Breusing will be found in Blass and Wendt (1899). The latter writer also refers to a thoughtful article with a similar testimony to St. Luke’s accuracy by Von Goerne in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, p. 352, 1898, and allu- sions will be found to this, as to the above-mentioned works, in the commentary. Breusing’s testimony is very striking, p. xiii.: ‘‘ The most valuable nautical docu- ment of antiquity which has come down to us is the account of the voyage and shipwreck of the Apostle Paul. Every one can see at a glance that it could only have been composed by an eye-witness.” The strangest exception perhaps to this almost universal recognition of the value of the narrative in Acts xxvii. (cf., ¢.g., the remarkable testimony in its favour by Weizsacker, Afostolic Age, ii., p. 126 ff., E.T.) is Mommsen’s attack upon it in Sitzungsber. d. berl. Ak., 1895, p. 503; but, as Zahn justly remarks, Mommsen has not increased his reputation by alleging that ‘* Luke speaks of the Adriatic Sea by Crete and of the barbarians of Malta’; see answers to these objections in Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 421, and also in commentary, Acts XXVil. 27, and xxviii. 2.

INTRODUCTION ! 9

the Church, would seem to be quite plain, but Dr. McGiffert declines to draw it, and falls back upon the belief that some other person named Luke was the writer of the third Gospel and Acts, p. 433. But if there had been such a person there would have been no need for tradition to identify him with Luke the beloved physician, since his own intrinsic merits as an author and historian would have been amply sufficient to secure him an undying recognition. Here comes in the value of the argument from the medical language employed in the third Gospel and the Acts. The Church in identifying the writer with St. Paul’s beloved friend was not following some fanciful or unreliable tradition, but a tradition amply supported by an examination of the language of the books in question; language which not only witnesses to the truth of the tradition, but also to the unity of Acts, since this medical phraseology may be traced in every part, and not in the “We” sections alone. The present Introduction, which must of necessity be brief, does not allow of any lengthy examination of this important subject (to which the writer hopes to return), but in a large number of passages in the commentary notes are given with special reference to indi- cations of medical phraseology. But one or two remarks may be added here. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind that St. Luke’s medical phraseology was fully recognised before Dr. Hobart’s interesting and valuable book, The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882 (cf., e.g., Dr. Belcher’s Our Lord’s Miracles of Healing, 1st edit., with Preface by Archbishop Trench, 1871, 2nd edit., 1890). The Gentleman’s Magazine, June, 1841, containing a short article of some two and a half pages, pp. 585-587, is often referred to as a kind of starting-point for this inquiry, but it should not be forgotten that the great names of Wetstein and Bengel may be quoted as fully recognising the hand of a medical writer; thus in commenting not only on Luke xiv. 2, but also on Acts xxviii. 8, Wetstein makes the same remark: ‘‘ Lucas qui medicus fuerat morbos accuratius de- scribere solet,” cf. Bengel on Acts iii. 7, “ Proprie locutus est medicus Lucas,’ and Luke viii. 43, where the disputed reading does not interfere with the force of the comment: “ Lucas medicus ingenue scribit’’. Indeed it is not too much to say that the main position taken up by Hobart has been abundantly recognised both in France and Germany, and not always in quarters where such a recognition might have been anticipated, cf, ¢.g., Renan, Saint Paul, p. 138, 12th edit.; J. Weiss, Evangelium des Lukas, 1892, with reference to Dr. Hobart’s book, and with quotations from it, although with the qualification that many of the instances require careful sifting,

IO INTRODUCTION

p. 274 ff. More recently the German philologist Vogel, 1897, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 17, draws attention to the fact that a large number of words peculiar to the Acts are found in Luke’s contemporary, the physician Dioscorides of Anazarbus in Cilicia, not far from Antioch, and he speaks of the use of Dioscorides by the Evangelist as highly probable. But the fullest recognition of Dr. Hobart’s work comes to us even more recently by Zahn: “ Dr. Hobart has proved for every one for whom anything can be proved, that the author of the Lucan work (by which Zahn means both the third Gospel and Acts) is a Greek physician, acquainted with the technical terms of the medical art,” Einleitung, ii., pp. 427, 435 (1899). The language is strong, and it may perhaps be fairly contended that some of the instances cited by Dr. Zahn may well have been subjected to the cross- examination instituted so carefully and fully by Dr. Plummer, Sz. Luke, pp. lii., Ixiii.-lxvi., in his inquiry into the validity of Dr. Hobart’s position. The evidence in favour of this position must be cumulative, but it depends not merely upon the occurrence of technical medical terms in St. Luke’s writings, but also upon his tendency to employ medical language more frequently than the other Evangelists, upon the passages in his Gospel in which we come across medical terms which are wanting in the parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, upon the account which he gives of miracles of healing not only in comparison with the other Evangelists, but also of the miracles peculiar to his own narratives; upon the way in which he abstains from using in a medical sense words which medical writers abstain from so using, although em- ployed in this sense elsewhere in the Gospels; upon the frequency with which he uses medical language and phraseology in a secon- dary sense. Illustrations of some of these characteristic peculiar- ities are noted in the commentary, and a passing reference (space allows this only) may be made to two others. Each of the Synop- tists gives our Lord’s comparison between the passage of a camel through the eye of a needJe and the entrance of a rich man into the kingdom of heaven, St. Matt. xix. 24, St. Mark x. 25, St. Luke xviii. 25. St. Matthew and St. Mark have the same word for

1 Whatever strictures may be passed upon Dr. Hobart’s book, it must not be forgotten that the following authorities amongst others are persuaded that the author’s main thesis has been abundantly proved: Bishop Lightfoot, “ Acts,” B.D.?, i., p. 31; Dr. Salmon, Inérod., p. 129; Professor Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 205; Dr. Plummer, St. Luke, u. 5. (cf. Sir J. Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, p. 154, 1899) ; and it is significant that Dr. B, Weiss in the 3rd edit. of his Hinleitung refers to the book, and no longer speaks of the argument as mere “ trifling ”’.

INTRODUCTION II

needle ῥαφίδος : διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος, Matt, T.R.; but W.H. τρήματος in text, τρυπήματος in margin, διὰ (τῆς) τρυμαλιᾶς (τῆς) padidos, Mark. But when we turn to St. Luke,.he introduces at least one different word (if we adopt W.H. for St. Matt.), and a combination peculiar to himself, διὰ τρήματος βελόνης (W.H. and R.V.). It cannot be said that the words used by St. Luke occur in LXX, since neither . of them is found there (although St. Mark’s tpupadia occurs in LXX possibly six and at least three times), But both words used by St. Luke were in technical medical use, τρῆμα being the great medical word for a perforation of any kind, βελόνη being the surgical needle ; and not only so but the two words are found combined as here by Galen: διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν βελόνην τρήματος and again τοῦ διατρήματος τῆς βελόνης (cf. Hobart, p. 60, J. Weiss, u. s., p. 567, Zahn, wu. s., p. 436, and Nestle, Einfihrung in das G. N. T., p. 228).

Dr. Plummer points out that τρῆμα is not peculiar to St. Luke (see W.H. above), but the combination is peculiar to St. Luke, and the force of this fact and of the combination of undoubted medical terms is not lessened by Grimm’s description of βελόνη as a more classical word than ῥαφίς.

Once again: St. Luke’s characteristic medical style shows itself in abstention as well as in employment. In three passages, e¢.g., μαλακία is used by St. Matthew to denote disease, but in medical language it is used as in its primary classical sense of delicacy, effeminacy, and St. Luke never uses it in St. Matthew’s sense, although he employs the cognate adjective μαλακός of “soft’’ raiment in vii. 25. But this non-usage of the noun by the medical Luke is all the more significant, since in the LXX it is found at least a dozen times to denote sickness and disease.

In St. Matt. iv. 24, viii. 6, both βασανίζειν and βάσανος are used of bodily sickness, but in medical writers the words are not employed in this sense, and St. Luke refrains from so employing them (Hobart, p. 63, and Zahn, wu. s., p. 435). But here again significance is added to this non-usage by St. Luke when we remember that βάσανος is not only used of the torments after death in Wisd. iii, 1, 4 Macc. iii. 15, cf. Luke xvi, 23, 28, but also of the pain of bodily disease, 1 Macc. ix. 56.

Tue Arm ΟΕ THE Boor. Not only the aim but the purpose and contents of the book are set forth, according to Lightfoot, in the Preface, chap. i. 1-8. The prophetic words of the Lord in ver. 8 implicitly involve a table of contents: “Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost,” etc., ii, 1-13; ‘‘ witnesses unto me”’ (1) “in Jerusalem,” ii. 14-viii. 1, and (2) “in all Judea and Samaria,” viii. 2-xi. 18, (3) “and to the uttermost part of the earth,” xi, 19-xxviii.

12 INTRODUCTION

31 (on the latter expression see comment. in loco and reference to Psalms of Solomon, viii. 16). The writer closes with the event which his aim required, the preaching of the Gospel in Rome, the capital of the world, the metropolis of the human race, without hindrance ; and the fulfilment of the third section mentioned above is thus given, not ‘actually, but potentially, while an earnest is afforded of its ultimate accomplishment; Philippians, p. 3; B.D.2, i, p. 26; cf. also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 562, Blass, Acta Apost., Proleg., p. 3: “ΑἹ hic liber non est imperfectus, cum longi cursus evangelii Roma terminus sit”. But starting from the distinction which Lightfoot himself thus draws between the potential and actual, is it not quite possible that there may thus be room for the τρίτος Χόγος for which Lightfoot, it is true, saw no conceivable place, cf. Harnack, Chron., i., p. 248, but for the purpose of which Pro- fessor Ramsay, St. Paul, Ὁ. 380, and others, notably Zahn, Einlez- tung, i., p. 380, have so strongly argued (see list of earlier advocates in Bleek-Mangold, Eznleitung, p. 462, and note in comment. on xxviii. 31)? It isiperhaps'’ worth noting that Bengel, to whom we owe the oft-quoted words, Victoria verbi Dei, Paulus Rome, apex evangelii, Actorum Finis, reminds us on the same page of the words of Estius : “Fortasse Lucas meditabatur tertium librum, in quo repeteret acta illius biennii; sicut, Act. i., quedam exposuit tacita ultimo capite evangelii”. Moreover, if we take Acts i. 8 as giving us in outline the programme of the book, it seems that its purpose would have been fulfilled not so much in the triumph of the Gospel, but in the bearing witness to Christ in Jerusalem, Samaria, and to the end of the ‘earth: the Apostles were to be witnesses, 1.8; St. Paul was told that he was “to bear witness” in Rome, μαρτυρῆσαι xxiii. 11, cf. xxviii. 23; the triumph would succeed the witness, and the keynote of victory is struck in the word ἀκωλύτως.

Nothing, it is true, is said in Acts of the beginnings of Christianity in Rome, or as to how the Church was first founded in that city ; but when we consider the importance that St. Paul plainly attached to his seeing for himself the metropolis of the world, cf. xix. 21, and when his Epistle addressed to the Roman Church indicates how clearly he foresaw the importance which that Church would have for Gentile Christianity in the future, it is quite conceivable that the universalist Luke would draw his second treatise to a fitting close by showing that blindness in part had happened to Israel that the fulness of the Gentiles might come in. “We are not told,” says Holtzmann, quoting Overbeck, “(how the Gospel came to Rome, but how Paul came to Rome”: but this objection, which

INTRODUCTION 13

Overbeck considered the greatest against the view that the con- tents of Acts were summed up in chap. i. 8, is obviated by the above considerations; St. Paul was to bear witness in Rome as he had at Jerusalem, but the result of his final witness in Jerusalem, xxiii. 1 ff., resulted in a division among the Jews, and a similar result followed his first testimony in Rome. The Gospel had come to Rome already, but those who accepted it were only a sect everywhere spoken against; now its foremost representative gains it a hearing from the Gentiles, and that too without interruption or prohibition.

But this recognition of the importance of St. Paul’s witness and work in Rome, and of their subsequent development, by no means excludes other purposes which may have been present to the mind of St. Luke. “No other N.T. writer,” says Zahn, “mentions a Roman emperor by name,” and he proceeds to point out the sig- nificance of this fact in connection with the whole design of St. Luke to show that Christianity was an historical religion; how the edicts of Augustus, Luke ii. 1, and of Claudius, Acts xviii. 2, had their influence on the new faith (cf. Luke iii. 1), how in comparison with the other Evangelists St. Luke constantly introduces the names of those who were connected indirectly as well as directly with political events (Einleitung, ii., p. 375, and cf. Ramsay, St Paul, p. 385, Friedrich, u. s., p. 53 ff.). Not only would notices of this kind impress a reader of the type of Theophilus with a sense of the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed, but they are also of importance in that they indicate that a writer, who thus took pains to gain accurate information with regard to events in the Roman world, would naturally be interested in tracing care- fully the relations between the empire and the infant Church, and all the more so if it was important to show his readers that Christi- anity stood in no hostile relationship to the imperial government (c/. Zahn, τ. s., p. 379).

But it is one thing to describe one of the objects of the book in this way, viz., as an attempt to reassure those who had been already instructed in the origines of the Christian Faith, and to emphasise its evident power and rectitude at the bar of the rulers of this world, and to maintain that all this was done with a political-apologetic aim, regardless of truthfulness to fact, and only concerned with representing Christianity in a favourable light before magistrates and kings. No doubt we are repeatedly told how St. Paul took shelter in an appeal to Roman law and Roman authority, and how much more justly and calmly the Roman authorities judged of his case than the fanatical and insensate Jews; “ but,” says Wendt with

14 INTRODUCTION

admirable candour (A postelgeschichte, p. 17), “there is no reason to doubt that this representation simply corresponded to historical truth” (see the whole paragraph in Wendt, 1899, and cf. Weiss, u. s., p. 569 as against Overbeck and Mangold, w. s., p. 427, following Schnecken- burger and Zeller). Moreover, when we remember that the writer of Acts deliberately enters upon a field of history “‘where perhaps beyond all others there was room for mistake and blunder, the administration of the Roman Empire and its provinces,” nothing is more surprising than the way in which his accuracy is confirmed by every fresh and searching investigation.!

But if there is no reason to attribute a political tendency (see further below) to the writer, still less is there room for the attribu- tion of a doctrinal tendency. The earlier representatives of this latter view of the book, Baur and Zeller, started with insisting upon the fundamental opposition which prevailed between the view of the relationship of St. Paul with the primitive Apostles as set forth in those Epistles which these critics accepted, and in the Acts: to St. Paul a Judaising tendency was ascribed in the latter which was not in harmony with his statements in his own writings, whilst, on the other hand, to St. Peter especially a liberal stand- point was ascribed, which was not to be expected in view of the utterances of St. Paul in his Epistles, a standpoint which would make Peter, not Paul, the originator of Gentile Christianity. On the whole the Acts represented an idealised and harmonising view of the relation of parties in the primitive Church, and its object as the work of a Pauline Christian was to reconcile the Jewish and Pauline parties. Schneckenburger had previously emphasised the supposed parallel in Acts between Peter and Paul (see further below), and had represented the book as written with the apologetic aim of defending Paul against the misrepresentation of the Juda- isers; but it must always be remembered that Schneckenburger, although emphasising the apologetic tendency of St. Luke, never denied

1Cf., ¢.g., the notes on xvii. 6, xxviii. 7, etc., the references to the invaluable and epoch-making works of Professor Ramsay, and Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 28, 1897, on the remarkable degree of confidence with which military, political, and judicial terms are employed in Acts. Professor Schmiedel in his review of Professor Ramsay’s St. Paul describes it as the work on the whole not of the historian or archzologist, but of the narrow apologist, Theolo- gische Literaturzeitung, 1897, No. 23, and more recently, Professor H. Holtzmann, characterises Professor Ramsay’s description and illustration of the scene, Acts xvi. 25-34, as “‘humbug”! Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1899, No. 7; such remarks are ill calculated to promote candid and respectful criticism.

INTRODUCTION 1S

his historical truthfulness, whilst Baur fastened upon Schnecken- burger’s view, and further developed his own previous attack on the historical character of Acts (Zahn, τ. s., p. 393, Lightfoot, B.D.?, i., 41). But Baur’s theory in its extreme form could not maintain its ground, and various modifications of it took place within his own school. Certainly, to take an illustration, it must always remain a strange fact that, if Acts was written with the conciliatory tendency alluded to, only one indirect mention in it is found, xxiv. 17, of the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem, which played so promi- nent a part in St. Paul’s work and writings, and which was in itself such a palpable proof of the Apostle’s love for his Jewish brethren. The tendency view adopted by some of the writers succeeding Baur, e.g., Reuss, Keim, Weizsacker, regards the author of Acts as not intentionally departing from the historical relations between the two parties, but as forming his judgment of the relations between them from the standpoint of his own time. One of the most recent attempts to represent the conciliatory tendency of Acts as an apo- logy for the Christian religion before Gentiles, 7.e., before a heathen public, against the charges of the Jews, and to show how Judaism, through Christianity, broke up into its world-wide mission, is that of J. Weiss, Uber die Absicht und den literar. Charakter der A. G., 1897 (see further below); but whatever amount of correctness there may be in this view we may frankly adopt, without committing ourselves to the very precarious explanations and deductions of the writer; St. Luke’s own prologue, and the dedication of his two writings to the Gentile Theophilus, are in themselves sufficient to lead us to expect that the design accentuated by J. Weiss would not be alto- gether absent from his mind in composing his history (see the remarks of Zahn, wu. s., ii., p. 393),

But if there is no satisfaction in the more recent attempts to represent Acts as written mainly with a conciliatory “ tendency,” still less can satisfaction be found in the view, older in its origin, of a supposed parallelism between St. Peter and St. Paul, drawn out by a writer who wished in this way to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church, by placing the leaders of each in a position of equal authority. That there are points of similarity in the life and work of the two Apostles may be readily admitted, but these likenesses are of the most general kind, and only such as we might expect in cases where two men work in the same calling at the same period and under the same conditions, cf. to this effect Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe, pp. 17, 18, and Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas, p. 214. The parallel can

16 INTRODUCTION

only be extended to a few instances such as the healing of the lame man by Peter at Jerusalem, iii. 2, and by Paul at Lystra, xiv. 8, but there is no real ground for the institution of a parallel between the worship paid to Peter by Cornelius, x. 25, and by the inhabitants of Lystra to St. Paul, xiv. 11, or between the judgment inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira by Peter, v. 1, and on Elymas by St. Paul, xiii, 6. The position thus advocated by Clemen is taken up by B. Weiss, Einleitung, p. 540, 3rd edit., 1897, no less than by earlier writers like Lekebusch and Nésgen (cf. too Sanday, Bampton Lec- tures, Ὁ. 327, and Salmon, Introduction, p. 310). But whether we consider that the parallel was instituted to place Paul on an equality with Peter, or, as Van Manen has recently urged, Paulus I.: De handelingen der Apostelen, p. 126, 1890, that the writer wished to represent Peter in accordance with the delineation of Paul, there is one fact fatal to both points of view, viz., that if either of these pur- poses had been in the mind of the author of Acts, we cannot account for his omission of the crowning point to the parallel between the two Apostles, viz., their martyrdom in the same city, and in the same persecution. An already discredited theory can scarcely survive the ridicule of Dr. Blass, Proleg., p. 8, and of Dr. Salmon, wu. s., pp. 310, 311: in all true history we may expect to find parallelisms, and these parallels exist in the lives of nations no less than of individuals. When we consider the various attempts which have been made to describe the aim of Acts, it is something to find that a critic who does not hesitate to regard the book as written to some extent with an idealising and harmonising purpose, should nevertheless be constrained to reckon it, on account of its many trustworthy traditions, as an historical work of invaluable worth, see Wendt, A postelgeschichte, Ὁ. 33, 1899.

Sources. If St. Luke is acknowledged as the writer of Acts, we can understand the remark of Blass that in this case the question of sources for the greater part of the book need not be raised, Blass, Acta Apost., Proleg., p. 10; cf. Zahn, u. s., pp. 404, 412; Knabenbauer, Actus Apostolorum, Ὁ. 8, 1899. It is plain from the narrative that a man in St, Luke’s position would be brought into contact with many persons from whom he could have obtained rich and varied information, and in many cases the details of his narrative point unmistakably to the origin of the information. A good example may be seen in chap. xii. (see commentary), in which the vivid and circumstantial details of St. Peter’s escape from prison are best accounted for on the supposition that the narrative comes from John Mark: to the house of the mother of Mark St. Peter makes his

INTRODUCTION ι2

way, ver. 12, and not only does later history associate St. Mark with St. Peter, but also with St. Luke and St. Paul, inasmuch as he is with the latter in Rome, Col. iv. 10, Philem., ver. 24 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 11), to say nothing of an earlier association, cf. Acts xiii. (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 385; Blass, u.s.,p.11; Belser, Theologische Quartalschrift, p. 62, 1895); and even Wendt, p. 31 (1899), sees no other way of accounting for the contrast between the brief notice of the death of St. James, xii. 1, and the lengthy account of the liberation of St. Peter than the probability that the latter was derived from John Mark, whilst more exact information was wanting for the former.

But John Mark was not the only member of the Jerusalem Church from whom, or through whom, St. Luke could have obtained information as to the origin of the Christian community. Barnabas, the cousin of John Mark, was in a position to know accurately the same events, in some of which he had shared, iv. 36, and if St. Luke was a member of the Church at Antioch when Barnabas settled there (cf. note on xi. 28) he would have learnt from the lips of Barnabas the early history of the Jerusalem Church ; and it would have been strange if amongst the men of Cyprus and Cyrene who fled from Judza to Antioch, xi. 19, there had been none who were baptised at the first Christian Pentecost, cf. ii. 10, 41 (Zahn, w. s., p. 414).

