Full text of "The beginnings of Christianity"

\ 






THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 

LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO 
DALLAS ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO 

THE MACMILLAN, COMPANY 
OF CANADA, LIMITED 

TORONTO 



REccI 
p 



THE BEGINNINGS 
OF CHRISTIANITY 

PART I 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



f* 

EDITED BY 



F. v J. FOAKES JACKSON, D.D. 



AND 



KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D., D.Lrrr. 



VOL. IV 

ENGLISH TRANSLATION 
AND COMMENTARY 

BY 

KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D., D.Lrrr. 

AND 

HENRY J. CADBURY, PH.D. 



MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 

ST. MARTIN S STREET, LONDON 

1933 




COPYRIGHT 






PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN 
BY R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, EDINBURGH 



TO 

EDITH M. COE 



PREFACE 

IT had been hoped that the first part of The Beginnings of 
Christianity would be completed in four volumes ; but when 
the fourth volume was almost finished, it became sadly clear 
both to Editors and Publishers that considerations of space 
forced its division into two. Luckily a natural line of cleavage 
was provided by the necessity which had already made itself 
felt of discussing in Additional Notes subjects which were too 
long and complicated for the Commentary proper. These 
Additional Notes, therefore, will form the fifth and last volume 
of the first part of The Beginnings of Christianity. 

When the time came for preparing the Commentary it so 
happened that the work of editing the translation and notes 
fell on me, but fortunately I was able to persuade my friend 
and colleague, Professor H. J. Cadbury, to help my labours. 
We share the same general attitude towards the problems of 
New Testament criticism, but by a happy accident his interests 
are more specifically linguistic and literary, while mine are 
doctrinal and historical. 

We have divided the work of preparing the Commentary 
on somewhat these lines, but we have constantly invaded each 
other s province, and to secure unity of treatment I acted as 
final editor of the whole. The result is that there are many 
notes of which the true authorship is a forgotten secret, for 
neither of us knows which wrote the original draft, and many 
more are a mosaic (the outlines of which I trust are not always 
too visible) of alternately contributed sentences. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE ... .. vii 

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES : 

ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY ... 1 

INDEX I. PLACES, NAMES AND SUBJECTS . . . 353 

INDEX II. QUOTATIONS: 

(a) Old and New Testaments ..... 376 
(6) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament . 397 

(c) Rabbinic Writings . . . . . .398 

(d) Classical and Early Christian Writers . . . 399 

INDEX III. PALAEOGRAPHICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL : 

(a) Inscriptions ....... 406 

(6) Papyri ....... 407 

(c) Biblical Apparatus Criticus . . 408 

INDEX IV. GREEK WORDS 410 

INDEX V. SEMITIC WORDS AND TERMS . . .419 

INDEX VI. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 421 



Map of the EASTERN END OF THE MEDITERRANEAN End of volume 



XI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS. If the book of Acts was 
planned, or at least published, as the 
second part of a two -volume work 
(Vol. II. pp. 491 f.), it is probable that 
it had no independent title. Any title 
the author gave would be intended for 
both volumes, and the separate books 
would be referred to by number. 

It is generally agreed that the titles 
of the gospels in MSS. belong not to 
the original books but to their collec 
tion as the canon. This collection 
also first gave the book of Acts an 
independent position and the need 
for a separate name. Probably more 
than one such title was used as occa 
sion required. Informally but appro 
priately Acts is mentioned by Irenaeus 
as Lucae de apostolis testificatio (iii. 
13. 3, cf. 15. 1), and by Tertullian as 
commentarius Lucae (De ieiunio 10). 
But the name which finally prevailed 
was Acts of the Apostles, which also 
occurs in varying forms in Irenaeus 
(iii. 13. 3 ex actibus apostolorum) and 
Tertullian (acta apostolorum, not 
actus), and is employed by Clement of 
Alexandria (Stromata v. 82 ev rcus 
irpd^ai. TUV dirocTToXwv) and Cyprian 
(acta apostolorum) and in the Canon of 
Muratori (acta omnium apostolorum, 
cf. Vol. II. pp. 503 f.). In the MSS. the 
title varies from irpd^eLs r&v diroffroKuv 
(XBD) to 7r/9detj T&V dyiwv diroaroXwv, 
but none represent any earlier tradi 
tion than that given by the patristic 
citations. The later forms are prob 
ably emendations. X and B use 
7rpdets without r&v a.TToarb\wv as a 
running title. This is also found, 
naturally enough, in Origen and 
others. 

Harnack (Acts of the Apostles, Eng. 
Trans., 1909, p. xvii) is probably right 
in holding that the title IIpdets T&V 
a.iroaTb\wv cannot have been adopted 
much later than A.D. 150. The 
apocryphal Acts probably are named 
after the canonical Acts. 

VOL. IV 



For us, as for the early Church, the 
title is sufficiently satisfactory. But 
it does not accord well with literary 
conventions,which usually, though not 
uniformly, used a genitive of the author 
of the narrative, not of its hero, and 
for the main noun a word for the 
form of literary composition rather 
than for its subject matter (e.g. 
avyypa&lt;pr), vTr6/JLvrj/j.a = commentarius as 
in Tertullian, di^yrja-is as in Luke i. 1 ; 
cf . Heinrici, Der litterarische Charakter 
der neutestamentlichen Schriftcn, 1908, 
p. 93). The title without the author s 
name was subject to the criticism 
that Tertullian made against Marcion s 
anonymous gospel (Vol. II. pp. 222 ff .). 

Zahn can quote no ancient work 
in the title of which the word 7rpdets 
occurs (Introduction to the N.T. 60, 
note 15). But the genuine work of 
Callisthenes on Alexander was appar 
ently known as AXedv8pov -n-pd^eis (see 
F. Jacoby in Pauly-Wissowa, Real- 
encydopddie (1919), xx. 1686 f.), and 
a pre-Christian papyrus of a work of 
Sosylus ends with the subscription 
~2i(jj&lt;ru\ov r&v Trepi Avvifiov irpd^ewv 8 
(U. Wilcken, Hermes, xli. (1906), p. 
108). These are both works of history 
by eyewitnesses. In the body of their 
works historians not infrequently refer 
to the subject matter of their own or 
other histories by the word 7rpdas, and 
it occurs in many other natural con 
nexions. Cf. Xenophon, Cyropaed. 
i. 2. 16 7r/3cxets Kvpov; Polybius (see 
Raphel, Annotationes, ii. 2 ff. ; note the 
hendiadys in iii. 3. 7 77 1777770-15 /ecu al 
7rpdets); Josephus, .4 7i. xiv. 4. 3, 68 ot 
rds Kara llo/j, TT-^LOV 7rpdeis dvaypdij/avTes; 
Dio Cassius 62. 29 rds T&V Pw^cuW 
7rpdets dwdcras ffwyypd^uv ; Diogenes 
Laertius ii. 3 ?r/3deis A\edv8pov. In 
the free Greek rendering of the title 
of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti on the 
Monumentum Ancyranum 7rpdets is 
used to translate Res Gestae. (See 
also the full and admirable account of 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



THE first book, Theophilus, I wrote about everything which 1 

these distinctions (cf. Blass, Ada 
Apost. p. 16). In the papyri Trporepos 
is relatively rare, and therefore Trpojros, 
as the first in a series of any length, 
even only of two, is not more incorrect, 
if it be incorrect at all, than first 
is in modern English. Acts vii. 12 f. 

^a.TTffTl\V TOVS TTCtTepaS r)[J.&gt;V TTp&TOV, 

Kal v T&lt;3 devT^ptp eyvupiadTj KT\., and 
xii. 10 SteX^o^res 5 Trpwrrfv (f)v\aKT]v 
Kal devrtpav show that TrpuJros and 
deurepos can be used without any sug 
gestion of a third. But the usual 
expression in prefaces, judging from 
general usage, is neither 6 Trpiiros nor 
6 irpjrepos \6yos, but either 6 wpocrOev 
\6yos or 6 irpb TOVTOV \6yos (see T. 
Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, pp. 
464 ff.). For the possibility that 
Luke planned a third book see p. 349. 

book] \byos was a customary name 
for a division of a work which covered 
more than one roll of papyrus, though 
it was sometimes used more loosely. 
For a complete statement of the 
meaning and history of this and other 
technical words (reux ? ? TO/XOS, /3c ( 3\toj , 
etc.) see T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 
pp. 1-44. 

Theophilus] Nothing is known of 
him. See Vol. II. p. 507. The name 
is a real one, used by Greeks, Egyptians 
(see F. Preisigke, Namenbuch, s.v.), 
Jews (who perhaps found it more 
congenial than theophoric names in 
which a pagan deity was evident) and 
Romans, but in connexion with the 
Theophilus addressed by Seneca in 
his 7th Epistle the fact seems to have 
escaped many commentators (Zahn, 
Introd. to N.T. iii. p. 6; Lake in 
Hastings D.A.C. ii. p. 568; J. I. 
Still, St. Paul on Trial, pp. 59, 85) 
that the reference is not to the genuine 
letters of Seneca, but to the Christian 
forgery of his correspondence with 
Paul. B. H. Streeter, The Four 
Gospels, p. 539, regards Theophilus as 
a secret name of a Christian Roman 
of rank, suggesting Flavius Clemens. 
There seems, however, no reason for 
supposing that Theophilus is a secret 
name, and the Christianity of Flavius 
Clemens is, to say the least, doubtful. 

I wrote] Not I made, for though 
a Greek author said that he eiroL-riffaro 
a book, an English one says that he 
wrote it. 



the ancient ?rpdets -literature in A. 
Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgesch. und 
ihr Geschichtswert, pp. 94 ff.) 

It is futile to ask what title the 
author himself would have given his 
writing, either as a whole or in its several 
parts. His literary self -consciousness 
as revealed in the preface would prob 
ably have led him to adopt conven 
tional terms as a title. Informal de 
scription of his work is given in his 
prefatory phrases TO. Treir\t]po(popr)uieva 
Iv T]fjuv irpdy/maTa and &v ijp^aro 6 
IT/CTOUS iroieiv re /cat diddaKeiv. It is 
doubtful whether he would have 
chosen to emphasize the apostles (did 
he think of any fixed group of apostles 
that would include Paul ?) or to employ 
the word 7rpdeis which he uses else 
where in other idiomatic senses (Vol. 
II. p. 136, note 1). 

The spelling -n-pa&s found in D is 
more probably a case of itacism for 
7rpdeis than an intended use of the 
singular. In the papyri the singular 
is conversely found spelled in -as, e.g. 
P Grenf i. 29 and 31, ii. 27 and 29 
(all 105 to 102 B.C.). The Syriac 
transliteration and sometimes the 
Latin actus (cf. Jos. Denk, ZNTW. 
vii. (1906) pp. 92 f.) appear to be 
singular, but the Greek word does not 
seem to admit this collective sense. 

1-5. SUMMARY OF THE FIRST BOOK. 
Verses 1 -5 are the preface (or TrpoeK^ecm) 
to the second book of the work ad 
dressed to Theophilus, including a 
summary of the first book. For a 
discussion of the nature of ancient 
prefaces see Vol. II. pp. 133 ff., and 
for the preface to the gospel see Vol. 
II. pp. 489 ff., H. J. Cadbury, Ex 
positor, 1922, pp. 401 ff., and Wiken 
hauser, Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 140 ff. 
See also Addit. Note 1 for the text and 
construction of these verses. 

1. first] On the assumption (prob 
ably right) that Luke wrote only 
two \6yoi, the use of -rrpwrov (first, not 
former) has been criticized as incorrect; 
it should be -rrporepos as in Philo, Quod 
omnis probus liber, 1, in a passage 
strikingly parallel to Acts, 6 ntv 
Trporepos \6yos fy nf^tf, cD Qeodore, irepi 
rov KT\. Here there were only two 
\6yoL. But the tendency in later 
Greek, as in English, was to obscure 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



2 Jesus did and taught from the beginning, until the day when he 
instructed the apostles (whom he had been inspired to choose, 

3 to whom too he presented himself alive after his passion by 



did and taught from the beginning] 
Lit. began to do etc., but there is 
probably no emphasis on the began, 
and, as Blass says, TJp^aro iroieiv is 
little more than eirol-qcre. What Luke 
means is obvious the first volume 
contained the doings and teaching of 
Jesus from the beginning until the 
day when he told the disciples to wait 
in Jerusalem for the gift of the Spirit. 
Torrey claims the use of pleonastic 
&PXO/J-OU as an Aramaism representing 
nt?. It doubtless reflects Semitic 
idiom, but similar usage is by no 
means unknown in Greek, and from 
its frequency in the LXX it had 
become part of Christian Greek (see 
Vol. II. p. 63), so that it is not 
evidence that an Aramaic source is 
being translated. (See Torrey, Com 
position and Date of Acts, pp. 23 ff . 
and p. 60, for his reconstruction of the 
beginning of the Aramaic source ; 
Dalman, Worte Jesu, pp. 21 f., Eng. 
trans, pp. 26 ff. ; J. H. Moulton, 
Grammar of N.T. Greek, vol. i. p. 15; 
and J. W. Hunkin, Pleonastic apxo/zcu 
in the N.T. in the Journal of Theo 
logical Studies, 1924, pp. 390 ff., in 
which full references are given to 
the minor literature, dependent on 
Dalman. ) The sentence does not mean 
that the Gospel tells the beginning of 
an activity of which Acts gives the 
end. (Cf. E. Meyer, Ur sprung und 
Anfdnge des Christentums, i. 34 note.) 

2. until the day] axpi ^s ^epas. 
Cf. Acts i. 22. It may be taken with 
ijp^aro TroteiV re /cat diddaKeiv or directly 
connected with iiroi^od^v. The 
English given above is about as 
ambiguous as the Greek. 

instructed] The content of the 
vTo\r) is either not defined at all or 
not until vs. 4. Hence the Western 
text expanded it and explained the 
verb by /cat tK^Xevve Kypucrcreiv TO 
fvayytXiov, doubtless referring to Lk. 
xxiv. 48. For everd\a.TO or ^retXd- 
fj-evos cf. Matt, xxviii. 20 (TTO.VTO. 6 cra 
^ereiXd/UT/j/ vfj. iv), and for Krjpvffffeut TO 
evayytXiov as the content of the final 
commission to the apostles cf. Mk. 
xvi. 15 (KT)pv%aTf TO evayyt\i.oi&gt;). The 
text of the whole passage is open to 



considerable doubt (see Vol. III. pp. 
256 ff.). If ous and di/eXiJ/i^fli; be read, 
lvTL\djj.evos goes with dve\-q (pff-rj. If the 
readings be preferred which omit both 
ous and dve\rifj.(f)dr], the meaning of tvTei- 
Xd/ie^os ee\ta,To is chose and com 
manded. If the Eusebian text (see 
Addit. Note 1) be followed e^retXd//ei os 
goes with TraprjyyeiXe and the evToXr) 
is defined as to remain in Jeru 
salem. But in any case the close 
connexion with d^pt fjs i)/j.epas shows 
that the reference is to Lk. xxiv. 48. 

had been inspired to choose] It is 
very hard to translate &lt;5id irvev/maTos 
dyiov, as by the Holy Spirit would 
translate 5td TOV dyiov 7n&gt;ei/fj.aTo$, and 
by a holy spirit &lt;5td trvev/maTos TWOS 
dyiov. But it is easy to exaggerate the 
importance of the Greek article in such 
phrases. iri&gt;evfji.a aytov is rare in the 
O.T. (see Addit. Note 9) but often 
used in the Rabbinic writings to de 
scribe the inspiration of the prophets. 
The preference shown in early 
Christian writings for putting the 
adjective last in the phrases irvev/j.a 
ayiov and irvev/j-a dKadapTov may reflect 
the Semitic order. The Greek makes 
it obscure whether the writer means 
that Jesus was inspired in his choice 
of the apostles (taking 5ta irv. ay. with 
[ous] ^eXearo), or in the commands 
which he gave them (taking it with 



The conception of Jesus as inspired 
by the Holy Spirit is primitive, and 
may be traced in the account of the 
Baptism (Mk. i. 9 ff. and parallels ; 
cf. Lk. iv. 17 and Acts x. 38) and 
in Matt. xii. 28 (et 5 ev irvev^arL deov 
eyu e/c/3dXXu&gt; TO, dai/j.6via), and, in 
curious contrast to any Messianic 
doctrine, certainly belongs to the 
claim which Jesus publicly made 
for himself during his ministry (see 
Vol. I. pp. 285 ff.). Torrey ascribes 
the order of the words to the careful 
following of the Aramaic original. 
Wellhausen, on the other hand, regards 
8id Trvevfj.aTos dyiov as a primitive 
interpolation, and thinks that the 
grammar of the whole passage is so 
un-Semitic as to show that it belongs 
to the Editor (Noten, pp. 1 f.). 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



many proofs, being visible to them for forty days, and 
speaking of the Kingdom of God, and lodging with them), and 4 



3. proofs] TK/m.-rjpiois, in logic * de 
monstrative proof as distinguished 
from cr?7,uetoj and et /cos, Aristot. An. 
Pr. 2. 27. 7; Rhet. 1. 2. 16; in argu 
mentative language TCK^PLOV 5t, now 
the proof is ; in medical Greek * a 
clear symptom, and in general use 
evidence, cf. Wisd. v. 11, xix. 13; 
3 Mace. iii. 24. Only here in N.T 

being visible] oirTavbu-evos occurs 
only here in the N.T. In the LXX it 
is used (in some MSS.) in Num. xiv. 14 
of the appearance of God in the wilder 
ness, in the longer recension of Tobit 
xii. 19 of the appearance of the arch 
angel Raphael, and in 3 Kings viii. 8 of 
Solomon s temple. The last passage 
(/cat VTrepelxov TO, r)yia&lt;r/u.ei&gt;a . . . /cat 
OVK wwrdvovTo ^w) shows that by itself 
and apart from its context it merely 
means * was visible, and that the 
etymological connexion with owTaaLa 
cannot be pressed (cf. Zahn ad loc.). 
The passage in Tobit (irdaas rds 7)u.epas 
&irTa.vbu,T]v ft/My /cat OVK Ztfiayov ovSt 
Ziriov dXXd opaaiv v/uels ^#eu&gt;peiYe) was 
perhaps in Luke s mind both here 
and in Acts x. 41 (a-vvecpdyofj-ev /cat 
(Tvviriou*ev aura; /crA., see note ad loc.), 
but d}TTTav6fj.-r]v is peculiar to the longer 
text of Tobit (B), which may be due to 
a Christian reviser, influenced by Acts. 

In the papyri o-n-ravo/mevos is used 
with a negative of persons who cannot 
be found in P Par 49. 33, and P Tebt 
24. 5 (both second century B.C.), and 
of God in the Paris magical papyrus, 
3033 ff . (about 300 A.D.) 6p/ttfw &lt;re rbv 
oirravQevra. r&lt; OcrpaTjX v GT\J\($ tpvnvqi 
/cat ve(pf\7J r)/j.epivr]. 

It is thus not to be regarded as the 
passive of a frequentative form of 
the verb to see but a deponent 
verb formed to take the active mean 
ing appear which had already 
attached itself to the aorist passive 
&&amp;lt;}&gt;0r] (cf. Acts ii. 3, vii. 30, 35, ix. 17, 
xiii. 31, xxvi. 16; Luke i. 11, ix. 31, 
xxiv. 34). It is equivalent to ^&lt;pav^ 
in x. 40 (cf. H. J. Cadbury, 



Journal of Biblical Literature, 1925, 
pp. 218 f.). The occurrence of the 
word in the magical papyrus is prob 
ably due, as the context shows, to 
Num. xiv. 14. Cf. also Ecclus. i. 10, 
var. lect. 



days] did with the genitive of time 
ordinarily means either (i.) after an 
interval of, e.g. Gal. ii. 1, Acts xxiv. 
17, and abundantly in Greek authors, 
or (ii.) throughout, with a certain 
emphasis and usually with some word 
like 6X05 or was which makes this 
emphasis clear, e.g. Lk. v. 5, Heb. ii. 
15 (abundant examples and a clear 
statement are given in Stephanus, 
Thesaurus, s.v.). (iii.) In a few familiar 
phrases like 5td WKTOS (Acts xvi. 9) 
the emphatic sense of throughout 
has been lost, but these are rare and it 
is sometimes difficult to know whether 
they ought not to be classified under 
(ii.). See Stephanus, and Thayer- 
Grimm s Lexicon, and cf. Burton s 
note on Gal. ii. 1. In Acts xiii. 31 
the phrase is changed to 5s ufid-rj 
ewl 7]u,epas TrAeious, and the text of 
the Harclean margin seems to have 
rendered both passages by the same 
Syriac, which would more naturally 
represent e?rt, but this scarcely justifies 
Zahn in assuming it as a Greek variant 
in this verse. 

Chrysostom says that in this passage 
dtd -rjfj.. Tfo-cr. means from time to time 
during forty days. OVK d-jre recra-apd- 
KOVTO. 7)/j.pas, dXXd 5t Tj/u.ep&v reacrapd- 
Kovra, {&lt;piffTa.ro yap /cat d^lirTaro ird\iv 
(Horn, in Act. 1, p. 6 D). But he 
extracts this meaning from his know 
ledge of the facts as related by Luke 
and John rather than from the Greek. 

Kingdom of God] See Vol. I. pp. 
269 ff. and 330 ff. for the original 
meaning of this expression, and its 
later use as meaning the Christian 
Church. In Acts it is found in i. 3, 
viii. 12, xiv. 22, xix. 8, xxviii. 23, 
xxviii. 31, and in xx. 25 with an 
ellipse of TOV 6t o v. In all these passages 
it may mean the Church, but in none 
is the earlier eschatological meaning 
decisively excluded by the context. 

4. lodging] Three interpretations 
of avva\L^bu,evo^ have been suggested: 

(i.) (rvvaXi6fj.ei os is from the verb 
awa\i^eiv, to gather together (con 
nected with dXijs (a), crowded ), a not 
very common word, but found in 
Greek literature from Herodotus to 
Theodoret. The difficulty is that the 
word is nowhere found in the middle 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



voice, and can scarcely mean being 
gathered together with them. More 
over, even if this interpretation were 
correct the aorist rather than the 
present would be expected. 

(ii.) &lt;rwa\i6/j.evos is a middle form 
from ffvvaXifa meaning to eat salt 
together with, and derived from 
dXtfw (a), to salt. This gives an 
excellent meaning, while he was 
eating with them referring back to 
Luke xxiv. 42, and the tense causes 
no difficulty. There is no evidence 
for this meaning in the first and 
second centuries, but in Clem. Horn. 
xiii. 4 (repeated in the two Epitomes) 
Peter tells Mattidia that being a 
heathen she cannot eat with Christians : 
even relatives are separated; but if 
they be baptized, rare 77 avrols /ecu 
&lt;rvj&gt;a\i6jme6a. That this means eat 
together with is confirmed by the 
parallel passage in the Eecogn. vii. 29, 
" tune cum eis cibum sumimus." Much 
less strong are the two other instances 
of the word usually quoted from 
literature, as distinct from the later 
glossaries which only catalogue an 
interpretation of Acts, (a) It has often 
been the custom of commentators to 
say that Origen quoted the word in 
the Hexapla from another version 
(i.e. not Symmachus, Theodotion, 
Aquila or LXX) of Ps. cxli. 4 (LXX, 
cxl. 4) as a rendering of onSx, let me 
eat. The ultimate source of this 
statement is Nobilius Flaminius, the 
sixteenth -century scholar, who in the 
notes to the Roman edition of 1587 
quotes it from Chrysostom s com 
mentary on the Psalms. But Field 
notes that in the edited text of 
Chrysostom the word is &lt;rvvav\i&lt;rdw, 
not &lt;rvva\iff6Cj. Either Nobilius or the 
editors of Chrysostom made a mistake. 
It should be noted that Nobilius was 
writing before either of the two great 
printed texts of Chrysostom by Mont- 
faucon and Savile. Was he quoting 
from a manuscript ? It should be 
remembered that the text of Chryso 
stom greatly needs editing. In any 
case the confusion is interesting for 
its bearing on the view stated in the 
next paragraph that the difference 
between trwauAifo/Acu and cru^aAtfo^ucu 
is orthographical. (6) It is usually 
stated that in Manetho (ed. Kochly, 
p. 112) vi. 339 7r?7/x,a Xuypy ya^rr] &lt;rvva- 
\i6fji.evov /ca/co?7$es implies this meaning, 



because the a in owaXt^S/Beyoy is short, 
but the context shows that the mean 
ing is united in and has no reference 
to eating salt, while the evidence from 
quantity is negligible in a fourth- 
century writer described by Kochly 
as remarkable for metrorum ignorantia 
et ingenii stupore. Torrey thinks that 
avva\ib(j.evos represents an Aramaic 
nVpnp, which meant originally to 
eat salt in company with (cf . Ezra 
iv. 14). But it scarcely seems likely 
that a translator would have tried 
to represent the mere accidents of 
etymology. In versions and Fathers 
a rendering implying this meaning is 
frequent, but not the earliest. It is 
found in the Peshitto, Harclean, 
Bohairic, Armenian, Vulgate, and in 
Chrysostom Horn. 1 (p. 8 c), but not 
in Eusebius, or in Augustine. The 
strongest argument in its favour 
is the parallel in x. 41 a-vvetpdyo/j.ev 
Kal ffweiriofj-ev avTLp yttera rb avaarrivan 
avrbv K venpuv. Cf. Luke xxiv. 43. 

(iii.) Possibly crwaXt^uei/os is only 
an orthographical variant for &lt;rwav\L- 
tfiueitos. According to Liddell & 
Scott the verbs aXLfa and auXt^w are 
often confounded, and the evidence 
of the scholiasts (quoted by Wettstein) 
shows that Greeks sometimes thought 
that dXi fw and auXt fw were identical. 
avXlfa meant originally to stay in the 
court of a house, and came to mean 
especially to pass the night ; it is 
common as a military term, to 
bivouac, and seems to have weakened 
to simply lodge. Cf. Prov. xxii. 24 
J/.7? iffdi . . . o-wavXifrv, and Babrius 
106. 6. 2vvav\i.6fj.ej&gt;os was read by 
Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marinum, see 
Addit. Note 1), and it, or o-waXt^/xeros 
interpreted in the same sense, seems 
to have been the reading of Augustine 
and Ephrem. Thus though the w r eight 
of MS. evidence demands the printing 
of crwaXi&fj.ei os, it must be rendered 
lodging with or staying with, 
the reading of Eusebius and the other 
authorities which read (rufauAi^Aiej os 
being regarded as an orthographical 
correction. On the whole this seems 
the most probable view. It has been 
fully expounded by H. J. Cadbury in 
the Journal of Biblical Literature, xlv. 
(1926), pp. 310 ff. ; note especially the 
evidence for the interchange of av 
and a in footnote 21. 

See T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca 



6 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



commanded them not to stay away from Jerusalem but to await 
the promise of the Father " which you heard from me, that John 5 



Sacra, 1882, pp. 602 ff. ; W. H. P. 
Hatch, Journal of Biblical Literature, 
1911, pp. 123 ff., and C. R. Bowen, 
ZNTW., 1912, pp. 247 ff., and The 
Resurrection in the N.T., pp. 374 ff., 
but reference should also be made to 
Wettstein s comment, and to the 
material in Stephanus s Thesaurus. 

not to stay away] ,1*77 xw/nfeo-flcu. 
If the tense be pressed it means give 
up leaving Jerusalem, and implies 
that to stay away was the apostles 
intention, and probably that they were 
at the moment outside Jerusalem. 
This may be a weakened reminiscence 
of the Galilean episode (see Vol. II. 
p. 138), and in any case suggests that 
the place in which Jesus was staying 
with the apostles was outside the 
city. Cf. Eusebius, Quaestiones ad 
Marinum, Migne P.O. xxii. col. 1005, 
"Evdev 6 Aou/cds fv rcus llpd^eoni , tirei 
TToXXd/cty eavrbv e deiKvv rots /ua^T/rats, 
fTTLTT^pel \eywv, u&gt;s &pa 5C rj/uLep&v Teacrapd- 
KOVTO. 6irTa.vbiJ.ev os atfrots /cat ffvvavKi- 
6/mci&gt;os, TO, Trepi TTJS /3a&lt;rtXeaj TOV 6eov 
Trapedidov /ua^T^uara, Trapr/vei re 6/&gt;/u,aV 
els TT]v lepowraXT^u, /cd/cet 
louSatots Trpwrots TOV \6yov 
irpbrepov dvaxwpfw rrjs TroXews, dXXd 
Trepi./uLei eiv TT\V eirayye\iaj&gt; TOV Tlarpos, 
Trepi r)s /JLLKpbv varcpov dia\T]^/6fj.eda (74). 
And Chrysostom, Horn. 1, Hpurov 
O.VTOVS els rrfv Ta\i\aiav e^rjyaye, 5e- 
doiKOTas eTL /cat Tpe/JLOVTas, tVa yuerd dSet as 
T&V \eyo/j.evwv. Elra, ^Treidrj 
, Kal reo-ffapaKovra &lt;rvv8ieTpi\//ai&gt; 



i, where /XT? -%wpi$e(rdai clearly 
is equivalent to return to Jerusalem. 
See Addit. Note 2. 

In taking this view Eusebius and 
Chrysostom were doubtless influenced 
by their knowledge of Mark and 
Matthew, but their comments are 
interesting and show that to them 
JUTJ x u P - ea 6 ai means do not do as 
you are doing. 

The negative form of the sentence 
in itself suggests that Luke was aware 
of definitely contradicting the tradi 
tion of the appearances of Jesus 
distant from Jerusalem. How skil 
fully he makes the change may be 
seen by comparing the use of Galilee 
in Mark xvi. 7 and Luke xxiv. 6. It 



is a striking fact in this connexion 
that the only geographical distances 
given in Luke or Acts are two which 
indicate how near to Jerusalem were 
the appearances of the risen Jesus (a) 
at Emmaus (Luke xxiv.) and (6) on 
Olivet (Acts i.). 

the promise, etc.] For the awk 
ward change from indirect to direct 
narration cf. xxiii. 22. Which you 
heard from me refers to Luke xxiv. 
49 /cat t5ot , ey&lt;jj ^aTrocrreXXw rr\v eway- 
ye\iav TOV Trarpos /ULOV ^0 u/xas, vfj.fis 8e 
KadiffaTe ev TTJ ?r6Xet ews ov evovff-rjade 
e v\f/ovs 5vva/uuv. That the e -rrayyeXia 
is the gift of the Spirit (recorded in 
Acts ii.) is shown by Acts ii. 33 rr? 
5e|ta ovv TOV deov vtyudeh TTJV TC eTray- 
ye\iav TOV Tn&gt;ev/j.a.To$ TOV dylov Xa/Stbi 
?rapd TOV Trarpos, e^ex^v KT\. For the 
association of Swa/xts and wvev/jia. see 
Luke i. 17, 35, iv. 14; Acts x. 38. 

It would seem that the writer 
intends to represent the disciples 
as misunderstanding the promise. 
Obviously the disciples connect the 
promise of the Spirit with the restora 
tion of the Kingdom of Israel a not 
unnatural confusion if the pouring 
out of the Spirit and the restoration 
of the Kingdom were both looked on 
as eschatological phenomena. They 
think that Jesus refers to the coming 
of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom. 
It is at least certain that the first 
disciples expected the Kingdom and 
that the Church came. This led 
to identifying the Church with the 
Kingdom ; it also led to putting into 
the mouth of Jesus as instruction 
what the disciples really learnt only 
by experience. An exactly similar 
phenomenon is to be seen in the 
preaching to the Gentiles ; the disciples 
came to this reluctantly and only by 
the light of experience, but once they 
had done so their conclusion was 
justified by being thrown back into 
the mouth of Jesus in the form of 
Matt, xxviii. 19 and Acts i. 8. (See 
H. Windisch, Johannes und die Synop- 
tiker (1926), pp. 138 ff.) 

5. that] The most natural sense 
of OTL is that it introduces a direct 
quotation of the words referred to. 
The absence of reference to John in 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



baptized with water but you will be baptized in Holy Spirit 
not many days after this." 

6 So then, when they were assembled they asked him saying, 



Luke xxiv. may not have prevented 
Luke from inserting one here. The 
passage is not so much a reference to 
Luke xxiv. as a rewriting of it. Else 
where the words are ascribed to John, 
not to Jesus ; but Luke, like many 
after him, is not incapable of ascrib 
ing quotations to the wrong source. 
He does the same in xi. 16. The 
alternative is to translate 6Vi by be 
cause ; but the meaning thus obtained 
seems rather forced. 

you will be baptized] The promise 
of baptism with the Holy Spirit is first 
attributed to John the Baptist. It 
would be given by the one mightier 
than him who would come after 
him. It is open to question whether 
by that he intended Elijah or the 
Messiah, but Christians interpreted it 
of the Messiah, Jesus. (Cf. Mark i. 
6ff. and the parallel passages.) The 
reception of the Spirit by the disciples 
at Jerusalem was in some circles in 
terpreted as the fulfilment of this 
prophecy, and directly connected with 
Jesus. Experience then tended to 
give a new turn to their belief, in 
that whereas John s expectation was 
clearly that of a cleansing of the 
Chosen People first by Water, and 
afterwards by Fire and Spirit, in 
preparation for the coming of the 
Kingdom, the Christian view came 
more and more to regard the gift of 
the Spirit as an end in itself, not as 
part of the preparatory cleansing for 
the Kingdom. 

In this passage, as in the Synoptic 
Gospels, baptism with Water is con 
trasted with and distinguished from 
baptism with the Spirit, but the two 
ideas soon coalesced and there emerges 
in Acts a Christian baptism with 
Water which is distinguished from 
that of John because it conveys the 
Spirit, rather than because it is Spirit- 
baptism instead of Water-baptism. 
The Spirit in baptism thus became 
something given, instead of the instru 
ment of cleansing. The steps in the 
change are lost; but the result was 
that John s baptism in Water was 



conflated in Christian practice with 
the belief that baptism conveyed the 
Spirit. See Vol. I. pp. 332 ff., the 
article on Baptism in Hastings Encycl. 
of Religion and Ethics, and the note 
on viii. 16. 

For the possibility that the original 
text was ludi&gt;-t)s fj,ev e^d-n-Tiffev v5ari, 
v/meis Se Trvev/uLari ayiit&gt;, so that /SaTrrtcrere 
should be read instead of jSairTHrdri- 
creo-0e, see Vol. III. pp. 2, 4. If this 
view be adopted it is significant as pro 
viding a Lucan baptismal commission, 
analogous to Matt, xxviii. 19, of which 
the absence is otherwise very strange. 

not many days] Blass thinks 01) 
fjiera TroXXds Tauras rj/mepas is Latin, 
Torrey that it is Jewish Aramaic 
(Torrey, p. 6). It is true that, as 
Blass says, ante hos quinque dies is 
good Latin, but surely non post multos 
hos dies is not. Its equivalent is, 
however, apparently good Jewish 
Aramaic. In any case it is not good 
Greek, though somewhat reminiscent 
of the phrase in Exodus, /JLCTCL 5 ras 
7?/u.^pas TCLS TroXXds exeivas (Exod. ii. 
23, iv. 18). Cf. Vol. II. pp. 43 f. 

6-11. THE STORY or THE ASCEN 
SION. See Addit. Note 3. 

6. so then] ^v oftv. The narrative 
of the Sei/repos \6yos begins with oi ptv 
o&v a favourite formula of Acts in 
opening a new story which is never 
theless connected with what goes 
before. Cf. Acts i. 18 ; ii. 41 ; v. 41 ; 
viii. 25; ix. 31 ; xi. 19 ; xii. 5; xiii. 4; 
xv. 3, 30 ; xvi. 5 ; and contrast the 
different usage in other passages (e.g. 
xix. 38; xxv. 4, 11 ; xxviii. 5). (See 
especially the commentary of Kendall 
(1897), pp. 160 ff.) 

they] Presumably the apostles 
mentioned above whose names are 
given in vs. 13. It would be gram 
matically possible to translate So 
then they who had come together, 
but this, which would introduce a 
new body of disciples, is less in accord 
with Lucan usage (cf. Acts ii. 41 ; 
v. 41 ; viii. 25 ; xiii. 4 ; xv. 30 ; xxiii. 
18). 



8 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



" Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to 
Israel ? " And he said to them, " No one can know times or 7 
seasons which the Father fixed by his own authority, but you 8 
will receive miraculous power, when the Holy Spirit is come 
upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all 



that thou restorest, etc.] The text 
of the Western authorities is curious 
(see note, Vol. III. p. 4). Augustine 
reads Si hoc tempore praesentaberis et 
quando regnum Israel? (sermo 265). 
He explains that Jesus after the 
Resurrection was visible only to his 
followers, and they asked whether he 
would now make himself seen to every 
one. This is a not wholly incorrect 
expansion of the thought. The dis 
ciples interpret the reappearance of 
Jesus as a sign of the restoration of 
the Messianic Davidic Kingdom, but 
Jesus warns them that this is not its 
meaning. They wil 1 receive the Spirit, 
not as members of the Kingdom, but 
in order to be witnesses to Jesus. 

The Lucan tendency is to change 
the centre of the preaching from the 
future coming of the Kingdom to 
the already accomplished life of Jesus. 
The position of the Galilean disciples 
was different from that of the Hellen 
istic Christians. The original hope of 
the disciples was that the Kingdom 
was at hand in the Apocalyptic sense, 
but the Hellenistic Christians, who in 
the end conquered the Empire, were 
preachers of the Lord Jesus, as hav 
ing a present importance for each 
individual apart from the eschato- 
logical Kingdom in which he would 
ultimately reign. In Acts we have 
7) /ScKTiAeta rod 6eov and TO, irepl rov 
Irja-ov side by side, but the latter is 
replacing the former. 

7. no one can know] This is the 
Western reading; the Neutral and 
later text is it is not yours to know 
(see Vol. III. p. 5). The Western 
reading is preferable because the para- 
phrast is unlikely to have ascribed 
ignorance to Jesus. Cf. Matt. xxiv. 
36, where the oldest text reads (in 
agreement with Mark) -rrepi 5 rrjs 
Tj/mepas eKetvrjs . . . ovSeis oldev . . . o#5 
6 vi6s KT\., and the later texts omit 
ov5 6 vios. Luke omits Mark xiii. 32. 
Did he do so because he was preparing 
to use its content in this passage ? 



This is the first of a series of instances 
in which a motif in Mark is omitted 
by Luke in his parallel in the Gospel 
only to reappear in Acts. Cf. vi. 
13 f., xii. 4. 

On the words ^pbvovs Kaipovs see 
Milligan s commentary on 1 Thess. 
v. 1. Probably, as in other cases of 
paronomasia, the combination had 
become stereotyped and the original 
distinction between the words was 
forgotten. The English times and 
seasons is a fair equivalent. 

by his own authority] tv means 
by, in the exercise of. Cf . Matt. 
xxi. 23 ev Troia eoucrta KT\, 

8. miraculous power] 56i&gt;a[j.iv, the 
power which worked miracles on the 
disciples, and in turn enabled them 
to work miracles on others. This was 
the evidence which made them worthy 
witnesses. Cf. Luke i. 35, xxiv. 49. 
Few modern hypotheses have less 
ancient testimony in their favour than 
that miracles were not intended as 
evidence. On the contrary this was 
their main object, and therefore they 
were called a-rj/mela. The ability to 
perform them was StVa/us, and by a 
usual form of Greek idiom the word 
in the plural (5vvdju.is) meant acts 
produced by this power. (Cf . 1 Cor. 
xii. 10.) Mk. xvi. 17 fE. is apparently 
an expansion of this promise of 
5iW/zts to the disciples, cr^/zeZa 5e rocs 
iri&lt;TTevcrci&lt;nt&gt; 



fj.ov 

crats \a\r) a ova t, /cat tv rais 
apovo iv, K&V davaffi^v TL -jriwcn ov 
avTovs /SAdi/^, tirl appdoffTovs 
tiridrjaovffiv /cat /caXcDs tj;OVfflv. It is 
noteworthy that a concrete example 
of each of these ff^uLeia except that of 
drinking poison can be found in Acts, 
and that this is exemplified by the 
tradition that Justus Barsabbas did 
so (see note on i. 23). 

witnesses] The word is found 
thirteen times in Acts, but only in 
Acts xxii. 20 can it mean martyr, 
and even there witness gives a 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



9 



g Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when 
he had said this he was lifted up and a cloud took him away 

10 from their eyes. And as they were gazing into heaven, as he 
was going, behold, two men stood by them in white garments 

n who also said, " Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into 



perfectly good sense. (See Addit. 
Note 5.) 

the end of the earth] In the 
LXX a common phrase for distant 
lands, especially in the prophets (cf. 
Is. xlix. 6, and many other passages), 
without any conscious reference to 
any one place. The fact that in 
1 Clem. v. 7 TO rep/u,a TTJS dixreus may 
mean Rome, and in Psalm. Sol. viii. 
16 aw ecrx arov Tr is "y^s is used of 
Pompey s coming from Rome, has no 
bearing on this verse. 

This passage is the Lucan form of 
the Matthaean universal commission, 
" Go into all the world and make 
disciples of all the Gentiles." Both 
passages reflect the tendency to give 
the authority of Jesus to practices 
which the disciples were in reality 
driven to adopt only by stress of later 
circumstances. Both can be con 
trasted with Matt. x. 5, "Go not into 
the way of the Gentiles," and x. 23, 
" Ye shall not finish the cities of 
Israel until the Son of Man come." 
These can hardly be reconciled with 
the universal commission, or attri 
buted to a special passing occasion, 
for both refer to the work to be 
accomplished before the Parousia. 
But far more decisive is the evidence 
of Acts itself ; for if Jesus really com 
manded the apostles to preach to the 
Gentiles, would they have been so 
reluctant as Acts vi.-xv. proves that 
they were ? (See Vol. I. pp. 317 ff.) 

It is to be noticed that the promise 
in Matthew that Jesus will be with 
the disciples always (And lo ! I am 
with you always, etc.) is replaced in 
Acts by the promise of the Spirit. For 
a similar but reverse change cf . Mark 
xiii. 11 ov yap eare iy/.ets ol \a\ovvres 
a\\a r6 Truev/ma TO ayiov with Luke xxi. 
15 ^70; yap 5c6crw v[jui&gt; crTO/ma /ecu crotyiav. 

9. cloud] The theory of an ascent 
or descent on a cloud was not un 
common. Cf. the story of Elijah 
(2 Kings ii. 11); the vision of the 
Son of Man in Dan. vii. 13 ff . ; 



Enoch xxxix. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 
Rev. i. 7 ; Mark xiii. 26, xiv. 62, and 
especially the account of the transla 
tion] of Moses in Josephus, Antiq. 
iv. 8. 48 Kal TrpoaoiuXovvTes TI, 
v^cfiovs ai(pviSt.ov virp avrbv o~TavTos 
a&lt;pat&gt;LeTai /card TWOS (fidpayyos. The 
presence of a cloud at the end of 
Moses life (whether assumption or 
burial) is attested also in an apocry 
phal work given in Fabricius, Cod. 
Pseud. V.T. ii. pp. 121 f. Unfortun 
ately the passage where this event 
was described in the Assumption of 
Moses is not extant. It is likely that 
in Acts the detail of the cloud was 
due to the conventional use of it in 
traditions of ascensions (Charles thinks 
it may be due to the actual apocry 
phal Assumption of Moses) rather than 
to the equally stereotyped detail of 
the cloud at the Trapovcria, for which 
of course the N.T. itself, following 
Daniel vii. 14, offers several proofs. 
The author of Acts says that the 
-rrapova-ia will be in like manner. 
Note the influence of this theory on 
the text (see Vol. III. p. 5). 

10. white garments] White is the 
garb of angels. Cf . 2 Mace. xi. 8 ; Mark 
ix. 3; Hernias, Vis. iv. 2. 1, 3, 5; 
Sim. viii. 2, 3. The Greek is ea-dijTi. 
in the Western and Antiochian, but 

in the B-text. Examples of 
from MSS. of KOivrj writers are 

given by W. Cronert, Memoria Graeca 

Herculanensis, p. 173. 

11. who] the Greek is ot K ai. The 
more usual pronoun in Acts would be 
oiTtves. Cf . Moulton, Grammar of New 
Testament Greek, and see especially 
Cadbury, The Relative Pronouns in 
Acts and Elsewhere in the Journal of 
Biblical Literature, 1923, pp. 150 ff., 
who shows that in the Greek of Acts 
the difference between 6s and ocrrcs has 
disappeared. The general rule is that 
the relative is declined, 6s, 777-15, 6, ou 
etc., oi rij/es, aiTives, d, &v etc. The 
exceptions to this usage can usually 
be explained as due to euphony. 



10 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



the sky ? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into the sky, 
shall come in the same way as you saw him going into the sky." 

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount called 12 
Olive-orchard which is near Jerusalem a Sabbath s journey 
distant. And when they entered they went up to the attic where 13 
they were lodging, both Peter and John and James and Andrew, 
Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the 
son of Alphaeus, and Simon the zealot, and Judas the son of 
James. These were all together attending the Place of prayer 14 



12-14. THE RETURN TO JERUSALEM. 
See Addit. Note 2. 

12. Olive-orchard] See Addit. Notes 
3 and 35. 

Sabbath s journey] The Rabbinical 
law of a journey on the Sabbath was 
based on Exodus xvi. 29, " abide ye 
every man in his place, let no man go 
out of his place on the seventh day," 
interpreted by Numbers xxxv. 5, 
which defines the suburbs of cities of 
the Levites as 2000 cubits measured 
from the city walls in every direction. 
Thus 2000 cubits or 6 stadia outside 
a town was a Sabbath day s journey. 
So, too, Origen, De Princip. iv. 17 (cf. 
Cramer s Catena, p. 10), and Epipha- 
nius, Haer. Ixvi. 81. (See also Strack 
and Billerbeck, ii. pp. 590 ff.) This 
is a little more than half a mile. This 
agrees as to the distance of Olivet from 
Jerusalem with Josephus, who, how 
ever, varies a little, as in B. J. v. 2. 3 he 
gives 6 stadia, and in Antiq. xx. 8. 6 
only 5 stadia. See also Mishna, Erubin. 

distant] x ov - Blass wishes to 
emend to d-rrexov, but in Ps. Arrian, 
Periplus Maria Eryth. 4, 37, 51 (ed. 
K. M tiller, Geogr. Gr. min, i.), x et " is 
found three times in this sense in the 
MS., though the editors always emend 
it to dTrex ei " in the printed text. 

13. attic] This translation is too 
strong, and upper room is too 
weak. The collection of quotations 
by Wettstein goes to show that the 
custom was frequent of subletting an 
upper room, and that it was the 
accommodation of the poor. Cf. for 
instance the Jewish tract Sabb. f. 21. 2, 
" There are three whose life is no 
life ... he who lives in an upper 
room." On the other hand there is 



rabbinic evidence that an upper room 
(n *?i;) was traditionally the study and 
the room for prayer of a Rabbi (see 
Strack, ii. p. 594). The room intended 
is probably the dvdyaiov of Luke xxii. 
12. One of Zahn s most attractive 
combinations is his suggestion, based 
on Acts xii. 12, that this upper room 
was in the house of Mary the mother 
of Mark. Certainly it would explain 
much if the house to which Jesus went 
on his arrival in Jerusalem was the 
home of the earliest evangelist. 

lodging] The papyri show that 
/carafe j/et&gt; is used of temporary re 
sidence (see Moulton and Milligan, 
and cf. Eusebius, H.E. i. 13. 11). 

zealot] Probably a Lucan ana 
chronism (see Vol. I. p. 425). On the 
whole list see Addit. Note 6. 

14. together] See note on v. 12. 

Place of prayer] rfj Trpoaevxy- This 
is usually explained as the public 
prayers of the Jewish service in the 
temple, and reference is made to Luke 
xxiv. 53 Kai rjcrav 5ta iravros ev rf iepoj 
evXoyovvres rbv 6eoi&gt;, though Origen 
(Contra Celsum, viii. 22) takes it as 
meaning private prayer in the upper 
room. The presence of the article 
rather suggests the third possibility 
that n-poa-evx n is a Place of Prayer or 
Synagogue, as it so often is in Hellen 
istic-Jewish Greek. This meaning is 
almost certain in Acts xvi. 13 and 16, 
and not improbable in Acts vi. 4. Cf. 
too Rom. xii. 12 and Col. iv. 2. It 
seems less probable (Cadburjr, Style 
and Literary Method of Luke, p. 113) 
in Luke vi. 12, and in Luke xxii. 45 
dvaaras diro TTJS TrpoaevxTJs seems to 
mean arising from his prayer. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



11 



with certain women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with 
his brothers. 



r 5 And in these days Peter rose in the midst of the brethren and 



The rendering Place of Prayer 
might be supported by the use of 
Trpoa-Kaprepe iv, see GIG. ii. p. 1005 
add. n. 2114 bb (dated A.D. 81), where 
the emancipation of Jewish slaves is 
limited by the condition %wpts et s TTJI/ 
Trpocrevx^ dufreias re /cat irpo&lt;rK\o.prep\r]- 
aews (see Schiirer, GJV. ed. 4, iii. pp. 
23 and 93), but cf. also Acts ii. 42 
where Trpocr/caprepetV rats Trpoerei/xcus 
seems to mean attend the services of 
prayer. For the general use of TT/XXT- 
evxy = synagogue cf. Schiirer, GJV. ii. 
pp. 517 ff. and see Vol. I. p. 161, and 
for the probability that the Christians 
in Jerusalem at first formed them 
selves into such a Synagogue or 
Keneseth see Vol. I. p. 304. Cf. 
also Archiv fur 



ii. p. 541 ; Expository Times, xix. 
p. 41 ; Preisigke, Wdrterbuch, s.v., and 
Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. 
with certain women] ywa^i. The 
absence of the article is noticeable 
and can scarcely be reproduced in 
translation. It may be an abbrevi 
ated form of the Attic phrase /J.CTCL 
yvva,(.K(Jov /cat TCKVWV, with women and 
children (see Blass ad loc.}. If so, 
it is practically equivalent to with 
their wives. Codex Bezae took this 
view and expanded the phrase to vvv 
rats yvva.1%1 /cat TCKVOLS (cf. Acts xxi. 5 
where the Tyrian Christians accom 
pany Paul to his ship &lt;rvv yvvai%i /cat 
T^/ci/ots). There is nothing impossible 
in this view if in 1 Cor. ix. 5 Paul 
means that the apostles used to 
take their wives with them on their 
journeys. It is slightly supported 
also by the /cat before Maptd/z, which 
suggests that she was not one of the 
yvvaiKes, and thus that ywauKts means 
wives. Contrast Luke viii. 2. The 
more usual interpretation (which 
would, however, surely require ra?s 
7watt) is that the women are those 
mentioned in Luke viii. 2 and xxiv. 
10. In this case their names would 
include Mary Magdalen, Joanna the 
wife of Chuza, and Mary the mother (?) 
of James. Later traditions added to 
these Salome from the other gospels, 



and sometimes said that Joanna was 
Peter s wife, apparently distinguishing 
her from the wife of Chuza. There was 
also much confusion as to the other 
Mary. For the texts of these tradi 
tions see Th. Schermann, Prophetarum 
vitae fabulosae, pp. 193 f. Unless this 
passage is derived directly from a 
source the reference to women may 
be another instance of Luke s em 
phasis on the place and participation 
of women, while the allusion to Jesus 
brothers accords, obscurely to be sure, 
with his tendency to mention by anti 
cipation someone who is to be more 
prominent later, in this case James 
(cf. xii. 17, xv. 13). 

Mary] The spelling of this name 
varies in the N.T. between Na.pi.dfj,, 
the transliterated form of ono, and 
Mapt a, a Graecized form. For this 
name Josephus writes Maptd/xi/??, 
Ma/DtdyU/x??, or Ma/cud^T?, and the LXX 
MaptdjU. There is apparently no 
significance in these variations. See 
J. B. Mayor on Mary in Hastings 
Dictionary of the Bible ; J. H. Moulton, 
Grammar of N.T. Greek, ii. pp. 144 f. ; 
O. Bardenhewer, Der Name Maria in 
Bibl. Stud. i. (1895) 1, and R. Seeberg, 
Die Herkunf t der Mutter Jesu, in Fest 
schrift fur Bonwetsch, 1918, pp. 13 ff. 

his brothers] For a discussion of 
the relationship implied cf . J. B. Light- 
foot, Galatians, pp. 252 ff., and J. H. 
Ropes, Epistle of James, pp. 53 ff . 

