Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 20

Acts 20:1. καὶ ἀσπασ.] A B D E א, min. vss. have καὶ παρακαλὲσας, ἀσπασ. So Lachm. Yet D has πολλά before παρακαλ. (so Born.), and E καί before ἀσπασ. Other witnesses have καὶ παρακ. ἀσπασ. τε. So Rinck. παρακαλ. has certainly preponderant attestation in its favour, but against it the internal decisive consideration, that no reason is apparent for its subsequent omission, whereas it might very easily suggest itself from Acts 20:2; Acts 16:40 as a pious marginal remark to ἀσπασ.

Acts 20:4. Πύῤῥου] is wanting in Elz., and is condemned by Mill as an addition from tradition. But it has greatly preponderant attestation, and might be passed over quite as well on the ground of a varying tradition, as by mistake of the transcribers on account of the similar sound of the initial syllable in the following name.

Acts 20:5. οὗτοι] Lachm. reads οὗτοι δέ, after A B E א, min. A connective addition.

Acts 20:7. ἡμῶν] Elz. has τῶν μαθητῶν, in opposition to A B D E, min. Chrys. Aug. and most vss. An interpolation on account of the following αὐτοῖς. Still stronger witnesses support ἦμεν in Acts 20:8, for which Elz. has ἦσαν.

Acts 20:9. καθήμενος] Instead of this, καθεζόμενος (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested. Comp. on Acts 2:2.

Acts 20:11. ἄρτον] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read τὸν ἄρτον, according to A B C D* א*. Rightly; the article was neglected after Acts 20:7, because its force was overlooked.

Acts 20:15. καὶ μείν. ἐν Τρωγ., τῇ] A B C E א, min. have merely τῇ δέ. So Lachm. Several vss. and some more recent codd. have καὶ τῇ. But there was no occasion for the insertion of μείν. ἐν Τρ., whereas its omission is very capable of explanation, because Trogyllium was not situated in Samos, as the context seemed to say.

Acts 20:16. κεκρίκει] Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to greatly preponderating evidence. But Elz. Scholz have ἔκρινε. A church-lesson begins at Acts 20:16, and therefore the tense, which has its reference in what precedes, was altered.

ἦν] Lachm. reads εἴη, following considerable witnesses. A grammatical improvement.

Acts 20:18. After πρὸς αὐτόν A has ὁμοῦ ὄντων αὐτῶν, which Lachm. adopted; others have ὁμοθυμαδόν; and others ὁμόσε ὄντων αὐτῶν (so Born., according to D). Different additions for the sake of completion.

Acts 20:19. Before δακρ. Elz. has πολλῶν, which already Griesb. rejected, according to decisive testimony. A strengthening addition from 2 Corinthians 2:4.

Acts 20:22. According to decisive testimony read ἐγώ, with Lachm. Tisch., after δεδεμ.

Acts 20:23. μοι] is wanting in Elz., but is decidedly attested, and was easily passed over as quite unnecessary.

με] is, according to decisive evidence, to be placed after θλίψεις (Lachm. Tisch.). Born. has μοι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, according to D, vss. Lucif., and that only after μένουσιν. But μοι is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, and ἐν Ἱεροσολ. is an addition by way of a gloss; the two, moreover, are not equally attested.

Acts 20:24. ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς … ἐμαυτῷ] very many variations. Lachm. has ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς λόγον ἔχω, οὐδὲ ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ. Tisch. reads ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, according to B C D** א*, vss. Lucif. Born. reads essentially as Lachm., yet adding μοι after ἔχω, and μου after ψυχήν. The Recepta is founded on E G H, Chrys. Theophyl. Oec.; but G, Chrys. have not μου. The reading of Lachm. (A D* א, min. Vulg.), as well as the Recepta, are to be considered as alterations and expansions of the reading of Tisch., which was not understood.

After δρόμον μου Elz. Scholz have μετὰ χαρᾶς, which is wanting in A B D א, min. Lucif. Ambr. and several vss. A scholion.

Acts 20:25. τοῦ Θεοῦ] is wanting in A B C א, 13, 15*, 36, Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Chrys. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition. D has τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. So Born.

Acts 20:26. ἐγώ] Considerable witnesses have εἰμι, which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted. Rightly; ἐγώ came from Acts 18:6.

