Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 2

Acts 2:1. ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδόν] Lachm. and Tisch. read πάντες ὁμοῦ, after A B C* א, min. Vulg. Correctly: the ὁμοθυμαδόν, so very frequent in the Acts, unintentionally supplanted the ὁμοῦ found elsewhere in the N. T. only in John; πάντεξ (which is wanting in א*) critically goes along with the reading ὁμοῦ.

Acts 2:2. καθήμενοι] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read καθεζόμενοι, according to C D. The Recepta (comp. on Acts 20:9) is more usual in the N. T., and was accordingly inserted.

Acts 2:3. ὡσεί] is wanting only in א*.

ἐκάθισεν] Born., following D* א*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did. Cyr., reads ἐκάθισαν. A. correction occasioned by γλῶσσαι.

Acts 2:7. After ἐξίσταντο δὲ Elz. has πάντες, which Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Born. have erased, following B D, min. and several VSS. and Fathers. From Acts 2:12.

πρὸς ἀλλήλους] is wanting in A B C א, 26, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident, easily passed over. Its genuineness is supported by the reading πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Acts 2:12, instead of ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this passage.

Acts 2:12. τί ἂν θέλοι τοῦτο εἶναι] Lachm. Born. read τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι, following A B C D, min. Chrys.: A has θέλει after τοῦτο. But after λέγειν the direct expression was most familiar to the transcribers (comp. Acts 2:7).

Acts 2:13. διαχλευάζοντες] Elz. reads χλευάζοντες, against preponderating testimony.

Acts 2:16. ʼΙωήλ] Tisch. and Born. have deleted this word on too weak authority (it is wanting among the codd. only in D).

Acts 2:17. ἐνυπνίοις] Elz. reads ἐνύπνια, against decisive codd. From LXX. Joel 3:1.

Acts 2:22. αὐτοί] Elz. reads καὶ αὐτοί. But Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted καί, in accordance with A B C* D E א, min. and several VSS. and Fathers. καί, both after καθώς and before αὐτοί, was very familiar to the transcribers.

Acts 2:23. After ἔκδοτον Elz. and Scholz read λαβόντες, which is wanting in A B C א*, min. and several VSS. and Fathers. An addition to develope the construction.

Instead of χειρῶν, Lachm. Tisch. Born. have χειρός; following A B C D א, min. Syr. p. Aeth. Ath. Cyr. And justly, as χειρῶν was evidently inserted for the sake of the following ἀνόμων.

Acts 2:24. θανάτου] D, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read ᾅδου. So Born. From Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31.

Acts 2:27. ᾅδον] Lachm. Born. and Tisch. read ᾅδηυ, which was already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A B C D א, min. Clem. Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Psalm 16:10, the reading is also different, A having ᾅδου and B ᾅδην the text here is to be decided merely by the preponderance of testimonies, which favours ᾅδην.

Acts 2:30. Before καθίσαι, Elz. Scholz, Born, read τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν, which is wanting in A B C D** א, min. and most VSS. and several Fathers, has in other witnesses considerable variation, and, as already Mill correctly saw, is a marginal gloss inserted in the text.

Instead of τοῦ θρόνου, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read τὸν θρόνον, according to A B C D א, min. Eus. This important authority, as well as the circumstance that ἐπί with the genitive along with καθίζειν is very usual in the N. T. (comp. Luke 22:20; Acts 12:21; Acts 25:6; Acts 25:17; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 23:2; Matthew 25:31), decides for the accusative.

Acts 2:31. κατελείφθη A B C D E א, min. and several Fathers read ἐγκατελείφθη. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. From Acts 2:27. Therefore not only is ᾅδην (instead of ᾅδου) read by Tisch., but also after κατελείφθη there is read by Elz. ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, for the omission of which the authorities decide.

οὔτε … οὔτε is according to important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., instead of οὐ … οὐδέ, as the reading given in the text appears likewise to have been formed from Acts 2:27.