For the same series of events St. Luke had access also to the information preserved by Mnason, a disciple ἀρχαῖος, t.¢., from the first Pentecost, cf. xi. 15, xxi. 16, from whom likewise he may have learnt the account given in ix. 31-43. In chap. xxi. we are also told how Luke was a guest for several days in the house of Philip the Evangelist, vv. 8-12, an intercourse which could have furnished him with the information narrated not only in viii. 4-40, but in vi. 1-viii. 3, x. 1-xi. 18. And from Jerusalem itself, no less than from Cesarea, information might have been acquired, for Luke, xxi. 18, had inter- course not only with the elders but with no less a person than St. James, the head of the Church at Jerusalem, and at an earlier period he must have shared at Philippi, xvi. 19 ff., the company of Silas, who is mentioned as one of the chief among the brethren of the mother city, xv. 22. In this connection we may note that St. Luke alone gives us two incidents connected with Herod Antipas, Luke xiii. 31-33, xxiii. 6-12, 15, cf. Acts iv. 27, which are not narrated by the other Evangelists, but this intimate acquaintance of St. Luke with the court of Herod is in strict harmony with the notice of Manaen the foster-brother of Herod, Acts xiii. 1, cf. Luke

viii. 3, a teacher of the Church at Antioch when St. Luke may VOL. II. 2

18 INTRODUCTION

himself have been there, and from whom the Evangelist may at all events have learnt much of the information about other members of the Herodian family which comes to us from him only (Plumptre, Zahn, Belser, Feine). It may no doubt be contended, with con- siderable plausibility, that St. Luke must have had at his command written documents as well, ¢.g., in his account of the speeches of St. Peter and St. Stephen, and it is quite possible that he might have obtained such documents from the Church at Jeru- salem. One thing is quite certain, that these addresses like all others throughout the book are in striking harmony with the circumstances and crises to which they relate (see further below): “quo intentius has orationes inspexeris,’’ writes Blass, “eo plura in eis reperies, quz cum sint temporibus personisque egregie accommodata, ad rhetoricam licentiam scriptoris referri se vetent " (Proleg., p. 11). But at the same time it requires no great stretch of imagination to conclude with Zahn (ii., p. 412) that such a man as Luke required no other sources of information for the composition of Acts, or at least for a great portion of that work, than his own recollections, partly of the narratives of St. Paul, partly of the events in which he himself had shared, cf. vi. 8-viii. 3, ix. 1-30, xiii-xxviii, There is abundant proof in St. Paul’s Epistles that the Apostle must have constantly referred to his earlier experiences in way of conversation, or in the delivery of his discourses, cf. 2 Cor. i. 8-10, xi. 22, xii. 9, Gal. i. 11- ii. 14, Phil. iti, 3-7, Rom. xv. 16-32, xvi. 7, and during periods of enforced inactivity, while Luke was with him at Cesarea, or during the winter months at Malta, or later in Rome, nothing was more natural, as Zahn urges, than that the great missionary should com- municate to his beloved friend the records of his work and experience in great heathen centres of commercial or intellectual life, like Corinth, Ephesus, Athens. After his return from his travels, and on many other occasions, Zahn points out that it was St. Paul’s habit to relate minutely καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον, xxi. 19, what God had wrought by him, xiv. 27, xv. 3, 12, 26, Gal. ii. 2, 7-9, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that such recitals were withheld from St. Luke. No doubt it may be urged that the style in the second part of the book is less Hebraistic than in chaps. i.-xii., but this may be fairly accounted for if we remember that St. Luke would often obtain his information for the earlier events from Jewish Christians, and on the soil of Palestine, and that he may have purposely retained the Hebraistic colouring in his embodiment of these narratives, cf. Plummer, St. Luke, Ὁ. xlix.; Zahn, wu. s., ii.,

INTRODUCTION 19

pp. 414, 423; Dalman, Die Worte $esu, p. 31, 1898.1 If it be main- tained that the earlier chapters of Acts, i.-v., were incorporated from some earlier document, it is admitted that this was of Jewish- Christian origin, derived from the Jewish Church through an eye-witness (cf. B. Weiss, Einleitung, p. 549, 3rd edit.; Feine, τ. 5., p. 233). Thus in these chapters, ¢.g., the Sadducees appear as the chief opponents of the new faith, cf. note on iv. 1, and the members of the hierarchy are represented as in the main members of the same sect, a fact which strikes us as strange, but which is in strict accordance with the testimony of Josephus. A careful con- sideration of the speeches and of their appropriateness to their various occasions tends more and more surely to refute the notion that they are fictitious addresses, the work of a writer of the second century. The testimony of Dr. McGiffert may be cited as bearing witness to the primitive character of the reports of the speeches of St. Peter in the early chapters of Acts, and for the truthful manner in which they represent a very early type of Christian teaching (see comment., p. 119), and cf. also the remarks of Schmiedel, Enc. Bibl., i., 48, 1899.

At the delivery of St. Stephen’s speech Paul himself was present, xxvi. 10, cf. vi. 12, and there is good reason for thinking that the speech made a deep impression upon him (see, e¢.g., Felten, A pos- telgeschichte, p. 31), while the many Lucan expressions and turns of thought which it contains (cf. Zeller, Acts, ii., p. 313, E.T., and Overbeck, Apostelgeschichte, p. 93) are natural enough if the address comes to us through the medium of a translation (see commentary for the speech and its meaning).

For the second part of the book we perceive that St. Luke might have easily obtained accurate reports of the speeches even in cases where he was not present ; ¢.g., the speech at the Pisidian Antioch, chap. xiii., gives us what we may well regard as a familiar example of St. Paul’s teaching on many similar occasions (cf. also in com- mentary the striking resemblances recently noted by Professor Ramsay between this speech and the Galatian Epistle). The ad- dresses at Lystra and at Athens delivered to heathen, so wonder- fully adapted to the audience in each place, in the one instance appealing to a more popular and ruder, in the latter to a more learned and philosophic class of hearers (‘‘ ita sunt omnia et loco et

1Dr. Dalman’s sharp distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms should be noted, p. 16 ff., whilst he allows that the pure Hebraisms in the Gospels are almost exclusively peculiar to that of St. Luke, and that by these peculiarities of diction Acts is also marked, p. 20 ; see further in commentary.

20 INTRODUCTION

audientibus accommodata,” says Blass); in both cases starting from truths which some of the Greek philosophers might themselves have pressed home, but in each case leading up to and insisting upon the need and necessity of repentance for wise and simple alike ; were eminently characteristic of a man who became as a Jew to the Jews, as without law to those without law, as a Greek to the Greeks, and such discourses in the brief form in which they have reached us in Acts may well have expressed the actual teach- ing delivered by St. Paul in Lystra and in Athens (see for these speeches especially Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 146 ff., and for the speech at Athens, Curtius, ‘‘ Paulus in Athen,” Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ii., pp. 527-543, and references in commentary!): “there is no reason,” writes McGiffert, “ἴον questioning the trustworthiness of the discourse at Athens as a whole . . . in fact such a discourse as that ascribed to Paul is exactly what we should expect from him under the circumstances” (u. s., p. 260).

The speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, xx. 18-35, is constantly marked by St. Paul’s characteristic words and phrases, and its teaching is strikingly connected with that of the Ephesian Epistle (see notes in commentary, and cf. Page, Acts, Ὁ. xxxvi.; Lock, “ Ephesians,” Hastings’ B.D.; Cook, Speaker’s Commentary, p. 342, and also Lekebusch, A postelgeschichte, pp. 336-339; Nésgen, u. s., Ὁ. 53; Felten, u. s., p. 33). No one has affirmed the historical truthfulness of this address more strongly than Spitta, and in this instance also we may again conclude with McGiffert, p. 339, that ‘‘we shall be safe in assuming that the account of Paul’s meeting with the elder brethren of Ephesus, and the report of the words which he uttered are substantially accurate”. We may well feel this security when we recall that St. Luke would be himself a hearer of St. Paul’s pathetic farewell.

The three remaining speeches contain three dmodoyia of St. Paul, one before the Jews and the chiliarch in Jerusalem, xxii. 1-21, the second before Felix, xxiv. 10-21, and the third before Festus and Agrippa, xxvi. The first reaches us through the medium of a Greek translation, and it is noticeable that the speech in this form contains no Pauline words or expressions, although some words remind us of him, ¢.g., ἀπολογία, ἀπολούειν, παρα-

1 Hilgenfeld blames Curtius because he has not explained the source of infor- mation for St. Paul’s address, since the Apostle was at Athens alone, but Kna- benbauer writes, Actus Apostolorum, p. 308, ‘‘ Probabilissime is cum aliis id plane superfluum reputavit, quia Paulus post eam orationem neque memoriam neque loquelam amisit; unde ipse potuit narrare quid Athenis egerit”’.

INTRODUCTION 21

δέχομαι, ἐπικαλεῖσθαι and τὸ ὄνομα (Nésgen, Felten), while it contains several peculiar to St. Luke. But if the Evangelist was present at the delivery of the defence, he would have been able to reproduce the speech himself, or at least its substance, and we have an explanation of the fact just mentioned (see Salmon, Introd., pp. 317, 318; Page, Acts, p. xxxvi.; Alford, Proleg., pp. 13-15).

The vivid description, xxi. 30-40, and especially the local details, vv. 34, 35, point to the presence of an eye-witness, who was in possession of information which he could use with accuracy, and at the same time with discrimination, limiting himself to the re- quisites of his narrative (Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, p. 174). It is difficult to understand why Blass should say that although Luke may have heard the speech, it is doubtful if he understood it. In his Pref. to his Evangelium secundum Lucam, pp. xxi.-xxiii., he not only adopts Nestle’s theory that an Aramaic document underlies the first part of Acts, i.-xii., but amongst the few Aramaisms from chap. xiii. onwards he notes especially, p. xxi., two from the chapter before us, xxii., viz., ver. 19, ἤμην φυλακίζων “ periphrasis illa aramaica imperfecti futurique, que fit per participium et verbum ἤμην (ἔσομαι), and ver. 14, φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, cf. i. 16, iii. 18, 21 for στόμα. We must also bear in mind the strictures of Dalman upon Blass in this connection: cf. Die Worte Fesu, p. 28, 1898.

In the apology before Felix, xxiv. 10-21, we have traces of St. Paul’s diction (see commentary, and cf. Nésgen, u. s., p. 54, Felten, w. s., p. 34), and although it would be rash to affirm that St. Luke was present at the delivery of this defence, yet, if he was with St. Paul during any of the time of the Apostle’s imprisonment at Czsarea, it is surely not difficult to suppose that he would have received from the prisoner’s own lips a summary of his ἀπολογία before Felix. The same remark might account for St. Luke’s information as to the longer ἀπολογία before Agrippa, chap. xxvi., and it is specially noteworthy that in this speech, which may easily have been repro- duced exactly as it was delivered, cf. Blass, Grammaitk, Ὁ. 5, and Proleg., p. 13, we have Greek phrases and words of a more cultured and literary style, such as would be more suited to the most distin- guished audience before which the Apostle had yet pleaded (see commentary). At the same time we may note that while the speech has many points of contact with St. Paul’s peculiar language and favourite words, there are other expressions which may be described as Lucan, to which we may appeal as justifying the belief that if St. Luke was present at the hearing, he reproduced the speech not immediately, but after an interval, when it had passed through his

22 INTRODUCTION

own mind, Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, pp. 259, 260. That the speeches in Acts bear the impress of St. Luke’s own style and revising hand is freely admitted by conservative critics (cf. Lightfoot, B.D.?, i., p. 36; Headlam, “ Acts,’”’ Hastings’ B.D., i., p. 34; Salmon, Introd., p. 317), and we may thus unhesitatingly account for the combination in them of peculiar Pauline expressions with those which may be classed as Lucan or Lucan-Pauline. These linguistic phenomena by no means destroy the substantial accuracy of the report; rather they are exactly what we should expect to find. It is admitted on all sides that by comparing the language of St. Paul’s speeches in Acts with the language of his Epistles a striking amount of similarity is evident. But if the writer of Acts was not acquainted with St. Paul’s Epistles, we cannot account for this similarity of diction on the ground of literary dependence. If, however, the writer of Acts was a constant and frequent companion of St. Paul the explanation is easy enough, and we can readily believe that whilst in his report or revision of a speech words of the disciple might sometimes be found side by side with those of the master, yet the influence of the latter would nevertheless make itself felt in the disciple’s thoughts and language (cf. Salmon, τ. s., p. 315 ff., and Felten, τ. s., p. 82). In many cases it is perfectly ob- vious that the account of the speeches in Acts is an abridged account —the longest of them would not take more than some five or six minutes in delivery—and therefore, as a matter of necessity, such an abridgment would bear upon it, in a sense, the impress of St. Luke’s own style. Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 191, in speaking of St. Paul’s address at Athens expresses the belief that it has come down to us “ fideliter etsi brevissime: ita sunt omnia et loco et audientibus accommodata,’’ and he adds a remark applicable to all the Apostle’s speeches: “Tum quilibet qui paullo recentiore zetate orationes Pauli conficturus esset, usurus erat Pauli epistolis; quarum in hac non magis quam in ceteris orationibus (c. 13, 20, 22, 24, 26) ullus usus comparet”’.

It cannot be said that the recent and frequent attempts to multiply and differentiate sources in Acts, to assign them to various revisers or redactors, have met with any degree of real success. If Holtzmann and Wendt (see also a description of these attempts in Theologische Rundschau, Feb., March, April, 1899) contend that they have done so, and that with regard to the first few chapters of Acts some consensus of opinion has been gained, we may set against such contentions not only the opinion of Zahn, Einleitung, ii., pp. 414, 424, who maintains that none of these repeated attempts

INTRODUCTION 23

has attained any measure of probability (so too Zéckler, A postel- geschichte, p. 154, 2nd edit., and Knabenbauer, Actus Apostolorum, p. 9 ff., 1899), but also the opinion of Wendt, who, after a careful and on the whole sympathetic review, is obliged to confess that one must limit oneself in any attempt to discover the sources of the book to what is attainable and provable in the circumstances, and that the more complicated the hypothesis suggested, the more difficult it is to make it intelligible to others, A postelgeschichte, p. 17, 1899. In his own examination of the problem he limits himself to one great source, p. 30, and plainly declares that it does not seem to be possible to discover others, although he enumerates various passages in which old and trustworthy traditions were combined ; but whether these were derived from written documents or from one and the same source he declines to say, and he is evidently inclined to admit that in many cases oral tradition may also have been at work. Thus whilst iv. 1-22, v. 17-42, are regarded as parallel pieces of information of what was in reality the same event, or whilst again the liberation of St. Peter in chap. xii. is a parallel to the release of the Apostle in chap. v. 18-20, the work of St. Philip and the death of St. James rest upon good and trustworthy tradition. The source to which Wendt attaches such importance includes the “We” sections, and the whole of the book from xiii. onwards, with the exception of xv. 1-33, the source continuing with ver. 35, whilst it can be traced further back to xi. 19, 27, and to viii. 1-4. But this large source is full of traces of revision and redaction, which mark not only the narratives but also the addresses. Its interest centred chiefly in the person of St. Paul and in his work, and it gave no history of the origines of the Church or of the missionary journeys of the other Apostles, although it introduced its account of St. Paul by tracing the foundation of the Church in Antioch from the mother Church in Jerusalem as a result of the death of St. Stephen and the subsequent persecution, and by showing how that same Church of Antioch became the starting-point for St. Paul’s missionary labours.

This view of the sources adopted by Wendt contrasts favourably with some of the extraordinary and complicated theories which from time to time have been advocated in Germany, more especially during the last few years.

As early as 1845 Schleiermacher’s published lectures referred the authorship of the “ We” sections not to Luke but to Timothy, and some two years before this E. M. Mayerhoff had suggested that the same hypothesis might be extended to all parts of Acts, not

24 INTRODUCTION

however without the opposition of Bleek and Ulrich, the former of whom supported Schleiermacher. But Schleiermacher’s view of the part played by Timothy had already met with the strong opposition of Schneckenburger, 1841, and Swanbeck, 1847, attacked it by means of his own more complicated and more hazardous attempt to solve the sources of Acts. According to Swanbeck, the book is made up of a biography of Peter, a source containing the death of Stephen, a biography of Barnabas, the memoirs of Silas including the “We” sections. But the theory gained no acceptance, and most critics will probably agree with Lekebusch (A postelgeschichte, p. 188) that Swanbeck in his attempt to avoid the misleading theory as to Timothy involved himself in a still greater error by his advocacy of Silas.

For the Tiibingen school the question of sources occupied a less important place than the question of “tendency,” and more weight was attached to the imaginative power of the author than to the possibility of his possession of any reliable tradition; and | consequently for a time the attempts to discriminate and estimate various sources sank into abeyance. It was, however, supposed by some critics that in the first part of Acts either a pentateuch source or an Hellenistic history of Stephen had been worked up (Zeller, Overbeck), or that some old πράξεις Παύλου formed a foundation for the narrative. Hilgenfeld (see also below) maintained the probable existence of this latter document, and Holsten thought that he could discover traces of a Judaistic source in the speeches of the first part of the book. B. Weiss, as long ago as 1854, had referred the speeches of St. Peter to a written source, but the speeches were closely connected with the historical episodes, and so in his Eimnlei- tung, 2nd and 3rd editions, Weiss has attempted to trace throughout the whole first part of the book, z.¢., from i. 15-xv., a Jewish-Christian source, whilst Feine, 1891, has maintained that the Jewish-Christian source already employed in the third Gospel was also the source of the history of the Jerusalem Church in Acts i,-xii., and he gives, ἡ. s., p. 236 ff., many verbal likenesses between this source in St. Luke’s Gospel and in the earlier portion of Acts. Feine’s handling of the whole question is much more conservative than that of the other attempts to which allusion will be made, especially as he regards St. Luke as the author of the third Gospel and the Acts, and claims a high historical value for the episodes and speeches in the source.

But the interest in the hypothesis of a source or sources chiefly centres around the second rather than the first part of Acts. For here the ‘“ We” sections are concerned, and when the view was

INTRODUCTION 25

once started that these sections, although not the work of St. Luke, were the work of an eye-witness (since their vividness and circum- stantiality could not otherwise be accounted for), and so derived from a source, the whole question of the authorship of this source was revived, and the claims of Timothy, Silas, Titus, again found advocates ; and not only so, but the further question was debated as to how far this source extended. Was it limited to the “We” sections only? But the view which prevailed (and which still pre- vails, cf., ¢.g., Holtzmann, Einleitung 8, p. 393, and see above) makes Luke the author of the “We” sections, although not of the whole book, which was referred to the close of the first, and even to the second century. This latter date (amongst the supporters of which may be included H. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Jiilicher (100-105), Weizsacker, to say nothing of earlier critics, or of those mentioned below) finds no support in the general character of the book, and it depends upon other very precarious arguments, ¢.g., the dependency of the author upon Josephus. But if it cannot be substantiated, it is in itself fatal to the partition theories put forward by Van Manen (125-150), Clemen (60-140), and Jiingst (110-125).

With Van Manen we mark one of the earliest of the many complicated attempts, to which reference has been already made, in proof of the use of sources throughout the whole of Acts. According to him, Acta Petri and Acta Pauli form the two sources, of which the final redactor, writing about the middle of the second century, availed himself. In the Acta Pauli, H. Pa., which fill the second half of the canonical book of Acts, with the exception of xv. 1-33 and some other passages due to the reviser (although some of the incidents of these Acta which refer to Barnabas, Stephen, Paul, find a place in the first half of the book), a Gentile Christian, the first redactor, writing at the end of the first, or beginning of the second century, has embodied the Lucan Travel- Document, probably written by Luke himself, consisting of the ““We” sections and the bare recital of one of Paul’s voyages from Jerusalem to Rome. This document is, however, much revised, and according to it the Apostle travels to Rome not as a prisoner, but as a free man. The final redactor, moreover, seems to have forgotten that such a docu- ment had ever existed, and to have depended upon the Epistles of St. Paul and the notices of Josephus. The second source, Acta Petri, H. Pe., chaps. i.-xii., is of very small historical value; it was composed later than the Acta Pauli, and aimed at placing Peter on a level with Paul. It is not perhaps to be wondered at that Van Manen himself seems to hesitate about the exact details of his

26 INTRODUCTION

partitions, that even Heitmiiller cannot give anything but modified commendation to his theory, Theol. Rundschau, p. 87, 1899, and that a still severer condemnation is inflicted by Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 114, cf. Knabenbauer, p. 11.

In the same year, 1890, Sorof published his Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte. He too has his two written sources. Of the first the physician Luke was the author; this source runs through the book, and has for its purpose to represent the missionary spread of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome, making prominent the figure of Paul. But this source was revised by another disciple of Paul, Timothy, who as the son of a Jewish mother stood nearer than Luke to Jewish-Christian interests. Timothy, to magnify Peter, introduced much legendary matter relating to him in the first portion of St. Luke’s account, and also revised and corrected the record of St. Paul's missionary activity on the strength of his authorship of the “We” sections and his own eye-witness. (It is no wonder that Heitmiiller, uv. s., p. 85, again welcomes this theory with qualified praise, and considers the division of the parts of the book assigned to Luke and Timothy as improbable, if not impossible.) Another attempt in the succeeding year by Spitta gained much more notice than that of Sorof. He also has his two sources—A, an older source including the ‘‘ We”’ sections, probably the work of Paul’s companion, Luke: a very valuable and erudite source con- taining the speeches of the book (see references in commentary) ; and B, a secondary source, unhistorical, depending on popular traditions, with a great tendency to introduce miraculous embellish- ments. B is the work of a Jewish Christian who writes with a desire to magnify Peter by miracles which equal those of the great Gentile Apostle. Spitta has further to suppose that these two sources, the one Pauline-Lucan and the other Jewish-Christian, were combined by a Catholic-Christian redactor R, with some additions of his own. Here again Heitmiiller, p. 91, sees no hope of a satisfactory solution of the problem under investigation, and can only wonder at the manner in which two sources of a directly opposite tendency can be so simply interwoven by the redactor; the part played by the latter is altogether unsatisfactory, as he does little else than effect this combination of the two sources, with an occasional interpolation of his own. Spitta’s attempt was also sharply criticised by Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 270, and by Von Soden, Theolo- gische Literaturzeitung, 26, 1892, and its value will be seen by references in the commentary.