15-26. THE SPEECH OF PETER AND 
THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS. See 
Addit. Note 6. 

15. in these days] A well-known 
formula in the later lectionaries, but 
it is absurd to see lectionary influence 
in it here. 

rose] d^ao-rds. Dalman, Words of 
Jesus, p. 23, lists this with eyepdeis 
among the Semitisms of the gospels 
(not in John). He condemns Blass 
for classing it as an Aramaism 
(Evangelium secundum Lucam, 1897, 
p. xxiii) as it " is a well-established 
Old Testament idiom," but he admits 
that the same mode of speech is quite 



12 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



said (and there was a crowd of persons amounting to about 
a hundred and twenty), " Brethren, it was necessary for the 16 
passage to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spake beforehand 
by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to 
those who arrested Jesus, for he was numbered among us and 17 
obtained the rank of this ministry." (Now this man purchased a 1.8 



possible in Aramaic. It can quite 
well be explained as due to the in 
fluence of the LXX. 

brethren] dSeX^cDi/ = Christians, as 
frequently, but coming in this sense 
immediately after its use as brothers 
of the Lord it is very harsh and this 
led to the substitution of /madrjTwv in 
the Western text. For the various 
names for Christians see Addit. Note 30. 

persons] 6i&gt;ofj,a.Tui&gt; in the sense of 
persons is found in Num. i. 18 /card 
yev^ffeis avT&v, Kara Trarptds auT&v, 
Kara api.dp.bv bvo^rwv avr&v. Cf. 
Num. i. 20, xxvi. 53, 55; Rev. iii. 
4, xi. 13; Ignatius, Smyrn. 13. 2; 
Polyc. 8. 3. (See further Moulton 
and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v., and 
Doissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 196 ff.) 

amounting to] This is a customary 
meaning of tiri rb avrb in papyri. 
See also note on ii. 47. 

a hundred and twenty] It can 
scarcely be an accident that this 
number is that of the Twelve multiplied 
by 10. It is remarkable that Sanhedr. 
1. 6 enacts that the number of officers 
in a community shall be a tenth of 
the whole, and that 120 is the smallest 
number which can hold a small 
Sanhedrin. 

16. Brethren] dvdpes d5f\(f&gt;oi is a 
Greek, not a Hebrew or Aramaic 
formula. The avdpes adds nothing 
and can hardly be translated, but it 
is a question whether d5e\0ot ought 
not to be translated Christians ; it 
certainly is the name of the members 
of the society. See Addit. Note 30. 

it was necessary] The passage is 
that quoted in vs. 20 (Pss. Ixix. 25 
and cix. 8), and the tense of e&lt;5a in 
5et Tr\ripwdriva,L rr\v ypatyrjv shows that 
the meaning is that the prophecy has 
been already fulfilled. The election 
of a new member of the Twelve is not 
regarded as the fulfilment but is a 
consequence of it and is led up to by 



the del ofiv of vs. 21. Misunderstand 
ing this, and taking Peter s meaning 
to be We must fulfil the prophecy 
by the election of a successor, led to 
the change in the Western text of 5et 
to Set. 

It is, however, very doubtful 
whether the fulfilment was seen in the 
death of Judas and the consequent 
emptiness of his house, or in the 
vacancy of his office as one of the 
Twelve. The first quotation (from 
Ps. Ixix.) seems to point in one 
direction, the second (from Ps. cix.) 
in the other. With this question is 
also bound up that of whether the 
account of the death of Judas is part 
of the speech or a note added by the 
writer. Probability is usually thought 
to favour the latter view, adopted in 
the text. If so, the vacancy in the 
office ought to be the fulfilment of 
the prophecy, and the suspicion is 
raised that the original text only 
quoted Ps. cix. 8. But speeches in 
ancient literatures were far more 
devices for illustrating the narrative 
and for commenting on it than reports 
of what was actually said. It is 
very unlikely that Peter really inserted 
an account of the death of Judas in 
his speech, but it is not impossible 
that Luke or his source did so. A 
modern writer would have used a 
footnote. Cf. Vol. II. p. 277 note 2, 
and see Addit. Notes 4 and 32. 

passage] r? 7pa0?? is a passage of 
scripture, a text ; Scripture in the 
modern sense is al ypafial. 

17. obtained the rank] This is 
about the meaning of Aa%e v rbv K\ripov. 
Cf. Eus. H.E. V. 1. 10 dve\ri&lt;t&gt;dri K al 
avrbs els rbv K\rjpov rCjv inaprvpcji . 
K\rjpos originally meant a lot, and 
then either a place or an office obtained 
by lot. Thus /cX^pwros was the name 
of a special class of officials at Athens, 
and 6 K\rjpos came to be a usual name 
for officials in the Christian Church, 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



13 



farm with the reward of his wickedness and, becoming prone, 

19 burst in the midst and all his bowels gushed out. And this 
became known to all who lived in Jerusalem so that that farm 
was called in their language Akeldama, that is, * Farm of blood. ) 

20 " For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his homestead be PS. ixix. 25. 



the sense of lot being quite forgotten. 
There is no evidence that it ever meant 
* vote, but see note on i. 26. 

18. farm] An estate in the 
country, or a farm, is the mean 
ing of x w P &gt;LOV rather than a field. 
Cf. Thuc. i. 106; Plat. Legg. 844s; 
Lysias, Or. vii. 4 ; Matt. xxvi. 36 ; Mk. 
xiv. 32 ; Acts xxviii. 7, and especially 
Polyc. Martyr. 7. 1 (KaKeWev 8 ydvisaro 
ets Zrepov -^wpiov aTT\delv in which 
%Tepov xwplov refers back to a,ypL8(.ov 
[v. 1], erepov dypidioi [vi. 1]), and 
note that in Matt. xxvi. 36 the 
rendering of -xjapiov is villa. 

reward of his wickedness] This 
translation is natural and fits the 
context. But the frequent use of 
(TTJS) d5i/cas as equivalent to an 
adjective in the LXX (following the 
Semitic idiom) and in Luke xvi. 8, 9, 
xviii. 6 (cf. Acts viii. 23), and the 
occurrence in 2 Peter ii. 13, 15 of pre 
cisely the phrase /uuados d 5 1 /das suggests 
that here also /juados rrjs dSi/aas may 
simply mean unjust reward. 

becoming prone] Some such phrase 
is the only possible English for irpyviis 
yevo/mevos. irp-rjvrjs means prone, and 
in the various passages in which it 
may properly be rendered headlong 
the sense is derived from its associa 
tion with some verb which means to 
throw. The clearest instance in 
almost contemporary Greek is 3 Mace, 
v. 50 and vi. 23. The first of these 
passages describes the Jews casting 
themselves down on their faces 
(TT prfv els . . . pti/ avres eavrovs) in sup 
plication ; they remain thus while 
Eleazar prays ; and in the second 
passage the king takes pity seeing them 
waitingfor death on their faces (o-widwv 
n-prjve is faropras et s TTJV (hniXetay). 

But though the translation be clear, 
the meaning is obscure. Why should 
becoming prone lead to rupture ? 
It is therefore conceivable that irpyv-ris 
has some other sense, and F. H. Chase 
and others have tried to find in it a 



medical term meaning swollen, but 
without much success (see Addit. 
Note 4). Torrey thinks that the 
Aramaic source read ^3:1 = and he fell, 
and implies suicide (see Torrey, Com 
position and Date of Acts, p. 24). The 
difficulty is to explain why so simple 
an Aramaic phrase was rendered by 
so clumsy Greek. It is also not im 
possible, though unprovable, that the 
writer was thinking of the KO.TO, yrjv 
yev6/uLi&gt;os in the death of Antiochus 
Epiphanes (2 Mace. ix. 8), perhaps 
combined with Wisdom iv. 19 (py&i 
. . . Trprjvels). The intimate association 
of the language of Acts with 2 Mace, 
is shown in Vol. II. pp. 73 ff . 

19. Akeldama] AxeASajtdx. As % 
represents N, and seems to be used in 
transliteration (cf. Sirach for Sira) to 
show that the word is indeclinable (see 
Strack, i. p. 1029), this may represent 
ND-n !?n meaning field of blood ; but 
another transliteration suggested by 
Klostermann is ^OT *?pn which means 
field of sleep and is used, like KOL/JLT]- 
rrjpiov (cemetery), for a burial-place. 
According to Matthew this was the use 
made of the field called the field of 
blood ; Klostermann therefore thinks 
that 7]cn "?pn was the original form, and 
that the meaning field of blood was 
a later etymology manufactured by 
Christians in connexion with the death 
of Judas (see his Probleme im Apos- 
teltexte, pp. 1 ff.). But was there ever 
a word -pi sleep ? and is the phrase 
pn *?pn ever really used for a cemetery? 

20. written] The quotation is in 
accurate. In the LXX Ps. Ixix. 25 
reads yevr)6r)TU 17 ^TrauAis avruv -r)piifj.w- 
/J-&TJ, Kal v rots &lt;TK77J&gt;c6/za(rtz avrwv /ZTJ 
&rrw 6 KO.TOI.K.&V. This also agrees with 
the Hebrew. In the second quotation 
(from Ps. cviii. 8) the text agrees with 
the LXX except that Acts reads Xa/Serw 
for Xci/3ot. 

homestead] This is the usual 
meaning of Z-rravXis in papyri. In the 



14 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



Ps. cix. 8. 



desolate and let there be none that dwells in it, and let another 
take his overseership. Therefore it is necessary that of the 21 
men who came together with us in all the time in which the 
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the 22 
baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us, 
that one of these become with us a witness of his resurrection." 
And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas who was 23 
surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 24 



intention of the writer of Acts it seems 
to refer to the estate which Judas 
bought rather than to his office as an 
apostle, though it is conceivable that 
there is a double allusion. It is, how 
ever, possible that this quotation was 
added along with the inserted note of 
the writer on the death of Judas, and 
was not part of the original account 
of the speech of Peter. 

21. went in and out] The expres 
sion is apparently Semitic. Cf. ix. 28 ; 
Num. xxvii. 17 ; Deut. xxviii. 6, 
xxxi. 2 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 13, 16, xxix. 
6 ; 2 Sam. iii. 25 ; 1 Kings iii. 7 ; 2 
Chron. i. 10 ; John x. 9. 

22. beginning from] The Greek 
dpd/j.ei&gt;os is redundant and unidiom- 
atic. Doubtless it represents the 
Aramaic idiom from (jp N^p) . . . 
to (ijj) (see Torrey, pp. 25 ff.), but 
whether it be due to the translation 
of a source or is Biblical Greek, 
is doubtful. Cf. Matt. xx. 8 ; Luke 
xxiii. 5, xxiv. 27, 47 ; Acts x. 37 ; 
and see note on i. 1. In any case the 
participle is probably not to be taken 
as agreeing with I^troCs, but as a 
nominative absolute that has become 
adverbial. 

the baptism of John] Either the 
time when John was baptizing or 
the baptism of Jesus by John. In 
this context the latter is preferable 
from his Baptism to his Ascen 
sion. But the parallel in x. 37 
(dpd/j.evos dirb rrjs FaXiXatas fj-era rb 
/JaTTTKr/ua 5 K7)pvev Iwdvrjs) sug 
gests the former. Cf. xiii. 24 and 
xviii. 25. 

23. put forward] According to 
this text the assembled community 
nominated two of the number ; but 
according to the Western text Peter 
made the nomination. This small but 



important variant may imply a different 
theory of church government. 

Barsabbas] Either m& -a, a short 
ened form for rot? in, son of the 
Sabbath, see Dalrnan, Gramm. d. 
jud.-palast. Aram. p. 143, or too 13, 
son of the aged. In the latter case 
the doubled -/S/3-, if correct, is due to 
the Greek tradition. Codex Bezae 
and some Latin MSS. read Barnabas, 
but it is doubtful whether this is the 
oldest Western text. In Acts xv. 
22 another Barsabbas is mentioned, 
named Judas, and there Codex Bezae 
reads Barabbas. 

Justus] Presumably a Latin name 
(cf. the historian, Justus of Tiberias). 
Papias is quoted by Philip of Side 
as referring to Barsabbas : ILairLas 6 
elpr][J.evos iffTOprjffev ws TrapaXafiwv dirb 
TU&gt;V dvyartpwv QiKiinrov on Bctpcra^Sas 
6 Kai lovffTOS 5oKifj-a6fj.evos virb TWV 
aTrlffTWv ibv ^tSi/Tjs TTLUV iv 6v6fJ.a.Ti 
TOV Xpto-rou d-jradr]s di(f&gt;v\dx0Ti- (For 
the discussion of this fragment see de 
Boor, TU. v. 2, p. 170 f. ) The same 
tradition is referred to Papias in Eus. 
H.E. iii. 39. 9. 

On the custom among Jews of 
bearing a Gentile name as well as 
a Jewish see Strack, ii. 712. The 
Gentile name often resembled the 
Jewish, Jason for Jesus (Josephus, 
Antiq. xii. 5. 1), Paul for Saul. One 
of the examples cited from the rabbis 
notes that the twelve patriarchs in 
Egypt did not change their names, 
Reuben to Rufus and (as here) Joseph 
to Justus, etc. Compare Jesus which 
is called Justus, Col. iv. 11, and see 
Lightfoot s note on this passage. For 
Judas called Barsabbas see Acts xv. 22. 

Matthias] A shortened form of 
Marrctflias = .TJinp the gift of 
Yahweh. There is no trustworthy 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



15 



" Thou, Lord, the knower of the hearts of all men, show which 

25 one thou didst choose, of these two, to take the place of this 
ministry and apostleship from which Judas transgressed to go 

26 to his own place." And they gave lots for them and the lot 
fell on Matthias and he was voted in with the twelve apostles. 



tradition about him : Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom, iv. 6. 35) identifies 
him with Zacchaeus, and the Clemen 
tine Recognitions (i. 60) with Barnabas. 
The Old Syriac text (referred to by 
Aphraates, Horn. 4, ed. Wright, p. 65) 
and the Syriac text of Eusebius (H.E. 
i. 12. 3, ii. 1. 1, iii. 39. 10, etc.) 
have the strange reading Thulmai 
( = Tholomaeus or Ptolemy) instead 
of Matthias. There seems no other 
trace of this Tholomaeus in Christian 
literature. There is a lacuna at this 
point in Ephrem s commentary, and 
the Armenian catena has a pas 
sage which though labelled Ephrem 
is of a different origin. Zahn 
thinks that the original text was 
Maddiav rbv Kal Tiro\e/j.a ioj or some 
such phrase, to balance the double 
name of BarsabbasJ (see Zahn, pp. 
62 f.). 

24. they prayed] The African Latin 
reads he prayed. See note on vs. 26. 
For the attribution of a prayer or a 
speech to more than one person cf. 
xxi. 20. 

Lord] The epithet Kapdioyviccrra sug 
gests that this refers to Jehovah, but 
it is used in Apost. Const, iii. 7. 8 
of Christ, and the apostles had been 
chosen by Jesus through the Holy 
Spirit (i. 2), and therefore the use of 
the same word (eeAew) for the choice 
of a substitute for Judas may indicate 
that Jesus is intended. Such passages 
as Acts ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16, vii. 59, 
60, xiv. 23, show that the name of 
Jesus was invoked by his followers, 
and that he was regarded as able to 
help them ; but it is doubtful whether 
they prove that be was prayed to in 
the same way as God. The invoca 
tion of Jesus by Jewish Christians 
may at first have been parallel to the 
later Christian invocation of saints, 
and the word Lord is not in itself 
decisive (see Addit. Note 29 and cf. 
Vol. I. pp. 408 ff.). 

knower of the hearts] /cap5to7f WO-TTJS 
is found chiefly in Christian liturgical 



use: Hernias, Maud. iv. 3. 4; Ada 
Pauli et Theclae 24 ; Apost. Const, ii. 
24. 6; iii. 7. 8; iv. 6. 8 ; vi. 12. 4 
(cf. Didasc. ad loc.); viii. 5. 6. Cf. 
Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14, 96, where 
Thales is said to have interpreted 
the word, . . . /cat TO xa 
\eye&lt;rdai Trpos rjju.uii dtvrt/cpi/s e 
epUT-rjQels yt rot 6 Qd\ris . . . et \ai&gt;6di&gt;ei 
TO delov irpdaawv TL avOpuiros, Kal TTUJS, 
el-jrev, 6 s ye ov5 dt.avoov/ij.i&gt;os ; 

25. his own place] Cf. Ignatius, 
Magn. v. 1, and the similar phrase (in 
a good sense) TOV 6&lt;pei\b[j.evov TOTTOV in 
Polycarp, Philipp. ix. 2, 1 Clem. 
v. 4. 

26. gave lots] In view of the 
parallels in the LXX and of the large 
part played by the casting of lots 
in arranging the Temple service (see 
Strack, ii. p. 596) this passage can 
hardly be translated otherwise. Cf. 
1 Chron. xxvi. 14. The method em 
ployed by the Jews was to put the 
names written on stones into a vessel 
and shake it until one fell out. But 
the proper verb would be e(3a\ov, and 
eduKav does not fit into the picture. 
It is possible, therefore, that the mean 
ing may be gave their votes (cf . 
o-vvKaTe^-rj^icrOr), and the parallel in 
Esther ix. 24 /cct#ws ZdeTo \]/rj&lt;pi&lt;r/j.a /cat 
K\7jpov d0a^tcrat CLVTOVS where /cX^pos 
can hardly mean lot ). This was 
probably the view of the maker of 
the Western text, which changes 
ZffTriffav to ZffT-rjffev so as to represent 
Peter as acting for the assembly in 
choosing the two candidates and in 
praying, but does not also change 
tduKav to e Sw/ce. Apparently his 
theory was that the candidates were 
selected by Peter and the choice 
between them made by vote of the 
community. Hence he left ZSuKav 
but changed K\rjpovs OLVTOLS to K\r)povs 
O.VT&V. But the use of #5w/ca^ may be 
a Hebraism, a literal rendering of 
fin. 

twelve] Or possibly eleven, see 
Vol. III. p. 10. 



16 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY u 

And towards the completion of the Weeks all were together 2 i 



1-40. THE GIFT or THE SPIRIT 
ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. This 
is the beginning of the complex of 
narratives which Harnack and others 
attribute to the Jerusalem source B 
(J b ). It contains ii. 1-40, followed by 
a summary (vss. 41-47) which may be 
editorial, a,nd is possibly continued in 
iv. 36-v. 11 and v. 17-42. See p. 31, 
Vol. II. pp. 139-147 and Addit. Note 
12 for the characteristics of J b , and its 
differentiation from J a . For the gift 
of the Spirit see Addit. Notes 9 and 10. 

1. the Weeks ] This translates 
the intention rather than the Greek of 
the writer, iv ry &lt;rvvir\ripovffda.i TT\V 
rip-tpav TTJS TrevTfiKoa TTJs can be trans 
lated only at the completion of the day 
of Pentecost. But this is impossible, 
for vs. 15 says that the day was only 
beginning. The consequent difficulty 
has been treated at length in many 
commentaries, but most decisively by 
J. H. Ropes in the Harvard Theological 
Review, xvi. (1923), pp. 168 ff. He 
shows that ffWTr\r)pov(r6aL is a Semitism 
found in the LXX and N.T. to indi 
cate the completion of a period, and 
that the aorist and imperfect appear 
to be used without any difference (cf. 
Burton, Moods and Tenses, 109). But 
rj T)fj.epa TTJS irei&gt;TT]KO(TTfjs is inappropriate 
for use with this verb, because it de 
notes a point of time rather than a 
period, r? Trevr^KoaTT] is good Hellen 
istic Greek for the Hebrew Feast of 
Weeks (cf. Tobit ii. 1 ; 2 Mace. xii. 
31 f. ; Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10. 6 ; xiv. 
13. 4; xvii. 10. 2 ; B.J. i. 13. 3; ii. 3. 
1 ; vi. 5. 3). The addition of -rj^pa is 
probably due to Luke s predilection for 
such phrases ; he uses, apparently in 
correctly, i] i]/j.^pa T&V av/j,(jjv in Luke 
xxii. 7, and alone among the writers 
of the N.T. uses the O.T. phrase 
TI T]/j.tpa TOU (ra.pf3a.Tov. If Torrey s 
hypothesis of an Aramaic source be 
correct he may have been translating 
K;yntJ&gt; (see Torrey, p. 28), but in any 
case he was thinking of the Weeks 
and their culmination in the Feast. 

The only point at which Ropes s 
argument seems to me open to ques 
tion concerns the difference between 
the aorist and imperfect. This point 
does not seriously affect the mean 
ing here, but I think that a com 



parison of the passages in Luke and 
Acts (Luke i. 57, ii. 21, 22, ix. 51, 
Acts vii. 23, xiii. 25, and xxi. 27) 
suggests that when Luke wished to 
say at the expiration of a period 
he used the aorist, and when he 
wished to say * towards the comple 
tion of a period he used the im 
perfect. In spite of Ropes s warning 
that Luke ix. 51 is too obscure to be 
used, I think it means towards the 
completion of the period closed by 
the Ascension. So here the phrase 
probably means towards the comple 
tion of the period closed by the Feast 
of Weeks. This view was perhaps 
taken by Chrysostom (Horn, iv.), 
though the exact text of his com 
ment is unfortunately doubtful. The 
printed text reads rovreaTcv, ov irpb TTJS 
TTevTTjKOCTTfjs, dXXa irepl avTrjv, us eiiretv, 
TT] v irevT f)KQVTr\v . But there is a variant 
in the MSS. which omits the ov, and it is 
probable that this is the preferable 
text. In any case Chrysostom seems to 
be struggling between his sense that 
the Greek means just before the day 
of Pentecost and his consciousness 
that ecclesiastical propriety rather 
indicated a feast day for the gift of 
the Spirit. 

The variant reading in the days of 
Pentecost found only in Latin and 
Syriac is certainly wrong (see Vol. 
III. pp. 10 f.), and due to the later 
Christian practice of using Pentecost 
to mean the period of fifty days after 
Easter. This practice is reflected in 
the comment of Gregory of Nyssa, 
Oratio de Spiritu Sancto, Migne, P.O. 
xlvi. col. 697 S^/xe/oof yap /card r^v er??- 
aov TOU (-TOVS irepioSov TTJS 
ffv/u,TT\T]pov/j.^i&gt; r]s, /card Trjv &pav 
etye irepl TTTJV TpiTyv &pav TTJS ij 
^ff^v, tyfrfTo i) WCK dirty TJTOS %dpts. 

The institution of the Feast of 
Weeks is described in Levit. xxiii. 
15 ff., "And ye shall count unto you 
from the morrow after the sabbath, 
from the day that ye brought the 
sheaf of the wave offering, seven sab 
baths shall there be complete, even 
unto the morrow after the seventh 
sabbath shall ye number fifty days." 
Cf . Deut. xvi. 9. There was difference 
of opinion among the Jews as to the 
reckoning of the Weeks. The ordinary 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



17 



2 at the same place. And there was from the sky a sudden noise 
as of a violent breeze blowing, and it filled the whole house 

3 where they were seated. And there appeared tongues distributed 
among them, as if of fire, and it sat on each one of them, 



view, followed by Josephus, Philo, 
and Johanan ben Zakkai, held that 
for this purpose the 15th of Nisan was 
a sabbath and reckoned the 16th 
as the day intended by Levit. xxiii. 
16, the day after the sabbath. 
The Boethusians (see Vol. I. p. 117) 
held that Sabbath meant sabbath in 
the ordinary sense and reckoned 
accordingly. It is, however, very im 
probable that Boethusian interpreta 
tions affected Acts (see Strack, ii. 
pp. 598 f., and G. B. Gray, Sacrifice 
in the O.T. pp. 332 ff.). 

If the ordinary Jewish view be held 
in Acts, on what day of the week was 
the gift of the Spirit ? If the Cruci 
fixion was on Nisan 15, and as all the 
gospels imply the day of the week 
was a Friday, the Feast of Weeks 
was on a Sabbath. If the Crucifixion 
was on Nisan 14, as John and possibly 
Luke suggest, the Feast of Weeks was 
on a Sunday. This might have some 
bearing on the Christian custom of 
observing Pentecost on a Sunday, 
but it is very improbable, as the facts 
are in any case explained by the 
tendency to put the great festivals 
on Sundays; cf. Easter, and the 
Quartodeciman controversy, which 
ended in the Christian observance of 
Easter on a Sunday, not on the day of 
the Jewish Passover. (See Zahn, p. 67.) 

all] Does this mean all the 
Christians or all the apostles ? Wendt, 
Blass, and others, following Chry- 
sostom (Horn, iv.), think that it refers 
to the 120 of i. 15. Zahn goes farther 
and argues that women were excluded 
from the choice of Matthias but not 
from the gift of the Spirit. On the 
other hand the promise of the Spirit 
in i. 4 f . is to the apostles, and in 
ii. 14 Peter stands up with the other 
apostles as though it were on them 
that the Spirit had descended. 

2. filled the whole house] Ephrem 
(see Vol. III. p. 397) says that the 
house was filled with fragrance. Had he 
a variant in the text or was he influenced 
byls.vi.4? (See H. J. Cadbury, "The 

VOL. IV 



Odor of the Spirit at Pentecost," 
J.B.L. xlvii., 1928, pp. 237-256.) 

house] Commentators dispute 
whether this was a private house or 
part of the temple, but there is nothing 
in the text to settle the point, and en/cos 
by itself means house. See note on i. 13. 

3. tongues] The word is perhaps 
chosen because of the later phenomena 
of glossolalia. It is possible, however, 
that tongues of fire was a fixed 
phrase as with us tongues of flame. 
See Enoch xiv. 9, 10, 15 (y\uff&lt;rcu 
Trvpbs). The author emphasizes the 
external character of the Spirit s 
manifestation as in vs. 2 ^x os uwrep 
(pepofj.evrjs Trvorjs fiiaias, Luke iii. 22 
(TUfAaTiKtj) et Set ws irepLarepdv. The 
use of u&lt;rel KT\. is not to deny the 
reality of the appearance but to warn 
the reader that the natural object 
named does not give an exact descrip 
tion. Fire about the head occurs in 
both Gentile and Jewish thought as 
a mark of supernatural favour (see 
Wendt and Strack ad loc.). 

distributed] dLa/j.epifo/j.evai can 
hardly mean cloven. Perhaps origin 
ally the list of nations in verses 9 ff . 
was exactly twelve as Harnack sug 
gested. In that case each apostle 
spoke one of the languages (but see 
note on ii. 9). Compare the use of 
the verb in the Magic Papyrus of 
Paris 574, lines 3056 ff ., dpicLfa ae rbv 
Karadei^avra ras eKarov reffffepaKovra 
y\uff&lt;ras /ecu dia/ui.epicravTa ry Idia) Trpoa- 
rdy/j.aTi. This papyrus is certainly 
of Jewish origin and reminds us of 
the Jewish legend (Philo, De decal. 9 
and 11, De septen. 22, and rabbinic 
parallels) of the giving of the law to 
all the nations (usually reckoned as 
70 as in Gen. x.) in their own lan 
guage. (See Addit. Note 10.) The 
choice of 8iafj.epifofj.ac, both in this 
papyrus and in Acts, may be in 
fluenced by its use in Deut. xxxii. 8 
of the assignment of the nations to 
angels, quoted in 1 Clem. xxix. 2 and 
Justin, Dial 131. 1. 

fire] Cf. the promise of baptism 



18 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



and all were filled with Holy Spirit and began to talk in other 4 
tongues as the Spirit caused them to make utterance. 

And there were [Jews dwelling] in Jerusalem devout men of 5 
every nation of those under heaven. And when there was this voice 6 
the crowd came together and were perplexed because each one 
heard them speaking in his own language. And all were surprised 7 
and wondered, saying, " Are not, lo, all these who are speaking 
Galileans, and how do we hear them each one in our own language 8 



with the Holy Spirit and with fire, 
Matt. iii. 11 and Luke iii. 16. Also 
the tradition of a fire on the Jordan at 
the baptism of Christ (in Matt. iii. 16, 
in a g 1 , and in Justin, Trypho 88). Fire 
played no part in ordinary Christian 
baptism, but was adopted (to the exclu 
sion of water ?) by the Carpocratians. 
(See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. xx. 4, 
ed. Harvey = i. xxv. 5, ed. Massuet, 
and Hippolytus, Eefut. vii. 32.) 

it sat] The text is clumsy but it 
can hardly be a corruption. Probably 
it is a sense construction and the 
subject is fire. Codex Bezae, but not 
the African Latin, emends to eKadiffav, 
they sat, i.e. the tongues. 

4. utterance] &iro&lt;j&gt;0yyeff0ai. Cf. 
Chrysostom, Horn. iv. d7ro00ey/uara yap 
fy ra irap avT&v \y6/nei&gt;a. An airb- 
(j&gt;dey/jia is a * weighty saying such as 
Plutarch collected. In the LXX it is 
used of seers and soothsayers (D JDKD), 
cf. 1 Chron. xxv. l;Micahv. 12; so also 
Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 6, 33 (Mangey, 
ii. p. 139), and Cyril in Cramer s 
Catena, p. 23. The verb calls attention 
to the sound rather than to the con 
tent of the utterance (Xtyeiv and in 
late Greek \a\eiv) and is therefore 
particularly appropriate to articulate 
oracular speech. The same difference 
exists between ^%os and &lt;pwr). Cf. 
1 Cor. xiii. 1 %a\/c6s yx&v, xiv. 7 f. 
(fiwrjv (00677015). 

5. [Jews dwelling] On the text see 
Addit. Note 10. 

devout] The use of euXa/S^s in viii. 
2, xxii. 12, and Luke ii. 25 negatives 
the suggestion that it is used here as 
a synonym for &lt;t&gt;oj3ou[j,evos or ae^6fj.evos 
rbv deov in the sense of a Gentile who 
accepted the God of the Jews but had 
not become a proselyte or an observer 
of the Law. The Empire doubtless 



contained many of these God-fearers, 
and the multitude at Pentecost may 
have been largely composed of them, 
but this view can only be supported 
by general probability, and must not 
be made dependent on the meaning 
of eu\a/3?7S. 

6. voice] The sound mentioned 
here is &lt;J&gt;w/i, the voice of the inspired 
speakers rather than the ^x os f the 
second verse. But the Jewish tradi 
tion was that at the giving of the 
Law the voice of God was heard 
by all nations throughout the world. 
(See Addit. Note 10.) 

the crowd] The word TrXrjdos has 
various shades of meaning varying 
from congregation to mob. Here 
it seems to mean the whole number of 
the devout men of vs. 5 rather than 
the Christian community. See note 
on iv. 32. 

perplexed] This seems the mean 
ing of ffvvxfa, rather than refuted ; 
but there seems to be no study of the 
word on the basis of Hellenistic Greek. 
Cf. ix. 22. 

7. Are not, lo] This very awkward 
phrase fairly represents the equally 
awkward Greek ou%i t 5oi&gt; . . . ci&lt;riv, 
which may be the translation of the 
Aramaic NH K 1 ? (see Torrey, p. 28). 
But OVK I8ov occurs frequently in the 
LXX in rhetorical questions, e.g. in 
the formula " Are they not written in 
the book of the acts of, etc. ? " There 
at any rate it is not the literal imita 
tion of the Semitic original (t^n), but, 
according to Thackeray, " in time 
became the recognized equivalent for 
the classical dp ov ; " (Grammar of the 
O.T. in Greek, i. pp. 125 f.). Possibly 
here we should connect I5ou specially 
with the following aTravres, in accord 
ance with the idiom by which this 



II 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



19 



9 in which we were born ? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and 

dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and 

10 Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya 



writer emphasizes quantitative adjec 
tives by placing i5ov just before them 
(Luke xiii. 16 edrjaev 6 ^/aravas idob 
dtita /ecu 6/crcb ZTTJ, xiii. 7, xix. 8). For 
this usage vernacular Greek provides 
exact parallels. See Moulton and 
Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 299. On the 
aspiration in ovx tdov (KD, etc., cor 
rected either to ov^i B or ou/c C, etc.) 
see J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. 
Greek, i 3 . p. 244, ii. p. 100. 

9. Parthians, etc.] This list appar 
ently is intended to cover every 
nation under heaven and is an inter 
esting sidelight on the meaning of 
that phrase. Roughly speaking, the 
names represent the Parthian Empire 
east of the Tigris, and the Roman 
Empire as far west as the province 
of Asia. 

Parthians, Medes, and Elamites are 
three eastern races. Parthians repre 
sent the Persians of the Old Testa 
ment. Medes and Elamites no doubt 
existed as tribes, and the Elamites are 
mentioned in Tacitus (Ann. vi. 44), 
Plutarch (Pomp, xxxvi.), and Strabo 
(xi. 12. 4, and xv. 3. 12), but they 
appear here rather because of their 
prominence in the Old Testament. 
Taken together these three names 
represent the country east of the 
Tigris, outside the Roman Empire. 

The construction is then changed; 
a list of nine countries (Mesopotamia, 
Judaea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, 
Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and 
Cyrenian Libya) are introduced by 
the word inhabitants of. If Judaea 
be taken in the prophetic sense as 
the country from Euphrates to the 
river of Egypt this covers in fairly 
methodical order all the districts 
round the east of the Mediterranean. 
If, however, Judaea be interpreted in 
accordance with fact rather than 
prophecy it seems out of place and 
leaves a gap between Mesopotamia 
and Cappadocia, a defect which 
Tertullian remedied by emending 
Judaeam to Armeniam, and Augustine 
by reading Judaei for Judaeam (see 
Vol. III. p. 14). But Luke s usage 
of Judaea is obscure, and perhaps 



depends on his sources. Cf. Luke 
iv. 44 and vii. 17. Burkitt suggests 
TopSaiav (Kurdistan) as an emenda 
tion. 

To this is added five more names, 
Roman citizens (see note on PU/J.O.IOI), 
Jews and proselytes, Cretans and 
Arabians, introduced by iri8rnu.out&gt;Tes, 
just as the previous list was intro 
duced by KaroiKovvTes, but no place- 
name follows. The probable mean 
ing, therefore, is residents in Jeru 
salem. 

The difference between KOLTOLK^V and 
eTriS-rj/ui.ovi Tes seems to be that between 
those living habitually in a country 
(KaroiKovvres) and temporarily residing 
there (eTriSrj/xoiWes). But the distinc 
tion is not always clear. If it be 
accepted the meaning is that besides 
the visitors from other countries there 
were also some residents of Jerusalem 
who were not Palestinians. If so 
Jews means Jews of the Diaspora 
who were at present living in Jeru 
salem, not merely visiting it. The 
Cretans and Arabians represent the 
two extremes of West and South-east 
which were not covered by the previous 
names. 

The textual evidence for this list 
is singularly unanimous except for 
the word Judaea. But there is no 
reason for omitting it with Harnack 
or for following the African Latin and 
reading Judaei with Zahn. Nor is 
there sufficient reason for omitting 
Cretans and Arabians as Harnack 
wished ; it is true that, if Judaea, 
Cretans, and Arabians be omitted, 
and Romans be taken ethnologically 
instead of politically, there are twelve 
names, one for each apostle, but 
there is no reason to suppose that 
this was in the writer s mind. Nor 
is it necessary to ask exactly what 
language was supposed to be repre 
sented by each of these names. The 
list is in the main a rhetorical way of 
saying that every nation and land 
was represented. It is futile to treat 
it as an essay in geography or 
ethnology. (Cf. Harnack, Acts of the 
Apostles, pp. 65 ff.) 



20 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



which is near Gyrene, and the residents, Roman citizens and Jews 
and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling the n 
great deeds of God in our language." And all were surprised and 12 
perplexed, saying one to another, " What does this mean ? " But *3 
others jeered and said, " They are full of sweet wine." 

But Peter stood up with the eleven and raised his voice and 14 



10. Roman citizens] 
regularly means a citizen of the 
Roman empire, not an inhabitant of 
the city of Rome (cf. Acts xxii. 25 ff.). 

11. we hear] It is of course im 
possible to suppose that the preceding 
list of names was really recited by the 
speakers. The African Latin, perhaps 
representing the Western text, reads 
audierunt loquentes illos suis linguis 
magnolia dei, which seems an attempt 
to make the list into a comment by 
the writer. It is a tempting variation 
but transcriptionally improbable. 

telling, etc.] \a\ovvTtw TO. fj,eya\ia 
seems to be a periphrasis for 
/uLeya\vi&gt;6i&gt;TWV (cf. X. 46). jut,eya\e ios 
is a late form of fj.^yas, found three 
times in the Psalms and eight times 
in the Apocrypha, though only once 
in the early books of the LXX (Deut. 
xi. 2). ra fj.eya\e1a (magnolia) seems 
to be a ceremonious phrase found in 
an inscription to Germanicus (avrov TO 
^eyaCkelov rrfs adavaffias), in Ditten- 
berger s Sylloge 3 , 798, and used by Jews 
and Christians in reference to God. 

13. sweet wine] The sweet wine 
mentioned is probably the freshly 
made wine which has not yet been 
kept long enough and is still ferment 
ing. Cf. Lucian, Philops. 39 T?/CW, vy 
rbv Aid, uxrTrep ol rov y\ei&gt;KOvs indvTes, 
t/jLirecpvcrrj/jLtvos TT}V yacrr^pa, t^rov 
deb/jievos. How could new wine be 
obtained at Pentecost, which is just 
before, not after, the vintage ? This 
difficulty has led commentators to 
adopt various strange suggestions (see 
Blass ad loc.), but the problem is 
solved by Columella (see Wettstein ad 
loc.) who gives a receipt for keeping 
y\vxos from going sour. Strack (ii. p. 
614) thinks that it is wine which had 
been mixed with honey. 

14-36. This speech of Peter deals 
with three subjects, (i.) ii. 14-21, 
the eschatological significance of the 



glossolalia on the day of Pentecost, 
proved from Joel ii. 28 ff. (ii.) ii. 22-31, 
the message concerning Jesus, proved 
from Ps. xvi. 8-11, and showing from 
Ps. cxxxii. 1 1 that the scriptural proof 
could not refer to David himself (ii. 
29-31). (iii.) ii. 32-36, the connexion of 
Jesus with the gift of the Spirit and 
the significance of the gift as evidence 
that Jesus is Lord and Christ. 

Was this speech originally in 
Aramaic ? In favour of the theory 
of an Aramaic original is the combina 
tion of Xucrai with ciStVes, and the 
phrase in vs. 24 Kadbri OVK ^v dwarbv 
K par eta 60.1 O.VTOV VTT aurov, which is far 
more intelligible if uSivas in the same 
verse be replaced by the Hebrew word 
(n Van) for bonds, which is found in 
the text of Pss. xviii. 5 and cxvi. 3. 
Unlike some passages where the argu 
ment, as well as the words, depends 
on the LXX, the argument here 
depends rather on the Hebrew. But 
against the theory may be argued that 
coStVes davdrov had become a traditional 
phrase (see note on vs. 24), and that 
(a) the quotations from Scripture are 
taken from the LXX ; (6) the phrase in 

VS. 36 KVpLOV O.VTOV . . . ^TTOiTJO eV refers 

back to VS. 21 Tras 6s av ^Trt/caX^o-Tjrat 
TO 8vojji,a Kvpiov crwOycreTai, and this is 
more natural and forcible in Greek than 
in Aramaic, if we can judge from the 
analogy of Syriac, which does not use 
the same form of the word Lord for 
Jesus as for Jehovah (see Vol. I. p. 409). 

14. with the eleven] With the 
eleven others is probably intended by 
the redactor, but including himself 
as the eleventh would be more 
consistent with Greek idiom, and 
Preuschen, thinking that it was the 
meaning of the source, concludes that 
the story of the choice of Matthias did 
not originally come before the narra 
tive of Pentecost. 

raised his voice] Cf . Demosthenes 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



21 



gave utterance to them : " Fellow Jews, and all dwellers in 
Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give ear to my words. 

15 For these men are not as you suppose, drunk, for it is the third 

1 6 hour of the day, but this is that which was spoken by the prophet, 

17 * And it shall be after these things, saith God, I will pour out of Joel a. 28 ff. 
my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old 

1 8 men shall dream dreams. Yes, and on my slaves and on my 



xviii. 291 eirdpas ryv (frw/iv, in the 
sense of speaking loudly, but it is a 
common idiom in the LXX where it 
merely means began to speak. 

gave utterance] dire^d^y^aro. See 
vs. 4. The implication is that the speech 
of Peter is an inspired utterance, and 
that it was in quite articulate language. 
It is noteworthy that as the verb is 
used here following the charge of 
drunkenness, so it recurs in xxvi. 25 
following the charge of madness : 01) 
fj.aivofj.ai . . ., dXXa d\r)6eias /ecu 



Fellow Jews, etc.] Is there any 
special contrast between this phrase, 
dvSpes IcrpcnjAtrcu in vs. 22, and avdpes 
d5eX0ot in vs. 29 ? Probably not. 
The change is merely rhetorical. 
Peter s speech gradually becomes more 
and more doubtful to Jewish ears ; and 
the more contentious the subject of a 
speech the more friendly should be its 
expression. Or should avdpes lovdaioi 
here be translated Men of Judaea ? 

dwellers] See note on vs. 9. 

give ear] Cf. Ps. v. 1. 

15. the third hour] About 9 A.M. 
The Jewish custom was not to eat 
until after this hour, which was that of 
morning prayer. The fourth hour, or 
on the Sabbath the sixth hour, was that 
of breakfast. (Cf. Josephus, Vita, 54.) 

16. the prophet] Joel ii. 28-32. 
The name of the prophet is probably 
a Western non-interpolation. Con 
firmation of its omission is the fact 
that elsewhere formal quotations from 
the minor prophets refer to them 
merely as oi Trpo^rai (vii. 42 f. ev 
jSt jSXy TUIV irpo(j)T)Tuv, xiii. 40 f., xv. 
16 f.) without the prophet s name. 

17 ff. The textual question in these 
verses has considerable bearing on 
the interpretation (see Vol. III. pp. 



16f.). The Western text represents a 
series of changes from the LXX all 
making the quotation more suitable 
to the occasion. The chief changes 
are : (i.) In the last days for after these 
things, which is unintelligible without 
the context to show what these 
things are; (ii.) their for your with 
sons and daughters, because the writer 
had put all flesh into the plural 
(Trdcras crap/fas) and wished to bring out 
Peter s contention that the promise 
is to all flesh, not only to the Jews. 
A similar reason produced (iii.) the 
omission of my before slaves (8ov\ovs 
for dovXovs ftov), because my slaves 
might be taken to mean the Jews ; 
(iv.) the omission of blood and fire and 
vapour of smoke, which were appar 
ently dropped merely to shorten the 
quotation. 

Ropes thinks that this revision is due 
to the redactor of the Western text. 
If so, the original text was an almost 
accurate copy of the LXX. This was 
slightly revised in the B-text, and more 
vigorously in the Western text. But 
the reverse is possible; the Western 
text may be original and the B-text a 
revision in the light of the LXX. In 
favour of this view is the fact that 
the Western text in this passage ap 
parently assumes that the crowd at 
Pentecost was composed of pious 
foreigners, not Jews, and that Peter s 
speech was really the beginning of the 
mission to the Gentiles. This fits with 
one possible meaning of the text of 
ii. 5 which Ropes and I believe to be 
original (Tjffav 5e eis IfpovaaXTj/u dvSpes 
eu\a/3e?s dirb Travrbs Zdvovs), but not 
with the African text (which read 
louScuot avdpes drrb ?r. t$v.). There 
fore it is more likely to be original 
rather than merely Western, as the 



22 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



handmaids in those days I will pour out of my spirit. And I 19 
will give wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth below, 
blood and fire and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned 20 
into darkness and the moon into blood before there come the 
day of the Lord, great and splendid. And it shall be whosoever 21 
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 

" Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man 22 
appointed by God to you by miracles and wonders and signs 



Western reviser would have conformed 
the text to his own interpretation, 
and the Neutral reading is in this 
case to be taken as an accommo 
dation to the LXX, which is not un 
likely in a text which was dominant 
in Alexandria. Against this view is 
the fact that the Neutral text is not 
a complete adjustment to the LXX. 
It includes the significant and they 
shall prophesy (rightly regarded by 
Ropes as a Western non-interpola 
tion ) which would scarcely have been 
inserted by a reviser adjusting the 
quotation to the LXX text. The 
whole matter is exceedingly obscure, 
and must remain so, because we are 
dealing with two unknown quantities 
the text and the meaning. If we 
assume one we can find the other, but 
this is just what we have no right to 
do, and in such cases the chief duty 
of a commentator is to guard against 
the conversion of real obscurity into 
apparent lucidity. 

For Rabbinical exegesis cf. especi 
ally Midr. Ps. xiv. 6 (57 b) : " R. Levi 
(c. A.D. 300) said ... the Master is 
God who said, that they had such 
a heart as to fear me (Deut. v. 29) ; 
the Pupil is Moses who said, O that 
all the Lord s people were prophets 
(Numb. xi. 29) ; but neither the words 
of the Master nor of the Pupil find 
fulfilment in this world, but in the 
future the words of both will find ful 
filment, the words of the Master for 
I will give you a new heart (Ezek. 
xxxvi. 26) and the words of the Pupil 
for * I will pour out my spirit upon all 
flesh (Joel ii. 28)." See further refer 
ences in Strack, ii. pp. 615 ff. 

19. blood and fire and vapour of 
smoke] Omitted by the Western text. 
Ropes thinks the omission is due to 
the reviser s desire to make the quota 



tion fit the circumstances. It is con 
ceivably a Western non-interpolation, 
but the case for this view is not really 
similar to /ecu Trpo^reva ovcriv in vs. 18, 
because the words are part of the text 
in the LXX. 

20. splendid] Probably a better 
rendering of ciri&lt;t&gt;wfjs than manifest. 
It had lost its etymological meaning 
and connoted conspicuousness and 
glory. But though splendid is the 
thought which ^Tri&lt;f&gt;avir)s suggested, it 
had been used by the makers of the 
LXX owing to a confusion between 
the Hebrew root nm to see and KT 
to fear. The Hebrew text of Joel 
really means terrible. 

21. call on the name of the Lord] 
* the Lord in Joel is of course 
Jehovah. But there is probably a 
play on the words here, and Kupios here 
is equated with Kupios applied to the 
Messiah in ii. 34 and to Jesus in ii. 36. 

22. Nazarene] See Vol. I. pp. 426 ff., 
and cf. F. C. Burkitt, The Syriac 
Forms of New Testament Proper 
Names, 1912; E. Meyer, Vr sprung 
und Anfdnge, and J. Klausner, Jesus 
of Nazareth, and Addit. Note 29. 

appointed] This is probably the 
right translation, although the name 
of the office is lacking. In the papyri 
(not to mention the inscriptions and 
contemporary historians) the verb is 
used very often of persons nominated 
or designated beforehand to office 
(designatus),OTpTocla,imedoT appointed 
as holders of office. It may be used, 
that is, either before or after the term 
of an appointed official has begun, 
e.g. P Oxy 1021. 7 (acclamation of 
Nero as avroKparup), P Lond 1178. 9 
(consul designatus], also of gymnasi- 
archs, heralds, high priests, etc. See 
Preisigke, Worterbuch, s.v. It is im 
possible therefore to tell whether here 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



23 



which God did through him in the midst of you as you yourselves 

23 know, him, given up by the appointed will and foreknowledge 
of God, did you slay, nailing him up by the hand of men without 

24 law, whom God raised up, loosing the pangs of death because 

25 he could not be held by it. For David says of him, I foresaw Ps.xvi.8-n. 



God s proclamation of Jesus through 
signs, etc., is proleptic, as Tertullian s 
destinatum suggests, or means actual 
elevation to Messiahship. Other 
passages in Acts suggest that he was 
rather Messiah elect than the 
elected Messiah. Cf. the use of 
opifa in x. 42, xvii. 31, Rom. i. 4. 
Codex Bezae reads 5e5o/ct / uacr / a^ov 
(approved), which corresponds to 
the Latin approbation, but Tertullian 
has destinatum. It is possible that 
* approved is the original text, and 
was emended partly because of its 
adoptionist implications, partly be 
cause of the harshness of et s u/u.as (rj/xas). 
It is also possible that the Western text 
means a man from God, approved, 
etc. 

to you] It is tempting to follow 
D in reading to us, especially if 
&lt;5e5o/ct y ua0- / uei oz&gt; be read, for Jesus 
was pointed out to all, but ap 
proved only to the disciples. But 
the change r?/zas V/J.OLS is too frequent, 
and the evidence here is not sufficient. 

miracles and wonders and signs] 
The classical distinction between 
8vva.fji.is, repas, and ot]jj,eiov may easily 
be exaggerated. In this verse repas 
and o"rnj.e.lov are added in allusion to 
the prophecy quoted in vs. 19. o-rjime ia 
is added by the writer to the LXX, 
as repara /cat cr^/xeta was a fixed phrase 
in Christian and contemporary Greek, 
and r^para is never found in the N.T. 
without (rrjfj.e ia. 

23. given up] ticdoTov is almost a 
synonym for -jrapadorov betrayed. 
So Josephus, Antiq. vi. 13. 9 SaOXos 5e 
yvupiffas TT]V AaiuSov (pwqv, /cat [Aaduv 
6 rt XaScb/ avrbv ^Kdorov . . . OVK O.TT- 



Cf. Antiq. xiv. 13. 8 and 
xviii. 9. 7. 

appointed will] rfj 10/3107^77 /3. = 
/card TO upLa^vov Lk. xxii. 22. 

men without law] avb^uv might 
mean wicked, but in this context is 
more probably heathen = a pen (cf . 
Is. xiv. 5) which is often used in 



Jewish literature of the Romans. 
The Roman Empire is frequently 
referred to as the nycnn muta 

24. pangs] wdTves can hardly be 
translated otherwise and is correctly 
used in the LXX to translate ^n and 
cognate words. But it is also used to 
translate Vnn which means bonds 
as well as pangs. Cf. 2 Sam. xxii. 
6 ; Job xxi. 17, xxxix. 3 ; Ps. xviii. 
4f., cxvi. 3; Hos. xiii. 13; Is. xiii. 
8, xx vi. 17, and Jer. xiii. 21. The 
combination of udives with \veiv seems 
to be found only in Job xxxix. 2, a 
passage of great obscurity in which 
c55tVes is a poetical paraphrase to 
render the Hebrew m 1 ?) i.e. birth. 

A possible suggestion is that of 
Torrey that the Aramaic source was 
KJTID H N Snn NI^ (Torrey, pp. 28 f.) and 
that Luke was influenced in his transla 
tion by knowledge of the LXX which 
translates ^n by uSives even when the 
meaning certainly is bonds (so 
especially Ps. xviii. 5f. ciStVes $.5ov 
TrepiKVK\wcrdv fj.e, irpo^daffdv fj.e TrayiSes 
davdrov). But the occurrence of 
wSo/es davdrov ($5ov) in the LXX had 
made it a fixed phrase capable of new 
combinations with verbs of holding, 
loosing, etc. Cf. Vol. II. p. 97. Polyc. 
Ad Phil. i. 2 Xvaas rds udivas TOV a8ov 
may be due either to Acts or to Job, 
but it shows that the phrase is not neces 
sarily due to immediate translation. 
For a similarly confused figure of speech 
cf . Matt. xvi. 18. How can the gates 
of Hell prevail against an ecclesia ? 

The best discussion of the question 
is in Field s Notes, p. 112. 

25ft. Ps. xvi. 8-11 from the LXX. 
In contrast to the quotation from Joel 
there are no variants in the Western 
text. The eschatological interpreta 
tion of this Psalm is common in 
Rabbinical literature, but only the 
Midrash gives a directly Messianic 
exegesis, and that on a phrase which 
is changed in the LXX and in Acts, 
" And my glory rejoices, that is over 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



PS. cxxxii. 



the Lord before me alway, for lie is at my right hand that I be 
not shaken. For this reason my heart rejoiced and my tongue 26 
was glad, and, moreover, my flesh also shall tabernacle in hope 
because thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades nor wilt thou 27 
give thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou didst make known to 28 
me paths of life, thou shalt fill me with gladness with thy presence. 

" Brethren, it is permitted to speak with boldness to you 29 
concerning the patriarch David, that he is both dead and 
buried and his tomb is among us until this day. Therefore 30 
k em g a p rO ph e t y an( l knowing that God swore with an oath to 
him that there should sit of the fruit of his loins on his throne, 



the King the Messiah " ; but the LXX 
and Acts read tongue for glory. 