Acts 2:33. ὑμεῖς] Elz. Scholz have νῦν ὑμεῖς. But, according to A B C* D א, min. and many VSS. and Fathers, Lachm. Born. Tisch. have erased νῦν, which is an addition by way of gloss.

Acts 2:37. ποιήσομεν] ποιήσωμεν is found in A C E א, min. Fathers. But the deliberative subjunctive was the more usual. Comp. on Acts 4:16.

Acts 2:38. ἔφη] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be erased, as it is entirely wanting in B min. Vulg. ms. Aug., and other witnesses read φησὶν, which they have partly after μετανοήσ. (A C א, 15, al.), partly after αὐτούς (D). A supplementary addition.

Acts 2:40. διεμαρτύρατο] Elz. Scholz read διεμαρτύρετο, against decisive testimony. A form modelled after the following imperfect

Acts 2:41. After οὖν, Elz. Scholz read ἀσμένως, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating testimony. A strengthening addition.

Acts 2:42. καὶ, before τῇ κλάσει is rejected by decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born.).

Acts 2:43. ἐγένετο] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐγίνετο, according to A B C D א, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr. This considerable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation resembling what follows; on the contrary, ἐγένετο has been inserted as the more usual form.

Acts 2:47. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ] is wanting in A B C א, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted for the sake of conformity to Acts 2:41, because ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, Acts 3:1, was considered as still belonging to Acts 2:47, and therefore Acts 3:1 began with Πετρὸς δέ (so Lachm.).

Acts 2:1.[109] When the day of Pentecost became full, i.e. when the day of Pentecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the Hebrew mode (see Gesen. Thes. s.v. מלא), conceived as a measure to be filled up (comp. also Acts 9:23; Luke 2:6; Luke 22:9; Luke 22:51, and many similar passages in the N. T. and in the Apocrypha); so long as the day had not yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was not yet filled, but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making the day full, the ΣΥΜΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς (comp. 3 Esdr. 1:58; Daniel 9:2) therewith occurred; by which, without figure, is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality. The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at variance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant, Hitzig (Ostern und Pfingst, p. 39 f.) would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in opposition to this, Schneckenb. p. 198 f.

ἡ πεντηκοστή] is indeed originally to be referred to the ἡμέρα understood; but this supplementary noun had entirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent substantive (comp. 2Ma 12:32). πεντηκοστή also occurs in Tob 2:1, quite apart from its numeral signification, and ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῇ ἑορτῇ is there: on the Pentecost-feast. See Fritzsche in loc. The feast of Pentecost, חַג שָּׁבֻעוֹת, Deuteronomy 16:9-10 (ἁγία ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων, Tob. I.c.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast of the grain-harvest (Exodus 23:16; Numbers 28:26), and subsequently, although we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus (comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 680), regarded also as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Exodus 19:1) in the third month (Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 741; Buxt. Synag. p. 438). It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Leviticus 23:15-16); so that the second paschal day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offering, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days. See Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 476 f.; Keil, Archäol. § 83. Now, as in that year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on John 18:28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the 14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost on the Sunday.[110] Therefore the custom—which, besides, cannot be shown to have existed at the time of Jesus—of the Karaites, who explained שבת in Leviticus 23:15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost always on a Sunday (Ideler, II. p. 613; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349), is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig); and it is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated with the Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.[111] But still the question arises: Whether Luke himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a Saturday or a Sunday? As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradition, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening and be partaken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the crucifixion the 15th of Nisan; so he must necessarily—but just as erroneously—have conceived of this first πεντηκοστή as a Saturday (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 19), unless we should assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday celebration of Pentecost; which, indeed, does not correspond with his account of the day of Jesus’ death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correctness of the Johannine tradition.