The most complicated of all these recent attempts at the

Ὶ

INTRODUCTION 27

reconstruction of Acts is that of Dr. C. Clemen. His three chief sources (with which he closely connects other shorter sources, ¢.g., a source for vi. 1-6) are named (1) Historia Hellenistarum, H.H., vi. 9, 10, vii. 1-36, 35-58%, 59>, viii. 1>, xi. 19-21, 248, 26: this source Clemen regards as very.old and trustworthy; (2) Historia Petri, H.Pe., consisting chiefly of i-v., and of some passages in- serted in H.H., viz., vi. 7, 8, 11-15, vii. 37, 60, viii. 2, viii, 4-13, 18-24, the account of Simon Magus; viii. 26-40, the conversion of the Ethiopian; (3) Historia Pauli, H.Pa., xiii. 1-xxviii. 30, 31, a source which may have originated in a diary kept by Luke on a journey to Rome called (4) Itinerarium Pauli, I.Pa., containing the “We” sections, and combined with (3) by the first of the three redactors. The first redactor is simply R., and to him are attributed other additions besides the “We” sections to the Historia Pauli, although no ‘‘tendency”’ can be assigned to him, cf, ¢.g., xiv. 8-18, xvi. 235-34, xvii. 19-33, the Athenian discourse, etc. The two other redactors are much more pronounced: one, Redactor Judaicus, R.J., writing 93-117 a.p., compiled and revised the above sources, making many additions, ¢.g., the miracles at Lydda and Joppa, ix. 23-43, and for the most part the Cornelius history, x. 1-xi. 18; xvi. 1-3, xxi. 20-26, etc.; and finally, the third redactor, Redactor Antijudaicus, R.A., writing probably in the time of Hadrian, with the object of counterbalancing the wrong tendencies of his pre- decessor; to him we owe, before all, ix. 1-31, Paul’s conversion, xii. 1-25, xv. 5-12, 19, 23-33, 41, and additions to the speech at Miletus, xx. 19>, 25-35, 388. Other instances will be found in the commentary of the manner in which the additions of “these two antipodes,” R.J. and R.A., are given precisely by Clemen, even to parts of verses, and it is no unfriendly critic (Heitmiiller, π᾿. s., p. 128) who points out that of the five journeys of Paul to Jeru- salem mentioned in Acts no less than four are referred by Clemen to his redactors, which is fatal to the historical character of these visits: ix. 26, R.A. ; xi. 30, R.A.; xv. 1-33, R.J. and R.A.; and xviii. 22>, R.; the last journey, xxi., is found in the source H.Pa., and this according to Clemen is a journey identical with Gal. ii. 1. There is indeed no occasion to look to a conservative critic like Zéckler for a sharp criticism of the ingenious but purely subjective theory of Ciemen; the latter’s immediate successor in the same attempt to split up Acts into its component parts not only describes Clemen’s theory as over-ingenious, but speaks of the somewhat mechanical way in which his Redactor Judaicus brings Paul into the synagogue, only to allow the Apostle to be at once expelled therefrom by the

28 INTRODUCTION

Redactor Antijudaicus, Jiingst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 9. Whether we view it from its critical or from its chronological standpoint, Clemen’s theory has not gained favour in England; for the former, see Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 11, and for the latter, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxxviii. But further, it cannot be said that Jiingst’s own theory is likely to find wider acceptance than that of his predecessor. To say nothing of the difficulties of the date which he proposes, and his advocacy of St. Luke’s dependence on Josephus, in which he is at one with Clemen (see further below), we find ourselves, as in dealing with Spitta’s theory, face to face with two sources, Aand B. The Paulinist of the second half of Acts is A, and the simplest and most natural view, according to Jiingst himself, is to identify this A with the beloved physician Luke, Col. iv. 14, Philem. ver. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11, who was with Paul during his imprisonment at Czsarea and Rome; B represents the Petrine- Jewish Christian mainly of the first half, but whose hand may be seen in xiii. 40 f., xv. ver. 13 ἀπεκρίθη to ver. 19 κρίνω, and in ver. 20 ἐπιστεῖλαι to αἵματος, whose name and date remain unknown, and whose narrative is full of miraculous events and legendary stories. Jiingst’s redactor has an important part to play, and whilst on the one hand he advocates the abrogation of the Mosaic law (Jiingst does not hesitate to attribute to him ver. 39, xiii.), on the other hand he allows Paul to circumcise Timothy, xvi. 2, to undertake a Nazarite vow, xxi. 20-26, and to acknowledge himself a Pharisee, xxiii. 6. The redactor’s aim was to represent Christianity as a religio licita, and he thus endeavours to bring it by a conciliatory process into close connection with the Jewish religion. It would be difficult to find in the range of criticism anything more purely arbitrary than Jiingst’s arrangement of his sections chronologically, see Table, p. 225, at the end of his book (and notes in commentary), and the instances given above are sufficient to show how he does not hesitate to split up a verse amongst his various sources: we cannot be surprised that Clemen retorted upon him the charge of over- ingeniousness with which Jiingst had greeted Clemen’s own subtle endeavours.

In the same year as Jiingst’s publication, the veteran Hilgenfeld explained his own views of the sources of Acts, Zeitschrift fir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895, 1896, following partly the lines upon which he had previously worked twenty years before in his Einleitung, but also taking into account either adversely or with different degrees of agreement, the theories since propounded. According to him the sources are three in number: (1) πράξεις Πέτρου,

INTRODUCTION 29

A, a Jewish-Christian source, i. 15-v. 42, describing the origin and development of the mother-Church; from it were also derived ix. 31-42, xi. 2, Cod. D, a passage relating a missionary circuit, xii. 1-23; (2) πράξεις τῶν ἑπτά, a Jewish-Christian document hellenised, commencing with vi. 1, and continuing to viii. 40, including the choice of the Seven, and describing what was known of two of them, St. Stephen and St. Philip; (3) πράξεις Παύλου: this C source commences with (vii. 58>, viii. 15, 3) ix., and includes nearly the whole of that chapter, xi. 27-29, and the greater portion of xiii.- Xxvili., with the “We” sections. But it will be noticed that, according to Hilgenfeld, we owe this source C probably to one of the early Christians of Antioch (xi. 28 D), and that it affords us a trust- worthy account, and partly that of an eye-witness, of the missionary work of St. Paul begun at Antioch and spread over the heathen world. Each of the three sources is revised and added to by the “author to Theophilus,” who as a unionist-Pauline makes it his chief aim to represent the origin of the Gentile Church as essentially dependent upon the mother-Church of Jerusalem, and Paul as in full agreement with the primitive Apostles, and as acting after the precedent of St. Peter; thus to C is referred the whole episode of Cornelius and the account of the Church in Antioch, x. 1-xi. 18 (except xi. 2 B text), xi. 19-26, 30, xii. 24, 25. Hilgenfeld is not only often greatly dependent upon the Western text (see below and in commentary), but it will be seen that the reference of large sections to his “author to Theophilus” is often quite arbitrary (cf. notes in comment.).

One more well-known name follows that of Hilgenfeld—the name of J. Weiss. In 1893, Studien und Krituken, Weiss had already to some extent given in his adhesion to Spitta’s theory, and had treated Clemen’s redactors R.J. and R.A., one of whom always follows the other to undo the effects of his working, with little ceremony; but in opposition to Spitta he sees in i.-v. only source B, a strong Jewish-Christian document, and in this respect he ap- proaches more nearly to B. Weiss and Feine, although he does not attach equal weight to the historical value of the document in question. Unlike Spitta, he refers the speech of Stephen (upon the unity of which Spitta so strongly insists) not to A, but to B. In 1897 J. Weiss admits only A as the source for the second half of Acts, except in some passages in which he cannot refrain from introducing a redactor, Uber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der A. G., 1897, p. 38. The view taken by J. Weiss certainly has the merit of appearing less complicated than that of Jiingst and Clemen.

30 INTRODUCTION

Heitmiiller, u. s., pp. 94, 139, highly commends the service rendered by J. Weiss in insisting upon the fact that, even if it is derived from sources, the book of Acts forms a whole, written with a definite purpose and aim, and it is no doubt true that the more we recognise this, the more readily shall we recognise parts or sources which are inconsistent with a unity of aim, whether we derive them from oral or written traditions. But what kind of man must the final reviser have been in that he was entirely unaware of the discrepancies and difficulties which the sharp eyes of modern critics have discovered, and allowed them to remain instead of dismissing or explaining them with a few strokes of his pen? Or if he was so skilful as to be able to combine together sources often so unlike, how is it that he was notwithstanding so unskilful as to leave such patent and glaring discrepancies? And if the final revision took place in the second century, how is it that we have no colouring, not even in the speeches, of second-century ideas? (See especially Ramsay, St, Paul, p. 10.) In other respects it will be noticed that these theories, far from possessing even the recommendation of novelty, are nothing but a rehabilitation of the exploded ‘‘ tendency” theories of Baur and Zeller, or of the discredited “ parallelism’ between Peter and Paul (see above); in numberless cases one critic flatly contradicts another in the details of his confident partition of sources into verses, or even portions of verses. At the same time hardly any of the writers in question seem able to separate themselves entirely from the traditional view that Luke, the companion of Paul, was more or less concerned in the composition of the book, which, as we believe, is so justly ascribed to him,

Before we pass from this question of sources, a few words must be said as to the alleged dependence of St. Luke upon Josephus. A century and a half ago points of contact between the two historians were collected by Ott and Krebs (see Wendt, τ. s., p. 36, and Krenkel, Fosephus und Lucas, p. 1). But only in comparatively recent times has the question been seriously discussed as to whether the author of the third Gospel and of Acts was dependent in a literary sense upon Josephus. At the outset it is well to bearin mind that both men were historians, writing at the same period, and often of necessity referring to the same events. A certain amount, therefore, of parallel description and even of similarity of diction might fairly be expected! But that the author of Acts often showed a know-

1 Amongst recent critics who have rejected the idea of St. Luke’s dependence on Josephus may be mentioned Reuss, Schiirer, Gloél, Harnack, Belser, Bousset, and in England, Salmon, Sanday, Plummer (in his review of the latter’s St. Luke Weiss, however, now i nclines to the opposite view).

INTRODUCTION 31

ledge of independent tradition is admitted even by those who main- tain the dependence in question; see, e.g., Krenkel, uw. s., p. 207, Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe, p. 68 (see further in commentary, v. 36, xii. 19, xxi. 38, and Zahn’s instances of this independent knowledge of events and persons, Eznleitung, ii., p. 416).

But more extraordinary than the variations of certainty and uncertainty in these critics is the position taken up by Wendt in his latest edition (1899) of Meyer’s Commentary. In his former edition (1888) he maintained that the points of contact between Josephus and Luke were too general in their character to justify the notion of literary dependence, and that the author of Acts would naturally possess independent knowledge of contemporary events and person- alities, and he still admits this general similarity and the want of proof in many of the dependencies alleged by Krenkel in his lengthy examination of the question: e¢.g., the fact that both writers speak of Porcius Festus as the διάδοχος of Felix is no proof of literary dependence (Acts xxiv. 27, Jos., Ant., xx., 8, 9). But Wendt fastens on the one passage, v. 36, cf. Jos., Ant., xx., 5, 1, as proving a real dependence (see notes in commentary), and argues that if this is so, the same dependence may be naturally expected in other places. Thus, in what appears to be quite an arbitrary manner, he asserts that some notices in Acts are dependent upon Josephus, whilst some may be taken by the author of the book out of his own chief source, ¢.g., the account of the Egyptian, xxi. 38, and of the high priest Ananias, xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1, etc. But having said all this, Wendt proceeds to point out that we must not measure too highly the influence of Josephus on Acts; even the passage v. 36, in which that influence is most marked, proves to us at the same time the nature of the influence in question: it did not consist in an exact familiarity with the words of Josephus, and in a careful employment of his material, but in a superficial reminiscence of an earlier reading of the Jewish historian ; thus the deviations side by side with the likenesses are explained. But the most conservative critic might allow as much as this.

Wendt further admits that this dependence cannot extend to the later works of Josephus, c. Apion. and his Vita. This last work, which must have been written after the year 100 a.p. (see ‘‘ Josephus ” (Edersheim), Dict. of Chr. Biog., iii., Ὁ. 448), contains the expression, ο. 29, θανεῖν μὲν, εἰ δίκαιόν ἐστιν, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι, and Krenkel maintains that there is a clear trace of dependence upon this in the words used in Acts xxiv. 11 (pp. 255, 256, so Holtzmann and Steck). But in the first place the supposed dependency is not admitted by Wendt,

32 INTRODUCTION

and not only may parallels be found to a similar use of the verb παραιτοῦμαι in other Greek writers (Wetstein), but it is also notice- able that in the same speech of St. Paul Krenkel discovers, xxv. ver. 9, what he calls ‘‘the most striking reference” to the language of Josephus in the phrase χάριτα, χάριν κατατίθεσθαί τινι (cf. also xxiv. 27, Jos., B.F., vi, 3, and commentary, in loco). But the phrase is distinctly classical, cf. Thuc., i., 33, 138, and if Josephus was acquainted with Thucydides (see Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 56) why not St. Luke? (Cf. Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift, p. 653, 1895.)

But what can we think of these supposed dependencies upon a book of Josephus written in the early years of the second century, when we read further that St. Paul’s account of his dream, xxiii. 11, is modelled upon the dream in Josephus, Vita, 42? In the former passage we read σε δεῖ καὶ εἰς Ῥώμην μαρτυρῆσαι, and in the latter ὅτι καὶ Ρωμαίοις Set σε πολεμῆσαι, in each case the dream takes place in the night, and in each case some one stood over the dreamer (ἐπιστάς) (see Bousset’s review of Krenkel, Theol. Literaturzeitung, p. 392, 1895, No. 15). The alleged similarity between the introduction to the third Gospel and the Acts, and the introduction to the Ant. of Josephus and to his book, c. Apionem, is of the slightest when compared with the likeness between the language of St. Luke in his preface to his Gospel and the introduction of Dioscorides of Anazarbus to his Materia Medica, cf. Bousset, μ. s., Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, p. 17, and J. Weiss, Meyer’s Commentary, Evangelium des Lukas, p. 286; indeed much more might be said for an imitation by St. Luke in his preface of the introduction to the history of Thucy- dides (cf. Belser, u. s., pp. 642, 658, 659, etc.). It would have been very advantageous if Krenkel in his long list of words common to Josephus and Luke, p. 304 ff., had not only given us references in classical writers to the use of the words which he adduces (e.g., the phrase πυρετῷ συνέχεσθαι, Luke iv. 38, Ant., xiii, 15, 5, finds frequent parallels in Plato and Thucydides), but also to the authors whose books form the Apocrypha, and especially to 1 Macc. and 2 Macc. It is also noteworthy that no mention whatever is made of Polybius (Zahn, u. s., p. 414). The whole list requires revision, and it is preposterous to class amongst literary dependencies technical terms like ἀνθύπατος, κολωνία, νεωκόρος, ναύκληρος, σικάριος, στρατοπεὃ- άρχης, τετραρχέω, or ordinary words which since Homer had been common to all Greek literature, ¢.g., ἐκεῖσε, μόγις, πλοῦς, παροίχομαι, παραπλέω. So far as language is concerned, what is more improbable,

INTRODUCTION 33

as Zahn points out, than that the man who wrote Luke i. 1-4 should go to school and learn from Josephus? (Cf. C. Apion., i., 9; Ant., xx., 12.) But again what can we expect from an author who can find a parallel between Luke ii. 42 and Jos., Vita, 2? (See Gloél, Die jungste Kritik des Galaterbriefes, p. 65.) The ‘‘We”’ sections equally with the other parts of the book contain many points of contact with Josephus, and Krenkel is somewhat puzzled to explain this, p. 281; but when we consider that Josephus has given us a long description of his own voyage to Rome, and of his shipwreck on the way, Vita, 3, it was only to be expected that similar nautical terms would be found in the two narratives, and some similarity of description, and the two accounts help to show us how easily and naturally two writers narrating the same experiences would express themselves in the same style and language.

But this question of the author’s relation to Josephus is also important in its bearing upon the date of Acts.

The Antiquities of Josephus are placed at 93, 94 a.p., and if it could be proved that traces of dependence on the Jewish historian may be found in the third Gospel, those who maintain that a considerable period of time elapsed between the writing of that book and of Acts would be obliged to place the latter work some few years later still. But here again we may see the uncertainty which prevails when conclusions are built upon such data. Wendt (p. 40) can find no sure traces of any acquaintance with Josephus in the third Gospel, and so he inclines to date Acts in the interval between 95 and 100 a.p. (although he admits the possibility of a later date still). But 95, 96 a.p. would place the book under Domitian, and the question arises as to whether it can be said with any certainty that Acts was composed at a time when the Christians had gone through such a period of persecution as marked the close of that emperor’s reign. Harnack decides without hesitation in the negative, Chron., i., pp. 248-250, and whilst he gives 93 as the. terminus ad quem, it is satisfactory to find that he holds that the book may have been composed between 80 and 93 a.p. The limit which he thus fixes Harnack regards as in approximate agreement with his other argument (see above) against the later date of Acts, viz., its non-use of St. Paul’s Epistles, a fact which alone would prevent us from dating the book in the second century (p. 249). So far as date is concerned, Ramsay would seem to occupy to some extent the same position, at least approximately, for he maintains that the book could not possibly have been written as late as the reign of Trajan, when

the Church had long suffered persecution from the State, or even by VOL, II.

34 INTRODUCTION

a writer who had passed through the reign of Domitian, St. Paul, p. 387, and he dates its publication in the year immediately following 81 a.p., 7.¢., in the early years of Domitian. But whilst Harnack’s language might be employed by one who even dated the book before the persecution of Nero, Ramsay maintains that there runs through the entire work a purpose which could hardly have been conceived before the State had begun to persecute on political grounds (p. 388). But when did this kind of persecution begin? The evidence for the origin of a definite State policy against the Christians points pre- sumably to Nero, and not to Vespasian, cf. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, p. 80 (1890), Mommsen’s letter, Expositor, July, 1893, Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, p. 3, Pullan, Early Chris- tianity, p. 106 ff., 1898. Professor Ramsay speaks of the Plavian policy as declaring Christianity illegal and proscribing the Name, but the first of the three Flavian emperors was Vespasian, and there is no positive evidence to refer the adoption of a definite State policy against the new religion to him (cf. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 256).

But if, from this point of view, there is nothing in the book itself to militate against an earlier date even than that mentioned by Ramsay and Harnack, are we justified in placing it, with Blass, before the fall of Jerusalem? Blass indeed would place it as early as 57-59 a.p., following St. Jerome, and the Gospel in 56, Evangelium secundum Lucam, Ὁ. \xxix., Philology of the Gospels, p. 33 ff. But however this may be, Blass has done invaluable service by pointing out that there is nothing in St. Luke’s words, Luke xxi. 20 ff., which can give colour to the theory which regards them as a mere vati- cinium post eventum, by showing: that Daniel ix. 36 ff. already con- tained much which Luke is alleged to have added from his own knowledge of events already fulfilled, and by adding from modern history at least one remarkable prophecy and its fulfilment. Savona » rola foretold as early as 1496 the capture of Rome, which happened in 1527, and he did this not merely in general terms but in detail ; his words were realised to the letter when the sacred Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul became, as the prophet had foretold, stables for the conquerors’ horses. The difficulties of foreseeing this capture of the Holy City at all by an army which would not have refrained from such an act of sacrilege are vividly reso ol by Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 42 ff.1

1Cf. Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. vili., where he adds: ‘“‘ Major utique Christus propheta quam Savonarola; hujus autem vaticinium longe difficilius fuit’ quam illius; nam hostis Romanus previderi poterat, exercitus Lutheranus non poterat’’. |

INTRODUCTION 35

But if on other grounds, ¢.g., on account of the prologue to St. Luke’s Gospel (Harnack, u.s., p. 248, Sanday, B.L., p. 278, Page, Acts, p. xviii.), we are asked to place that book after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is further maintained by Harnack that some consider- able interval must have elapsed after that event before Acts was written ; for if it had been composed immediately after the destruc- tion, the writer would have mentioned it as useful for his aim; and so the book must have been composed at a time, c. 80, when the overthrow of the Holy City no longer stood, as it were, in the fore- ground of events. But it may be doubted if this is a very convincing argument, for the Epistle of Barnabas, written, as Harnack holds, between the wide limits of 80 and 132 a.p., does refer to the destruction, and for the writer of this Epistle equally as for the writer of Acts the event would have been a fait accompli, It is doubtful whether, in fact, anything can be gained as to the fixture of date from this omission of any reference to the fate of the Holy City; if anything, the omission would point to the years before the destruction for the composition of the book, as Harnack himself allows, if we were not obliged, according to the same writer, by the date of the Gospel to place Acts also after the overthrow. Both in England and in Germany representative writers can be named in support of the earlier and of the later date, Dr. Salmon maintaining that Acts was written a little more than two years after St. Luke’s arrival in Rome (cf. also Rackham, $¥ournal of Theol. Studies, i., p. 77), whilst Dr. Sanday would apparently place Acts about 80 a.p., and the Gospel 75-80, B. L., p. 279, so too Dr. Plummer, St. Luke, p. xxxi., both being influenced to a great extent by the presumption that the Gospel followed the fall of Jerusalem. In this the English critics are in interesting agreement with Zahn in his recent volume, Einleitung, ii., pp. 433, 434, so far as date is concerned, in that he too regards 80 a.p. as the terminus ad quem for both Gospel and Acts, assigning them probably to 75 a.p., but unable to find a place for them before the fall of Jerusalem.}

1 Sir J. Hawkins in his valuable Hore Synoftica, p. 143, has recently drawn attention to the difference of vocabulary between the third Gospel and Acts, and whilst: maintaining that it is quite insufficient tod destroy the argument for the identity of authorship, he thinks that it points to a considerable lapse of time between the two works. But we are dealing with a versatile author acquainted apparently with many writers, Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lucas nach Sprache und Stil, pp. 15, 17, 38, and the differences in question cannot have weighed with Blass, inasmuch as he places the completion of Acts three years after the Gospel, and still less with Zahn, who still maintains that the two books were published

46 INTRODUCTION

It would appear then that the date of Acts must be determined to a great extent by the date assigned to the third Gospel; and this apparently was the view of Bishop Lightfoot (cf. Plummer, St. Luke, p. xxix., and Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 163, 2nd edit.), inasmuch as he leaves the question of the date of Acts undetermined, and refers for its solution to the date assigned to St. Luke’s Gospel; although it should be noted that he does not attach any weight to the argument which finds in Luke xxi. 20-24 a proof that the Gospel was written after Jerusalem had fallen (cf. also Headlam, ‘ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., p. 30, and Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, p. 40, for various dates).

