聖書注解書

CHAPTER 14

Acts 14:2. ἀπειθοῦντες] A B C א, min. have ἀπειθήσαντες, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted; and rightly, partly on account of the preponderating authority (D, however, does not here concur, as it has an entirely different reading), and partly because ἀπειθοῦντες most directly presented itself to the mechanical scribes as a contrast to those who had become believers. If they had conformed themselves to πιστεῦσαι, Acts 14:1, they would have written ἀπιστήσαντες.

Acts 14:3. Before διδόντι Elz. has καί, against decisive evidence.

Acts 14:8. After αὑτοῦ Elz. has ὑπάρχων, against greatly preponderating evidence. Added from Acts 3:2 as an unnecessary completion.

περιπεπατήκει] So (not περιεπεπ. as Elz.) D E G H, min. Chrys. Lachm. and Tisch. have περιεπάτησεν, after A B C א, min. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the latter.

Acts 14:9. ἤκουε] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ἤκουσεν, after A D E G H א, min. Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist, and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood.

Acts 14:10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born, ἀνήλατο, after D) have ἥλατο. But Elz. has ἤλλετο, against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on account of περιεπάτει.

Acts 14:12. μέν] is, after A B C* D א, rightly erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born. as a customary insertion.

Acts 14:13. After πόλεως Elz. has αὐτῶν. A current addition, condemned by the witnesses.

Acts 14:14. ἐξεπήδησαν] Elz. has εἰσεπήδ., against decisive evidence. The less the reference of ἐξ—was understood, the more easily would the better known εἰς be inserted, corresponding to εἰς τὸν ὄχλον.

Acts 14:17. καίτοιγε] Others: καίγε (so D E, Born.). Others: καίτοι (so A B C* א**, Lachm.). With this diversity καίτοι, and also γέ, are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested; and therefore καίτοιγε, with C*** G H א*, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec., is to be retained. Beside καί sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is also the case in Acts 17:27.

ἀγαθουργῶν] so to be read, with A B C א, min. Ath. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz, Born. have ἀγαθοποιῶν, which, as the more usual word, was inserted.

ὑμῖν … ὑμῶν] Elz. has ἡμῖν … ἡμῶν, against very important witnesses. The alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace.

After Acts 14:18, C D E, min. vss. read διατριβόντων αὐτῶν κ. διδασκόντων. So Born. with δέ after διατρ., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of smoothing the transition from Acts 14:18 to its contrast in Acts 14:19, variously enriched by different insertions.

Acts 14:19. νομίσαντες] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, have νομίζοντες, after A B D א, min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the context.

τεθνάναι] Lachm. Tisch. read τεθνηκέναι, after A B C א, min. Correctly, as the contracted form was the more usual.

Acts 14:28. After διέτριβον δέ Elz. has ἐκεῖ, which has been, after A B C D א, min. and several vss., erased or suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise definition.

CHAPTER 15

Acts 15:1. περιτέμνησθε] A B C D א, min. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. have περιτμηθῆτε. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born.; and rightly, as the witnesses are so preponderating, and the reference of the aorist easily escaped the notice of the transcribers.

Acts 15:2. οὖν] Tisch. Born, read δέ. The witnesses for δέ preponderate.

ζητήσεως] Elz. has συζητήσεως, in opposition to decisive testimony. From Acts 15:7. It is also in favour of ζητ. that it is inserted in Acts 15:7, instead of συζητ. in A, א, min. vss., which evidently points to the originality of ζητ. in our passage.

Acts 15:4. ἀπεδέχθ.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, read παρεδέχθ., according to A B D** (D* has παρεδόθησαν) א loti. These witnesses preponderate, and there are no internal reasons against the reading.

ὑπό] Tisch. reads ἀπό, following only B C, min.

Acts 15:7. ἐν ἡμῖν] Lachm. Tisch. read ἐν ὑμῖν, according to A B C א, min. and several vss. and Fathers. But ἡμῖν is necessary; and on this account, and because it might easily be mechanically changed into ὑμῖν after the preceding ὑμεῖς, it is to be defended on the considerable attestation remaining to it.

Acts 15:11. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] Elz. has Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, against preponderating evidence. Whilst the article was omitted from negligence, Χριστοῦ (which also Born, has) was added in order to complete the dogmatically important saying.

Acts 15:14. τῷ ὀνόματι] so Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ.,—an exegetical expansion, against preponderating evidence.

