Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 16

Acts 16:1. After γυναικός Elz. has τινος, which is decidedly spurious according to the evidence.

Acts 16:3. τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἕλλ. ὑπῆρχεν] Lachm. reads ὅτι Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν, according to A B C א, min. Rightly; the Recepta is a mechanical or designed transposition into the usual mode of expression by attraction. If the reading of Lachm. were a resolution of the attraction, Ἕλλην would not have been placed first.

Acts 16:6. διελθόντες] A B C D E א, min. and several vss. and Fathers have διῆλθον, and in Acts 16:7 for the most part δέ after ἐλθόντες. Both are adopted by Lachm. and Born. The attestation of this reading is so preponderating, that it cannot be held as an emendation to avoid the recurrence of participial clauses. The Recepta, on the contrary, appears to have arisen because of a wish to indicate that the hindrance of the Spirit took place only after passing through Phrygia and Galatia, which appeared necessary if Asia was understood in too wide a sense. The reading of the Vulg. presents another corresponding attempt: “transeuntes autem … vetati sunt.”

Acts 16:7. εἰς τ. Β.] Elz. has κατὰ τ. Β., against decisive evidence. Either a mere error of a copyist after the preceding κατά, or an intentional interpretation.

ʼΙησοῦ] is wanting in Elz., but supported by decisive evidence. If only πνεῦμα were original, the gloss added would not have been Ἰησοῦ (for πν. Ἰησοῦ is not elsewhere found in the N.T.), but, from the preceding, τὸ ἅγιον.

Acts 16:9. The order best attested and therefore to be adopted is: ἀνὴρ Μακεδών τις ἦν. So Lachm., also Tisch. and Born.; the latter, however, has deleted ἦν according to too weak evidence (it was wholly superfluous), and, moreover, has in accordance with D adopted ἐν ὁράματι … ὤφθη ὡσεὶ ἀνὴρ κ.τ.λ., an explanatory gloss, as also are the words κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ added after ἑστώς (Born.).

Acts 16:10. ὁ Κύριος] A B C E א, min. Copt. Vulg. Jer. have ὁ Θεός. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is a gloss in accordance with Acts 16:7 (πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ), comp. Acts 13:2, or written on the margin in accordance with Acts 2:39.

Acts 16:13. πύλης] Approved already by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. instead of the usual πόλεως, against which A B C D א, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. witness. τῆς πόλεως was written by the side of τῆς πύλης as a gloss (as some vss. have still τ. πύλης τ. πόλεως), and then supplanted the original.

ἐνομίζετο προσευχή] A** B C א, loti. 13, 40, Copt. Aeth. have ἐνομίζομεν προσευχήν. So Lachm. An alteration, because the reading of the text was not understood. From the same misunderstanding the reading in D, Epiph. ἐδόκει προσευχή (so Born.) arose, and the translation of the Vulg., “ubi videbatur oratio esse.”

Acts 16:16. τὴν προσευχήν] In Elz. the article is wanting, but is supported by preponderating evidence and by its necessity (Acts 16:13).

Πύθωνος] A B C* D (?) א, loti 33, Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have πύθωνα. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Correctly; the accusative, not understood, was changed for the genitive as the more intelligible case, which was well known to the transcribers with πνεῦμα (comp. especially, Luke 4:33).

Acts 16:17. Instead of the second ἡμῖν, Tisch. Born. have ὑμῖν, contrary to A C G H, min. vss. and Fathers. But ἡμῖν appeared less suitable, especially as a demoniacal spirit spoke from the παιδίσκη.

Acts 16:24. Instead of εἰληφώς read, with Lachm. and Born., λαβών on decisive evidence.

Acts 16:31. Χριστόν] is with Lachm. and Tisch. to be deleted as a usual addition (comp. on Acts 15:11), on the authority of A B א, min. Copt. Vulg. Lucif.