As in the case of the Gospel, so in that of the Acts, it is impossible to say at what place it was written. The traditional view since the days of St. Jerome, De Vir. Illust., 7, has favoured Rome (although elsewhere Jerome refers the writing of the Gospel to parts of Achaia and Beeotia, Pref. to Comm. in Maitt.), cf. Schneckenburger, Lekebusch, Godet, Felten, Blass, amongst others (Wendt, 1899, although rejecting the traditional account of St. Jerome, adds that he knows.of no decisive grounds against Rome, p. 40). Lekebusch, A postelgeschichte, pp. 393, 429, in supporting the claims of Rome argues for the probability that St. Luke, like many medical men at the time, would be likely to find in Rome a good field for his pro fessional work. Achaia, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Alexandria have all been mentioned, and Lightfoot also mentions Philippi. Pfleiderer has supported Ephesus on the ground that the writer manifests a special interest in that city, whilst Zéckler thinks that something may be said for Antioch in Syria, owing to St. Luke’s traditional connection with the place, Eus., H. E., iii, 4; Jerome, De Vir. Iilust., 7, cf. Acts xi. 28, D., if there was the slightest ground for supposing that Luke at the period when the book was written had any residence in the Syrian town. On the whole it seems best with Nosgen, Apostelgeschichte, p. 42; Lightfoot, u. s., p. 40; Zahn, Ein- leitung, ii., pp. 337, 439, to leave the locality undetermined; see especially the latter as to the bearing on the question of the mention of insignificant places such as Tres Tabernz, Appii Forum, in the

in the same year, 75. It is remarkable no doubt that re is used so often in Acts in all parts of the book: nevertheless it occurs also in the third Gospel nine or ten times, but in St. Mark not at all, and in St. Matthew and St. John only three times in each; μὲν οὖν, although no doubt frequent in Acts, does not occur at all in St. Matthew and St. Mark, although it is found once in St. Luke, iii. 18 (twice in St. John); and καὶ αὐτός, although occurring very frequently in the third Gospel, is not dropped in Acts, although proportionately it is rarely found (eight times).

INTRODUCTION 37

neighbourhood of Rome, and on the evident ignorance of Theophilus as to the localities of Palestine, and apparently also in some respects, and in comparison with the author, of Macedonia and Greece (cf. xvi. 12; xvii. 19, 21).

If we turn to external testimony in favour of the book we find it full and satisfactory (cf. Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edit., p. 160, Headlam, “Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., i., p. 26, and Gore on the points of contact between the earlier chapters and the Didache ; see Church and the Ministry, p. 416). To Wendt in his latest edition, p. 41 (1899), we again owe much that is of value, both in what he allows, and in what he declines to recognise. One very important point calls for determination at the outset. The likeness between the language of Acts xiii. 22 and Clem. Rom., Cor., xviii., 1, in relation to Ps. Ixxxviii. 20 (LXX) cannot, as both Clemen and Wendt admit, be accidental. Indeed Wendt is of opinion that it is no more probable that Clement depends upon Acts than Acts upon Clement, while at the same time he holds that a third alternative is possible, viz., that both writings may be dependent on some common thirdsource. But there is no evidence forthcoming as to the existence of this common source, and Lightfoot rightly presses the signiti- cance of the threefold coincidence between the language of Acts and Clement, which cannot easily be explained away (u. s., p. 120). In Acts we have three features introduced which are not found in the original of the Psalm, vzz., the mention of the ‘‘ witness,”’ and the addition (a) of “ἃ man after my heart,” cf. 1 Sam. xiii. 14, and (δ) of “the son of Jesse,” but all these are also found in the passage in St. Clement. So again Wendt with many other critics would ex- plain the words ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες, Clem. Rom., Cor., ii, 1, cf. Acts xx. 35, not by dependence upon Acts, but by a common tradition of the words of the Lord. But Wendt admits, although very guardedly, the use of Acts in Polycarp, Phil., i., 2, cf. Acts ii. 34, Ignat., Ad Smyrn., 3, Acts x. 41, and he does not deny the connection between Ignat., Ad Magn., 5, and Acts i. 25, whilst he admits that in Justin Martyr the references become more clear and frequent (see, for a full and good estimate of the references to Ignatius and Polycarp, Headlam, ‘ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., i., p. 26).

But it is most important to observe that Wendt fully recognises the influence of the Canonical Acts upon the Apocryphal Acts of the second century, although he points out that of this literature we only possess a small portion, and he expects great things from the recently discovered fragments of the Acta Pauli of the middle of

38 INTRODUCTION

the second century; cf. Acta Pauli et Thecle (apparently a part of the Acta Pauli), which are frequently dependent upon our Acts for their notices of persons and places, and also Acta Petri dependent again upon our Acts, as in the notice of the meeting of Peter and Simon Magus, cf. Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, p, 159, and Harnack, Chron., i., pp. 498 and 554 (although Harnack places the Acta Petri as late as the middle of the third century, whilst Zahn takes 170 as the terminus ad quem). From other writings and documents of the second century the testimony to our book is clear, cf. Epist. ad Diognetum, 3, cf. Acts xvii. 24; the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, cf. Acts vii. 59 ff. (Euseb., H.E., v., 2; Didache, iv. 8, Acts iv. 32), and two other references to St. Paul’s address at Athens, in Tatian, Orat. ad Grec., 4, and Athenagoras, Legat., 13 (Wendt) (cf. possibly Dionysius of Corinth, Euseb., H.£., iv., 23); so too in Justin Martyr, references to the book are found in A pol., i. and ii., and Dial. cum Tryph., οὕ.» ¢.g., Acts i. 8, 9, ii. 2, Apol., i., 50; Acts xvii. 23, Apol., ii, 10; Acts xxvi. 22 f., Dial., 36 (Wendt, Zéckler, Headlam); and not only so, but it is definitely assigned to St. Luke and treated as Scripture in the Muratorian Fragment, /. 34; cf. Iren., Adv. Her.,, iii., 14, 15, Tertull., C. Marcion., v., 2; De F$ejun., 10; Clem. Alex., Strom., v., 12, Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that “all the evidence which testifies to the authorship of the third Gospel is available also for Acts, and conversely, and that the early testimony in favour of St. Luke as the author of the third Gospel is absolutely unbroken and undisputed for nearly eighteen centuries,’’ Lightfoot, u. s., p. 30; Plummer, St. Luke, pp. xiv., xvi.

Space forbids us to enter into the many vexed questions which surround the chronology of Acts, but an attempt is made to discuss some of them in the pages of the commentary. A glance at the various tables given us in Meyer-Wendt (1888), p. 31, or in Farrar’s St. Paul, ii., p. 624, is enough in itself to show us the number and complexity of the problems raised. But fresh interest has been aroused not only by Professor Ramsay, but by the recent return of Harnack and O. Holtzmann (cf. also McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 359; Blass, Proleg., p. 22) to the earlier chronology of Eusebius (although O. Holtzmann does not mention him, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 128, 132), formerly advocated by Bengel. Ac- cording to Eusebius the recall of Felix must be dated between October 55 and 56. Harnack places the entry of Festus upon office in the summer of 56, since Paul embarks for Rome some few months after the arrival of Festus in the autumn, Chron., i., p. 237. The

INTRODUCTION 39

Apostle would thus arrive in Rome in the spring of 57, and his release follows in 59. (O. Holtzmann from other data places the arrival of Festus in Palestine in the summer of 55, and both he and McGiffert place Paul’s arrival in Rome in 56, and his imprisonment 56-58.)

This chronology has been severely criticised by Wendt, Apostel- geschichte, p. 57 (1899), and it fails to commend itself to Ramsay, Expositor, March, 1897, as also more recently to Zahn, Eznleztung, ii., p. 626. It has been objected to it, inter alia, that its supporters, or at all events Harnack and O. Holtzmann, place the conversion of Paul so soon after the death of our Lord that it is doubtful whether sufficient time is allowed for the events recorded in Acts i.-vi. (cf. xxvi. 10), although Holtzmann, p. 133, sees no difficulty in placing the conversion in 29, the date of the death of Jesus, as the events in Acts i.-viii. in his view follow quickly upon one another. (Ramsay thinks that the interval before Stephen’s murder was short, but he allows two and a half or three years for the event after the great Pentecost ; see notes in commentary for the difficulties con- nected with the martyrdom.) Harnack places the date of the con- version in 30, 7.c., according to him, either in the year following, or in the year of, the death of Jesus. On the other hand the chronology in question allows some considerable time for Paul’s release from his first captivity (a release admitted by Harnack and Spitta, as earlier by Renan), and for his subsequent journeys east and west, if Mr. Turner, ‘‘ Chronology,” Hastings’ B.D.., i., 420, is right in placing the death of both Peter and Paul in 64-65 (Harnack placing the death of St. Paul in 64 and of St. Peter in 67, Eusebius, however (so Blass), from whom Harnack here departs, placing the former event in 67 (68)). The received chronology, making 60, 61, the date for the arrival of Festus in Judza, allows but little interval between the close of St. Paul’s first imprisonment and his death, if his martyrdom was in 64, The difficulty is met by Mr. Turner, u. s., p. 421, by assigning 58 (Ramsay 59) as the precise year for the accession of Festus to office, placing the close of the Acts, after the two years’ captivity in Rome, early in 61, and so allowing an interval of three years between St. Paul’s first and second imprisonment. Unfortunately it must be admitted that we cannot positively fix 58 as the year for the event in question, and this uncertainty sadly interferes with the adoption of any precise chronology for Acts, although on all sides the importance of the date of Festus’ arrival is recognised—‘“‘ the crucial date,” Mr. Turner calls it; all depends upon ascertaining it, says Harnack (cf. also Wendt, μ. s., p. 56;

40 INTRODUCTION

Page, Acts, xxxviii.; Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 689; Lightfoot, B.D.?, i, 42),

If we adopt Mr. Turner’s date for Pestus—a date intermediate between the earlier and later dates assigned above—and work back, we get 56 as the date for St. Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and im- prisonment in Cesarea, 55 for his leaving Ephesus, 52 for the commencement of his third missionary journey (for he stayed at Ephesus considerably over two years; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 310, says three), 50 for his reaching Corinth (late in the year), where he sojourned eighteen months, 49 for Council at Jerusalem and second missionary journey. But if we identify the Council at Jerusalem, Acts xv., with the second visit to Jerusalem according to Gal. ii. 1, but the third visit according to Acts, the question arises as to whether the notices in Gal. i. 18 and ii. 1 involve seventeen years as an jnterval between the Conversion and the Council (with Lightfoot, Harnack, Zahn), or whether the fourteen years, Gal. ii. 1, should be reckoned from the Conversion, t.¢., eleven years from the first visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem, including the three in the fourteen (with Ramsay, Turner, McGiffert).1

Against the former view Mr. Turner urges the objection that in this case the first visit to Jerusalem would be carried back to 35-36, whereas in all probability Aretas was not ethnarch of Damascus until 37 (2 Cor. xi. 32, Acts ix. 25, 26; see commentary), and he therefore includes the three years in the fourteen, and thus gets 35-36 for the conversion, and 38 (under Aretas) for the first visit. As Mr. Turner places the Crucifixion 29 a.p., his scheme is thus free from the objection referred to above as against Harnack and O. Holtzmann, since it allows some six or seven years for the events in the early chapters of Acts (see further on the whole question of chronology Mr. Turner’s full and valuable article already mentioned; Zahn, wu. s., ii.; Excursus, ii.; Professor Ram- say, ‘Pauline Chronology,” Expositor, March, 1897; Professor Bacon (Yale), “Criticism of the New Chron. of Paul,” Expositor, February, 1898; Wendt, uw. 5. (1899), p. 53 ff.; Biblical World, November, 1897; Mr. Vernon Bartlet’s article on ‘‘ Pauline Hist.

1 But Professor Ramsay, it must be remembered, identifies Gal. ii; with Acts xi. 30, xii. 25 (see notes in commentary), and an interval of fourteen years between St. Paul’s conversion and the famine would be more probable than an interval of seventeen, which would throw the conversion back too early, and Dr. McGiffert identifies the accounts of both visits in Acts xi. and xv.—the former for famine relief and the latter for the settlement of the controversy with the Judaisers—with the visit mentioned in Gal. ii; 1, Apostolic Age, p. 208.

INTRODUCTION 41

and Chron.,” Expositor, October, 1899, written too late for more than a brief mention here, as also Professor Bacon’s more recent contribution, Expositor, November, 1899).

But although there are so many points of contact between secular history and the Acts, it seems that we must still be content with what Harnack describes as a relative rather than an absolute Chronology. We cannot say, ¢.g., that we can fix precisely the date of the famine, or the edict of Claudius, or the proconsulship of ᾿ Gallio, or the reign of Aretas, to take the four events mentioned by Lightfoot, “ Acts,” B.D.?,i., p. 4, as also by Harnack, Chron., i., p. 236, cf. Zahn, u.s., ii.; Excursus ii. But in this respect no blame attaches to St. Luke as an historian. His object was to connect the history of the rise and progress of the Christian Faith with the course of general imperial history around him, and if his chronological sense seems deficient to modern judgment, it was a deficiency in which he was by no means peculiar, but which he shared with his contemporaries and his age, cf. Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 18, 23, and Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? pp. 204, 256.

STATE OF THE TEXT. It isnot too much to say that during the last fifteen years chief interest has centred around the Western text and its relative importance (cf. Blass, Studien und Kritiken, p. 86 ff., 1894 ; Acta Apostolorum, 1895, and Acta Apostolorum, 1896, also Evangelium secundum Lucam, 1897, both edited secundum formam que videtur Romanam ; see also Draseke, Zeitschrift fiir wissen- schaft. Theol., Ὁ. 192 ff., 1894)!

Codex D, its most important representative, contains an un- usually large number of variations from the received text in Acts (see for the number Zéckler, A postelgeschichte, 2nd edit., p. 165; he reckons, ¢.g., some 410 additions or interpolations), and it is no wonder that attempts should have been made to account for this diversity. Bornemann’s endeavour some half-century ago (1848) to represent D as the original text, and the omissions in the common text as due to the negligence or ignorance of copyists, found no acceptance, and whilst in one sense Blass may be said to have returned to the position of Bornemann, he has nevertheless found his predecessor’s solution totally inadequate, Philology of the Gospels, p. 105. Joannes Clericus, Jean Leclerc, the Dutch philologist (born 1657), had already suggested that St. Luke had made two

1 The main division of MSS. of Acts into three groups, with references to W. H. and Blass, is well given in Old Latin Biblical Texts, iv., pp. xvii., xviii. (H. J. White, Oxon., 1897).

42 INTRODUCTION

editions of Acts, and is said by Semler to have published his opinion, although under an assumed name (Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 348; see also on the same page Zahn’s interesting acknowledgment that he was himself in 1885-6 working on much the same lines as Blass). Meanwhile Tisch., W. H., B. Weiss have sought to establish the text of Acts essentially on the basis of SABC, and it was left for Blass to startle the world of textual criticism by boldly claiming a fresh originality for Codex D. But this originality was not exclusive ; St. Luke has given us two originals, first a rough copy B, R(omana), in Blass, and then a fair copy a, and A(ntiochena), for the use of Theophilus; the rough copy remained in Rome and became the foundation of the Western text, copies of it having reached Syria and Egypt in the second century, while the latter abridged by Luke reached Theophilus in Antioch (so Blass), and was thence propa- gated in the East.

But Codex D is by no means the sole witness, although a very weighty one, upon which Blass depends for his B text. He derives help from Codex E (Laudianus), from the minuscule 137 (M) in Milan, especially for the last chapters in which D is deficient, and in some passages also from Codex Ephraem, C; from the Philox- enian Syriac version with the marginal annotations of Thomas Harkel (unfortunately we have no Old Syriac text as for the Gospels), the Sahidic version, the Latin text in D, d, and E, e, the Fleury palimpsest (Samuel Berger, 1889), Flor. in Blass; the so- called ‘‘Gigas’’ Latin version in Stockholm (Belsheim, 1879), Gig. in Blass; the Codex Parisinus, 321 (S. Berger, 1895), Par. in Blass; a Latin version of the N.T., fifteenth century, in Wernigerode, Wernig., w., in Blass, and a Latin version of the thirteenth century, ‘in linguam provinciz Gallicze Romane facta,’’ Prov. in Blass.?

In addition to these MSS. and versions Blass also appeals to the

2On the difference between the circulation of the two copies in the case of the third Gospel see Philology of the Gospels, p. 103. In England Bishop Lightfoot had previously conjectured that the Evangelist might himself have issued two separate editions of both Gospel and Acts, On a Fresh Revision of the N.T., p. 29. For similar instances of the issue of a double edition in classical and other literature see Draseke, u. s., p. 194; Zockler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 132, and Blass, Proleg.,

. 32.

j ie To these may be added fragments of an old Latin translation of Acts in the Anonymi de prophetis et prophetiis containing six passages, notably Acts xi. 27, 28, in agreement with Codex D, cf. Miscellanea Cassinese, 1897, and Harnack, Theol, Literaturszeitung, p. 171, No. 6, 1898; the Greek Codex Athous, derived according to Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 250, from an old and very valuable original, and taken into some account by Hilgenfeld, Acta Apostolorum, p. ix. (1800), and ¢f

INTRODUCTION 43

text employed by Irenzeus, which contains many resemblances to D; to the text of St. Cyprian, which shows the same peculiarity; to the text of St. Augustine, especially in his treatises against the Mani- cheans, containing Acts i.-ii. 13, x. 13, 15, parts which are not found in the Fleury palimpsest: cf. also Tertullian, whose text, although it contains few quotations from Acts, resembles that of Irenzus (add to these the work De promissionibus et predicationibus Dei, referred, but wrongly, to Prosper, Prom. in Blass; and the Contra Varima- dum of Vigilius, Vigil. in Blass: works not valued so highly by Hilgenfeld in his list of authorities for the Western text, Acta Apostolorum, Ὁ. xiii., 1899). By these aids Blass constructs his B text, even for those portions where D is wanting, υἱξ., from viii. 29, πρόσελθε to x. 14, ἔφαγον ; from xxi. 2, ἐπιβάντες to ver. 10, ἀπὸ τῆς; xxii. 10, ὧν τέτακται to ver. 20, συνευδοκῶν, and from xxii. 29, ot μέλλοντες to the end of the book, and his aim is to restore the Western text as it existed about the time of Cyprian, cf. Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. xxxi. The merit of his work in showing how widespread and interesting was the Western form of text is acknowledged even by those who do not accept his conclusions, see, ¢.g., Wendt, Apostel- geschichte (1899), p. 46, and Bousset, Theol. Rundschau, p. 413, 1898, although both object that Blass does not rightly estimate his different witnesses. a

But Blass is able to refer in support of his use of some of the authorities mentioned to the important investigation of Dr. P. Corssen in his Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum, 26 pp., 1892. This Latin text carries us back at least to the middle of the third century (and earlier still according to Harris, Four Lectures, etc., p. 53 ff., who thinks that the text might be called Tertullianic equally as well as Cyprianic; but see on the other hand Blass, Acta A post., edit. m., p. xxxi.), as Corssen shows by comparing the readings of the Fleury palimpsest (sixth century) (1) with St. Cyprian’s quotations from Acts, (2) with similar quotations in the works of St. Augustine referred to above, De Actis cum Felice Manicheo and Contra epistolam Manichei, (3) with the quotations in the work mentioned above as that of Prosper (Harris, ν᾿. s., p. 53). Behind these various texts Corssen concludes that there was a common Latin primitive, 1.6., the Cyprian text, as he calls it. Moreover, this Cyprian text isa Western witness superior in value

Acts xv. 20, 29. Hilgenfeld also adds to the Latin versions, Codex Vindobonensis 5. (probably sixth century), ¢f. xxviii, 20, and see Old Latin Biblical Texts, iv. (H. J. White, Oxon., 1897).

44 INTRODUCTION

even to the Greek of Codex Bezz, since it has in Corssen’s opinion an internal unity and sequence wanting in the latter, although it agrees in many peculiarities with the Greek of that Codex (Harris, u. 5.. Ὁ. 53; Salmon, Introd., p. 594). Corssen thus helps materially to prove the antiquity of the Western Latin.

But Dr. Blass further acknowledges that Corssen has done most valuable service in proving the composite nature of Codex D, and that in it we have not β in its purity, but in a state of frequent mixture and conflation with a. Whilst, however, Blass regards the B text as the older, Corssen regards a in that light, and B as reveal- ing the character of a later revision (Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, pp. 433, 436, 446: 1896); in B he somewhat strangely maintains that we have the hand of a Montanist reviser at work (cf. Blass’s strictures, Evang. secundum Lucam, p. xxiv. ff.), a theory formerly adopted by Professor Harris, but afterwards abandoned by him.

But how far do the variations between the two forms of text justify the hypothesis of Blass that both may be referred to one author, B as the primary, α as the secondary text ἢ]

In the apparatus criticus of the following pages, in which the variations for the most part in the two texts are stated and examined, it cannot be claimed for a moment that any definite conclusion is reached, simply because the matter is one which may be said to call for suspension of judgment. Certainly there are many difficulties in the way of accepting the theory of Blass in its entirety. There are passages, ¢.g., of which it may be said that the more detailed form is the original, which was afterwards shortened, while it may be main- tained often with equal force that the shortened form may well have been the original; there are passages where a local knowledge or an exact knowledge of circumstances is shown, ¢.g., xii. 10, xix. 9, xx, 15, xxi. 1, but such passages do not prove the priority of the B text, for if both a and β are referred to the same author, the same hand which omitted in a revision could also have added, although such instances may be cited for the originality of the 6 text in comparison with a (see notes in loco for each passage). To these may be added the famous addition in xi. 28 (see in loco), which Blass makes the starting-point for his inquiry, and to which Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Zockler, Salmon, as against Harnack and B. Weiss, attach so much importance. There are again other passages in which it may be

1 Blass still maintains, as against Corssen, that the language of the additions, and generally in the variants of B, is Lucan, Philology of the Gospels, p. 113 ff, and Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. xxvii. ff.

