Chú giải Kinh Thánh

CHAPTER 28

Acts 28:1. ἐπέγνωσαν] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐπέγνωμεν, according to A B C א, min. and most vss. Rightly; the third person was introduced with a retrospective view to Acts 27:39, through the connection with the concluding words of Acts 27:44.

Acts 28:2. ἀνάψαντες] Lachm. Born. read ἁψαντες, according to A B C א, min. But AN was liable to omission even in itself, and especially through the preceding N.

Acts 28:3. ἐχ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἀπό, which is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted.

διεξελθοῦσα] So Tisch. Born. Scholz, according to A G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. But Elz. and Lachm. have ἐξελθοῦσα. The double compound was the more easily neglected as it was not elsewhere known from the N.T.

Acts 28:5. ἀποτινάξας] ἀποτιναξάμενος, although adopted by Scholz and Tisch., is not sufficiently attested by A G H, min.

Acts 28:10. τὴν χρείαν] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have τὰς χρείας, according to A B J א, min. A gloss on τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν, after Acts 20:34.

Acts 28:14. ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς] Lachm. and Born., following A B J א, min., read παρʼ αὐτοῖς, which was introduced as explanatory.

Acts 28:16. ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος … στρατοπεδάρχῃ] is wanting (so that the passage continues: ἐπετράπη τῷ II.) in A B א loti 40, Chrys. and most vss. Condemned by Mill, Bengel, and others, suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Defended especially by Born. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 301 f. The words, attested by G H and most min. Ar. p. Slav. Theophyl. Oec., have certainly the suspicion of being an expansion. Yet in opposition to their rejection we may urge, first, that there are no variations in detail, as is the general rule with interpolations; secondly, that the writer of a gloss, instead of τῷ στρατοπεδ., would probably have written the more readily occurring plural; and thirdly, that in transcribing one might very easily pass from ἐκατοντ ΑΡΧΟΣ directly to στρατοπεδ ΑΡΧΗ, which corruption would then produce the form of Lachmann’s text.

Acts 28:17. αὐτόν] Elz. has τὸν Παῦλον, against A B א, min. Chrys. and several vss. The name came in, because in Acts 28:17 a separate new act of the history commences; therefore also Chrys. has once, and indeed at the beginning of a homily, τ. Παῦλ.

Acts 28:19. χατηγορῆσαι] A B א, min. have χατηγορεῖν, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have adopted. Rightly; χατηγορῆσαι is a mechanical alteration, in conformity with ἐπικαλέσασθαι.

Acts 28:23. ἧκον] A B א, min. have ἦλθον. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The extremely common word has been involuntarily substituted for the classical imperfect ηκον, not elsewhere occurring in the N.T.

τὰ περί] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have only περί, following A B H א, min. vss. Comp. on Acts 8:12, Acts 21:8.

Acts 28:25. ἡμῶν] A B א, min. vss. Fathers have ὑμῶν, which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is justly supported by Born. The tone and contents of the speech, conveying censure and rejection, involuntarily suggested the second person to the transcribers. Comp. Acts 7:51 f.

Acts 28:27. ἰάσωμαι] A B G H א, min. Theophyl. have ἰάσομαι, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. Rightly; see on John 7:40.

Acts 28:28. τὸ σωτήρ.] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read τοῦτο τὸ σωτήρ, according to A B א* min. Chrys. and several vss. The omission of τοῦτο, which has no express reference in the text, is quite in keeping with the inattention of transcribers

Acts 28:29 is entirely wanting in A B E א, loti 13, 40, 68, Lect. 1, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. ms. In the Syr. p. it is marked as suspected by an asterisk. Condemned by Mill and others, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Very suspicious as an interpolated conclusion of the whole transaction (according to Acts 28:25). Yet it is saved from complete rejection by the fact, that here also in detail there are only found very immaterial variations.

Acts 28:30. After ἔμεινε δἑ, instead of which there is to be read, with Tisch., according to B א loti 13, ἐνέμεινεν δέ, Elz. has ὁ Παῦλος, against witnesses of very considerable importance. See on Acts 28:17.

Acts 28:1. Τότε] then, after our rescue, we recognised; looks back to Acts 27:39.