Acts 16:32. καὶ πᾶσι] A B C D א, min. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have σὺν πᾶσι. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The καί easily crept in, because with it the dative πᾶσι τοῖς remained, and because καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου (Acts 16:31) preceded.

Acts 16:34. ἠγαλλιάσατο] C* (?) D, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl have ἠγαλλιᾶτο. Approved by Griesb. and adopted by Born, and Tisch. With this weak attestation it is to be regarded as an easily committed error of a transcriber.

Acts 16:39. ἐξελθεῖν τῆς πόλ.] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τ. πόλ., according to A B א, min. A more definite and precise statement.

Acts 16:40. πρός] Elz. has εἰς against decisive evidence.

Acts 16:1-2. Δέρβ. κ. Λύστρ.] See on Acts 14:6.

ἐκεῖ] does not refer to both cities, as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 58, strangely assumes, but to the last named, Lystra. Here Timothy, whose conversion by Paul is to be referred to Acts 14:6 f., was at that time residing (ἦν ἐκεῖ); probably it was also his native place,[46] as may be inferred from Acts 16:2 (ἐμαρτυρεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν Λύστροις) compared with Acts 16:3 (ᾜΔΕΙΣΑΝ ΓᾺΡ ἍΠΑΝΤΕς Κ.Τ.Λ.). Usually (even by Olshausen and Neander, but not by de Wette and Baumgarten) Timothy is supposed to be a native of Derbe (on account of Acts 20:4; but see remarks on that passage); ἐκεῖ is referred to ΔΈΡΒΗΝ (very arbitrarily), and Acts 16:2 is explained to mean that, besides the (presupposed) good report of his native city, Timothy had also the good report of the neighbouring cities of Lystra and Iconium; a very forced explanation, which Theophilus and the other first readers certainly did not hit upon!

ΓΥΝΑΙΚ. ἸΟΥΔ. ΠΙΣΤ.] The name of this Jewish-Christian was Eunice. See 2 Timothy 1:5. Ἰουδαίας is the adjective (John 3:22), as also ἝΛΛΗΝΟς and ΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ, Acts 16:9. Whether the father was a pure Gentile or a proselyte of the gate, the language employed (see on Acts 11:20) and the lack of other information leave entirely undecided.

ἘΜΑΡΤΥΡ.] as in Acts 6:3.

ἸΚΟΝΊῼ] see on Acts 13:51. What were the peculiar circumstances, which had made Timothy honourably known in Iconium as well as in the place of his birth, we do not know.

[46] With this Köhler also agrees in Herzog’s Encyk. XVI. p. 168; Huther and Wiesinger leave it undecided; but Wieseler, p. 25 f., endeavours to uphold the usual view. But see on Acts 20:4.

Acts 16:3. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a pious education (2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:15), Timothy was also well adapted to be the coadjutor of the apostle from the peculiar external relation in which he stood as belonging by parentage both to the Jewish and to the Gentile Christians.

λαβὼν περιέτεμεν] he took and circumcised. There is no reason whatever to suppose that Paul should not have himself performed this act, which might in fact be done by any Israelite (comp. on Luke 1:59).

διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους] namely, to avoid the offence which the Jews in the region of Lystra and Iconium would have taken, had Paul associated with himself one who was uncircumcised to go forth (ἐξελθεῖν) as his colleague in proclaiming the Messianic salvation. Paul acted thus according to the principle of wise and conciliatory accommodation (1 Corinthians 9:19), and not out of concession to the Judaistic dogma of the necessity of circumcision for obtaining the Messianic salvation.[47] He acted thus in order to leave no cause of offence at his work among the yet unconverted Jews of that region, and not to please Christian Judaists, to whom, if they had demanded the circumcision of Timothy, as they did that of Titus at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:3 f.), he would as little have yielded as he did in the case of Titus. This entirely non-dogmatic motive for the measure, which was neither demanded by others nor yet took place with a view to Timothy’s own salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree (Acts 15:29) or with Galatians 2:3; for in the case of Titus circumcision was demanded by others against his will, and that on the ground of dogmatic assertion, and so Paul could not allow that to be done on Titus (comp. Galatians 5:2) which he himself performed on Timothy. This we remark in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who attack our narrative as unhistorical, because it stands radically at variance with the apostle’s principles and character, so that it belongs “to the absolutely incredible element in the Book of Acts” (Baur, I. p. 147, ed. 2). See, on the other hand, Lechler in the Wurtemb. Stud. xix. 2, p. 130 ff., and apost. und nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 419; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 136 f.; Lekebusch, p. 272 ff.; Baumgarten, I. p. 483 ff. Chrysostom has hit in the main on the correct interpretation: οὐδὲν Παύλου συνετώτερον· ὥστε πάντα πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον ἑώρα … περιέτεμεν ἵνα περιτομὴν καθέλῃ. But the canon insisted on in the Talmud: partus sequitur ventrem (see Wetstein), can hardly have been taken into consideration by the apostle (in opposition to Thiersch and Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 102 f.), because Timothy was already a Christian, and thus beyond the stage of Judaism; and therefore it is not to be assumed, with Ewald, p. 482, that Paul had wished merely to remove the reproach of illegitimacy from Timothy—even laying aside the fact that Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception only of the seven Canaanitish nations (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1 ff.). The circumstance: υἱὸς γυναικὸς κ.τ.λ., Acts 16:1, serves only to explain whence it happens that Timothy, whose Christian mother was known to be a Jewess; was yet uncircumcised; the father was a Gentile, and had in his paternal authority left him uncircumcised.

Observe, according to the correct reading ὅτι Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν (see the critical remarks), the suitable emphasis with which the predicate is placed first: that a Greek his father was. ὑπάρχειν in the sense of ΕἾΝΑΙ is used most frequently in the N.T. by Luke. An antithesis to ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ is arbitrarily and unsuitably imported by Otto.

[47] Erasmus in his Paraphrase (dedicated to Pope Clement VII.) observes: “Non quod crederet circumcisionem conferre salutem, quam sola fides adferebat, sed ne quid tumultus oriretur a Judaeis.” Observe this distinctively Lutheran sola fides.

Acts 16:4-5. Παρεδίδουν] orally, perhaps also partly in writing, by delivering to them a copy of the decree, Acts 15:23 ff.

αὐτοῖς] namely, to the Gentile-Christians in the towns, which the connection requires by φυλάσσειν.

τὰ δόγματα] Luke 2:1, the ordinances.

ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστ. κ.τ.λ.] the mention of the leaders was sufficient; the co-operation of the church is, according to Acts 15:22 f., obvious of itself.

τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσ.] belongs only to τ. πρεσβυτ.

Acts 16:5. They developed themselves internally in stedfastness of faith, and externally in the daily increasing number of their members. On the former, comp. Colossians 2:5; καθʼ ἡμέρ. belongs to ἐπερισσ. τ. ἀριθμῷ, comp. Acts 2:46.

Acts 16:6-7. According to the reading διῆλθον and, Acts 16:7, ἐλθόντες δέ (see the critical remarks): Now they went through Phrygia and Galatia, after they had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia; but having come toward Mysia, they attempted, etc. Observe (1) that this hindrance of the Spirit to their preaching in Asia induced them, instead of going to Asia, to take their route through Phrygia and Galatia, and therefore the founding of the Galatian churches is correctly referred to this period;[48] indeed, the founding of these may have been the immediate object aimed at in that hindrance. The fact that Luke so silently passes over the working in Phrygia and Galatia, is in keeping with the unequal character of the information given by him generally—an inequality easily explained from the diversity of his documents and intelligence otherwise acquired—so that it appears arbitrary to impute to him a special set purpose (Olshausen: he was hastening with his narrative to the European scene of action; Baumgarten: because the main stream of development proceeded from Jerusalem to Rome, and the working in question lay out of the line of this direction, comp. also Zeller, p. 383; and quite erroneously Schneckenburger: because there were no Jews to be found in those regions, and therefore Luke could not have illustrated in that case how Paul turned first to the Jews). Further, (2) Asia cannot be the quarter of the world in contrast to Europe, but only the western coast of Asia Minor, as in Acts 2:9, Acts 6:9. To that region his journey from Lycaonia (Derbe and Lystra, Acts 16:1) was directed; but by the hindrance of the Spirit it was turned elsewhere, namely, to Phrygia and Galatia (the latter taken in the usual narrower sense, not according to the extent of the Roman province at that time, as Böttger, Thiersch, and others suppose; comp. on Gal. Introd. § 1).