INTRODUCTION 45

maintained that if a is original we can understand the smoothness of β, but not vice versd, and it must always be remembered that this love of paraphrase and simplification has been urged on high authority as a marked characteristic of the Western readings in general, cf. W. H., p. 122 ff., and B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelge- schichte, pp. 52, 105: 1897. There are, moreover, other passages in which Blass seems to assimilate a and β, although the witnesses would differentiate them, cf. v. 28, 34, xv. 33, or in which there isa manifest blunder, not only in D but in other Western witnesses, which Blass corrects by a, although such blunders really belong to the B text, cf. v. 31, xiii. 48, xv. 15. There are cases in which D affords weighty support to readings otherwise testified to only by B, ¢.g., xix. 8, xxi. 25, or only by WN, cf. ii. 20 (Wendt).

But a careful consideration of the whole of the instances justi- fies the attachment of far greater importance to the Western text than formerly (cf., ¢.g., Holtzmann’s review of Blass’s edit. min. of Acts, Theol. Literaturzeitung, p. 350, 1897, No. 13), and goes some way to break down the former prejudice against Codex Bezz: not only is it allowed that one revising hand of the second century may be the main source of the most important readings, but that these readings may contain original elements, since they must be based upon a text which carries us back very near to the date of the composition of the book of Acts (Wendt, wu. s., p. 52; Bousset, Theol. Rundschau, p. 414, 1898). The same tendency to attach more importance to the Western text is observable in Professor Ramsay, for although he regards the most vivid additions of the Western text in Acts as for the most part nothing but a second-century commentary, and while he refuses to introduce xi. 27, 28, D, into his own text, yet he speaks of the high value of D in that it preserves with corruptions a second-century witness to the text, and he places the home of the revision on the line of intercourse between the Syrian Antioch and Ephesus, arguing from xi. 28 that the reviser was acquainted with Antioch (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 151; St. Paul, p. 27, and review of Professor Blass, Expositor, 1895, and cf. Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, pp. 131, 140).

On the other hand the most thorough advocates of Dr. Blass’s theory support his view of the priority and originality of B by reference to three classes of passages: (1) those in which the later a has abbreviated the reading of 8, c/. iii. 1, iv. 1, 3, 24, 32, vii. 29, ix. 5-8, x. 23, xi. 2, xiv. 1-20, xvi. 19, xvii. 12, 15, xxi. 39, xxii. 26; (2) those in which B contains exact and specific notices of time which are wanting in a, cf. xv. 30, xvi. 11, xvii. 19, xviii. 19, xix. 9,

ΤᾺ πος INTRODUCTION

xx. 18, xxvii. 1, etc.; (3) those in which exact information appears to characterise the references of B to places, circumstances, persons, cf., in addition to passages of this character already noticed under (1), xi. 28, xii. 1, 10, xvi. 35, xviii. 18, 27, xix. 14, xx. 15, xxi. 16, xxiv. 27, xxviii. 16, 19 (see for these passages Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 134 ff., and notes in apparatus criticus, and in opposition to the view of Zéckler Mr. Page’s detailed list of passages in D, all of which he regards as bearing traces of being subsequent cor- rections of the text by a second-rate hand, Classical Review, p. 319, July, 1897, and Blass’s reply, Philology of the Gospels, p. 128).1

If an examination of these passages, which vary considerably in value and importance, and the proofs of the existence of a second- century Latin text convince us that the readings in B are not to be hastily rejected as the glosses of a careless or blundering scribe, it cannot be said that we are in a position to account for the origin of the Western readings, or that a solution of the problem is yet attained. The hypothesis of Blass, tempting as it is, and simple as it is, wants verification, and the very simplicity which commends it to its supporters is often a sore stumbling-block to its acceptance, inasmuch as it does not seem to account for all the facts of the case, But at the present stage of the controversy it is of interest to note that the honoured name of Theodor Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 340, 1899, may be added to those who accept in the main Blass’s position, amongst whom may be mentioned Nestle, Belser, Zéckler, Salmon.? Zahn makes some reservations, ¢.g., with regard to xv. 29 (see in

1In 1891 Professor Harris regarded the readings of Codex D (see Blass, edit. min., p. xx.) as the result of their adaptation to the Latin version of a bilingual MS. which carries us back to the middle of the second century, a view which he has somewhat modified in 1894, Four Lectures, etc., p. viii., although still maintaining a certain amount of Latinisation. Schmiedel, Enc. Bibl., i., 52, 1899, recently sup- ports Harris, and maintains that the Greek of D rests partly on retranslation from the Latin. In his later book Dr. Harris examines the theory of Dr. Chase, that the peculiarities of Codex D are due to retranslation from an old Syriac version, pp. 14, 68, and maintains that whilst Dr. Chase’s position is justified in so far that we possess evidence of an old Syriac text of Acts, yet his explanation of the Western variants as due to a Syriac glossator cannot be sustained, see also Zéckler, u. S., p. 131, and Headlam, “ Acts,”’ Hastings’ B.D.

3 Amongst the keenest attacks upon the theory may be noted that of B. Weiss in Codex D in der Afostelgeschichte, 1897; Page, Classical Review, July, 1897, and more recently, Harnack, see notes on xi. 28 and xv. 29; Schmiedel in Enc. Bidl., 50-56, 1899. Wendt’s examination of the question, Apostelgeschichte (1899), pp. 43-535 should also be carefully considered, whilst Blass has replied to the strictures of Harnack and Zahn in Studien und Kritiken, i., 1900.

INTRODUCTION 47

loce,and Harnack, Sitzungsberichte d. kinigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, xi., 1899), whilst he lays stress upon xi. 28, and maintains the genuine Lucan character of the words used, ¢.g., ἀγαλλίασις, συστρέφειν.

Still more recently Hilgenfeld, Acta Apostolorum, 1899, has again, and more fully, expressed his conviction of the priority of the β text (although he differs from Blass and Zahn in not referring a and B to the same original author), and he has reconstructed it much on the same lines as Blass, and somewhat more boldly. Re- ferences to the text adopted by Hilgenfeld will be frequently found in the apparatus criticus (as also to his annotations which deal largely with the criticisms of B. Weiss in his Codex D). In his Proleg. Hilgenfeld divides the authorities for the Western text as against SABC into various groups: (1) Grzco-Latin MSS.: Codex D and E; (2) Latin versions: Plor., Gig., Par., Wernig., Prov., as Blass calls them, see above on p. 42; (3) Oriental versions: especially the marginal readings of Thomas Harkel in the Philox- enian Syriac; also the Sahidic version ; (4) the Fathers: especially Irenzeus, Cyprian, Tertullian (with reference to Corssen’s pamphlet, see above) ; (5) some readings even in the four great MSS. SABC. Hilgenfeld evidently attaches some weight (as Blass) to 137 (M), and to Codex Athous Laure, p. ix. (see Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 250; and further, Studien und Kritiken, i., 1900).

For Literature bearing on Acts see the valuable lists in Headlam, “ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., pp. 34, 35, and Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 1-4, 1899. The present writer would venture to add to the for- mer: (1) Commentaries : Felten, Apostelgeschichte, 1892; Knabenbauer, Actus Apostolorum (Paris, 1899), two learned and reverent works by Romanists, the latter dealing with the most recent phase of modern problems of text, chronology and sources; Wendt, Apostelgeschichte (Meyer-Wendt), 1899, with a full Introduction, pp. 1-60, discussing all recent problems, with constant reference in the text to Professor Ramsay’s writings, and altogether indispensable for the study of Acts; Matthias, Auslegung der Apostelgeschichte, 1897, a compen- dium useful in some respects, based chiefly upon Wendt’s earlier edition; Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edit., 1894; to these con- stant reference is made. (2) Introductions: Zahn, Etnleitung, ii.,

+** Blassio debemus alterum Actorum app. textum non ortum ex jam fere recepto, sed hinc ab ipso Actorum app. auctore postea breviante et emendante in chartam puram scriptum esse minime demonstravit, lima ita potitus est, ut etiam genwina et necessaria non pauca sublata sint,” p. xiv.

48 INTRODUCTION

1899; B. Weiss, Einleitung, 3rd edit., 1897; Jiilicher, Einleitung, 1894; (3) Special Treatises: Hilgenfeld, Acta Apostolorum, Greece et Latine, 1899; J. Weiss, Uber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte, 1897; Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden der Apostelgeschichte, 1887, a reverent and in many respects valuable treatment of the text and sources of St. Paul’s addresses ; Bishop Williams of Connecticut, Studies in Acts, 1888; Gilbert, Student’s Life of St. Paul, 1899: with appendix on Churches of Galatia; Luckock, Footprints of the Apostles as traced by St. Luke in the Acts, 1897; (4) Zarly Church History : McGiffert, Apostolic Age; Hort, Ecclesia; Nésgen, Geschichte d. Neut. Offenbarung, ii., 1892; (5) Monographs on Special Points: E. H. Askwith, Epistle to the Galatians, 1899 (an enlargement of the Norrisian Prize Essay on The Locality of the Churches of Galatia); Vogel, Zur Charak- teristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, 1897; Nestle, Philologica Sacra (Bemerkungen tiber die Urgestalt der Evangelien und A.G.),

1896, and his Einftihrung in das Griechische N.T., 2nd edit., 1899, frequently referred to by Zahn and Dalman; Blass, Philology of the

Gospels, and Pref. to Evangelium secundum Lucam, 1897; Klos- termann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, 1883, and Vindicia Lucana, 1866; Hawkins, Hore Synoptica, pp. 140-158, on the Linguistic Relations between St. Luke’s Gospel and Acts; Bousset, Der Text des N.T.., 1898 (Theol. Rundschau, p. 405 ff.); B. Weiss, Der Codex D, 1897, dealing with the hypothesis of Dr. Blass; Harnack, Sitzungsberichte der kéniglich Preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, xi. and xvii., 1899; Curtius, ‘‘ Paulus in Athen” (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ii., pp. 528-543, 1894); see also Ramsay, various articles of great value in Hastings’ B.D., i., ii., “‘ Ephesus,” ‘‘ Galatia,” ‘“‘ Corinth,” etc., and Schmiedel, “ Acts,”’ in Enc. Bibl., 1899, which appeared too late for more than a few references here. For literature connected with special points, and the text and sources of Acts, see above, pp. 8, 22, 41, and for grammatical questions and syntax see references in commentary to Simcox, Language of the N.T.; Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1896; Viteau, Le Grec du N.T.., 1893 and 1896; and to the numbers of Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, now in course of publication.?

“In the preparation of the textual criticism my best thanks are due to the kimi and valyable help of the Rev. Harold Smith, M.A., St. John’s College, Cam. bridge, sometime Lecturer in King’s College, London.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ.

I. 1, ΤΟΝ μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην πέρὶ πάντων, ὦ Θεόφιλε, ὧν ἤρξατο 6? ἸΙησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, 2. ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας

1B and also the subscription of δῷ ; so Lach., W.H., Wendt. D has πραξις αποστολων. δῷ merely πράξεις, so Tisch. πράξεις των αποστολων 31, 61; so Griesb., Meyer, whilst τῶν αγιων before αποστολων is found in subscription οἱ ΕΘΗ. Clem. Alex., Strom., v., 12, has πράξεις των awoor. Tertullian, Adv, Marc., v., 1,2, has Acta Apostolorum. Cf. lren., Adv. Ηαν., iii., 13, 3, and also lat. title as in Clem. Alex., Adumbr., 1 Pet., v., 13, Actus Apostolorum ; sometimes simply Acta

or Actus ; see further Zahn, Einleitung in das Ν. T., ii., 334, 388 (1899).

26 ΔΕ, Orig. and Blass in B, so also Weiss.

Grammatik, p. 148).

CHAPTER I,—Ver. 1. τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον, a reference beyond all reasonable doubt to St. Luke’s Gospel. Not merely the dedication of both writings to Theo- philus, but their unity of language and style is regarded by critics of all schools as convincing proof of the identity of authorship of Acts and the third Gospel ; see Introd. and Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 128 (1895). In the expres- sion πρῶτος λόγος Ramsay finds an intimation from St. Luke’s own hand that he contemplated a third book at least, otherwise we should have had πρότερος λόγος, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 23, 27, 28; see to the same effect Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., ii., 371 (1899), Rendall, Acts of the Apostles, in loco, and cf. comment. on Acts xxviii. 31. So, too, primus is used in Latin not simply as former but as first in a series, Cicero, De Invent., ii., 3. On the other hand, Blass, Grammatik des N.G.., p. 34, Acta Apost., p. 16, and more recently Philology of the Gospels, p. 38, maintains that πρῶτος simply = πρότερος (so also Holtzmann and Felten). But Ramsay, whilst pointing out instances in which St. Luke apparently uses πρῶτος differently from this, p. 28 (cf. also Zahn, u. s., p. 389), admits that we cannot attain to any absolute certainty in the passage before us, since no instance occurs of the use of

VOL, Il.

Omit. BD, W.H. (see Blass,

πρότερος by St. Luke.—Adyov: frequently used by classical writers in the sense of a narrative or history contained in a book ; see instances in Wetstein. The passage in Plato, Phedo, p. 61, B., is valuable not only for the marked contrast between λόγος and μῦθος, ποιεῖν μύθους ἀλλ᾽ οὐ λόγους, but also for the use of ποιεῖν (Wendt). Amongst other instances of the phrase ποιεῖν λόγον cf. Galen, De Usu Part., ii., wept πρώτων τῶν δακτύλων ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον. St. Chrysostom sees in the phrase a proof of the unassum- ing character of the author: St. Luke does not say ‘‘ The former Gospel which I preached”. For the anomalous μέν, “‘solitarium,” without the following δέ, frequent in Luke, see Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 261, ¢f. Luke νι. 5, Acts iii, 21, xxviii. 22, etc., and several times in St. Paul. μέν occurs thus six times in the Acts without otw—on μὲν οὖν see ver. 6.---ὦ Θεόφιλε : the interjection used here simply in address, as common in Attic Greek, cf. xviii. 14, xxvii. 21, 1 Tim. vi. 11; without the epithet κράτιστε, as in Luke i, 3, and without ὦ, Oed¢. alone would have seemed too bold, Winer- Schmiedel, p. 258. It has been suggested that the omission of the epithet κράτιστε, Luke i. 3, denotes that St. Luke’s friend- ship had become less ceremonious, just as a similar change has been noted

go MPAZEL> ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 1.

ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ Πνεύματος “Aylou, obs ἐξελέξατο, ἀνελήφθη.:}: 4. οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν

1 ἀνεληφθη B* and probably all cursives, but «λημφθη SAB*CDE, so Tisch.,W.H., Weiss (see Blass, Gram., pp. 24, 55). ἄχρι ns... avednd. Aug. Vig. read ‘in die quo Apostolos elegit per Spiritum Sanctum,” omitting aveAnd. altogether, and continuing with D, Lux., Syr. Harcl. mg., Sah. kat εκελευσεν κηρυσσειν το evayyedtov (et precepit predicare evangelium). ‘This reading of Aug. Blass adopts (so Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apost., p. 18, and Graefe, Stud, und Krit., p. 136 (1898)) and therefore refers the day mentioned to Luke vi. 12, the day of the choice of the Apostles. But Belser well points out that St. Luke’s Gospel (quite apart from chaps. 1. and ii.) does not begin with the choice of the Twelve, but with the public appearance of the Baptist and that of Jesus Himself, and with His public teaching. Nor is there anything said, as Blass himself admits, in St. Luke’s account of the choice of the Twelve, vi. 12, as to any commission given to them at that time to preach the Gospel (although in his edition of St. Luke’s Gospel Blass compares Mark iii. 14, but even then the expression used, κηρυσσειν To ευαγγελιον, cannot be called Lucan, see Weiss on Codex D, p. 53). Further, Ὁ contains ἀνεληφθη, after nuepas, apparently to simplify the structure ; there is no Greek authority for its omission, and it is contained in Codex Parisinus (which in many respects approaches so closely to D), where we find it at the end of the verse: assumptus est. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 132 ff., contends for the reading which he had previously adopted in B, and sees in it the original draft of Luke who in α ‘‘has encumbered the clause in order to bring in the Ascension without leaving

out the choice of the Apostles ”’ (p. 136).

in the dedication of Shakespeare’s two poems to the Earl of Southampton; cf. also Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 360. The way in which the epithet κράτιστε is employed elsewhere in the book in ad- dressing Roman officials, xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25, has been thought to indicate that Theophilus held some high official post, or that he was at least of equestrian rank (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 388, 389, and his inferences as to the date of Acts). Ramsay is of opinion that the name was given at baptism, and that it was used or known only among Christians, and he infers that this baptismal name is used in Acts because the book was pro- bably written at a time when it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recognised as a Christian. But Theo- philus was by no means uncommon as a Jewish name; cf. Β. D.?,i., p. 25, and also article ‘*‘ Theophilus,” B. D.! (see also Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19). The epithet κράτιστος was peculiarly appro- priated to Romans holding high office, and actually became during the second century a technical title to denote eques- trian rank; and from its use here Zahn maintains not only that Theophilus was a man of some social position, but that he was, when Luke wrote his gospel, not a nember of the Christian Church, since there is no instance in the first two centuries of a Christian addressing his fellow-Christians in a title corresponding

as it were to ‘your Excellency” (Ein- leitung in das N. T., ii., 360, 383). The instance of the address of the Epist. ad Diognetum, κράτιστε Διόγνητε, is alleged by.Blass as an instance that the epithet is not always used in the technical sense mentioned; but to this Ramsay replies that if Diognetus was the friend and teacher of Marcus Aurelius, the emperor might well raise his teacher to equestrian rank; Septimius Severus raised his sons’ tutor to the high dignity of the consul- ship. Ramsay discusses κράτιστος at length in Was Christ born at Bethlehem? (1898), pp. 65, 71, 72, as against Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 19. Blass fully recognises that Theophilus held a high position, and that the title in question would naturally occur in a book dedicated to a patron; but it must be borne in mind that Blass regards Theo- philus as of Greek extraction, possibly a fellow-citizen with Luke of Antioch, whilst Ramsay sees in him a citizen ot Rome and a resident in the imperial city. Theophylact asks why Luke should have cared to write to one man only and to value him so highly, and makes answer that it was because the Evangelist was a guardian of the words spoken by the Lord: “It is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish”. There seems no great reason to doubt that Theophilus was a real personage, and the epithet κράτιστε, at all events in its

3-..

IIPAZEIZ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

δι

αὐτόν, ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις, δι᾿ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ! ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς, καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. 4. Καὶ συναλιζό-

1 τεσσαρακοντα, so B°E 1, 13, Meyer; but τεσσεράκοντα SSAB*CD 61, so Tisch.,

W.H., Weiss.

technical significance, is hardly consistent with any other supposition (see Sanday, Inspiration, p. 319, note). The recent attempt to identify Theophilus with Seneca, referred to by Zockler, Apostel- geschichte, p. 163, must be dismissed as equally groundless and fanciful as the former conjecture that he was no other than Philo.—wept πάντων dv: the use of was (mostly after a prep., as here) followed by an attracted relative may be classed amongst the mannerisms of St. Luke (Simcox, Writers of the N. T.., p. 24, where other instances are given); see also Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, ΡΡ- I, 2.—év: in St. Luke’s Gospel and in the Acts the frequency of the attraction of the relative again specially characterises him amongst the N.T. writers, Friedrich, u. S., pp. 36 and τοο.---ἤρξατο : often re- garded as simply pleonastic, but sometimes as emphatic, to intimate that the work which Jesus began on earth He continued in heaven, or that He began the work of the Gospel and committed its continuance to His followers; Zahn, u. s., p. 366 ff. In Winer’s view to regard ἄρχεσθαι as pleonastic is a mere subterfuge to avoid a difficulty, and he renders the passage ‘*what Jesus began both todoand to teach, and continued to do until,” etc. (see also Grimm-Thayer, sub v.), treating it as an example of breviloquence (Winer- Moulton, lIxvi., 1). On the whole it is perhaps best to consider the phrase ἤρξ. ποιεῖν with Bengel (i loco) as equivalent to fecit ab initio, although no doubt there is a sense in which, with every Christian for nineteen centuries, St. Luke would regard the whole earthly life of Jesus as a beginning, a prelude to the glory and mighty working to be revealed and per- fected in the ascended Lord. The verb is of frequent use in St. Luke’s writings (Friedrich, Zeller, Lekebusch), although in St. Mark’s Gospel it is also constantly found. In the LXX it is often found like

bb hi., and also in Apocr.

τε καὶ διδάσκειν, ‘Scilicet prius fecit, deinde docuit; prius docuit exemplo, deinde verbo. Unde prius non docuit, quod prius ipse non fecit’’ (Corn. ἃ Lap.).

Ver. 2. ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας. In Matt. ἄχρι occurs once or twice, in Mark and

ποιεῖν

D omits δια, so Blass in B

and John not at all, in Luke four times, and in Acts sixteen ; whilst the commoner μέχρι is found only once in the Gospels and twice in the Acts (Winer-Schmiedel, p- 227, and on the use of the form ἄχρι or ἄχρις see Grimm-Thayer, sub v.). It is seldom used in the LXX, but in 2 Macc. xiv. it occurs twice, vv. 10 and 15; cf. also Symm., 2 Kings xxi. 16; Theod., Job xxxii. 11.---διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου. The older commentators, and Wendt, Holtzmann, Zéckler, Hilgenfeld, amongst moderns, connect the words with ἐξελέξατο, the reference to the choice of the Apostles through the Holy Ghost standing significantly at the opening of a book in which their endowment with the same divine power is so prominent. On the other hand, it is urged that there is no need to emphasise further the divine choice of the Apostles VF, Luke ‘vi. 13, and see below on ver. 25), but that it was important to show that the instructions to continue the work and teaching of Jesus were a divine commission (Weiss), and to emphasise from the commencement of the Acts that Jesus had given this com- mission to His Apostles through the same divine Spirit Whom they received shortly after His Ascension (Felten). Spitta (who refers i. 1-14 to his inferior source B), whilst he connects 8a πνεύμ. ay. with ἐντειλάμενος, curiously limits the latter to the command to the Apostles to assemble themselves on the Mount of Olives (so too Jiingst). For other connections of the words see Alford in loco.—étehétaro, always in N.T. ἐκλέγομαι, middle (except, perhaps, in Luke ix. 35, but see R.V. and W.H.). Another verb very frequent in LXX, used constantly of a divine choice: of God’s choice of Israel, of Jacob, Aaron, David, the tribe of Judah, Zion, and Jerusalem. The verb is also found in the same sense in the middle voice in classical Greek.—dvedrjpoOy : the verb is used of Elijah’s translation to heaven in the LXX, 2 Kings ii. 9-11, also in Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 9 and 1 Mace. ii. 58, and perhaps of Enoch in Ecclesiasticus xlix. 14 (A, μετετέθη). In addition to the present passage (cf. vv. II, 12) it is also used in Mark xvi. 9 and x Tim. iii. 16 (where it probably forms part of an early Christian Hymn or confession of faith)

42

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 1.