25. of him] Lit. to him, i.e. with 
reference to him. 

foresaw] That the author of Acts 
understood the irpo- in irpoopun.-rjv 
temporally is indicated by irpoiduv in 
vs. 31 and agrees with his general 
thought and purpose in the speeches. 
But the verb is used as a deponent 
in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. P Par 26. 21) 
without reference to the future, and 
the context shows that this must have 
been the intention of the original 
translator of the Psalm. Compare 
note on iii. 20 Trpo/ce^etpKr/u^oi . 

26. in hope] Ps. xvi. 9. The 
Hebrew of the Psalm is shall dwell 
safely ; the LXX is Karao K rjvucrei ir 
eXiridi (cf. Prov. i. 33 for the rendering 
of ntan 1 ?). The variant is very im 
portant. The meaning of the original 
is that owing to the help of the Lord 
the Psalmist is not afraid of death ; 
he will dwell safely. But, using 
the LXX, the writer of Acts makes 
him look forward in hope, and the 
whole point of Peter s speech is that 
this hope was not fulfilled in the case 
of David but only in that of Jesus. 
It seems an indication that the speech 
is really based on the LXX, not on 
an Aramaic document which a trans 
lator conformed to the LXX. At a 
later date the Rabbis also interpreted 
the phrase dwell safely of the re 
surrection, but not in the same way 
as Acts. The Midrash is " My flesh 
shall dwell securely, that is after 
death." Rabbi Jizchaq (i.e. Isaac) 



(c. A.D. 300) said that this means that 
corruption and the worm shall have no 
power over it. (See Strack, ii. p. 618.) 
27. abandon . . . to] eyKaraXelTrw 
is stronger than leave, and though 
els q-Syv might legitimately be ren 
dered in Hades, this is one of the pas 
sages in which the original difference 
between eis and v may be observed. 

29. it is permitted] t&v, once 
usual in Greek as an accusative 
absolute, was afterwards replaced by 
t;QVTos and itself used with ecm 
understood, as here and in 2 Cor. xii. 
4, or as elsewhere with eo-ri or fy 
expressed, as in Esther iv. 2 ; Matt. 
xii. 4 ; Ignatius, Smyrn. viii. 2 ; 
Apollodorus ii. 5, 12. 

dead] R. Jose b. Bun (c. 350) says 
that David died at Pentecost, and the 
Midrash to Ruth adds that it was on 
a Sabbath (see Strack, ii. p. 619). 

tomb] Josephus says that Hyr- 
canus robbed David s tomb of 3000 
talents of silver, but when Herod 
tried to repeat the theft flames came 
out and prevented him. He then 
built for it a portico of white marble. 
Its place is not known with certainty, 
but it was probably on the south 
side of the S.E. hill. The modem 
tradition which places it in the Zion 
church is not older than the crusades. 
The Abot of Rabbi Nathan (35) says 
that there were no graves in Jeru 
salem except those of David and his 
family and of the prophetess Huldah. 
See Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4; B.J. 
i. 2. 5 ; and cf . Baedeker s Palestine. 

30. of the fruit of his loins] A 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



25 



31 he spake with, foreknowledge concerning the resurrection of the 
Messiah that he was neither left in Hades nor did his flesh see PS. xvi. 10. 

32 corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, of which we all are 

33 witnesses. Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God, 
and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy 

34 Spirit, he poured out this which you see and hear. For David 

did not ascend into the skies, but he himself says, The Lord PS. ex. i. 

35 said to my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies 

36 a footstool of thy feet. Therefore let the whole house of Israel 
know with certainty that God made him both Lord and Messiah, 
this Jesus whom you crucified." 



common LXX phrase, but in Ps. 
cxxxii. 11, to which reference is made, 
the LXX reads eK Kapirov TTJS Koi\tas 
CLVTOU. This was adopted by the 
Western text (ventris latt. but KapSias, 
doubtless by a scribe s error, in Dd), 
but it is probably not Lucan, for Luke 
uses Koc\ia womb (see note on iii. 2). 
The use of en Kapirov, etc., as an object 
is extremely harsh in Greek, but it is 
found in the LXX, and was not 
emended in any text, except that some 
Western authorities added /card adpKa. 
Compare the use of the partitive geni 
tive with or without e/c as subject or 
object, e.g. xxi. 16; Lukexxi. 16 (Blass- 
Debrunner, Grammatik des neut. Griech. 
164. 1), and perhaps even above, 
VS. 17 e/c^fw airb TOV TTvev/maros /ULOV. 

sit... on his throne] Some authori 
ties insert before this to raise up the 
Christ, doubtless feeling that this 
was called for by the mention of the 
resurrection in vs. 31, but this was 
not the original Western reading; 
see Vol. III. p. 20. The translation 
given assumes that the verb Kadl&lt;rai 
here is intransitive, as usually in the 
N.T. But the verb may also be 
transitive, in which case the heir of 
David is the object of the verb. This 
rendering, " God swore with an oath 
to him to seat of the fruit of his loins 
on his throne," suits the derivation 
of the passage from Ps. cxxxii. (cxxxi.) 
11: Wyuocre Kvpios ro3 AavetS a\r)9elai&gt; . . . 
K Kapirov TTJS /coiAi as &lt;rov drjcrofjiai eirl 
rbv epovov aov. Note also that in vs. 
36 God is the subject. 

32. of which] Or of whom : the 



Greek is equally capable of either 
meaning, but the analogy of i. 22, 
where to be a witness of the resurrec 
tion is emphasized as a function of 
the apostles, turns the scale in favour 
of of which. Cf . also iii. 15, but on 
the other side xiii. 31. 

33. exalted by the right hand] Cf. 
v. 31 and Ps. cxviii. 16 ff. According 
to a Midrash quoted by Rashi on 
this passage, the right hand of the 
Lord exalts, God created the earth 
with his left hand but the heavens 
with his right, and therefore death 
does not reign in heaven. The right 
hand of the Lord will exalt also the 
righteous in the future, it will raise 
them up so that they will live for 
ever, and so I will not die but live. 
Though there may be no reference in 
Acts to this curious exegesis, there may 
well be an allusion to the Psalm which 
was a favourite of early Christians. 
Cf. Mark xi. 9f. = Ps. cxviii. 25 f., 
and Mark xii. 10 = Ps. cxviii. 22 f . 
Yet vs. 34 suggests that the author 
meant by r-rj 5ei at rather than 
by means of God s right hand. (See 
Strack ad loc.) 

poured out this] The TOVTO seems 
to refer to irvevp.a. The construction 
is somewhat harsh and led to the 
amplification TOVTO TO dupov in some 
forms of the Western text (see Vol. III. 
ad loc.). Torrey thinks that the phrase 
was pnyon pmn pro** H trn rnssy and 
renders hath poured it out, as ye have 
seen and heard (see Torrey, p. 29). 

36. both Lord and Messiah] The 
quotation from Ps. ex. is the proof of 



26 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



When they heard they were cut to the heart and said to 37 
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, " What shall we do, 
brethren ? " And Peter said to them, " Repent and be baptized 38 
each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
of your sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
joei in. 5. For to you is the promise and to your children and to all 39 
those who are distant whomsoever the Lord our God may call." 



both. It cannot refer to David, 
therefore it refers to the Messiah, 
and shows that Kvpios and xptcrros are 
intended as synonyms. The only 
question is whether the writer was 
interpreting the Greek Kvpios by the 
Jewish term Messiah xprr6s, or vice 
versa. Ps. ex. does not give the word 
xpto-ros, but cf. Ps. ii. 2 quoted in iv. 
26 (to the author of Acts both KvpLov 
and xP LffT v i Q th* 8 Psalm probably 
referred to Jesus) and Ps. cxxxii. 10 
(of which vs. 11 is quoted in vs. 30) 
which contains the word xP ia " r ^- See 
Addit. Note 29. 

37. cut to the heart] Karevvy-rjaav 
rr]v Kapdiav from the LXX of Ps. 
cviii. 16. The Western text is longer : 
" Then all who had come together 
and heard were cut to the heart, and 
some of them said to Peter and the 
apostles (omitting others ), what then 
shall we do, brethren ? Show us." 

38. in the name of] That is, with 
the authority of. Cf. Mark ix. 38 ff. 
The use of * a name as a source of 
authority is common in all magical 
ceremonies. See Addit. Note 11 and 
Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu. It cannot 
be doubted that the meaning of the 
editor is to describe Christian baptism 
(i.) as containing the formula In the 
name of Jesus (cf. Acts viii. 16, x. 
48, xix. 5) ; (ii.) as conferring forgive 
ness of sins; (iii.) leading up to, if 
not actually conveying, the gift of 
the Spirit. It may be, however, that 
here ets #0ecrii/ rdv a/j(,a.pTi&v should be 
connected as much with fMeravorja-are 
as with jSaTrrto-^Tjro; (cf. Luke iii. 3 
/SaTTTKr/xa /j.Tai&gt;oias ft s &(pe&lt;nv a/mapriuiv) 
since this association of ideas is shown 
to be Lucan by Luke xxiv. 47 ^eravoiav 
et s [v.l. /cat] &&amp;lt;p&lt;n.v a/maprcwv, Acts V. 
31 /J-erdvoiav . . . KCU &(J)f&lt;nv a/xaprtcDf. 
Or is this primitive, and the associa 
tion with baptism Lucan ? For the 



possibility that the reference to baptism 
in this passage is entirely due to the 
editor and was not found in his source, 
and for the varying attitude of different 
sections of Acts towards the relation 
of baptism to the gift of the Spirit, see 
Vol. I. pp. 337 ff . 

Christian tradition is that John s 
baptism as well as Christian conferred 
forgiveness of sins, but Josephus ex 
pressly denies this (see the excursus 
to Mark i. 4 in Lietzmann s Handbuch ; 
H. Windisch, Taufe und Siinde, and 
Vol. I. pp. 101 ff.). 

Holy Spirit] If the words were 
used in the Jewish sense this would 
mean become prophets. The rival 
traditions among the Jews were : (i.) 
Originally there were prophets among 
the Gentiles ; of these Balaam was 
the last. Among Israelites all the 
righteous were led by the Holy Spirit. 
After the worship of the Golden Calf 
this ceased, and (according at least to 
one tradition) an angel was then sent 
to lead them (cf. Exod. xxiii. 20). 
Only a few chosen persons were 

g anted the immediate gift of the 
oly Spirit, i.e. the Prophets in the 
narrower sense, the High Priests, and 
such men as David and Solomon. 
This in turn ceased and the Voice 
from Heaven (Bath-Qol) took its 
place, (ii.) The gift of the Holy Spirit, 
which was the Spirit of prophecy, be 
longed after the prophetic age to the 
Rabbis, and was imparted by the 
laying on of hands at their ordina 
tion. See further Strack, ii. pp. 126 ff . 
and 647 ff., and see Addit. Note 9. 

39. distant] /maKpdv is used of 
distance, whether of space or time ; see 
the long list of passages given by Wett- 
stein ad loc. Here either meaning is 
possible : The promise is to you, your 
children, and to those who live afar off, 
or The promise is to you, your children, 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



27 



40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, 

41 saying, " Save yourself from this crooked generation." So then, 
those who received his word were baptized, and there were added 

42 in that day about three thousand souls. And they were regular 
in attendance on the teaching of the apostles and their fellowship, 



and your distant descendants. The 
latter meaning might seem slightly 
more natural, but the former is 
supported by a probable allusion to 
Is. Ivii. 19 eip-qvriv eir eip^vr^v rots /za/cpdi 
Kal rois tyyvs oftcnv : cf . xxii. 21 et s 
tdvy /j.aKpai&gt; QairoaT\Cj &lt;re. D reads 
ijfjuv for v iJ.lv, but as the other 
authorities for the Western text do not 
support it, this is probably accidental, 
though it may be connected with the 
changes in ii. 17 (see note ad loc.). Cf. 
Psalm. Sol. viii. 39 rifuv Kal rocs T^KVOLS 
7)/m.(!ji&gt; 7] evdoKia et s aiwva. 

the Lord our God may call] The 
Deuteronomic /etf/jios 6 0e6s (often with 
a genitive) is used in Acts elsewhere 
in O.T. quotations only ; in Luke also 
in the biblical canticles i. 16, 32, 68. 
Possibly here the language is remini 
scent of the passage in Joel ii. 32 just 
following the words quoted in vss. 
17-21. The LXX continues: on &lt;?? 
Ttj} 6pfL Stwv Kal ev lepovaaXij/Ji (cf. vs. 
14) &TTCU dracra&gt;6 / u,ej os (cf . rot s (rw^o/^e- 
vovs vs. 47), KaQon elire Kvp&lt;.os, Kal 
/jLvoL (cf . e7ra77eX/a) oOs Kvptos 



40. many] TrXeiWt might be rendered 
more. But probably the sense of 
comparison is not present. Cf . xiii. 31. 

testified] die/j.aprvpaTo. Cf. Acts 
viii. 25, x. 42, xviii. 5, etc. If it 
means more than testifying it may 
be to testify by argument, cf. 
BiaXeyecrdai. In modern Greek it means 
to protest, and ol 5iafj.apTvp6/j.ei&gt;oi is 
* the Protestants. 

crooked generation] The phrase 
is due to Deut. xxxii. 5 yevea cr/coXia 
Kal 5ie&lt;TTpa/j./jLei&gt;r], or to Ps. Ixxviii. 8 
yevea &lt;TKO\ia Kal Trapa-rriKpaivovaa, but 
easily became a familiar phrase. 

41. So then] /mev oftv (see note on i. 6) 
shows that this is the beginning of a 
new paragraph, which looks forward 
as well as back. The break in the 
composition is here, not between vss. 
42 and 43. It is a summary of what 
has preceded, bringing to an end the 



first main section of the book and 
leading up to the second. If the 
theory of two Jerusalem sources, J a 
and J b , advocated by Harnack (see 
Vol. II. pp. 139 ff.), be accepted, vs. 
41 is the end of the first selection 
made by Luke from J b . For the 
relation of this summary to others 
see Addit. Notes 12 and 31. 

who received his word] The Western 
text changes this to who believed his 
word, probably to keep the usual 
connexion between faith and baptism. 
Cf. Mark xvi. 16. An alternative 
rendering (cf. i. 6) would be So then, 
they, having received his word, were 
baptized, etc. 

were added] irpoffertOriaav like the 
rendering given really needs an indirect 
object, to the church or some such 
phrase. Cf. vs. 47. 

souls] The use of ^vx n in the 
meaning individual is not found 
in Greek before the Christian period 
except in the LXX where it repre 
sents tpsjj which was used in Hebrew 
in that sense. It is found in Acts 
ii. 41, 43, iii. 23 (quotation of Deut. 
xviii. 19), vii. 14, xxvii. 37, and in 
Rom. xiii. 1 (cf. Rom. ii. 9). The 
last passages are important as show 
ing that the usage in the earlier 
chapters need not be ascribed to direct 
translation from an Aramaic source, 
but can be explained by the influence 
of the LXX on Christian Greek. 

42. fellowship] Either (i.) fellow 
ship with the apostles, cf. Gal. ii. 9, 
etc., or (ii.) the communism described 
in vs. 44, or (iii.) in apposition to, and 
thus equivalent to, rrj K\dcrei rov aprov, 
or (iv.) almost equivalent to almsgiving, 
cf. Rom. XV. 26 -rjudoK-rjaav . . . KOLVU- 
vlav nva Troirjcraffdai els roi)s TTTW^OVS rCiv 
aylwv KT\. The second and third 
of these possibilities seem less likely 
than the first and fourth, but the 
third has left its influence on the 
textual history of the verse ; see Vol. 
III. p. 22, and cf. Blass s emendation 



28 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY 



the breaking of bread, and the prayers. And there was fear on 43 
every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the 
apostles. And all those who believed together had all things 44 



to rfi KOLvuvlq. TTJS /cXdcrews TOV ctprou. 
The first or fourth is supported by 
the arrangement of the words which 
seem to fall into two groups, rfj Scdaxfi 
/ecu rrj KOivuvia, rfj /cXctcra /cal rats 



breaking of bread] The exact 
phrase /cAcicm TOV Aprov is found only 
here and in Luke xxiv. 35, but the 
verbal phrase K\ai&gt; dprov is found in 
Luke xxiv. 30 (the supper at Emmaus), 
Acts ii. 46, xx. 7 and 11, and xxvii. 35. 
It is also found in Mark viii. 6 ( = Matt. 
xv. 36) and viii. 19, and in Matt. xiv. 19, 
in connexion with the feeding of the 
multitude ; also in Mark xiv. 22 
( = Matt. xxvi. 26), in Luke xxii. 19, 
and in 1 Cor. x. 16 and xi. 24 of the 
Eucharist. It is not a classical ex 
pression, nor is it customary in the 
LXX as a synonym for eating, 
but in Hebrew and Aramaic ana and 
onp to break is used of the opening 
of a meal, sometimes without any 
word for bread, and is often connected 
with the Hebrew Tpn (evXoyew or eu- 
Xa-piffria). According to Jewish custom 
the meal began with a prayer (" Blessed 
be thou, Lord our God, that thou 
didst make bread to be on the earth ") 
followed by the ceremonial breaking 
and distribution of bread. K\d&lt;m is 
used in Jer. xvi. 7 (cf. Ezek. xxiv. 17, 
Hos. ix. 4) of the custom of breaking 
bread at a funeral service in memory 
of the dead. Conceivably this use of 
the phrase, as a memorial funeral 
feast, slight though it be, throws an 
interesting sidelight on Paul s inter 
pretation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. xi. 
23 ff . Hastings Bible Dictionary refers 
to Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xxxiii., 
Garmannus, de Pane Lugentium, but 
this treatise contains nothing of 
importance for this purpose. (See also 
E. Schermann, Das " Brotbrechen " 
im Urchristentum, in the Biblische 
Zeitschrift, vii. (1910) pp. 33 ff. f 162 ff.) 
There are thus two possible inter 
pretations of this and the related 
passages. (i.) Breaking of bread 
merely means an ordinary meal. This 
gives a reasonable sense in all the 
passages in Acts, (ii.) It refers to the 



Eucharist or to the Agape if this be 
regarded as a religious meal, distinct 
from the Eucharist. This is possible 
in all the passages in Acts, but pre 
sents considerable difficulty in xxvii. 
35 (see note ad loc.). Possibly too 
the supper of Emmaus was regarded 
by Luke as a Eucharist, and John vi. 
is evidence that the miraculous feed 
ing of the multitude was held to be at 
least an anticipation of the Eucharist 
(see also A. Schweitzer, Das Abend- 
mahl). Here, as so often, it is difficult 
to distinguish between the original 
meaning and that given to the phrase 
by the writers or editors of the N.T. 

43. fear] This seems inappropriate 
here, but it is entirely in place in the 
parallel passages in v. 5, v. 11. (See 
Addit. Note 12.) Reference to fear 
in connexion with the display of 
miraculous power is characteristic of 
Luke and Acts (cf. Friedrich, Das 
Lukasevangelium, p. 77). 

wonders and signs] Ttpara /ecu tr^eTa 
is a common O.T. phrase meaning 
miracle. It is peculiarly character 
istic of the first part of Acts, where it 
is found nine times (ii. 19, 22, 43 ; iv. 
30 ; v. 12 ; vi. 8 ; vii. 36 ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 
12), but is not in the second part 
of Acts, the Gospels, Apocalypse or 
Catholic Epistles ; it is three times in 
Paul (Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; 
2 Thess. ii 9), and in Heb. ii. 4 ; it is 
also found in pagan writers. 

apostles] The text of KAC and 
a few other authorities adds in 
Jerusalem, and continues and there 
was great fear upon all. Ropes 
thinks that this is original, see Vol. 
III. p. 24. The alternative is to 
suppose that some early scribe was 
troubled by the inappropriateness of 
fear in vs. 43a, and proposed to 
put it into vs. 43b. The text suggests 
conflation, but the evidence does not 
clearly show what has happened. 

44. together] The text is confused, 
but the variants do not seriously affect 
the sense. The reading of D seems 
to be conflate and corrupt, and the 
absence of any African evidence is 
regrettable, tni r6 airnS comes twice 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



29 



45 in common, and they used to sell their goods and possessions 

46 and to divide them among all according as any had need. And 
daily they were with one accord regular in attendance in the 
Temple, and breaking bread at home partook of food in gladness 

47 and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favour with all 



in this paragraph in the B-text and 
three times in the Western, and in none 
of them is it really a natural phrase 
(see Vol. III. pp. 24 f . and note on ii. 47). 

45. used to sell] The usual trans 
lation sold rather implies one great 
sale, but the meaning of the Greek 
rather is that they sold things as 
they had need of more money. They 
followed a policy of selling possessions. 

goods and possessions] Comment 
ators generally say /cr^/xara means real 
and virdp&Ls personal property. But 
it is very doubtful if the distinction 
can be pressed. 

divide them among all] This may 
mean divided the profits of the sale just 
mentioned, and the verse is usually so 
interpreted in the light of iv. 34 ff., 
but it may equally well be parallel to 
sold and mean that they divided up 
their possessions among the community 
in accordance with general require 
ments. If the distinction between 
KTrifj-ara and virdp^eis be observed, it 
probably means that they sold their 
KTT^ara and divided up their vTrdp^eis. 
Does the writer imply distribution to 
the poor in general (cf. Sell all that 
thou hast and give to the poor in 
Mark x. 21) or merely to needy 
Christians ? Either is possible. The 
Western text says that they distri 
buted daily (cf. Strack, ii. pp. 644 f . 
for evidence that in Rabbinical times 
the Jewish custom was a daily collec 
tion from house to house, and distri 
bution to the needy). The B-text 
attaches the daily to the attend 
ance in the temple. 

46. at home] The simple phrase /car 
\ O!KOV raises questions which are of 
I interest to us because of their bearing 
on the breaking of bread in Acts, but 
which we cannot answer with cer 
tainty, (i.) As Kypke (Observations 
i sacrae) showed by his illustrations 
from Hellenistic Greek, it may mean 

I simply at home (domi), and is 
applicable in the singular to many 



persons in many homes. With this 
meaning, both here and in v. 42, it 
would be used merely in contrast with 
ev T$ tepip much as in xx. 20 is the 
phrase Srj/noaia Kal /car ot/cois. (ii.) It 
may refer to one regular place of 
meeting as is assumed in i. 13, ii. 1 f., 
iv. 23, vi. 2 (see Wendt), but it is 
improbable, for this meaning would 
seem to call for Kara rbv olKov. (iii.) 
Luke s fondness for the distributive 
use of Kara together with his variation 
/car OLKOVS (see also viii. 3) leads to 
the presumption that his idea here is 
rather in separate houses (domatim). 
Then the contrast would be with 
6jj.odvfj.a86v, which in spite of its 
etymology is only appropriate to 
a collected group. In the papyri 
(P Ryl ii. 76. 10) /car oUov and 
/car oiKiav (P Tebt, index to vol. ii.) 
are used of transactions in which the 
household is the unit, and is usually 
translated by households and (with 
a noun) house to house. (iv.) A dis 
tributive use could mean at every 
house, or (v.), in a slightly different 
way, * at each house in turn. The 
rendering from house to house would 
suit the last of these, but it is improb 
able, even in xx. 20, where the R.V. 
retains it, probably on account of the 
plural. What difference if any exists 
for this writer between /car OIKOVS and 
/car olKov remains obscure. 

simplicity] d^eXorTjrt, a derivative 
from d0e\T7s, less common than cl0e- 
Xeta, can no longer be called Biblical 
and ecclesiastical since it occurs in 
Vettius Valens, p. 240. 15 Kroll (cf. 
p. 153. 30). What nuance the word 
bears here is not clear; perhaps in 
spite of Kapdias it refers to the frugality 
of their fare, as its cognates often 
do. Cf. xiv. 17 ep.imr\Giv rpocpijs (the 
word used in the present passage) 
/cat eiHppoffvvrjs rets Kapdias VJJLWV. It 
might also mean unworldly innocence, 
or again generosity. The latter is 
near one meaning of the commoner 



30 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



the people. 
saved. 



And the Lord added daily together those who were 



expression aTrXoTirs Kapdias found in 
1 Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. 1, Col. 
iii. 22, Ephes. vi. 5, and several 
times in the Testaments of the XII 
Patriarchs. Possibly d0e\6r7?s Kapdias 
is written by Luke as a more sonorous 
form of this common phrase. He 
seems elsewhere to prefer for short 
words like-sounding (if not always 
synonymous) longer terms. 

47. having favour] Or possibly, 
giving him thanks before all the 
people. 

together] This is the usual mean 
ing of eirl TO OLVTO in Acts and else 
where (cf. Luke xvii. 35; Acts i. 15, 
ii. 1, ii. 44, iv. 26; 1 Cor. vii. 5, xi. 
20, xiv. 23 ; and Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 
8. 6). But the phrase seems singularly 
awkward here. Torrey thinks that it 
represents an Aramaic jonS which 
means either together or * greatly, 
but has the latter meaning only in 
Judaean Aramaic, and when so used is 
always at the end of the clause. He 
thinks that the translator forgot or did 
not know this meaning. (See Torrey, 
pp. 10 ff., and Vol. II. pp. 143 f.) 
Vazakas in the Journal of Biblical 
Literature, xxxvii. (1918) pp. 105 ff., 
suggests that eirl rb avr6 has a religious 
connotation. If so, it may have been 
inserted by the editor as a suitably 
impressive phrase with which to end 
his summary. In any case the Greek 
as it stands is very harsh, and the 
clumsiness of the English adequately 
represents the original. The Western 
text tried to remedy the sentence by 
adding Iv rrj e/c/cA?7crtg after -rri TO CLVTO, 
and the Antiochian improved this by 
omitting f f so as to read added to the 
church, and transferring t-jri TO aur6 
to the beginning of the next sentence 
instead of adopting the Western addi 
tion at that point and in those days. 
There can be little doubt that the 
B-text is the original, but the variants 
are interesting proof that many of 
the earliest Greek readers found eiri 
TO avTb intolerable. So far as it goes 
this is an argument against the view 
of Vazakas. See further H. J. Cad- 
bury, A JTh. xxiv. (1920), p. 454, and 
note that in the papyri eiri TO ai)r6 
is used in financial statements as 



being in total. Is this another 
place where the text lacks the last 
revision, and should a number follow 
^TTI TO avr6 ? Cf. i. 15. 

saved] A stricter translation would 
be who were being saved. But in 
English this would imply that they 
were gradually being saved by, for 
instance, increasing sanctification, 
which is very unlikely to be the 
meaning. The phrase here is a clear 
reference to Joel ii. 32, which has 
already been quoted in Peter s speech, 
whosoever shall call on the name of 
the Lord shall be saved. oi (ru6/j.evot 
is the Remnant of Israel which is 
destined to survive the End. They 
were gradually being selected during 
the * Interim before the End, but 
they were not being gradually saved 
(cf. xiii. 48 and Addit. Note 30). 

A quite different suggestion is that 
roi)s &lt;ruonvovs means those who had 
been miraculously cured (cf. iv. 9 and 
12). The author having mentioned 
accessions to the church following 
the miracle and speech of Peter (vs. 
41) proceeds to his characteristic 
summary before he takes up the next 
incident, the saving of a lame man. 
The summary anticipates and general 
izes this incident, just as the specific 
case of Barnabas in iv. 36 is general 
ized in the preceding summary in iv. 
34. It should be remembered that 
owing to the double meaning of &lt;rueiv 
this interpretation is not so different 
from the other as it necessarily 
appears to be in English. In any 
case it is the double meaning of vufav 
which serves the editor as a connect 
ing link between the eschatological 
salvation of chap. ii. and the exor 
cised salvation of chapters iii. and 
iv. Behind the phrase is the ambi 
guity introduced by eschatological 
hope. From the beginning there were 
the two ideas: (i.) we are saved now, 
(ii.) we shall be safe at the end. The 
intimate connexion between these ideas 
often prevented a sharp distinction 
between them, and even if the exist 
ence of an Aramaic source be doubted 
it is hazardous to press points of Greek 
which could not be represented in 
Aramaic ; for in whatever language the 



Ill 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



31 



3 i Now Peter and John were going up to the Temple at the hour 

2 of prayer, the ninth hour. And a man, lame from his mother s 

womb, was being carried, whom they used to set daily at the 



records may have been written, the 
thoughts of the disciples must have 
been in Aramaic. 

iii. 1-iv. 31. THE HEALING OF THE 
BEGGAR AT THE BEAUTIFUL GATE 
AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. This is the 
beginning of the section ascribed to 
the Jerusalem source A ( J a ). 

The general background of this 
section is the power of the apostles 
to use the name of Jesus for exorcism 
or healing. That it could be so used 
effectively was not denied by the 
Jews (cf. the stories of Eleazer ben 
Dama and of Joshua ben Levi, who 
used the name of Jesus for healing ; 
see quotations from Tosefta Hullin, 
ii. 22 L etc., by G. F. Moore in his 
essay on the Jewish Canon in Essays 
in Modern Theology, dedicated to 
C. A. Briggs (1911), p. 110), but it was 
held by the Rabbis to be illegitimate. 
The parallel passage in the story of 
Paul is Acts xix. 11 ff. Cf. too Luke 
x. 17 ff. and xi. 14 ff. In contrast 
with this J b (Acts ii. and its conclu 
sion in v. 17-42) deals with the teach 
ing of the disciples and their claim 
to be inspired. (See also Addit. Note 
12 and Vol. II. pp. 139-147.) 

1 . Peter and John] This is the first 
of the passages (iii. 1 E. and viii. 14 ff.) 
where Peter and John are linked to 
gether. John, however, never plays 
any active part. It is generally 
assumed that he was John the son of 
Zebedee, but this is not stated, and he 
might be John Mark who figures in 
the later chapters and is traditionally 
the interpreter of Peter. Cf . Eusebius, 
H.E. iii. 39. Loisy (p. 223) points 
out that in using Mark xiv. 13 Luke 
(xxii. 8) identifies as Peter and John 
the two disciples sent to prepare the 
Passover for Jesus. He concludes that 
here too the mention of Peter and 
John may be redactorial. According 
to Harnack, Acts iii. is the beginning 
of the Jerusalem A source to which 
he ascribes greater historical value 
than the B source which is the basis 
of Acts ii., etc. (see Vol. II. pp. 127 ff.). 
And Loisy agrees that the basis of 



the chapter is probably the original 
document. 

There is much confusion in the text 
of this verse owing to the obscurity 
of tit Irb avrb. Zahn thinks that the 
Antiochian text is right and reads 
ii. 47 b iii. 1 6 5e Kvpios TrpocreriOei roi)s 
(ru^ofM^vovs KaO i]/j.epav rfj ^KKXr/aia. 
tirl rb avrb 5 Herpes KT\. He gives 
to t-rri rb avrb the usual meaning of 
together (cf. Luke xvii. 35) and 
would translate * Peter and John went 
together. But the textual evidence 
is clear that this is a late not an early 
text. The original Western text is 
irrecoverable; possibly it read ev rfj 
&lt;~KK\7)&lt;rla as a paraphrase of e-rt TO avrb 
and D represents a conflation of this 
with the B-text. D seems to have 
suffered much at this point. See 
Vol. III. pp. 24 f. 

the hour of prayer, the ninth hour] 
Cf. Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 3 (Sis rijs 
i] /Lie pas, irpw ire Kal Trepl rrjv evaryv &pav), 
" but twice in the day they offer 
sacrifice, in the morning and at the 
ninth hour." This was the minhah of 
prayer ; cf . Schiirer, Geschichte des jud. 
Volkes, ii. pp. 352 ff. The hours of 
prayer, or rather of the morning and 
evening sacrifice, are described in 
Exod. xxix. 39, 40, Lev. vi. 20, etc., as 
Trpou and rb deL\iv6v, the phrase which 
is added here also by D, but not by 
any other Western authority (see Vol. 
III. ad loc.). But the African Latin 
is missing, and it is not impossible 
that here too D is conflate. 

2. And a man, lame, etc.] For the 
similarity of this story to Paul s 
miracle of healing the lame man at 
Lystra see note on xiv. 8-10. 

from his mother s womb] Koc\ia is 
used in classical and medical Greek 
chiefly of the digestive organs. This 
is also its use in Mark vii. 19 ; Matt, 
xii. 40, xv. 17; Rom. xvi. 18; 1 Cor. 
vi. 13; Philipp. iii. 19; Rev. x. 9f. 
But Luke always uses it in the sense of 
womb (except in the inferior text of 
Luke xv. 16) in accordance with LXX 
usage which thus renders jan. It is 
also used thus in the sense of womb in 
Matt. xix. 12, John iii. 4, and Gal. i. 15. 



32 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



m 



gate of the Temple called Beautiful to beg alms from those entering 
into the Temple, who seeing Peter and John just going into 3 



called Beautiful] The position of 
the gate is unknown, and the facts 
relating to it are obscure. Jewish 
tradition knows nothing of any gate 
called Beautiful. Interpreters of 
Acts have usually identified it either 
with the Shushan gate (the external 
door on the east side of the Temple 
area) or with the Nicanor gate (on the 
east side of the Temple proper), but 
there is no evidence directly in favour 
of either. The judgement of critics 
is based on nothing more substantial 
than mediaeval tradition, which anti 
cipated them and called the Shushan 
gate * Aurea or Golden treating a 
transliteration of upcua as though it 
were a Latin word and the fact that 
both it and the Nicanor gate appear 
to have been very magnificent. (See 
further Addit. Note 35.) 

Since the topography is so uncertain 
it would probably be wiser to be guided 
by the implications of the story in 
Acts, if these were clear, but the 
textual tradition exactly reflects the 
obscurity of the facts. 

The Neutral text describes three 
stages, (a) Peter and John came to 
the Beautiful gate and there healed 
the lame man. (6) They went into 
the Temple (TO iepbv) (iii. 8). (c) They 
became the centre of a crowd which 
ran together to them in Solomon s 
Porch. From this it is clear that (i.) 
Solomon s Porch was inside the iep6i&gt;, 
and therefore iepbv is used in the 
general sense of the Temple area, not 
of the Temple buildings in the narrower 
sense, (ii.) The Beautiful door must 
have been on the outside of Solomon s 
Porch. Only the Shushan door will 
fit this story, and modern critics who 
favour the door of Nicanor suppose 
that Luke forgot to mention that 
after the apostles entered the Temple 
they came out again, and only then 
became the centre of the crowd in 
Solomon s Porch. 

The Western text is: ". . . he 
entered with them into the Temple 
and all the people saw him . . . and 
when Peter and John went out he 
went with them, holding on to them, 
and (the people) stood in amazement 
in the Porch called Solomon s." This 



makes it clear that TO iepbv means 
the Temple buildings, not the Temple 
area, and that the Beautiful door 
was farther in than the Porch of 
Solomon. It would support admir 
ably the identification of the Beautiful 
door with the door of Nicanor, at 
least if that be the second door. 
Did the maker of the Western para 
phrase have special knowledge of the 
topography of Jerusalem ? Is the 
Neutral text or the Western really 
right ? The last question is not 
answered by the generally para 
phrastic nature of the Western text. 
The problem is which text has revised 
and which preserved the original, and 
both seem to be guided by a definite 
view as to the position of the Beautiful 
gate. It is a pity that our know 
ledge of the history of the text is not 
sufficient to add certainty to our 
topography, nor our topographical 
knowledge enough to decide between 
the texts. 

There is a further question of wider 
interest. Assuming the Neutral text 
and the identification of the Beautiful 
gate with the Shushan gate, why 
should the apostles have entered by 
the Eastern gate ? If they were 
living in the city this is an extremely 
improbable route. It would mean 
that they went outside by one gate 
of the city in order to go in again by 
another. No one who sees Jerusalem 
can think that this was probable. 
Only on one condition would the 
Eastern gate be probable if they 
were still sleeping in the country of 
Bethany, and coming into the city 
daily. This is obviously not the 
meaning of i. 13 which thinks of the 
upper room in Jerusalem as their 
home, but if there be any truth in 
Harnack s analysis of sources, i. 13 
probably belongs to J b (or else is 
purely editorial), while the present 
passage belongs to J a . Did J a think 
of the disciples as living (vwav\i- 
Zbuevoi) in Bethany, though the editor 
placed them in Jerusalem ? (See also 
Addit. Note 2.) 

An alternative is to abandon the 
whole identification of the Beautiful 
gate with one on the East, and think 



ACTS OP THE APOSTLES 



33 



4 the Temple, asked to receive alms. But Peter gazing on him 

5 with John, said : " Look at us." And he attended to them, 

6 expecting to receive something from them. And Peter said : 
" Silver and gold is not mine, but what I have, this I give to you. 

7 In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk ! " And seizing 
him by the right hand he raised him, and immediately his feet 



that it was the great Southern gate, 
which was, according to the Talmud, 
the normal entrance to the Temple. 
This possibility is bound up with the 
identification of Solomon s Porch (see 
Addit. Note 35). 

4. gazing] drevifeiv is frequent in 
stories of miracles. See note on xiii. 
9. Curiously, however, the Western 
reviser has rewritten the story so as 
to make the lame man drevifriv, and 
changed drevlaas in this verse into 
e&gt;j3X^as. If it were not for general 
considerations it would be tempting 
here to accept the Western text as 
original and regard the B-text as 
an accommodation to the typical 
vocabulary of a miraculous story. 

5. attended] ^Tret^e might be 
supplemented by an implied TOV vovv 
(of. 2 Mace. ix. 25 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 2 ; 
Job xxx. 26 ; 1 Tim. iv. 16) or by roi)s 
6&lt;J)6a\/j.ovs. The paraphrast of the 
Western text understood it in the 
latter way, and substituted dreviffas. 
For its use with a personal object cf. 
P Fay 112. 11 (A.D. 99) li 



6. In the name of] See Additional 
Note 11. 

the Nazarene] See note on ii. 22. 

7. his feet and ankles became 
strong] This passage has long been 
a favourite with those who find in the 
vocabulary of Luke and Acts signs of 
the author s medical knowledge, from 
Freind and Bengel in the eighteenth 
century to Harnack and Moffatt in 
the twentieth (see Cadbury, Style and 
Literary Method of Luke, pp. 52 f., 56 
note 36 ; Moffatt, Introduction to the 
Literature of the New Testament, 3rd 
edition, 1918, p. 298: "a remarkable 
number of professional terms in ... 
Acts iii. 1 -8 "). But the facts scarcely 
support their view. 

/ydcm applied to persons means the 
whole foot and is a synonym for 
Trotfs, which is used in the "similar 
VOL. IV 



narrative Acts xiv. 8-10. Its associa 
tions in this sense are not profes 
sional, though the doctors of course 
use it (Hobart, The Medical Language 
of St. Luke, p. 35), but rather literary 
perhaps originally poetical. It is thus 
employed by the Greek tragedians and 
by later authors. It is common in 
the poetical prose writers, Apollodorus 
and Philostratus, the author of the 
Imagines (associated with a&lt;pvp6v, p. 
418. 2f. Kayser). Often one cannot 
tell whether the older verbal meaning 
tread, step, walking is not still 
present, as it frequently is in the 
medical writings (e.g. Nicander, Frag. 
74, line 49 rd 8 ov fidaLv &lt;rT-f)pi.%a.v), 
This doubt affects many of the 
instances usually cited to illustrate 
the meaning foot here, e.g. Plato, 
Timaeus 92 A; Wisd. xiii. 18. Thus 
we find Trypwais /Sdcrews in Dionysius 
Hal. Ant. v. 25 (due, as 24 tells us, 
to a spear thrust through the buttocks 
above the thigh, which TTJV fid&lt;ri.v 
2/3\a7TTei&gt;) and in Josephus, Antiq. vii. 
3. 1, and vii. 5. 5 ireTrrjpu/jLtvos rets 
/Sdo-ets. Here in Acts earepeudyo-ai 
suits well that meaning, and the 
second noun a^vdpd may be added in 
characteristic fashion by a kind of 
hendiadys or zeugma. 

cr&lt;pvp6v is part of the foot, the ankle. 
When strictly defined it is the ankle- 
bone, the projecting knob at the lower 
end of either of the shin bones, e.g. Aris 
totle, Anim. Hist. i. 15. 3 rb 5 eax- rov 

dvTiKVrj/JLLOV, PollUX ii. 192 TO 6 VTTO Trj 

Kvrifjiri fj.epos /caAemu e^vpbv /cat irtfa, 
Galen, De ossibus ad tirones 22 (Kuhn 
ii. 774) TO, 5 eKarepwdev avruv ir^para, 
rd Kara /C^T^U??? K.a.1 Trepovys, afivpd, 
Medicus 10 (Kuhn xiv. 708) rd 5e 
Trepara TWV TTJS Kvr)fj.r]s offruv el s re TO 
Zvdov fj.epos /ecu et s TO w ^x VTa fftyvpd 
Trpoffayopeverai. But the word was 
by no means limited to professional 
writers nor restricted to its technical 
meaning. It appears to apply some- 

D 



34 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



in 



and ankles became strong, and he jumped up and stood and 8 
began to walk and entered with them into the Temple, walking 
and jumping and praising God. And all the people saw him 9 
walking and praising God, and began to recognize him that this 10 
was he who sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, 
and they were filled with wonder and astonishment at what had 
happened to him. 

And as he held Peter and John all the people ran together n 
to them to the colonnade which is called Solomon s in wonder. 
And Peter, when he saw, answered the people : " Men of Israel, 12 



times to the whole ankle area or to 
other parts of the foot, especially the 
heel (irrepva). Pollux I.e. says the 
whole leg is made up of thigh, knee, 
ankle (vtyvpov), and foot (TTOVS). The 
Vulgate renders it here, not malleolus 
nor even talus, but planta (sole) ; the 
Syriac version suggests calx (heel). 
The word was evidently common in 
ordinary Greek of all periods for 
example, of long garments (Demo 
sthenes xix. p. 442 (Reiske) &xpi r&v 
ff(f)vpCjv ; cf . Theocritus xv. 134, Letter 
of Aristeas 87, Josephus, Ant. vii. 
8. 1, Philostratus, Imagines, p. 
430. 7 Kayser). Palmomantic books, 
which certainly were not confined to 
technical terms, distinguish the a^vpbv 
from various other parts of the limb 
as the avTiKvrjfj.iov, Kvf]p,y, darpdyaXos, 
iTT^pva, TJ-AMCI, rdpaos (Diels, Beitrage 
zur Zuckungslitteratur, in iheAbhand- 
lungen der A kademie der Wissenschaften, 
Berlin, 1907, 1908). It would be useless 
to multiply examples of the natural 
use of so common a word a word as 
common in Greek as ankle in English. 
The spelling ff&lt;j&gt;v5pd found in X* AB* 
(C* according to Tischendorf wrote 
(j&gt;v5pd) was recognized by Hesychius, 
who defines cr0i/5pd as he does cr0upd 
as i) TTpt(ppia T&V TroSCjv. It is, as 
Harnack says, a rare form, and there is 
no MS. authority for his introduction of 
the spelling into the passage in Galen 
which he quotes (Luke the Physician, 
191). a(f)v8p6v is now further attested 
by two occurrences in a third-century 
palmomantic papyrus (P Flor 391. 
53 and 56). The "grammarians have 
no exact explanation or analogy to 
offer for the intrusive 8 (Moulton, 



Grammar ofN.T. Greek, ii. p. 103), but 
cf. the spelling in some MSS. of l&lt;rpar)\ 
etc. as IcrdpaTjX or larparj\ (see K. Lake, 
Codex Sinaiticus, p. xiv). 

8. jumped up] The Western text 
reads " he jumped up and stood, and 
began to walk rejoicing and exulting, 
and he went in with them into the 
temple praising God." Ropes thinks 
that this is merely paraphrase ; yet it 
may be original, for the Neutral text 
with its walking and jumping seems 
intended to magnify the miracle. The 
whole question of the text in this 
passage is unusually difficult ; see note 
on the Beautiful Gate in vs. 2. The 
leaping is recorded to indicate not the 
patient s joy but, like the walking, the 
reality of the cure. So also in xiv. 
8-10, which should be compared with 
this narrative (cf. Isaiah xxxv. 6). 
More often in the cure of the lame 
the striking demonstration is the 
carrying of some article, like their 
pallet (Mark ii. 11 f. and parallels; 
John v. 8; Lucian, Philops. 11) or a 
heavy stone (I.G. iv. 951. 105). 

10. at what had happened to him] 
^TTI T$ o-u/x,/3f/3?7/c6Ti aurf is changed 
in D to TTL Tt^ yeyevr)fj.evc[) avrii). 
The B-text is so much the better 
Greek that it may be an Alexandrian 
improvement. 

11. And as he held] For the 
Western text see note on vs. 2. 

colonnade] &lt;rroa is traditionally 
rendered porch, but this gives an 
entirely wrong impression. It was 
not a porch, but a colonnade. 

Solomon s] Cf. John x. 23 and 
Acts v. 12. See Addit. Note 35. 

12 ff. PETER S SPEECH] The con- 



Ill 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



35 



why do you wonder about this man, or why do you gaze at us as 

though by our own power or piety we had made him to walk ? 

13 The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, 

glorified his servant Jesus whom you betrayed and denied in the 



m. is. 

IS. 111. lo* 



struction of almost every sentence in 
this speech is obscure, and some of 
it is scarcely translatable, but the 
general meaning is plain. The lame 
man has been healed by the power of 
the name of Jesus, and this proves 
that Jesus was holy and righteous. 
The Jews had sinned in putting Jesus 
to death, but it was a sin of ignorance. 
Repentance could wipe it out and 
bring the days of revival, that is to 
say, the good time which was ex 
pected to precede the End (see Vol. I. 
pp. 270 ff .),and the return of Jesus, the 
foreordained anointed one. But Jesus 
will wait in heaven until the time of the 
establishment of all things, foretold in 
prophecy. That this anointed Jesus 
should suffer had been foretold, and his 
coming as a prophet had also been fore 
told by Moses himself and by all the 
other prophets. He was the Servant 
whom God had sent to fulfil the pro 
mise of blessing to all the families of 
the earth, and first of all to the Jews, 
by converting them from their sins. 

The connexion of thought between 
the first and second parts of the speech 
is poor, but it is due to the difficulty 
which always arises in early Christian 
documents from the combination of 
the three fundamental motives of early 
Christian teaching, (a) The anointed 
one will come from heaven ; which is 
essentially Jewish. (6) The anointed 
one is Jesus who suffered, rose from 
the dead, and is in heaven in accord 
ance with prophecy ; which is specific 
ally Christian, and really inconsistent 
with the apocalyptic eschatology with 
which it is combined. (c) Jesus, 
the anointed one, had the prophetic 
mission of calling men to repentance ; 
which is probably the teaching of 
Jesus himself. The first of these three 
motives was based on the apocalyptic 
expectation of the Man from heaven, 
Avho had been there from the beginning 
(cf . Enoch and 4 Ezra and see Vol. I. 
pp. 368 ff.), and was really incon 
sistent with the others. For if the 
Man was in heaven, waiting to make 



his appearance on earth at the Last 
Day, he could not really be Jesus, 
who had already appeared on earth. 
Thus the second was necessary, though 
it entailed much new and historically 
unsound interpretation of prophecy, 
for, though not fully consistent with 
either of the others, it was sufficiently 
so to serve as a connecting link be 
tween them, and the three together 
passed into the general fabric of 
Christian thought. It is especially 
important to note that this was 
rendered possible by the Messianic 
interpretation of Isaiah liii. 

Whether this speech is to be attri 
buted to the editor or to his source is 
part of the general problem of the 
speeches. It is written in much less 
polished Greek than is found in the 
paragraphs which most certainly be 
long to the editor; but it may 
reasonably be maintained that he 
deliberately wrote speeches in this 
* Septuagint Greek. 

12. at us as though] f)(uv . . . o&gt;$ 
. . . Trejroir)K6(rii&gt;. The Western text 
(. . . ijfj.lv ri arevifere ws i)/Liu&gt;i&gt; . . . ire- 
jroL^Korwf, why do you gaze at us, as 
though it were we who, etc.) is more 
vigorous but less conventional Greek. 
The B-text may well be an Alexandrian 
correction. 

piety] evcre^eig. is certainly the right 
reading, though there is some evidence 
for e^ovcriq., authority, which is prob 
ably due to the influence of the 
frequent collocation of $tivaius-j-ov&lt;rla 
in Luke-Acts. For the evidence see 
Vol. III. p. 28. 

13. The God of Abraham and Isaac 
and Jacob] Cf. Acts vii. 32. The 
phrase is quoted in Matt. xxii. 32- 
Mark xii. 26 Luke xx. 37 from Exod. 
iii. 6. In each case the text repeats 
Oeos before each name. It is also found 
in Acts vii. 32 where, as in the present 
passage, the B-text inserts 0e6s only 
before Abraham, but the Western text 
agrees with LXX and the Gospels 
in reading it three times. 

glorified his servant] Cf. Isaiah 



36 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



ni 



presence of Pilate though he had decided to dismiss him. But you 14 
denied the holy and righteous one, and demanded that a man who 
was a murderer be granted to you, and the originator of life you 15 
killed whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. 
And in the faith of his name this one, whom you see and know, did 16 



lii. 13, but see Vol. I. p. 391 and 
the striking argument of Burkitt in 
Christian Beginnings, pp. 35 ff., in 
favour of the view that the identifica 
tion of Jesus with the TTCUS in Isaiah 
is based on the LXX and due to 
Hellenistic Christians. See further 
in note on iv. 24, and Addit. Note 29. 

you betrayed] v^ris fj.ev in the B-text 
has no proper &lt;5e clause to balance it ; 
but this is supplied, so far as the sense 
is concerned, by KpivavTos eKeivov cforo- 
\vfLi&gt;. The Western text reads " whom 
you (reading v/teis without /u,cv) be 
trayed to judgement (els Kpiaiv], and 
denied him before the face of Pilate, 
when he wished (&e\ovros) to release 
him." This seems to be a paraphrase 
based on the probably erroneous view 
that the meaning of betrayed is 
4 betrayed to Pilate. It really means 
betrayed to death. As so often, the 
Western text is the earliest and in 
many ways the best commentary. D 
further inserts who gave judgement 
(rod KpivavTos) after Pilate ; this may, 
however, be a somewhat distorted 
conflation with the B-text. Is there 
a possible reference to Is. liii. 8 T? 
avrov fjpdrj quoted in viii. 33 ? 

bo dismiss him] Cf. Luke xxiii. 16 
and 22 Traideva-as ovv aTroXucroj O.VTOV. 

14. holy and righteous one] See 
note on vii. 52. 

murderer] Cf . Luke xxiii. 19. The 
details of Jesus trial are not so fully 
elaborated in the other speeches in 
Acts, but the reference to Pilate s 
intention to acquit agrees with the 
author s tendency (cf. Vol. II. p. 183), 
while the allusion to Barabbas gives 
an opportunity for the antithesis 
&lt;pova . . . apXTiybv rijs fays. 

granted] See note on xxv. 11. 

15. originator] The word means (i.) 
captain, (ii.) originator, author. Both 
senses are found in the LXX, but 
originator seems preferable here. In 
v. 31, on the other hand, where 
apxvybv is used without qualification, 



* captain or leader seems to be 
the meaning. It is noticeable that 
critical analysis tends to assign to 
different sources the two speeches in 
which the word is found. Apxyyos 
is found elsewhere in the N.T. only 
in Heb. ii. 10 and xii. 2, each time 
probably in the sense of originator. 
In spite of its use in the LXX the 
word probably still had for the writer 
and readers of Acts a flavour that 
was literary, colourful, and far from 
commonplace. It was applicable to 
the mythical or historical founders 
of institutions, to pioneers who had 
bestowed blessings on mankind. See 
Moffatt, in International Critical 
Commentary, on Heb. ii. 10. It is 
worth noting that in Heb. ii. 10 
the phrase is o.px nybv rijs auT-^pias 
O.VT&V which in Aramaic would be in 
distinguishable from apxnybv r-rjs fafjs 
(see F. C. Burkitt s note in Evangelion 
da-Mepharreshe, vol. ii. pp. 78, 81, and 
287). See Addit. Note 29. 

of which] See note on ii. 32. 