ἦσαν πάντες ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] Concerning the text, see the critical remarks; concerning ἘΠῚ ΤῸ ΑὐΤΌ, see on Acts 1:15. These ΠΆΝΤΕς, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of Jesus then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles. For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost, and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (Acts 2:15), not the apostles alone, but with them also the other μαθηταί—among whom there were, without doubt, many foreign pilgrims to the feast—were assembled. Moreover, in Acts 2:14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the ΠΆΝΤΕς, designedly added, by no means corresponds to the small number of the apostles (Acts 1:26), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding mention was made of a much greater assembly (Acts 1:15); it is, on the contrary, designed—because otherwise it would have been superfluous—to indicate a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be limited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic saying of Joel, adduced in Acts 2:16 ff., that the effusion of the Spirit was not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so that ἅπαντες (Acts 2:1) must be understood of all the followers of Jesus (of course, according to the latitude of the popular manner of expression).

[109] Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, see van Hengel, de gave der talen, Pinksterstudie, Leid. 1864.

[110] In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de primitiva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione, Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned from the last paschal day; see Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 134 f.

[111] 1 See also Vaihinger in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 476 f.

Acts 2:2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an audible σημεῖον—a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind borne along (comp. πνεῦμα βίαιον, Arrian. Exp. Al. ii. 6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11). The wonderful sound is, by the comparison (ὥσπερ) with a violent wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs), or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon (comp. Neander, p. 14).[112] Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 20.

οἶκον] is not arbitrarily and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to be understood of a private house, and, indeed, most probably of the same house, which is already known from Acts 1:13; Acts 1:15 as the meeting-place of the disciples of Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus partook of the last supper (Mark 14:12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot he determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older commentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18, and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it; the reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, Acts 2:1 describes the circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist; hence a place in the temple could neither be wished for by them nor granted to them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from Luke 24:53, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The supposition that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the great multitude of those that flocked together (Acts 2:6). The private house may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple; but not even this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the occurrence. (3) It is true that, according to Joseph. Antt. viii. 3. 2, the principal building of the temple had thirty halls built around it, which he calls οἴκους; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special knowledge? “But,” it is said, (4) “the solemn inauguration of the church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in the sanctuary of the old covenant,” Olshausen; “the new spiritual temple must have … proceeded from the envelope of the old temple,” Lange. But this locality would need first to be proved! If this inauguration did not take place in the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is not till Acts 2:44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative.

Kaiser (Commentat. 1820, pp. 3–23; comp. bibl. Theol. II. p. 41) infers from ἦσαν … ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, Acts 2:1, as well as from ΟἾΚΟς, ΚΑΘΉΜΕΝΟΙ, Οὐ ΜΕΘΎΟΥΣΙΝ, Acts 2:15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration of the Agapae. Comp. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der christl. Arch. IV. p. 124. An interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise which was given to the apostles for so near a realization.

οὗ ἦσαν καθεζόμενοι] where, that is, in which they were sitting. We have to conceive those assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (Acts 2:15) had arrived (for in prayer they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers.

[112] Lightfoot aptly remarks: “Sonus venti vehementis, sed absque vento; sic etiam linguae igneae, sed absque igne.”

Acts 2:3. After the audible σημεῖον immediately follows the visible. Incorrectly Luther: “there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were of fire.”[113] The words mean: There appeared to them, i.e. there were seen by them, tongues becoming distributed, fire-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like little flames of fire, and were distributed (Acts 2:45; Luke 22:17; Luke 23:34) upon those present (see the following ἐκάθισε κ.τ.λ.). They were thus appearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn; not really consisting of fire, but only ὡσεὶ πυρός; and not confluent into one, but distributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire, they bore an analogy to electric phenomena; their tongue-shape referred as a σημεῖον to that miraculous λαλεῖν which ensued immediately after, and the fire-like form to the divine presence (comp. Exodus 3:2), which was here operative in a manner so entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological definition of the ΣΗΜΕῖΑ, Acts 2:2-3, is impossible. Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19, fancifully supposes that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmosphere (?). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like tongues into an accidental electric natural occurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and others) are in vain; for these flames, which make their appearance, during an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men, present far too weak resemblances; and besides, the room of a house, where the phenomenon exclusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for any such natural development. The representation of the text is monstrously altered by Heinrichs: Fulgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostolorum commota mens; as also by Heumann: that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues merely in the ecstatic state; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that “they saw flames” signifies in rabbinical usus loquendi: they were transported into ecstatic excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Rabbins to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at Sinai,—of which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be recognised in our passage.