Acts 15:17. After ταῦτα Elz. has πάντα, which is wanting in A B C D א, min. and many vss. and Fathers. From LXX. Amos 9:12, and hence it also stands before, ταῦτα in E G, min.

Acts 15:18. Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have only γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, so that this must be attached to ταῦτα in Acts 15:17. This reading appears as decidedly original, and so ἐστι … αὑτοῦ as decidedly interpolated: partly because B C א, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. vouch for the simple γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, and those authorities which have ἐστι … αὑτοῦ present a great number of variations; partly because it was thought very natural to complete γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος into a sentence, and to detach it from Acts 15:17, inasmuch much as no trace of γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος was found in Amos 9:12; partly, in fine, because, if ἐστι … αὑτοῦ is genuine, Acts 15:18 contains a thought so completely clear, pious, and unexceptionable, so inoffensive, too, as regards the connection, and in fact noble, that no reason can be conceived for the omission of ἐστι … αὑτοῦ, and for the numerous variations in the words. Lachm. has γνωστὸν ἀπʼ αἰῶνος τῷ Κυριῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ, after A D, Arm. Vulg. Cant. Ir., which betrays a still later origin than the Recepta, as the genuine γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος first gave occasion to the casting of the sentence in the plural form, but afterwards, in order to bring forward the special reference to the ἔργον in question of the conversion of the Gentiles, the change into the singular form was adopted. Matth. has entirely erased Acts 15:18, without evidence.

Acts 15:20. καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ] is, following Mill, erased by Born. as a later addition; Ambrosiaster already explains the words as such, and, indeed, as proceeding from the stricter observance of the Greeks. But they are only wanting in D, Cant. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Pacian. Fulgent. Hier. Gaudent. Eucher. Ambrosiast., of whom several omit them only in Acts 15:29. The omission is explained from Leviticus 17:13, where the eating of things strangled generally is not forbidden, but only the pouring out of the blood is made a condition; and from the laxer view of the Latins. After Acts 15:20 (so, too, in Acts 15:29 after πορνείας), D, min. vss. and Fathers have the entirely irrelevant addition from Matthew 7:12 : καὶ ὅσα (or ὅσα ἂν) μὴ θέλωσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι, ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν (ποιεῖτε).

Acts 15:22. ἐπικαλ.] Lachm. has καλούμενον, also commended by Griesb., according to decisive evidence, and adopted by Tisch. and Born. Rightly; the former is an interpretation.

Acts 15:23. καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί] A B C D א* loti. 13, Arm. Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have merely ἀδελφοί, which Lachm. and Born, have adopted.[22] But the omission of καὶ οἱ is on hierarchical grounds, for which reason also 34 Sahid. have omitted καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί entirely.

Acts 15:24. λέγοντες περιτ. κ. τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον is wanting in A B D א, loti. 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. Vigil. Beda. Besides variations in detail. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Probably a gloss; yet it remains surprising that it was drawn not from Acts 15:1, but from Acts 15:5, and so freely. Besides, λέγοντες … νοΜΟΝ might be easily passed over after ὑΜΩΝ.

Acts 15:25. ἐκλεξαμένους] A B G min. read ἐκλεξαμένοις. So Lachm. A stylistic correction.

Acts 15:28. Instead of τῶν ἐπάναγκ. τούτων is to be written, with Lachm., according to preponderating evidence, τούτων τῶν ἐπ.; Tisch. has erased τούτων, yet only after A and some min. and Fathers.

Acts 15:30. ἦλθον] Lachm. and Born. read κατῆλθον, which is so decidedly attested (A B C D א) that it may not be derived from Acts 15:1. The compounds of ἔρχεσθαι were often neglected.

Acts 15:33. ἀποστείλαντας αὐτούς] Elz. reads ἀποστόλους, contrary to A B C D א, min. and several vss. and Fathers. A more precisely defining addition, which, taken into the text, supplanted the original.

After Acts 15:33, Elz. Scholz, Born. have (Acts 15:34): ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ, to which D and some vss. and Cassiod. add: μόνος δὲ ʼΙούδας ἐπορεύθη (so Bornemann). Condemned by Mill, Griesb. Matthaei, also deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., according to A B E G H א, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and several vss. A hasty addition on account of Acts 15:40.