Acts 20:28. τοῦ Κυρίου] Elz. has τοῦ Θεοῦ, which is adhered to among recent critics (following Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Bengel, and others), by Scholz, Alford, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 82 f. The weight of evidence is externally decisive for τοῦ Κυρίου; A C* D E, 13, 15, 18, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, Copt. Sahid. Syr. p. (on the margin) Arm. Aeth. Constitutt. (2:61), Ir. (Acts 3:14), Eus. (on Isaiah 35), Ath. (ad Serap. 1 in ms.), Didym. (de Sp. St. 11), Chrys. Lucif. Aug. Jer. al. τοῦ Θεοῦ is found among uncial mss. only in B א, and, besides, only in about twenty more recent and inferior codd., and among vss. in the Vulg. Syr. p. (in the text); but among the Fathers in none before Epiph. and Ambros. See the more detailed statement of the evidence in Tisch. The internal decisive argument for τ. Κυρίου lies in the fact that in the Pauline Epistles ἐκκλ. τ. Κυρ. never occurs, but ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ eleven times; hence at our passage the Pauline expression was written on the margin as a parallel, and then, welcome to hyper-orthodoxy (already in Ignat. ad Ephesians 1, and in Tert. ad ux. ii. 3, there is found the expression blood of God, which others, even Ath., censured as unbiblical; see Wetstein and Tisch.), was taken into the text and transmitted. This appears far more accordant with the dogmatic tendency of those times and the monastic spirit than the usual justification of τοῦ Θεοῦ: “Probabilius est ob sequentia mutatum, quam e scriptis Pauli illatum esse” (Rinck, l.c.). The readings τοῦ Κυρίου Θεοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. Κυρίου, and τοῦ Κυρίου κ. Θεοῦ (this latter Griesb. recommends, without, however, approving it, but Matth. received it), are combinations of the original reading with the Pauline parallel written on the margin. Teller’s and van Hengel’s proposal to read only τὴν ἐκκλ. is destitute of all critical support.

τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου] Elz. has τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, in opposition to A B C D E א, min. vss. Ir. Lucif. An alteration, which arose from the adoption of τ. Θεοῦ, in order to establish the interpretation of the blood of God.

Acts 20:29. After ἐγώ Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have γάρ, against A C* D א, min. Vulg. Fathers. The more to be rejected, as others read ὅτι ἐγώ (B), others ἐγὼ δέ (א*), others still καὶ ἐγώ. A connective addition. τοῦτο also, which Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have after οἶδα, has such preponderating evidence against it, and in such essential agreement with those witnesses which condemn γάρ, that it cannot be considered as original, although, taken by itself, it might be more easily omitted than added.

Acts 20:32. After ὑμᾶς Elz. Scholz have ἀδελφοί, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted, according to A B D א, 33, 34, 68, Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Jer. If it had been original, there is no apparent reason for its omission; on the other hand, its insertion at this solemn passage was very natural.

οἰκοδ.] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. But Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ἐποικοδ., against decisive testimony. A more precise definition corresponding to the persons in question; and therefore, also, D E, vss. add ὑμᾶς

Acts 20:35. τῶν λόγων] G and more than thirty min. Vulg. Sahid. Arm. Aeth. Chrys. Theophyl. have τὸν λόγον. So Rinck. Others have τοῦ λόγου after min.; so Bengel. Both are alterations, because only one saying of Christ afterwards follows.

The order μᾶλλον διδόναι (Elz. inverts it) is decidedly attested.

Acts 20:1-3. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παύσ. τ. θόρυβ.] is simply a statement of time, not, as Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Hug hold, the motive of departure, for which there is no hint in the text (see on the contrary, Acts 19:21), and against which the resultless character of the tumult testifies.

ἀσπασάμενος] here of the farewell salutation (combined with kissing and embracing), vale dicere, as Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 8, 40; Hell. iv. 1. 3; Cyrop. ii. 1. 1.

αὐτούς] the Macedonian Christians.

Ἑλλάδα] i.e. Ἀχαΐαν, Acts 19:21. Luke alternates in his use of the appellations well known as synonymous, which, after Acts 19:21, could occasion no misunderstanding. This against Schrader, who understands Ἑλλ. here of the districts lying between the Peloponnesus and Thessaly and Epirus, especially of Attica, and would have the journey to Corinth only inferred from Acts 19:31.

ποιήσας τε μῆνας τρεῖς] certainly for the most part in Corinth. The anakoluthic nominative, as in Acts 19:34. That Luke, moreover, gives us no information of the foundation of the church at Corinth, and of the apostle’s labours there, is just one of the many points of incompleteness in his book.

τοῦ ὑποστρ.] namely, to Asia (Acts 20:4), from which he had come. The genitive depends directly on γνώμη, as in Acts 14:9, Acts 27:20. Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:5.