ἐκάθισέ τε] namely, not an indefinite subject, something (Hildebrand, comp. Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 118 [E. T. 134]), but such a γλῶσσα ὡσεὶ πυρός. If Luke had written ἘΚΆΘΙΣΑΝ (see the critical remarks), the notion that one ΓΛῶΣΣΑ sat upon each would not have been definitely expressed. Comp. Winer, p. 481 [E. T. 648]. Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, incorrectly take ΠῦΡ as the subject, since, in fact, there was no fire at all, but only something resembling fire; ὩΣΕῚ ΠΥΡΌς serves only for comparison, and consequently ΠῦΡ cannot be the subject of the continued narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs et al., consider the πνεῦμα ἅγιον as subject. In that case it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche (Conject. I. p. 13): ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΟς ἘΦʼ ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ἘΠΛΉΣΘΗΣΑΝ ἍΠΑΝΤΕς ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ, and Matthew 17:18 would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἍΓΙΟΥ, in so far as it sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the fiery tongues; but in so far as it filled the assembled, as the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ itself, different from the symbol.

The ΤΈ joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads ΚΑΊ, following insufficient testimony) connects ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕ Κ.Τ.Λ. with ὬΦΘΗΣΑΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts: ὤφθησαν κ.τ.λ., ἐπλήσθησαν κ.τ.λ., and ἤρξαντο κ.τ.λ., as is marked by the thrice recurring καί.

[113] Therefore the expression is not to be explained from Isaiah 5:24, for there לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ is a representation of that which consumes.

Acts 2:4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the internal filling of all who were assembled,[114] without exception (ἘΠΛ. ἍΠΑΝΤΕς, comp. Acts 2:1), with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they, and, indeed, these same ἅπαντες (comp. Acts 4:31)—accordingly not excluding the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel)

ἬΡΞΑΝΤΟ ΛΑΛΕῖΝ ἙΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς. Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit (Luke 1:41; Luke 1:47; John 20:22; comp. also Luke 9:55) are related to the present as the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and antitypical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus (see Acts 2:33; John 16:7; John 7:39).

ἤρξαντο] brings into prominence the primus impetus of the act as its most remarkable element.

λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις] For the sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that ἙΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as ΤΑῖς ἩΜΕΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς (comp. Acts 2:8 : Τῇ ἸΔΊᾼ ΔΙΑΛΈΚΤῼ ἩΜῶΝ). The ἝΤΕΡΑΙ ΓΛῶΣΣΑΙ therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as absolutely nothing else than languages, which were different from the native language of the speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, another Median, etc., consequently languages of another sort (Luke 9:29; Mark 16:13; Galatians 1:6), i.e. foreign (1 Corinthians 14:21); and these indeed—the point wherein precisely appeared the miraculous operation of the Spirit—not acquired by study (γλώσσαις καιναῖς, Mark 16:17). Accordingly the text itself determines the meaning of ΓΛῶΣΣΑΙ as languages, not: tongues (as van Hengel again assumes on the basis of Acts 2:3, where, however, the tongues have only the symbolic destination of a divine σημεῖον[115]); and thereby excludes the various other explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning verba obsoleta et poetica (Galen, exeg. glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22. 3 f.; Quinctil. 1. 8; Pollux. 2. 4; Plut. Pyth. Orac. 24; and see Giese, Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff.). This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of Herder (von d. Gabe der Sprachen am ersten christl. Pfingstf., Riga, 1794), that new modes of interpreting the ancient prophets were meant; (2) against Heinrichs, who (after A. G. Meyer, de charismate τῶν γλωσσῶν, etc., Hannov. 1797) founds on that assumed meaning of γλῶσσαι his explanation of enthusiastic speaking in languages which were foreign indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages of the speakers; (3) against Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 33 ff., 1830, p. 45 ff. The latter explains γλῶσσαι as glosses, i.e. unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages, but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical phraseology, yet so that these glosses were borrowed from different dialects and languages (therefore ἑτέραις). Against this explanation of the γλῶσσαι, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the usus loquendi is already decisive. For γλῶσσα in that sense is a grammatico-technical expression, or at least an expression borrowed from grammarians, which is only as such philologically beyond dispute (see all the passages in Bleek, p. 33 ff., and already in A. G. Meyer, l.c.; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 741). But this meaning is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words universally intelligible? How could he put this expression even into the mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc.? For ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις, Acts 2:11, must be explained in a manner entirely corresponding to this. Further, there would result for ἡμετέραις a wholly absurd meaning. ἡμέτεραι γλώσσαι, forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites, etc., just as the Ἀττικαὶ γλῶσσαι of Theodorus (in Athen. xiv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf) are provincialisms of Attica, which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is further decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of γλῶσσα transferred also to 1 Corinthians 12:14, no sense is left for the singular term γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν; for γλῶσσα could not denote genus locutionis glossematicum (λέξις γλωσσηματική, Dionys. Hal. de Thuc. 24), but simply a single gloss. As Bleek’s explanation falls to the ground, so must every other which takes γλῶσσαι in any other sense than languages, which it must mean according to Acts 2:6; Acts 2:8; Acts 2:11. This remark holds particularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel, according to whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the excitement of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each of those who came together heard the language of his own ancestral worship from the mouth of these Galileans, Acts 2:6.

[114] Chrysostom well remarks: οὐκ ἂν εἶπε πάντες, καὶ ἀποστόλων ὄντων ἐκεῖ, εἰ μὴ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι μετέσχον. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff.

[115] Van Hengel understands, according to ver. 3, by ἕτεραι γλ., “tongues of fire, which the believers in Jesus have obtained through their communion with the Holy Spirit.” That is, “an open-hearted and loud speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ,” such as had not been done before. Previously their tongues had been without fire.

From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express contrast in which the list of nations (Acts 2:9-11) stands with the question οὐκ ἰδοὺ πάντες … Γαλιλαῖοι (Acts 2:7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke intended to narrate nothing else than this: the persons possessed by the Spirit began to speak in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations,[116] the knowledge and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only now communicated in and with the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Comp. Storr, Opusc. II. p. 290 ff., III. p. 277 ff.; Milville, Obss. theol. exeg. de dono linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. K. p. 201 ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche, Nova opusc. p. 304 f. The author of Mark 16:17 has correctly understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he wrote καιναῖς instead of ἙΤΈΡΑΙς. The explanation of foreign languages has been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and expositors; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent, to the effect that the inspired received the gift of speaking all the languages of the earth (Augustin.: “coeperunt loqui linguis omnium gentium”), and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. “Poena linguarum dispersit homines: donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit,” Grotius. Of this the text knows nothing; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned in Acts 2:9-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unnecessary, as the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek (comp. Schneckenb. neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 17 ff.), and partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many who did not enter upon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it; and yet in his case there is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek.

[116] Comp., besides 1 Corinthians 14:21, Ecclus. praef.: ὅταν μεταχθῆ (the Hebrew) εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν (Leo, Tact. 4. 49: γλώσσαις διαφόροις λαλεῖν); also Aesch. Sept. 171: πόλιν δορίπονον μὴ προδῶθʼ ἑτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ. Not different is Pind. Pyth. xi. 43: ἀλλοτρίαισι γλώσσαις.