Acts 15:37. ἐβουλεύσατο] Lachm. reads ἐβούλετο, which also Griesb. recommended, after A B C E א, min. Born., following D, reads ἐβουλεύετο. While the two verbs are frequently (comp. on Acts 5:33) interchanged, ἐβούλετο is here to be preferred on account of its far preponderant attestation.

Acts 15:40. Θεοῦ] A B D א, min. vss. have Κυρίου. So Lachm. Tisch., also Born., who only omits τοῦ, following D*. Θεοῦ is from Acts 14:26.

[22] Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 358.

Acts 14:1-2. Κατὰ τὸ αὐτό] at the same time, simul (Vulg.), ὁμοῦ, Hesych. Comp. 1 Samuel 31:6, and examples in Kypke, II. p. 69 f.; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 210.

Ἑλλήνων] see on Acts 11:20. Comp. Acts 18:4; Acts 18:6. Yet here those Gentiles only are meant who were in connection with Judaism as proselytes of the gate (comp. Acts 13:43), and thus had not by circumcision laid aside their Greek nationality. This limitation is required by the context; for they are present in the synagogue, and in Acts 14:2 the ἔθνη are distinguished from them, so that they occupy a middle place between the ἔθνη and the Ἰουδαῖοι.

οὕτως] in such a manner, so effectively.

ὥστε] refers to the preceding οὕτως, as in John 3:16. Often so in Greek writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 1; Sturz, Lex. IV. p. 623.

ἀπειθήσαντες (see the critical remarks), having refused obedience (by unbelief).

ἐκάκ.] they made evil-affected, put into a bad frame of mind, i.e. ad iracundiam concitaverunt (Vulg.), like the German phrase, “sie machten bös.” This meaning, not in use with Greek writers, nor elsewhere in the N.T. or in the LXX. (Psalm 106:32?) and Apocr., occurs in Joseph. Antt. xvi. 1. 2, 7. 3, 8. 6.

κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφ.] refers to ἐπήγ. κ. ἐκάκ. conjointly. Both were hostilely directed against the Christians.

Acts 14:3-4. Οὖν represents Acts 14:3-4 as a consequence of Acts 14:1-2. “In consequence of that approval (Acts 14:1) and this hostility (Acts 14:2), they spent indeed (μέν) a considerable time in free-spoken preaching (Acts 14:3), but (δέ) there arose a division among the multitude” (Acts 14:4).

ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ] states on what their bold teaching rested—had its stay and support. See Bernhardy, p. 250. Hence as regards sense: freti Domino. Elsewhere in the N.T. with ἐν. Κύριος may as well be Jesus (Heinrichs, Olshausen) as God (Grotius, Morus, Kuinoel); the mode of conception of the apostolic church admits both the former (Mark 16:20) and the latter. The latter, however, is preponderantly supported partly by Acts 20:32, where τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ is to be referred to God, and partly by Acts 4:29-30, where διδόντι σημεῖα κ.τ.λ likewise points to God. Comp. Hebrews 2:4.

τῷ μαρτυροῦντι … αὐτῶν] who gave (practically confirmatory) testimony (comp. Acts 10:43, Acts 13:22, Acts 15:8) to the word of His grace (to the gospel, Acts 20:24), in granting that signs and wonders should be done by their hands. The second participle διδόντι, added without copula, denotes the form, in which the μαρτυρεῖν was presented.

ἐσχίσθη] comp. John 7:43. “Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.” Virg. Aen. ii. 39. Examples in Wetstein.

καί] and indeed.

Acts 14:5-7. Ὁρμή] impetus (Vulg.), but not exactly in the sense of an assault (Luther, comp. Castalio, Calvin, and others), nor yet a plot (Kuinoel, de Wette, and others). The former meaning, according to the context, expresses too much; the latter is not sanctioned by linguistic usage (even in Jam 3:4). It denotes a strong pressure, a pushing and thronging. Comp. Herod. vii. 18 : ἐπεὶ δαιμονίη τις γίνεται ὁρμή, Plat. Phil. p. 35 D: ψυχῆς ξύμπασαν τήν τε ὁρμὴν καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν, Dem. 309. 4 : εἰς ὁρμὴν τοῦ τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν προτρέψαι, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 2; Jam 3:4; 3Ma 1:23; 3Ma 4:3.

