Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 21

Acts 21:3. κατήχθημεν] A B E א, 34, Vulg. al. have κατήλθομεν. So Lachm. A gloss.

Acts 21:4. Both ἀνευρ. δέ (Tisch.) and τούς before μαθ. (which Beng. Matth. Rinck condemn) have decided attestation.

αὐτοῦ] A E G, 68, 73 have αὐτοῖς; so Lachm. Alteration to suit οἵτινες. “Ubicunque in s. s. αὐτοῦ repertum est, scrupulum legentibus injecit,” Born.

ἀναβ.] Lachm. Tisch. read ἐπιβ., according to important testimony. Rightly; the more usual word was inserted.

Acts 21:5-6. προσηυξάμεθα. Καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι] Lachm. and Tisch. read προσευξάμενοι ἁπησπασάμεθα, and then καί before ἐπεβ. So A B C E א, min. Rightly. The Recepta has arisen partly through a simplifying resolution of the participle προσευξάμενοι, and partly through offence at the compound ἀπασπάζεσθαι not elsewhere occurring.

Acts 21:6. ἐπέβημεν] Lachm. reads ἐνέβ., and Tisch. ἀνέβ. The witnesses are much divided. As, however, a form with N is at all events decidedly attested, A C א* having αΝεβ., and B E א** εΝεβ.; ἀνέβημεν is to be preferred, instead of which ἐυέβ., the more usual word for embarking, slipped in, and ἐπεβ. was inserted from Acts 21:2, comp. Acts 28:2.

Acts 21:8. After ἐξελθ. Elz. has οἱ περὶ τ. Παῦλον (comp. Acts 13:13), against decisive testimony. With ἐξελθ. there begins a church-lesson.

Acts 21:10. ἡμῶν] is condemned by A B C H, min., as an addition.

Acts 21:11. τε αὑτοῦ] A B C D E א, min. have ἑαυτοῦ. Approved by Griesb. Rinck, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., and rightly on account of the decisive testimony. Orig. also testifies for it (ἑαυτὸν χειρῶν κ.τ.λ.).

τὰς χεῖρας κ. τ. πόδας] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read τ. πόδ. κ. τ. χ., preferred also by Rinck, following important witnesses (not A), but evidently a transposition, in accordance with the natural course of the action.

ἐν Ἱερουσ.] Born, reads εἰς Ἱερουσ., but only according to D, min. Chrys. Epiph. It arose from a gloss (Orig.: ἀπελθόντα εἰς Ἱερουσ.).

Acts 21:14. On decisive evidence read with Lachm. and Tisch. τοῦ Κυρίου τὸ θέλημα γινέσθω.

Acts 21:15. ἐπισκ.] Elz. Scholz read ἀποσκ., only according to min.; so that it must be regarded as a mere error of transcription. The decidedly attested ἐπισκ. is rightly approved or adopted by Mill, Beng. Griesb. Matthaei, Knapp, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. The readings παρασκ. (C, 7, 69, 73) and ἀποταξάμ. (D, Born.) are interpretations.

Acts 21:20. θεόν] Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A B C E G א, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and most vss. Elz. Scholz, Born. read κύριον, against these decisive witnesses.

Ἰουδαίων] Lachm. Tisch. read ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, which is to be adopted, according to A B C E, min. Vulg. Aeth. Copt. The ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ in D, Syr. Sahid. Jer. Aug. speaks also for this (so Born.). The Recepta was occasioned by the following τῶν πεπιστευκότων, after which accordingly in some Fathers Ἰονδαίων has found its place. א, Oec. and some min. have merely τῶν πεπιστ., which makes all these additions suspicious, yet the testimony is not sufficiently strong for their deletion.

Acts 21:21. πάντας] deleted by Lachm., according to A D* E, 13, Vulg. Copt. Jer. Aug. The omission appears to be a historical emendation.

Acts 21:24. γνώσονται] Elz. reads γνῶσι, in opposition to A B C D E א, min. Aug. Jer. and some vss. A continuation of the construction of ἵνα.