Acts 20:4. Ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας[106]] excepting only the short separation from Philippi to Troas, Acts 20:5, where those companions (ΣΥΝΕΊΠΕΤΟ), having journeyed before the apostle, waited for him. The statement is summary, not excluding the sailing before from Philippi to Troas, the Asiatic emporium; but Tittmann, Synon. N.T. p. 85, erroneously judges: “eos usque in Asiam cum Paulo una fuisse, deinde praeivisse eumque expectasse.” Acts 20:5-6 are at variance with this. Nor is there, with Wieseler, p. 293, and Baumgarten, to be artificially deduced from ἌΧΡΙ Τῆς ἈΣΊΑς the meaning: “up to that point from which people crossed to Asia;” so that Luke would oddly enough have indicated nothing else than as far as Philippi. On συνέπεσθαι (only here in the N.T.), comp. 2Ma 15:2; 3Ma 5:48; 3Ma 6:21; very frequent in the classics.

Of Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, of Beroea, and whether he is identical with Sosipater, Romans 16:21, nothing is known.

The other companions were two Thessalonians, Aristarchus (Acts 19:29) and Secundus (entirely unknown); further, an inhabitant of Derbe, Caius (thus different from the Macedonian, Acts 19:29; for Derbe belonged to Lycaonia, see on Acts 14:6); Timotheus, whose dwelling is supposed as known and therefore is not specified (see on Acts 16:1); and lastly, the two Asiatics, Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12) and Trophimus (Acts 21:29; 2 Timothy 4:20). It was nothing but arbitrary violence, when Ernesti, Valckenaer, and Kuinoel, in order to identify Caius (how extremely frequent was the name!) with the Caius of Acts 19:12 and to make Timothy a native of Derbe, wished to put a comma after ΓΆΪΟς and then to read ΔΕΡΒ. ΔῈ ΤΙΜ. (Heinrichs: ΚΑῚ ΤΙΜ. ΔΕΡΒ.).[107] Following the same presupposition, Olshausen contents himself with merely putting a point after ΓΆΪΟς and then taking ΚΑΊ in the signification of also! And for this even Wieseler, p. 26, and in Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 276, has declared himself, appealing to the parallelism of the language, according to which, from Θεσσαλονικ. onwards, the nomen gentilitium is always placed first. But the parallelism is rather of this nature, that the nomen gentilitium first follows after (Βεροι.), then precedes (ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚ.), then again follows after (ΔΕΡΒ.), and lastly, again precedes (ʼΑΣΙΑΝ.), thus in regular alternation.

We may add, that no special reason for such a numerous escort is indicated in the text, and hypotheses[108] referring to the point amount to mere subjective fancies.

[106] The omission of ἄχρι τ. Ἀσίκς is not strongly enough attested by B א, 13, Vulg. Aeth. Erp. Beda, particularly as it might easily have taken place for the sake of ver. 5. It is, however, approved by Lekebusch.

[107] Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured καὶ Δερβ. Τιμόθ. He places a point after Τιμόθ., and makes the δέ, read by him after οὗτοι, ver. 5, to be resumptive (repeating the δέ after Ἀσιανοί), which, as the discourse is not interrupted by parentheses, would be without motive and forced.

[108] According to Schneckenburger, they are the collection-commissioners of the chief churches; according to Baumgarten, they appear, in their number corresponding to the deacons in Jerusalem, as representatives of the whole Gentile church; comp. also Lange, II. p. 291. Such inventions are purely fanciful.

Acts 20:5-6. Ἡμᾶς] Luke had remained behind at Philippi, Acts 16:40. Now, when Paul, on his present journey back through Macedonia, came to Philippi, Luke again joined him. But the above-mentioned seven companions (οὗτοι) journeyed before (wherefore? is unknown; possibly to make preparations for the further sea voyage) to Troas, and there waited the arrival of Paul and Luke. For οὗτοι cannot, without arbitrariness, be otherwise referred than to all the seven above mentioned, which is not precluded by Acts 21:29, Acts 27:2, and thereby, no doubt, our passage is decisive against the hypothesis that Timothy speaks in the ἡμεῖς (see Introduction, § 1). Hence the supporters of that hypothesis are necessarily reduced to refer, as already Beza and Wolf have done, οὗτοι merely to Tychicus and Trophimus (Steiger on Col. p. 337; Schenkel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 85; Ulrich, Bleek, Beitr. I. p. 52; de Wette, Lachmann).

μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρ. τῶν ἀζ.] Paul remained over the Paschal days (A.D. 59) in quietness, keeping holy the festival of his people in Christian freedom. Comp. Chrys.