The hindering of the Spirit, taken by Zeller in the sense of the apostle’s own inward tact, is in Acts 16:6-7 to be regarded as an influence of the Holy Spirit (that is, of the objective Divine Spirit, not of “the holy spirit of prudence, which judged the circumstances correctly,” de Wette) on their souls, which internal indication, they were conscious, was that of the Spirit.

κατὰ τ. Μυσίαν] not: at (see Acts 16:8), but toward Mysia, Mysia-wards, in the direction of the border of that land. They wished from this to go northeastward to Bithynia; for in Mysia (which, along with Lydia and Caria, belonged to Asia) they were forbidden to preach.

τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ] i.e. the ἅγιον πνεῦμα, Acts 16:6; see on Romans 8:9.

[48] Whether he also planted churches in Phrygia, is unknown to us. The founding of the church in Colossae and Laodicea took place by means of others, Colossians 2:1.

REMARK.

According to the Received text (διελθόντες … ἐλθόντες), the rendering must be: having journeyed through Phrygia and Galatia, they endeavoured, after they had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia, on coming toward Mysia, to journey to Bithynia, etc. Comp. Wieseler, p. 31; Baumgarten, p. 489; and see regarding the asyndetic participles, which “mutua temporis vel causae ratione inter se referuntur,” Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 7; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 249; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 255 (E. T. 297).

Acts 16:8-10. They were now between Mysia and Bithynia. To Bithynia the Spirit suffered them not to go; in Mysia they were not to preach, because it belonged to Asia. In this position of things they saw themselves directed to the West, away from all their former sphere of action, and across to Greece. This the Spirit now willed. Accordingly they had first to make for the Asiatic sea-coast, and therefore they went directly westward along the southern border of Mysia (of course without preaching, for this they were not permitted to do), and thus, having passed by Mysia (παρελθόντες τὴν Μυσίαν), they came down to Troas on the Hellespont, in order there to determine more precisely their further journey to the West, or to receive for this purpose a higher determination, which they might expect in accordance with the previous operations of the Spirit. And they received this higher determination by a visionary appearance (ὅραμα, Acts 9:10, Acts 10:3, Acts 18:9) which was made to the apostle during the night (διὰ τ. νυκτός, as in Acts 5:19). This vision[49] is not to be considered as a dream (Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Zeller), as is evident from the expression itself, and from the fact that there is no mention of a κατʼ ὄναρ or the like, or afterwards of an ἈΝΑΣΤΆς or other similar expression, but after the seeing of the vision the ἘΖΗΤΉΣΑΜΕΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. comes in without further remark. Olshausen, however, very hastily lays it down as a settled point, that revelation by dreams, as the lowest form of revelation (? see Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 284), was no longer vouchsafed to the apostles who were endowed with the Holy Spirit, but that they must have had their visions in ecstasy, always in a waking condition. We have far too little information as to the life of the apostles to maintain this. Comp. also Acts 2:17.

Μακεδών] is used adjectivally (comp. on Acts 5:1 f.), as in Thuc. i. 62. 3, i. 63. 3. As Macedonian the appearance announced itself, namely, by διαβὰς εἰς Μακεδ. βοήθ. ἡμῖν. It is arbitrary in Grotius to say that an angel had appeared, and indeed “angelus curator Macedonum.” Something objectively real is not indicated by ὅραμα ὤφθη. Comp. Acts 10:17.