μενος ἢ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων μὴ χωρίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ περιμένειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός, ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου 2" 5. ὅτι

1 συναλιζομενος, some good cursives συναυλιζομενος. Aug. prefixes ws to συναλ.;

so B (see also Belser).

D reads συναλισκομενος (-σγομ. Ὁ).

D, Gig., Par.?, Sah.

add per’ avtwv, perhaps explanatory addition, Syriac (Chase), or Latin, to bring out force of συν. retained by Blass in B. R,V. omits μετ᾽ avrwv; so W.H., Wendt,

and Weiss.

2 nv ἡκουσατε gh in place of this, Ὁ, Par.?, Vulg. (Clem.), Hil., Aug. read ἣν

ἤκουσατε φησιν

La του στόματος μου, 50 Blass in B and Hilgenfeld (see also Belser),

may be mere amplification of pov in T.R., possibly assimilated to xv. 7 (Chase). Harris ascribes it to a Montanist. ἠκουσα in Ὁ),

of our Lord’s Ascension ; cf. also Gospel of Peter, το, in a doubtfully orthodox sense. It is to be noted that the word is here used absolutely, as of an event with which the Apostolic Church was already familiar. On the cognate noun ἀνάληψις, used only by St. Luke in N.T., and absolutely, with reference to the same event, in his Gospel, ix. 51, see Psalms of Solomon, iv., 20, ed. Ryle and James, p. 49. In the latter passage the word is apparently used for the first time in extant Greek literature, but its meaning is very different from its

later technical use with reference to the

Assumption of the Blessed ; see instances, p- 49, ubi supra. St. Irenzus, i., ro, 1, whilst using the noun of our Lord’s Ascension, is careful to say τὴν ἔνσαρ- Kov εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν; see especially Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, pp. 70-72, and below on verse 11.

Ver. 3. ols καὶ παρέστησεν, “he also showed himself,” R.V., but margin “ presented himself” (cf. ix. 41), praebuit se, Vulg. In ix. 41 monstravit, h. 1. magis demonstravit (Blass). The verb is used thirteen times in Acts (once in a quotation, iv. 26), both transitively and intransitively. St. Luke in his Gospel uses it three times, and as in Acts both transitively and intransitively. In this he is alone amongst the Evan- gelists. In the Epistles it is found only in St. Paul, and for the most part in a transitive sense.—pera τὸ παθεῖν, ‘after his passion,” so in A, and R.V.; post passionem suam, Vulg.; ‘*too sacred a word to be expunged from this the only place where it occurs in the Bible,” Humphry, Commentary on R.V.; cf. iii. 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23.—év πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις — τεκμήριον only here in N.T.—twice in Wisdom v. 11, xix. 13, and 3 Macc. iii. 24. The A.V. followed the Genevan Version by insert- ing the word ‘‘infallible” (although the latter still retained “tokens” instead of “proofs”). But R.V. simply “ proofs”

expresses the technical use of the word τεκμήριον, convincing, certain evidence. Although in a familiar passage, Wisdom Vv. 11, τεκμήριον and σημεῖον are used as practically synonymous, yet there is no doubt that they were technically dis- tinguished, ¢.g., Arist., Rhet., i., 2, τῶν σημείων τὸ μὲν ἀναγκαῖον τεκμ. This technical distinction, it may be observed, was strictly maintained by medical men, although St. Luke-may no doubt have met the word elsewhere. Thus it is used by Josephus several times, as Krenkel mentions, but he does not mention that it is also used by Thucydides, ii., 39, to say nothing of other classical writers. Galen writes τὸ μὲν ἐκ τηρήσεως σημεῖον τὸ δὲ ἐξ ἐνδείξεως τεκμήριον, μὲς ἢ the context states that rhetoricians as well as physicians had examined the distinction; Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p- 184. The word also occurs in the Proem of Dioscorides to his De Materia Medica, p. 3, which Vogel and Meyer- Weiss hold that Luke imitated in the Prologue to his Gospel (but see Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 384).—8v ἡμερῶν τεσ- σαράκοντα. St. Chrysostom comments ov yap εἶπε τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, ἀλλὰ δι᾿ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα - ἐφίστατο γὰρ καὶ ἀφίστατο πάλιν. To this interpreta- tion of the genitive with διά Blass refers, and endorses it, Grammatik des Neutesta- mentlichen Griechisch, p. 129, following the Scholiast. The meaning, if this interpretation is adopted, would there- fore be that our Lord did not remain with His disciples continuously (οὐ διηνεκῶς, Schol.) as before, but that He appeared to them from time to time; non perpetuo, sed per intervalla, Bengel. But cf. also Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 140. Men have seen in this period of forty days, mentioned only by St. Luke in N.T., what we may reverently call a symbolical fitness. But in a certain sense the remark of Blass seems justified: Parum ad rem est quod idem (numerus)

5—6.

ΠΡΑΞΕῚΣ AIOZTOAQN

53

Ἰωάννης ' μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν Πνεύματι ᾿Αγίῳ, οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας." 6. Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες

1 Ιωαννης; in D almost throughout lwavys, see W.H., Notes on Orthography, p. 166, on authority of B and D. Nestle (Expository Times, Nov., 1897, p. 93) points out that in D w prevails in Matt., Mk., John (vv 66, v 7), while in Luke and Acts the reverse is the case (vv 3, v 48); but see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 57.

2 After nye

pas D, Sah, insert ews της πεντηκοστης.

Blass sees in the addition an

intimate knowledge of the facts (see also Belser) ; cf. ii. 1, but cf. on the other hand

Weiss on Codex D, p. 54.

alias quoque occurrit. The parallels in the histories of Moses and Elijah to which Holtzmann and Spitta refer are really no parallels at all, and if it be true to say that there was nothing in contemporary Jewish ideas to suggest our Lord’s Resurrection as it is represented as taking place, it is equally true to maintain that there was nothing to suggest the after sojourn of the forty days on earth as it is represented as taking place; see Edersheim, Fesus the Messiah, ii., 624.---ὀπτανόμενος : if we could call this a frequentative verb with some scholars, it would in itself give the meaning ‘‘ appearing from time to time,” but it is rather a late Hellenistic present, formed from some parts of dpav; Blass, Grammatik des N. G., pp. 57, 181. But it certainly does not mean that our Lord’s appearances were merely visionary. The verb is found only here in N.T., but also in LXX 1 Kings viii. 8 and in Tobit xii. 19 (not in S.). In these two passages the word cannot fairly be pressed into the service of visionary appearances. In 1 Kings the reference is to the staves of the ark which were so long that the ends were seen from the holy place before the oracle, but they were not seen from without, i.¢., from the porch or vestibule. In Tobit it is not the appearance of the angel which is repre- sented as visionary, quite the contrary ; but his eating and drinking are represented as being only in appearance. But even if the word could be pressed into the meaning suggested, St, Luke’s view of our Lord’s appearances must be judged not by one expression but by his whole conception, cf. Luke xxiv. 39-43 and Acts x. 41. That he could distinguish between visions and realities we cannot doubt; see note below on xii. 12.---τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ 0.: ‘speaking the things concerning,” R.V., not “‘ speaking of the things,” A.V., but speaking the very things, whether truths to be believed, or commands to be obeyed (Humphry, Commentary on R.V.). On St. Luke’s fondness for τὰ περί τινος in his writings

see Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, pp. to and 80 (so also Zeller and Lekebusch). The exact phrase is only found in Acts, where it occurs twice (in T.R. three times); cf. xix. 8 (viii. τὴν and see also xx. 25 and xxvili. (23),31. The expression ἡ Bac. τοῦ θ., instead of τῶν οὐρανῶν of the Hebrew Evangelist St. Matthew, is characteristic of St. Luke’s writings, although it is found frequently in St. Mark and once in St. John. In St. Luke’s Gospel it occurs more than thirty times, and six times in Acts (only four times in St. Matt.). Possibly the phrase was used by St wWuke as one more easily understood by Gentile readers, but the two terms ἡ Bac. τοῦ θ. and τῶν οὐρ. were practically synonymous in the Gospels and in Judaism in the time of our Lord (Schirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., p. 171; E. T. and Taylor, Sayings of the Fewish Fathers (second edit.), p. 67; Edersheim, ¥esus the Messiah, 1., 267; and Dalmsan, Die Worte Fesu, p. 76 ff.). Dr. Stanton, fewish and Christian Messiah, p. 226, draws attention to the important fact that the preaching of the original Apostles after the Ascension is not described as that of the preaching of the kingdom of God, but that the phrase is only used of the preaching of St. Paul, and of St. Philip the associate of St. Stephen. But in view of the fact that the original Apostles heard during the Forty Days from their Master’s lips τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλ. τοῦ θεοῦ, we cannot doubt that in deed and in word they would proclaim that kingdom. On the

uestion as to whether they conceived of the kingdom as present, or future, or both, see Wendt, Teaching of Fesus, i., 400, E. T., and Witness of the Epistles (Long- mans), p. 309 ff., and on the conception of the kingdom of God in the Theology of A. Ritschl and his school see Orr, Ritschlian Theology, p. 258 ff. For the relation of the Church and the Kingdom see also Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, pp. 28, 36 ff., “‘ Church,” Hastings, B.D., p- 425; Hort, Ecclesia, p. 5 ff.

54

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ Ι,

ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθισ- τάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ ; 7. εἶπε δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Οὐχ ὑμῶν

Ver. 4. συναλίζομενος : ἃ strong array of modern commentators renders “ eating with them,” following the Vulgate con- vescens illis (so both A. and R.V. in margin, and Wycl. and Rhem.), It is thus rendered by Overbeck (as against De Wette), Wendt, Holtzmann, Felten, Weiss, Matthias, Knabenbauer,and Blass, who adopts the reading ὡς συναλ., and regards the particle as showing that the recapitulation is continued of the events already mentioned in Luke xxiv. 42 ff. It is evidently taken in the same sense by Spitta, Feine, Jiingst. If weso translate it, we must derive it from GAs (salt), so Schol. κοινωνῶν ἁλῶν, τραπέζης, in the sense given to the expression by Chrys., Theophyl., Gicum. In Ps. cxl. 4 LXX, to which Wendt refers, μὴ ovv- δυάσω (although the reading is somewhat doubtful—the word is used by Symmachus, 1 Sam. xxvi. 19) is also rendered ovva- λισθῶ (Alius) as an equivalent of the

Hebrew OFT; 8, μὴ συμφάγοιμι, Sym- machus. Blass gives no classical re- ferences, but points out that the word undoubtedly exists in the sense referred to in Clem. Hom., xiii., 4 (but see Grimm- Thayer, sub v.). Hailgenfeld (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft. Theol., p. 74 (1894)) contends that the use of the word in the psalm quoted and in the passage from the Clementines refers not to the use of salt at an ordinary meal, but rather to the sacrificial and symbolical use of salt in the Old and New Testaments. Thus in the passage Clem. Hom., xiii., 4, τότε αὐτοῖς συναλι- ζόμεθα, τότε means ‘‘after the Baptism”; cf. also Ignatius, ad Magnes., x., ἁλίσ- θητε ev αὐτῷ, “be ye salted in him”. Wendt takes the word quite generally as meaning that the sharing in a common meal with His disciples, as on the evening of the Resurrection, was the habitual practice of the Lord during the Forty Days; cf. Acts x. 41: and Luke xxiv. 36 ff. Feine similarly holds that the word presupposes some such incidents as those mentioned in Luke xxiv., and that Luke had derived his information from a source which described the final instructions to the disciples as given at a common meal. On the other hand it must be borne in mind that in classical Greek, as in Herodotus and Xenophon (Wetstein) (as also in Josephus, B. F., iii., 9, 4), συναλίζω = to assemble, cf. Hesy-

chius, συναλιζ. -- συναλισθείς, συναχθείς, συναθροισθείς, and it is possible that the preceding present participles in the im- mediate context may help to account for the use of the same participle instead ot the aorist συναλισθείς. The verb is then derived from σύν and ἁλής (a), meaning lit., close, crowded together. Mr. Rendall (Acts of the Apostles, p. 32) would derive it from ᾿Αλίη (-a), a common term for a popular assembly amongst Ionian and Dorian Greeks, and he supposes that the verb here implies a general gathering ot believers not limited to the Twelve; but the context apparently points back to Luke xxiv. 49 to a command which was certainly given only to the Twelve.— παρήγγειλεν, “he charged them,” R.V., which not only distinguishes it from other verbs rendered “το command,” but also gives the emphatic meaning which St. Luke often attaches to the word. It is characteristic of his writings, occurring four times in his Gospel and ten or eleven times in Acts, and it is very frequent in St. Paul’s Epistles (Friedrich, Lekebusch), — Ἱεροσολύμων : a neuter plural (but cf. Matt. ii. 3 and Grimm sub v.). St. Luke most frequently uses the Jewish form ‘lepovoadnp—twenty-seven times in his Gospel, about forty in Acts—as against the use of Ἱεροσόλυμα four times in his Gospel and over twenty in Acts (Friedrich, Lekebusch), Blass retains the aspirate for the Greek form but not for the Jewish, cf. in loco and Grammatik des N. G., pp. 17, 31, but it is very doubtful whether either should have the aspirate; W.H., ii., 313; Plummer’s St. Luke, p. 64; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 93. Grimm points out that the Hebrew form is used in the N.T.: “ubi in ipso nomine tanquam sancta vis quedam reponitur ut, Gal. iv. 25; ita in compellationibus, Matt. xxiii. 37, Luke xiii. 34;” see further sub »v, Ἱεροσόλυμα.---μὴ xwplt.: it was fitting that they should not depart from Jeru- salem, not only that the new law as the old should go forth from Zion and the. word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isa. ii. 3 (Felten), but that the Apostles’ testimony should be delivered not to men unac- quainted with the facts, but to the inhabitants of the city where Jesus had been crucified and buried. Ei δὲ εὐθὺς ἐχωρίσθησαν Ἱεροσολύμων, καὶ τούτων οὐδὲν ἐπηκολούθησεν, ὕποπτος ἄν ἡ ἀνάσ- τασις ὑπῆρξεν, CEcumenius, in loco; see also Theophyl. —wepipéve; not else-

δὰ

η---8.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

55

ἐστι γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς οὖς ὁ Πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ" 8. ἀλλὰ λήψεσθε δύναμιν, ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς,

where in N.T. (but see x. 24, D), but used in classical Greek of awaiting a thing’s happening(Dem.). The passage in LXX in which it occurs is suggestive: τὴν

fav περιμένων κυρίου, Gen. xlix. 18 (cf. Wisd. viii. 12). On the tradition that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem for twelve years in obedience to a com- mand of the Lord, and the evidence for it, see Harnack, Chronologie, i., p. 243 ff. Harnack speaks of the tradition as very old and well attested, and maintains that it is quite in accordance with Acts, as the earlier journeys of the Apostles are there described as missionary excursions from which they always returned to Jeru- salem.—riv ἐπαγγελίαν: Bengel notes the distinction between ὑπισχνέομαι and ἐπαγγέλλομαι, the former being used of pores in response to petitions, the atter of voluntary offers (Ammonius) : “que verbi Greci proprietas, ubi de divinis promissionibus agitur, exquisite observanda est”. It is therefore remark- able that in the Gospels the word ἐπαγ- γελία is never used in this technical sense of the divine promise made by God until Luke xxiv. 49, where it is used of the promise of the Holy Spirit, as here. But in Acts and in St. Paul’s Epistles and in the Hebrews the word is frequent, and always of the promises made by God (except Acts xxili. 21). See Sanday and Headlam on Romans i. 2, and Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 14, and Psalms of Solomon,

_xii., 8 (cf. vii., 9, and xvii., 6), ed. Ryle and

James, p. 106. ‘The promise of the Father,” cf. Luke xxiv. 49, is fulfilled in the baptism with the Holy Ghost, and although no doubt earlier promises of the gift of the Spirit may be included, cf. Luke xii. 11, as also the promise of the Spirit’s outpouring in Messianic times (cf. Joel ii. 28, Isaiah xliv. 3, Ezek. xxxvi. 26), yet the phraseology may be fairly said to present an undesigned coincidence with the more recent language of the Lord to the Twelve, John xiv. 16, xv. 26, xvi.14. On the many points of con- nection between the opening verses of Acts and the closing verses of St. Luke’s Gospel see below.

Ver. 5. ἐν πνεύματι: the omission of ἐν before ὕδατι and its insertion before arvevp.. may be meant to draw a distinction between the baptism with water and the baptism 7m the Spirit (R.V. margin “in”). But in Matt. iii. rr we have the prepo- sition ἐν in both parts of the verse; ¢f.

John i. 31. On ἐν with the instrumental dative see Blass, Grammatik des Ν. Ο., p- 114, and Grotius, in loco; cf. the

Hebrew 3,—od μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας

ἡμέρας: not after many, i.e., after few. This use of od with an adjective or adverb is characteristic of St. Luke, cf. Luke xv. 13, Acts xxvii. 14, in which places οὐ πολύς = ὀλίγος as here; cf. od μετρίως, Acts xx. 12; οὐ μακράν, Luke vii. 6, Acts XVii. 27; οὐκ ἄσημος, Acts xxi. 39; οὐχ ὁ τυχών, Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2, cf. Haw- kins, Hore Syn., p. 153. No doubt μετ᾽ οὐ would be more correct, but the negative is found both before and after the preposition, so in Luke xv. 13; οἵ. Josephus, Ant., i., 12, and xiii., 7, 1, for similar changes of allocation in the same words. ταύτας closely connects the days referred to with the current day; cf. also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 221. οὐ μετὰ πολλάς, φησὶν ἵνα μὴ εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἐμπέσωσιν " ὡρισμένως δὲ πότε,οὐκ εἶπεν, ἵνα ἀεὶ ἐκγρηγορῶσιν ἐκδεχόμενοι, Theo- phylact, in loco.

Ver. 6. of μὲν οὖν: the combination μὲν οὖν is very frequent in Acts in all parts, occurring no less than twenty- seven times; cf. Luke iii. 18. Like the simple pév it is sometimes used without δέ in the apodosis. Here, if δέ is omitted in ver. 7 after εἶπεν, there is still a con- trast between the question of the Apostles and the answer of Jesus. See especially Rendall, Acts of the Apostles, Appendix on μὲν οὖν, p. 160 ff.; cf. Weiss tn loco. —ouvehOdvres: the question has often been raised as to whether this word and μὲν οὖν refer back to ver. 4, or whether a later meeting of the disciples is here introduced. For the former Hilgenfeld contends (as against Weiss) and sees no reference to any fresh meeting: the disciples referred to in the αὐτοῖς of ver. 4 and the ὑμεῖς of ver. 5 had already come together. According to Holtzmann there is a reference in the words to a common mealof the Lord with His disciples already mentioned in ver. 4, and after this final meal the question of ver. 6 is asked on the way to Bethany (Luke xxiv. 50). The words of μὲν οὖν συνελθ. are referred by Felten to the final meeting which formed the conclusion of the constant intercourse of ver. 3, a meeting thus specially empha- sised, although in reality only one out of many, and the question which follows in ver, 6 was asked, as Felten also supposes

56

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ L

καὶ ἔσεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες ἔν τε ἹἹερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ

καὶ Σαμαρείᾳ; καὶ ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς.

‘ “A 3 , 9. Kat ταῦτα εἰπών,

1 Σαμαρειᾳ, but NADE Σαμαριᾳ (but Blass in B, -εἰᾳ) ; so Tisch., W.H. although -eta is given as alternative; see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 45.

(see too Rendall on vv. 7 and 8), on the way to Bethany. But there is no need to suppose that this was the case (as Jiingst so far correctly objects against Holtzmann), and whilst we may take συνελθ. as referring to the final meeting before the Ascension, we may place that meeting not in Jerusalem but on the Mount of Olives. Blass sees in the word συνελθ. an assembly of all the Apostles, cf. ver, 13 and 1 Cor. xv. 7, and adds: *¢ Aliunde supplendus locus ubi hoc fac- tum, ver. 12, Luke xxiv. 50”.—éwnpo- τῶν: imperfect, denoting that the act of questioning is always imperfect until an answer is given (Blass, ¢f. iii. 3), and here perhaps indicating that the same question was put by one inquirer after another (see on the force of the tense, as noted here and elsewhere by Blass, Hermathena, xxi., pp. 228, 229).—ei: this use of εἰ in direct questions is frequent in Luke, Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 254; cf. vii. I, xix. 2 (in Vulgate si); it is adopted in the LXX, and a parallel may also be found

in the interrogative 7] in Hebrew (so

Blass and Viteau).—év τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ: such a promise as that made in ver. 5, the fulfilment of which, according to Joel ii. 28, would mark the salvation of Messianic times, might lead the disciples to ask about the restoration of the king- dom to Israel which the same prophet had foretold, to be realised by the annihilation of the enemies of God and victory and happiness for the good. As in the days of oldthe yoke of Pharaoh had been broken and Israel redeemed from captivity, so would the Messiah accomplish the final redemption, cf. Luke xxiv. 21, and set up again, after the destruction of the world-powers, the kingdom in Jerusalem ; Weber, Fiidische Theologie, pp. 360, 361 (1897). No doubt the thoughts of the disciples still moved within the narrow circle of Jewish national hopes: “ totidem in hac interrogatione sunt errores quot verba,” writes Calvin. But still we must remember that with these thoughts of the redemption of Israel there mingled higher thoughts of the need of repentance and righteousness for the Messianic king- dom (Psalms of Solomon, xvii., xviii. ; ed. Ryle and James, p. lvii.), and that the

disciples may well have shared, even if impertectly, in the hopes of a Zacharias or a Simeon. Dr. Edersheim notes “with what wonderful sobriety” the disciples put this question to our Lord (ubi supra, i., p. 79); at the same time the question before us is plainly too primi- tive in character to have been invented by a later generation (McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Ὁ. 41).---ἀποκαθιστάνεις : ἀποκαθισ- τάνω, a form of ἀποκαθίστημι which is found in classical Greek and is used of the restoration of dominion as here in 1 Macc. xv. 3; see also below on iii. 21 and Malachi LXX iv. 5. On the form of the verb see W.H., ii., 162, and on its force see further Dalman, w. s., p. 1οῦ. ‘Dost thou at this time restore . . .?” R.V.; the present tense marking their ex- pectation that the kingdom, as they con- ceived it, would immediately appear—an expectation enhanced by the promise of the previous verse, in which they saw the foretaste of the Messianic kingdom.