Acts 21:25. ἐπεστείλαμεν] Lachm. Born, read ἀπεστείλαμεν, according to B D, 40, and some vss. Rightly; the Recepta is from Acts 15:20.

μηδέν to μή is wanting in A B א, 13, 40, 81, and several vss. Condemned by Mill and Bengel, and deleted by Lachm. But if it had been added, the expressions of Acts 15:28 would have been used. On the other hand, the omission was natural, as the direct instruction μηδὲν τοιοῦρον τηρεῖν is not contained in the apostolic decree.

Acts 21:28. The form πανταχῆ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted according to decisive evidence; it is not elsewhere found in the N.T.

Acts 21:31. συγκέχυται] Lachm. and Born. read συγχύνεται, according to A B D א (in C, Acts 21:31 to Acts 22:30 is wanting). With this preponderating testimony (comp. Vulg.: confunditur), and as, after Acts 21:30, the perfect easily presented itself as more suitable, the present is to be preferred.

Acts 21:32. παραλαβ.] Lachm. reads λαβών, only according to B.

Acts 21:34. ἐβόων] Lachm. Tisch. Born read ἐπεφώνουν, according to A B D E א, min., which witnesses must prevail.

μὴ δυνάμενος δέ] Lachm. Tisch. Born, (yet the latter has deleted δέ) read μὴ δυναμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ, according to decisive testimony. The Recepta is a stylistic emendation.

So κρᾶζον, Acts 21:36, is to be judged, instead of which κράζοντες is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred.

Acts 21:1-2. Ἀποσπασθ.] denotes the painful separation, wrung from them by the consciousness of necessity. See on Luke 22:41.

On the small island Cos, now Co, or Stanchio in the Aegean Sea, celebrated for its wine and manufacture of costly materials for dress, see Küster, de Co insula, Hal. 1833. On the accusative form, see Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 165 f.

τὰ Πάταρα] a great seaport of Lycia, with an oracle of Apollo active only during the six winter months. For its ruins, see Fellows, Asia Minor, p. 219 f.

διαπερῶν] which was in the act of sailing over. For ἀναχθῆναι, comp. on Acts 13:13.

Acts 21:3. Ἀναφανέντες δὲ τὴν Κύπρ.] but when we had sighted Cyprus. The expression is formed analogously to the well-known construction πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον and the like. Winer, p. 244[E. T. 326]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 189].

εὐώνυμον] an adjective to αὐτήν. See Kühner, § 685, and examples in Wetstein.

εἰς Συρίαν] towards Syria. See on Galatians 1:21.

κατάγεσθαι, to run in, to land, the opposite of ἀνάγεσθαι (Acts 21:1-2), Acts 27:2, Acts 28:12; Luke 5:11; often with Greek writers since the time of Homer.

ἐκεῖσε γὰρ … γόμον] for thither the ship unladed its freight; ἐκεῖσε denotes the direction (toward the city) which they had in view in the unlading (in the harbour).

ἀποφορτιζ.] does not stand Proverbs futuro (in opposition to Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and others), but ἦν ἀποφ. means: it was in the act of its unlading. Comp. Winer, p. 328 [E. T. 439].

Acts 21:4. Ἀνευρόντες] See on Luke 2:16. The Christians there (τοὺς μαθ.) were certainly only few (see Acts 11:19, Acts 15:3), so that they had to be sought out in the great city of Tyre. πάντων … τέκνοις, Acts 21:5, also points to a small number of Christians.

διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος] so that the Holy Spirit (speaking within them) was the mediating occasion. The Spirit had testified to them that a fate full of suffering awaited Paul in Jerusalem, and this in their loving zealous care they took as a valid warning to him not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul himself was more fully and correctly aware of the will of the Spirit; he was certain that, in spite of the bonds and sufferings which the Spirit made known to him from city to city, he must go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22).