But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically? On this the following points are to be observed:—(1) Since the sudden communication of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is perceptible in their letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, Acts 14:11); since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter himself in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign languages,—the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representation of the entire future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The analogy of magnetism (adduced especially by Olshausen, and by Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. VI. 2, p. 118) is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the magnetic “rapport” is not conceivable. (3) If the event is alleged to have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an idea,[117] and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a permanent facility of speaking languages (Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb. 1850, p. 97: “in order to represent and to attest, in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations, the consecration of their languages in the church, and again the holiness of the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural generally”), such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported subjective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff., according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the inner life by which men’s minds are united has here reached its fairest manifestation. This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified by the gospel, and as the leaven of all languages, which effects their regeneration into the language of the Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of the fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled in their mother—tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native Galileans (Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de charismatib. sp. s., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Fritzsche, Schrader, and others); along with which David Schulz (d. Geistesgaben d. ersten Christen, Breslau, 1836) explains ἑτέραις γλώσσαις even of other kinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept away, and there is not even left matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with Thiess, resort even to the hypothesis that the speakers had only used the Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean. Every resolution of the matter into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwarranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening believed that they heard their own native languages. See against this view, Castalio in loc., and Beza on x. 46. This opinion (which Billroth on 1 Cor. strangely outbids by his fancy of a primeval language which had been spoken) is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 41, as allowable by the punctuation of Acts 2:6; is found thereafter in the Pseudo-Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 60, ed. Brem. (p. 475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others; and has recently been advocated especially by Schnecken-burger, Beitr. p. 84; comp. üb. den Zweck d. Apostelgesch. p. 202 ff.:[118] legend also presents later analogous phenomena (in the life of Francis Xavier and others). (6) The miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative (see Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 309 ff.; Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. 87 ff.), and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we further compare Acts 10:46-47, the καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς in that passage shows that the ΛΑΛΕῖΝ ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event in Acts 2. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to Acts 19:6. But we have to take our views of what the ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς ΛΑΛΕῖΝ really was, not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:14; according to which it (see comm. on 1 Corinthians 12:10) was a speaking in the form of prayer—which took place in the highest ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding—and not a speaking in foreign languages. The occurrence in Acts 2. is therefore to be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the glossolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages supervened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church, and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost,—a phenomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages, and accordingly into an occurrence quite unique, not indeed as to substance, but as to mode (comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 146), and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of the church.[119] How this transformation—the supposition of which is by no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief (in opposition to Rossteuscher, p. 125)—took place, cannot be ascertained. But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most part Galileans (in the elaborated legend; all of them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossolalia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can explain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particularly the languages spoken. That a symbolical view of the phenomenon has occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away with the diversity of languages which arose, Genesis 11, by way of punishment, according to which idea there was to be again in the Messianic time εἷς λαὸς κυρίου καὶ γλῶσσα μία (Test. XII. Patr. p. 618), is not to be assumed (Schneckenburger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the γλῶσσα μία is not a N. T. one, and it would suit not the miracle of speaking, such as the matter appears in our narrative, but a miracle of hearing, such as it has been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of Christianity (comp. Zeller, Hilgenfeld) cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occurrence in the form in which it appears in our passage.

[117] Comp. Augustine, serm. 9 : Loquebatur enim tunc unus homo omnibus linguis, quia locutura erat unitas ecclesiae in omnibus linguis.

[118] Svenson also, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 ff., arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing.

[119] The conclusion of Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion of Paul, must have been well acquainted with the glossolalia, could not have represented it as a speaking in foreign languages, is incorrect. Luke, in fact, conceives and describes the Pentecostal miracle not as the glossolalia, which was certainly well known to him, as it was a frequent gift in the apostolic age, but as a quite extraordinary occurrence, such as it had been presented to him by tradition; and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of the distinction between it and the speaking with tongues, which he knew by experience. With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog’s Encykl. XVIII. p. 689) sees in our narrative a later legendary formation, but from a time which was no longer familiar with the nature of the glossolalia. This latter statement is not to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the source which he here made use of must have been still older; and partly because he was a friend of Paul, and as such could not have been otherwise than familiar with the nature of that χάρισμα, which the apostle himself richly possessed.