16. And in the faith of his name, 
etc.] The B-text can be thus rendered, 
but it is too harsh for it to be 
acceptable as an originally Greek 
sentence. There are three possibilities, 
(i.) Torrey thinks that an original 
Aramaic was misread, so that the 
translator put earepeuae TO 6vop.a in 
stead of vyLij Ka.TtaTr/crfi avrbv. Ac 
cording to this the real subject of 
eareptuvev, etc., is debs, (ii.) Burkitt 
thinks that the passage can be punctu 
ated so as to mean but ye killed the 
author of life, whom God raised from 
the dead, of whom we are witnesses and 
to the faith of his name ; this man . . . 
did his name, etc. (see Vol. II. p. 142). 
(iii.) There may be a corruption in the 
text. If so it is quite primitive, for 
the Western text gives no help, but 
possibly TO ovofj-a. avrov may have been 
an early marginal note explaining & 
auTov. In this case also the subject 
of the verb is tJeos, and this undoubt- 



m 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



37 



his name strengthen, and the faith which was through him gave to 

17 him this soundness before you all. Now, brethren, I know that 

18 you acted in ignorance, as also your rulers did, but God thus 
fulfilled what he foretold by the mouth of all the prophets that his 

19 Messiah should suffer. Kepent, then, and turn for the wiping 
out of your sins, that there may come times of revival from 

20 before the Lord, and he may send Jesus, the Messiah appointed 



edly gives excellent sense. The whole 
point of this part of the speech is 
that the cure of the lame man is a 
divine miracle intended to reveal God s 
purpose and his glorification of Jesus, 
just as did the Resurrection. For the 
relation between God and the name of 
Jesus in effecting the cure cf. iv. 10-12. 

faith] Does this mean the faith of 
the apostles or of the lame man ? 
The latter view is more usual, but 
surely the meaning of the writer is 
that the apostles, because they be 
lieved, were able to use the name 
(cf. vs. 6) to exorcise the disease in 
the lame man. 

through him] i.e. Jesus, or through 
it, i.e. the name. The Greek is quite 
ambiguous. 

17. ignorance] Cf. Luke xxiii. 34 
and 1 Cor. ii. 8 (so Ephrem). 

18. his Messiah] This is a more 
primitive usage than the Messiah 
without qualification. See Vol. I. 
p. 348. 

suffer] None of the prophets, rather 
than all of them, made this prophecy, 
if we confine ourselves to (a) Messianic 
prophecies, (b) the original meaning 
of these prophecies, or (c) Jewish 
interpretation of these prophecies. 
But Christian interpretation applied 
to Jesus all passages in the Psalms 
and Isaiah which refer to suffering. 
See Vol. I. pp. 390 ff. The assump 
tion in this verse, that the Christian 
interpretation was recognized and ac 
cepted by Jews in Jerusalem, is diffi 
cult to reconcile with the view that 
the speech is authentic. It seems to 
belong to a period after the develop 
ment of a Christian doctrine which 
was doubtless held by the writer of 
Acts (cf. Luke xxiv. 46), but could 
not have been put forward by Peter 
without more explanation, and with 
only slightly less difficulty can be 



supposed to have been put into an 
Aramaic document in Jerusalem. 

19. Repent and turn] The custom 
ary word in the O.T. and in Rabbini 
cal literature is air which means 
literally to turn, and is most often 
rendered in the LXX by eirLarpe^eLu. 
There is, however, another word, 
en:, which is often translated by 
repent in the English O.T., and 
by fj.Tai&gt;oeij&gt; in the LXX. But except 
in two passages (Jer. viii. 6 and Job 
xlii. 6) cm is not used of repentance 
for sin, but of a change of purpose, 
especially on the part of God (cf. 
Jonah iii. 9, who can tell if God will 
turn and repent? ). On the general 
nature of the Jewish doctrine of 
repentance see Vol. I. p. 53. 

times of revival] This phrase 
does not appear to be used in 
Rabbinical or other literature as a 
synonym for the Messianic period. 
dvd\j/vis is found only once in the LXX 
(Exod. viii. 15), but the verb dva^vxeiv 
is found seven times, and the general 
meaning is clearly to revive, as con 
trasted with aTro\i/^x l - v to faint. The 
context seems to show that the 
writer uses it as a description of the 
coming of the Anointed One from 
heaven. 

Another interpretation is, however, 
quite possible. In Hellenistic Greek 
dvd^v^ts means rest or respite when 
not used literally of cooling (see 
examples from medical writings in 
Hobart ; Galen, San. tuend. iii. 7 
(Kuhn vi. p. 200) clearly distinguishes 
it from dvdiraixns). If so, the dvd\f&gt;v^ts 
diro irpoffdoirov rov Kvpiov is not identical 
with the final restoration and the 
sending of Jesus, but is a temporary 
relief attainable through faith. Cf. 
E. Meyer, Ur sprung und Anf tinge, iii. 
p. 143 note. 

20. appointed] Cf. xxii. 14, xxvi. 16. 



38 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 






29. 



beforehand for you, whom heaven must receive until times of 21 
establishment of all things which God spake by the mouth of his 
holy prophets from the beginning of the world. Moses said : 22 
Deut. xviii. A prophet will the Lord God raise up to you from your brethren 

as he did me. Ye shall hear him in all things whatsoever he 23 
speaks to you, and it shall be that every soul which does not 
hear that prophet shall be destroyed from the people. And all 24 
the prophets, too, from Samuel and those following as many 



(ii.) they began from the beginning of 
the world. 

22. Moses said] The quotation 
which follows is a combination of 
Deut. xviii. 15 f. and Levit. xxiii. 29. 
This and similar combinations re 
curring in writers who are scarcely 
dependent on each other have sug 
gested the hypothesis that Jews and 
Christians used Books of Testimonies 
in which proof texts were arranged 
under suitable headings (cf. Acts 
xxvi. 23). Harris thinks that such 
books were used by the writers of 
the New Testament and that such 
phrases as el TraOr/Tos 6 Xptcrros (Acts 
xxvi. 23) w r ere the titles of separate 
chapters in a Book of Testimonies, 
such as the E^Xo^ai of Melito (Eus. 
H.E. iv. 26. 12) and the Testimonia of 
Cyprian. The theory is attractive, and 
the e^yrjcreis r&v KvpLaK&v \oyiuv of 
Papias (cf . Eus. H.E. iii. 39. 1 ) may have 
been a collection of this kind, but from 
the nature of the case demonstrative 
proof can scarcely be given. The weak 
spot in the argument is the difficulty 
of proving that the common source of 
the material is not the N.T. ; its strong 
point is that this combination goes 
further than the texts so treated 
in the N.T. (See J. Rendel Harris, 
Testimonies, and cf. the note on vii. 49.) 

24. And all the prophets] The 
Greek is impossible. On a cursory 
reading \d\r]&lt;rav and KarriyyetXav seem 
coupled by /cat, and both would there 
fore belong to the dependent clause 
introduced by 6Vot, but this leaves 
Trdi/rej oi irpo$f)Tai with no verb. The 
alternatives are : (i.) To assume that 
the predicate of ot TrpofirJTat. is implied 
in the previous sentences : " . . . God 
spake by the mouth of his holy 
prophets, for Moses said . . . and so 



H faj is from the adjective ?rp6- 
and the -rrpo- is at least by 
etymology not temporal. But the 
author very likely used the word 
because to him irpo- carried the idea 
not merely of ordination but of fore- 
ordination, like irpoopieu&gt; iv. 28, irpo- 
KaTayye\\eiv lii. 18, irpox^-poTovelv x. 41. 
See note on foresaw ii. 25. 

21. establishment] dTroKctrdo-rao-ts 
ought strictly to mean restoration, 
and it is sometimes used astrological ly 
of the completion of a world cycle 
(cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Astrol. 105, 
quoted by Wettstein, and the note of 
J. Lepsius in The Expositor, series 
viii. vol. iii. pp. 158 ff.). But that 
aTTo/cardo Tao tj and airoK.a.OlaT rjuLi do not 
always have this meaning is suggested 
by the early glossaries and by the 
LXX, in passages where either the 
Hebrew or the context renders restora 
tion improbable (cf. Ps. xvi. 5 ; Job 
viii. 6; 2 Mace. xii. 39, xv. 20). This 
view has epigraphical and papyro- 
logical support. aTro/cafliVr?^ is found 
in inscriptions meaning establish 
ment in the proper place (cf. 001 S. 
90 18 Rosetta Stone) and in papyri of 
the payment of money due. The airb 
as in other compounds such as airex^ 
and a-rrodidw/uu came to imply the 
establishment of what was due, and 
the original sense of restoring was 
obscured. Thus in relation to pro 
phecy it may mean the establishment 
of what was predicted rather than the 
restoration of an earlier condition 
(cf. the use of a.7roKadi(rTr]/ui.t. in Mark 
ix. 12 = Matt. xvii. 11). 

from the beginning of the world] 
The omission of air aiCovos in the 
Western text may be right. There 
seem to have been two theories about 
prophets : (i.) they began with Moses ; 



IV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



39 



25 as spoke and announced these days. You are the sons of the 
prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted to your 
fathers, saying to Abraham : And in thy seed shall be blessed Gen. xii. 3. 

26 all the families of the earth. To you first God raised up his 
servant and sent him, blessing you in the turning of each from 
your wickedness." 

4 i Now while they were speaking to the people, there approached 



did all the prophets, who," etc. This 
is poor grammar, but fair sense, and 
is the impression gained by reading 
the passage rapidly without stopping 
to analyse the construction. It was 
adopted by the redactor of the 
African Latin who like almost 
all commentators ignored the diffi 
culty of rendering /ecu Traces 5e KT\. 
and, passing over the 5e and the /cat 
before Kar-fjyy., translated " and all the 
prophets ... as many as spoke, 
announced those days." (ii.) To dis 
sociate KarrjyyeiXav from eXdX^crai , 
making ot irpocprJTai the subject of 
KarriyyeiXav and translating xat by 
also. This is better grammar, but 
it is doubtful if anyone would ever 
read the passage in this way at first 
sight. It was, however, so read by 
the translators of Irenaeus. 

25. the sons of the prophets] 
The turn of thought, though obvious, 
is rather harsh. Perhaps this led 
to the Western reading in iii. 22 
Mu&gt;iicr??s nkv elirev Trpos TOI)S warepas 
T}^&V, but even so one would have 
expected T&V irarepuv instead of rwv 

TTpO&lt;p r)TU)l . 

in thy seed] Cf. Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 
18. Loisy sees here a difference 
from Gal. iii. 16 ry 
epprjdTja-av al firayye\iai, /cat 
avrou ou Xeyet, Kat rots crirepfj.aa i.i , ws eirl 
TroXXwj/, dXX ws e0 ei&gt;6s, Kcu T( ffTrep/j-ari 
&lt;rov, Ss e&lt;TTi Xptcrros. But the meaning 
is surely almost exactly the same. 
The blessing promised to all the 
families is the work of Jesus. Paul 
merely makes the additional point 
that the singular (ev rip crTrep/xcm) 
indicates a single person, against the 
Jewish view (historically correct) that 
the seed means the nation of Israel. 
It is worth remembering that the 
meaning of the original text of Genesis 



probably is that men will take 
Abraham s seed as representing the 
highest standard of blessedness. 

families] The LXX says &lt;/&gt;tAcu in 
Gen. xii. 3, but IBvy in xxii. 18. 

26. first] -rrpwrov may be inter 
preted in three ways : (i.) it qualifies 
vfuv in contrast to (a) other genera 
tions (cf. xiii. 36) or (6) the Gentiles 
(cf. the previous verse and xiii. 33) ; 
(ii.) if di acTTTjcras means raised from 
the dead irp&rov may be an adjective 
referring to TrcuSa (cf. xxvi. 23 and 
Col. i. 18); (iii.) it may mark the 
distinction between the coming of 
Jesus and the final consummation 
(cf. Luke xvii. 25, xxi. 9). 

raised up] dvaarriaas in connexion 
with Jesus usually refers to the 
Resurrection, but here it may refer to 
his ministry and to dz/acrrTjcret in vs. 22. 
Nevertheless, with the whole passage, 
vss. 18-26, should be compared xxvi. 
22 f. ovSfv e /cros \eyuv &v re oi 7rpo0^rat 
4\d\Tjaav /meXXovTWv ylveadai /ecu M wvcrr]s, 
el TradyTOS 6 Xptcrros, ei Trpwros e dva- 
crrdcrews vexp&v 0a)s /t^XXet KarayyeXXetv 
T&lt;p re Xay /cat rots Zdveaiv, which in 
cludes many of the same ideas in 
briefer compass and much of the 
same looseness of order or con 
struction. (See further in the note 
on xiii. 33.) 

in the turning of each] This is as 
ambiguous as the Greek ; grammatic 
ally each could be subject as well 
as object. But d-n-oo-rpe^eiv (unlike 
e-jnarpecpeLv, vs. 19) is rarely intransi 
tive, even in the LXX where it occurs 
hundreds of times. In the other 
N.T. occurrences it is transitive. 

1 ff. It is very noticeable how the 
style changes to perfectly intelligible 
easy Greek in contrast to the ob 
scurities of the speech of Peter in 
chap. iii. 



40 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IV 



them the priests and the controller of the Temple and the 
Sadducees, being annoyed because they were teaching the 2 
people, and announcing in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 
And they laid hands on them and put them in custody till the 3 
next day, for it was already evening. And many of those who 4 
heard the word believed, and the number of the men had 
grown to about five thousand. 



1. the priests and the controller of 
the Temple and the Sadducees] The 
priests mentioned in this verse may 
be part of the Temple guard, and 
in any case their presence calls for no 
explanation, but the Sadducees seem 
a little out of place, for even though 
most of the priests were of that party, 
Sadducees as such had no special 
function in the Temple (see Vol. I. 
pp. 114 ff.). The reading of BC, etc., 
dpxtepets, seems less likely than tepet?, 
but it may be right. For high priest 
see note on vs. 6. The ffrpar^yos rov 
iepov is also mentioned in Luke xxii. 
52; Acts v. 24 and 26. Rabbinical 
writings refer to two officials, either 
of whom may be intended here, 
(i.) The Sagan or captain of the 
priesthood (c jrnn po or simply po), 
who held the highest rank next to 
the high priest. Sagan is usually 
rendered in the LXX by crTparriyos 
(Jer. li. 23 ff.; Ezekiel xxiii. 6 ff . ; 
Neh. ii. 16, iv. 14, xii. 40, etc.), more 
rarely by #px wj/ (Ezra ix. 2; Neh. iv. 
19, v. 7, vii. 5). Josephus also uses 
ffTparrjyos or 6 or parijy Cov. He says that 
in A.D. 66 at the beginning of the war 
Eleazar the son of Ananias, high 
priest in 62, and grandson of the 
Annas of the Gospels and Acts, was 
&lt;TTpaT-r)y6s. He also says that when 
Ananias son of Nebedaeus was high 
priest (the Ananias of Acts xxiii. 2) 
Ananos (Annas) was cfTpar-rjyos. (Jose 
phus, B.J. ii. 17. 2, Antiq. xx. 
9. 3, and xx. 6. 2.) The office of 
Sagan may have been held by the 
Benjamite named Simon referred 
to in 2 Mace. iii. 4 as Trpocrrdr^j TOV 
iepov, but if so the rules must have 
been changed afterwards, for in 
Rabbinical writings the Sagan appears 
as a Levite. (ii.) Lesser officials sub 
ordinate to the Sagan were in charge 
of the outer court of the Temple, 



and of the Temple itself. The one 
in charge of the Temple seems to be 
called (TTparriybs by Josephus, B.J. vi. 5. 
3, and it appears intrinsically probable 
that Acts refers to him in this verse 
rather than to the Sagan himself. 
The phrase in Luke xxii. 4 and 52 
dpxicpels /ecu crrpaTrjyoi doubtless means 
the members of the high-priestly class 
and the Sagan with his subordinates, 
described in Acts v. 26 as 6 ffTpaT-rjybs 
ffvv rots viryperais (cf. the combination 
of ninD and D JJD in Jer. li. 23 ff. and 
Ezek. xxiii. 6 ff.). For a full account 
of all the Rabbinical evidence see 
Strack, ii. pp. 628 if., and cf . Schlirer, 
GJV. ii. 4 pp. 320 ff. 

2. annoyed, etc.] The meaning is 
that the priests, being for the most 
part Sadducees, objected to any teach 
ing which implied a resurrection, but 
it may well be suspected that this 
explanation is editorial. It appears 
from iv. 13 that the Sanhedrin really 
did not know who the apostles were. 
(Cf. Paul s trial in Acts xxiii., and 
especially the explanation about the 
doctrine of the Sadducees in xxiii. 
8 ff., and see Vol. I. pp. 114 ff.) The 
general meaning of iv r($ Itja-ov TTJV 
dvaa-rafftv is plain, but the exact con 
struction is less clear. It is tempting 
to expound it as meaning that the 
resurrection of Jesus was a proof of 
the disputed doctrine (cf. 1 Cor. xv.), 
or iv TU&gt; Irjffov may go closely with 
KarayyeXXeiv (cf. /aaprvpelffdai iv Kvply 
Eph. iv. 17). Probably some desire to 
emphasize this may be behind the 
reading of cod. Bezae (see Vol. III. 
p. 35). For the use of diairovfladai 
see P Oxy 743. 22 (2 B.C.) tyu 6 Xws 
diaTroi ov/u.ai el eXevos %d\/cous awuXecrev, 
and cf . Acts x vi. 1 8 and Preisigke, Sam- 
melbuch 5678. 12 5ia.irovoiJtJi.evoi (where 
the reading is, however, uncertain). 

4. had grown] This is too strong, 



IV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



41 



5 And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and the 

6 elders and the scribes were assembled in Jerusalem (and Annas, 
the high priest, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and as 



but eyevrjdri means more than simply 
was. 

5. And it came to pass] The 
grammar of the sentence has suffered 
such shipwreck in the B-text that if 
genuine it must be a slip on the part 
of the writer. After eyevero crwax^cu 
there must follow accusatives, and the 
writer begins correctly enough with 
TOVS apxovras /crA., but he then changes 
to the nominative, Kal"Awas 6 dpxtepe^s 
KT\. For the attempts in the Western 
and Antiochian texts to rewrite this 
grammatically see Vol. III. p. 34. 
Transcriptional probability supports 
the B-text. 

their rulers] In view of the occasional 
rendering of sagan by apxovres in 
the LXX (see note on iv. 1) this may 
be the meaning here ; in modern lan 
guage they were the administration 
of the Temple. But it is generally 
thought that &PXOVTCS here is merely 
a synonym for the iepets or dp^tepeis of 
iv. 1, since the usual association of 
(and 7payU/xarets) is with 
(Luke ix. 22 ; xx. 1, etc.). The 
* elders (a^pi) and the scribes (DHS ID) 
were with the priests the constituent 
elements of the Sanhedrin (see Vol. I. 
p. 33, and Strack, i. 79). Josephus 
also uses apxovres as a synonym for 
dpxtepetj. 

in Jerusalem] For the situation of 
the council chamber see Addit. Note 
35. 

6. Annas] His name was doubtless 
Jjn Neh. viii. 2 (Hanan), and is 
regularly rendered Afd&gt;os by Jose 
phus. His family is mentioned in 
the Talmud, and was obviously un 
popular in Rabbinic circles (Pesahim 
57 a ). He was the son of Sethi, and 
was made high priest by Quirinius 
after the deposition of Archelaus in 
A.D. 6, but was deposed by Valerius 
Gratus in A.D. 14. He was famous 
because five of his sons (Eleazar, A.D. 
16-17 ; Jonathan, A.D. 36-37 ; Theo- 
philus, A.D. 37-41 ; Matthias, A.D. 43 ; 
Ananus II., A.D. 62) were high priests. 

high priest] dpx&lt;-fpefa was used (a) 
of the official high priest ; (6) of those 



who had once held that position ; 
(c) of those who belonged to the 
families from which the high priests 
were chosen. Josephus is careful to 
give the sequence of high priests, 
and leaves no doubt that Joseph, 
who is also called Caiaphas, was the 
last of the four appointed by Valerius 
Gratus, and that he remained high 
priest throughout the procuratorship 
of Pilate. It follows that Annas was 
not at this time official high priest, 
but it is hard to interpret this passage 
except as meaning that he was. The 
facts in the gospels about the name 
of the high priest are that Matthew 
names Caiaphas as high priest at the 
trial of Jesus ; neither Mark nor Luke 
give the name of the high priest at 
the time of Jesus death, but Luke 
iii. 2 names both Annas and Caiaphas 
at the time of the appearance of John. 
John appears to know something of 
Annas as a person of importance, but 
says that Caiaphas was high priest 
that year. (See E. Meyer, Ursprung 
und Anfdnge des Christentums, i. pp. 
49 i., 197 ff.) 

The suggestion of Luke iii. 2 (eirl 
dpx epews" Avva. /cat Katd0a) that Annas 
and Caiaphas were both high priests 
may indicate a conflation of two 
theories, since it is certain that at no 
time were there two high priests. It 
is difficult to believe that Luke even 
thought so. But that would seem 
the natural meaning of his language, 
for Eusebius (Hist. Ecd. i. 10. 2) 
can hardly be right in thinking that 
^TTI dpxtepe cos " A.VVO. /cat Katd0a is in 
tended to mean the period covered 
by the end of the high- priesthood of 
Annas and the beginning of that of 
Caiaphas. I incline to suspect that 
/cat Katd0a is an interpolation. The 
Greek erri dpx epews in the singular 
strongly suggests that it was originally 
followed only by a single name. If 
so, the Lucan view both in Luke iii. 2 
and in Acts iv. 6 was that Annas 
waa the high priest in the time of 
Jesus. But it must be an error. 

There is no evidence that the Jews 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY 



IV 



many as were of high-priestly family), and they stood them in 7 
the midst and began to inquire : "By what power or by what 



did not recognize Caiaphas or secretly 
held Annas to be high priest. The 
periodic appointment of a high priest 
by the ruler of the country had be 
come general, for the succession of high 
priests by primogeniture in the direct 
line of Aaron had ceased in the time of 
Ptolemy IV. (182-146 B.C.), when the 
last legitimate priest went to Leon to - 
polis (see Vol. I. p. 30). After this 
the appointment of the priests was 
in the hands of the Seleucid kings, 
and later on of the Hasmoneans, 
Herods, and Romans. None of these 
high priests were really legitimate, 
judged by strictly Biblical standards, 
but there is no trace of any objection 
to them on this ground, or of the 
view that one man was priest de jure 
and another de facto. This view has 
been invented to account for Luke s 
mistake, if it be one, and has no 
evidence in its favour. 

Caiaphas] His name is spelt Kcud&lt;/&gt;as 
in the MSS. of Josephus and in the 
B-text of the New Testament. The 
Bezan text prefers Kcu&lt;/&gt;a?, which 
may be an attempt to render more 
accurately the name NS T VP but the 
only time he is mentioned in Rabbini 
cal literature it is spelt f]p (Para 3. 5), 
and the Syriac gospels give Kayapha. 
There is another interesting but 
probably impossible suggestion which 
connects the word with the Arabic 
word Kaif, which means seer or 
prophet, and it is thought that this 
explains John xi. 49 ff. apxiepefa &v 
TOV eviavTou ficeivov eTrpo^revcre KT\. 
According to Josephus his name was 
Joseph, and John xviii. 13 says that 
he was son-in-law to Annas, but there 
is no other evidence for this statement. 
In Para 3. 5 he is said to be the 
father of the high priest Elionaios, 
but as Josephus (Antiq. xix. 8. 1) 
says that Elionaios was the son of 
Kantheras, Strack thinks that Caia 
phas was really his grandfather. (See 
Strack, i. p. 985; Nestle, ZWTh. xl. 
(1897), p. 149, and Expository Times, x. 
(1898), p. 185, and Dalman, Gram- 
matik, p. 127.) 

John] Codex Bezae reads Jonathan, 



and this may be the Western text, 
though the African Latin has lohannes. 
If Jonathan be right, he may be iden 
tical with the Jonathan, son of Annas, 
who was appointed high priest in 
A.D. 36 in succession to Caiaphas 
(Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3). He was 
almost immediately deposed in favour 
of his brother Theophilus (Antiq. 
xviii. 5. 3). He was afterwards either 
reappointed for a short time, or at 
least offered the position by Agrippa, 
but ultimately his brother Matthias 
was appointed. Finally he was again 
appointed by Agrippa II. in the time 
of Felix, and was murdered by Sicarii 
instigated by Felix (see Josephus, 
Antiq. xix. 6. 4, xx. 8. 5). 

Alexander] Nothing is known of 
him. 

high-priestly family] The treatise 
Menahot xiii. 21 (533) and the 
parallel passage in Pesahim 57a men 
tion the families of Boethus, Kan 
theras, Ananus, Elisha, and Ishmael 
ben Phabi. Of these the family of 
Boethus (originally Alexandrian, see 
Vol. I. p. 117) and that of Ananus were 
the most important. Between 24 B.C. 
and the fall of Jerusalem there were 
six high priests of the family of Boethus 
and eight of the family of Ananus (see 
Strack, ii. p. 570). 

The adjective apxtepariKos so far 
from being exclusively biblical can be 
attested from Josephus (Antiq. iv. 
4. 7 ; vi. 6. 3) and from inscriptions 
(Dittenberger, OGIS. 470. 21). In 
deed both these sources show its 
use with ytvos as here (Josephus, 
Antiq. xv. 3. 1; GIG. 4363; cf. 
Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archdo- 
logischen Instituts in Wien, xv. (1912) 
p. 51). 

7. By what power or by what name] 
Thus, whatever may have been the 
underlying motive, the ostensible pur 
pose of the trial was an inquiry into 
a case of exorcism, for there was no 
essential difference in the opinion of 
the ancient world between driving out 
demons and healing disease ; they 
were related to each other as cause 
and effect. 



IV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



43 



8 name did you do this ? " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, 

9 said to them : " Rulers of the people and elders, if we to-day 
are asked concerning benefit done to a sick man, by what he 

10 has been healed, let it be known to you all and to all the people 
of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom you 
crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this is this man 

1 1 standing here in health before you all. This is the stone which was 
J 2 rejected by you, the builders ; it became the corner-stone. And 

salvation is not in any other, for there is no name else under 
heaven given among men by which we must be saved." 
13 But seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and having per- 



Ps. cxviii. 



did you do this] This fails to bring 
out the scornful emphasis which the 
Greek puts on the you. 

8. filled with the Holy Spirit] The 
natural implication is that Peter s 
words were the result of sudden in 
spiration (cf. the promise of inspira 
tion in Mark xiii. 11= Luke xxi. 15, 
cf. Luke xii. 11 f.). The gift of the 
Spirit is looked on as intermittent. 
It is in this respect different from 
the Pauline and Johannine view (see 
Addit. Note 9, and cf. especially 
H. Gunkel s Die Wirkungen des heiligen 



9. if we are asked] avaKpivo^eBa in 
Attic Greek refers to a preliminary 
hearing, but in later Greek to any 
legal inquiry. Cf. Acts xii. 19, xxiv. 
8, xxv. 26, xxviii. 18. 

healed] aeawarai is literally saved, 
but whereas atauarai in Greek might 
be used equally well in a physical as 
well as a religious sense, this is hardly 
true of saved in English. Therefore 
the play on the word a-ufav here and 
in vs. 12 cannot be reproduced in 
translation. 

10. by the name] Or in the name. 
There is no real difference, and in 
view of the context by is here pre 
ferable. Note ev TToia . . . ev rlvt . . . 
ev T 6v6/j,aTi . . . ev rovrtf . . . ev 
dXAy . . . ev w. For the use of the 
name cf. Enoch xlviii. 7 which says 
of the Son of Man In his name they 
are saved. 

by this] ev TOVTOJ is ambiguous; it 
might mean Jesus, but the emphasis 



in the sentence seems to show that it 
refers to 6v6/j.arL. The African text 
adds and by no other, and omits this 
phrase in vs. 12 so that it runs, " Let 
it be known to you . . . that by the 
name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, 
whom you crucified, whom God raised 
from the dead, by this has this man 
been made whole before you, and by 
nothing else. For he is the stone Avhich 
was rejected by you, the builders, and 
it became the corner-stone, and there 
is no other name," etc. This is cer 
tainly a more vigorous and better 
version ; if it be due to the maker of 
the Western text he deserves credit 
for it. 

1 1 . This is the stone] This of course 
refers to Jesus. The verse seems a 
parenthesis, but it is very awkward. 
The quotation from Ps. cxviii. 22 is 
not from the LXX and may be an 
original translation of the Hebrew, as 
6 &lt;iov6ev(jjdeis, which takes the place 
of the LXX dv aTreSoKiuaaav, renders 
the Hebrew DND as it does in the 
LXX in 1 Sam. viii. 7 etc. and in Ps. 
Ixxxix. 38. The passage is also quoted 
in Mark xii. 10 = Luke xx. 17 = 
Matt. xxi. 42, but from the LXX (see 
also Vol. II. p. 97). 

12. else] There is here no import 
ance in the question of the difference 
between #XAos and erepos in the N.T. 
For a discussion of the point see 
especially Lightfoot on Gal. i. 6, 
and Radermacher, N.T. Grammatik 2 , 
p. 77. 

13. boldness] See note on vs. 31. 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY 



IV 



ceived that they were uneducated and common men, they began 
to wonder, and to recognize them that they had been with Jesus, 
and seeing the man who had been healed standing with them 14 
they had nothing to say against it. But having commanded 15 
them to go out from the Sanhedrin, they consulted with each 
other, saying : " What shall we do to these men, for that a notable 16 



uneducated and common] The 

meaning doubtless is that the Sanhe 
drin regarded the apostles as belong 
ing to the ame ha-ares. (See Vol. I. 
pp. 439 ff.) Suidas regards these 
words as synonymous (s.v. idiurr]s). 
But Chrysostom ad loc. takes pains 
to assert that it is possible to be one 
without being the other. The word 
dypctyu/zaros is very common in papyri 
after the Ptolemaic period and else 
where of persons who cannot write. 
See Majer - Leonhard, Aypdn/naToi 
(Frankfurt-am-Main, 1913). t StcjTTjs 
is generally (for a technical use see 
P. M. Meyer, Griechische Texte aus 
Agypten, 1916, p. 59 and note 34) 
the opposite of the professional or the 
expert in any field. Compared with 
the scribes whose profession was that 
of scholars, the apostles, like Jesus 
(Mark i. 22), and unlike Paul (Acts 
xxvi. 24), seemed to be at once illiterate 
in the strict sense and unprofessional. 
Does idiurat specially connote not 
eloquent ? In Justin, ApoL 39. 2 
the same word is applied to the twelve 
apostles and seems to be explained as 
\a\ecv fj,rj Swa^evoL. This verse agrees 
better with the motif of J b (see the 
introductory note to this section at 
the beginning of chap, iii.) than with 
its own context. 

began to wonder] It is obvious that 
the Sanhedrin did not know anything 
about the accused, and had not associ 
ated the apostles with Jesus until they 
heard them speak. The Western text 
emphasized this and rewrote the story 
thus : " But when they all heard the 
firmness of Peter and John, con 
vinced that they were uneducated and 
common men, they were amazed, but 
seeing the lame man standing with 
them, cured, they could make no 
opposition in deed or word. But some 
of them recognized that they had been 
with Jesus. Then they commanded 



them to go out," etc. The reviser 
correctly perceived that the Sanhedrin 
was at a loss to understand the case, 
and only at the end of it did some of 
its members recognize the previous 
history of the apostles. There is 
obviously almost insuperable difficulty 
in reconciling this with vs. 2, which 
says that the priests were annoyed 
because the disciples were preaching 
Jesus. The easiest hypothesis is 
that vs. 2 is editorial, and this carries 
with it the important corollary that 
the rest of the narrative is probably 
derived from a written source. 
Preuschen and others, however, 
reverse this argument and regard 
the clause recognized that they had 
been with Jesus as an interpolated 
phrase. To me this seems improbable. 

15. to go out] The Western text 
reads to be taken out. 

Sanhedrin] TO a-vvtSptov. The word 
here obviously means the council 
chamber, but it also raises a rather 
subtle point of translation. &lt;rvvt8piov 
was taken over by the Jews into 
rabbinic language and the Council 
was called the Sanhedrin. It is the 
custom for modern scholars to follow 
this transliteration : but should we do 
so in translating the Greek ? In most 
places the point is really unimportant, 
but in xxiii. 28 it is clearly wrong to 
say Sanhedrin. To Claudius Lysias 
ffwtdpiov was not the special title of 
the Jewish assembly but the ordinary 
Greek word for a Council. With some 
hesitation I have usually rendered 
vvvtSpLov by Sanhedrin. The Syriac 
translates it Council. 

16. notable]. This is the usual 
rendering of yvuvrbv. Blass, however, 
compares i. 19 yvuffrbv ey^vero iraffi 
rot s KaroiKOvcriv lepoixraA?^/. and would 
punctuate so as to give the render 
ing and that a sign by them has 
become known to the dwellers in 



IV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



45 



sign has been given through, them is clear to all the in- 

17 habitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order 
that it spread no further to the people let us enjoin them to give 

1 8 up speaking in this name to any men." And having called them, 
they enjoined them to make no utterance at all nor to teach in 

19 the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to 
them : " Whether it is righteous before God to hear you rather 

20 than God, judge yourselves. For we cannot give up speaking 

21 what we saw and heard." So they dismissed them with an injunc 
tion, finding no way to punish them because of the people, since 

22 all were glorifying God at what had happened. For the man 
on whom this sign of healing had been wrought was more than 
forty years old. 

23 Now when they had been dismissed they came to their friends 
and reported what the high priests and elders had said to them. 



Jerusalem is clear. This is possible, 
but the order of the words seems to 
be against it. 

17. it spread] The subject of 5ta- 
vewOrj is grammatically arjij.e tov, but 
the writer obviously means the story 
about it. There is no real obscurity 
in the sentence, but the Western text 
(though not D) added rd prj^ara TO.VTO. 
to make the grammar a little more 
conventional. 

18. And having called them] The 
Western text is "when they had agreed 
to this motion, they [called them and] 
warned them," etc. : called them 
and is omitted in the African Latin. 

make no utterance] See note on 
ii. 4. It means more than speak. 
The importance of the command in 
the mind of the editor is that it gives 
the legal excuse for the further prose 
cution mentioned in the next chapter 
(see v. 28). 

19. to hear you rather than God] It 
is usual to compare with this Plato, 
Apol. 29 D (weicrofjiai Se T$ $eoj /xaXAop T) 
vfuv). The idea is common, though 
not commonplace, and many parallels 
could be found (cf. Wettstein ad loc., 
and see also note on v. 29), but chap, 
xvii. renders it quite probable that 
Luke knew the story of Socrates. 

22. forty years] Knowling and 



others claim the mention of the age 
or of the duration of the disease 
of the man cured as characteristic 
of Luke, and quote the daughter of 
Jairus (Luke viii. 42), Aeneas (ix. 33), 
and the cripple at Lystra (xiv. 8) to 
illustrate this characteristic. But in 
fact the age is not given in any of 
these cases except that of the daughter 
of Jairus, which is not Lucan but 
taken from Mark v. 42. So that if the 
argument has any worth, it rather 
suggests that the giving of the age 
was found by Luke in his source. To 
indicate the congenital, chronic, or 
persistent character of any disease 
is characteristic of all tellers of 
miraculous cures, e.g. Mark v. 25 f., 
ix. 21; John v. 5; ix. 1; Luke xiii. 
11 ; Philostratus, Vita Apollon. iii. 38. 
23. friends] Lit. their own. Cf. 
xxiv. 23. It has been argued that this 
means merely the other apostles, 
because these own are the subject of 
the following story, and are contrasted 
with the -rrXr/dos of iv. 32. But it 
is very hard to see the contrast. 
Another story begins in iv. 32 in which 
the Christian community is referred 
to as the ir\7)6os r&v TnarevaavTcoi , and 
the 8e in that verse is merely con 
nective. The Tr\i)6os and the t Stot may 
well mean the same persons. 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IV 



And they, when they heard, all lifted up their voices together to 24 
God and said : " Master, thou who didst make the sky and the 
earth and the sea and all things that in them are, who by the mouth 25 
PS. ii. i f. of our father David, thy servant, in the Holy Spirit, said, Why did 

the heathen rage and the people devise vain things ? The kings 26 
of the earth stood by and the rulers were gathered together 



24. Master] The word dea-rroT rjs is 
used of God by Luke only here 
and in Luke ii. 29, and in both 
passages it is antithetical to 5ou\os 
(Luke ii. 29 and Acts iv. 29). H. 
Bohlig in his * Zum Begriff Kvrios bei 
Paulus (ZNTW. xiv. pp. 32 ff.) shows 
that this antithesis is regarded as 
correct by Dio Chrysostom. But 
an interesting point is raised by F. C. 
^Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, pp. 35 ff., 
who argues that the use of TTCUS in this 
prayer with reference to Jesus comes 
from the LXX. It clearly identifies 
him with the servant of the Lord in 
Isaiah, and Ebed Jahveh really means 
slave of Jahveh. This, he thinks, 
cannot have been originally applied 
to Jesus, though TTCUS with its milder 
and ambiguous meaning is possible. 
The suggestion is interesting, but 
perhaps not wholly convincing. 
Though in modern English there is a 
sharp distinction between slave and 
servant, there is much less in Greek 
between TTCUS and SouXos, and if this 
speech were in Aramaic, the same 
word was probablv used in vss. 25, 
27, 29, 30 to describe David, Jesus, 
and the disciples. The change of 
phrase in Greek from TTCUS to 5ov\os 
represents the growth of Hellenistic 
Christian sentiment, not any differ 
ence of Aramaic vocabulary. Origin 
ally the antithesis was clear between 
deffTTorfjs and Trcus-SoOXos. The accident 
that TTCUS also means child was used 
effectively when the clearness of the 
antithesis broke down and Jesus 
was ranked with the dea-n-or^ rather 
than with the SoOXot. Moreover, the 
question is complicated by the possi 
bility that this tendency to interpret 
TTCUS ( = ebed) as meaning child may 
be pre-Christian. (See note on vs. 27 
and Addit. Note 29.) 

25. by the mouth of David] This 
probably represents the meaning of 
the writer, but it is not an accurate 



rendering of the Greek, which as it 
stands is absolutely ungrammatical. 
For the textual evidence see Vol. III. 
pp. 40 ff . There is no doubt that the 
oldest text is 6 rod Trarpo? ijfjk&v dta 
TTPei^itaros ayiov crro^taros Aaveid TrcuSos 
ffov, and all the variants are attempts 
to straighten out this confusion. 
Torrey (pp. 17 f.) thinks that it is due 
to an Aramaic original SOUK n N n 
TON TJIHJ; TIT NK-np "t Nnn Dis 1 ? which 
ought to have been translated that 
which our father, thy servant David, 
said by command of the Holy Spirit. 
Torrey continues : " It is obvious that 
the neuter pronoun, that which, is 
required by the whole passage : the 
connexion of the address Mffirora . . . 
CUT CMS becomes evident for the first 
time, and the yap in vs. 27 now comes 
to its own. Instead of the more 
common D sta 0153 might have been 
used ; compare e.g. rn.r S ED, by the 
command of Yah we, 1 Chron. xii. 23. 
In the order of words in this restored 
Aramaic there is nothing unusual; 
such delayed apposition is of frequent 
occurrence, and in this case we can see 
a rhetorical reason for separating our 
father from thy servant David. 
There is now no ellipsis in the passage, 
but everything is expressed as clearly 
and naturally as possible. But as 
soon as the of N\T was lengthened 
into i (perhaps the most common of 
all accidents in Hebrew - Aramaic 
manuscripts, and here made especially 
easy by the preceding context) the 
whole passage was ruined. NJUK H xin 
was of necessity 6 TOV irarpbs ^p.Cov, and 
every other part of our Greek text 
followed inevitably ; there is no other 
way in which a faithful translator 
would have been likely to render 
it." This is one of Torrey s strongest 
examples. The objection to it is 
that mistranslation often produces 
bad sense and inferior grammar, but 
that it is hard to believe that a writer 



IV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



47 



27 against the Lord and against his Messiah. For gathered together 
they were in truth in this city against thy holy servant Jesus, 
whom thou didst make Messiah, both Herod and Pontius Pilate 

28 with the heathen and the people of Israel, to do whatsoever thy 

29 hand and counsel foreordained to happen. Now, Lord, look 
on their threats and give thy slaves to speak thy word with all 

30 boldness, in the stretching out thy hand for healing and to 
do signs and wonders through the name of thy holy servant 

31 Jesus." And when they had prayed, the place in which they 
were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with 
Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. 

32 And of the congregation of those who had believed there 



of Luke s general ability would have 
produced what Torrey rightly calls 
" an incoherent jumble of words," 
and that NTI -ex (for "said it ) is 
regarded as harsh by some authorities 
on Aramaic idiom. This raises the 
suspicion whether the trouble is not a 
primitive and irretrievable corruption 
of the Greek text rather than mis 
translation of a source. 

27. servant] It is the custom to 
refer this verse to Is. Hi. 13, but the 
direct allusion is to vs. 25. David 
and Jesus are both iraldes of God, and 
whether servant or child is the 
right translation depends on the 
further question whether the domi 
nant concept is that of the ebed or 
slave of the Lord, found so fre 
quently in the O.T., or that of the 
child of the Lord in Wisdom ii. 12 (see 
also Vol. I. p. 391 and Addit. Note 29). 

whom thou didst make Messiah] 
^Xpicras refers to the meaning of 
Xpivros, and it must be translated 
* make Messiah if xp crros be rendered 
Messiah. When was Jesus made 
Messiah ? Unfortunately Acts gives 
no clear clue to the author s opinion. 
(See note on x. 38.) 

Herod] The reference is to Luke 
xxiii. 6 ff ., the so-called trial of Jesus 
before Herod, an episode not found in 
Mark (see A. W. Verrall, Christ be 
fore Herod in JTS., 1909, pp. 321 ff., 
and M. Dibelius, ZNTW. xvi., 
1915, pp. 113 ff.). Herod here 
doubtless represents he kings of 



Ps. ii. 2 and Pilate the rulers, and 
ZOvr) and Xaot are interpreted in the 
usual way as Gentiles and the (Chosen) 
People. 

31. was shaken] Not a natural 
earthquake but a supernatural mark 
of assent in answer to prayer. Like 
thunder such shakings were regarded 
as a method of divine communication 
by heathen writers (examples in 
Wettstein) as well as by Jews (Isaiah 
vi. 4; Ex. xix. 18; 4 Ezra vi. 15, 29 
true text). (See ii. 2 f.) 

began to speak] Speaking /iera 
-rrapprjalas is here as in vs. 8 (cf. vs. 13) 
the result of the Holy Spirit. I doubt 
whether with boldness is quite the 
right rendering. Can it mean some 
thing approaching to ecstasy ? Cf . 
Mark viii. 32, where with boldness 
or openly (the more general render 
ing) seems inadequate to render 
Trappycriq.. But it must be remembered 
that boldness in danger and escape 
from arrest were looked on as 
miraculous. See on xxviii. 31. 

32 ff. At this point the narrative 
(from J a ?) is broken off to make 
room for the stories of Barnabas and 
Ananias, introduced by a summary. 
The main narrative seems to be re 
sumed in v. 12 ff. (See Additional 
Note 12 for a discussion of the 
summary, and of the possible relation 
of it and the following stories to J a 
and J b .) 

32. congregation] Tr\Tj0os has two 
meanings both in classical and later 



48 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IV 



was one heart and soul, and not even one used to say that any 
thing of his property was his own but they had all things in 
common. And with great power did the apostles go on giving 33 
the testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great 
grace was on them all. For there was not even any in want 34 
among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses 
used to sell them and bring the price of what was sold and lay 35 
it at the apostles feet, and distribution was made to each 
according as any had need. 



Greek : (i.) a large number of persons, 
a crowd, and even with the con 
notation of a mob (of. Plato, Republic 
494 A; Xenophon, Ath. 2. 18). This 
usage is found in the New Testament in 
Mark iii. 7 f. ; Luke vi. 17 ; Acts xiv. 
1, xvii. 4, and perhaps in the Western 
text of xxi. 22. But it should be 
noted that in the New Testament in 
every case except the Western text 
of xxi. 22 the meaning is made plain 
by the addition of TTO\U to TrXijdos. 
(ii.) A body of persons regarded in 
their corporate capacity, almost equi 
valent to demos or to the American 
use of the word people. This is 
f ound in Plato, Politicus 291 D; Thucy- 
dides i. 125, and in 2 Mace. xi. 16, 
where in an address to the Jews as a 
nation it is said Aucrtas r^J TrXrjdei ruv 
lovdaiwv %cu/)etz&gt;. rq} irXrjdei is here 
obviously equivalent to r^&gt; Sr)/u.u which 
is found in 2 Mace. xi. 34. In this 
sense 7r\??#os is used to designate 
religious associations in Rhodes (see 
Inscriptiones Graecae insularum Maris 
Aegaei, i. 155. 6 and 156. 5, quoted 
by A. Deissmann in Bible Studies, 
p. 232). An inscription of the 
second century from Memphis (see 
Dittenberger, OGIS. No. 737) 
speaks of Aupiwv 6 ffvyyevivs xai 
(TTpaTrjybs /ecu iepeus TOU irXrjdovs TU&gt;V 
/j,axa-&lt;-po&lt;j&gt;opwv where (rrparriyos, etc., 
obviously means the commander 
and priest of the association of the 
sword-bearers. In Exodus xii. 6 
and 2 Chron. xxxi. 18 the Hebrew is 
Sn,~, which is more often translated 
by ^KK\r/aia, and similarly in 1 Esdras 
ix. 6f. the tribes of Benjamin and 
Judah are described as a TrXrjdos. 
In Acts vi. 2, 5, xv. 12, xv. 30, 



and perhaps in the Western text of 
xxi. 22, the word wXijOos probably 
means the whole body of Christians, 
practically synonymous with KK\-r)&lt;ria, 
and is perhaps best rendered by 
congregation. In xix. 9 and xxv. 
24 and in Luke i. 10 it means the 
congregation of Jews, and in Luke 
xix. 37 it means the whole body of 
the disciples. But in each case this 
meaning is derived from the context, 
rather than from the word itself, just 
as it is equally clear from the context 
that in xxviii. 3 it means a bundle of 
sticks. In ii. 6 it seems most probably 
to mean the whole body of the pious 
foreigners in Jerusalem, referred to 
in the previous verse, though it might 
be taken to mean the populace, 
which may be the meaning in the 
Western text of xxi. 22. See also 
Addit. Note 30. 

one heart and soul] There is an 
interesting treatment of the expression 
of the need of unity in Hellenistic and 
Christian sources in M. Dibelius, Die 
Christianisierung einer hellenistischen 
Formel, in Neue Jahrbucherf. d. klass. 
Altertumswissenschaft, xxxv., 1915, 
pp. 224 ff. 

33. great power] Or possibly by 
great miracles. 

34. in want] A reference to Deut. 
XV. 4 STL OUK forai ev ffoi v5er)s. 

This verse seems to ignore the pre 
ceding one and to refer directly to 
vs. 32. 

owners] The absence of /cr^rwp from 
other writers sacred or profane is an 
accident, as it is found frequently in 
the papyri (see Preisigke) for owners 
of real estate. 

35. lay it at the apostles feet] 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



49 



36 And Joseph, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, 
which is translated son of exhortation/ a Levite, a Cypriote by 

37 family, having an estate sold it and brought the money and laid 
it at the apostles feet. 

5 i And a certain man, Ananias by name, with Sapphira, his wife, 



Preuschen thinks that this refers to 
an old legal custom, by which in a 
transfer of property the giver places 
it at or under the feet of the receiver. 
The same custom obtained in the 
consecration of sacrifices ; cf . Lucian, 
Philops. 20. 

iv. 36-v. BARNABAS AND ANANIAS. 
For the relation of this short section 
to J a and J b and the problem of the 
early Christian communism see Addit. 
Note 12. 

36. Barnabas] The name is quite 
obscure. It may represent 1:23 na. 
This means son of Nebo, the patron 
of eloquence, and it is difficult 
to think that the apostles or other 
Christians surnamed anyone with 
such a name. Or it may represent 
"13 13, meaning son of a prophet. 
In neither case does the word bear 
any relation to the translation 
given of it son of exhortation. 
But it is a curious fact that though 
vios Trapa/cXTjcrews bears no relation to 
this word, it is a possible translation 
of Manaen (Menahem), who appears 
with Barnabas among the leaders of 
the Church of Antioch in Acts xiii. 1. 
It is possible that the explanation 
originally stood in that list, was by 
some confusion transferred in Luke s 
thought to Barnabas, and inserted by 
him the first time that he spoke of 
Barnabas. A similar difficulty arises 
with the name Elymas or Bar-jesus 
in Acts xiii. 8, where no commentator 
has yet found light. The question 
arises whether these impossible ex 
planations of Semitic names could 
have been given by Luke if he had 
known Aramaic, or was translating it 
(See Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 
307 ff., and ZNTW. vii. pp. 91 f.; E. 
Schwartz, Nachrichten der Ges. der 
Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1907, p. 282, and 
A. Klostermann, Probleme, pp. 8 ff.) 

by the apostles] 0,77-6 ru&gt;v a.Troffrb\wv, 
the reading of the Neutral text, might 

VOL. IV 



possibly go with Barnabas, so that it 
should be translated Joseph who was 
surnamed "Barnabas of the Apostles" 
(so Preuschen), but the translation 
given is perhaps preferable, for in later 
Greek 0,71-6 is often used as vtr6, and 
the reading of the Western and 
Antiochian texts (UTTO), though doubt 
less a correction, shows that it was so 
interpreted in antiquity. 

exhortation] -rrapaKaXdv means to 
exhort, to ask for, or to console, 
but the last is a secondary and in 
duced meaning. The scale seems 
clearly turned in favour of exhorta 
tion by the apparent play on the 
word in xi. 23. See note ad loc. 

family] ru yevei : cf. xviii. 2 and 
24. 7^0? can hardly mean nation 
or race when applied to Jews, and 
family seems nearest to the real 
meaning. 

1. And] Or possibly But. I 
question, however, whether the W 
is adversative. The author seems to 
have strung together a series of state 
ments, &lt;5ie&lt;5t&lt;5ero 5t . . . Iwo-7?0 5e . . . 
dvyp 5^, etc. In each case the dt is 
connective, and it is doubtful whether 
we can pick out one of them and 
treat it as adversative merely because 
of the obvious contrast between Bar 
nabas and Ananias. 

Ananias] The name ,V3jn is not un 
common; cf. Tobit v. 13, Judith viii. 
1, 4 Mace. xvi. 21, Acts ix. 10 and 
xxiii. 2. It means Jehovah is 
gracious. 

Sapphira] D writes Za00upa, which 
Radermacher (p. 40. 1) regards as the 
preferable spelling (cf. Dalman, Gram- 
matik d. jud.-palast. Aram. p. 130- 
n. 1). It doubtless represents NVSS?, 
beautiful. 

property] /cr^ua translates nit? in 
Prov. xxiii. 10, and the use of the word 
in Josephus, B.J. iv. 9. 11, and in P 
Tebt 5. 52, 120. 9, shows that /CTT^O, 
was used of property in land. Verse 
3 shows that it is so used here. 



50 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



sold a property, and embezzled part of the price, his wife also 2 
being cognizant, and brought some part and laid it at the apostles 
feet. And Peter said, " Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart 3 
to lie to the Holy Spirit and to embezzle from the price of 



2. embezzled] A rather obscure 
word, vo&lt;j-&lt;f&gt;L&lt;ra(r6ai, used in Joshua vii. 
1 of Achan, who ^o&lt;r0tVaTo airb rov 
dvad^aros, that is, * kept part of the 
spoil which was consecrated. It is 
possible that the choice of ^oa(pi&lt;raro 
was influenced by a recollection of the 
incident of Achan, for in each story 
there was the idea of property con 
secrated. Achan took the spoil of 
Jericho dedicated to Jehovah, Ananias 
retained private property dedicated to 
the Christian community. The word 
would therefore seem to imply that 
Ananias stole money which did not 
belong to him, or, in other words, 
that he had no right to keep any part 
of his property. No other explana 
tion is possible in view of the evidence 
as to its use. It occurs not infre 
quently in Hellenistic prose (once in 
Xenophon, see below), and always 
implies (a) that the theft is secret; 
(6) that part of a larger quantity is 
purloined, hence it is followed by K 
(Athen. vi. p. 234 a), tv (P Ryl ii. 116. 
10), or ct7r6 (here, LXX Joshua vii. 1, 
and PSI. iv. 442. 4), as well as by other 
partitive constructions; (c) it is to 
be noted further that the verb is less 
commonly used of theft from one 
individual by another than of taking 
to oneself (the lexica use for it 
i5i.oirot.eiff 6 en) what is handled as a 
trust. Thus it is used of the appro 
priation of the property of minors 
by their guardians (Plutarch, Demos. 
iv. p. 847 D, P Ryl ii. 116. 10), of royal 
funds by their ministers or agents, 
and of public funds by state officials 
(P Petr iii. 56 ter ; Philo, De Josepho 
43 258, p. 77 M ; Arrian, Epictet. ii. 
20. 35; Plutarch, Praec. ger. reip. 13, p. 
809 A, Aristid. 4, p. 320 D et alibi), of 
sacred vessels by the high priest 
(2 Mace. iv. 32), of public trust funds 
by trustees (Dittenberger, Syttoge*, 993. 
21), and particularly of the spoils of 
war (Xenophon, Cyropaed. iv. 2. 42; 
Polybius x. 16. 6 ; LXX Joshua vii. 1 ; 
Philo, De vita Mosis, i. 45 253, p. 