Acts 21:5-6. Ἐξαρτίσαι] cannot here denote to fit out (Lucian, V. H. i. 33; Joseph. Antt. iii. 2. 2; comp. 2 Timothy 3:17), to provide the necessaries for the journey, partly because the protasis: “but when we fitted out in those days” (not: had fitted out), would not suit the apodosis, and partly because in general there was no reason for a special and lengthened provisioning in the case of such a very short voyage. Hence we must adhere to the rendering usual since the Vulgate (expletis diebus) and Chrysostom (πληρῶσαι): but when it happened that we completed the (seven) days of our residence there, i.e. when we brought these days to a close. And that ἐξαρτίζειν was really so used by later writers, is to be inferred from the similar use of ἀπαρτίζειν (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447).

σὺν γυναιξὶ κ. τεκν.] the more readily conceivable and natural in the case of the small body of Christians after so long a stay. Baumgarten finds here the design of a special distinction of the church.

ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλ.] on the shore, because this was the place of the solemn parting. Hammond, overlooking this natural explanation, imagined quite arbitrarily that there was a προσευχή (see on Acts 16:13) on the shore.

ἀπησπασάμεθα (see the critical remarks): we took leave of one another, Himerius, p. 184. Lachmann, Praef. p. IX., unnecessarily conjectures ἀντησπασάμεθα.

εἰς τὰ ἴδια] to their habitations. Comp. on John 16:32; John 16:27; and see Valckenaer, p. 581 f.

Whether the ship prepared for the voyage (τὸ πλοῖον) was the same in which they had arrived, cannot be determined.

Acts 21:7. Διανύειν] to complete entirely, only here in the N.T., but very often in classical writers, particularly of ways, journeys, and the like. But we, entirely bringing to an end (διανύσαντες is contemporaneous with κατηντήσαμεν) the voyage, arrived from Tyre (from which we had sailed for this last stage) at Ptolemais (from which we now continued our journey by land).

τ. πλοῦν] from Macedonia, Acts 20:6. Πτολεμάϊς, the ancient עַכּוֹ (even yet called by the Arabs عكد, by the Europeans St. Jean d’ Acre), on the Mediterranean Sea, belonging to the tribe of Asher (Jdg 1:13), but never possessed by the Jews (hence Hiros. Gittin. f. 43. 3 : “In Acone est terra Israelitica, et non”), reckoned by the Greeks as belonging to Phoenicia (Ptol. v. 15; Strabo, xvi. p. 758; Plin. N. H. v. 17), and endowed by Claudius with the Roman citizenship.

Acts 21:8-9. Καισάρ.] See on Acts 8:40.

What induced the travellers to make their journey by way of Caesarea? Baumgarten thinks that, as representatives of the converted Gentiles, they wished to come in contact on the way only with Gentile churches. No; simply, according to the text, because Philip dwelt in Caesarea, and with this important man they purposed to spend some time in the interest of their vocation.

τοῦ εὐαγγ. ὄντος ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά] Since it was not his former position as overseer of the poor, but his present position as evangelist, that made him so important to the travellers, namely, through his participation in the calling of a teacher, the words are not to be rendered: because he was one of the seven, Acts 6:5 (comp. Winer, p. 127[E. T. 168], de Wette); but the comma after εὐαγγ. is to be deleted (so also Tisch. Born.), and the whole is to be taken together: who was the evangelist out of the seven. He was that one of the seven, who had embraced and prosecuted the calling of an evangelist. The fact that he now dwelt at Caesarea presupposes that he no longer filled the office which he held in Jerusalem. Perhaps the peculiar skill in teaching which he developed as an emigrant (Acts 8:5 ff., Acts 8:26 ff.) was the reason why he, released from his former ministry, entered upon that of an evangelist. To regard the words ὄντος ἐκ τ. ἑπτά as an addition of the compiler (Zeller), and also to suspect ὁ εὐαγγελιστής (Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 510), there is no sufficient reason. Evangelists were assistant-missionaries, who, destined exclusively for no particular church, either went forth voluntarily, or were sent by the apostles and other teachers of apostolic authority now here and now there, in order to proclaim the εὐαγγέλιον of Jesus Christ, and in particular the living remembrances of what He taught and did,[117] and thereby partly to prepare the way for, and partly to continue, the apostolic instruction, Ephesians 4:11; Eus. H. E. iii. 37.