σὺν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν] joins on closely to Ἰουδαίων, whose rulers of the synagogue and elders are meant. Comp. Php 1:1. On ὑβρίσαι, comp. Luke 18:32; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; Lucian, Soloec. 10.[15]

συνιδόντες] Comp. on Acts 12:12. It had become known to them, what was at work against them.

Λύστρα (sometimes used as feminine singular, and sometimes as neuter plural, as in Acts 14:8, see Grotius) and Δέρβη, two cities of Lycaonia, to the north of Taurus, and lying in a southeastern direction from Iconium. Ptol. v. 4 reckons the former to belong to the neighbouring Isauria; but Plin. v. 32 confirms the statement of our passage. On their ruins, see Hamilton’s Travels in Asia Minor, II. pp. 301 f., 307 f.; Hackett, p. 228.

[15] ἤτοι πληγαῖς ἢ δεσμοῖς ἢ καὶ ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ. The distinction there stated of ὑβρίζειν with εἰς is groundless. See, on the contrary, e.g. Dem. 522. ult. 539. 14.

Acts 14:8-10.[16] Ἐκάθητο] he sat, because he was lame. Perhaps he begged (comp. John 9:8), like the lame man in chap. 3.

περιπεπ.] Pluperfect without augment. See on Matthew 7:25, and Valckenaer, p. 504 f. Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 9. Observe, moreover, the earnest circumstantiality of the narrative.

ἤκουε] The imperfect denotes his persevering listening.

ἰδών] Paul saw in the whole bearing of the man closely scanned by him (in his look, gestures, play of features) his confidence of being saved, i.e. healed. This confidence was excited by listening to the discourse of the apostle; by which Paul appeared to him as a holy man of superior powers. Bengel aptly says: “dum claudus verbum audit, vim sentit in anima, unde intus movetur, ut ad corpus concludat.”

τοῦ σωθῆναι] This genitive of the object depends directly on πίστιν. See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 229 f.[E. T. 266].

μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ] thus, with the μεγ. predicatively prefixed only here and in Acts 26:24. See, generally, Kühner, § 493. 1, and especially Schaefer, ad Dionys. Comp. p. 359.

ὀρθός] ita ut erectus stes. See on Matthew 12:13, and Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 39 f.

ἥλατο κ. περιεπάτει] Observe the exchange of the aorist and imperfect: he sprang up, made a leap, and walked. Otherwise in Acts 3:8.

[16] Although two cures of the same kind of infirmity and in a similar miraculous manner naturally enough produce two similar narratives, yet it cannot surprise us that, according to the criticism of Schneckenburger, Baur, and Zeller, the whole of this narrative is assumed to originate from an imitation of the narrative of the earlier Petrine miracle in chap. 3. “But with the miracle is withdrawn also the foundation of the attempted worship of the two apostles; this, therefore, cannot be regarded as historical, and so much the less, as it also is exposed to the suspicion of having arisen from an exaggerated repetition of a trait from the history of Peter,” Zeller, p. 214. Comp. Baur, I. p. 112 ff. ed. 2. In a corresponding manner have the miracles of Paul generally been placed in parallelism with those of Peter, to the prejudice of their historical truth. Comp., in opposition to this view, Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch. p. 161 ff.

Acts 14:11. Λυκαονιστί] Chrysostom has finely grasped the object of this remark: οὐκ ἦν τοῦτο οὐδέπω δῆλον, τῇ γὰρ οἰκείᾳ φωνῇ ἐφθέγγοντο λέγοντες, ὅτι οἱ θεοὶ κ.τ.λ. Διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἔλεγον. The more surprised and astonished the people were, the more natural was it for them to express themselves in their native dialect, although Zeller reckons this very improbable and calculated with a view to make the homage go as far as possible. Nothing definite can be made out concerning the Lycaonian language; perhaps a dialect of the Lycian (Lassen in the Zeit. d. Deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. 1856, p. 329 ff.), which Jablonsky (in Iken’s nov. Thes. II. p. 638 ff.) considered as derived from the Assyrian; Grotius, as identical with the Cappadocian; and Gühling (de lingua Lycaon., Viteb. 1726), as a corrupt Greek.

ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις] having become similar to men. Theophanies in human form (Hom. Od. xvii. 485 ff.) belonged, at the instance of the myths of antiquity,[17] to the heathen popular belief, in which such conceptions survived as an echo of these ancient myths (comp. Themist. vii. p. 90, quoted by Wetstein on Acts 14:12); although Baur (comp. Zeller) discovers here an imitation, in which the author of the Acts shows himself as “acquainted with mythology.” Comp., moreover, the analogous conception which attached itself to the appearance of Pythagoras, of Apollonius of Tyana, and others (Valckenaer, p. 506). Such a belief was naturally rejected by philosophers (Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C–E; Cic. de Harusp. 28); but just as naturally it lingered among the people.

[17] See also Nägelsbach, Homer. Theol. p. 153.

Acts 14:12. The fact that Barnabas and Paul were declared to be Zeus and Hermes, is explained partly and primarily from the well-known provincial myth, according to which these gods were once hospitably entertained in the same regions by Philemon and Baucis (Ovid. Met. viii. 611 ff.); but partly also from Zeus having a temple in front of the city (Acts 14:13), and from its being the office of Hermes, as the eloquent (vocis et sermonis potens, Macrob. Sat. I. 8) interpreter (λόγου προφήτης, Orph. H. 27. 4) and messenger of the gods (Apollod. iii. 10. 2), to accompany his father when he came down to the earth (Hygin. Poet. Astron. 34; Ovid. Fast. v. 495). Comp. Walch, Diss. in Act. III. p. 173 ff Paul was called Hermes, because, in contrast to his companion, it was he who was “leader of the word” (αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ ἡγ. τ. λ.), as Hermes was considered Θεὸς ὁ τῶν λόγων ἡγεμών, Jamblich. de myster. Aeg. 1. Probably also his more juvenile appearance and greater activity, compared with the calmer and older Barnabas, contributed to this; but certainly not, as Neander conjectures, his insignificant bodily appearance; for apart from the fact that this rests only on very uncertain tradition (in the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. p. 41, he is described as μικρὸς τῷ μεγέθει, ψιλὸς τὴν κεφαλήν, ἀγκύλος ταῖς κνήμαις; comp. Malalas, Chronogr. x. p. 247; Nicephor. H. E. iii. 37), Hermes is always represented as a handsome, graceful, very well-formed young man. Comp. Müller, Archäol. § 379, 380. But certainly Barnabas must have had a more imposing appearance, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως ἀξιοπρεπής Chrysostom.

Acts 14:13. But the priest (then officiating) of the Zeus, who is before the city, i.e. of the Zeus (πολιεύς), who had his seat in a temple in front of the city. ἱεροῦ is not to be supplied, with Kuinoel and others (see Bernhardy, p. 184 f.), as τοῦ Διός is the genitive directly belonging to ἱερεύς; but the expression τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλ. is explained from the heathen conception that the god himself is present in his temple, consequently is (ὄντος) at the place where his temple stands: hence the classical expressions παρʼ Διΐ (ad fanum Jovis), παρ ̓ Ἥρῃ (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 229). Wolf thinks that it is spoken “de Jove, cujus simulacrum (and so not templum) ante urbem erectum erat.” But mere statues had no special priests. See Valckenaer, Opusc. II. p. 295, and Schol. I. p. 509. It does not, however, follow from this passage, that there was also a temple of Jupiter in the city (Olshausen).

ταύρους καὶ στέμματα] bulls and garlands. “Taurus tibi, summe Deorum,” Ovid. Metam. iv. 755. Beza, Calovius, Raphel, Erasmus Schmid, Palairet, Morus, Heinrichs, and others, have quite erroneously assumed a hendiadys for ταύρους ἐστεμμένους. This would come back to the absurd idea: bulls and, indeed, garlands. See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856. Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 786]. The destination of the garlands is, moreover, not to be referred to the deified apostles (in opposition to Grotius and Valckenaer), who (like statues, comp. ep. Jerem. 9) were to have been adorned; but to the animals that were to be adorned therewith at the commencement of the sacrifice (see Wetstein and Dougtaeus, Anal. p. 80 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 24. 7), because the design of the garlands is included in the ἤθελε θύειν.

ἐπὶ τοὺς πυλῶνας] to the gates (doors of the gate), namely, of the city. This reference is required by the correlation in which ἐπὶ τοὺς πυλῶνας stands to τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως. The alleged incarnate gods were in the city, and therefore the sacrifice was to be brought at the gates of the city. The reference to the doors of the temple (οἱ μὲν ἱεροὶ τοῦ νεὼ πυλῶνες, Plut. Tim. 12), or of the house where the apostles lodged, is not in keeping with the context.