121 M; Plutarch, Pomp. 4, p. 620 D, 
cf. 664 c). Of course in such cases 
the property was dedicated to a god 
(cf. TOU avade/jiaro^ in Joshua vii. 1, 
and the fund of Lysander in Sparta 
avaTLdeiMevov 6e$ Athen. vi. p. 234 a). 
It is possible that the author of Acts 
regards the field of Ananias as thus 
vowed or dedicated before it was 
converted into money. A custom of 
dedication in advance was familiar to 
the Jews, as is shown by their use of 
corban in vows. There is a very 
interesting use of the word without 
religious associations in the account 
of the delightful system (xapitvTaTov 
ffvffT^fj.0.) of some agricultural com 
munists in Spain named the Vaccaei. 
According to Diodorus Siculus v. 34. 
3 " they divide the land each year 
and cultivate it, and, regarding the 
produce as common property (TOVS 
Kapwous KoivoiroLov^evoi), they distribute 
to each one a share, and for cultivators 
who keep back anything (rots vovfa- 
ffafji4voit TL yeupyo is) they have fixed 
death as the penalty." Compare the 
use of the verb by Philo for the 
diversion to consumption of grain 
supplied by Joseph to the serfs in 
Egypt for seed, De Josepho, 43 260, 
p. 78 M. In Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 
3 164, the verb is used of a form of 
misrepresentation. The gift which 
Hyrcanus sent to the Romans Anti- 
pater appropriated (tvoa&lt;pi(ra.To) in 
the sense that he sent it as his own, 
not as though Hyrcanus had given it. 

Thus, even without any conscious 
dependence on the passage in the 
LXX, any writer in command of the 
Greek language would have used just 
this verb in such circumstances. Acts 
certainly describes the offence as not 
against men but God. 

3. fill] The attractive variant 
* tempted is widel} r attested, but 
seems to be due to the accidental 
omission of X, producing tTrirjpwcrev (as 
in X), which was wrongly emended to 



v ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 51 

4 the land ? While it remained, did it not remain yours ? And 
when it was sold, it was in your power. Why is it that 
you put this business in your heart ? You did not lie to 

5 men but to God." And as Ananias heard these words, he fell 
down and expired. And there was great fear on all who heard. 

6 And the younger men arose, gathered him up, and took him out 



4. power] Possibly this also is a 
question, was it not in your own 
power ? The Greek is ambiguous ; 
oi&gt;x&lt;- may cover only p.evev or both 
%lj.tvv and virripx.ev. Unfortunately, 
punctuation and translation prevent 
the reproduction of this ambiguity. 

business] -rrpay^a can scarcely be 
rendered act, which would be 
7rpais ; it is very near it, as also in 
the LXX (cf. esp. Josh. ix. 30 (24)). 

God] Because the apostles, being 
filled with the Holy Spirit, were not 
merely the representatives in a 
modern sense of God, but were 
actually God. 

5. expired] ^^ufe is rare in this 
sense, but it is used in modern Greek 
(^e^uxw) and the rendering is con 
firmed by Acts xii. 23. In classical 
Greek awoif/vx^ is customary, but in 
later Greek CK^VXCIV is found. It is 
also sometimes used with the meaning 
to faint. Cf. Ezek. xxi. 7, and see 
Cadbury, Style, p. 56, note 29. 

Can Peter be said to have killed 
Ananias and Sapphira ? The case of 
Ananias is not so clear as that of 
Sapphira, but in both cases the author 
probably means it to be understood 
that power went forth from Peter as 
an apostle inspired by the Holy 
Spirit and slew the offenders, just 
as the same power blinded Elymas 
and threatened damnation to Simon 
Magus. It is possible that the exer 
cise of this power to punish, and even 
to kill, may be referred to in the ob 
scure phrase in 1 Cor. v. 5, to deliver 
such a one to Satan for the destruc 
tion of the flesh. Such a power to 
destroy is the necessary analogue to 
the power to heal and make alive. 

6. younger men] j/ewrepot here and 
veavitTKOi in vs. 10. There is surely no 
suggestion here of any professional 
buriers, but it is possible, though 
scarcely probable, that veurepoi is 



used, in distinction to TrpeajSuTepot, of 
subordinate officials similar to the 
Chazzan of the synagogue. (See O. 
Zockler, Biblische Studien, ii. pp. 
8ff.) 

gathered him up] The meaning of 
avve(TTL\av in this passage is not so 
obvious as translations and com 
mentaries often suggest. The un 
certainty (which was evidently felt 
by the Latin translators) is not re 
moved by the fact that modern 
commentators tend to agree on the 
rendering wrapped. The examples 
cited for this meaning are few and 
unsatisfactory. The common mean 
ing of the word is reduce, contract, 
and this is its force in the medical 

* parallels produced by Hobart and 
in Stephanus s citation of lamblichus, 
Adhort. 34, for decenter operio. In 
Lucian, Imag. 7, the verb is used not 
of the body but of the draperies which 
are wrapped tight; in the scholia 
on Euripides, Orestes 1435, the verb 
is only a variant of some MSS. for 
&lt;rv&lt;TTo\ifa. The best example is 
Euripides, Troades 378 ov Sd/uapros 
ev xepaiiv TreTrXots ffweffTa^crav, where 
again corpses of the dead are the 
subject. But even this passage per 
mits the rendering gather together, 

* gather up. This would be equally 
suitable for the prostrate form of 
Ananias in our passage. In Acts, 
however, there is no dative corre 
sponding to TreTrXots in Euripides. 
The fact, often mentioned, that 
TrepiffTeXXw is used of the decking 
out of the dead for burial has no real 
bearing on o-i/o-rAXw. Furthermore, 
the context does not suggest that this 
or even the shrouding of the corpse 
was done before Sapphira appeared. 
If any preparations for burial are to 
be found in the passage they must be 
in the more nearly technical term for 
it, QfvtyKavTes. It is tempting to 



52 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



and buried him. And there was an interval of about three hours, 7 
and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And 8 
Peter answered her : " Tell me if you were paid so much for the 
land ? " And she said, " Yes, so much." And Peter said to her, 9 
" Why was it agreed upon by you to tempt the spirit of the Lord ? 
Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door 
and will carry you out." And immediately she fell down at his 10 
feet and expired. And the youths came in and found her dead, 
and took her out and buried her by her husband. And there n 



return to some simple meaning as 
* removed (cf . Vulg. amoverunt, Lucif . 
sustulerunt), even though no better 
parallels can be adduced than Plutarch, 
Aratus 22, p. 1037 A. This would not 
make e&veyKavTes superfluous, for that, 
as has been said, applies to the carry 
ing out (of the city) to place of burial, 
while it is natural that the narrator 
should indicate by &lt;rw6rretXaj that the 
corpse of Ananias was out of sight when 
his wife entered the room. The verb 
is used twice referring to Michael s 
burial of Moses in A. Vassiliev s 
Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, vol. i., 
1893, 13, Palaea historica (p. 258), 
Mt%a7?X d 6 apxivrpdrTiyos Trpocrrd^et 
6eou ?)\dev Xafielv avrbv /ecu &lt;rvvffrei\ai 
. . . 6 5 dpxdyyeXos Mt%a7?X crvvforei- 
\ev rb ffK&vufM (i.e. &lt;rKr}v(a/ji.a) Mawo 1 ?; 
STTOV irpoaeTdxdf} irapa 6eov TOV XPKTTOU 
jjfjiuv. Unfortunately the date is 
probably not before the ninth century, 
and even if the thought is derived 
from the Assumption of Moses (see 
R. H. Charles s edition, 1897, p. 1) the 
verb may not go back to its Greek text. 
7. an interval] Or it came to pass 
there being an interval of about 
three hours that his wife (eyevero d 
ws wp&v rpLWv SidcrrT/Mct itai 17 yvvrf). 
A kind of absolute or parenthetic 
nominative. See Viteau, Le Grec du 
N.T. p. 83; Blass-Debrunner, 144; 
J. H. Moulton, Grammar, i. pp. 69 f. 
This is not uncommon with expressions 
of time, e.g. Matt. xv. 32. Here and in 
Luke ix. 28 it is perhaps complicated 
by confusion with Luke s eytvero 5t 
. . . KO.I, and with the paratactic 
expression of time such as we find in 
Mark xv. 25, John iv. 35, xi. 55, and 
in other vernacular writings. 



8. answered] awoKpivevdai can 
hardly be rendered otherwise, but in 
the LXX and in the N.T. it often 
means merely addressed, spoke to. 
Cf. iii. 12. (See Dalman, Words of 
Jesus, p. 24.) 

9. tempt] The concept of tempting 
the Lord (cf. Exodus xvii. 2) seems 
to be the primitive one of seeing how 
far you can go essentially anthropo 
morphic and easily intelligible. 

the feet] A Hebraistic expression 
in fact the whole clause is Hebraistic. 
See the striking expression in 1 Kings 
xviii. 41 (LXX, not M.T.) 0o&gt;r? r&v 

TTOduiV TOV VfTOV. 

11-16. This passage seems to be one 
of the editor s connecting summaries. 
Possibly the opening phrase many 
signs and wonders, etc., was originally 
the termination of the J a narrative 
from which the editor broke off in iv. 
31. He now returns to it down to vs. 
16, when he goes back to J b , so that 
v. 17-42 may perhaps be regarded as 
the end of the narrative which was 
broken off at ii. 42. Undoubtedly, 
however, following his usual custom, 
he freely edited his sources at the 
point of juncture, and it is not easy 
to distinguish the editorial matter 
from the rest. Vs. 11 ( and there 
was great fear on all the church, etc.) 
may be the real end of the story of 
Ananias, but it merely repeats vs. 5 and 
recurs in another editorial summary 
in ii. 43. It may be in its original 
position only in vs. 5, or only in vs. 11. 
Vs. 12 seems to strike a different note 
and to be the legitimate end of the J a 
narrative, so that it should be taken 
with iv. 31. 

The following verses, 12b, 13, and 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



53 



was great fear on all the church, and on all who heard these 
things. 



14, are extremely difficult. Who are 
the all and the rest ? Every 
possible variation has found advocates, 
identifying the all either with the 
apostles or with the Christian com 
munity, and the rest either with the 
other Christians or with the uncon 
verted Jews. No decision can be 
made on grammatical grounds, but 
the general run of the sentence 
suggests that the all are contrasted 
with the apostles rather than identi 
fied with them, and that the rest 
were non- Christians who were afraid 
to join the Church. But this con 
clusion is at once negatived by the 
next sentence, which shows that many 
of the non-Christians actually did join 
the Church. Far the best sense would 
be obtained by translating Ko\\dcr6ai 
by meddle, which has the additional 
advantage of giving a natural meaning 
to /j.a\\ov. This is Blass s suggestion, 
but it is open to the fatal objection 
that there seems to be no clear 
evidence for KoXXaadai in this sense. 
Certainly in the LXX and N.T. it 
always means to join (cf. esp. Acts 
viii. 29, ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 34). Thus 
in spite of their superficial simplicity 
vss. 12-14 remain a complete puzzle. 

Furthermore, it is clear that the 
&&amp;lt;rre is connected with vs. 12a, " and 
by the hands of the apostles were 
done signs and many wonders among 
the people, so that . . ." There 
fore, without accepting S pitta s view 
that two sources have been combined, 
I incline to think that vss. 12b-14 are 
editorial. This is confirmed by the fact 
that almost every phrase in them can 
be paralleled from other summary 
passages, v. 12b = ii. 46a=d. 14a; 
v. 13b = ii. 47a = iv. 33b; v. 14 = 
ii. 47b (see also Addit. Note 12). The 
question might indeed be raised 
whether the whole passage is not 
editorial. This is possible, but I 
think that the confusion of ideas is 
best explained as due to the expansion 
of a source. Were it all the work of 
the editor he would probably have 
been clearer. 

F. C. Burkitt suggests that Ko\\a&lt;rdai 
implies that no one dared join the 



Christians on his own authority; 
each one had to be accepted and 
baptized. But this scarcely seems 
to fit well with the following verse. 

11. fear] Cf. v. 5 and ii. 43. 

church] This is the first time that 
KK\T)(Tia is used. Its exact meaning 
and implication are a more compli 
cated problem than might appear at 
first. ^KK\rjffia is used in all early 
Christian literature as the technical 
Greek term for the Christian com 
munity. The evidence of the Pauline 
Epistles shows that this use belongs 
to the earliest period of Greek-speaking 
Christianity. It was used to distin 
guish the lKK\t]ffia of the Christians 
from the Synagogue of the Jews. 
Probably this use soon took with it 
the implication that the Church was 
the true people of God, because 
6KK\r)ffia is often used in the LXX to 
translate Qahal C?np) the Congrega 
tion of Israel. But at the time de 
scribed in Acts i.-v. there was clearly 
no suggestion on the part of Peter 
that the Christians formed a separate 
religious organization which was a 
rival to that of the Jews. They were 
a community within Judaism, not 
external to it. They had a way of 
salvation, and a method of living 
which distinguished them from other 
Jews. To make a parallel (which 
must not be pressed too far) with 
Catholic history, they were in the 
position of Modernists, not of Pro 
testants. Thus though the writer of 
Acts may have used the word here, 
by an easily understood anachronism, 
the word cannot be given the signi 
ficance which it afterwards had, any 
more than its use in 1 Cor. xv. 9 can 
be used to prove that even before Paul s 
conversion the Christians claimed to be 
the Ecclesia of God to the exclusion 
of the Jews. Paul here merely used 
the word which custom dictated, or 
possibly was influenced by his own 
recognition that in fact the Christians, 
not the Jews, were the Ecclesia of 
God. 

It is, however, improbable that 
this word 6KK\r)ala would have been 
so quickly and universally used had 



54 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY v 

And by the hands of the apostles were done signs and many 12 
wonders among the people. And they were all together in the 
colonnade of Solomon, and of the rest no one dared join them. 13 
But the people magnified them, and more than ever believers 14 
were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, 
so that they actually brought out the sick in the streets, 15 



there been nothing in Christian usage 
to suggest it in the period before 
the rupture with Judaism. Nor is it 
difficult to trace the probable course 
of events. Undoubtedly the Christians 
in Jerusalem formed a synagogue of 
their own, for any ten Jews could do 
this. Their name at that time may 
have been Nazarenes, and if so their 
synagogue would have been in Aramaic 
the Kenishta (Heb. Keneseth) of the 
Nazarenes. The natural Greek for 
Keneseth would be a-wayuyri, Trpov- 
eux??, *or 4KK\-r)ffia. Neither in Greek 
nor in Aramaic would this name imply 
a rupture with the Congregation of 
Israel, any more than this was implied 
by the Keneseth of the Libertini or 
the Keneseth of any other body of 
Jews who had organized a synagogue 
with a distinctive name. But as soon 
as the rupture with Judaism was really 
accomplished, the fact that e/c/cX^o-ta 
was used in the LXX to translate 
Qahal would fit well with the claim of 
the Christians that they, rather than 
the Jews, were the true People of 
God. The use of the word and the 
theory of the Church would lend 
strength to one another. It is possible 
that the use of TJ ovcra ^KK\T)&lt;ria in Acts 
xiii. 1 may be the author s recogni 
tion of the fact that the KK\t]ala in 
Antioch, neither heathen nor Jewish, 
but specifically Christian, was really a 
new fact, and that the word ^/c/fX^cria 
did not mean quite the same as it did 
in the earlier passages. But the fact 
that KK\rj&lt;rLa was originally a render 
ing of Keneseth made natural the 
double use of the word, both in Acts 
and elsewhere, to describe both a local 
community (so that it was possible 
to speak of the Churches ) and also 
the universal society the People of 
God, the Church. I doubt whether 
the use of the word in heathen Greek 
to describe the assembly of a city has 



any importance, but see Ramsay, St. 
Paul the Traveller, pp. 124 ff. 

The evolution of ^/c/cXr/crta and the 
idea it conveys is both like and unlike 
that of Ktipios. It is like, for in each 
case the connotation of the word 
played a considerable part in the 
development of Christianity; but it 
is also unlike, for the important con 
notation of Kvpios was that which it 
had in Greek and Greco -Oriental 
religious usage, and the important 
connotation of e/c/cXTjo-ta was that de 
rived from the LXX and the concept 
of a chosen people of God. Kvpios 
tended to Hellenize Christianity, 
tKK\-r](ria to preserve the essential 
thought of Judaism. (See F. J. A. 
Hort, The ChristianEcclesia; A. Deiss- 
mann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 
112 ff.; Addit. Note 30, and Vol. I. 
pp.32Zff.) 

12. together] 6[j,o6vfM56i&gt; occurs ten 
times in Acts, and once in the Pauline 
Epistles, but not elsewhere in the 
N.T. Etymologically it means with 
the same desire or with one accord, 
but in Hellenistic Greek it probably 
had come to mean simply together. 
In the Monumentum Ancyranum it 
renders apud omnia pulvinaria. Cf. 
E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 
p. 63 ; H. J. Cadbury, Journal of Bib 
lical Literature, xliv. (1925), pp. 216 ff. 

Solomon] See note on iii. 11 and 
Addit. Note 35. 

14. were added] or possibly joined, 
for in spite of the active form in ii. 
47, TrpoffcridevTO here, -rrpoaeTedrjaav in 
ii. 41, and TrpoaeT^dr] in xi. 24 may be 
deponent forms. 

to the Lord] ru Kvp up probably goes 
with TrpofferidevTO (cf. xi. 24). irLffrevit) 
in Acts more often takes eiri, but on 
the other hand cf. xviii. 8. 

15-16. There is a close parallel to 
these verses in Mark vi. 56 /ecu 6Vou 
&v etVeTTOpeuero els K&lt;jJfJ.as f) ets TroXeis f) 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



55 



and put them on couches and beds in order that even the shadow 
1 6 of Peter as he came might overshadow one of them. And there 
was assembled also the populace of the cities near Jerusalem, 
bringing the sick and distressed by unclean spirits, who were 
healed, all of them. 



els dypovs, v rats dyopals trideaaiv roi)s 
dadevovvTas, Kai irapeK&Xovv avr6v, tva, 
K&V TOV Kpaa"ir4dov rov I^OLT LOV avrou 

a\f/UVTOLL KO.I OffOL &V r/\f/0.t&gt;TO aVTOV, 

t&lt;Tu$ovTo, which may be the source of 
this verse. The matter is somewhat 
complicated by the fact that Mark vi. 
56 is part of the section of Mark 
which Luke omitted in the composi 
tion of his Gospel. But it is almost 
certain that Luke knew this section, 
though he did not use it, so that this 
verse may be an editorial expansion 
based, as so often, on material in one 
of his sources, which he did not use at 
the place in his own narrative where 
it would naturally have come. It 
should be noted that this comment 
applies only to the source of the de 
scription. The fact that the healing 
powers of the early Christians roused 
great popular enthusiasm is un 
doubted. The only question is the 
source of the language used in Acts 
to describe it. (See Addit. Note 31.) 

15. so that they actually] &&amp;lt;jre KO.L 
occurs in the similar sentence xix. 11 
and not again in Luke s writings. It 
is characteristic of him to use the 
same construction in similar though 
often widely separated narratives, 
e.g. KO.OOTI &v with the indicative in ii. 
45 and iv. 35, or irpb TOVTUV r&v i]fjiepu)f 
in v. 36 and xxi. 38, or el /cat . . . 8id 
ye in Luke xi. 8 and xviii. 4. Prob 
ably in both cases xa.1 might well be 
left untranslated in English, as indeed 
frequently when it follows relative 
pronouns and conjunctions. 

in the streets] Or possibly it may 
be they brought out into the 
streets, but in Greek of this kind els 
has so far lost its original meaning that 
it is impossible to say whether it is or is 
not a synonym for ev. The reading 
of D (/card for /cat els rds) is not con 
firmed by the Latin, and is possibly a 
corruption. If it be original the 
omission of the article is significant 
( on street ), but it is a harsh phrase, 



and the Antiochian text added the 
article. The word TrXaretat is of course 
really an adjective with ellipse of 68ot, 
the * broad streets as distinguished 
from the narrow side alleys, but it 
was so often used thus that it was 
practically a substantive. 

couches and beds] K\ivapio&gt;i&gt; xa.1 
Kpaf3a.TTwv. It is quite unknown what 
is the exact difference of meaning, if 
any, between K\ifrj, K\Lvi5iov, K\ivdpiov 
and /cpd/Sarroy, but K\ii&gt;dpiov is a less 
common diminutive than K\tvldioi&gt;, 
which Luke substitutes for /cpd/3arros 
of Mark in Luke v. 19 and 24. Both 
diminutives are used also by Marcus 
Aurelius, Artemidorus and Pollux, and 
K\ivdpioi&gt; by Aristophanes and by 
Arrian in his discourses of Epictetus. 
That the later MSS. substitute K\tvi) for 
it here is in accordance with their purist 
tendencies. The lexica do not mention 
the occurrence in Marcus Aurelius xi. 
18 nor the Ptolemaic papyrus PSI. 
vi. 616. 14. Luke seems here to have 
followed his custom of emending /c/m- 
PO.TTOI&gt;, but instead of substituting 
K\ivdpiov for KpdfiaTTOjt he uses both 
words, as he often does. 

shadow] This belief in the healing 
magic of Peter s shadow has its 
parallel in the value attached to Paul s 
handkerchief (xix. 12). It survives 
in the belief in the efficacy of relics. 
For a full discussion of this and 
similar beliefs in the ancient world 
see 0. Weinreich, Antike Heilungs- 
wunder (Rdigionsgeschichtl. Versuche 
und Vorarbeiten, viii. p. 1). 

Peter] Or should it be rendered in 
order that, as Peter came, even his 
shadow, etc. ? In other words, is 
epxo/j-evov Herpov a genitive absolute 
or is it dependent on 0-/ad ? In 
classical Greek the genitive would 
doubtless be dependent, but I strongly 
suspect that here it is absolute. 

one of them] The Western text adds 
for they were healed from all sick 
ness, such as each of them had. 



56 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



And there stood up the high priest and all who were with 17 
him, the local school of the Sadducees, and were filled with anger 



17. stood up] avaards. A common 
Lucan phrase, apparently based on the 
LXX ( = Hebrew mp, cf. too Torrey, 
p. 32), and little more than a copula. 
The textual evidence given in Vol. III. 
p. 48 strongly suggests that the 
African Latin translated a Greek text 
reading "Kwas de 6 dpxtepetfs instead of 
avaffras S 6 dp%. It is possible that 
this was the original Western text, 
and that D has been accommodated 
to the B-text. In favour of the origin 
ality of the reading are the facts that 
Luke seems to have thought that 
Annas was high priest at this time 
(see iv. 6), and that the grammar of 
the B - text is harsh. The correct 
reading would be dj/ao-rdi/res de . . . 
av, but an exact parallel to 
as is found in vs. 21 (Trapa.yfv6fj.evos 
vs Kal oi &vv avT(j)*o~vveK.a\eaav 
KT\. : see the note on that verse). 
Against it is transcriptional prob 
ability. No reviser or scribe is likely 
to have objected to the ascription of 
the high priesthood to Annas, but 
dmcrrds may easily have been read 
accidentally a,s"A.was, especially after 
the phrase in iv. 6 (see also Vol. II. 
p. 56). 

the local school of the Sadducees] 
The translation who were the sect of 
the Sadducees which makes this a 
description of the persons just named 
has perhaps sufficient grammatical 
justification, the assimilation of o$(ra 
to the predicate noun being quite 
common (Kiihner-Gerth, 369. 3), and 
the assimilation of 77 oftcra not im 
possible, though no parallels are given 
in the grammar. Historically too we 
need not doubt that the high priest 
and his more intimate associates (ol 
&lt;ri&gt;v airrcjJ, cf. iv. 6 /cat ocroi 3)&lt;ra.v K 
ytvovs dpxtepart/coO) were members of 
the Sadducean party, though not 
the whole party. But the articular 
use of the participle &v elsewhere in 
Acts suggests that some more idiom 
atic usage lies behind the participle 
here. The other passages are xiii. 1 
?icrav d iv AjTt0xei$ Karen rrjv ofiffav 
^KK\fiffiav 7rpo0?7rat /crX. ; xiv. 13 ol 5e 
iepets roD 6Vroj Atos IIp07r6Xeo;s (or irpb 
TroXews) D, where KB, etc., read 6 re 



tepei)s TOV Atos TOV 6Wos trpb r?}s 7r6Xews) ; 
xxviii. 17 eyevero d /zero, ij/j^pas rpet? 
&lt;rvyKa\e?cr6ai avrbv roi)s ovras rwv 
lovdaiuv Trpcoroi s. Ramsay, The Church 
in the Roman Empire, p. 52, makes a 
suggestion, derived from J. Armitage 
Robinson, that " it introduces some 
technical phrase, or some term which 
it marks out as having an almost 
technical sense, and is almost equiva 
lent to TOV 6vofjM^ofJt^vov." Now Luke 
is in the habit of apologizing for 
technical terms, particularly if they 
are foreign words, whether translated 
or left untranslated or omitted in the 
Greek text by the use of Xeyo^ei/os, 
Ka\ov[j.ei&gt;os, ovo/mari, etc. (Cadbury, 
Style, pp. 154 ff.), so that the suggested 
usage of 6 &v would not be unique, 
but neither cupecrts ^addovKaiuv nor 
e/c/cX^crta nor Zeus TrpoTroXts nor Trpurrot 
TUV lovdaiwv represents a foreign term. 
He has frequently used cupecrts, a- 
SovKaToi, KK\r]0 ia, TrpuJrot with no such 
apology (see also Vol. II. p. 57). 

A more probable suggestion is that 
the participle is a redundant qualifi 
cation referring to what was existent 
at the place mentioned or the time 
mentioned, for which our English 
equivalents would be local and 
current respectively. The papyri 
give evidence of some such idiom 
when they speak of the current month 
as roO OVTOS U.-TJVOS with the name of the 
month, or they avoid long formulas 
with unnecessary details by such 
phrases (quoted in Moulton and Milli- 
gan, Vocabulary, p. 185) as e&lt;p iepewv 
Kaliepei&v . . . TUJV ovrwv Kal ovv&v * in 
the term of the priests and priestesses 
then in office, iri rats o&rais yeirvi ats 
on the basis of the existing boundaries. 
Cf . xiii. 1 the local church ; xxviii. 
17 the local Jewish leaders or the 
Jewish leaders of that time ; Rom. 
xiii. 1 the powers that be (al d 
oDcrat, sc. e^ovaiac), and even Ephesians 
i. 1 j&lt;B al to the local saints and 
believers in Jesus Christ (roty ergots 
rots ofiffLv Kal Trtcrrots ev xptcrrw I^crou). 

As further examples from the papyri 
Moulton gave in the last form of his 
Prolegomena (Einleitung in die Sprache 
des N.T. p. 360) P Tebt 309 ( A.D. 2) 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



57 



1 8 and laid hands on the apostles and publicly put them in custody. 

19 But an angel of the Lord in the night opened the doors of the 

20 prison and brought them out and said, " Go and stand in the 

21 Temple and speak to the people all the words of this life." And 
when they heard they went in at dawn into the Temple and began 
to teach. Now when there came the high priest and those who 
were with him they summoned the Sanhedrin and all the senate 



airb TOV 8i&gt;Tos v KU/J.T] [rov teooD] deov 
ftey&\ov Kp6vov ; P Lille 29. 11 (3 B.C.) 
TOUS vb/movs TOUS irepl r&v olKT(Jov 8vras 
* the laws that are in force about ser 
vants, to which we may add Wessely, 
Stud. Pal. XX. 12. 21 -rrpbs rrjv ovaai&gt; 
rrjs A/or^uetTos Karoxw- The formula 
^0 ieptwv Kal lepeitiv Kal Kavr)(popov 
T&V 6vrwv also occurs in BGU. 997, 
998, 999, 1000, and P Grenf i. 27, all 
about the year 100 B.C., and elsewhere. 
It is doubtful whether this means, 
as Moulton thought, that the names 
of the eponymous priests were not 
known ; rather it indicates that about 
this time the naming of the eponymous 
priests was discontinued though the 
older formula was not entirely omitted. 
See the lists in W. Otto, Priester und 
Tempel, 1905, i. pp. 172 ff. ; Plaumann, 
in Pauly-Wissowa, viii. (1913) col. 
1439 ff., B.V. Hiereis. In P Hamb 57 
(160 B.C.) we have e0 iepews TOV 8i&gt;ros 
tv A.\e^avdpeia without the name of 
the incumbent, and four lines later 
after the names of three priestesses 
TWV ovff&v ev AXe^avdpeia. For a full 
collection and classification of ex 
amples from the papyri (of the Ptole 
maic period) see E. Mayser, Grammatik 
der griech. Papyri, n. i. pp. 347 f . He 
calls this use of 6 &v, rj oScra "eine 
fur die hellenistische Kanzleisprache 
besonders charakteristische, wie es 
scheint volkstumliche (auch im N.T. 
nachgewiesene) Manier." His point 
is that the addition of &v or ovaa made 
very little difference to the sense it 
was merely a verbal flourish. 

The view of Torrey (Composition, 
pp. 32 f., 37) that in v. 17 and xiii. 1 
the Greek is due to translation of an 
Aramaic idiom is answered in Vol. II. 
pp. 56 f. by de Zwaan, who thinks 
Luke s usage is derived from such 
uses of the participle with adverbial 
modifier as occur in xvi. 3, xxii. 5, 



xxv. 23, xix. 35. For the rendering 
of a lpecris see note on xv. 5. 

18. publicly] S^ocrta is used else 
where as an adverb (xvi. 37, xviii. 
28, xx. 20), so that this rendering is 
probably preferable, but it might be 
translated put them into a public 
prison and it is found transliterated 
in Rabbinical writings with the mean 
ing prison (see Strack, ii. p. 635). 

19. opened the doors] Cf. the 
miraculous release of Peter in xii. 7 ff. 
and of Paul in xvi. 25 ff. 

20. this life] Whether this phrase 
translates an Aramaic original or not, 
it doubtless represents a word which 
could be rendered both by ^WT? and 
a-wT-rjpia, just as conversely fjj^^ life 

is used in Syriac to render awnpia. 
See F. C. Burkitt s notes in his Evan- 
gelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. ii. pp. 78, 
81, and 287. Nevertheless, the this 
is curious. 

21. came] 7rap&lt;ryez 6 y u,ei os is the read 
ing of all MSS. of both families except 
B, which reads Trapayev6fj.ei&gt;oL. Unless 
this is a mere slip perhaps partly due 
to the Trapayevofj-evoc of the next verse, 
it is interesting as showing that some 
scribes felt the objection to the use 
of a particle in the singular to qualify 
more than one substantive. This 
feeling may possibly have helped to 
produce the reading "Ai/j/as for dz/ao-rds 
in vs. 17. But I am not sure that 
the Trapayei&gt;6/u.evos of D really repre 
sents the original Western text. The 
/ecu before d,TrtcrTei\av suggests that 
the Western reading may have been 
irapeyeveTO. 

Sanhedrin and all the senate] 
These phrases mean the same. In 
CIO. ii. 3417 the same body is named 
first yepovaia and later aw5piov TU&gt;V 
irpefffivrtpuv, and in Cagnat, Inscrip- 
tiones Graecae, iv. 836. 7, occurs the 



58 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



of the children of Israel, and they sent to the jail for them to be 
brought. But when the officers came they did not find them in 22 
the prison, and they returned and reported, saying, " The jail 23 
we found fastened with all security and the guards standing at the 
doors, but on opening we found no one within." And when they 24 
heard these words, both the controller of the Temple and the 
high priests, they were perplexed about them, what was this that 
had happened. And there came a man who reported to them, 25 
" Behold, the men whom you put in the prison are standing in the 
Temple and teaching the people." Then the controller went off 26 
with his officers and brought them, not with violence, for they 
feared the people lest they should be stoned. And they brought 27 
them, and stood them in the Sanhedrin. And the high priest 
questioned them saying, " We emphatically enjoined you to give 28 
up teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem 



27. questioned] The Western read 
ing is interesting. It seems to have 
been and the controller (aTpaTtjyos, 
see note on iv. 1) began to say. Was 
there any tradition that the Sagan 
acted as prosecutor ? 

28. We enjoined] Referring to iv. 18. 
TrapayyeXiq, TraprjyyeiXa/uiei . It is tempt 
ing to use the English word injunc 
tion to render Trapayye\la. But 
that is probably both too negative 
and too technical for -rrapayyeXia. 
The papyri indicate that in Egypt 
TrapayyeXia was a legal terminus 
technicus, but it indicated a summons 
to court, a litis denunciatio, either 
the procedure or the document 
(eyy/xxTTTo? irapayyeXia) that embodied 
it. The latter, at least prior to the 
fourth century A.D., was a complaint 
sent by the plaintiff to the strategus 
to be forwarded to the accused, 
setting forth the complaint and 
ordering the defendant to appear 
before the PTJUO.. Examples of the 
word and the document occur in 
P Goodsp 5 (157 B.C.), P Tebt 434, 
P Oxy 484 (A.D. 2). See Mitteis, 
Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der 
Papyruskunde, n. i. pp. 36 ff., ii. Nos. 
50-56. 

But the term is used also of other 
documents, e.g. written notifications 



expression r&lt; ae/j-voTdru} crvvedpiip yepov- 
trtas. Both inscriptions belong to Asia 
Minor and the imperial period. G. F. 
Moore (Judaism, i. pp. 260 ff.) says, 
" The older name yepovaia is replaced 
by &lt;rvvt8pi.ov, which in the language of 
the time had come to mean court 
rather than council. " The use of 
children of Israel for the Jews shows 
that Luke is writing in archaic style. 
Elsewhere in his writings Israel occurs 
only in discourse, never in narrative. 
Simitar phrases are found in LXX, 
e.g. Exod. xii. 21 -jracrav yepov&lt;riai&gt; viuv 
laparjX. It is, however, not impossible 
that Luke thought that the Jews had 
at their head a deliberative as well 
as a judicial body. (See also Lietz- 
mann, ZWTh. Iv. (1913) p. 125, who 
treats this and similar twofold ex 
pressions as influenced by archaizing 
formulae.) 

all] When TTUS is used by Luke 
with a noun after /ecu it represents 
a characteristic generalization. 

26. off] See note on xvii. 10. 

not with violence] The not is 
omitted by D, probably by accident 
in assimilating the Western text 
to another standard. The original 
Western text was doubtless fjyayev 
avrovs, ctXA ov fj-era /3tas, 0o/3oi/yu,e^os 
TOV Xaov (see note, Vol. III. p. 50). 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



59 



with your teaching and wish to bring on us the blood of this man." 
29 And Peter answered, and the apostles, and they said, "It is 
3 necessary to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers 

raised up Jesus whom you did away with, hanging him on a tree. 

31 Him did God by his right hand exalt as Captain and Saviour to 

32 give repentance to Israel and the remission of sins. And we are 
witnesses of these words, and so is the Holy Spirit which God gave 



that owners must not count on their 
present tenants to continue their 
duties: P Giss 82. 20; P Lond 1231. 
16 ; P Strass 74. 13 (all A.D. 2). In all 
these cases the word is not more pro 
hibitory than in Acts xvi. 24 -n-ap- 
ayyeXLav TotavTr)v \af3&lt;Jji&gt; (cf. P Amh 
68. 63 -rrapayye\iav Act/Soi/ras). irapdy- 
ye\/u.a P Amh 50. 5, etc., is apparently 
a synonym for this untechnical usage, 
and apparently both words are used 
of the notification of the strategus in 
A.D. 260 (P Oxy 1411) to bankers 
and all others engaged in commercial 
enterprises that they must accept the 
new imperial coinage. The probable 
reading in this document (lines 7-9) 
dvdyKrj yeytvrjTai. Trapayye\/Ji.aTL Trapay- 
Trdai rots rds rpcnr^as KCKTTJ- 
should be a warning to those 
who find a Semitic idiom or transla 
tion in TrapayyeXLq. Trapr)yyei\a/j.ei . For 
similar cognate datives in this writer 
cf. Luke xxii. 15 ; Acts ii. 17 (LXX) ; 
iv. 17 [dTretAf?] dtreLX-rjcrufjieBa, to which 
the present passage refers ; xxiii. 14. 

the blood] Contrast Matt, xxvii. 25. 

29. And Peter answered] The West 
ern text is interesting : " And Peter 
answered and said to him, Whom 
is it right to obey, God or men ? and 
he said, God." This text has been 
contaminated in D but is preserved 
in the African Latin (see Vol. III. 
p. 53). 

to obey God, etc.] Repeating iv. 19. 
The cross references to chap. iv. 
here and in the previous verse show 
that either the narrative was always 
continuous, or, if we adopt Harnack s 
theory that this imprisonment of the 
apostles is identical with that in 
chap, iv., these allusions must be 
regarded as editorial. The arguments 
for Harnack seem to be the stronger 
if a general view be taken, for the op 
posite opinion if the details be pressed. 



30-32. This account of Peter s ad 
dress has in common with iii. 13 ff. 
much not only of its thought but also 
of its wording, dpxnyov vs. 15, oC ^uets 
/mdpTVpfs eff/J-ev ibid., fj.Ta.vorjao.T . . . 
d/napTias VS. 19, 6 debs T&V TraiTepwv 
7)fj.wv edb^acrev . . . lijaovv VS. 13. Cf. 
also ii. 32 f. oC TrdvTes r)fj.els efffj.ev fjidp- 
Tvpes. TTJ det o$v rod deov v^uOeis 
. . . TOV irvevfj.a.Tos TOV dyiov. 

30. whom you] The whole point of 
Peter s short speech is that the guilt 
of the Crucifixion really does rest on 
the priests. 

did away with] cuexei/Ho-acrfle (cf. 
xxvi. 21) is a not unusual word for 
procuring someone s death (see Kypke 
ad loc.). The nearest parallel in form 
is perhaps the American slang * to put 
a man through, Anglice do him in, 
meaning to kill. 

hanging him on a tree] The re 
ference to Deut. xxi. 22 is doubtless 
primary, but the Latin formula for 
crucifixion is similar, infelici arbori 
reste suspendito. See Livy i. 26 and 
Cicero, Pro Rabirio, iv. 13, in reference 
to the trial of the Horatii. According 
to Mommsen (Strafrecht, p. 918, n. 6) 
suspendere is the key-word in Roman 
crucifixion, which developed from the 
ancient custom of crucifying slaves. 
The name of the stake to which the 
criminal was attached was originally 
called furca and afterwards crux. 
Though the use of %v\ov for a tree or 
for wooden stocks (cf. xvi. 24) is 
paralleled outside the Bible, its use 
for a cross or impaling stake in 
Christian Greek may be attributed 
to the LXX and the Hebrew, which 
uses the same word for a tree and 
for the pole (perhaps originally a tree) 
on which criminals were suspended 
after execution. 

32. words] Or possibly events. See 
note on x. 37. 



60 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



to those who are obeying him." And when they heard they were 33 
deeply wounded and wished to kill them. But there arose a man in 34 
the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, by name Gamaliel, a scholar honoured 
by all the people, and commanded to put the men outside for a 
short time, and said to them, " Men of Israel, take heed to your- 35 
selves with regard to these men, what you are going to do. For 36 
some time before this arose Theudas saying that he was someone, 
a number of men, about four hundred, became his followers, and 



34. Gamaliel] C?N^pj=the recom 
pense of God.) The eldest of three 
rabbis. The Mishna, Shab. 15 a Bar., 
says "Hillel, Simeon, Gamaliel and 
Simeon held the Nasiat (presidency 
of the Council) for a hundred years, 
while the temple still stood." It is 
known that Gamaliel was a descendant 
of Hillel, and the second Simeon was 
his son, but nothing is known of the 
first Simeon and his existence has 
been doubted. It is also believed 
that the baraita is wrong in saying 
that these four were presidents of 
the Sanhedrin, for until the fall of 
Jerusalem this office always belonged 
to the high priest. Gamaliel I. is 
mentioned in the Mishna as modifying 
the Sabbath law and the law of 
divorce, in each case in the interest 
of convenience and justice. He 
allowed the usual freedom of move 
ment on the Sabbath (2000 cubits) to 
those watching for the new moon to 
establish the beginning of the month, 
and forbade the annulling of divorce 
proceedings to be carried out in such 
a way as to be unknown to the wife. 
The statement in Lightfoot, Opera 
ii. 181, that Gamaliel was connected 
with the school at Jamnia is a con 
fusion with his grandson Gamaliel II. 
(A.D. 90). The same is true of the 
statement that there were 1000 
scholars in his house, which Schiirer 
in Riehm s Handworterbuch applies 
to Gamaliel I. It really refers to 
Gamaliel II. According to Acts xxii. 
3 Paul was a pupil of Gamaliel in 
Jerusalem. For the difficulties raised 
by this statement see the note on that 
verse. There is a full list of references 
in Jewish literature to Gamaliel I. in 
S brack, ii. pp. 636 ff. Cf. also Schiirer, 
OJV. 4th ed., ii. p. 429. 



36. For some time before this] Lit. 
before these days, cf . i. 5 ; xxi. 38. 

Theudas] The only Theudas who 
is known to have raised any insur 
rection is mentioned by Josephus, 
Antiq. xx. 5. If.: " Now while Fadus 
was procurator of Judaea a sorcerer 
named Theudas persuaded a great 
crowd to take their possessions and 
follow him to the river Jordan, for he 
said that he was a prophet and that 
he could divide the river by his 
command and give them an easy 
passage across it. By saying this he 
deceived many. Fadus, however, did 
not allow them to enjoy their madness 
but sent out a squadron of cavalry 
against them which made an unex 
pected attack. It killed many and 
took many alive, but when they cap 
tured Theudas himself, they cut off 
his head and took it to Jerusalem." 
Since Fadus was Procurator after the 
death of Agrippa I. (A.D. 44) it is not 
possible that Gamaliel referred to 
Theudas some years before that date. 
The mention of Judas of Galilee as 
later than Theudas is also difficult, 
for Judas rebelled in A.D. 6. Two 
explanations are tenable: (i.) there 
was an otherwise unknown Theudas 
earlier than Judas ; (ii.) Luke invented 
this speech and became confused in 
his chronology by a mistaken reading 
of either (a) Josephus, or (6) the 
source of Josephus, who happens in 
Antiq. xx. 5 to mention Judas after 
Theudas. There is no evidence at all 
in support of the first. The second 
depends on a general judgement on 
the speeches in Acts and on Luke s 
general practice (see also Vol. II. pp. 
355 fL). There is no reason to think 
that Theudas or Judas of Galilee 
really put themselves forward as 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



61 



he was killed, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed 

37 and came to nothing. After him arose Judas the Galilean in the 

days of the census, and stirred some of the people to revolt after 



Messiahs rather than as rebels against 
Rome. 

became followers] irpoffK\l6ri, with 
a suggestion of condemnation. 

killed] The argument of Gamaliel 
is that Jesus has been killed, just as 
were Theudas and Judas. If Jesus 
really had no more importance than 
Theudas or Judas his followers will 
disappear, as did theirs. Failure to 
see that this is the meaning led to 
changes in the text, especially to the 
reading of Eusebius, H.E. ii. 11. 1 
(Kare\v67j for dvypedri), which enforces 
the argument by using the same word 
as in vss. 38 and 39. 

37. Judas the Galilean] Cf. Jose- 

fhus, B. J. ii. 8. 1. But in Antiq. xviii. 
. 6 it is said that he was a man of 
Gaulanitis and came from Gamala, 
near the eastern shore of the sea of 
Galilee. (Cf. Antiq. xx. 5. 2.) See 
Vol. I. pp. 12 f. and 421 ff. 

the census] This was made by 
Quirinius in A.D. 6. The reference 
here must be to this census because 
of its connexion with Judas of Galilee 
(Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1). 
The difficult question is whether this 
allusion to the census ought not to 
be taken as a reference to the census 
mentioned in Luke ii. 2. If there 
were no other difficulties involved 
this would probably never have been 
doubted. But from Josephus it is 
certain that the insurrection of Judas 
was in the census of A.D. 6, and this 
is incompatible with (a) the state 
ment of Luke i. 5 that these events 
happened in the days of Herod, King 
of Judaea ; (b} the similar statement 
in Matthew ii. 1 which indicates that 
tradition placed the birth of Jesus 
in the reign of Herod the Great, who 
died in 4 B.C. Josephus gives no hint 
of any earlier census, and it is extremely 
unlikely that Herod would ever have 
numbered the people in defiance of 
Jewish prejudice. It has, however, 
been attempted, notably by W. M. 
Ramsay, to argue that there was a 
census of the Roman Province of Syria 
in 9 B.C. or thereabouts, and that this 



was extended to the neighbouring 
kingdom of Judaea. This attempt 
has scarcely succeeded, but it has 
added considerably to our knowledge 
of Roman history and administration. 
It seems therefore useful to sum 
marize the results of this rather con 
troversial investigation. 

(i.) Mommsen (Res Gestae Divi 
Augusti, pp. 168 ff.), de Rohden and 
Dessau (Prosopographia Imperii Ro- 
mani, iii. pp. 287 ff.), and W. M. 
Ramsay (The Bearing of Recent Dis 
covery, etc., pp. 275 ff.) have shown 
that Quirinius was undoubtedly in the 
East as Legatus of the Emperor during 
a period covering the years 10-6 B.C., 
and he may have been governor of 
Syria at this time. In any case, how 
ever, he was busy with a war on the 
northern frontier, rather than engaged 
in a serious and unpopular fiscal 
measure in a district outside his juris 
diction. 

(ii.) It has also been shown by 
Mitteis and Wilcken, Papyruskunde, 
i. 1, pp. 192 ff., Grenfell and Hunt, 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. nos. 254 f . and 
pp. 207 ff., Ramsay, Was Christ Born 
at Bethlehem ? chap, vii., and Bearing 
of Recent Discovery, pp. 255 ff ., that 
Augustus instituted a census of the 
Empire on the basis of a fourteen -year 
cycle. There are actual census papers 
of the years A.D. 62 and 34 (seeMoulton 
and Milligan, Vocabulary, pp. 59 f . ), and 
probable references to the years A.D. 
48, 20, and 6 (P Oxy ii. nos. 254, 
255, and 256), and it can be traced 
from A.D. 62 on down to 258. It is 
therefore possible that the census of 
A.D. 6 in Judaea under Quirinius may 
have been connected with this system. 

(iii.) There seems to be as yet no 
proof that the system was intro 
duced by Augustus before A.D. 6. It 
began in Egypt, and there is no clear 
evidence that it was regularly prac 
tised in other districts at least until 
much later. The census of A.D. 6 by 
Quirinius would be a natural pro 
cedure when a new district was taken 
into the provincial system of the 



62 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



him. And he perished, and all who obeyed him were scattered. 
And in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and 38 
let them alone, for if this plan or this work be of men, it will be 
destroyed ; but if it be of God, you cannot destroy them, lest you 39 
be found to be fighting even against God." And they yielded to 40 
him, and called the apostles and scourged them, and enjoined them 
to give up speaking in the name of Jesus, and dismissed them. 
So then they went rejoicing from the presence of the Sanhedrin, 41 
because they had been found worthy for the sake of the name 



Empire and be independent of any 
periodic census. 

(iv.) There is no trace of any census 
in Judaea in A.D. 20, 34, 48, or 62, 
and it is safe to say that had there 
been such a census it would have 
roused at least as much trouble as in 
A.D. 6, and would probably have been 
mentioned by Josephus. 

(v.) There is neither evidence nor 
probability for the view that the 
census, the first time it was intro 
duced, was applied by Augustus to 
districts outside the provincial organi 
zation, and governed by kings, such 
as Herod, who were, at least in appear 
ance, independent in the governing 
of their own countries. 

A good summary of Ramsay s views 
is in * The Homanadeis and the 
Homanadensian War in the Journal 
of Roman Studies, vii. (1917), pp. 
273 ff. See also the articles on 
Quirinius in Klio xvii. (1920) by 
Bleckmann (pp. 104 ff.) and Dessau 
(pp. 252 ff.). An excellent selection 
of recent articles on the Roman 
census is given in Preuschen-Bauer s 
Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch, col. 
139 f. 

some of the people] \a&i&gt;, not rbv 
Xaov. 

scattered] If Josephus be right 
Gamaliel unduly minimizes the im 
portance of Judas. The movement 
which he began did not come to an 
end, but was the fourth party in 
Judaism, from which sprang the 
Zealots, and was directly responsible 
for the rebellion which destroyed the 
power of the priests and led to the 
fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see Vol. I. 
pp. 289 ff. and 421 ff.). 



38. And in the present case] Cf . iv. 
29. The Western text has a vigorous 
and attractive paraphrase : " And at 
this crisis, brethren, I say unto you, 
leave these men alone, and let them go, 
without polluting your hands ; for if 
this power (cf. iii. 12 and iv. 7) be of 
human will, its force will be destroyed, 
but if this power be of the will of 
God, you cannot destroy it, neither 
you, nor kings, nor tyrants. There 
fore refrain from these men, lest you 
be found fighting against God . " And 
at this crisis is perhaps too strong a 
rendering for vvv or TO. vvv. But the 
Greek is emphatic, and to render it 
merely And now misses the whole 
point. 

plan . . . work] /SouX^ . . . tpyov, 

cf. Luke xxiii. 51 (/SouX-rj . . . 7rpais). 

of men . . of God] Cf . Luke xx. 4. 

39. lest you be found] /u-rj TTOTC 
probably introduces not a dependent 
clause of purpose but a really in 
dependent sentence of warning. 
Whether we should regard it gram 
matically, as a rhetorical question, a 
cautious assertion (^77 7rore = per 
haps ) or a mild prohibition is un 
certain, and consequently it is im 
possible to choose confidently any 
English rendering. See the grammars 
of J. H. Moulton, i. pp. 192 ff., Blass- 
Debrunner, 370, Mayser n. i. p. 234, 
and Fr. SJotty, Der Gebrauch des 
Konjunktivs und Optativs in den 
griechischen Dialekten, 84-86, 318, 
331. 

41. from the presence of] a-rrb 
irpoffuirov, a Hebraizing phrase VJDD 
(e.g. Num. xx. 6). 

the name] Can this be Jewish 
Aramaic ? The Rabbis say " Le-Shem 



VI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



63 



42 to suffer disgrace. And every day, in the Temple and at home, 
they did not cease teaching and telling the good news of the 
Messiah, Jesus. 

5 i And in these days, when the disciples were increasing, 



Shamayim " = v-jrlp rov deov (using 
heaven as a periphrasis for God ). 
But they could scarcely say " Le Shem 
ha-Shem." The use of TO ovo/u-a with 
out qualification (cf. 3 John 7) seems 
to be Christian Greek rather than 
translated Aramaic. It is common 
in the Apostolic Fathers. 

42. the Messiah] Or is this already 
a double name, Christ Jesus ? If so, 
translate the Gospel of Christ Jesus, 
for by the time that Christ had 
become a name, evayy&Lov had prob 
ably come to mean * the good news 
or gospel about Christ. 

vi. 1-xv. 35. PERSECUTION AND 
EXPANSION. 

Chapter vi. begins the second great 
division of Acts, which contains the 
following eight sections dealing with 
the spread of the Church from Jeru 
salem to other cities. 

1. vi. 1-viii. 3. The story of Stephen 
(Jerusalem). 

2. viii.4-40. The story of Peter and 
Philip (Samaria and Caesarea). 

3. ix. 1-31. The conversion of Paul 
(Jerusalem and Damascus). 

4. ix. 32-xi. 18. The story of Peter 
and Cornelius (Joppa, Caesarea 
and Jerusalem). 