Euseb. iii. 31, 39, v. 24, following Polycrates and Caius, calls this Philip an apostle, which is to be regarded as a very early confusion of persons, going back even to the second century and found also in the Constitt. ap. vi. 7. 1, and is not to be disposed of, with Olshausen, to the effect that Eusebius used ἀπόστολος in the wider sense, which, considering the very sameness in name of the apostle and evangelist, would be very inappropriate. But Gieseler’s view also (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 139 ff.), that the apostle Philip had four daughters, and that Acts 21:9 is an interpolation by one who had confounded the apostle with the deacon, is to be rejected, as the technical evidence betrays no interpolation, and as at all events our narrative, especially as a portion of the account in the first person plural, precedes that of Eusebius.

θυγατέρες παρθένοι] virgin (intactae) daughters. On the adjective παρθένος, comp. Xen. Mem. i. 5. 2 : θυγατέρας παρθένους, Cyrop. iv. 6. 9; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1190.

προφητ.] who spoke in prophetic inspiration, had the χάρισμα of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑ. See on Acts 11:27.

The whole observation in Acts 21:9 is an incidental remarkable notice, independent of the connection of the history;[118] to the contents of which, however, on account of its special and extraordinary character, the precept in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12, is not to be applied; nor yet is any justification of the life of nuns to be founded on it, with the Catholics (see Cornelius a Lapide). Comp. Luke 2:36. Baumgarten thinks that the virginity of the daughters corresponds to the condition of the church, which looks forward to her betrothal only in the future. This is exegetical trifling.[119]

[117] They had thus in common with the apostles the vocation of the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι; but they were distinguished from them, not merely by the circumstance that they were not directly called by Christ, and so were subordinate to the apostles (2 Timothy 4:5), and did not possess the extraordinary specifically apostolic χαρίσματα; but also by the fact that their ministry had for its object less the summing up of the great doctrinal system of the gospel (like the preaching of the apostles) than the communication of historical incidents from the ministry of Jesus. Pelagius correctly remarks: “Omnis apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista apostolus, sicut Philippus.” See generally, Ewald, p. 235 f., and Jahrb. II. p. 181 ff.—Nothing can be more perverse than, with Sepp, to interpret the appellation evangelist in the case of Philip to mean, that he had brought the Gospel of Matthew into its present form. The evangelists were the oral bearers of the gospel before written, gospels were in existence.

[118] If this circumstance was meant to be regarded (in accordance with Joel 3:1 [Acts 2:28]) as “a sign of special grace with which the Holy Spirit had honoured this church in the unclean Caesarea “(Baumgarten), Luke must of necessity have indicated this point of view. The suggestion, that we ought to be finding purposes everywhere without hint in the text, leads to extravagant arbitrariness.

[119] According to Clem. Al. Strom, vi. 52 (and in Euseb. iii. 30. 1), some of the daughters at least were married.

Acts 21:10-11. Ἐπιμενόντων] without a subject (see the critical remarks); Matthiae, § 563; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 271 [E. T. 316].

Ἄγαβος] There is no reason against the assumed identity of this person with the one mentioned in Acts 11:28. Luke’s mode of designating him, which does not take account of the former mention of him, admits of sufficient explanation from the special document giving account of this journey, which, composed by himself before his book, did not involve a reference to earlier matters, and was left by him just as it was; nor did it necessarily require any addition on this point for the purpose of setting the reader right.

ἄρας] he took it up, from the ground, or wherever Paul had laid it.

δήσας … πόδας] as also the old prophets often accompanied their prophecies with symbolic actions; Isaiah 20; Jeremiah 13; Ezekiel 4, al. See Grotius; Ewald, Proph. I. p. 38. On the symbol here, comp. John 21:18.

ἑαυτοῦ] his own; for it was not his girdle, but Paul’s. This self-binding is to be conceived as consisting of two separate acts.

τὸ πν. τ. ἅγ.] whose utterance I, namely, as His organ express.