That by Μελίτη is to be understood the well-known modern Malta (Diod. Sic. v. 12; Strabo, vi. 2, p. 277; Cic. Verr. vi. 46; Ovid. Fast. iii. 567 f.: Fertilis est Melite, sterili vicina Cosyrae, Insula quam Libyci verberat unda freti), and not—as some of the older commentators, following Constantin. Porph. de administr. imper. p. 36 (see in Wolf, and in Winer, Realw.), would infer partly from ἐν τῷ Ἀδρίᾳ, Acts 27:27, partly from βάρβαροι, Acts 28:2, and partly from the observed fact (which, though true in the present day, cannot at all be made good for those times) that there are no venomous serpents in Malta—the island now called Meleda in the Adriatic Gulf, not far from the Illyrian coast (Apoll. Rhod. Arg. iv. 572), is proved as well by the previous long tossing about of the ship, which was hardly possible with a continued storm in the Adriatic Gulf, as more especially by the direction of the further voyage, Acts 28:11-12. The local tradition, also, in Malta, is in favour of it (Beza on Acts 27:41; Smith, Vömel, Hackett). In the Act. Petri et Pauli 1, the island is called Γαυδομελέτη.

Acts 28:2. Βάρβαροι] from a Roman point of view, because they were neither Greeks nor Romans, but of Punic descent, and therefore spoke a mixed dialect, neither Greek nor Latin. It was not till the second Punic war that Malta came under the dominion of the Romans, Liv. xxi. 51.

οὐ τ. τυχοῦσαν] See on Acts 19:11.

προσελάβ.] they took us to themselves. Comp. on Romans 14:1.

διὰ τ. ὑετὸν τ. ἐφεστ.] on account of the rain which had set in. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 3. 7 : διὰ τὸν ἐφεστῶτα ζόφον.

ψῦχος] thus to be accented, although in opposition to a preponderance of codd. (see Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 44), not ψύχος. See Hom. Od. x. 555; Soph. Phil. 17.

Acts 28:3. Ἀπὸ τ. θέρμ.] (see the critical remarks) on account of the heat.[176] See Winer, p. 348 [E. T.465]; Hermann, ad Arist. Nub. 834. The reading ἐκ would have to be rendered: from out of the heat.

διεξελθοῦσα] Plat. Pol. iii. p. 405 C; Phaed. p. 109 E; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 38; 2 Samuel 2:23. It denotes that the viper came out from the brushwood in which it was, and through the layer of the same which was above it. See Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 38.

καθῆψε τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ] it seized on his hand. Comp. Arr. Epict. iii. 10. 20; Lobeck, ad Aj. 700. The reading καθήψατο, recommended by Griesbach, following C, min. Chrysostom, al., appears to be an emendation. That this καθῆψε took place by means of a bite, Luke himself makes sufficiently evident in Acts 28:4 by κρεμάμενον … ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ; but it follows decidedly, and without rashly leaping to a conclusion, from the judgment, from the expectation, and from the subsequent ἜΛΕΓΟΝ ΘΕῸΝ ΑὐΤ. ΕἾΝΑΙ of the Melitenses, Acts 28:4; Acts 28:6, in all which it is necessarily presupposed that they, the near bystanders, had actually seen the bite of the serpent. From this at the same time it follows just as certainly, that the animal must have been definitely known to the islanders as a poisonous viper. Hence we must reject the view of Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 3, p. 369: “illigavit se etc., nempe ut … morderet, sed earn cohibuit Deus, sicut leones illos, Daniel 4:22,” and of Kuinoel (comp. Heinrichs): “erat autem vipera ista aut non venenata, etsi Melitenses eam pro venenata habuerint, aut si erat, insinuavit quidem se Pauli manui, non vero momordit.” The latter (also hinted at by Ewald) follows least of all from ἔπαθεν οὐδὲν κακόν, Acts 28:5, by which the very absence of result (brought about by special divine help) is placed in contrast with the poisonous bite. Nevertheless, Lange (apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 344 f.) supposes that the reptile may have hung encircling his hand without biting, and Lekebusch, p. 382, that Luke had in view the alternative contained in Kuinoel’s explanation. Indeed, according to Hausrath, the judgment in Acts 28:5 is only ascribed to the islanders by Luke. They were, as he thinks, aware that there were no poisonous serpents with them, and that thus the bite was not dangerous.

[176] On the late form θέρμη, instead of θέρμη, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 331.