ἘΖΗΤΉΣΑΜΕΝ] we sought, directed our view to the necessity of procuring, first of all, the opportunity of a ship, etc. Here Luke, for the first time, includes himself in the narrative, and therefore it is rightly assumed that he joined Paul at Troas. He does not enter further on his personal relations, because Theophilus was acquainted with them. Olshausen arbitrarily thinks: from modesty. On and against the assumptions, that Timothy (Schleiermacher, Mayerhoff, Ulrich, Bleek) or Silas (Schwanbeck) wrote the portions in which “we” occurs, see Introd. § 1.

συμβιβάζοντες κ.τ.λ.] because we gathered (colligebamus) as the meaning of that appearance, drew from it the conclusion (comp. Plat. Hipp. min. p. 369 D, Pol. vi. p. 504 A, and Stallb. in loc.), that in it there was issued to us the call of God (see the critical remarks), and the in itself indefinite βοήθησον ἡμῖν was the call for help to be afforded by communication of the gospel.

[49] Taken by Baur, I. p. 166, ed. 2, only as an embellishment of the history, namely, as symbolizing the desire of salvation, with which not only the Macedonian population, but the men of Europe in general, called upon the apostle to come over to them. This view Zeller also, p. 251, considers as possible. It is in the connection of the entire narrative impossible, and simply tends to obscure the further occurrences as regards their historical character.

Acts 16:11. Εὐθυδρομ.] having sailed from Troas, we ran by a straight course (Acts 21:1). The word is not preserved in Greek writers, who have, however, εὐθυδρόμος, and as a verb, εὐθυπλοέω.

Samothrace, a well-known island off the coast of Thrace, in the Aegean Sea.

τῇ ἐπιούσῃ] die postero, used by Greek writers both with (Acts 7:26) and without ἡμέρᾳ. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464 In the N.T. it occurs only in Acts.

Neapolis, at an earlier period Datos (Strabo, vii. p. 330), a seaport on the Strymonian Gulf, opposite the island of Thasos, at that time belonging to Thrace, but after Vespasian to Macedonia (Sueton. Vesp. 8; Dio Cass. xlvii. 35; Ptol. iii. 13. 9).

On Philippi, formerly Krenides, named from the Macedonian Philip, who enlarged and fortified it, see the Introd. to Philipp. § 1.

πρώτη τῆς μερίδος Μακεδ. κολωνία πόλις] As in that district of Macedonia, divided by Aemilius Paulus into four parts (Liv. xlv. 29), Amphipolis was the capital, and πρώτη πόλις cannot therefore in a strict sense mean capital;[50] all difficulty is removed simply by connecting, and not, as is usually done,[51] separating, πόλις κολωνία: which is the first (in rank) colony-town of the part (concerned) of Macedonia. Comp. also Baumgarten.[52] Thus it is unnecessary, with Kuinoel, Hug, and others (see also Credner, Einl. II. p. 418 f.; Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 170), who separate πόλις from κολωνία, to take πρώτη πόλις in the sense of a city endowed with privileges (Bertholdt compares the French use of bonne ville), inscriptions on coins being appealed to, in which the formal epithet πρώτη is given to Greek cities which were not capitals. See Eckhel, doctr. vet. num. I. 4. 282; Boeckh, Corpus inscript. I. 2, No. 335. In the case of Philippi itself no special privileges are known, except the general colonial rights of the jus Italicum; nor is the title πρώτη found on the coins of Philippi, it is met with only in the case of cities in Asia Minor (see Rettig, Quaest. Philipp. p. 5 f.). Others take πρώτη of local situation, so that they too separate πόλις from κολωνία: “Philippi was the first city of Macedonia at which Paul touched in his line of travel.” So Olshausen and Wieseler, following Erasmus (who, however, appears to join πόλις κολ.), Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Eckermann, Heinrichs. In this case we have not to consider Neapolis as the mere port of Philippi (Olshausen), but with Rettig, van Hengel, ad Phil. p. 4 ff., and De Wette, to lay stress on the fact that Neapolis at that time belonged to Thrace, and to take ἐστί (Luke did not write ἦν) as an expression of the admitted state of things, that Philippi from that side is the first city (consequently the most easterly, see Wieseler, p. 37 f.). But what reason could Luke have to make such an exact geographical specification, especially with regard to such a well-known city as Philippi? It is quite at variance with his manner elsewhere. And that too with the argumentatively (quippe quae) emphatic ἥτις? This applies also in opposition to Grotius, who takes πόλις κολωνία together (the first colonial-city), but understands πρώτη also of the geographical situation. According to our view, there is conveyed in ἥτις an explanation of the motive for their going to Philippi in particular, seeing that it is, namely, the most noteworthy colonial-city of the district, so that the gospel might at once acquire a very considerable and extensive sphere of action in Macedonia. If in itself ἀξίωμά ἐστι πόλεως ἡ κολώνεια (Chrysostom), this is yet more heightened by πρώτη.