5. xi. 19-30. The beginning of 
Christianity in Antioch (Antioch). 

6. xii. 1-24. Peter s imprisonment 
and escape, and Herod s death 
(Jerusalem). 

7. xii. 25-xiv. 28. The Antiochian 
mission of Barnabas and Paul 
(Antioch). 

8. xv. 1-35. The Council at Jeru 
salem (Antioch and Jerusalem). 

Obviously we have here various local 
traditions put together as a continuous 
narrative by a skilful editor. The 
questions which arise are : (a) Can we 
speak with confidence of sources in 
the sense of documents, as well as of 
traditions ? (6) Has the editor ever 
converted two local traditions of one 
event into a single narrative of two 
events ? For the discussion of these 



points see Vol. II. pp. 147-157 and 
Addit. Notes 16 and 18. 

THE SEVEN, AND THE DEATH OF 
STEPHEN. This section contains two 
distinct episodes, and one very long 
speech. The first episode (vi. 1-6) 
narrates the appointment of the Seven, 
and is clearly intended by the writer 
to explain why the communistic ex 
periment broke down. There was 
dissension among the recipients of 
help, and the officers appointed to 
administer the dole were either killed 
or driven out of Jerusalem. The 
second episode is the prosecution and 
martyrdom of Stephen, into which is 
inserted the long speech in chapter vii. 

It has often been suggested that 
the section is composite. There is 
some plausibility in this so far as the 
narrative about Stephen is concerned, 
but less in regard to his speech. (See 
Vol. II. pp. 148 ff. and the note on 
vii. 2-53.) However this may be, the 
whole section in its present form is a 
connecting link between the Twelve 
and Jerusalem on the one hand, and 
the Seven and the mission outside 
the city on the other. It prepares the 
way for the taking of the gospel from 
Jerusalem, the centre of Jewish life, 
to Caesarea, and this is, in the main, 
the work of Philip, one of the Seven, 
and of Peter, the leader of the Twelve. 
(See further the notes on viii. 4-40, 
and on ix. 32-xi. 18.) 

The appointment of the Seven 
gives rise to questions which cannot be 
answered. According to Acts they 
were subordinate to the Twelve. But 
there is little sign of this subordina 
tion in the actual narratives either of 
Stephen or of Philip, and the sugges 
tion has been made in various forms 
that the Seven were really the leaders 
of the Hellenistic Christians in Jeru 
salem, while the Twelve were the 
leaders of the Hebrews. This theory 
is discussed in Addit. Note 12. 

1. disciples] The first occurrence 
in Acts of this name for Christians. 



64 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VI 



there was grumbling of the Hellenists against the Hebrews 
because their widows were overlooked in the daily ministration. 
And the Twelve called the congregation of the disciples and 2 
said, "It is not satisfactory for us to leave the word of God 



It is not found in the earlier chapters 
or in the Epistles. See Addit. Note 30. 

Hellenists] The traditional inter 
pretation of "Ei\\7]i&gt;icrT7)s is Greek- 
speaking Jews, and it is thus con 
trasted with "E\\r)vas which means 
Greeks by race and religion. This 
interpretation is possible, but it is de 
rived from the context, not from the 
known meaning of the word, which is 
extremely rare. The primary facts 
are (i.) that EXX^iorr??? is derived from 
EXXT/y/fw which means to * Graecize, 
whether in speech or custom. In 
earlier writers it is most commonly 
used of speech. In later writers it 
means to be heathen. (ii.) It is con 
trasted here with E/3/&gt;cuoi, which does 
not elsewhere appear to refer primarily 
to speech but to nationality, for both 
Paul and Philo speak of themselves 
as Hebrews, and certainly both were 
Greek -speaking Jews. Therefore 
though Greek-speaking may be the 
right meaning, it is possible that the 
reference is to Graecizing Jews who 
are contrasted with the conservative 
party of the E/3pcuoi. But this is one 
of the places where the context must 
determine the meaning rather than 
the meaning illuminate the context, 
and the context is not clear enough to 
serve. See Addit. Note 7. 

widows] The care of widows was 
naturally one of the chief functions of 
philanthropy in the ancient world, and 
there is no real reason here for going 
outside the ordinary meaning of the 
word. But it is obvious that this 
passage regards the widows as receiving 
regular support, and this implies some 
organization of their members. The 
further development of this organiza 
tion can be traced in the Pastoral 
Epistles (especially 1 Tim. v. 9 ff.) and 
in most of the early writers. In general 
widows came to have a double 
meaning : (i.) all women who had lost 
their husbands ; (ii.) a selected number 
of the first class who were appointed to 
a definite position in the organization 
of the Church as part of the Clerus. 



The evidence for this is best summar 
ized in Hatch s article in the DC A. 
Since Hatch the chief additions to 
knowledge are due to the study of the 
Didascalia, the third- century source of 
the Apostolic Constitutions, and the 
cognate literature (see especially H. 
Achelis and J. Flemming, Die Syrische 
Didascalia, TU. xxv. p. 2; Funk s 
Apostolische Konstitutionen ; and cf. 
J. Viteau, L Institution des Diacres 
et des Veuves in the Revue d Histoire 
Ecclesiastique, xxii., 1926). 

ministration] The picture suggested 
is that of a daily dispensation of alms 
or of food to the widows. This seems 
identical with the Jewish tamhui (see 
Addit. Note 12). For the possible 
relation of this dispensation to the 
Agape see Lietzmann s excursus to 
1 Cor. xi. 21, and P. Batiffol s essay in 
Etudes d histoireet de theologie positive, 
L pp. 283 ff . 

2. the Twelve] The process of ordi 
nation is very carefully distributed be 
tween the congregation which elects, 
and the Twelve who ordain by the 
laying on of hands (see vs. 6). The 
title the Twelve is only found here 
in Acts, but is implied in i. 26 and 
ii. 14 by the phrase the Eleven. 
It is common in Mark and Luke, and 
is used once in the Pauline Epistles 
(1 Cor. xv. 5). 

the congregation] 7r\ijOos, see note 
on iv. 32. 

satisfactory] apecrrbv, cf. xii. 3. 

tables] rpcnrefa, apart from its 
general use as table without quali 
fication, has two special meanings : (1) 
a money-changer s table, and so a 
bank ; cf . TpairfftTrjs, which became the 
usual word for a banker ; (2) a dining- 
table. Cf. Didache xi. 9 KOL iras 



air avrfjs, el 8 /J.7)ye \j/ev8o- 
ecrrt. It is usually taken 
here in the second sense. But it is 
not impossible that it was intended in 
the first sense to cover the general 
financial administration of the com 
munity. 



VI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



65 



3 and serve tables, but let us choose, brethren, seven men from 
among you, of good character, full of spirit and wisdom, 

4 whom we will put over this duty, but we ourselves will attend 

5 to prayer and the service of the Lord." And the proposal was 
accepted by all the congregation, and they chose Stephen, a 
man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus 
and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte 



3. let us choose] This is the text of 
B. If it is right and is pressed it 
means that the choice of the Seven 
was made by the apostles, while the 
text of S*AC and the Western author 
ities means that the choice was left 
to the congregation. Even, however, 
with the text of B it is possible that 
the * we means the whole Church 
rather than the apostles only. 

The Western text is interesting. 
" What is it then, brethren ? Appoint 
for yourselves," etc. Note also the 
variants in vs. 6, " These stood before 
the apostles, who prayed, and laid 
hands on them," which seems intended 
to clear up the rather slovenly expres 
sion of the B-text. But there is some 
doubt about the Western text at this 
point (see Vol. III. p. 59). For the 
interest of the early texts in the 
details of appointment compare the 
variants in i. 23 f . 

full of spirit] Note the omission 
of ayiov with Trvev/maTos. Is it possible 
that the account of the choice of 
Joshua in Numbers xxvii. 16-18 is 
echoed in this passage? We have 
there eTna Ke-^a.o Ow ( = " seek out ") . . . 
&vdpwTrov 5s ^x L Trvev/jia. iv eavru, /ecu 
eTrt^Tjcrcts ras %e?pds crov CTT avrov. 
Apparently the first phrase is other 
wise unparalleled in either Testament, 
but Gen. xli. 33 has vvv ofiv fficai 



duty] xpei a in Hellenistic Greek is 
almost the equivalent of office, but 
the word everywhere else in the N.T. 
has the meaning need. (See Wett- 
stein ad loc.) 

4. attend to] TrpoffKaprepovvTes, cf. i. 

prayer] This is the most probable 
rendering, but there is once more the 
possibility that Trpoaevxr] means syn 
agogue. See note on i. 14. 
VOL. IV 



5. was accepted] the Greek 
. . . tvu-jriov is a conspicuously Semitic 
idiom. 

Prochorus] According to tradition 
the author of the Prochoran Acts of 
John. See Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta 
Apostolorum Apocrypha, and the 
articles on the Apocryphal Acts of the 
Apostles in the Dictionary of Christian 
Biography and in Herzog s Realency- 
klopddie. According to a tradition 
widely found in Byzantine art he was 
the scribe to whom John dictated the 
Fourth Gospel. 

Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas] 
See Schermann,PropAefew- und Apostel- 
legenden. 

Nicolas] See Iren. i. 26. 3 and 
Clem. Strom, ii. 20. 118 for the tradi 
tion that he was the founder of the 
Nicolaitans mentioned in Rev. ii. 6 as 
an heretical sect which was found in 
Ephesus and Pergamum. That he 
was a proselyte and from Antioch 
are additions to this name that excite 
our curiosity. Antioch is here men 
tioned for the first time, but is so 
prominent later as to suggest that 
the author (or one of his sources) 
may have been specially connected 
with that city. Does the statement 
that Nicolas was a proselyte imply 
that the other six were not ? If so, 
were they born Jews or Gentiles? 
Josephus, B.J. vii. 3. 3 45, explicitly 
refers to the multitudes of Greeks 
who at Antioch were attracted to the 
worship of the Jews and in some 
measure incorporated with them. 
That they have Greek names does 
not prove that they were Gentiles or 
even Jews of the dispersion, for 
Palestinian Jews often had Greek 
names (see note on Justus i. 23). 
However, it is unlikely that a group 
of six or seven Palestinians would all 



66 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VI 



of Antioch, and they stood them before the apostles, and they 6 
prayed and laid hands on them. 

And the word of God was growing, and the number of 7 
the disciples in Jerusalem increasing exceedingly, and a great 
multitude of the priests obeyed the faith. And Stephen, 8 
full of grace and power, began to do portents and great signs 
among the people. And there rose up some of those of the 9 
synagogue which is called that of the Libertini, both Cyrenians 



without exception have Greek names. 
Among the Twelve there were only 
the other Philip and Andrew. On 
the use of pagan names by Jews in 
the diaspora see Harnack, Mission 
und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 4th 
edit., 1924, p. 436 note 2, and the 
literature there cited, especially Nik. 
Miiller, Die judische Katakombe am 
Monteverde zu Rom (1912), pp. 100 if. 
As Greek names Philip and Stephen 
are particularly common, Parmenas 
and Prochorus rather uncommon. 

6. laid hands] See Addit. Note 1 1. 

7. exceedingly] cr065pa. Cf. ii. 47 
6 5 Kvpcos Trpofferidei TOUS (r&fo/jL&ovs 
K0.6* i)fj.pav etrl TO auro. According to 
Torrey eirl TO OLVTO and &lt;r065/m represent 
the same Aramaic word, correctly 
translated here and incorrectly in ii. 
47. (See Torrey, pp. 10-14, and Vol. 
II. pp. 143 ff.) 

the priests] This is a unique state 
ment, and there is no other trace of 
any tendency of the priests to become 
Christians. Its strangeness is possibly 
the cause of the variants. X, the 
Peshitto, and some minuscules read 
lovoalwv for ieptwv probably an 
emendation. Cod. Flor. (h) reads in 
templo, i.e. v T$ iep$ (see Vol. III. 
p. 58) a far more intelligible reading, 
but transcriptionally less probable. 

obeyed the faith] The phrase is 
curious, both in Greek and in English. 
It seems to imply a use of Tricrrts as 
almost synonymous with the Church ; 
the same usage is found in the Pastoral 
Epistles (e.g. 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 6, vi. 10), 
and i/Tra/corj Trio-recos in Rom. i. 5, 
xvi. 26 may be a step in the same 
direction. See Addit. Note 30. 

8. among the people] The Western 
text adds by the name of (the Lord) 
Jesus Christ. The African reading is 



Jesu Christi, but the Harclean has 
domini, and D has a conflation of the 
two. 

9. the synagogue which is called, 
etc.] The Greek is ambiguous and 
the translation is doubtful. Three 
renderings have been suggested : 

(i.) " Those of the synagogue called 
of the Libertini, and of the Cyrenians, 
and of the Alexandrians, " implying 
either one or three synagogues. It is, 
however, very unlikely that the Greek 
can mean three synagogues. The 
arrangement of the articles is almost 
decisive on this point, and TUV avvayu- 
y&v rather than TTJS (rwayojyrjs would 
be called for. A single synagogue 
of Libertini, Cyrenians, and Alex 
andrians is linguistically quite possible, 
and is at first sight the most natural 
rendering, but the combination of two 
national names with a word descrip 
tive of social status is very improbable, 
(ii.) "Those of the synagogue called 
of the Libertini, and of the Cyrenians 
and Alexandrians," implying one syn 
agogue and two local groups. The 
objection to this is linguistic. The 
arrangement of the articles TUV . . 
T&V suggests that there were two 
groups, (a) Libertini, Cyrenians, and 
Alexandrians, (6) Cilicians and Asians, 
(iii.) The rendering given above, and 
recommended by Blass. It has the 
advantage of being linguistically 
correct and historically possible. The 
only objection to it is that at first 
reading Cyrenians and Alexandrians 
seem co-ordinate with Libertini. But 
this would scarcely have been felt by 
the original readers, who would have 
known that such a co-ordination was 
absurd, and have read the sentence 
with the meaning given . See Harnack, 
Acts of the Apostles, p. 71 n. 



VI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



67 



Libertini] The question of the 
Libertini has given rise to much con 
troversy. It was thought that the 
general structure of the sentence called 
for a place-name, and attempts were 
made to emend AifiepTiisuv into At/3v- 
ffrlvwv meaning Libyans (so the Ar 
menian catena, followed by Blass, 
Philology of the Gospels, pp. 69 f. The 
history of this emendation, from Beza 
to Blass, is given by J. Rendel Harris, 
Expositor, Nov. 1902, pp. 378 ff.). 

It has also been referred to Liber - 
turn, a town in Africa of which the 
bishop, Victor, was present at the 
Council of Carthage in 411 (Mansi, iv. 
p. 92). But though this obscure town 
may have had a bishop in the fifth 
century, it is very unlikely that it had 
a synagogue of its own in Jerusalem 
in the first. 

With the rendering given emenda 
tion is not necessary. T/?s \eyo/u.ei&gt;r)s 
in Lucan idiom seems to be used to 
indicate that the word thus qualified 
is either a foreign name or a transla 
tion (cf. iii. 2 ri]v \eyojJivriv upa.ia.v}, 
and Ac/SeprtVot is a perfectly natural 
transliteration of the Latin word 
libertini meaning freedmen. We 
know from Tacitus that there were 
many freedmen among the Jews in 
the Roman Empire. Certainly some, 
and perhaps most of them, had been 
prisoners of war, especially those taken 
by Pompey (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 
155, M. ii. p. 568), but some were 
probably freedmen who had become 
proselytes, for Tacitus (Ann. ii. 85) 
says, " Actum et de sacris Aegyptiis 
Judaicisque pellendis : factumque pa- 
trum consultum, ut quattuor milia 
libertini generis ea superstitione infecta, 
quis idonea aetas, in insulam Sardiniam 
veherentur, coercendis illic latrociniis : 
et si ob gravitatem coeli interissent, vile 
damnum." From this passage the 
natural conclusion would probably be 
that these Libertini were not Jews by 
birth but those who had become in 
fected by that superstition ; in other 
words, that they were proselytes. The 
statement of Tacitus, apart from the 
question of whether the prisoners were 
born Jews or proselytes, is confirmed 
by Josephus, who explains that in the 
time of Tiberius certain Jews were 
convicted of obtaining money under 
false pretences from a proselyte named 
Fulvia, and that in consequence of 



complaints made to him the Emperor 
banished from Rome all the Jews, and 
the consuls took four thousand of 
them and sent them on military service 
to Sardinia (Jos. Antiq. xviii. 3. 5). 
Suetonius also tells the same story 
(Tiberius, xxxvi.). 

It is not at all improbable that the 
Jews who were Libertini may have 
had synagogues of their own in the 
various parts of the Empire to which 
they were scattered, and that there 
were Cyrenians and Alexandrians 
among them. The matter, however, 
has been complicated by the un 
warranted statement that there was 
a Synagoga Libertinorum in Pompeii. 
For this there is no foundation. The 
starting-point of the hypothesis was 
an inscription which runs : 

CUSPIUM PANSAM AED. FABIUS EUPOR 
PRINCEPS LIBERTINORUM 

(OIL. iv. p. 13, no. 117). In the 
Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1864, 
pp. 70, 92, de Rossi tried to explain 
this as a reference to the head of the 
synagogue of the Libertini who wished 
Cuspius Pansa to be elected aedile. 
It is, however, pure assumption that 
princeps Libertinorum means chief of 
the synagogue of the Libertini, for, as 
Mommsen has shown in the Rheinisches 
Museum, 1864, xix. pp. 455 f., princeps 
could well mean leading man. There 
is no other evidence of any synagogue 
of the Libertini in Pompeii; the 
opposite statement sometimes made 
is a misunderstanding of an inaccurate 
reference in Lanciani s Pagan and 
Christian Rome. 

Less definite though more important 
is an inscription found by Captain R. 
Weill in Jerusalem on the hill Ophel 
south of the city. This runs : 

9[e]65oros OveTTyvov, iepeus Kal 
d[p]xi&lt;rwdywyos, vlbs dpxiffvvlayu]- 
7[o]u, V LUJVOS dpxi-0 vi&gt;[a.]y&lt;l)yov, &lt;p/co- 

rr/v crvvayuylTjIv et s d* [cry ]a;- 
v6fj.ov Kal eis [ 



T[b~\t&gt; Zev&va, Ka[l rd] 5c6/mra /cat rd 
(r[r]?7pia rCjv vdaTtuJV, et s Kard\v/j.a roi- 
s [x]pyv ffiv a 71 "^ 
\[iu](rai&gt; ol -rrarepes [a]vrou /cat oi 
cr[(3]vTepoi Kal Zi/i 



The translation would be "Theodotos, 
son of Vettenus, priest and head of 
the synagogue, son of a head of the 



68 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VI 



and Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing 
with Stephen, and they could not withstand the wisdom and 10 
the spirit with which he spoke. Then they prompted some n 



synagogue, grandson of the head of 
a synagogue, built the synagogue for 
the reading of the law and for the 
teaching of the commandments, and 
the guest-house and the rooms and 
the supplies of water as an inn for 
those who have need when coming 
from abroad, which synagogue his 
fathers and the elders and Simonides 
founded." Expert opinion seems to 
date this inscription as before (but not 
long before) A.D. 70, and there is no 
reason for thinking that the stone on 
which it was cut has been brought 
from another place. Inasmuch as 
OveTT-fjvov is obviously a Latin name, it 
has been suggested that the Theodotos 
who built (i.e. restored) the synagogue 
founded by his ancestors was the son 
of a freedman, who took Vettenus (or 
Vettienus, cf. TaXX^^os- Gallienus, the 
Emperor) as his Latin name. If so, 
this synagogue may have been the 
Synagogue of the Libertini. It is, 
however, obvious that this identifica 
tion is somewhat conjectural. 

The fullest statement of all the facts 
about the synagogue of Theodotos is 
in the admirable article by Pere L.-H. 
Vincent in the Revue Biblique, 1921, 
pp. 247 ff., entitled Decouverte de la 
"Synagogue des Affranchis" a Jeru 
salem. See also the original announce 
ment of its discovery by Captain Weill 
in the Comptes rendus de VAcad. des 
Inscr. et Belles -Lettres, May 29, 1914; 
Revue des etudes juives, Ixx., Jan. -July, 
1920; Ixxi., July-Sept. 1920, pp. 30-34; 
Decouverte a Jerusalem d une syna 
gogue de Fepoque herodienne, by Cler- 
mont-Ganneau, in Syria, i., 1920, p. 
191 ; * L Inscription de Theodotos by 
Th. Reinach in Revue des etudes juives, 
Ixxi., July-Sept. 1920, pp. 46-56 and 
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, Eng. Trans., 1927, pp. 439 ff. 
For the question of Jewish Libertini 
see especially Schiirer, GJV, ii. p. 
431. 

Cyrenians] There is no evidence 
of a synagogue of Cyrenians in Jeru 
salem, but that there were many Jews 
in Gyrene is seen from 1 Mace. xv. 23, 



2 Mace. ii. 23 (Jason of Gyrene), Acts 
xi. 20, and the mention of Simon the 
Cyrenian in Mark xv. 21. Cf. Schurer, 
GJV. iii. pp. 52 f., and Juster, Les Juifs 
dans V Empire romain, i. p. 207. 

Alexandrians] That there was a 
synagogue of the Alexandrians in 
Jerusalem is proved by the discussions 
in rabbinical literature as to the possi 
bility of selling a synagogue. The 
classical example given to prove the 
point is that Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok 
( + A.D. 100) purchased the synagogue 
of the Alexandrians (Tosett&,Megillah, 
iii. 6. 224). For a full account of the 
rabbinical controversy see Strack, ii. 
pp. 663 f . It is conceivable but im 
probable that this was the synagogue 
called of the Libertini, or it may 
have been the synagogue restored by 
Theodotos, but all such combinations 
are merely guesses. The great numbers 
of Alexandrian Jews is well known. 
Philo, In Flacc. 43 (Mangey, ii. p. 523), 
says there were a million in Alexandria 
and Egypt. (See Schurer, GJ V. iii. pp. 
24 ff., and Juster, i. p. 204.) 

Cilicia] This may mean Paul, who 

Eerhaps is the only person included 
i this group whom Luke has ex 
plicitly mentioned again. But though 
as a Tarsian he belonged to the 
Cilicians, he may also have been 
classed as a libertinus. The term 
would include both freedmen and 
their descendants. That Paul was by 
birth a Roman citizen (see xxii. 28) 
is not against his belonging to the 
Libertini but rather in its favour. 
Actual Roman slaves or their de 
scendants were perhaps in a better 
position to rise to the citizenship than 
other Jews. 

10. spoke] The Western text adds 
"Because they were refuted by him 
with all boldness. Therefore, not 
being able to face the truth, then they 
put forward men," etc. 

11. prompted] Cf. Appian, Bell. 
Civ. i. 74 virefi\-f}6ria a.v Karriyopoi, and 
Mart. Polycarpi xvii. 2 it-trtfiaXev yovv 
NI/CTJTI?! . It applies to the secret in 
stigation of persons who are supplied 



vn 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



69 



men who said, " We have heard him speak blasphemous words 

12 against Moses and God." And they aroused the people and 
the elders and the scribes, and they fell upon him and seized 

13 him and brought him to the Sanhedrin, and they stood up 
false witnesses saying, " This man does not cease speaking 

14 words against this holy place and the Law. For we have 
heard him say that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this 
place and change the customs which Moses handed down to 

15 us." And gazing on him all who were seated in the Sanhedrin 
saw his face as if an angel s face. 

7 i, 2 And the high priest said, " Is this so ? " And he said, " Gentle - 



with suggestions of what they are to 
say, much as in a modern frame 
up. It implies that the words are 
false rather than merely unfair. In 
fact this verb is really a synonym of 
e&lt;TTri(ra.v re fj.dpTVpas ifsev&cis in vi. 13 
(see note on vii. 57). Cf. UTTO^X-TJTOS in 
Josephus, Antiq. vii. 8. 4, 186 ; BJ. 
v. 10. 4, 439, and e virofioXris in 
Vita 54, 282. 

blasphemous words . . . false wit 
nesses . . . destroy this place] Cf. 
Mark xiv. 56 ff ., 64 " false witness . . . 
destroy this temple . . . blasphemy." 
These items in the Sanhedrin s ex 
amination of Jesus disappear in Luke s 
account only to reappear in this 
episode. See note on xii. 4. From 
Mk. xiv. 60 "the high priest stood up 
in the midst " comes the phrase in the 
Western text of verse 15. 

blasphemous] /3Adcr0T7/ua can hardly 
mean blasphemy in the technical sense, 
for according to Rabbinical law blas 
phemy must include the use of the 
name of God. But in Greek /SXao^Tj/xa, 
is used of abusive language even 
where religious offence is not involved. 

12. Sanhedrin] For the place of the 
council room see Addit. Note 35. 

14. this Jesus] The euros is surely 
intended scornfully. 

15. as if an angel s face] The author 
doubtless intends to record a miracu 
lous transfiguration. The uxrei as in 
ii. 3 does not restrict the reality of 
the miracle (cf. Luke iii. 22 (d&gt;s), 
xxii. 44). Just as when Moses was 
on Mt. Sinai and as in the gospel 
story of the transfiguration, the mira 



culous change of countenance implies 
the presence of an exalted companion, 
see vii. 55 f. For the expression cf. 
Esther xv. 13 (LXX) eldov ae, Kvpie, ws 
&yye\ov deov, /ecu erapaxdr) i] Kapdla /u,ov 
ctTTo 06/3oi; TTJS d6%T]s ffov, and Acta 
Pauli et Theclae 3, x^P iros 
(j.v yap e0cuVero 
dyy\ov irpoawn-ov et^ez/. 

an angel] The Western text adds 
* standing in the midst of them. 

2-53. STEPHEN S SPEECH. This is 
not a rebuttal of the charges brought 
against him. It is an impassioned 
attack on the conduct of the Jews, 
from the time of Joseph down to that 
of the speaker, and on the importance 
which they attached to the Temple. 

In contrast to this practical justifi 
cation of the accusation that he spoke 
evil of the Temple is a noticeable 
absence of any attack on the Law of 
Moses. On the contrary, the under 
lying contention of Stephen seems to 
be that the Law was the word of God, 
which ought to be observed, but was 
not. In this respect his attitude seems 
closer to that of Jesus than to that of 
Paul. But the point is hardly brought 
out emphatically, and the absence of 
any allusion to the Judaistic contro 
versy seems to exclude any theory 
which would make the speech the 
composition of one who had lived 
through that controversy in the com 
pany of Paul, and was writing with a 
view to the situation of the Christian 
Church of the period. 

Furthermore, the speech has no clear 
logical construction. It is easy to see 



70 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



men, my brethren and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to 
our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt 



that it is a sketch of the history of Israel 
from Abraham to the prophets and to 
the time of the speaker, and it is easy 
to note the verses at which he passes 
from Abraham to Joseph, from Joseph 
to Moses, and so on. But it is value 
less to do this and to call it an analysis. 
All that is really important is to 
observe how three notes are recurrently 
sounded, (i.) The absence of a temple 
or even of a fixed country in the days 
of the Patriarchs, (ii.) The general 
tendency of Israel to rebel against its 
divinely appointed leaders and guides, 
(iii.) The parallelism between the Jews 
treatment of Jesus, and their ancestors 
treatment of Joseph, Moses, and the 
prophets. 

It will be seen that these notes are 
not always struck with equal clearness, 
and any attempt to say exactly where 
one ends and another begins leads to 
profitless hair-splitting. No one who 
reads the speech through rapidly will 
doubt that it is a unit ; ideas pass into 
each other naturally and without a 
break. It is only when each verse is 
put grammatically and logically on its 
defence that the possibility of com 
posite structure appears. But few 
speeches would survive this test, and 
the case forcompositeness in the speech 
seems as weak as the case for com- 
positeness in the introduction and 
conclusion is plausible. (See note on 
vii. 57 and Vol. II. pp. 148 ff.) 

The general character of the speech 
seems to fit in very well with the 
theory that it represents either a good 
tradition as to what Stephen really 
did say, or at least what a very early 
Christian, not of the Pauline school, 
would have wished him to say. All 
observation shows that religious or 
political pioneers when brought into 
court never attempt to rebut the accu 
sations brought against them, but use 
the opportunity for making a partisan 
address. See Addit. Note 32. 

2-5. Abraham] The story of Abra 
ham s early life is given in Genesis 
xi. 27-xii. 5. According to this the 
family of Terah, Abraham s father, 
lived originally in Ur of the Chaldees. 
Afterwards Terah and Abraham 



migrated to Harran. Here, when 
Abraham was 75 years old, he was 
divinely called to go to Canaan. Acts 
differs from this account by saying 
that the divine call to Abraham came 
while he was in Ur of the Chaldees, 
but the writer could have justified his 
statement by referring to Gen. xv. 7, 
" I am the Lord that brought thee out 
of Ur of the Chaldees," or to Nehemiah 
ix. 7, " Thou art the Lord the God who 
didst choose Abram, and broughtest 
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees. " 
This combination is so natural that it is 
not surprising that Philo, DeAbrahamo 
71 f. (Mangey ii. p. 12), as well as 
Acts, puts the original call of Abraham 
in Ur of the Chaldees. 

A further point of difference between 
Acts and the Old Testament is of 
an exactly opposite nature. Anyone 
reading Gen. xi. 27 ff . would be apt to 
assume, as Acts does, that Abraham 
left Harran after his father s death. 
But other passages prove that Abra 
ham left Harran 60 years before his 
father s death, for Gen. xi. 26 says 
that Terah was 70 years old when 
Abraham was born, Gen. xi. 32 says 
that Terah lived to be 205 years old, 
and Gen. xii. 4 says that Abraham 
was 75 years old when he left Terah, 
who was therefore only 145 years old 
and still had 60 years of life before 
him. No one, however, would ever 
notice this unless he had an unusual 
instinct for mental arithmetic, while 
the fact that the continuous narrative 
relates first Terah s death, and then 
Abraham s migration, would certainly 
suggest that Terah was dead when 
Abraham left Harran. This interpre 
tation is also found in Philo, De 
migrations Abrahami, 177 (Mangey, 
i. pp. 463 f.). 

Thus both these discrepancies 
between Acts and the Old Testament 
are really nothing more than the 
natural interpretation of an ordinary 
reader. The theory, found in some 
commentaries, that there was a 
Schultradition which affected Philo 
and the writer of Acts has no evidence 
in its favour and is quite unnecessary. 
Its origin appears to be Ewald, 



vn 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



71 



3 in Harran, and he said to him, Go forth from your land and from Gen. xii. i. 
your family, and go hence into the land which I will show you. 

4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldees and dwelt in 
Harran, and thence after his father s death he made him to 
move his dwelling to this land in which you are now dwelling. 

5 And he did not give him an inheritance in it, no, not so much as 
a pace s length, and he promised to give it to him for a possession 



GesrMchte des apostolischen Zeitalter,ed. 
iii., 1868, p. 211. Equally unnecessary 
are various attempts (see especially 
Blass, Stud, und Krit., 1896, pp. 460 ft., 
and his ed. minor of Acts, pp. xiv f.) 
to emend the text. The quotation 
of Irenaeus (see Vol. III. pp. 61 and 
63) is obviously a natural abbrevia 
tion. 

2. the God of glory] The exact 
phrase is found only in Ps. xxix. 3, 
but there seems to be no special refer 
ence to it in this passage. 86rjs is 
undoubtedly a descriptive genitive (cf . 
1 Cor. ii. 8). It means the glorious 
God. It is surely unnecessary to 
see any allusion to the Jewish doctrine 
of the Shekinah. (See I. Abrahams 
The Glory of God for a refutation 
of the view that the Shekinah was 
necessarily material.) 

Mesopotamia] According to the 
Hebrew Old Testament the name of 
the place was Ur of the Chaldees, 
which the LXX represents by %u&gt;/m 
rG&gt;v XaXdalw (Gen. xi. 28, 31, xv. 7) ; 
cf. yfjs XaXScu wi in vii. 4. Modern 
archaeology has identified Ur (As 
syrian &lt;Uru ) as the name of a city 
on the west bank of the Euphrates 
near its mouth. There seems no 
doubt that Uru was the name of 
this place, now called Mugheir. It 
has recently been excavated, and the 
results show that it was extensively 
settled and the centre of a high 
civilization many centuries before any 
date which can reasonably be given 
to Abraham. It is, of course, possible 
that he belonged to the outlying 
districts in which nomadic life was 
flourishing, but it would be easier to 
think of Abraham as coming to Harran 
from the north than from the south, 
and it must be remembered that the 
district of Van was known to the 



Assyrians as Urartu and that they 
described the inhabitants of that dis 
trict as Chaldees. (Urartu is, beyond 
doubt, the biblical Ararat.) Jewish 
tradition placed Abraham s Ur near 
Harran, and thus as Acts says 
in Mesopotamia (cf. Josephus, Antiq. 
i. 7. 1). 

Harran] The Greek Kdppai, not 
very far from Edessa. In modern 
Arabic it is Harran, which exactly 
preserves the ancient name. 

3. and go hence] The quotation is 
from Gen. xii. 1, but /ecu deupo is only 
found in Lucianic manuscripts of the 
LXX. Did Lucian copy Acts or was 
he using a text which had this read 
ing ? The relation of the quotations 
in the New Testament to the recen 
sions of the LXX has not yet been 
worked out, and would probably 
reward investigation. 

4. land of the Chaldees] See note 
on Mesopotamia in vs. 2. 

his father s death] See note on 
Abraham in vs. 2. 

made him to move] The change 
of the unexpressed subject from 
Abraham to God is very harsh, and 
may have helped to produce some of 
the textual variants, but the avrbv 
makes it certain. 

5. no, not so much, etc.] The 
phrase appears to be a reminiscence of 
Deut. ii. 5, where, however, it actually 
applies to the land of Moab. PTJ/J.O. 
TTOOOS (^T rp) is used in secular Greek 
as a measure of space in the sense of 
4 a pace rather than a foot s breadth, 
as it is rendered in the A.V. 

give it to him] The Greek text 
seems to have an impossible order, 
dovvai avTio et s /cardo XfO " avTTjv Kal 
KT\. , but all the variants appear to be 
merely emendations. For 
see note on vs. 45. 



72 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



Gen. xv. is f. 



Exod. in. 12. 
Gen.xvii.io. 
Gen. xxi. 4. 



Gen. xxxix. 
21. 



Gen. xiv. s. 



and to his seed after him, though he had no child. But God 6 
spake thus, that his seed would be a sojourner in a foreign 
land, and they would enslave it and oppress it four hundred 
years, and on the nation of which they shall be slaves will I 7 
pass sentence, said God, and after this they shall go forth, and 
they shall worship me in this place. 5 And he gave him a 8 
covenant of circumcision, and so he begat Isaac and circumcised 
him on the eighth day ; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the 
twelve patriarchs. And the patriarchs being jealous of Joseph 9 
sold him away into Egypt, and God was with him, and rescued 10 
him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom 
before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and made him governor over 



no child] Gen. xv. 2. 

6. thus] The point of the argu 
ment seems to be directed against 
the view that the promise of God 
entailed possession of the Holy Land. 
As Paul argues that the promise was 
anterior to the Law, and might there 
fore continue when the Law was 
abrogated, so Stephen argues about 
the possession of the Land. 

four hundred] According to Exod. 
xii. 40, it was 430 years, but the refer 
ence is to Gen. xv. 13, "Know of a 
surety that thy seed shall be a stranger 
in a land that is not theirs, and shall 
serve them; and they shall afflict 
them four hundred years." (See also 
note on xiii. 20.) 

It should be noted that the promise 
to Abraham is represented here not 
so much as of inheriting the land of 
Canaan as of deliverance from Egypt 
and of the opportunity to worship 
God. Cf. Luke i. 73 opuov dv ti/ 
wpbs AjSpadyU TOV irar^pa 
oovvai TI/JUV d&lt;p6(3us 
pvadevras \arpeveiv aury /crA. It is 
for this reason that the author quotes 
Exod. iii. 12 and Deut. ii. 5 in con 
nexion with Genesis xv. and empha 
sizes that Abraham received no land 
as a gift from God, but at most (vs. 
16) a tomb that he had to pay for. 
See B. W. Bacon in Biblical and 
Semitic Studies of Yale University, 
1901, pp. 238-247, "Correspondingly 
the stiffneckedness and perversity of 
Israel bears fruit, not so much in 



temporary exclusion from Canaan as 
in the substitution of a Xarpeia TT)S 
aTparias TOV ovpavov (vs. 42) for the 
promised worship of God." Cf. Paul s 
reference to the true worship as the 
prerogative of the Jews (&v r\ \arpda 
Rom. ix. 5). 

7. in this place] This is not in Gen. 
xv., but seems to be a reminiscence 
of Exod. iii. 12, which, however, refers 
to Mt. Horeb, not to Palestine. 

8. circumcision] Gen. xvii. 10. 
and so] Possibly the * so is 

emphatic and means thus, while 
there was still no holy place, all the 
essential conditions for the religion of 
Israel were fulfilled. 

patriarchs] The use of this word 
to describe the sons of Jacob is not 
early. Cf . the title of the Testa 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs (see 
the editions of R. Sinker and Pv. H. 
Charles) and 4 Mace. vii. 19, xvi. 25. 
The present passage may be the 
earliest instance of this use of the 
word. 

9. sold] aTrodLSop.aL is used in this 
sense in the story of Joseph in Gen. 
xxxvii. 28, xlv. 4, and elsewhere in 
the LXX and in the papyri. 

was with him] Gen. xxxix. 2. 

10. favour and wisdom] Cf. Gen. 
xxxix. 21 and xli. 39. 

made] It is often thought that 
there is a change of subject, but refer 
ence to Gen. xlv. 8 shows that this is 
not so : the subject of KaT^ffrtjcre is 
God. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



73 



Gen. xli. 
54 ff. 



11 Egypt and all his house. And there came a famine over all 
Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could not 

12 find provender ; but Jacob hearing that there was food sent Gen. x m. i 

13 our fathers out to Egypt the first time. And on their second Gen. xiv. i 
visit Joseph was made known to his brethren, and the family 

14 of Joseph was made clear to Pharaoh. And Joseph sent and 
summoned Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, to the number 

15 of seventy-five souls. And Jacob went down, and he himself 



11. famine] Gen. xli. 54-xlii. 2. 
could not find] The imperfect 

ov seems to have this sense. It 
is a good example of what some 
grammarians call a negative im 
perfect, implying resistance or dis 
appointment. (See Gildersleeve and 
Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek, p. 95.) 
provender] xo/^tr/uara originally 
meant fodder for animals, but later 
usage extended it to men, and here it 
corresponds to the /J.LKPO. /fywjuara of 
Gen. xlii. 2. 

12. food] 0-mais food rather than 
corn, which is (TITOS, so that the 
traditional * corn in Egypt must be 
given up here, especially since corn 
has come in American-English to 
mean maize. 

13. their second visit] It is natural 
to seek some reason for the apparently 
irrelevant distinction between first 
and second meetings of Joseph and 
his brethren. Since Joseph, like 
Moses, appears to be a type of the 
rejected but welcome deliverer Jesus, 
it is possible that the author is think 
ing of the first and second comings 
of Jesus a common contrast in early 
patristic literature (cf. Hebrews ix. 
28). Notice too that Moses also 
wrought deliverance not on his first 
appearance, when he was rejected 
(vss. 23-29), but forty years later 
(30 ff.). 

14. seventy-five] The Hebrew in 
Gen. xlvi. 27, Exod. i. 5, and Deut. x. 
22 gives 70 as the number of Jacob s 
family, but the LXX in Genesis and 
Exodus gives 75, and the codex 
Alexandrinus does so also in Deuter 
onomy. 

The variation between 70 and 75 is 
due to a difference in the method of 
counting. The Hebrew in Gen. xlvi. 



26 gives Jacob a family of 66, to 
which it adds Jacob himself, Joseph, 
and Joseph s two sons. The LXX 
does not add Jacob or Joseph, but 
credits Joseph with nine children 
instead of two. Josephus (Antiq. ii. 
7. 4, vi. 5. 6) follows the Hebrew 
tradition, and an explanation of it is 
given in Jubilees xliv., but Philo, De 
migrat. Abrah. 36, discusses both 
traditions. In none of these passages 
does the text give the number of 
those who came into Egypt with 
Jacob to join Joseph but the total of 
Jacob s family including Joseph and 
Joseph s children. Acts seems to 
have been influenced by the wording, 
though not by the numeration, of 
Deut. x. 22 (ev o ^vxo-is Kare^-rjcrav oi 
Trarepes crov els Atyvirrov), but the 
variant in codex Alexandrinus raises 
the question of the type of LXX text 
used in the O.T., and also whether 
the Western text of Acts in this verse 
is due to the influence of Deuteronomy 
or is original. It probably should be 
punctuated ev o /ecu e ^vxa-ts Kare^t] 

IttKefyS. 

The phrase ev e^Sofj.rjKovra KT\. is 
doubtless due here to the LXX, which 
in turn literally translates the pre 
position D of the Hebrew by ev. 
This ev could sometimes be regarded 
as meaning accompaniment, but 
the secular Greek of the papyri dis 
closes an abnormal use of ev amount 
ing to, so that this is not exclusively 
a Semitism. Jacob and his family 
were not accompanied by seventy 
(five) others but came to Egypt 
seventy (five) strong. (See Moulton, 
Grammar of N.T. Greek, i. p. 103; 
Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 
209 end.) 

15. he himself] To whom does this 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



and our fathers died, and they were moved to Sychem and laid 16 
in the tomb which Abraham had bought for a price of silver 
from the sons of Emmor at Sychem. And as the time of the 17 
promise which God had granted to Abraham drew near, the 
. i. s. people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose 18 
i. 10. another king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. He 19 
Exod. i. 15 r. exploited our race, and oppressed the fathers into exposing 

their children so that they should not be saved alive. At 20 



refer ? Jacob or Joseph ? With the 
Western text it must be Jacob (see 
preceding note), but with the Neutral 
text the avros may refer to Joseph, 
the central figure in this section. The 
point is complicated by the fact that 
according to the O.T. (Gen. 1. 13) 
Jacob was buried at Hebron, but 
Joseph (Joshua xxiv. 32) at Shechem. 
Moreover, not only Josephus (Antig. 
ii. 8. 2) but also Jubilees (xlvi. 9) 
relate the burial of Jacob s sons 
(except Joseph) at Hebron, not 
Shechem, and the same tradition 
appears to underlie the Test. XII. 
Pair. It is possible that the writer 
of Acts has telescoped together two 
stories: (i.) the purchase of the cave 
of Machpelah at Hebron from Ephron 
the Hittite (Gen. xxiii. 3-16), where 
Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, 
Leah and Jacob were buried (Gen. 
xlix. 31), and (ii.) the purchase from 
the children of Hamor (Gen. xxxiii. 19) 
of Shechem, where Joseph was buried. 
Cf. the similar combination of two 
calls of Abraham in vii. 2 f. 

16. Sychem] 2i&gt;xt/J&gt; or St/ci/xa is the 
Greek equivalent in the LXX for 
D3t7 Shechem, the modern Nablus, in 
the pass between Mts. Ebal and 
Gerizim. Shechem in the O.T. is 
regularly the name of a place, not of 
a person, except in the story in Gen. 
xxxiii. and in the reference to it in 
Joshua xxiv. 32, where Shechem is 
the son of Hamor (-ron) the Hivite, 
who in the LXX becomes E/x/ucip. 
The Western and Antiochian texts 
perpetuate this in a corrupt form by 
reading TOV Si Xf/"* for iv Zvxfy, which 
seems to be a perverted recollection 
that Shechem in this story is a 
person, but makes him the father 
instead of the son of Hamor. 



17. granted] w/xoX^cre. The West 
ern text reads fwrjyyeiXaTo and the 
Antiochian text has &/mo&lt;rev. The 
Antiochian reading may be due to 
the influence of Luke i. 73, which in 
turn is due to Gen. xxii. 16. But 
there is a curious parallel in Matt. xiv. 
7 = Mark vi. 23 where in connexion 
with Herod s promise to Herodias 
Mark reads w^ocre and Matthew emends 
this to fj.e6 8pKov CoiJ.o\b~yri&lt;rev. Why 
the emendation ? In the case of 
Herod it is obviously not due to LXX 
influence; was there any objection 
to &fj.o&lt;T in the sense of promise ? 
If so, has the Antiochian reading in 
this passage unusual claims to con 
sideration ? 

drew near] Cf. Exod. i. 7 ff. 

18. another king] 2repo? = a 
second, but this translation would 
exaggerate the duality implied. The 
point of erepos is not that there were 
exactly two kings, which second 
would imply, but that the contrast is 
between this king and the one pre 
viously mentioned, not between any 
larger number. Cf. Exod. i. 8. 

did not know] The Western text 
has did not remember, and the 
B-text may be an accommodation to 
the LXX. 

19. exploited] /caracro0t&lt;rdyuej&gt;os, cf. 
Exod. i. 10, * Let us deal wisely with 
them. The word is not found else 
where in the New Testament but is 
found in various Hellenistic authors. 
It implies crafty or deceitful ill- 
treatment. 

saved alive] faoyoveiv is the 
curious rendering in the LXX of 
saved alive in Exod. i. 17. Strictly 
it means to generate life, but the 
force of the yoveiv seems to have been 
weakened. Cf. also Luke xvii. 33. 



vn 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



75 



which time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God. Exod - 
And he was brought up for three months in the house of his 

21 father ; but when he was exposed Pharaoh s daughter adopted 

22 him, and brought him up as a son for herself. And Moses was 
educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was 

23 powerful in his words and deeds. And when his fortieth year 
was being completed it entered into his heart to consider his 



20. before God] The same expres 
sion as is found in Gen. x. 9, " Nimrod 
was a mighty hunter before the Lord," 
i.e. in the Lord s opinion. Cf. also 
Jonah iii. 3. It is apparently a strong 
superlative. It is not, however, used 
in the Old Testament of Moses, though 
his divinely beautiful form is men 
tioned in Philo, Vita Moysis, i. 9 (ed. 
Mangey, ii. p. 82), and Joseph. Antiq. 
ii. 9. 7 (?ra?5a /u,op(f&gt;fj re delov). The 
idiom is perhaps that even for God 
(who has different standards) Nimrod 
and Nineveh were mighty, though it 
must be confessed that the exact 
force of the idiom is not certain in 
any of the three passages. Similar 
examples may be ras K^dpovs TOV 6eov 
( = very high) in Ps. Ixxix. 10 and 
ayadbs opdcru Kvpiy ( = very handsome) 
in 1 Sam. xvi. 12 (cf. also Luke i. 6 
and 15). See also Pallis, Notes, who 
commenting on Luke i. 6 quotes 
Coraes, Atakta ii. 156, as saying that 
dey and evuiriov Oeov are equivalent to 
superlatives and that in modern Greek 
Oeo- prefixed to adjectives gives them 
this force. For this author, who sees 
a parallel between Jesus and Moses, 
the TO; 6e$ is more likely to be equi 
valent to his Trapa 6etf /cat dytfpwTrots 
(Luke ii. 52), or tvavrlov TOV deov /cat 
iravTos TOV XaoO (Luke xxiv. 19). Cf. 
Acts xxiii. 1 TreTToXtrei /xat ry 6f. 

three months] Cf. Exo d. ii. 3-10. 
There is a curious legend in the 
Targum of Jerusalem that this means 
that Moses was a six months child, 
whom his mother kept three months 
at home when she saw that he would 
live giving this meaning to the word 
me, i.e. good (A.V. a goodly child), 
for which the LXX here has do-retos. 
(See Strack, ii. p. 678.) 

21. adopted] Literally lifted up, as 
in Exod. ii. 5 of the ark in which 
Moses was laid. But the word had 



come in common Greek to mean 
officially to acknowledge one s own 
child or to adopt a foundling. See 
Plutarch, Anton. 36. 3 et al. ; Epict. i. 
23. 7. For the papyri see Preisigke, 
Worterbuch, s.v. and on the adjective 
avaipeTOS. 

22. wisdom of the Egyptians] Pos 
sibly a proverbial expression. Cf. 
Lucian, Philops. 34 (see also Zahn s 
Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 592). That 
Moses was so educated is not stated 
in the Old Testament but is empha 
sized by Philo in the Vita Moysis, i. 5, 
and plays a considerable part in Jewish 
legends about Moses. A full list of 
these legends is given by Schiirer, GJV. 
ii. pp. 343 ff. 

powerful in his words] Commenta 
tors contrast the lack of eloquence 
which Moses felt (Exod. iv. 10). The 
expression here should be compared 
with Luke xxiv. 19 dvrjp irpo&lt;pr)T-)js 
dvvaTos (v py&lt;{) /cat Xbyy. Can \6yois 
here refer to the written words of 
Moses ? 

23. fortieth year] Exod. ii. 11 
merely says that he was grown up (/j.eyas 
yevofjLtvos, LXX), but some rabbinical 
traditions divide the life of Moses 
(120 years, cf. Deut. xxxiv. 7) into 
three periods of forty years : the first 
up to his flight from Egypt, the second 
his sojourn in Midian, and the third 
the forty years in the wilderness ; 
there was, however, another school 
of interpretation which argued that 
he was only twentv years old when 
he left Egypt (see Strack, ii. pp. 679 f .). 

was being completed] Or perhaps 
was completed, see note on ii. 1, 
and cf. J. H. Ropes, Harvard Theo 
logical Review, xvi. (1923) pp. 168 ff. 

entered into his heart] A Semitism 
(cf. Is. Ixv. 17) which seems to have 
passed into current use. Cf . especially 
its frequent use in Hennas. 



76 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



Exod. ii. 
11 ff. 



Exod. iii. 
Iff. 



brethren, the children of Israel. And seeing someone being 24 
wrongly treated he defended him, and avenged him who had been 
ill-treated by smiting the Egyptian. And he thought that his 25 
brethren understood that God through his hand was giving them 
deliverance, but they did not understand. And on the next day 26 
he appeared to them as they were fighting, and tried to reconcile 
them to peace by saying, Sirs, ye are brethren. Why do ye 
wrong to one another ? But he that was doing wrong to his 27 
neighbour pushed him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and 
judge over us ? Do you wish to kill me, as yesterday you killed 28 
the Egyptian ? And Moses fled at this word, and became a 29 
sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons. And 30 
when forty years were fulfilled there appeared to him in the 
desert of Mount Sinai an angel in the flame of the fire of the 



24. wrongly treated] See Exod. 
ii. 11 ff. The Western text adds e K 
rov ytvovs of his race, from Exod. 
ii. 11. 

the Egyptian] The Western text 
adds and hid him in the sand, from 
Exod. ii. 12. 

25. he thought] There is nothing 
in the Old Testament to justify this 
verse. The intention of the writer 
is perhaps to draw a comparison 
between Moses and Jesus. Both were 
rejected by those whom they wished to 
help. Perhaps for this reason in vs. 
29 Moses flight from Egypt is repre 
sented as due to his rejection by his 
own people rather than to fear of 
Pharaoh. 

The motive that no prophet is 
without honour save in his own 
country is similarly illustarted in 
Luke iv. 24-27 by instances drawn 
from the O.T. and presented as 
parallel to the treatment of Jesus. 

26. And on] The Western text reads 
Then, on the next day. A certain 
preference for r6re seems a character 
istic of this text. See note on x. 47. 

Sirs, ye are brethren] The Western 
text weakens this to ri troieiTe. avdpes 
dde\(poi, What are you doing, men 
and brethren, men and brethren 
being merely a formal address (cf . i. 16). 

27. pushed him away] An ampli 
fication of the story. See Exod. ii. 



14 and note the repetition of the 
phrase in vs. 39. 

29. Midian] The district round the 
gulf of Akaba, traditionally inhabited 
by the children of Abraham by his 
second wife, Keturah (cf. Gen. xxv. 
1 ff.). Of these Midian was the most 
important. Abraham sent them away 
to the east country before his death. 

two sons] Gershom (Exod. ii. 22) 
and Eliezer (Exod. xviii. 4). Gershom, 
through Jonathan,the Le vite, of Micah, 
whom the Danites carried off (Judges 
xvii. 1-xviii. 31), became the tradi 
tional head of the priesthood of Dan 
in the north of Israel, for Manasseh 
in Judges xviii. 30 is almost certainty 
put for Moses. (See G. F. Moore s 
Commentary on Judges in the Inter 
national Critical Commentary.) 

The reference to these sons is irrele 
vant. Probably the author is re 
minded of them by his use of -rrdpoiKos 
sojourner, which is used in Exod. ii. 
22 as the translation of Gershom. 