Acts 28:4-5. Ἐκ τῆς χειρ. αὐτ.] from his hand, so that it hung fastened with its mouth in the wound. Comp. Kühner, § 622 c.

πάντως φονεύς ἐστιυ κ.τ.λ.] he is at all events a murderer, etc. From the fact that the stranger, though he had escaped from shipwreck, yet had now received this deadly bite, the people inferred that it was the work of Δίκη, who was now carrying out her sentence, and requiting like with like, killing with killing. Perhaps it had been already told to them, that Paul was a prisoner; in that case their inference was the more natural. The opinion of Elsner, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, and Lange accede, that the people might have deduced their inference from the locality of the (supposed) bite, according to the idea that punishment overtakes the member with which a crime is committed (Spanheim, ad Callim. in Cer. 64), is to be rejected for the very reason, that in fact from a bite on the hand any other crime committed by the hand might quite as well be inferred.

εἴασεν] not sinit (Vulgate, Luther, and others), but sivit; they regard the bite as so certainly fatal.

On the goddess Δίκη), the avenger of crime (Hesiod. Op. 256 ff.), Justitia, the daughter of Zeus (Hesiod. Theog. 902), and ξύνεδρος or πάρεδρος (Soph. Oed. Col. 1384; Arrian. iv. 9), see Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. iii. 2. 32; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 432; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 345. How the islanders named the goddess to whom Luke gives the Greek name Δίκη, or whether perhaps they had received the Greek Δίκη among their divinities, is not to be decided.

On the active ἀποτινάσσειν, to shake off, comp. Luke 9:5; Lamentations 2:7.

Acts 28:6. But when they waited long (not: expectassent), and saw, etc. On ἄτοπον of abnormal corporeal changes, see examples in Wetstein and Kypke. Not even the expected swelling (πιμπρ.) occurred.

εἰς αὐτὸν γινόμ.] taking place on him. See on Luke 4:23; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 786 C: αἱ εἰς σάρκα … γινόμεναι κινήσεις.

μεταβάλλεσθαι] to turn themselves round, to change, often used even by classical writers to express change of view or opinion (without, however, supplying τὴν γνώμην). Dem. 205. 19, 349. 25, and see Kypke.

θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι] The good-natured people, running immediately into extremes with the inferiority of their rational training, think that he is a god appearing in human form, because they could not reconcile the complete want of result from the poisonous bite of the viper, well known to them in its effects, with the knowledge which they had derived from experience of the constitution of an ordinary human body. Ὑπερβολὴ τιμῆς ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ὄχλων τῶν ἐν Λυκαονίᾳ (Acts 14:11 ff.), Chrysostom. Bengel well remarks “aut latro inquiunt aut Deus …; datur tertium; homo Dei.” The people themselves do not say (θεόν) that they meant a definite, particular god (Grotius, Heinsius, Alberti conjecture Hercules ἀλεξίκακος; Wetstein, Aesculapius; Sepp, one of the two). Zeller finds in Acts 28:6 simply an unhistorical addition “in the miraculous style of our chap. 16.,” which character belongs still more decidedly to the cures in Acts 28:8-9.

Acts 28:7-10. The otherwise unknown Publius, the πρῶτος τῆς νήσου, is to be considered as the chief magistrate of the island. But this is not so much to be proved from the inscription, discovered in Malta, quoted by Grotius and Bochart, Geogr. ii. 1. 26 (… ΠΡΟΥΔΗΝΖ. ΙΠΠΕΥΣ. ΡΟΜ. ΠΡΩΤΟΣ. ΜΕΛΙΤΑΙΩΝ …), as it may, both in that inscription and in this passage, be justly inferred from the nature of the case itself; for certainly the Roman governor, that is, the legate of the praetor of Sicily, to which praetorship Malta belonged (Cic. Verr. iv. 18), had the first rank on the small island.

ἀναδεξ. ἡμᾶς] Acts 28:10 proves that this ἡμᾶς applies not to the whole ship’s company (so Baumgarten), but to Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus (Acts 27:2). Certainly the wonderful course of things in connection with the bite of the viper had directed the interest of the humane man to Paul. And Paul repaid his kindness by the restoration of his sick father.

Acts 28:8. πυρετοῖς] The plural denotes the varying fever fits; Dem. 1260. 20; Lucian, Philops. 9. Observe how accurately Luke as a technical eye-witness designates the disease.