Ver. 7. χρόνους ἢ καιρούς : Blass re- gards the two as synonymous, and no doubt it is difficult always to maintain a distinction. But here χρόνους may well be taken to mean space of time as such, the duration of the Church’s history, and καιρούς the critical periods in that history. 6 μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα χρόνου, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα (Ammonius). A good instance of the distinction may be found in LXX Neh. x. 34: εἰς καιροὺς ἀπὸ χρόνων, ‘at times appointed”; cf. τ Thes. v. 1. So here Weiss renders: ,, zu kennen Zeiten und geeignete Zeitpunkte™, In modern Greek, whilst καιρός means weather, χρόνος means year, so that ‘ in both words the kernel of meaning has remained unaltered; this in the case of καιρούς is changeableness, of χρόνων duration” (Curtius, Etym., p. 110 sq.) ; ra also Trench, N. T. Synonyms, ii., p. 27

.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 153; and Grimm-Thayer, sub v. καιρός. --ἐξουσία, authority, R.V.—either as delegated or unrestrained, the liberty of doing as one pleases (ἔξεστι) ; δύναμις, power, natural ability, inherent power, residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or, which a person or thing exerts or puts forth—so δύναμις is ascribed to Christ, now in one sense, now in another, so alse

9---1ο.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

57

βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη, καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν

ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

10. καὶ ὡς ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν,

1 For T.R. και ταυτα ... οφθ. αὐτῶν D, Sah., Aug., with var. καὶ ταυτα εἰπόντος

αντου ved. vied. αὐτον και ἀπήηρθη am’ αὐτων.

Chase explains from Syriac, but και

amnp. k.T.A. may be an assimilation to Matt. ix. 15. Omission of βλεπ. αὐτων and απὸ τῶν οφθαλ. in Western texts curious; may to some extent support Blass’s view

or may have been intentional omissions.

Vulg. and Flor. retain both omissions,

Weiss regards the whole in D as secondary; Hilgenfeld follows D.

to the Holy Spirit as in ver. 8; cf. x. 38, Luke iv. 14, Rom. xv. 13; Bengel, Luke iv. 36, and Grimm-Thayer, Synonyms. Sub υ. δύναμις.

Ver. 8. ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες, ““ my witnesses,” R.V., reading pov instead of pot, not only witnesses to the facts of their Lord’s life, cf. i. 22, x. 39, but also His witnesses, His by a direct personal relationship; Luke xxiv. 48 simply speaks of a testimony to the facts.—év τε ‘lepov- σαλὴμ κιτιλ.: St. Luke on other occa- sions, as here, distinguishes Jerusalem as a district separate from all the rest of Judza (cf. Luke v. 17, Acts x. 39), a proof of in- timate acquaintance with the Rabbinical phraseology of the time, according to Eder- sheim, Sketches of Fewish Social Life, pp. 17,73. In this verse, see Introduction, the keynote is struck of the contents of the whole book, and the great divisions of the Acts are marked, see, ¢.g., Blass, p. 12 in Prologue to Acts— Jerusalem, i.-vii. ; Judza, ix., 32; xii., 19; Samaria, viii.; and if it appears somewhat strained to see in St. Paul’s preaching in Rome a witness to “the utmost parts of the earth,” it is noteworthy that in Psalms of Solomon, viii., 16, we read of Pompey that he came ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς; 1.¢., Rome—the same phrase as in Actsi. 8, This verse affords a good illustration of the subjective element which characterises the partition theories of Spitta, Jiingst, Clemen and others. Spitta would omit the whole verse from his sources A and B, and considers it as an interpolation by the author of Acts; but, as Hilgenfeld points out, the verse is entirely in its place, and it forms the best answer to the “‘ particu- larism’’ of the disciples, from which their question in ver. 6 shows that they were not yet free. Feine would omit the words ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς because nothing in the conduct of the early Church, as it is described to us in the Jewish-Christian source, Actsi.-xii., points to any knowledge of such a commission from the Risen Christ. Jiingst disagrees with both Spitta and Feine, and thinks that the hand of the redactor is visible in prominence given to the little Samaria.

Ver. 9. ἐπήρθη: the word in ver. 2 is different, and ρθη seems not merely to denote our Lord’s first leaving the ground (as Weiss, Overbeck), but also to be more in accordance with the calm and grandeur of the event than ἀπήρθη ; this latter word would rather denote a taking away by violence.—xai νεφέλη ὑπέλαβε: the cloud is here, as elsewhere, the symbol of the divine glory, and it was also as St. Chrysostom called it; τὸ ὄχημα τὸ βασιλίκον ; cf. Ps. civ. 3. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 we read that our Lord was received up ἐν δόξῃ, ‘“‘in glory,” R.V.

Ver. 10. ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν : this peri- phrasis of ἦν or ἦσαν with a present or perfect participle is very frequently found in St. Luke’s writings (Friedrich, pp. 12 and 8g, and compare the list in Simcox, 4. s., pp. 130-134). The verb is peculiar to St. Luke and St. Paul, and is found ten times in Acts, twice in St. Luke’s Gospel, and twice in 2 Cor.; it denotes a fixed, steadfast, protracted gaze: ‘and while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went,” R.V., thus ex- pressing more clearly the longing gaze of the disciples watching the Lord as He was going (πορενομένου αὐτοῦ, the pre- sent participle denoting that the cloud was still visible for a considerable time), as if carrying their eyes and hearts with Him to heaven: ‘‘ Ipse enim est amor noster ; ubi autem amor, ibi est oculus et cor” {Kam a Lapide). The word is also ound in LXX 1 Esdr. vi. 28 and 3 Macc. ii. 26 (cf. Aquila, Job vii. 8), and also in Josephus, B. F., v., 12, 3, and Polybius. Ramsay, St. Paul, 38, 39, gives a most valuable account of the use of the word in St. Luke, and concludes that the action implied by it is quite inconsistent with weakness of vision, and that the theory which makes Paul a per- manent sufferer in the eyes, as if he could not distinctly see the persons near him, is hopelessly at variance with St. Luke; cf. too the meaning of the word as used by St. Paul himself in 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13, where not weak but strong sight is implied in the word. Theverbthuscommon in St. Luke is frequently employed by medical writers

58

ΠΡΑΞΕῚΣ AMOSTOAQN I.

πορευομένου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο παρειστήκεισαν 1 αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐσθῆτι λευκῇ,2 11. ot καὶ εἶπον, “AvSpes Γαλιλαῖοι, τί ἑστήκατε ἐμβλέποντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; οὗτος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ ἀνἀληφθεὶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, οὕτως ἐλεύσεται, ὃν τρόπον ἐθεάσασθε αὐτὸν

πορευόμενον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.

12. τότε ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ

1 παρειστηκεισαν; W.H. read παρισ΄.» but see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. roo. 2 εσθητι Mevey SDE Syr. Harcl., Aeth., Orig.-int., Chrys., so Hilgenfeld; but in

ευκαις

R.V. εἐσθησεσι

ΝΑΒΟ and good cursives, Vulg., Syr. Pesh.. Arm., Sah.

Boh., Tisch., W.H., Weiss; so also Blass in B.

to denote a peculiar fixed look (Zahn) ; so in Luke xxii. 56, where it is used for the servant-maid’s earnest gaze at St. Peter, a gaze not mentioned at all by St. Matthew, and expressed by a different word in St. Mark xiv. 67; Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 76. In LXX, as above, it is employed in a secondary sense, but by Aquila, w. s., in its primary meaning of gazing, beholding. --κ-αὶ ἰδοὺ : καὶ at the commencement of the apodosis is explained as Hebraistic, but instances are not wanting in classical Greek; cf. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 257, and see also Simcox, ubi supra, p. 160 ff. For the formula καὶ ἰδοὺ cf.

the Hebrew rary, and on St. Luke’s

employment of it in sudden interpositions, see Hort, Ecclesia, p. 179. The use of καί (which in the most Hebraic books of the N.T. is employed much more exten- sively than in classical Greek) is most frequent in Luke, who also uses more frequently than other writers the formula καὶ ἰδού to introduce an apodosis; ¢f. Friedrich, ubi supra, p. 33.-παρειστή- κεισαν αὐτοῖς: in the appearance of angels which St. Luke often narrates there is a striking similarity between the phraseology of his Gospel and the Acts; cf. with the present passage Acts x. 30, xii. 7, and Luke xxiv. 4, ii. 9. The de- scription in the angels’ disappearances is not so similar, cf. Acts x. 7 and Luke ii. 15, but it must be remembered that there is only one other passage in which the departure of the angels is mentioned, Rev. xvi. 2; Friedrich, ubi supra, pp. 45, 52, and Zeller, Acts ii., p. 224 (E. T.). For the verb cf. Luke i. 19, xix. 24, Acts xxiii. 2, 4, and especially xxvii. 23.—év ἐσθῆτι λευκῇ: in R.V. in the plural, see critical notes and also Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. go.

Ver. 11. ἄνδρες Γαλ.: the ἄνδρες in similar expressions is often indicative of respect as in classical Greek, but as ad-

dressed by angels to men it may denote the earnestness of the address (N Osgen). St. Chrysostom saw in the salutation a wish to gain the confidence of the disciples: “Else, why needed they to be told of their country who knew it well enough?” Calvin also rejects the notion that the angels meant to blame the slowness and dulness of apprehension of Galilzans. At the same time the word Tak. seems to remind us that things which are de- spised (John vii. 52) hath God chosen. Ex Galilea nunquam vel certe raro fuerat propheta ; at omnes Afostoli (Bengel) ; see also below.—otros ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς: if the mention of their northern home had re- minded the disciples of their early choice by Christ and of all that He had been to them, the personal name Jesus would assure them that their master would still be a human Friend and divine Saviour; Hic Fesus;: qui vobis fuit eritque semper Fesus, id est, Salvator (Corn. ἃ Lap.). - πορευόμενον : on the frequency of the verb in St. Luke as compared with other N.T. writers, often used to give effect and vividness to the scene, both Frie- drich and Zeller remark; St. Peter uses the same word of our Lord’s Ascension, 1 Peter iii. 22. As at the Birth of Christ, so too at His Ascension the angels’ mes- sage was received obediently and joyfully, for only thus can we explain Luke xxiv. 52.

Ver. 12. τότε: frequent in Acts and in St. Luke’s Gospel, but most frequent in St. Matthew; on its use see Grimm- Thayer, and Blass, Gramm. des N. G., p. 270.—tréorpeav: a word charac- teristic of Luke both in his Gospel and in Acts, occurring in the former over twenty times, in the latter ten or eleven times. Only in three places elsewhere, not at all in the Gospels, but see Mark xiv. 40 (Moulton and Geden, sub v.); Friedrich, ubi supra, p. 8 On the Ascension see additional note at end of chapter.—rot kak. ᾿Ελαιῶνος : “bi captus et vinctus fuerat, Wetstein. Although

ltI—r3.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

59

ἀπὸ ὅρους τοῦ καλουμένου ᾿Ελαιῶνος, ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς Ἱερουσαλήμ,

σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν.

13. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθον, ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον οὗ ἦσαν καταμέ- νοντες, ὅ τε Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης 1 καὶ ᾿Ανδρέας, φίλιππος

1 laxwBos και ἰωαννης, so E, Syr. Harcl., Arm. Zoh., Chrys., Theodrt.; but in inverse order in S;ABCD 61, Vulg. and good versions, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt,

Weiss.

St. Matthew and St. Mark both speak of the Mount of Olives they do not say τοῦ καλ. (neither is the formula found in John viii. 1). It is therefore probable that St. Luke speaks as he does as one who was a stranger to Jerusalem, or, as writing to one who was so. Blass, ubi supra, pp. 32, 84, contends that ᾿Ελαιῶνος ought to give place to ἐλαιῶν, which he also reads in Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37 (W.H. ᾿Ελαιῶν, and in Luke xix. 37, xxii. 39, τῶν ᾿Ελαιῶν, in each case as genitive of ἐλαία), the former word being found only here and in Josephus, Ant., Vii., 9,2. But it is found in all the MSS. in this passage, although falso D. cum cet., says Blass. . Blass would thus get rid of the difficulty of regarding Ἐλαιών as if used in Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37 as an indeclinable noun, whilst here he would exchange its genitive for ἐλαιῶν. Deiss- mann, however, is not inclined to -set aside the consensus of authoritities for ᾿Ελαιῶνος, and he regards ἐλαιών in the two passages above as a lax use of the nominative case. As the genitive of ἐλαιών it would correspond to the Latin Olivetum (so Vulgate), an olive-orchard ; cf. ἄμπελος and ἀμπελών in N.T., the _ termination ὦν in derivative nouns in- dicating a place set with trees of the kind designated by the primitive. For instances cf. Grimm-Thayer, sub Ἐλαιών, but see on the other hand Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 36 ff. With regard to the parallel between our verse and Jose- phus, Axt., vii., 9, 2, it is evident that even if St. Luke had read Josephus he was not dependent upon him, for he says here τοῦ kad. just as in his Gospel he had written τὸ καλ., probably giving one or more popular names by which the place was known; Gloél, Galaterbrief, p. 65 (see also on the word W.H., ii., Appendix, p. 165; Plummer, St. Luke, p. 445; and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 93).—oaBBarov ἔχον ὁδόν, not ἀπέχον: the distance is repre- sented as something which the mountain has, Meyer-Wendt; cf. Luke xxiv. 13. There is no real discrepancy between this and the statement of St. Luke’s Gospel

that our Lord led His disciples ἕως πρὸς Βηθανίαν, xxiv. 50, a village which was more than double a sabbath day’s journey, fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem. But if the words in St. Luke, /. c., mean “ over against Bethany,” ἕως πρός (so Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lucas, p. 79, and Nosgen, Apfostel- geschichte, p. 80; see also Rendall, Acts, p. 171—Blass omits ἕως and reads only πρός and remarks neque vero πρός est eis; cf. also Belser, Theologische Quar- talschrift, i., 79 (1895)), the difficulty is surmounted, for St. Luke does not fix the exact spot of the Ascension, and he else- where uses the Mount of Olives, Luke xxi. 37, as the equivalent of the Bethany of Matthew (xxi. 17) and ‘Mark (xi. 1). Nor is it likely that our Lord would lead His disciples into a village for the event of His Ascension. It should be remem- bered that Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., says that ‘the Ascension was from the place where that tract of the Mount of Olives ceased to be called Bethphage and began to be called Bethany”. The recent attempt of Rud. Hoffmann to refer the Ascension to a ‘* Galilee” in the Mount of Olives rests upon a tradition which cannot be regarded as reliable (see Galilea auf dem Oelberg, Leipzig, 1896), although he can quote Resch as in agree- ment with him, p. 14. On Hoffmann’s pamphlet see also Expositor (5th series), Ρ. 119 (1897), and Theologisches Litera- turblatt, No. 27 (1897). This mention of the distance is quite characteristic of St. Luke; it may also have been intro- duced here for the benefit of his Gentile readers; Page, Acts, in loco, and cf. Ramsay’s remarks, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? pp. 55, 56.

Ver. 13. τὸ ὑπερῷον: “the upper cham- ber,” R.V., as of some well-known place, but there is no positive evidence to identify it with the room of the Last Supper, al- though here and in Mark xiv. 15, as also in Luke xxii. 12, the Vulgate has cenaculum. Amongst recent writers Hilgenfeld and Feine see in this definite mention ofa room well known to the readers a reference ta

60

MIPAZEIZ AMOZTOAQN I.

καὶ Θωμᾶς, Βαρθολομαῖος καὶ Ματθαῖος, ᾿Ιάκωβος ᾿Αλφαίου 2 καὶ

Σίμων ὁ Ζηλωτής, καὶ ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου.

14. οὗτοι πάντες ἦσαν

1 Ματθαιος ΑΒΟΕ, Boh. Μαθθαιος $2 Β᾽Π), Sah.; so Tisch., W.H., Weiss; see

Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 60, 61.

For lax. AAgatov D, Sah. read lax. ο του AAd., may

be assimilation to Matt. x. 3 and Me, iii. 18 (not Le.); Chase explains by Syriac

idiom; retained by Blass in B. 2 kat Ty δεησει C*, Chrys.

Omitted by SABC*DE 61, and others, Vulg., Sah.,

Boh,, Arm., Aeth., Chrys. ; so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt, Weiss, Hilgenfeld. σὺν γυναιξιν, D adds και τεκνοις, so Hilgenfeld, but rejected by Blass (‘*male D”’), for which see criticism of Weiss, Codex D, p. 54; probably occasioned by mention of

the women, cf. xxi. 5. οὔτοι πάντες omit

the author’s first book, Luke xxii, 11, 12. But the word used in St. Mark and in St. Luke’s Gospel is different from that in the passage before us—avdyatov, but here ὑπερῷον. If we identify the former with the κατάλυμα, Luke xxii. 11, it would denote rather the guest-chamber used for meals than the upper room or loft set apart for retirement or prayer, although sometimes used for supper or for assemblies (ὑπερῷον). Both words are found in classical Greek, but only the latter in the LXX, where it is frequent. In the N.T. it is used by St. Luke alone, and only in Acts. Holtzmann, follow- ing Lightfoot and Schéttgen, considers that an upper room in the Temple is meant, but this would be scarcely pro- bable under the circumstances, and a meeting in a private house, ii. 46, iv. 23, v. 42, is far more likely.—8 τε Π.: ina series of nouns embraced under one cate- gory only the first may have the article, Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 154-157. In com- paring this list of the Apostles with that given by the Synoptists we notice that whilst St. Peter stands at the head in the four lists, those three are placed in the first group who out of the whole band are prominent in the Acts as also in the Gospels, viz., Peter, John, and James; all the Synoptists, however, place St. James as the elder brother before St. John. In St. Luke’s first list, as in St. Matthew’s list, the brothers Peter and Andrew stand first, followed by another pair of brothers James and John; but in Acts Andrew gives place, as we might expect, to the three Apostles who had been admitted to the closest intimacy with Jesus during His earthly life, and St. John as St. Peter’s constant com- panion in the Gospel narrative makes a pair with him. The list in Acts agrees with that given by St. Luke in his Gospel in two particulars (see Friedrich, ubi supra, p. 50, and so too Zeller): (1) Simon the Zealot is called not ὃ Καναν-

. Aug., Cypr.

Μαριᾳ SACD, Boh., Chrys.

atios, as in Matthew and Mark, but 4 Ζηλωτής, cf. Luke vi. 15; (2) instead of Thaddzeus (or Lebbzeus) we have “ Judas of James,” cf. Luke vi. 16.—lov8as *lax@Bov, “the sow of James,” R.V. (so too above ᾿Ιάκωβος ᾿Αλφαίου, “ James the son of Alphzus”), placing the words ‘or, brother, see Jude i.,” in the margin, so too in Luke vi. 16. The rendering of the words as Jude the brother of James was probably caused by Jude i., and it is difficult to believe, as Nésgen argues (see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 262), that in the same list and in such close prox- imity these two meanings ‘‘the son of” and ‘‘the brother of” should occur for the genitive, although no doubt it is possible grammatically ; see Nésgen and Wendt, zz loco. On the other hand, see Felten, note, p.66. But Winer, to whom the latter refers, is by no means positive, and only expresses the opinion that ἀδελφός is perhaps to be supplied here and in Luke vi. 16 if the same Apostle is referred to in Jude i. (Winer-Moulton, p. 238). But the identification with the latter is very improbable, as he was most . likely the brother of James, known as ‘‘the Lord’s brother” (see Plummer on Luke, vi., 16, and Salmon, Introduction to N. T., pp. 473, 474, fifth edit.). It is also noteworthy that St. Luke uses ἀδελφός where he means “ brother,” cf. Luke iii. I, vi. 14; Acts xii.2. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., gives the same reference to Alciphr., ii., 2, as Winer, Τιμοκράτης 6 Μητροδώρου, sc. ἀδελφός, but at the same time he declines to commit himself as to the passage in Acts and Luke vi. The list, it has been thought, is given here again by St. Luke to show the re- covery of the Apostolic band from their denial and flight—so St. Chrysostom remarks that Luke did well to mention the disciples, for since one had betrayed Christ and another had been unbelieving, he hereby shows that, except the first, all were preserved (so to the same effect

14.

TIPAZEIZ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

6Ὶ

προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει, σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ Μαρίᾳ ᾿ τῇ μητρὶ τοῦ ‘Ingo’, καὶ σὺν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ.

1 Μαριαμ BE (some very good cursives), Sah., Aeth., Chrys.; so Tisch., W.H., Weiss—the latter is said to be put always for the Virgin, but here evidence seems equally divided (see Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 90, 91).

CEcumenius, in loco). There may also have been the desire of the author to intimate that although only the works of a few on the list would be chronicled, yet all alike were witnesses to Christ and workers for Him (Lumby).