The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia, but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been adopted by Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff., whose explanation, however, of highly poetical discourse, combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the ἑτέρ. γλ. generally nor with Acts 2:8; Acts 2:11; by Baur in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 101 ff., who, however, explains on this account ἑτέρ. γλ. as new spirit-tongues,[120] and regarded this expression as the original one, but subsequently in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff., amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acceded to the view of Bleek; by Steudel in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 133 ff., 1831, 2, p. 128 ff., who explains the Pentecostal event from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encountered in others,—a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign unbelievers in our passage; by Neander, who, however (4th edition, p. 28), idealizes the speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly; by Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 743 ff., 1860, p. 117, who makes the ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν be described according to the impression made upon the assembled Jews,—an idea irreconcilable with our text (Acts 2:6-12); by de Wette, who ascribes the transformation of the glossolalia in our passage to a reporter, who, from want of knowledge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning; by Hilgenfeld, according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages as a special γένος of speaking with tongues; by van Hengel, who sees in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the original fact in our passage; and by Ewald (Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff., comp. Jahrb. III. p. 269 ff.), who represents the matter as the first outburst of the infinite vigour of life and pleasure in life of the new-born Christianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages, amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc.,—a view in which the appeal to the ἀββὰ ὁ πατήρ and μαρὰν ἀθά is much too weak to do justice to the ἑτέραις γλώσσαις as the proper point of the narrative. On the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times (Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. 1834, 2, p. 40 ff.; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 658 ff., 1844, p. 708 ff.; Zinsler, de charism. τοῦ γλ. λαλ. 1847; Englmann, v. d. Charismen, 1850; Maier, d. Glossalie d. apost. Zeitalt. 1855; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67; Rossteuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler; comp. also Kahnis, vom heil. Geiste, p. 61 ff., Dogmat. I. p. 517, Schaff, and others), a conception which Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 206 ff., supports by the significance of Pentecost as the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished from history,[121] has been carried out in the boldest and most decided manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives (according to the idea of the destination of Christianity for all nations) and typical views.[122]

καθώς, as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context: in which foreign language.

ἀποφθέγγεσθαι] eloqui (Lucian. Zeux. 1, Paras. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 405 E, Diog. L. i. 63), a purposely chosen word (comp. Acts 2:14, Acts 26:25) for loud utterance in the elevated state of spiritual gifts (1 Chronicles 25:1; Ecclus. Prolog. ii.; comp. ἀπόφθεγμα, Deuteronomy 32:2, also Zechariah 10:2), also of false prophets, Ezekiel 13:19; Mich. Acts 5:12. See, generally, Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 417; also Valckenaer, p. 344; and van Hengel, p. 40.

[120] Which the Spirit has created for Himself as His organs, different from the usual human tongues. See also in his neutest. Theol. p. 323 f.

[121] Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identifies the matter even with the appearance of the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:6!—Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urchr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the Pentecostal history in our passage from the Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as the festival of the law, urging the mythical miracle of tongues on Sinai (comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 202 ff.).

[122] Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul’s idea of the λαλεῖν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, 1 Corinthians 13:1, converted into reality. According to Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 322, there remains to us as the proper nucleus of the matter only the conviction, which became to the disciples and first Christians a fact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit by whom Jesus was qualified to be the Messiah had also been imparted to them, and was the specific principle—determining the Christian consciousness—of their fellowship. This communication of the Spirit did not, in his view, even occur at a definite point of time.

Acts 2:5 gives, as introductory to what follows, preliminary information how it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired. Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that Acts 2:5 refers to the λαλεῖν ἑτέρ. γλ., and that the sense is: “Neque id secus quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant isti coetui homines,” etc. The context, in fact, distinguishes the ʼΙουδαῖοι and the Γαλιλαῖοι (so designated not as a sect, but according to their nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans. See also van Hengel, p. 9.

ἦσαν … κατοικοῦντες] they were dwelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary residence (Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others), but of the domicile (Luke 13:4; Acts 7:48; Acts 9:22, al.; Plat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii: p. 969 C) which they had taken up in the central city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as Israelites (hence εὐλαβεῖς, comp. on Luke 2:25). Comp. Chrys.: τὸ κατοικεῖν εὐλαβείας ἦν σημεῖον· πῶς; ἀπὸ τοσούτων γὰρ ἐθνῶν ὄντες καὶ πατρίδας ἀφέντες … ᾤκουν ἐκεῖ.

τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐραν.] sc. ἐθνῶν, of the nations to be found under heaven (Bernhardy).

ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν is classical, ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. Comp. Plat. Ep. p. 326 C, Tim. p. 23 C. The whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deuteronomy 2:25; Colossians 1:23.

Acts 2:6. Τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης] this sound, which, inasmuch as οὗτος points back to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of Acts 2:2, to which also γενομ. carries us back. Comp. John 3:8. Luke represents the matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meeting to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a “sympathy of the susceptible” (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no mention of either; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different languages; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in Acts 2:4; therefore Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take φωνή in the sense of φήμη. Contrary to the usus loquendi; even in Genesis 45:16 it is otherwise.

συνεχύθη mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed. Comp. Acts 9:22; 1Ma 4:27; 2Ma 10:30; Herod, 8:99; Plat. Ep. 7, p. 346 D; Diod. S. 4:62; Lucian. Nigr. 31.

εἷς ἕκαστος] annexes to the more indefinite ἤκουον the exact statement of the subject. Comp. John 16:32; Acts 11:29 al.; Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Od. x. 397; Bernhardy, p. 420.

διαλέκτῳ] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on Acts 1:19), language in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in Acts 2:8, designedly chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different languages, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Persian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons possessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the ἑτέρων γλωσσῶν. The view that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van Hengel), appears—from Acts 2:8; from the list of nations, which would be destitute of significance; from προσήλυτοι (Acts 2:10), which would be meaningless; and from Acts 2:11,[123] as well as from the opinions expressed in Acts 2:12-13, which would be without a motive—as an exegetical impossibility, which is also already excluded by εἷς ἕκαστος in Acts 2:6.

λαλούντων αὐτῶν] not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of λαλεῖν ἑτέρ. γλώσσαις, that each individual must have spoken in the different languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and consequently even the summary αὐτῶν is quite in order.

[123] Where neither in itself nor according to ver. 8 can ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις mean what van Hengel puts into it: as we do with our own tongues.

Acts 2:7-8. Ἐξίσταντο denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first perplexity, Acts 2:6; ἐθαύμαζον is the continuing wonder resulting from it. Comp. Mark 6:51.

ἰδού] to be enclosed within two commas.

πάντες οὗτοι κ.τ.λ.] pointing out: all the speakers present. It does not distinguish two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van Hengel); but see Acts 2:4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition of εἰσίν brings the πάντες οὗτοι into more emphatic prominence.

Γαλιλαῖοι] They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian, Median, etc. This view, which takes Γαλ. in the sense of nationality, is required by Acts 2:8; Acts 2:11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named. It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into prominence the accessory idea of want of culture (uncultivated Galileans); and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Γαλ. as a designation of the Christian sect—a designation, evidence of which, moreover, can only be adduced from a later period. Augusti, Denkwürd. IV: pp. 49, 55. It is erroneous, also, to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposition to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 310.

καὶ πῶς] καί, as a simple and, annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans) how happens it that, etc.

ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος κ.τ.λ.] we on our part (in contrast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one, etc. That, accordingly, ἐγεννήθ. is to be understood distributively, is self-evident from the connection (comp. ταῖς ἡμετ. γλώσσαις, Acts 2:11); therefore van Hengel[124] wrongly objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to run: πῶς ἡμ. ἀκ. τ. ἰδ. διαλ., ἐν ᾗ ἕκαστος ἐγεννήθη.

ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθ. designation of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the popular way of expressing the matter, born furnished.

[124] l.c. p. 24 f.: “How comes it that we, no one excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue of our own people?” Thus, in his view, we are to explain the passage as the words stand in the text, and thus there is designated only the one mother-tongue—the Aramaic.