δυσεντερίᾳ] dysentery, Herod. viii. 115; Plat. Tim. p. 86 A; see Cels. iv. 15. Yet the later neuter form δυσεντερίῳ (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 518) is so strongly attested that it has been rightly adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann.

Acts 28:9-10. ἐθεραπεύοντο] namely, by Paul, Acts 28:8.[177] The conjecture, based on the following ἩΜᾶς (Acts 28:10), that Luke as a physician was not unconcerned in these cures (Lekebusch, p. 382), is not only against the analogy of Acts 28:8, but altogether against the spirit and tendency of the narrative, and indeed of the book.

ΠΟΛΛΑῖς ΤΙΜΑῖς ἘΤΊΜ. ἩΜᾶς Κ.Τ.Λ.] They honoured us with many marks of honour; and when we set sail (were on the point of sailing), they placed on (the ship) what was necessary (provisions, and perhaps also money and other requisites for the journey). Many expositors render τιμαῖς ἐτίμ., muneribus ornarunt; but in that case, as in Sir 38:1, the context must undoubtedly have suggested this special showing of honour (by rewards). Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 19. Even in the well-known honos habendus medico (Cic. ad Div. xvi. 9) the general honos is not to be exclusively restricted to the honorarium. In 1 Timothy 5:17 also τιμῆς is quite generally honoris. While the very command of Christ, Matthew 10:8, is antagonistic to the explanation praemiis orna-runt in our passage, the context is also against it, which represents the actual aid (ἐπέθεντο τὰ πρὸς τ. χρείαν) as a proof of gratitude different from that quite general ΠΟΛΛΑῖς ΤΙΜΑῖς ἘΤΊΜ. ἩΜᾶς, both in point of substance (ΤΙΜΑῖς … ΤᾺ ΠΡῸς ΤῊΝ ΧΡΕΊΑΝ) and in point of time (ἈΝΑΓΟΜΈΝΟΙς).

Tradition makes Publius afterwards bishop of Malta; Martyrolog. 21 Jan.

[177] From the popular representation, ver. 9, it is not to be inferred, with Baumgarten, that not a single sick person remained uncured in the island. This Luke would have known how to bring out with corresponding emphasis, especially if he, like Baumgarten, had thought on the fulfilment of Exodus 15:26, and had conceived to himself Malta in a fanciful manner as emblematic of the completed kingdom of God.

Acts 28:11. Παρασήμῳ Διοσκούροις] παρασ. is not an adjective (marked with the Dioscuri), as the adjective παράσημος has always a derogatory reference (e.g. falsely stamped, stigmatised, ill-famed, etc.), but a substantive, so that the dative is connected with ἀνήχθημεν: we put to sea … with a sign, which was the Dioscuri. An image of the Dioscuri was, namely, the ship’s device, i.e. the παράσημον (Plut. Mor. p. 162 A, and see Wetstein) or ἐπίσημον (Herod. viii. 88), the insigne of the ship. This name was given to the image of a divinity, of an animal, or of any other selected object, which was to be found either painted or sculptured on the prow (Lucian, Nav. 5) See on this, as well as on the distinction from the image of the Tutela navis at the stern, Ruhnken, de tutel. et ins. nav. p. 5, 42; Drackenb. and Ruperti, ad Sil. It. 16:84; the interpreters, ad Hor. Od. i. 14. 14; Stanl. ad Aesch. II. p. 751.

For such a παράσημον the image of the Dioscuri was very suitably chosen, as Castor and Pollux (“fratres Helenae, lucida sidera,” Hor. Od. i. 3. 2) were honoured as the ἀρωγοναῦται and generally as protectors in dangers. See Wetstein, and Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1231 f. On the forms under which they were represented, see Müller, Archaol. § 414. On the modes of writing Διόσκουροι and Διόσκοροι, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 235; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 943.

The mention of the ship’s sign belongs to the special accuracy of the recollection of an eye-witness. According to Baumgarten, Luke designs to intimate “that in this vessel there did not prevail that former presumptuous security, but confidence in a super-human protection and assistance.” So much the more arbitrarily invented, as we know not what παράσημον the wrecked ship had. Luke has noticed the sign in the case of the one, and not in the other. It is conceivable enough, even without assuming any set purpose, that after the surmounted disaster his attention was the more alive to such a special feature in the ship in which they now embarked.