Ver. 14. καὶ ἦσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες: on the construction see ver.10. In N.T. found only in St. Luke and St. Paul iecret once in St. Mark iii. 9); most

equently with the dative of the thing, of continuing steadfast in prayer; cf. vi. 4, Rom. xii. 12, Col. iv. 2, and cf. also ii. 42 or ii. 46 of continuing all the time in (év) a place; in Acts viii. 13, x. 7, it is used with the dative of the person, and in Rom. xiii. 6 with εἴς τι. It is found in Josephus with the dative of the thing, Ant., v., 2, 6, and in Polybius, who also uses it with the dative of the person, In LXX it is found in Numbers xiii. 21 and in Susannah ver.6, Theod., also in Tobit v. 8, 5.-ὁΘὁἈΈμοθυμαδὸν, a favourite word of St. Luke: Luce in Actis in deliciis est (Blass) —used ten or eleven times in Acts, only once elsewhere in N.T., Rom. xv. 6, where it has the same meaning, Vulgate unanimiter. In the LXX it is oftener found as the equivalent of Hebrew words meaning simply “together,” and Hatch, Essays in B. G., p. 63, would limit it to this meaning in the N.T., but the word cannot be confined to mere outward assembling together ; cf. Dem., Phil., iv., 147, ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης (Meyer- Wendt); so Luther einmithig. It was very natural that St. Luke should lay stress upon the absolute unanimity of the early believers, and the word is used with reference to the Twelve, to the hundred- and-twenty, to the whole number of believers; truly the Holy Ghost was “amator concordie” (Corn. ἃ Lapide). --τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει : the latter noun cannot be supported by MS. author- ity; the two words mark the difference between general and specific prayer; cf. Bengel on 1 Tim. ii. 1, and cf. Luke, v., 33. It is very doubtful whether we can confine προσευχή here to the Temple prayers; rather the article, cf. vi. 4 and ii. 42, seems to point to a definite custom of common prayer as a bond of Christian fellowship (Hort, Ecclesia, p. 43, so Speaker's Com- mentary,in loco). As in his Gospel, so

here and elsewhere in Acts, St. Luke lays stress upon frequency in prayer, and that too in all parts of the book (Friedrich, Pp. 55-60).---σὺν γυναιξὶ : it is natural to include the women already mentioned in St. Luke’s Gospel, cf, ¢.g., viii. 2, 3, xxiii. 55, ‘with the women,” R.V., or the ex- pression may be quite indefinite as in margin R.V. In this mention of the presence of women, as in the stress laid upon prayer, there is another point of unity between the book and the third Gospel, “‘ The Gospel of Womanhood” (see also Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 50). (The mention of women would certainly indicate a pri- vate house rather than the Temple.) Erasmus and Calvin both interpret the words cum uxoribus, probably not without desire to make a point against celibacy. 7. Lightfoot allows that this meaning may be correct, since the Apostles and disciples who had wives took them with them, ‘‘ but,” he adds, “it is too strait ’.—Mapidp (for Μαρίᾳ), so always according to W.H. of the Blessed Vir- gin, nominative, vocative, accusative, dative, except twice in a few of the best MSS. (Matt. i. 20, and Luke ii. 19). Cf. Appendix, p. 163. See also Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 28, and Winer- Schmiedel, p.g1, note. The καί may be taken either to comprehend her under the other women, or as distinguishing her from them. This is the last mention of her in the N.T., and the Scripture leaves her “in prayer”.—otv τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ : they are previously mentioned as unbelieving (John vii. 5, and compare Mark vi. 4), but not only the Resurrec- tion of the Lord but also that of Lazarus may well have overcome their unbelief. St. Chrysostom (so too GEcumenius) con- jectures that Joseph was dead, for it is not to be supposed, he says, that when the brethren had become believers Joseph believed not. As the brethren are here distinguished from the Eleven, it would seem that they could not have been included in the latter (see, however, “Brethren,” B.D.? pp. 13, 14). But whatever meaning we give to the word ‘‘ brethren”? here or in the Gospels, nothing could be more significant than the fact that they had now left their

62

ΠΡΑΞΕΙ͂Σ ATIOSTOAQN L

15. ΚΑΙ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἀναστὰς Πέτρος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν μαθητῶν ; εἶπεν (ἣν τε ὄχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὡς ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν"),

1 μαθητων; but SABC*, Vulg., Tisch., W.H., R.V., so Weiss, Wendt αδελφων.

settled homes in Galilee to take part in the lot of the disciples of Jesus, and to await with them the promise of the Father (Felten). It may have been that, James, ‘‘the Lord’s brother,” was con- verted by the Resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 5, and that his example constrained the other “brethren” to follow him. Ver. 15. καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις: St. Luke often employs such notes of time, used indefinitely like similar ex- pressions in Hebrew—e.g., 1 Sam. xxviil. 1, both in his Gospel and in Acts. Fried- rich, p. 9, Lekebusch, p. 53.---ἀναστὰς : it is very characteristic of St. Luke to add a participle to a finite verb indica- ting the posture or position of the speaker. This word is found in St. Luke’s Gospel seventeen times, and in Acts nineteen times, only twice in Matthew, six or seven times in Mark; οὗ. also his use of orafeis, three times in Gospel, six times in Acts, but not at all in the other Evangelists. — Πέτρος : that St. Peter should be the spokesman is only what we should naturally expect from his previous position among the Twelve, but, as St. Chrysostom observes, he does everything with the common consent, nothing imperiously. The best fruits of his repentance are here seen in the ful- filment of his commission to strengthen his brethren. ἐν μέσῳ : another favourite expression of St. Luke both in his Gospel and in the Acts, in the former eight times, in the latter five times (four times in St. Matthew, twice in St. Mark).

Blass compares the Hebrew ΓΞ,

Grammatik des N.G., p. 126, and in loco. -- μαθητῶν : Blass retains and contends that ἀδελφ. has arisen from either ver. 14 or ver. 16; but there is strong critical authority for the latter word; cf. vi. 1. In LXX it is used in three senses; a brother and a neighbour, Lev. xix. 17; a member of the same nation, Exod. ii. 14, Deut. xv. 3. In the N.T. it is used in these three senses, and also in the sense of fellow-Christians, who are looked upon as forming one family. The transition is easily seen: (1) member of the same family; (2) of the same community (national), of the same community (spirit- ual). Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, pp- 95, 96. On its use in religious as-

sociations in Egypt see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, i., 82, 140, 206. --- τε: here for the first time solitarium. On the frequent recurrence of this word in Acts in all parts, as compared with other books of the N.T., see Blass, Grammatik des N. G., pp. 257, 258.— ὀνομάτων : R.V., “persons”. Light- foot compares the use of the word in Rev. iii. 4, xi. 13 (so too Wendt), where the word is used to signify any persons without distinction of sex, so that the word may have been used here to include the women also. But he considers that it rather means men as distinct from women, and so, as he says, the Syriac and Arabic understand it here. Its use in the sense of persons reckoned up by

name is Hebraistic Mt) LXX, Numb.

2, 185,.Ἅ 20.. Til, 40, “νον (Grimm-Thayer, sub v.), but see also for a similar use on the Egyptian papyri, Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 24 (1897).—émwt τὸ αὐτὸ, ‘gathered to- gether,” R.V.; cf. Matt. xxii. 34, Luke xvii. 35, Acts il. 1, 44, 47 (so W.H., R.V., see in loco, Wendt, Weiss), 1 Cor. xi. 20, xiv. 23. Holtzmann, in loco, de- scribes it as always local, and it is no doubt so used in most of the above pas- sages, as also in LXX Psalm ii. 2 (cf, Acts iv, 26), 2 Sam. ii. 13, 3 Macc. iii. 1, Sus. v. 14, and in classical Greek. But when we remember the stress laid by St. Luke in the opening chapters of the Acts upon the unanimity of the believers, it is not unlikely that he should use the phrase, at all events in ii. 44, 47, with this deeper thought of unity of purpose and devotion underlying the words, even if we cannot render the phrase in each passage in Acts with Rendall (Acts, p. 34), “‘ with one mind,” “ of one mind ”,— ὡς ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν. Both Wendt and Feine reject the view that the number is merely mythical (Baur, Zeller, Overbeck, Weizsacker), and would rather see in it a definite piece of information which St. Luke had gained. It is quite beside the mark to suppose that St. Luke only used this particular number because it repre- sented the Apostles multiplied by 10, or 40 multiplied by 3. Ifhe had wished to emphasise the number as a number, why introduce the ὡς ὃ

15---17. TIPAZEIS ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 63

16. “Avdpes ἀδελφοί, Ser! πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην, ἣν προεῖπε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΛγιον διὰ στόματος Δαβίδ, περὶ ᾿Ιούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσι τὸν Ἰησοῦν - 17. ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν σὺν

1 εδει NABCD°E, Origen, Eus., Ath., W.H., Weiss. 8 D*, Vulg.,; Boh.; so Gig., Par., Aug. (Iren., Vig.), Hilgenfeld. Blass, p. xvii., in his Preface to B, argues that as Irenzus omits 174-20 and elsewhere seems to be ignorant of the death of Judas, so his text also omitted from κατηρ. ev ἡμῖν to γενηθητω. In his revised edition Luke added 17-20 and also substituted e8et for the original Ser: ‘ut significaretur ex parte jam esse ratum factum vetus vaticinium, exitu nempe Jude”. But the omission of Irenzeus may be accidental, or it has been suggested that he too

Aa

may have regarded 178-20 as a parenthesis and not actually part of Peter’s speech. διδ; but in SBD, so W.H., Weiss Δανειδ.

ACE read AAA; see Winer-

Schmiedel, p. 65, Blass, Proleg. (Acta Apost.), p. 34.

Ver. 16. “Av8pes ἀδελφοί: a mode of address indicating not only respect but also the solemnity of the occasion and the importance of the subject. There is nothing unclassical in this use of the vo- cative without ὦ at the beginning of speeches. Demosthenes, at least on some occasions, used the phrase “Av8pes ᾿Αθηναῖοι without ὦ. Simcox, ubi supra, p- 76, note, and see also Winer-Schmie- del, p. 258, note.—éSe.: very frequent in St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts; in the former nineteen, in the latter twenty- five times, and in all parts of the book, Friedrich, ubi supra, Ῥ. 22 (Lekebusch). It expresses a divine necessity, and is used by all the Evangelists, as by St. Peter here, and by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 25), of the events connected with and following upon the Passion.—8et, opor- tet, expresses logical necessity rather than personal moral obligation ὥφειλεν, debuit, or the sense of fitness, ἔπρεπεν, decebat. The three words are all found in Heb. ii. 1, 17, 10, on which see West- cott, Hebrews, p. 36, and Plummer’s Sz. Luke, p. 247. St. Peter’s speech falls into two parts, one introduced by ἔδει, and the other introduced by δεῖ, ver. 21. --τὴν γραφὴν: the reference is undoubt- edly to the particular passages in the O.T. which follow, cf. Luke iv. 20, Acts Vill. 35 ; see Lightfoot on Galatians iii. 22. There is no reference to Psalm xli. 9, or this passage would have been quoted, but to the passages in ver. 20.—iAnpw- θῆναι, cf. Luke xxiv. 44, 45. πληρόω (which is very frequently used by St. Luke, Friedrich, ubi supra, p. 40) means more than ““ fulfil” in the popular acceptation of the word; it implies “‘to fill up to the full”; ‘‘ Not only is our Lord the subject of direct predictions in the Old Testament, but His claims go to the full extent of affirming that all the truths which are imperfectly, and frequently very

darkly shadowed forth in the pages, are realised in Him as the ideal to which they pointed” (Row, Bampton Lectures, pp. 202, 203).---τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. St. Luke uses this, or a lay expression, πνεῦμα ἅγιον or τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, about forty times in Acts alone, whilst in St. Luke’s Gospel alone it is used about as many times as in the three other Evangelists together (Lekebusch, Apostelgeschichte, p. 65, and Plummer, St. Luke, p. 14).—é8nyod τοῖς συλλ. τὸν ᾿ησοῦν. St. Peter simply states a fact, but does not heap scorn or abuse upon Judas (Chrysostom, Hom., iii., cf. Theophylact). St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John simply say of Judas ὁ παραδιδούς, “he who delivered Him up,” or employ some similar expression ; he is never called “the traitor” (St. Luke vi. 16, ἐγένετο προδότης, ‘ became a traitor,” see Plummer, in loco). This self-restraint is remarkable on the part of men who must have regarded their Master’s Death as the most atrocious of murders (see Row, Bampton Lectures, pp- 179, 180, note). At the same time the word ὁδηγός seems to bring before us the scene in Gethsemane, how Judas went before the multitude, and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him (Luke xxii. 47), and to show us how vividly the memories of the Passion were present to St. Peter; cf, 1 Peter ii. 21 ff.).

Ver. 17. ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν K.7.A. Fortheconstruction see ver.10. 8rvintro- duces the ground upon which the Scripture to be cited, which speaks of the vacancy in the Apostolic office, found its fulfilment in Judas; “‘he was numbered,” ‘triste est numerari non manere,” Bengel.—xai ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον: lit., ““ and obtained by lot the lot”: κλῆρος, a lot, that which is assigned by lot, the portion or share so assigned ; so amongst the Greeks, and somewhat similarly in English, cf. in LXX Wisdom ii, 9, v. 5, Ecclesiasticus

64

ἡμῖν, καὶ ἔλαχε τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης. οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ τοῦ 4

1 του om. NABCDE, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilgenfeld.

IIPAZEJZ AMOZTOAQN

I.

18. οὗτος μὲν μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ πρηνὴς γενό-

After

αδικιας D inserts avrov; so Syr. Harcl., Sah., Aug., so Blass in B, and Hilgenfeld.,

Blass added at first, but see Hilg., note, p.

xxv. 19. The word is used elsewhere in Acts three times, i. 26, viii. 21, xxvi. 18; cf. with the last passage its use by St. Paul elsewhere, Col. i. 12. Here the word no doubt may be used by St. Peter with reference to the actual selection by lot which was about to follow. The same word is used elsewhere by the same Apostle, 1 Peter v. 3, “neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,” τῶν κλήρων. Tyndale and Cranmer render the word here ‘ parishes,” which really gives a good interpretation of it = the “lots” assigned to the elders as their portions in God’s heritage; and so we have by an easy transition clerici =clergy, those to whom such “ lots” are assigned: Humphry, Commentary on R. V., p. 446, Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 246 ff—€rayev: here and in 2 Peter i. r with an accusa- tive, as in classical Greek, “‘ received his portion’? R.V. On the construction of the verb with the genitive, cf. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., pp. 100, 230, and Plummer’s St. Luke, p. 11; with Luke i. 9, cf. 1 Sam. xiv., 47. In classical Greek it is used as the opposite of χειρο- τονηθῆναι, to be elected, more commonly with the infinitive.—8raxovfas: “ Apostle- ship the highest form of ministration is repeatedly designated thus,” Hort, Ec- clesia, p. 204, €.g., Vel. 25, XX. 24, xxi. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 1, v. 18, vi. 3, Rom. xi. 13, and see further on the word, chap. vi. below. It would be difficult to find in such a general term, or in any part of the speech, any reference to a hierarchical constitution of the Church (Zeller, Over- beck). Jiingst cannot derive any such view from this verse, although he sees in the description of διακονία as ἀποστολή, ver. 25, the mark of a later period than that of the delivery of the speech (so too Wendt).

Ver, 18. οὗτος μὲν οὖν κιτιλ, This verse and the next are regarded in R.V. as a parenthesis (compare also W.H.), μὲν οὖν making the transition from St. Peter’s own words to the ex- planatory statement of St. Luke; see Rendall’s Appendix on μὲν οὖν, although he would place ver. 20 also in a paren- thesis, Acts, p. 160 ff. For this frequent use of μὲν οὖν in Acts, see also Blass, who regards μέν as used here, as in other

4, και κατεδησεν αντου Tov τράχηλον.

places, without any following antithesis expressed by δέ, Grammatik des N. G., pp. 261, 267, see also Hackett’s note in loco. Spitta, Feine, Weiss, see in these two verses an editorial interpolation.— ἐκτήσατο χωρίον. To harmonise this with Matt. xxvii. 5, an explanation has been often used to this effect, that although Judas did not purchase the field, it was purchased by his money, and that thus he might be called its possessor. ‘This was the explanation adopted by the older commentators, and by many modern. Theophylact, ¢.g., describes Judas as rightly called the κύριος of the field for the price of it was his. It is no doubt quite possible that St. Peter (if the words are his and not St. Luke’s) should thus express himself rhetorically (and some of his other expressions are certainly rhetorical, ¢.g., ἐλάκησε μέσος), or that Judas should be spoken of as the pos- sessor of the field, just as Joseph of Arimathza is said to have hewn his own tomb, or Pilate to have scourged Jesus, but possibly Dr. Edersheim’s view that the blood-money by a fiction of law was still considered to belong to Judas may help to explain the difficulty, fesus the Messiah, ii., 575. Lightfoot comments, **Not that he himself bought the field, for Matthew resolves the contrary—nor was there any such thing in his intention when he bargained for the money,” and then he adds, ‘‘But Peter by a bitter irrision showeth the fruit and profit of his wretched covetise:”? Hor. Heb. (see also Hackett’s note). Without fully endorsing this, it is quite possible that St. Peter, or St. Luke, would contrast the portion in the ministry which Judas had received with the little which was the result of the price of his iniquity. —ék Tod μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας pro τοῦ ἀδίκου μισθοῦ, a Hebraism, Blass, in loco, see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 268. The phrase only occurs again in 2 Peter ‘ii. 13, 15; on this use of ἐκ see Simcox, “anguage of the N.T., p. 146. Com- binations of words with ἀδικία are characteristic of St. Luke (Friedrich). In the other Evangelists the word is only found once, John vii. 18. — καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμ. Wendt (following Zeller and Overbeck) and others maintain

18---το.

TIPAZEI= ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ

65

μενος ἐλάκησε μέσος, καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ - 10. καὶ γνωστὸν ἐγένετο πᾶσι τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, ὥστε κληθῆναι τὸ χωρίον ἐκεῖνο τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν ᾿Ακελδαμὰ,}

1 Ακελδαμα, so C, Syr. Harcl., Chrys., Vulg.; Αχελδαμαχ NA 40, 61, Tisch. ; AxehSapax B,so W.H., Weiss ; ἀκελδαιμαχ D (Blass in B -δεμαχ), so Hilg., and other variants; in Gig., Par. -emac(h), Final x (-ax) seems certain—see comment below.

that St, Luke here follows a different tradition from St. Matthew, xxvii. 6 ff., and that it is only arbitrary to attempt to reconcile them. But Felten and Zéckler (so too Lumby and Jacobson) see in St. Luke’s description a later stage in the terrible end of the traitor. St. Matthew says καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο: if the rope broke, or a branch gave way under the weight of Judas, St. Luke’s narrative might easily be supplementary to that of St. Matthew. Blass, in loco, adopts the former alternative, and holds that thus the narrative may be harmon- ised with that of St. Matthew, rupto fune Iudam in terram procidisse. It is difficult to see (as against Overbeck) why πρηνὴς γεν. is inconsistent with this. The words no doubt mean strictly ‘‘ fall- ing flat on his face”’ opposed to ὕπτιος, not ‘falling headlong,” and so they do not necessarily imply that Judas fell over a precipice, but Hackett’s view that Judas may have hung himself from a tree on the edge of a precipice near the valley of Hinnom, and that he fell on to the rocky pavement below is suggested from his own observation of the locality, p. 36, Acts of the Apostles (first English edition), see also Edersheim, ubi supra, pp. 575, 576. At all events there is nothing dis- concerting in the supposition that we may have here ‘‘some unknown series of facts, of which we have but two frag- mentary narratives”: ‘ Judas,” B.D.?, and see further Plummer sub v. in Hast- ings’ B.D. ἐλάκησε: here only in the N.T. Adoxa: a strong expression, signi- fying bursting asunder with a loud noise, Hom., Iliad, xiii., 616; cf. also Acta Thome, 33 (p. 219, ed. Tdf.): 6 δράκων φυσηθεὶς ἐλάκησε καὶ ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐξεχύθη ὁ ἰὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ χολή, for the construction cf. Luke xxiii. 45.

Ver. 19. καὶ γνωστὸν ... πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ἵερουσ.: the words have been taken to support the view that we have here a parenthesis containing the notice of St. Luke, but if St. Peter was speaking rhetorically he might easily ex- press himself so. But many critics, who refuse to see in the whole of the two verses any parenthetical remarks of the

VOL, ἢ.

historian, adopt the view that τῇ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν and τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν χωρίον αἵματος are explanations introduced by St. Luke, who could trust to his Gentile readers to distinguish between his words and those of St. Peter (Wendt, Holtzmann, Zockler, Noésgen, Jiingst. Matthias).—rq διαλέκτῳ: only in Acts in the N.T., where it is used six times in all parts; it may mean dia- lect or language, but here it is used in the latter sense (R.V.) to distinguish Aramaic from Greek (cf. its use in Poly- bius).—atrav, i.¢., the dwellers of Jeru- salem, who spoke Aramaic—unless the whole expression is used rhetorically, it would seem that it contains the words, not of St. Peter, who himself spoke Aramaic, but of the author (see Blass, in loco).— AxeASapa: the Aramaic of the

Field of Blood would be δ ben

me) and it is possible that the x may be added to represent in some way the guttural N,

just as Zipdx=N"\"D, cf. Blass, zn loco, andGrammattik des N.G.,p.13. W.H. (so Blass) read ‘AxeASapay (and ᾿Αχελδαμάχ, Tisch. and Treg.); see also on the word Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 60 and 63. A new derivation has been proposed by Klostermann, Probleme in Afosteltexte, p- 6 ff., which has gained considerable attention (cf. Holtzmann, Wendt, Felten,

Zockler, in loco), viz.: ‘O77 Ξεκοιμᾶσθαι,

so that the word = κοιμητήριον, cf. Matt. xxvii. 8. This is the derivation preferred by Wendt, and it is very tempting, but see also Enc. Bibl., 1., 32, 1899, sub v. It is true that the two accounts in St. Matthew and St. Luke give two reasons for the name Field of Blood. But why should there not be two reasons? If the traitor in the agony of his remorse rushed from the Temple into the valley of Hin- nom, and across the valley to ‘the pot- ter’s field” of Jeremiah, the old name of the potter’s field might easily become changed in the popular language into that of “field of blood,” whilst the rea- son given by St. Matthew for the name might still hold good, since the blood- money, which ὃν a fiction of law was

66

τουτέστι χωρίον αἵματος.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ I.

20. γέγραπται yap ἐν βίβλῳ Ψαλμῶν,

“Γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρημος, καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν

αὐτῇ "" καὶ, “Τὴν