On the combination of two substantives like πόλις κολωνία, comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 344. Instead of κολωνία, the Greek uses ἀποικία or ἐποικία; instead of πόλις κολωνία, πόλις ἀποικίς.

Philippi was colonized by Octavianus through the removal thither of the partisans of Antonius, and had also the jus Italicum conferred on it. See Dio Cass. li. 4; Plin. H. N. iv. 11; Digest. Leg. xv. 6.

[50] Without any reason, Wetstein imagined that after the battle at Philippi this city was raised to be the capital. From the erroneous interpretation capital arose the reading ἥτις ἐστὶν κεφαλὴ τῆς Μακ., πόλις κολωνία, which Bornemann regards as original.

[51] Thus also Ewald, p. 485, according to whom Philippi, on account of its flourishing condition at that time, is assumed to he named “the first city of the province of Macedonia.” But μερίς does not mean province (ἐπαρχία, Acts 23:34, Acts 25:1).

[52] Who elaborately explains μερίδος, as if τῆς οἰκουμένης stood alongside of it, so that τῆς Μακεδ. would be in apposition to τ. μερίδος.

Acts 16:13. Ποταμόν] i.e. not, as Bornemann and Bleek suppose, the Strymon, which is distant more than a day’s journey, but possibly the rivulet Gangas (so Zeller, Hackett), or some other stream in the neighbourhood which abounded with springs.

οὗ ἐνομίζετο προσευχὴ εἶναι] where a place of prayer was accustomed to be, i.e. where, according to custom, a place of prayer was. On νομίζεσθαι, in more esse, to be wont, see Hermann, ad Lucian. de hist. conscr. p. 244; Schweighäuser, Lex. Herod. II. p. 126 f.; from Philo, in Loesner, p. 208. Not: where, as was supposed, there was a place of prayer (Ewald), in which case we should have to supply the thought that the place did not look like a synagogue, which, however, is as arbitrary as it is historically unimportant. The προσευχαί were places of prayer, sometimes buildings, and at other times open spaces (so most probably here, as may be inferred from οὗ ἐνομίζετο εἶναι) near to streams (on account of the custom of washing the hands before prayer), to be met with in cities where synagogues did not exist or were not permitted, serving the purposes of a synagogue (Juvenal, iii. 295). See Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23; Corp. inscript. II. p. 1005; Vitringa, Synag. p. 119 ff.; Rosenmüller, Morgenl. VI. p. 26 f.

ταῖς συνελθ. γυναιξί] the women who came together (to prayer). Probably the number of Jewish men in the city was extremely small, and the whole unimportant Jewish population consisted chiefly of women, some of them doubtless married to Gentiles (Acts 16:1); hence there is no mention of men being present. More arbitrary is the explanation of Calvin: “Vel ad coetus tantum muliebres destinatus erat locus ille, vel apud viros frigebat religio, ut saltem tardius adessent;” and of Schrader: the Jews had been expelled from the city.