30. forty] Not in the Old Testa 
ment, but see note on vii. 23. 

Sinai] In Exod. iii. 1 the mountain 
is called Horeb. What the exact dif 
ference was between these mountains 
is a puzzle. See the articles in Hast 
ings Dictionary of the Bible, and in 
Herzog s Eealencyklopddie. Probably 
the exact situation of the mountain 
was forgotten, but later tradition 



VII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



77 



31 bush. And when Moses saw it he wondered at the sight, and as 

32 he came near to look at it there was a voice of the Lord, ( I am the 
God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. 

33 And Moses became afraid and did not dare to look at it. And 
the Lord said to him, Loose your sandals from off your feet, for 

34 the place whereon you stand is holy ground. Surely I have 
seen the ill-treatment of my people which is in Egypt, and I 
have heard their groaning, and I am come down to rescue them. 

35 And now come hither, let me send you to Egypt. This Moses 
whom they denied, saying, Who made you a ruler and judge ? 
this one had God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand 

36 of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. This one 
led them forth, doing wonders and signs in Egypt, and at the Ked 



identified Horeb and Sinai, and ulti 
mately located it at the place given 
in modern maps. 

an angel] Exod. iii. 2. The varia 
tions in the story are quite unimport 
ant in themselves. The main differ 
ence is that in Exodus God first tells 
Moses to put off his sandals, and 
afterwards says that he is the God of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while Acts 
reverses the order. It is also notice 
able that both Acts, vss. 30, 31, 33, 
and Exodus loc. cit. use angel, the 
Lord, voice of the Lord inter 
changeably. 

31. voice] The Western text has 
the Lord said to him, and, as in 
iii. 13, repeats the word God before 
Isaac and Jacob. 

33. holy ground] For a full treat 
ment of the history of the belief that 
bare feet are desirable on holy 
ground see especially J. Heckenbach, 
De nuditate sacra in the Religions- 
geschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 
ix. 3, and cf. F. Pfister in Archiv fur 
Religionswissenschaft, ix. (1906) p. 542. 
Apparently the original meaning was 
not so much reverence for the local 
God, as the belief that divine power 
passed from the ground through the 
feet of the worshipper, though later 
on it was held that shoes brought 
with them uncleanness. 

35. this Moses] The point is that, 
just as in the case of Joseph, God 
chose him whom the Israelites re 



jected, and it is emphasized by the 
six-fold repetition of ofiros in vss. 36, 
37, 38 and 40. 

judge] The Western text adds 
over us. Cf. LXX text of Exod. 
ii. 14. 

redeemer] The word XurpwrTjs is 
not used of Moses in the LXX. It 
is not a common word; not used at 
all in profane writers, but found in the 
LXX and in Philo and Justin, prob 
ably in dependence on the LXX. (see 
also Acts of Thomas, 60). Here again 
its use associates Moses with the 
description of Jesus in Luke xxiv. 21 
(6 /j.{\\ui&gt; \vrpovcr 6 O.L). See note on 
vs. 22. 

by the hand] avv xpt dyytXov has 
caused commentators much trouble, 
and they have tried to find some way 
of giving &lt;rvv its proper sense, and 
of distinguishing tv xpf (Antiochian 
text) from avv %et/&gt;t. But such at 
tempts are futile, for the phrase is not 
Greek at all, and means as little in 
Greek as with the hand of an angel 
would in English. It is a clear Semit- 
ism, if not an actual translation, and 
v xetpt, a bv x eL pi and 5ia %etp6s all 
represent the same phrase . The mean - 
ing is merely the obvious one that 
God s commission to Moses was given 
by the angel who appeared to him in 
the burning bush. 

36. wonders and signs] Cf. especi 
ally Exod. vii. ff. 

Red Sea] There is a striking like- 



78 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



vn 



Sea, and in the desert for forty years. This is the Moses who said 37 
^Q ^he sons o f Israel, A prophet will God raise up to you from 
among your brethren, as he did me. This is he who was in the 3 8 
assembly in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on 
Mount Sinai and our fathers, who received living oracles to give 
to us, to whom our fathers did not wish to be obedient, bat they 39 
pushed him away, and turned in their hearts to Egypt, saying to 40 
Aaron, Make for us gods who shall go before us, for this Moses 
who led us forth from the land of Egypt, we do not know what 
has become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and 41 



ness in wording to the Assumption of 
Moses, iii. 11, "Moyses . . . qui multa 
passus est in Aegypto et in mari rubro 
et in heremo annis xl." 
forty years] Of. Numbers xiv. 33. 

37. prophet] See iii. 22, Addit. 
Note 29, and Vol. I. pp. 403 ff. 

38. assembly] The natural trans 
lation of iv TTJ eKK\f]&lt;riq, is in the 
church (so A.V.), but the reference is 
to the LXX phrase 77 rj/u-^pa. T?}S e /cK-X^crtas 
meaning the day when the people 
assembled to receive the Law. Cf. 
Deut. iv. 10, ix. 10, xviii. 16. 

with] yU.erd rov ayy\ov . . . /ecu rCjv 
irartpuv Tjfj.Qiv. Perhaps this phrase 
covers the Hebrew idiom pm . . . pa 
= between. If so the meaning is that 
Moses was the mediator between the 
Angel and the Israelites. 

angel] According to the Hebrew 

text Jehovah himself gave the Law, 

but Jewish tradition introduced an 

angel as a mediator. Cf. LXX of 

Deut. xxxiii. 2 Kvpios e/c 2ti/a 77*61, /ecu 

tiretyavev e /c 2r;etp T/AUP, Kal Kar^ffirevo ev 

e" &povs 4&gt;apdi&gt;, ffvv fj.vpia.0-L /rdST/s K deiu&gt;i&gt; 

O.OTOV, &yye\oi /J.CT avrou, where the 

Hebrew says, " Jahveh came from 

Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them ; 

he shined forth from Mount Paran, 

and he came with ten thousands of 

saints ; from his right hand (went) a 

fiery law for them " ; see also vii. 

53 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; Hebr. ii. 2 ; Josephus, 

Antiq. xv. 5. 3; Philo, De somniis 

i. 22, p. 642 M; Test. XII Pair., Dan 

vi. 2 ; Jubilees i. 29, and the Rabbinic 

references in Strack ii. ad loc. and 

M. Dibelius, Die Oeisterwelt im Glauben 

des Paulus, 1909, p. 27. It is interest 



ing to notice that the angel is men 
tioned here in order to glorify the 
Law, but in Galatians to belittle it. 

received] Chose out is the read 
ing of B, but it can hardly be right 
(see textual evidence in Vol. III. pp. 
68 i.). 

oracles] \6yia means oracles 
in almost every place where the con 
text establishes the meaning. It also 
usually means the oracles of the 
Old Testament. The most famous 
passage alleged to the contrary is the 
reference in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, 
to Papias. But no one has any 
knowledge of the contents of the lost 
^777170-615 of Papias, and it is far from 
clear that they were not expositions 
of passages in the Old Testament 
referring to Christ. 

The word is used like XP^^ f 
divine utterances in pagan writers as 
well as in Christian. In Sophocles, 
Oed. Rex. 481 f. favra is used of 
fj.a.vre ia in the sense of operative. 
Deut. xxxii. 47 and perhaps 1 Peter 
i. 23. Cf. Hebr. iv. 12. 

39. pushed him away] Cf. vs. 27. 
Perhaps there is here, as B. Weiss 
noted, dependence upon Ezek. xx. 8, 
13, 16 OVK TjOeXTfjaav eiaaKouffat /uou . . 
ret ^TTLTrjdevfj.aTa Aiyvirrov . . . ra 5i/ccuid- 
fj.ard fj.ov airuvavTO. Possibly the \6yLa 
fuWa of the preceding verse is also 
due to Ezek. xx. with its recurring 
diKaLdt)/J.ara 8. TTOLrjaeL avra dvOpuiros /cat 
^crerat eV avrols. Apparently there 
are no nearer analogies in the LXX. 

40. make, etc.] Exod. xxxii. 1. 

41. made a calf] The Greek e&gt;o&lt;rxo- 

appears to be found only here 



VII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



79 



offered sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their 

42 hands. But God turned and gave them over to worship the host 

of heaven, as it has been written in the Book of the Prophets, 



and in later writers commenting on 
Amos v. 25, but the recurrence of 
/jioaxoTToia in Justin s Dialogue with 
Trypho (xix. 5, Ixxiii. 6, cii. 6, cxxxii. 
1), which is not directly dependent on 
Acts, indicates that it was not merely 
the creation of the author of Acts. 

works of their hands] Cf. Is. xliv. 
9ff. 

42. turned] tarpc^e may be transi 
tive or intransitive, and readers have 
differed on the point since the second 
century. The old African version 
renders it pervertit illos deus, but d 
and the Latin Irenaeus have convertit 
autem deus. There is a similar 
divergence of opinion among modern 
commentators, but the point is one of 
taste rather than of grammar. 

gave them over] The idea that 
God punishes sinners by delivering 
them over to worse sins is probably 
Jewish. It is emphatically expressed 
three times in Romans, i. 24, 26, 28, 
by the same verb that is used here 
(rraptSuKev). There also the story of 
the golden calf (as related in Psalm 
cvi. 19-20) is before the writer s mind. 
The sequence suggested appears to be 
(a) images of the true God, (6) worship 
of false gods, (c) gross and unnatural 
immorality. Cf. Wisdom xiv. 22 ff. 
For other Jewish parallels see the 
commentaries on Romans i. 24. 

the host of heaven] Cf . Jer. vii. 18, 
viii. 2, xix. 13 ; Zeph. i. 5 ; 2 Chron. 
xxxiii. 3, 5 ; Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3 ; 
2 Kings xxiii. 5. 

has been written] The quotation 
is from the LXX of Amos v. 25 ff., 
with one curious change. The im 
portance of the passage is that it is 
one in which the LXX differs con 
siderably from the Hebrew. The ori 
ginal text is, " Did ye offer me sacri 
fices and offerings in the wilderness 
forty years, house of Israel ? But 
ye have carried Sikkuth your king 
(oap^D rnaa) and the star -images of 
Chiun (p&gt;2) your god, which ye made 
for yourselves, therefore I will carry 
you into captivity beyond Damascus." 
The LXX read Sikkuth as meaning 
tabernacle, and * your king 



as the god Moloch. It also seems 
to have read Chiun as Raiphan ; Chiun 
(Kaiwan) was an Assyrian god usually 
correlated with Saturn, and Raiphan, 
or whatever spelling be adopted, is 
either a pure mistake or the name of a 
similar god (see especially Baudissin s 
articles on Moloch and Remphan 
in Herzog s RealencyH. ed. 3). Acts 
follows the LXX in these changes in 
a way which is scarcely intelligible 
if the speech represents what Stephen 
really said, speaking in Aramaic to 
a tribunal in Jerusalem, but is quite 
explicable if the speech was written 
in Greek by the writer of Acts or one 
of its sources. The adherents to the 
theory of an Aramaic original suggest 
that the translator always corrected 
the Old Testament references by the 
LXX. But there is one other change 
in the text of the quotation which 
speaks against this theory. The LXX 
and the Hebrew both make Amos say 
that the captivity will be beyond 
Damascus. Acts changes this to 
beyond Babylon. If the translator 
always made the quotations conform 
to the LXX, why did he not correct 
this glaring error ? In the time of 
Amos it was Assyria, not Babylon, 
which was the danger. 

The general meaning of Stephen s 
argument is that the Israelites, who 
from the beginning had rejected Moses, 
finally worshipped the golden calf, and 
were idolaters all the time that they 
were in the desert. The meaning of 
Amos was quite different; he was 
arguing against the sacerdotal em 
phasis on sacrifice. The captivity 
beyond Damascus is not a punish 
ment for failure to sacrifice in the 
wilderness, or for the worship of Chiun 
or Raiphan at that time, but for the 
idolatry of Amos own time, and the 
absence of sacrifice in the wilderness 
is quoted as a proof of the unimport 
ance of the traditional cultus. 

Book of the Prophets] The refer 
ence is not to the second part of the 
Old Testament Canon as a whole, 
which was not contained in one book 
but in several of which the Twelve 



80 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



Amosv.25ff. Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings for forty years, house 

of Israel ? And you took the tabernacle of Moloch and the 43 
star of the god Kompha, the images which you made to worship 
them, and I will make you move your dwelling to beyond 
Babylon. The tabernacle of witness was with our fathers in 44 

Exod.xxv.9. the wilderness, as he who spoke to Moses ordained to make 

it according to the image which he had seen. And when our 45 
fathers in turn had received this, they brought it in, with Joshua, 
at the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out from before 



or minor prophets constituted the 
one book here meant. For their treat 
ment as a unit cf. Sirach xlix. 10. 
For the omission of the name of the 
specific minor prophet see notes on 
ii. 16 and xiii. 40. 

43. beyond Babylon] The beyond 
is merely a remnant of the text of 
Amos beyond Damascus, and it is 
intelligently corrected away in D, 
which reads to the regions of Babylon 
(eiri TO. fAtprj ~Ba[3v\uvos). This remedies 
the sense; but the textual evidence 
in favour of * beyond is too strong 
to resist. 

44. tabernacle of witness] The Old 
Testament used for the tabernacle 
sometimes nny "?nN tent of testi 
mony (perhaps with reference to the 
two tables of the law, cf. ark of 
testimony ) but more often SHN 
nyio tent of assembly. The LXX 
renders both by cncrjVT] /j-aprvpiov, per 
haps supposing the latter to be a 
synonym of the former, since both 
words ha vet wo consonants in common, 
or possibly deriving -iyin from vyn to 
testify. 

he who spoke] See note on vii. 53. 

image] Exod. xxv. 9. God gave 
exact instructions to Moses, and on 
Mt. Sinai showed him the model 
which he was to follow. The Taber 
nacle was a faithful copy of this, and 
it in time was copied by the builders 
of the Temple. Cf. the use made in 
Heb. viii. 1 ff., and the representation 
of Christ as High Priest in the true 
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched. 

In Exodus xxv. 9 the LXX uses rb 
Trapadeiyfjui which has perhaps affected 
the form of Codex Bezae TO Tra[pd]- 
TVTTOV (see Vol. III. p. 71). The TVTTOS 



here is taken from Exodus xxv. 40 
also quoted in Heb. viii. 5. The verbal 
relation of the rrjv aKTjvrjv rov MoXox 
. . . TOVS TVTTOVS avT&v ous eTrotTjcrare of 
the quotation from Amos in vs. 42 
to the i) ffnyvr] TOV fJiapTvpiov . . . Kara 
rbv Tvirov dv ewpd/cet in this verse, 
which, in turn, also represents other 
Old Testament expressions, is the 
cause of the juxtaposition and the 
clue to the sequence of thought. 

45. And when, etc.] The whole con 
struction of the sentence is very clumsy 
and difficult. The context shows that 
the meaning of the writer is that 
from Joshua to David the Israelites 
used the Tabernacle, not a temple. 
The clue to its exact force is to be 
found in diade^duevoi, which implies 
a succession, 5ia5o%?j being the tech 
nical term for the list cf philosophers 
who made up a school, and later 
on (in Eusebius and other ecclesiasti 
cal writers) for the sequence of bishops, 
martyrs, and theologians who secured 
the continuity of the Church, e ws 
TU&gt;I&gt; rj/uepuv Aaveid thus limits the 
period of the diadoxrj which began 
with Joshua. The more obvious con 
nexion would be with euo-j&gt;, but this 
adds nothing to the force of the sen 
tence. It is true that the /carci&lt;rxe&lt;m 
T&V Zdvwv might be regarded as not 
complete until the time of David, but 
the aorist ewa-e would in this case be 
rather harsh. The decisive point is 
the undoubted fact that the writer was 
thinking primarily about the use of the 
Tabernacle, not about the possessing 
of the Gentiles, which he only men 
tions casually to date the period re 
ferred to. 

possession] /cardo-xetm is origin- 



VII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



81 



46 the face of our fathers, until the days of David. And he p s . CXX xii. 5. 
found favour before God and sought leave to find a tabernacle 

47 for the house of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. 

48 Yet it is not the Highest who dwells in houses made by hand, is. ixvi. i f. 

49 even as the prophet says, Heaven is my throne and the earth is 



ally an active verbal noun taking 
possession but in the LXX it is used 
in the sense of having in possession, 
and this is doubtless the meaning here 
(see Field, Notes, p. 116). The Greek 
in Gen. xvii. 8 is els /cardo-xeo-ti/ alwviov. 

46. sought leave] T^rTjcraro, cf. Ps. 
cxxxii. 5 (2 Sam. vii. 1 ff., 1 Chr. xvii. 1). 

house of Jacob] Commentators have 
found great difficulty in this phrase, 
which they think should be God of 
Jacob, in agreement with Ps. cxxxii., 
and the text has been so emended 
both by scribes and critics. Tran- 
scriptional evidence is, however, wholly 
in favour of OLKW, nor is the phrase at 
all impossible ; David wished to build 
a habitation (of God) for the house of 
Jacob. After all, the Temple, like the 
Tabernacle, was a house or tent of 
meeting, and it was to be used by 
the house of Jacob as well as by the 
Almighty. Moreover, seeing that the 
writer almost certainly had in mind 
Ps. cxxxii. 5 e ws ov evpu TOTTOV T&lt; 
Kvpiu, (TKrivw/uia rf Beaj Ia/cu&gt;/3, the eupw 
both explains the relation between 
the two parts of this verse (cf. the 
preceding evpev in Acts) and also the 
curious phrase evpeiv aK-nvu/na, while the 
succeeding oiKo86/n / rjai&gt; . . . OIKOV has 
facilitated the substitution, whether 
by author or scribe, of ol /cy Ia/cw/3 
for the 6e Ia/a6/3 of the Psalm. 
(For suggested emendations of the 
text see the note in Vol. III. p. 72.) 

47. Solomon] Cf. 1 Kings v. ff. 

48. it is not, etc.] This seems to be 
the right rendering of the B-text. The 
clumsiness of the Greek has been 
smoothed down by the Western text 
into 6 5 V^KTTOS ot) /carot/cet KT\. 
The meaning of the B-text may be, 
as Zahn thinks, to imply that the 
gods of the heathen do dwell in 
temples. It is in any case clear that 
the position of the ovx is intended to 
negative 6 tfi/ao-ro?, though many gram 
marians regard it as misplaced and 
negativing /carotve?. 

the Highest] u^taros is used in the 
VOL. IV 



LXX to render p^y, which is used in 
the Old Testament especially in con 
nexion with non- Israelites who recog 
nized the true God. It is translated 
in the A.V. by Most High. Cf. 
Gen. xiv. 18 ff. (the story of Mel- 
chizedek), Numbers xxiv. 16, Dan. iii. 
26 ff ., Is. xiv. 14. In the New Testa 
ment it is used as a name of God 
seven times by Luke, but only twice 
elsewhere, in Mark v. 7 and in Heb. 
vii. 1, which is a quotation of Gen. 
xiv. 18. It was apparently adopted 
as the special title of God used by a 
curious society of heathen who were 
hah* Jews, or Jews who were half 
heathen, in the region of the Black 
Sea. (See Addit. Note 8 and F. 
Cumont, Hypsistos, in Pauly-Wissowa, 
and for the history of the Hebrew 
word see Dalman, Worte Jesu, i. pp. 
162 f.) Cf. below on xvi. 17. 

made by hand] xeipoTroirjTots is 
used most frequently of idolatrous 
temples, and has a clearly derogatory 
implication. Many commentators 
think that Stephen means that the 
building of the Temple was actually 
wrong (see especially Zeller ad loc., 
and Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift fur 
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895, pp. 
401 f.). Possibly this is an exaggera 
tion, but at least the meaning is that 
in attributing permanent sanctity to 
the Temple the Jews were verging 
on idolatry. It is tempting to think 
that this contention is also behind the 
strange phrase a tabernacle for the 
house of Jacob. The Temple was 
regarded as the tabernacle of God, 
but it was really the tabernacle of 
the house of Jacob. But this is 
probably reading too much into the 
text. See also xvii. 24. 

the prophet] Is. Ixvi. 1 f., quoted 
from the LXX. The same passage 
is quoted in Barnabas xvi. 2 with 
reference to the destruction of the 
temple in Jerusalem, and with the 
same slight variation from the text 
of the LXX T) T/S TOTTOS for /ecu 

G 



82 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



the footstool of my feet. What house will ye build for me, 
saith the Lord, or where is the place of my rest ? Did not my 50 
hands make all these things ? stiffnecked and uncircumcised 51 
in heart and ears, ye do ever resist the Holy Spirit ; as your 
fathers did, so also do ye. Which of the prophets did not your 52 
fathers persecute ? And they slew those who announced before- 



rdiros of the LXX an agreement 
which brings up the same problem 
of the use of variant LXX texts or 
of dependence on books of Testimonia 
which such agreements raise else 
where. See note on iii. 22 f., where 
the passage in Deut. xviii. 15 f . (which 
occurs also in vs. 37 above) is quoted 
with a variation from the LXX which 
recurs verbatim in Clem. Eecogn. i. 
36, but, as it seems, independently 
of Acts. It is also noteworthy that 
Justin Martyr in Dial. xxii. 2-5, 11 
brings together Amos v. 25 ff. and 
Is. Ixvi. 1 f. just as Acts does; but 
there is no reason to imagine any 
dependence of Justin on Acts. 

49. will ye build] B reads did ye 
build ; but this is surely a mistake. 

51. stiffnecked] cr/cX^porpax^Aoi is 
only found here in the N.T. and is 
taken from Exod. xxxiii. 3 and other 
passages in the LXX where it renders 
*]-iy ns?p which is used to describe the 
rebellious tendency of Israel. 

uncircumcised in heart and ears] 
The first part of the phrase used in 
Lev. xxvi. 41, Ezek. xliv. 7, etc., to 
describe a heathen disposition. For 
uncircumcised in ear cf. Jer. vi. 10. 
But the combination in Acts resembles 
most nearly Deut. x. 16 Trepirejuetcrfle 
rrjv ffK\TjpoKap5iav V^JL&V (so also Jer. iv. 

4) KO.L TOV TpaXTJ^OV V/Ji&V OU CT K\T) pW IT . 

the Holy Spirit] Used here, as in 
the Rabbinic writings, with the special 
meaning of spirit of prophecy. (See 
Additional Note 9.) Cod. Athous 
Laur. 184 has the interesting note 
Vfji-eis T(j&gt; ayiQ iri eii/J.aTi avmrlivreTe. 
wu&gt;s ; 6 rt avrbs adr/yel, V/JLCLS d TrXavdre 
avrbs &lt;/&gt;umei, u/ieis 5 GKori^ere avros 
fftppaylfci, vfj-els d d.Tro&lt;rv\aTe. ravra 
v TLffiv dpxcucus ai&gt;Tiypd&lt;j)Oi.s eupo/xef 
Trapa.Kflfj.eva (see E. v. d. Goltz, TU. 
N.F. ii. 4, p. 36). Obviously an old 
comment written in the margin. Had 
it gone one stage further and been in 
corporated in the text it would be an 



example of the growth of the Western 
text. 

52. Which of the prophets] Origen 
in Cramer s Catena (p. 127) probably 
means that Stephen s implication that 
all the prophets were persecuted can 
hardly be justified from the O.T., but 
the Greek printed is scarcely intelli 
gible. In commenting on Matt. x. 18 
he quotes Moses, Isaiah, and Zechariah 
as examples. 

slew] There is no historical evi 
dence that this is true, but to support 
it a mass of legends grew up, describ 
ing almost every prophet as a martyr. 
The basis of these legends was prob 
ably a Jewish book, which is not 
extant. It is preserved in six forms 
in Christian tradition. (1) Epi- 
phanius, De prophetarum vita et obitu. 
The question has scarcely been settled 
whether this is a genuine work of Epi- 
phanius. Fr. Delitzsch defended its 
authenticity, but both Bardenhewer 
(Patrologie, 2nd ed. p. 274) and N. 
Bonwetsch in Herzog s Realencyldo- 
pddie, s.v. Epiphanius, rejected it. 
(2) Dorotheus, De prophetarum vita et 
obitu. His identity is doubtful, but 
he may have been bishop of Tyre c. 
A.D. 290. (3) Another text also attri 
buted to Epiphanius. (4) An anony 
mous treatise, possibly the archetype 
of the last, is found in the Codex 
Marchalianus of the LXX. This MS. 
is closely connected with the Hexapla 
of Origen, and it is not impossible 
that he was acquainted with this 
treatise, and even that he may have 
incorporated it in the Hexapla. (5) 
Hesychius, De prophetarum vita et 
obitu : a compilation from more than 
one writer. (6) The Greek Synaxarion. 

The text of all these is now con 
veniently accessible in Th. Schermann, 
Prophetarum vitae fabulosae in the 
Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1907. Cf. 
his essay on the same subject in Texte 
und Untersuchungen, xxxi. 3. 



VII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



83 



hand about the coming of the Just One, of whom you have 

53 now become betrayers and murderers, you, who received the 
law by the commands of angels and did not keep it." 

54 And when they heard this they were deeply wounded, and 

55 they gnashed their teeth at him. But being full of the Holy 



announced beforehand] A stage 
in the development of the growth of 
the legends about the prophets is 
found in the Apologists, especially in 
Justin Martyr, which ascribes the 
death of the prophets to the machina 
tions of demons, who did not wish the 
coming of the Messiah to be known. 
This view is also found in Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom, vi. 15. 127). 

the Just One] This is used as a 
title of Jesus in iii. 14, in this verse, 
and in xxii. 14. There is no evidence 
that it was a Jewish synonym for the 
Messiah except that in Enoch xxxviii. 
2 the author of that section uses 
* the Righteous among other titles 
for the Messiah. But it seems to 
have been one of the earliest titles 
used by the Christians in Jerusalem 
to designate Jesus. It is possible 
that it is connected with the passages 
in Wisdom ii. E. which speak of the 
Righteous One, and his ill-treatment 
by the wicked. It may be peculiarly 
Lucan, but it is found only in speeches 
in Acts, and it is at least quite pos 
sible that the speeches in Acts, as in 
the Gospel, come from sources. Thus 
it is not improbable that the use of the 
title is primitive, and may have been 
used of Jesus from the beginning. 
It apparently passed on to James, the 
Lord s brother, who was also called 
6 5i/ccuos. There are possible though 
not necessary references to it in Matt, 
xxvii. 19, " Have thou nothing to do 
with r 5i/ccuy e/ceti y," in the story of 
Pilate s wife, and in Luke xxiii. 47 
the words of the centurion, ovrus 6 
&vdp&lt;j}Tros oBros Si.Kai.os fy. In this case 
the story gains point if 6 Si/ccuos was a 
familiar title of Jesus. In the latter 
instance 6 SIKCUOS seems to be less likely 
to be original than Qeov vios in the 
parallel in Mark xv. 39. In both 
passages there is a possible allusion to 
Wisdom. (See also note on ix. 17, 
Addit. Note 29 and Vol. I. pp. 387 f.) 

53. by the commands] as 



is an impossible phrase if any attempt 
be made to give ei s its classical mean 
ing, but ei s and eV are almost inter 
changeable in Koine Greek, with a 
strong tendency in favour of ei s. In 
order to obviate the difficulty that 
the O.T. does not mention the angels 
at the giving of the Law, Chrysostom 
(Horn. xvii. p. 138) connects this with 
the intervention of the angel at the 
burning bush. But this is obviously 
not the meaning, and for the Jewish 
tradition which introduces the angels 
at the giving of the Law see note on 
vs. 38. 

Siarayrj well illustrates how words 
formerly described as Biblical have 
now been found widely represented 
in papyri, inscriptions, and even in 
writings of secular literature. See 
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East*, Eng. Trans., 1927, pp. 89 ff. 
One of the few striking verbal agree 
ments between Paul and Acts (see on 
ix. 21) is that in the passage (Gal. iii. 
19) where Paul mentions the giving 
of the law by angels the correspond 
ing verb is used diarayeis 5i dyye\uv. 
But the verb is perhaps natural in 
the circumstances, cf. vs. 44 Kadws 
Sierd^aro 6 AaXcDi/ ry Mwuerf?. Is 6 
XaXcDz/ also an angel ? Cf. Heb. ii. 2 
6 t dyye\(j}v \a\r)0el$. 

54 ff. The account of Stephen s 
death has numerous but unexplained 
likenesses to the several accounts of 
the execution of James the brother 
of Jesus in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1 ; 
Hegesippus (apud Eusebius, H.E. ii. 
23) ; Clement of Alexandria (ibid. ii. 
1) ; and the Clementine Recognitions, 
i. 64-70. 

deeply wounded] dieirptovro rats 
Kapdiais avruv, lit. were cut in their 
hearts. Cf. v. 33. 

gnashed] Cf. Job xvi. 9; Ps. xxxv. 
16, etc. 

55. full of the Holy Spirit] The 
Western text reads being in the 
Holy Spirit, which may be the 



84 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



Spirit he looked up to the sky and saw the glory of God, and 
Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, " Behold I 56 
see the skies open and the Son of man standing on the right 
hand of God." And they cried out with a loud voice, and shut 57 



original. See note in Vol. III. 
p. 74. 

glory of God] The vision of God 
is the usual consolation of the martyr 
(cf . Polyc. Martyr, v. 2, Pass.Perpetuae, 
iv. 7. 4ff.). 

Jesus standing] Waiting to wel 
come Stephen ? Or to avenge him ? 
It is probably pressing too much on 
a single passage to inquire closely 
what is the implied eschatology of 
this passage. But it may be noted 
that if standing be taken as * wel 
coming, the implication is that 
Stephen would pass straight to the 
presence of God, without waiting for 
the judgement or resurrection. The 
same eschatology is implied by the 
story of Dives and Lazarus, and by 
the promise to the penitent thief (Luke 
xxiii. 43). It was perpetuated in the 
Church s doctrine of an intermediate 
state. Can this be regarded as pecu 
liarly Lucan ? It should be compared 
with the Apocalyptic eschatology 
which looked forward to a double re 
surrection, first that of the martyrs 
who would share in the Millennium, 
afterwards that of the rest of mankind. 
Paul s eschatology is obscure on this 
point. 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corin 
thians, while varying in detail, have 
essentially that of the Apocalypse, but 
2 Corinthians and Philippians have 
more nearly that of Acts vii. and of 
the parable of Lazarus. Though the 
Church combined in its teaching the 
Apocalyptic and the Lucan views, it 
retained a sense that the promise to 
the penitent thief was exceptional, 
and in Byzantine art the penitent 
thief is found, together with Enoch 
and Elijah, within the walls of Para 
dise, welcoming the redeemed as they 
come up after the judgement. 

The Western text, "Jesus, the 
Lord, standing at the right hand of 
God," is an interesting variant. 

56. Son of man] The only place 
in the N.T. outside the Gospels where 
this phrase is used of Jesus ; it seems 
to imply a reference to the words of 



Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Luke 
xxii. 69, " Hereafter shall the Son of 
man sit on the right hand of the power 
of God," which is a characteristically 
Lucan rewriting of the much more 
ambiguous and more eschatological 
Marcan phrase, " I am [the Messiah] ; 
and ye shall see the Son of man sitting 
on the right hand of Power, and 
coming in the clouds of heaven " (see 
Vol. I. pp. 374 ff ., and F. C. Burkitt, 
Christian Beginnings, pp. 29 ff.). 

57. they cried out] The Western 
text (h, I) being assimilated to the 
B-text) probably read "Then the 
people cried out." This is exegesis. 
The point which is left doubtful in the 
B-text is whether the writer intends 
the death of Stephen to be regarded 
as an execution by the Sanhedrin, 
or a lynching by the mob. The 
Western text apparently decided that 
it was a lynching. Possibly it is 
right in its opinion, but probability on 
the whole favours the ambiguous 
B-text. Certainty is impossible and 
guesses are hazardous, but I incline to 

Eve some weight to the guess that 
uke knew two versions, probably 
written, of Stephen s death which 
either omitted his speech or substanti 
ally agreed in their accounts of it, but 
gave variant accounts of the beginning 
and the end of the proceedings. This 
would account for the curiously double 
character of the introduction in vi. 
11-15, in which vi. 11 f. and vi. 13 f. 
seem to give two versions of the 
accusation against Stephen, and the 
similarly double character of the con 
clusion in vii. 57 ff . in which there 
seems to be a combination of two 
accounts, so that it is twice stated 
that they stoned Stephen. On the 
other hand the speech itself seems to 
me a unit, and all the attempts to 
divide it into sources are unsatis 
factory. (See Vol. II. pp. 148 ff., and, 
of the mass of literature which en 
deavours to analyse this passage into 
several sources, cf. especially Feine, 
Eine vorkanonische Uberlicferung des 



VII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



85 



58 their ears, and rushed together against him, and threw him out 
of the city and began to stone him. And the witnesses put 
down their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. 

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive 



Lukas, pp. 190 ff. ; Spitta, pp. 101 ff. ; 
J. Weiss, Studien und Kritiken, 1893, 
pp. 498 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur 
wissenschaftliche TheoL, 1895, pp. 
403 ff.) 

58. threw him out] This verse 
certainly reads more like a lynching 
than an execution, and is in strong 
contrast to the slow and orderly pro 
ceedings ordained in the treatise 
Sanhedrin in the Mishna (see Vol. I. 
pp. 33 ff.). 

the witnesses] This points to an 
execution, for in the Mishna the wit 
nesses had the duty of execution (cf. 
Deut. xvii. 7). But there is nothing in 
the Mishna about their taking off their 
clothes for this purpose. The usual 
idea that they took off their coats in 
order to throw stones more effectively 
is singularly wide of the mark. The 
official stoning of the Mishna con 
sisted in throwing the criminal over a 
precipice, and rolling a heavy stone 
on to his chest. One witness threw 
him over head first, turned him over, 
and rolled a stone down. If this did 
not kill him the second witness rolled 
down another stone. Modern inter 
pretation is based on Raphael s cartoon 
rather than on the Mishna. It is, how 
ever, curious that though the Mishna 
says nothing about the clothes of the 
witnesses, it does speak of the clothes 
of the criminal. These were taken 
off before he was thrown over the 
precipice. Is it possible that there 
has been an early confusion in the 
tradition, and that it was Stephen s 
clothes which were laid at the feet of 
Saul ? I do not suggest that the text 
should be emended, especially since 
xxii. 20 guarantees that the clothes, 
in the opinion of the writer, were 
those of the witnesses ; but to show how 
easily such a change might have arisen 
I would point out it would only require 
the alteration in vs. 58 of avrwv to 
avTou. (See R. Hirzel, Die Strafe der 
Steinigung in the Abhandlungen d. 
Leipziger Oes. vol. xxvii. 7, 1909.) 
Saul] Through however many 



stages this may have passed, this 
surely must be a genuine Pauline 
reminiscence. It is, however, by no 
means clear that it means that Saul 
was guarding the clothes. It seems 
quite as probable that Saul was one 
of the onlookers, that the clothes, 
whether of the witnesses or of Stephen, 
were put down in front of him, and 
that this detail made that strangely 
deep impression which is so often 
made by apparently insignificant in 
cidents. If we are present at some 
great event it is usually some curious 
trifle which is most vividly impressed 
on our visual or aural memory. The 
importance of this fact that we have 
here a genuine piece of Pauline remin 
iscence is that it probably turns 
the scale in favour of the view that 
Stephen was actually executed rather 
than lynched. The orderly taking off 
and placing together of clothes belongs 
to the story of an execution, not of a 
lynching. But I am far from equally 
certain that Luke thought of Stephen s 
death in this way. Indeed, I rather 
suspect that one of his subordinate 
purposes was to suggest that Stephen 
was put to death by the violence of 
a mob, not by the legal sentence of a 
court. 

59. saying] Stephen s last words 
are clearly based on the Lucan version 
of the last words of Jesus. Lord 
Jesus, receive my spirit, corresponds 
to Luke xxiii. 46, Father, into thy 
hands I commend my spirit, and 
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge 
may correspond to Luke xxiii. 34, 
Father, forgive them, for they know 
not what they do, though in view of 
the doubt as to the authenticity of 
Luke xxiii. 34 it is possible that there 
has been a tendency to supplement 
the story of the Passion by details 
taken from the story of Stephen. 

Lord Jesus] If it were certain that 
this is the exact phrase used by 
Stephen it would prove the contention 
of those who think that Kvptos (or 
Maran) came to be used in Jerusalem 



86 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VII 



my spirit." And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, 60 
" Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." And when he had said 
this, he fell asleep. And Saul shared in the approval of his murder. 8 
And on that day a great persecution came upon the church in 



rather than in Antioch. But in view 
of the general evidence I still think 
that the use of Lord here is due to 
Luke s literary preference for the title. 
(See Vol. I. pp. 408 ff., and cf. F. C. 
Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, pp. 
44 ff., and Additional Note 29.) A 
further point which is sometimes 
made is less difficult to answer. Is 
this an example of prayer to Jesus, as 
to God ? I think that it clearly is not. 
It belongs, as Luke himself indicates, 
to the Son of man Christology. 
In the vision of Stephen the Son of 
man is at the right hand of God, where 
all the Apocalyptic tradition of the 
Jews would place him. However 
much there may be room for doubt 
whether Jesus thought that he was 
the Son of man, it is certain that the 
earliest Christians, at least of the type 
which survived, all thought so. If 
Stephen saw the Son of man, what 
was more natural than to ask him for 
help ? But the Son of man was not 
God, and in this very narrative is 
distinguished from God. Even if the 
word Maran were used by Stephen 
or by the other disciples, it must be 
clearly remembered that for the 
history of thought, rather than of 
words, the important point is that 
Maran does not imply divinity, though 
Kvpios at least frequently does so. 

60. lay not] The general meaning 
is of course clear, but there is some 
doubt as to the exact significance of 
arrjaris. Two views are advocated. 
(1) trr/i0Tp = l ?pv t to weigh out and so 
to pay. Cf. 1 Kings xx. 39. The 
objection to this is that in this sense 
iffrdvat requires a direct object of the 
payment made, not of that for which 
it is paid. (2) 0-7770-775 = to establish. 
Cf. Rom. x. 3, Heb. x. 9. Its force 
is well illustrated in 1 Mace. xiii. 38, 
39 and xv. 5 where it is used in con 
trast to d0t?7yut. /U.TJ &lt;TTr](rys is there 
fore the exact equivalent of ct0es 
Luke xxiii. 34. Cf. Cramer s Catena 
ad loc. 
fell asleep] See note on xiii. 36. 



1-3. These verses reveal not very 
skilful splicing. viii. la, viii. 3, ix. 
1 ff. give a connected sequence with 
Saul as their centre; viii. 2 seems 
logically to belong to vii. 60; and 
viii. Ib is intended to introduce the 
story of the evangelization of Samaria 
and Judaea which is given in viii. 
4ff. 

1. persecution] How far was perse 
cution possible under Roman govern 
ment ? This question cannot be 
answered, for even if it be true that 
Roman law would have forbidden it, 
we do not know whether Roman 
administration would not have con 
nived at it. It should be noted that 
the view that the persecution entailed 
death is an inference from the death 
of Stephen (which may have been a 
case of lynching ), and from &xpi 
Oavdrov in xxii. 4, which may be merely 
due to the editor. The Jews certainly 
had powerto inflict disciplinary punish 
ment (cf. Juster, vol. ii. pp. 127 ff). 
It is also just possible that the death 
of Stephen came after the dismissal of 
Pilate in A.D. 36, when anything may 
have happened, but the natural inter 
pretation of the evidence suggests that 
the conversion of Paul, and there 
fore the death of Stephen, was at least 
as early as A.D. 34. According to 
Galatians ii. 1 Paul s conversion was, 
taking the interpretation which gives 
the shortest period, 1 2 to 14 years before 
the conference in Jerusalem; taking 
the other interpretation it was between 
14 and 17 years. The conference was 
probably in the year of the famine, 
which cannot be later than 46, so that 
the date of Paul s conversion would be 
A.D. 29-32 on one system of reckoning, 
or 32-34 according to the other. The 
latter is obviously the more probable. 
The elements of doubt in this argu 
ment are whether the conference in 
Jerusalem was really in the year of the 
famine, and whether the statement in 
Gal. ii. 1 can be trusted when it says 
that 14 years elapsed between Paul s 
conversion and his second visit to 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



87 



Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the country - 

2 side of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. But pious 

men gathered up Stephen and made a great wailing over him. 



Jerusalem. If either of these doubts 
be regarded as serious, a later date 
for the death of Stephen becomes 
possible. (See Additional Note 34.) 

Jerusalem] That Paul persecuted 
the Christians is confirmed by Gal. i. 
13, 22 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Philipp. iii. 6 ; 
1 Tim. i. 13. But in none of these 
passages is it stated that he was in 
Jerusalem, and the passage in Gala- 
tians would certainly be interpreted, 
if it were not for Acts, as meaning 
that he persecuted the Christians in 
Damascus, for there is nothing in it 
about Jerusalem, and when it says 
that Paul returned to Damascus, it 
seems to imply that Damascus was 
his centre of operations. It goes on 
to say that he was " unknown by sight 
to the churches of Judaea which are 
in Christ" (Gal. i. 22). A persecutor 
may be hated, but is not likely to be 
unknown, especially if he had been 
carrying out a policy of house-to-house 
visitation. 

countryside] xwpas is always a 
doubtful word. It often means coun 
try as opposed to town. But it 
may mean a political district, equiva 
lent to the Latin regio (cf . xiii. 49 and 
xvi. 6). Here the genitives after x^pas 
turn the scale in favour of the former 
interpretation. (See note on vs. 5 and 
Addit. Note 18.) 

apostles] The Western text adds 
who remained in Jerusalem, which 
is doubtless a correct interpretation. 
But how was it that the apostles 
avoided the persecution ? Possibly 
the statement is purely editorial, and 
intended to prepare the way for vs. 14 
(ot ev Iepoffo\vfji.ois d7r6crToAo). Well- 
hausen thinks it is intended to show 
that the apostles were not persecuted, 
being regarded as sufficiently good 
Jews ; the attack was only against the 
Hellenist Christians. Or is it intended 
to show that the command in i. 4 not 
to leave Jerusalem was still being 
obeyed by the Apostles ? 

2. pious] It is probable that 
eu\a/3e?s has no semi-technical sense, 
any more than has ot &lt;re(36/ut.ei oi. But 



to judge from his use of the word 
elsewhere the author possibly thinks 
of them as good Jews rather than as 
good Christians. They played a role 
like that of Joseph of Arimathea, who 
unlike Saul was not approving (Luke 
xxiii. 51). Christian tradition makes 
Gamaliel bury Stephen in his own 
tomb. However, it is possible for a 
man like Ananias to be described at 
one time as ev\a(3r)s Kara TOI* v6fj.ov 
(xxii. 12) and at another as a ,0,0, $77x77? 
(ix. 10). Cf. also the problem of 
Joseph of Arimathea s Christianity 
(see K. Lake, The Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, pp. 169-178). To bury 
an executed criminal was a duty 
prescribed by the Law (Deut. 
xxi. 22 f. and cf. Josephus, BJ. iv. 
5.2). 

gathered up] awKo^w is to gather 
up for burial, t/c/coytu^w is to take out 
for burial (cf. Luke vii. 12). It is 
possible that ava-reXXu is a synonym 
for avvKo/j.ifa. See note on v. 6 and 
cf. Field, Notes on the Translation of 
the N.T. pp. 116 f. 

made a great wailing] The tradi 
tional Jewish wake. The fact that 
this wake was possible is an indica 
tion that Stephen was lynched rather 
than executed, or at least that the 
writer wished this conclusion to be 
drawn. For a man executed by ston 
ing no wake was allowed (Sank. vi. 
6). Moreover, if Stephen had been 
executed in accordance with the Law 
of the Mishna, his body would have 
been hung up and exposed to public 
view, and then before sunset buried 
in one of the graves of malefactors, 
where it would have remained until 
the flesh had rotted away. The bones 
were then removed and buried in the 
man s family grave. (See Strack, ii. 
p. 686.) It should, however, never be 
overlooked that on this and similar 
points the Mishna represents the pro 
cedure which a writer in the second 
century thought proper, and therefore 
ascribed to the past, rather than that 
which was actually followed in the 
first century. 



88 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VIII 



But Saul ravaged the church, entering in from house to house 3 
and seizing men and women and handing them over to prison. 

So then those who were scattered passed through the land 4 



3. ravaged] eXi^cuyero. Although 
this word occurs here only in the N.T., 
its use in the LXX, in Hermas, and in 
the papyri shows that it is neither 
specially literary (Blass) nor medical 
(Hobart). Even if its real etymology 
was from \vfj,rj it evidently came to 
be popularly connected with Aoi/xos, 
as the spelling XOI^CUI/O/ACU suggests. 
So (tf) B in the LXX and P Grenf i. 
17. 15. It came to have a figurative 
sense of insult, but it is used liter 
ally of physical injury, e.g. Arrian, 
Epict. iii. 22. 87, particularly of the 
mangling by wild beasts, e.g. lions 
(Dan. Theod. vi. 22 ; Aelian, V.H. iv. 
5), boars (Ps. Ixxx. 14; Callim. 
Hymn, in Dian. 156; Plut. Mulier. 
virt. 248 D ; Aelian, De nat. anim. xii. 
38), leopards (Ecclus. xxviii. 23), 
wolves (Isaiah Ixv. 25, P Par 6. 19). 
That the author of Acts had this 
figure still in mind here is perhaps 
confirmed by his metaphors in xx. 28 f. 

eTTlCr/COTTOUS, TTOL/J.aiveLV 
TOV 6eOV . . . \VKOl 

TJ 0ei56yu.ej&gt;oi TOV TTOL/JVIOV. 
But its less literal use was common and 
may be illustrated by two references 
to anti-Jewish outrage at Alexandria 
contemporary with the events of 
Acts. Philo, Legatio ad Caium, 134 
(ii. p. 565) says of the Alexandrians 
uxds oaas /ZTJ edwrjOyaai [j.irp f]&lt;Te&lt;n, 
. . . erepov 



TQOTTOV \vfJ.r)vavTO /^era rrjs TWV 
/ecu td&v dvarpoTTTjs, and the Emperor 
Claudius commands them (P Lond, 
1912, 85 f. = H. I. Bell, Jews and 
Christians in Egypt, p. 25) ^oev rCiv 
irpos dprfffKelav ai)ro?s (i.e. louScuots) 

TOV deov Xot/A^wfrcu (i.e. 

d\Xa C)o~iv CIVTOVS rols 



4-40. THE EVANGELIZATION OF 
SAMARIA AND JUDAEA. This section 
contains three stories : (a) vss. 4-13, 
the Preaching of Philip in Samaria; 
(6) vss. 14-25, the Preaching of Peter 
in Samaria ; (c) vss. 26-40, the further 
adventures of Philip, ending in 



Caesarea. Possibly ix. 32-xi. 18 is 
the legitimate continuation of this 
narrative, and should be catalogued 
as (d) the further adventures of Peter, 
including, like those of Philip, a visit 
to Caesarea but ultimately ending in 
Jerusalem. (See further the note on 
ix. 32-xi. 18. 

In this Peter-Philip-Caesarean nar 
rative, the apparent schematization, 
which further suggests the parallel 
ism between the two pairs Peter- 
Philip and Barnabas-Saul, has raised 
the question of its composition. Has 
the author combined a Peter document 
and a Philip document ? In favour of 
this view is the way in which, though 
Peter and Philip are represented as 
the evangelists of Samaria and Judaea 
(Caesarea), they never meet. More 
over the Peter-narrative suggests by 
its introduction of John in vs. 14 that 
it is connected with the A source of 
the Jerusalem tradition. Even if the 
addition of John be due to the editor, 
he seems to have made that especial 
addition only in passages coming from 
J a (see also Vol. II. p. 140). Such an 
hypothesis cannot be proved, but it is 
in any case more probable either than 
that of Waitz, who thinks that the 
mention of Philip is an emendation of 
an older tradition which spoke only 
of Peter, or than that of Preuschen, 
who reverses this suggestion. (See 
Waitz, ZNTW. vii. (1906), pp. 340 ff. ; 
E. Schwartz, Oott. Nach., 1907, pp. 
279 ff . ; Preuschen, note ad loc. ; and cf . 
Vol. II. p. 152.) 

4. So then] The u,h ovv in vs. 4 is, 
as usual, the sign of transition to a 
new episode. It recurs in vs. 25 
introducing another story of Philip s 
preaching in Judaea, ending in 
Caesarea, the Roman capital. The 
narrator then turns to Saul in ix. 1, 
this time without any /*&/ ovv. But 
the significant particle again reappears 
as soon as the story of Saul is brought 
down as far as Caesarea and Tarsus, 
and T] i&v ovv e/c/cX^cri a KT\. may 
introduce the story of Peter s mission 



vm 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



89 



5 preaching the word. And Philip came down to a city of Samaria 

6 and preached to them the Messiah. And the crowds gave 
credence to what was said by Philip with one accord while they 



in Judaea, but is more probably a 
connecting summary, and, once more, 
this too is brought into connexion 
with Caesarea. Then in xi. 19 another 
ot fiff o8r iuunrafjerres . . . 8ifj\i&gt;ov 
takes the narrative back to the 
starting-point the death of Stephen 
and begins the story of another 
mission in which the local centre is 
Antioch, and the chief characters are 
Barnabas and Saul instead of Philip 
and Peter. 

passed through] See note on ix. 32. 
5. a city of Samaria] The textual 
evidence favours the city of Samaria, 
but von Soden and Ropes are surely 
right in preferring TTQ\LV to TT/V -roXiv. 
(a) The city which in the O.T. was 
called Samaria was always known 
as Sebaste after its restoration by 
Herod. Samaria in the X.T. means 
the district, not the city. Though 
* the city of Samaria is good English 
with the meaning the city called 
Samaria, it is an unusual idiom in 
Greek. The appositive genitive is 
much less common in Greek than in 
English, and the examples given can 
be understood otherwise, e.g. 2 Peter 
ii. 6 Td\fiS ZoSoui 1 * KO.I Touoppas Jude 
7 3^5oyota Kal Tofjutppa KCU ai rcpl atVds 
ToXets. So above in vs. 1 jcard ras 
XiSjpas TJJS lot Saias cat 7/njffflt/ffay means 
not the two provinces Judaea and 
Samaria, but the country districts 
(gtfyxu nearly = K J}/juu in vs. 25) of 
those areas are meant in contrast to 
Jerusalem. (6) There are few if any 
real parallels for the use of TTJV ro\tv 
-. with the meaning * the capital of 
Samaria, though rrp TO\U&gt; without 
qualification is common in that sense. 
In the papyri T? TO\LS means Alex 
andria, and" the name Stamboul for 
Constantinople is a corruption of ets 
rijr -6Xtr. The idiom is so obvious 
that it is found in most languages 
(cf. Urbs for Rome and Town for 
London), but it is contrary to its 
nature to qualify it by adding a name 
because the whole point is that * the 
city is so well known as to need no 
description. It is conceivable, but 
improbable, that the writer meant that 



Samaria had only one city. But 
this would have been untrue in fact : 
Sebaste was the Greek city ; Xeapolis 
(Xablus), the ancient Sheehem, was 
the headquarters of the Samaritans. 
(See A. E. Cowley, Samaritans in Enc. 
BibL, and E. Meyer, Ursprung und 
Anfdnge, iii. p. 277.) (c) In viii. 8 
* that city is a strange phrase if TTJV 
TO\IV in vs. 5 means Sebaste, but it is 
perfectly natural if the true reading 
be ir6\iv without the article, (d) For 
iroXtr Zauapeias cf. Luke i. 39 roXiy 
Iot5a, which (pare Torrey) surely 
means * a city of Judah. 

To identify the city intended, if 
Sebaste be excluded, is of course im 
possible, but it is tempting to guess 
that it was Gitta with which Justin 
Martyr connects Simon Magus (Justin, 
1 Apol. xxvi., Ivi.). 

Messiah] For the Samaritan Mes 
sianic belief see Vol. I. pp. 122 and 406. 