ἄχρις ἡμερ. πέντε] specifies ἄχρι τίνος (Heliod. iv. 19. 65), i.e. how long the ἔρχεσθαι lasted from the sailing from Philippi, namely, up to five days. Comp. on Luke 2:37; Plut. Mor. p. 791 E. The reading πεμπταῖοι (D, Born.) is a correct gloss.

ἡμέρας ἑπτά] a full week. Comp. Acts 21:4. More is not to be sought behind this simple statement of time (in opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 48 f.).

Acts 20:7. But on the first (see on Matthew 28:1; 1 Corinthians 16:2) day of the week. That the Sunday was already at this time regularly observed by holding religious assemblies and Agapae (κλάσαι ἄρτον; see on Acts 2:42), cannot, indeed, be made good with historical certainty, since possibly the observance of the Agapae in our passage might only accidentally occur on the first day of the week (because Paul intended to depart on the following day), and since even 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10, do not necessarily distinguish this day as set apart for religious services. But most probably the observance of Sunday is based on an apostolic arrangement—yet one certainly brought about only gradually and in the spirit of Christian freedom[109]—the need of which manifested itself naturally (importance of the resurrection of Jesus and of the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost) and indeed necessarily, in the first instance, when the gospel came to be diffused among the Gentiles who had no Sabbath festival; and the assumption of which is indispensable for the explanation of the early universal observance of that day (τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου, ΛΕΓΟΜΈΝῌ ἩΜΈΡᾼ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΌΛΕΙς Ἢ ἈΓΡΟῪς ΜΕΝΌΝΤΩΝ ἘΠῚ ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ ΣΥΝΈΛΕΥΣΙς ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ, Justin, Apol. I. 67; comp. c. Tryph. p. 34; Ignat. ad Magnes. 9; Barnab. 15), although for a long time the observance of the Sabbath along with it was not given up by the Jewish Christians and even by others (Constitt. ap. ii. 59. 2, vii. 23. 2, can. 66; Orig. Hom. 28; Eus. iii. 27),—a circumstance which was doubtless connected with the antignostic interest. Rightly, therefore, is the μία τῶν σαββ. in our passage regarded as a day of special observance. See on the whole subject, Augusti, Denkw. III. p. 345 ff.; Schöne, über die kirchl. Gebräuche, I. p. 335 ff.; Neander, apost. K. I. p. 198; Ewald, p. 164 ff.; Harnack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 115 ff. The observance of Sunday was not universally introduced by law until A.D. 321 by Constantine. See Gieseler, K. G. I. l, p. 274, ed. 4.

αὐτοῖς] to the assembled. Luke changes his standpoint (previously ἩΜῶΝ), as the discourse was held with the Christians of that place.

μέχρι-g0- μεσον-g0-.] On Sunday (not Saturday) evening they had assembled for the love-feast. On τείνειν and its compounds, used of long speaking, see Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 465 D; Pflugk, ad Eur. Med. 1351.

[109] See Neander in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1850, p. 203 ff.

Acts 20:8-10. Ἦσαν δὲ λαμπ. ἱκ.] therefore the fall of the young man could at once be perceived. The lamps served for the lighting up of the room, for it was night; but perhaps at the same time for heightening the solemnity of the occasion. According to Ewald, Luke wished to obviate the evil reports concerning the nocturnal meetings of the Christians (comp. Calvin and Bengel); but they remained withal nocturnal and thereby exposed to suspicion.

Whether Eutychus was a young man serving (Rosenmüller, Heinrichs), which at least is not to be inferred from the occurrence of the name among slaves and freedmen (Artem. iii. 38; Phaedr. 3, prol.), the text does not say.

ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδ.] on the (open) window, i.e. on the window-seat. The openings of the windows in the East, having no glass, were sometimes with and sometimes without lattice-work (see Winer, Realw.). So they are still at the present day.

καταφερόμενος κ.τ.λ.] falling into a deep sleep. καταφέρεσθαι is the proper word for this among Greek writers (comp. also Aquila, Psalm 75:6), usually with εἰς ὕπνον (Lucian, Dial. mer. ii. 4; Herodian, ii. 1. 3, ii. 9. 6). Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 2 : ὕπνῳ κ. καμάτῳ ἀρημένος. Observe the logical relation of the participles: But as there sat (καθεζόμ., see the critical remarks) a young man, falling (in his sitting there) into deep sleep during the prolonged discourse of Paul, he fell, overpowered by the sleep, from the third story, etc.

As to ἐπὶ πλεῖον, comp. on Acts 4:17. The discourse continued for a longer time (Acts 18:20) than the young man had expected.

ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπνοῦ] ἀπό denotes the proceeding from, the power producing the effect (Bernhardy, p. 222; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 322]), and the article denotes the sleep already mentioned (Matthew 1:24).

ἤρθη νεκρός] he was taken up dead. The words affirm nothing else than that the young man actually fell down dead and was taken up dead (Chrys.: διὰ τοῦτο ἀποθανὼν, ἵνα Παῦλον ἀκούσῃ, Calvin, Beza, and others; recently Schneckenburger, Schwegler, Zeller, and Baumgarten); and only so understood has the fall, as well as the conduct of the apostle in Acts 20:10 and the result, the significance which can have induced its being narrated, namely, as a raising from the dead.[110] This we remark in opposition to the view which has become common, as if Ὡς ΝΕΚΡΌς were used (“apparently dead,” de Wette; comp. Ewald).

ἘΠΈΠΕΣΕΝ ΑὐΤῷ Κ.Τ.Λ.] not in order to examine him, but in order to revive him by his contact, in a way similar to the procedure of Elisha and Elijah, 2 Kings 4:34; 1 Kings 17:17 ff.

μὴ θορυβεῖσθε· ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ κ.τ.λ.] Thus he speaks, obviating the consternation of those present (comp. on μὴ θορυβ., Dem. de cor. 35), when he had convinced himself of the successful intervention of his miraculous influence. His soul is in him, i.e. he is living! ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ (not ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ) has the emphasis, not spoken without a lively feeling of victory. The young man had, in fact, been but now ἄψυχος. Accordingly there is no ambiguity of the words, in which Lekebusch asserts that we desiderate an added “again,” and would explain this ambiguity on the ground that the author himself was not quite convinced of the miraculous nature of the incident. See, on the other hand, Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 147.

[110] Baur’s criticism in the case, however, converts an event which was in itself natural into a parallel in a miraculous form with the raising of the dead narrated of Peter in chap. 9.

Acts 20:11-12. On account of the discoursings the intended partaking of the Agapae (Acts 20:7) had not yet taken place. But by the fall of the young man these discoursings were broken off; and now, after Paul had returned to the room, he commences, as the father of a family among those assembled, the so long deferred meal—he breaks the bread, and eats, and discourses at table (comp. Chrysostom) until break of day, whereupon he thus (οὕτως, after all that is mentioned in ἀναβὰς … αὐγῆς; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 262 [E. T. 306]) leaves the place of meeting. After his departure, they (“qui remanserant apud adolescentem,” Erasmus) brought the lad alive (into the room), and they (those assembled) were by this greatly (οὐ μετρίως, often so with Plutarch, also in Isocrates and others) comforted over their separation from the apostle, who had left behind such a σημεῖον of his miraculous power.

κλάσας τὸν (see the critical remarks) ἄρτον stands in definite reference to κλάσαι ἄρτ., Acts 20:7, and therefore the article is put. Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others erroneously hold that a breakfast is meant, which Paul partook of to strengthen him for his journey, and that therefore γευσάμ. is subjoined. But the Agape was, in fact, a real meal, and therefore γευσάμ. denotes nothing else than that Paul had begun to partake of it. It is only added to bring more prominently forward this partaking as having at length taken place.

ὁμιλήσας, as in Luke 24:14; more familiar than διαλεγ., Acts 20:9. Comp. Acts 10:24.

ἤγαγον] they brought him, so that he came into the midst of them; but only now, so that thus subsequently to his revival, Acts 20:10, he must have gradually recovered, in order to be able to return into the room.

τὸν παῖδα] he must consequently have been still very young.

ζῶντα] Opposed to νεκρός, Acts 20:9, and for the joyful confirmation of the words of the apostle, Acts 20:10.

Acts 20:13. Ἡμεῖς] without Paul.

Ἄσσος, a seaport in Mysia, south of Troas, opposite Lesbos, ἐφʼ ὑψηλοῦ κ. ὀξέος κ. δυσανόδου τόπου, Steph. Byz.

ἦν διατεταγμ.] middle (Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 328]), for he had so arranged, namely, that they should from thence (ἐκεῖθεν) receive him on board (ἀναλαμβ.).

αὐτός] He for his part chose the route by land, probably because he had a particular official object in view. More arbitrary are the suggestions of Calvin, that it took place valetudinis causa; of Michaelis and Stolz, that he wished to escape the snares of the Jews; of Lange, that he acted thus in order to withdraw himself from the circle of his too careful protectors; and of Ewald, that he did so in order to be solitary.