6. gave credence] -vpotr^xfiv is 
found three times in this sense in this 
chapter, and once in xvi. 14, five times 
in 1 Timothy (i. 4, iii. 8, iv. 1, 13, vi. 
3), and once" in 2 Peter (i. 19). But 
in Matthew (six times) and Luke (four 
times) it is used (a) in the phrase 
rpofx.fre faiTols = beware, or, by an 
extension of this meaning, (6) = avoid, 
e.g. Trpoffexere dro T&V ypa/jifjuLTeuv 
(Luke xx. 46); (c) in one passage 
(Matt. vi. l) = be careful about 



fJLT) TTOLfLV ^UTTpOffOfV TUT AfffpUWUf). It 

is not used in the Pauline Epistles 
(apart from 1 Timothy), in John or in 
Mark; in Acts it is used in the phrase 
rpotrtxerc ecu-rots in v. 35 and in xx. 28. 
It is also found in Hebrews iL 1, on 
which Moffatt, I.C.C., says, "As else 
where in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. 
Apion. L 2 ; Strabo, ii. 1. 7) Tpoaextir 
(sc. rfr wow) is the opposite of d-rurrflv 
to attend is to believe and act upon 
what is heard. This is implied even 
in Acts viii. 6 and xvL 14 , r/xxrexetr rots 
XaXoi-M^ots i ^ro Ilai Xoi where it is the 
attention of one who hears the gospel 
for the first time." The cross refer 
ence to this verse in vs. 12 accord 
ingly us 



90 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VIII 



heard and saw the signs which he did. For many of those 7 
who had unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice they came out. 
And many, paralysed and lame, were healed, and there was great 8 
joy in that city. But a certain man named Simon was already in 9 
the city practising magic and amazing the population of Samaria, 
saying that he was someone great. And to him all gave credence 10 
from small to great, saying, " This is the Power of God, which is 



signs] See note on i. 8. 

7. For many, etc.] The Greek of 
the B-text (jroXXol yap r&v eyj^vruv 
Trvevfj-ara aKadapra f3ou&gt;vra (pwvrj [Meyd^rj 
e%ripxoi&gt;To)is ungrammatical, for TroXXot 
ought to be the subject of ^rjpxovro, 
but clearly is not, as it was the 
jrvevp-aTa not the TroXXoi who came 
out ; moreover Trj/et^ara aKaOapra is 
obviously an accusative governed by 
e xovTwj , but PO&ISTO. is the subject (or 
qualifies the subject) of e^pxojro. If 
any emendation is to be accepted the 
neatest is that of Blass, who suggests 
that a slipped out after aKa.6a.pTa. 
In the preceding verse a is omitted 
after cr-r^eta in just this way by Cod. A. 
Probably, however, the text should 
not be emended. It is one of the 
several indications in the text that it 
was never finally revised. Perhaps 
by one of those tricks of mental tele 
scoping to which all writers are 
liable the author thought of weii/mara 
axadapTa as a nominative, forgetting 
that he had begun with TroXXot, and so 
finished up the sentence with jSocDpra 
e^rjpxovro. The variants in the Western 
and Antiochian texts seem to be merely 
emendations. 

unclean spirits] irveu/j.ara aKadapra 
(nxDinn nn) is a Jewish phrase found 
in Mark, Q, and the first part of Acts, 
and in the Apocalypse, but not else 
where in the N.T. In Mark it is used 
1 1 times ; Matthew has emended it to 
something else in all places except 
Matt. x. 1 = Mark vi. 7. Luke, on 
the other hand, seems to have had no 
objection to the phrase, and retained 
it in five places. The Q passage is 
Matt. xii. 43 = Luke xi. 24. It is used 
in Acts v. 16 (a summary, of which 
the language seems reminiscent of 
Mark [see note ad loc.] ) and in the 
present passage. 



8. paralysed and lame] Such sum 
mary statements are usually the 
generalization of specific incidents. 
Not only are these complaints among 
those most common in ancient records 
of miracles, but apart from exorcisms 
and resuscitations of the dead this 
book contains specific references only 
to the paralysed (ix. 33) and lame 
(iii. 2, xiv. 8). 

9. someone great] Blass regards 
jutyav as an interpolation (cf. v. 36 
. . . QfvdaSg \tywv elvai TWO, eavrov, 
and Blass s note). But it is tempting 
to imitate the probably correct 
emendation in Lucian s De, morte Pere- 
grini, 11, where, speaking of Jesus, 
the MSS. read TOV p,eyav yovv 6Kivov 

Ti (Tefiovai., TOV OLVdpUTTOV TOV l&gt; TTJ 

IIaXcuo TtJ 77 avaGKO\OTri(idvTa, but 
editors suggest /mdyov for /ueyav. (Cf. 
also Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 2, 142, 
"A.TOfJ.ov (v.L Zi/zwi a) . . . fj.dyov elvai 
ffKriwTb^vov.) For Simon see Addit. 
Note 13. 

10. from small to great] A com 
mon LXX phrase ; see Gen. xix. 1 1 ; 
1 Sam. v. 9, xxx. 2, 19 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 
2, xxv. 26; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30; 
Judith xiii. 4 and 13 ; Is. xxii. 5, 24 ; 
Jer. vi. 13, xxxi. 34, xlii. 1, 8, xliv. 12, 
and cf. xxvi. 22. Thus there is no 
difficulty in the verse as it stands, but 
it is possible that it is out of place 
and belonged originally to the words 
of Simon, who used the Pythagorean 
phrase TO /juKpbv /u,eya &TTCU, perhaps 
in connexion with sacraments which 
showed the way from small to great. 
There may also be some connexion 
between this and the strange Western 
addition to Matt. xx. 28 v/j.eis 5 
^r/TelTe K [ALKpov av^rjaai, Kal [OVK ?] fK 
/uLeifyvos ZXaTTOv elVcu. (See Hippo- 
lytus, Refutatio, iv. 51 o-repcoO &lt;5e 

Tos ourws f eXa^t crrou ar/fj.eiov 



VIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



91 



11 called Great." And they gave credence to him because for a long 

12 time they had been amazed by his magic. But when they 
believed Philip bringing the good news about the Kingdom of 
God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men 

13 and women. And even Simon himself believed and was baptized 



Trap reXws 77 TOV fj.eyd\ov (rw/mros 

(pUfflS /Cat TOVTO effTlV 8 \eyL 

ourws TO fJUKpbv /neya &rrat . . . KT\., 
and cf. A. Redlich, Die A7r60a&lt;m 
des Simon Magus in the Archiv fur 
Geschichte der Philosophic, Bd. xxiii., 
1910, p. 385 n.) 

the Power of God] Possibly this 
means simply God, especially if Simon 
belongs to the monotheistic Samaritan 
or Jewish religion. The rabbis use as 
a surrogate for God the term mi run 
(G. F. Moore, Judaism, iii. note 115; 
Strack, i. pp. 1006 f.). The same sub 
stitute appears in Greek in the phrase 
K 8eiuv TT)S dvvd/j,ews (Mark xiv. 62 = 
Matt, xx vi. 64), which reappears as 
K de^iuf r?7S /j-eydXys dwdjueus in 
Eusebius, H.E. ii. 23. 13 where Heges- 
ippus is reporting James. In an 
attempt to elucidate the Marcan 
phrase Luke in his parallel (Luke 
xxii. 69) obscures the original inten 
tion of the phrase by adding TOU deov, 
just as he adds TOV deov to 6 xptoTos 
in Luke ix. 20 and xxiii. 35. It is 
therefore quite possible that here 
also he has added TOV deov. Cf. 
Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 200. His 
Ka\ov/j.evr] further suggests that he is 
aware of dealing with a foreign term 
in his /m,eyd\T). See note on vi. 9 and 
Cadbury, Style and Literary Method of 
Luke, pp. 154 f. Others have con 
jectured that behind /^eydX-rj lies the 
like-sounding Hebrew or Samaritan 
word for revealer. See Kloster- 
mann, Probleme im Apostdtexte, pp. 
15 ff. 

Beside the very frequent ^eyio-Tos 
as an epithet for gods /meyas is not 
unrepresented. See xix. 28, 34 and 
the parallels in Ramsay s Bearing of 
Recent Discovery on the Trustworthi 
ness of the New Testament, p. 118, 
note 3. For similar use of great 
power in pagan religion and magic 
cf. Deissmann s citation of the Paris 
magical papyrus, line 1275, eTrt/caAou- 
fj.ai ere T 



oupaisy, and the inscription from Lydia, 
quoted by Ramsay, efs debs ev ovpa- 
vois MTJZ&gt; ovpdvios /u.eyd\ri 5vva/u.is TOV 
ddavdrov deov (Keil and Premerstein, 
Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, 
liv., 1911, p. 110). 

Great] This chapter illustrates 
what may be described either as the 
tendency of the writer to repeat a 
word soon after he has used it (with 
or without slight variation of form or 
meaning), or as the influence on the 
wording of a given passage of what 
has gone before. Beside Trpoae ixov in 
10 and 11, /j.ayevwv /ecu e^t-ffTdviov and 
Tats fjiayiais e^eo-raKevai in 9 and 11, we 
may suspect that 8vva/jus rov deov rj 
KaXovfj-evr) fj.eyd\r) has been affected by 
the preceding \eywv elva.1 TLVO. eavrbv 
fjieyav, and is responsible for the fol 
lowing ari/j-ela /cat dvvd/Aecs fj,eyd\as 
in place of the more usual ffrj/j-ela /cat 
r^para. In verse 35 dvoi^as . . . TO 
(TTo/ma avrov follows the quotation OVK 
dvoiyet. TO ffT6/u,a O.VTOV, and in the con 
secutive verses 26 f . we have the only 
N.T. occurrences of Fci^a and yd fa. 

11. This verse seems a rather clumsy 
repetition of vs. 9 f., but there is 
nothing in the text to justify its omis 
sion. The variants in the Peshitto on 
which Preuschen relies to prove textual 
corruption have no support, and seem 
to be merely due to a translator s 
choice. (See Preuschen s note ad 
loc.) 

12. about] irepi after evayye\ifea9ai. 
is an unusual but intelligible construc 
tion. 

the Kingdom of God] Any of the 
possible interpretations (see Vol. I. 
pp. 269 ff.) are conceivable, but the 
usage of Acts suggests, though it far 
from proves, that Kingdom of God 
here means the Churchthe society 
of believers in Jesus, who through his 
representatives, using the power of 
his name, receive the Holy Spirit 
which cleanses and saves. (See note 
on i. 3 and Additional Note 11.) 



92 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



vm 



and continued with Philip, and was amazed at seeing the signs 
and great miracles which happened. 

But when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had 14 
accepted the word of God they sent to them Peter and John, 
who went down and prayed for them that they might receive 15 



13. happened] Through whom ? 
One would naturally say, through 
Philip, and this is surely the right 
answer, but it has been suggested 
that Simon was amazed at his own 
increased powers, thanks to his 
baptism. 

14-25. PETER S SAMARITAN MIS 
SION. The meaning of this short story 
clearly is that the Apostles in Jeru 
salem wished to give the Samaritans 
the gift of the Spirit which they knew 
that Philip s baptism could not confer. 
I cannot see that the question of 
Apostolic control, as opposed to the 
rights of the Spirit, is in question (see 
Preuschen ad loc.), but the narrative 
certainly implies Apostolic power to 
confer the Spirit. 

Three things must be kept clearly 
apart here. (a) The basis of the 
Church was Apostolic power; this is 
one of the central teachings of Acts, 
though it may be questioned if 
Apostles means the Twelve or a 
slightly larger group. (6) Later on 
Apostolic power is eclipsed by Ecclesi 
astical power. Doubtless the Church 
was originally the group which 
gathered round the Apostles, and at 
first Apostolic as distinct from Eccle 
siastic authority must have been 
dominant. But every month must 
have seen an increase in the self- 
consciousness of the Church, so that 
before long it was the Apostles of 
the Church rather than the Church 
of the Apostles. (c) Still later a 
new element entered. There grew 
up a tendency to exalt the memory 
and exaggerate the power of the 
Apostles. (See Addit. Note 6.) 

Acts, once more, is at the parting 
of the ways. The remains or the 
germs of all the three stages can be 
seen in it. The question here is 
whether this story of Peter s inter 
vention is a primitive tradition, repre 
senting the first stage, or one of the 
earliest of the stories belonging to the 



third stage. Personally I incline to 
think that it is primitive, and that 
in contrast to the opinion of Loisy 
the Apostolic element in Acts is 
early rather than late. Moreover, too 
much criticism (not, however, Loisy s) 
is vitiated by the fact that the critic 
cannot understand that the basis of 
the life of the Church was its belief in 
its own supernatural power, because 
he does not believe in such power. 
He may be right; but neither the 
writer of Acts nor any early Christian 
would have agreed with him, and to 
understand any book it is first neces 
sary to assume the position of the 
writer, even if it be wrong. 

14. Peter and John] See Vol. II. 
p. 140. If, as is generally held, this 
John is the son of Zebedee, this is the 
last mention of him in Acts. Gal. 
ii. 9 mentions him as present in Jeru 
salem at the conference with Paul and 
Barnabas. His brother James was 
executed by Herod (see xii. 2 and 
note ad loc.), and many think that 
John was put to death at the same 
time, in spite of the well - known 
tradition of his life in Ephesus to an 
extreme old age. It is interesting to 
note, in contrast to vs. 25, that he 
and his brother once wished to call 
down fire on a village of the Samari 
tans (Luke ix. 54) and were among 
those forbidden to preach in a 
Samaritan city (Matt. x. 6). 

The possibility is, however, not ex 
cluded that this John is the John who 
in xii. 25 and xv. 37 is identified by 
the surname Mark but referred to 
once more as John without a sur 
name in xiii. 13, and is presumably 
identical with the Mark (without 
John) of the Pauline epistles and later 
tradition. The change of name is 
parallel to, though not so striking as, 
the change in Paul s name, and to 
the omission of Joseph in speaking 
of Barnabas after the first mention 
of him in iv. 36. 



vni 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



93 



1 6 Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they 

17 had merely been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then 
iS they laid hands on them and they received Holy Spirit. And 

Simon, seeing that through the laying on of the hands of the 

19 apostles the Spirit was given, brought them money, saying, "Give 
me too this power, that on whomever I lay my hands he may re- 

20 ceive Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, May your money go with 
you to damnation because you thought that you would get the 



16. baptized] The implication of 
this verse is quite clear. Baptism in 
the name of the Lord Jesus does not 
confer the Spirit : the laying on of 
Apostolic hands does. The difficulty 
is not in understanding this, but in its 
relation to xix. 1 ff., where there is 
again the case of Christians whom 
Paul found at Ephesus who had not 
received the Spirit. Why ? asked 
Paul ; had they not been properly 
baptized ? It appeared that they had 
only received * John s baptism i.e. 
in water but when they were bap 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus 
they received the Spirit on the im 
position of Paul s hands. This seems 
to suggest almost the exact opposite 
of the doctrine implied by the present 



The difficulty is most nearly cleared 
up by remembering that the baptism 
of the early Church was a conflation 
of the water-baptism of John with the 
Christian baptism which was the gift 
of the Spirit (see note on i. 5). The 
conflation was complete by the time 
that Acts was written, but the seams 
had not been quite successfully 
smoothed down. Possibly the lay 
ing on of hands was the specifically 
Christian element in baptism. Cer 
tainly a comparison of this verse with 
i. 5 and xix. 1 ff. suggests this, even 
if it does not prove it, for xix. 5 f. 
might mean that the laying on of 
Paul s hands actually was the neces 
sary baptism in the name of the Lord 
Jesus. This might be more obvious 
if the editor had not been living after 
the conflation had been made, so that, 
though he still connected the gift of 
the Spirit with the laying on of hands, 
and his sources probably did so even 
more plainly, he had begun to feel 



that Christian baptism must include 
water. 

18. laying on of the hands] The 
Didache and Justin do not mention 
the laying on of hands as part of 
baptism, but Tertullian expressly 
mentions it (De bapt. viii.). It ulti 
mately became separated from it, and 
survives as confirmation. The same 
primitive belief, that in this way the 
Spirit can be conferred, also remains 
in the sacrament of ordination. It 
should be remembered that part of 
the confusion of thought which seems 
to be implied by a system which gives 
the Spirit twice is due to the mixture 
of two theories about the Spirit 
(a) that the Christian becomes, once 
for all, regenerate and a 7r^ei^art/c6s at 
baptism; (b) that the Christian receives 
periodic gifts of the Spirit for various 
specific purposes. The two theories 
may be logically incompatible with 
each other, but they certainly existed 
side by side in the early Church with 
out anyone feeling the difficulty. (See 
Additional Note 11.) 

money] Hence the name of simony 
(Eccles. Latin simonia) given to the 
offence of purchasing or selling 
spiritual power. 

20. damnation] With Peter s atti 
tude cf. 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; 2 Clem. xx. 4, 
etc. The phrase e l-rj els airuKeiav is 
found in Dan. ii. 5 (Theod.). 

gift] This English word does not 
suggest a free gift as clearly as does 
the Greek Swped, which supplies the 
adverb freely, e.g. in Matt. x. 8 
dwpeav eXct/rtere dupeav dore. The 
Vulgate reads donum, but d, Tert., 
Cyprian have gratiam. The Vulgate 
also erroneously used the passive 
possideri for Kraa-Oai, and the English 
versions followed suit. Verse 19 



94 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VIII 



PS. ixxv. iii. 



gift of God by money. There is for you no part nor lot in this 21 
wor^ f or your heart is not straight before God. Therefore repent 22 
from this baseness of yours, and pray the Lord whether after all 
the plot of your heart may be forgiven you. For I perceive that 2 3 
you are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of unrighteousness." 
And Simon answered and said, "Pray for me to the Lord yourselves 24 
that nothing come on me of what you have said." 

So then after giving their testimony and speaking the word of 25 



shows that Simon wished not so much 
to secure the Spirit as his own posses 
sion as to be able to sell it to others. 
Hence perhaps the curious fact that 
simony in later history more often 
means selling than buying spiritual 
powers. 

21. part nor lot] Deut. xii. 12, 
and for all the LXX parallels to vss. 
21-23 see Vol. II. p. 99. 

heart, etc.] Ps. Ixxviii. 37, et al. 

22. repent] The question has been 
raised of the relation of this offer 
of repentance to the early doctrine 
that no repentance was valid for sin 
after baptism (see H. Windisch, Taufe 
und Sunde im dltesten Christentum bis 
auf Origines, and K. Lake, Zonde en 
Doop in Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1906, 
pp. 538-554). The most probable 
answer seems to be that this passage 
is still dominated by the Jewish belief 
in the universal efficacy of repentance 
(cf. Vol. I. p. 71), the guiding principle 
of which is the doctrine of Ezekiel 
xviii. 27, " when the wicked man 
turneth away from his wickedness, he 
shall save his soul alive." The matter 
was entirely different in a Greek 
society, which regarded salvation as 
the result of a miraculous change of 
nature, sacramentally achieved. If 
anyone chose to throw away this 
privilege he could not acquire it a 
second time. But perhaps the ques 
tion hardly comes in here. A new 
convert can never have been expected 
to be fully aware of his responsibilities 
at this early stage. Even the author 
of Heb. vi. 4-8 would probably have 
approved of this tale, though no 
doubt if Simon, having learned the 
sinful nature of his financial offers, 
continued to practise them the author 
of Hebrews would have declared him 



damned. Vs. 23 means I fear you 
have quite misunderstood the nature 
of our message and have entered the 
Society under a misconception. One 
of the morals of the tale is the need 
for a catechumenate. 

plot of your heart] The word 
ewivoia is evidently used in malam 
partem of evil or hostile schemes or 
stratagems as it is in the passages 
collected by Kypke ad loc., to which 
many more might be added from con 
temporary writers or records. 

23. you are in] In view of the 
complete decay of any sense of differ 
ence between ets and eV, and the 
obsolescence of ej/, this is probably 
the right rendering. Some commenta 
tors translate ovra e/s, you have 
become, but this is surely impos 
sible. 

gall of bitterness] Deut. xxix. 18, 
gall and bitterness, where it is 
connected with heathen worship. 

bond of unrighteousness] Is. Iviii. 6, 
but the exact connotation of these 
phrases is obscure. 

24. on me] The Western text adds, 
and he did not cease from much wail 
ing. This curious addition seems to 
suggest ignorance of the tradition which 
made Simon the consistent opponent 
of Peter. It is tempting to think that 
it is original and was removed under 
the influence of the Simon Magus 
legend. In any case, it is likely that 
the author of Acts included the story 
of Simon as a notable convert rather 
than an opponent of Christianity. 
Otherwise he would have narrated 
not only the apostle s threat, but also 
its fulfilment, as he did in the stories 
of Ananias and of Elymas. 

25. So then . . . they] See note 
on vs. 4. The important point is 



Viil 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



95 



the Lord they returned to Jerusalem and brought the good news 
to many villages of the Samaritans. 

26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, " Rise and go 
southwards on the road which goes down from Jerusalem to 

27 Gaza." (This is deserted.) And he arose and went, and behold 
an Ethiopian man, a eunuch, minister of Candace, Queen of 



that the use of /mv ovv indicates that 
this is the beginning of a new para 
graph, and therefore, as the context 
shows, the they includes Philip. 

26. an angel] Cf. vs. 29 the Spirit, 
vs. 39 a Spirit of the Lord, and the 
Western reading in the same verse, 
Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch, and 
an angel of the Lord seized Philip. 
It is doubtful how far the writer 
distinguished between angel and 
spirit. Cf . xxiii. 8, and Addit. 
Note 9. 

southwards] In spite of Nestle s 
observation that /j-ea-rj^pia in the 
LXX always means noon, not 
south, noon seems so improbable 
a sense in this passage that it must 
be rejected (see E. Nestle, Stud, und 
Krit., 1892, pp. 335 ff.). If, however, 
the meaning at noon should be 
adopted it might be supposed that 
the hour (an unusual one for starting 
a journey) was divinely suggested to 
facilitate the supernatural meeting. 
Compare the coincidence of Peter s 
hunger (not to be expected at noon) 
and of the arrival of messengers from 
Cornelius at a similar time of day 
( the sixth hour, x. 9, see note). The 
use of the word (jLeo-n/j.ppia is one of 
the points which have suggested the 
influence of Zephaniah on this whole 
incident in Acts. See Vol. II. p. 101. 

the road, etc.] There were two 
roads from Jerusalem to the south ; 
one went through Hebron and joined 
the coast road from Tyre at the foot 
of the hills of southern Judaea, the 
other went more to the west and 
joined the coast road before Gaza. 

Gaza] The old city of the Philis 
tines, the last town in Palestine on 
the road to Egypt. (See Stark, Gaza 
und die philist. Kuste, 1852 : M. Meyer, 
History of the City of Gaza, 1907, 
and E. Schiirer, GJ.V. ii. pp. 84 ff.) 

this is deserted] The road or the 



city ? The road is not through the 
desert until after Gaza, and Josephus 
says that Gaza was not deserted until 
after A.D. 66. (a) This is deserted 
is a note by the editor referring to 
Gaza. If so, it may show that he was 
writing after A.D. 66. (6) More prob 
ably there were two cities called Gaza. 
Old Gaza, so called by Diodorus 
Siculus xix. 80, was built on a mound 
twenty stadia from the sea (Arrian, 
Anabasis, ii. 26. 1 ). This was destroyed 
by Alexander and was deserted. Not 
only Strabo (xvi. 2. 30) and Luke, but 
also a nearly contemporary anonym 
ous geographer (Geogr. Graec. Minores, 
ed. Hudson iv. p. 39) places deserted 
Gaza between Ascalon and New 
Gaza. The New Gaza, according 
to Josephus, was a Hellenistic town on 
the coast and it was this which was 
destroyed in A.D. 66. This view har 
monizes all the data in the authors 
mentioned. (See W. J. Phythian- 
Adams in the Quarterly Statement of 
the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1923, 
pp. 30 ff., and G. A. Smith, Historical 
Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 186 ff . 
note.) 

27. Ethiopian] In Greek legend 
the Ethiopians lived far to the south 
of Egypt, and were famous for their 
blameless character, and for occasional 
visits from the gods (Homer, Odyssey, 
a 22 f.). The word was used by the 
LXX to represent the descendants 
of Gush and their land except on the 
first occasion of their mention (Gen. x. 
7), when the transliteration Xou? is 
used. In historical times the Ethio 
pians were the Nubian race inhabiting 
the Nile district from Assuan to Khar 
toum, where they had a kingdom of 
some importance, at least since 700 
B.C. They had two main cities, Meroe 
and Napata. In recent times they 
were confused with the Abyssinians, 
who represent the ancient Axum in 



96 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VIII 



the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure, who had 
come on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and was returning and was 28 
seated in his coach and reading the prophet Isaiah. And the 29 
Spirit said to Philip, " Go and join this coach." And Philip ran up 30 
and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, " Do you 



the hill country east of the upper 
Nile, and thus the Abyssinian litera 
ture is commonly called Ethiopian. 
But ethnologically and geographically 
the Abyssinians and Ethiopians are 
distinct peoples, and the language 
now called Ethiopian is not Hamitic 
but Semitic. (The clearest and best 
statement of the linguistic facts are 
Noldeke s Die semitischen Sprachen; 
L. Reinisch, Die Nuba- Spr ache, 1879; 
F. Praetorius, Uber die hamitischen 
Sprachen Ostafrika s in Beitrdge zur 
Assyriologie, vol. ii. (1894), pp. 312 ff.; 

E. Littmann, Geschichte d. athio- 
pischen Litteratur in Geschichte d. 
christlich. Litteraturen des Orients, 1907; 

F. LI. Griffith, The Nubian Texts of 
the Christian Period in Abhand- 
lungen d. konig. preuss. Akademie der 
Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, no. 
8, 1913; and for the history of 
Ethiopia, Ed. Meyer, Geschichte d. 
Altertums, ed. 3, 1913, i. 2, pp. 44- 
48 and 279 ff . ; Theod. Mommsen, 
Rom. Geschichte, v. pp. 593 ff . ; E. A. 
Budge, The Egyptian Sudan, 1907; 
J. H. Breasted, A History of the 
Ancient Egyptians, 1908; J. Garstang, 
A. H. Sayce, and F. L. Griffith, 
Meroe, the City &lt;&gt;/ the Ethiopians, 
1911; G. A. Reisner, The Pyramids of 
Meroe and the Candaces of Ethiopia 
in Sudan Notes and Records, 1922; 
A. H. Sayce, The Meroitic Hiero 
glyphic Inscriptions in Proceedings of 
the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 
1909; A. Kammerer, Essai sur I his- 
toire antique d Abyssinie, 1926, pp. 
87 ff.) 

Candace] Not a name, but a title 
such as Pharaoh. According to Bion 
of Soli, who wrote Aethiopica, the 
title was given to the queen -mother, 
who was the real head of the govern 
ment. Her husband was unimportant, 
for the king, her son, was counted as 
the child of the Sun. (Cramer, Catena 
in Act. p. 143, and cf. Strabo, xvii. 
1.54.) According to Eusebius (Hist. 



Eccl. ii. 1. 13) queens reigned in 
Ethiopia in his own time, though he 
does not give the name Candace ; 
but it is found in the time of Augustus 
(Dio Cass. liv. 5. 4, Strabo, loc. cit.) 
and Nero (Pliny, N.H. vi. 186). See 
Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte, 
pp. 361 f., and the articles there 
mentioned. 

in charge of all her treasure] 
Cf. Plutarch, Demetrius xxv. 5 
yap 



on a pilgrimage] TT poa KW^T^ is 
still the correct modern Greek for 
a pilgrim. In Acts xxiv. 11 the 
identical expression irpo&lt;TKvi&gt;riffwi&gt; els 
lepova-a\rjM. is used of Paul s last visit 
to Jerusalem. 

28. returning] Thus Philip and 
the eunuch were travelling in the 
same direction ; this seems strange 
at first, because it would seem that 
the eunuch in his chariot would go 
too fast. But in generations when 
springs were unknown a carriage 
which, after all, was very probably an 
ox-wagon did not often go faster 
than a walker, and certainly not so 
fast as a rider. If the eunuch was 
reading, his carriage was certainly 
going slowly. 

coach] Scarcely chariot, though 
dpfj.a often means a war chariot or 
a racing chariot. But who would 
journey in a war chariot ? The later 
Greek for carriage is #,uaa. 

30. heard him reading] The 
facilities of travel by carriage were 
sufficient to permit reading (see Pliny, 
Ep. iii. 5). The Rabbis required that 
the Law should be read on a journey, 
and that it should be read aloud (see 
Strack, ad loc.). E. Norden (Antike 
Kunstprosa, p. 6) argues that the 
ancients rarely read silently, but his 
chief proof is the description of 
Ambrose in Augustine (Conf. vi. 3), and 
the meaning there is that Ambrose 
worked silently, and did not read 



VIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



97 



31 after all know what you are reading ? " And he said, " Why, how 
could I, unless someone guide me ? " And he asked Philip to 

32 come in and sit with him. And the contents of the passage 

of Scripture which he was reading was this, " He was led as a is. nn. 7 
sheep to slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before its shearer, so he 

33 opens not his mouth. In humiliation his judgement was removed. 
Who shall narrate his generation ? because his life is removed from 

34 the earth." And the eunuch answered Philip and said, " I beg you, 
about whom is the prophet saying this ? About himself, or about 



aloud to his pupils and explain the 
meaning to them. It was the lack 
of exposition to his pupils which was 
specially unusual. It is surely in 
credible that educated Greeks and 
Romans had not learned to read 
silently. 

32. contents of the passage] 
Tre/xox?? was later used for lections 
in the ecclesiastical sense, but it does 
not necessarily mean this. In Cicero, 
Ad Alt. xiii. 25. 3 it means the passage 
as a whole in contrast to the syllables. 
ypacfiri in the singular means usually 
a passage of Scripture. Scripture 
in the general sense is preferably at 
ypatpai. (Cf. i. 16 and viii. 35.) 

this] Isaiah liii. 7 f. It is very 
remarkable that this is the first clear 
identification of Jesus with the Suffer 
ing Servant ; see Vol. I. pp. 384 ff . It 
is, however, also noticeable how ex 
actly the quotation as given avoids the 
many references to the sins of others 
in connexion with the death of the 
victim. See Isaiah liii. 4, 5, 6, 8d, 10, 
11, 12. This accords with the fact 
that in his gospel the same author 
does not retain Mark s oovvai rr^v 
fyvX\-)v aurov \vrpov avri iro\\&v (x. 45, 
contrast Luke xxii. 27), nor, if the 
Western text is to be followed, TO cu/xd 
P.OV TT}S 5ia#?7/c?7$ TO eKX^vo^vov virep 
7ro\Au&gt;/&gt; (xiv. 24, cf. Luke xxii. 19 TO 
vtrep v/J.u&gt;i&gt; 8i.OQp.evov ... 20 TO virep 
V/AUV ficxyvv6fj.vov). Compare F. C. 
Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, pp. 
38 f., and J. Weiss, Urchristentum, pp. 
77, 82 ff. Weiss notes that though 
Peter (ii. 38, x. 43) and Paul (xiii. 38, 
xvii. 30) announce the forgiveness of 
sins (cf. Luke xxiv. 47), they do not 
place this thought in connexion with 
VOL. IV 



the crucifixion of Christ; contrast 
1 Cor. XV. 3 (dirfffavev uTrep T&V a/map- 
TIU&gt;I&gt; rnj.ijov Kara T&lt;ZS ypacpds). 

33. judgement was removed] The 
meaning of the original is apparently 
as obscure to Hebrew scholars as are 
these Greek words. Wendt thinks 
that it means By his obedience the 
sentence of death was annulled. The 
truth seems to be that the translators 
did not know what the meaning of 
the Hebrew was, and gave a literal 
but unintelligible rendering. As Philip 
does not give his explanation we do 
not know it. 

generation] An obscure rendering, 
but not more so than the Greek. The 
meaning of this whole passage was 
probably quite as obscure in the 
first century as it is now. Its inter 
pretation depends on elarjy-rjais, not 

^77777 crtS. 

34. answered] As in Semitic 
languages the New Testament often 
follows a Semitic idiom in its use of 
d-rroKpivofj-aL to introduce statements 
which are not preceded by any definite 
question. (Cf. iii. 12, xxv. 4; Luke 
xiii. 14, xiv. 3 ; Matt. xi. 25, xvii. 4 ; 
and see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 
25.) Here, however, the Ethiopian s 
remark is essentially an answer to 
Philip s original question. 

I beg you] oeo/*cu crov. Perhaps 
almost the equivalent of please 
when used before an imperative. 
Italian usage adopted precor (prego) 
for this purpose, but modern Greek 
uses Trapa/caXw, not 5eo/zcu, which how 
ever recurs before an imperative in 
xxi. 39 (cf. Luke viii. 38). Cf. also 
Gal. iv. 12, and see ix. 38 for a similar 
idiom of politeness. 

H 



98 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



VIII 



someone else ? " And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning 35 
from this passage gave him the good news of Jesus. And as they 36 
went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch 
said, " See, here is water. What prevents me from being 
baptized ? " And he ordered the coach to stop, and they both [37] 2 
went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he 
baptized him. And when they came up out of the water Spirit 39 
of the Lord seized Philip and the eunuch saw him no more, for 



35. this passage] It is unfortunate 
that we have none of the details ; it is 
only clear that Philip identified Jesus 
with the Suffering Servant. 

36. water] It is, of course, im 
possible to identify this water, but 
the Wadi el Hasi north of Gaza has 
found advocates. 

baptized] The Western text adds, 
"and Philip said to him, If thou 
believest with all thine heart, it is 
possible ; and he answered and said, 
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God." This passed into the Anti- 
ochian text, and so into the Textus 
Receptus. It is vs. 37 in the English 
A.V. Its chief interest is that it is 
perhaps the earliest form of baptismal 
creed. It is also remarkable that it is 
an expansion of the baptismal formula 
in the name of Jesus Christ, not of 
the Trinitarian formula. This process 
of expansion seems to have continued, 
and to have produced on the one hand 
the Trinitarian short creed of Dar 
Balyzeh, and on the other the /C7?piry/za 
of Jesus, of which there are many 
traces in the second century. Finally, 
a combination of the two expansions 
produced the Symbolum Eomanum. 
(See K. Holl, Sitzungsberickte d. preus. 
Akademied. Wissenschaften,3&n. 1919, 
pp. 2 ff . ; A. von Harnack, ibid., Feb. 
1919, pp. 112ff. ; H.Lietzmann, ibid., 

1919, pp. 269 ff . ; Zeitschrift fur die 
neutest. Wissenschaft, xxi., 1922, xxii., 
1923; J. Haussleiter, Beitrdge zur 
Forderung christlicher TheoL xxv. 4, 

1920, and K. Lake, Harvard TheoL 
Rev., 1924, pp. 173 ff.) 

39. Spirit of the Lord] This or 
any other translation is unfortunate. 
The Spirit of the Lord implies a 
personality, which is not necessarily 
in the Greek, and a spirit implies a 



multiplicity of spirits, which is also 
not necessarily in the Greek. The 
rendering given is probably more 
correct, though it sounds pedantic. 
TTj/eO/jia Kvpiov varies in meaning be 
tween the personality of an angel and 
the impersonality of an element. The 
source of the trouble is that we ask 
questions which never entered the 
minds of early Christians. 

The Western text reads Holy Spirit 
fell on the eunuch, and an angel of 
the Lord seized Philip. It is possible 
that this is original, and omitted 
because of its contradiction to the 
narrative a few verses earlier, which 
implies that the Spirit came only 
through the hands of the apostles. 

Blass wishes to render -n-veufj-a in this 
passage by wind. But whatever may 
be the case in 1 Kings xviii. 12, etc., 
Tri/eOyua in Christian Greek regularly 
means spirit, not wind. Nor do I see 
why Spirit is here subabsurdum. It 
is not more so than the picture sug 
gested of Philip being blown into 
Ashdod. Such exegesis is an uncon 
scious attempt to rationalize the story. 
The whole passage is perhaps in 
fluenced by the story of Elijah s 
ascension in 2 Kings ii. where we have 
OVK i8ev avrbv TL (VS. 12), oi&gt;x ffipov 
avrov (vs. 17), ilpfv avrov irvfv/na 
Kvpiov (vs. 16), and dp/j,a (vs. 11). See 
also Vol. II. p. 102. 

the eunuch] According to Irenaeus, 
Adv. Haer. iii. 12. 8, he became a 
missionary to the Ethiopians. Epi- 
phanius says that he preached in 
Arabia Felix and on the coasts of the 
Red Sea, that he was martyred, and 
that his tomb had miraculous power. 
(See Th. Schermann, Prophetarum 
vitae, p. 127.) But there are no records 
of Ethiopian Christianity until much 



IX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



40 he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Ashdod, 
and passing through the land he brought the good news to all the 
cities until he came to Caesarea. 



9 T But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples 

2 of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked from him letters to 

the synagogues at Damascus, in order that he might bring bound 



later. Other traditions say that 
Matthias and Thomas preached there. 
(For later legends, which among other 
things say that his name was Judich, 
see Laurent, Neutestamentliche Studien, 
p. 145, and Dillmann s article on 
Ethiopia in Schenkel s Bibellexikon, 
i. pp. 290 ff.) 

40. Ashdod] Azotus in Greek. 
The general picture presented of 
Philip in this story is very impressive, 
and seems extremely primitive. The 
Christian preacher moves about in a 
state of ecstasy and hardly knows how 
he goes from place to place. To his 
own mind at least he is completely 
under the control of the Spirit, which, 
however, works as it were in gusts. 

all the cities] Is this intended 
to prepare the reader for finding 
Christians in Lydda and Joppa ? 

Caesarea] Originally called Srpd- 
TUJJ/OS irupyos, but when rebuilt by 
Herod named Caesarea Sebaste in 
compliment to Rome. It had an 
excellent harbour and was the head 
quarters of the Roman procurators. 
The implication of Acts is that 
Philip stayed there, for in xxi. 8 it 
mentions him as living in Caesarea. 

In later Christian history it was a 
centre of learning, and in the third 
and fourth centuries was the third 
great library of Christian books, the 
other two being Jerusalem and Alex 
andria. It was the literary home of 
Origen and Eusebius. (See Josephus, 
Antiq. xiii. 11. 2, xiv. 4. 4, xv. 9. 6; 
BJ. i. 3. 5, 21. 5 and 7, iii. 9. 1; 
Pliny, N.H. v. 69 ; Strabo xvi. 2. 27 ; 
Tacitus, Hist. ii. 79; and cf. Baedeker s 
Palestine; Schiirer, OJV. ii. 26 ff.. 
104 ff. ; and Ehrhardt, Rom. Quartal- 
schr., 1891, pp. 217 ff.) 

1-31. THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 
(Cf. the parallel narratives in xxii. 



4 ff. and xxvi. 9 ff., and see Additional 
Note 15.) This passage is the direct 
continuation of viii. 3, the interven 
ing verses being clearly a parenthesis. 

1. breathing threats and murder] 
The phrase en.irveuv d,7ret\?7s KCU (puvov is 
regular in that e^irvtu takes with it a 
genitive case, but unusual in having 
as its objective what must be under 
stood quite figuratively, though such 
metaphors occur, especially in poetry, 
with the simple irvew. The emotion 
of anger was in Semitic physiology- 
connected with breath. So the noun 
occurs in Ps. xviii. 15 d-rro e/^-n-vevaeajs 
tn&gt;evfjLa.TO&lt;&gt; opyijs ffov. The pair of geni 
tives which follows is characteristic 
of the author s habit of pairs, but 
clear examples of hendiadys in such 
cases are too rare to justify us in 
translating threats of murder. There 
is no desire to minimize the extent of 
Paul s rage, quite the reverse, or to 
acquit him of actual murder. See 
notes on viii. 1 and xxvi. 10. 

the high priest] According to 1 
Mace. xv. 15 ff. the right of the extra 
dition of Jewish malefactors was con 
ceded by the Romans to the high 
priest in the letter which Numenius 
brought back from Rome. The 
pertinent part runs : Aetf/aos VTTCLTOS 
Pw/xcuwj llroXe^cu w j3a&lt;ri\el xaipeiv . . . 
6i Tws ofiv \oi/j.ol diaTrefavyacn K TT}S 
avrdov irpos u/x.as, jrapadore CLVTOVS 
dpxi-epei, STTWS e/c5t/c7?cr7; avrovs 
Kara TOV v6fj.ov avruiv. Cf. Josephus, 
Antiq. xiv. 10. 2. It would seem that 
this exactly covers the case of Chris 
tian fugitives. The high priest to 
A.D. 36 was really Caiaphas, but 
Luke seems to have thought it was 
Annas (see note on iv. 6). See further 
Strack, ad loc., and Schiirer, ii. 3 206 ff. 

2. Damascus] There was a large 
colony of Jews here, as Josephus 
relates that the Damascenes killed 



100 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IX 



to Jerusalem whomsoever he found that were of the Way, both 
men and women. But in the course of his journey he was ap- 3 
preaching Damascus, and suddenly a light flashed round him out 
of the sky, and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to i 



10,500 of them after the Jewish war 
(Josephus, B.J. ii. 20. 2, 561), or 
including women and children 18,000 
(B.J. vii. 8. 7, 368). Even more 
important, however, is the incidental 
evidence of Josephus that many of 
the wives of the Damascenes were 
adherents in some measure at least 
of the Jewish synagogue. When the 
Damascenes were planning the mas 
sacre just mentioned they were especi 
ally careful not to tell their wives, " as 
they with few exceptions adhered to 
the Jewish religion" (B.J. ii. 20. 2). 
This might mean that they were 
Jewesses by birth, but more probably 
that they were proselytes or half- 
proselytes. For the problem of the 
Covenanters of Damascus see Vol. 
I. pp. 97 ff . 

bring bound] Does this mean that 
Saul was to arrest Damascenes who 
had become Christians ? More prob 
ably it means Christians from Jeru 
salem who had taken refuge in 
Damascus. His mission would there 
fore correspond exactly to the privilege 
conferred by Lucius (see note on vs. 1). 
This view is probably supported by a 
strict interpretation of exetcre in xxii. 
5. But see note on vs. 10. 

bound] This is of course a literal 
rendering of Sece^vovs, and doubtless 
any prisoner who was likely to escape 
would be handcuffed, or otherwise 
restrained, but perhaps in custody 
gives a nearer approach to the con 
notation of the word. 

whomsoever] Does the Greek, edv 
rivas, imply that he might not find any ? 

the Way] This appears to be one 
of the earliest names for the Church 
in Greek. 056s is found in this sense 
six times in Acts, but only in passages 
connected with Paul (ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, 
xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22, to which may 
probably be added xviii. 25 656^ rov 
Kvpiov and xviii. 26 656^ rov Beov). 
There is thus no evidence that it repre 
sents any Aramaic name, though it is 
doubtless based on the use of the 
word in the O.T. in such passages as 



Jer. x. 2 Kara rds 65oi)s T&V eOfwv /AT) 
^a.vda.vtT. In rabbinical literature 
the word -,-n is often used in the sense 
of customs (see Strack ii. p. 690), but 
there seems to be no instance of its 
use without some defining adjective 
or adjectival genitive. Of course such 
names are not without parallel in other 
languages. Too, from which Taoism 
receives its name, means in Chinese 
way ; compare methodist. 05is, 
however, is not used in this sense in 
the Pauline epistles. It is possible to 
guess that the word was current in 
Greek-speaking Jewish circles, and that 
it implied rather than stated that the 
Christians were heretical. It is notice 
able that in all the rabbinical passages 
quoted by Strack the implication of 
the word is unfavourable. Similarly 
XptffTiavbs was probably at first an 
uncomplimentary term of heathen 
origin. Paul himself adopted neither 
Christian nor Way, but both were 
accepted and justified by some of the 
community. It is perhaps significant 
that it was the heathen term Christian 
which ultimately survived, not the 
Jewish term Way. See Addit. Note 
30. 

3. he was approaching] Literally, 
it came to pass that he was approach 
ing, but this over-emphasizes the 
eytveroi which should not be thus 
rendered in English, unless it be 
supposed that it is a conscious effort 
to imitate a Biblical style. 

In xxii. 6 and xxvi. 13 it is added 
that it was about noon. 

2 

lipp. 

spirit, and was glorified. Spirit, 
Light and Glory are not synonyms, 
but they are analogous concepts. 
flashed] See note on xxvi. 13. 

4. fell to the ground] Cf. Ezekiel 
i. 28 and Dan. viii. 17. 

voice] Perhaps the reference to 
the voice in this and other similar 
experiences of revelation, vii. 31, 
x. 13, etc., should be brought into 
connexion with the rabbinic bath qoi 



light] Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18, iv. 6; 
Phili. iii. 21. The risen Lord was a 



IX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



101 



5 him, " Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ? " And he said, " Who 
are you, Lord ? And he said , " I am Jesus whom you are persecut- 

6 ing. But arise and go into the city and it shall be told you what you 

7 must do." And the men who were in the caravan with him stood 

8 speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. And Saul arose 
from the ground, but when his eyes were opened he continued to 
see nothing. And they led him by the hand and brought him into 

which was an evasion of the use of 
the word God. (See Dalman, Words 
of Jesus, pp. 204 f . ; Blau, Jewish En 
cyclopaedia, ii. pp. 588-592; Strack, 
i. pp. 125 ff., and G. F. Moore, 
Judaism, i. pp. 421 ff.) 

Saul, Saul] According to xxvi. 14 
the Lord spoke Aramaic (lit. Hebrew, 
but the word at this time probably 
meant Aramaic). The Western text 
of this verse and the following is 
" Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? 
And he answered, saying, Who art 
thou, Lord ? And the Lord said, I 
am Jesus the Nazarene, whom thou 
persecutest, but it is vain for thee 
to kick against the goad. And he, 
trembling, full of fear at what had 
been done to him, said, Lord, what 
wilt thou that I do ? And the Lord 
said to him, Arise," etc. This may be 
harmonization with xxvi. 14 and xxii. 

10. That it is not found completely 
in any Greek MS. is due to the 
paucity of Western Greek texts and 
the absence of D at this point. 
Erasmus translated it from the Vul 
gate and so it passed into the Textus 
Receptus. See note in Vol. III. pp. 
84 f . The spelling Zaoi A is used only 
here, in the parallel passages xxii. 7, 
xxvi. 14, and below in vs. 17 and 
in xxii. 13, all in the vocative. Else 
where the Graecized form 2au\os is 
used (2aoi /\ is used in xiii. 21 of 
Saul, the first king of the Israelites). 
The repeated vocative is characteristic 
of the gospel of Luke (cf. viii. 24, 
x. 41, xxii. 31, and see Friedrich, Das 
Lukasevangelium, pp. 75 f.). 

7. were in the caravan with him] 
(rvvoSevovTes probably means were in 
the caravan the party of travellers 
who journeyed together for protection 
and guidance. Cf. evvodia in Luke 

11. 44. 

speechless] eVcot, only here in the 



N.T. (Is. Ivi. 10; cf. Prov. xvii. 
28.) 

hearing the voice but seeing no 
one] There is, of course, a formal con 
tradiction between this passage and 
xxii. 9, which says that Paul s com 
panions saw the light, but did not 
hear the voice of him who was speak 
ing. But it should be noted that it is 
not stated that they did not see the 
blaze of light, and the obvious mean 
ing of both passages is to emphasize 
the fact that though the phenomenon 
was to some extent perceived by others, 
it was intelligible only to Paul. 

A similar formal but unimportant 
contradiction may be noted between 
this verse and xxvi. 14. Here Paul s 
companions stand, but in xxvi. it is 
said that "we all fell to the ground." 
The Western text is "seeing no one, 
when he was speaking, but he said to 
them, Lift me up from the ground. 
And when they lifted him up, he saw 
nothing, though his eyes were open. 
And they led him by the hand and 
brought him to Damascus." 

8. led him] xeiperyaryoC i res, cf- 
Tobit xi. 16, but the word is only 
found in the N-text of Tobit; and 
in the present uncertainty as to the 
history of the text of Tobit, it is 
doubtful whether the use of the word 
in both Acts and the N-text of Tobit 
is due to the influence of Tobit on 
Acts (see Vol. II. p. 76) or of Acts on 
K. Probably it is merely that this 
was the conventionallv correct word 
to use of a blind man (cf. Josephus, 
Antiq. v. 8. 12, 315, and Acts xiii. 11, 
and see Wettstein s note ad loc. ), just as 
in English literature a blind man con 
ventionally has a dog, which moreover 
is usually called Toby, probably in 
memory of Tobias the only biblical 
character who is said to have had a 
dog. 



102 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IX 



Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither 9 
ate nor drank. 

And there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the 10 
Lord said to him in a vision, * Ananias . And he said, Here am I , 
Lord. And the Lord said to him, "Arise, and go to the street called 1 1 
Straight, and ask at the house of Judas for a Tarsian named Saul, 



9. ate nor drank] The natural 
meaning seems to be that he was 
suffering too much from the shock of 
his experience to eat or drink, but 
some commentators think that it was 
an act of penance. It is also possible, 
though not necessary, to see in it an 
allusion to the custom of fasting 
before baptism. (Cf . Didache vii. 4 ; 
Justin, 1 Apol. Ixi.) 

10. disciple] In the parallel pass 
age in xxii. 12 Ananias is described as 
fi)\a/37?s Kara rbv v6/u,ov, fj-apTvpov/JLevos 

VTTO TTO.VTWV TU!V KaTOLKOVVTWV lovdaibJl . 

By itself this scarcely means that 
Ananias was a Christian, but the 
words which follow in xxii. 14, " The 
God of our fathers ordained thee to 
know his will, and to see the Righteous 
One, etc.," seem to imply that he was. 
Nevertheless in view of the general 
difficulty of the whole problem of 
Ananias, it is not impossible that we 
are dealing with editorial changes and 
combinations which defy complete 
analysis. There is a somewhat similar 
problem in connexion with Joseph of 
Arimathea. The account in Mark 
xv. 43 does not describe him as a 
disciple, but uses the ambiguous 
phrase was expecting the Kingdom 
of God, which Matthew interprets as 
a disciple. ( See K. Lake, The Re 
surrection of Jesus Christ, p. 50.) 

Assuming that Ananias was a 
Christian there are two possibilities. 
He may have been one of those who 
fled from Jerusalem. This is the 
usual view and is quite possible, but 
the general impression given by the 
story is that Ananias was a Dama 
scene (cf. especially xxii. 12). Or he 
may have belonged to a group of 
Jews who had accepted the teaching 
of Jesus and were his disciples, yet 
were distinct from the apostles and 
their followers in Jerusalem. On 
general principles it is certain that 



a teacher of such impressiveness as 
was Jesus must have left many 
disciples in Galilee and in Syro- 
phoenicia who were unable to join 
the company of those who travelled 
with him. It would not be strange 
if some of these were found later in 
Damascus and elsewhere. (For the 
similar possibility with regard to 
Apollos see note on xviii. 24-28.) 

Here am I] Cf. the story of 
Samuel in the tabernacle at Shiloh. 
idou eyu is the LXX rendering of 
&lt;33n, and is scarcely a Greek idiom. 
The African Latin, like the English, 
gives the sense but not a literal trans 
lation, and renders ita domine. 

11. Straight] Presumably this was 
the great street which runs from east 
to west through Damascus, and is 
now called Darb el-Mostakim. In the 
Roman period it had long colonnades, 
and ended in great porches at each 
end. (See Baedeker s Palestine for a 
plan of the city.) The traditional 
house of St. Paul is near the west end 
of the street. 

Judas] At first sight the details 
of this verse give the impression 
of accurate tradition sufficient to 
counteract suspicion created by the 
use of visions against the historicity 
of the facts. The directions are, 
however, all necessary for the story, 
and could not be dispensed with as 
can such details when they are true 
marks of original and primitive tradi 
tion. In visions full identification 
and address of a stranger to be visited 
must be given as here Saul of Tarsus, 
at the house of Judas, Straight Street, 
and in Acts x., xi., esp. x. 6, Simon 
surnamed Peter, at the house of Simon 
the Tanner, whose house is near the 
sea. Part of the miraculous motif in 
such visions is the divine communi 
cation of the details. Were the ad 
dresses the mere survival of unneces 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



103 



12 for behold he is praying, and saw in a vision a man named Ananias 

come in and lay his hands on him that he might regain his sight." 

!3 And Ananias answered, " Lord, I heard from many about this man 

*4 how much harm he did to thy saints in Jerusalem, and here he 

has authority from the high priests to bind all who call upon thy 

15 name." And the Lord said to him, " Go, for my chosen instrument 
is this man, to carry my name before both the Gentiles and kings 

1 6 and the children of Israel, for I will show to him how much he must 



sary historical detail we might have 
expected them also for Ananias in 
Damascus, for Peter in Lydda (ix. 38), 
and for Cornelius in Caesarea, and 
other occasions in the book where they 
might well have been given. 

For the same reason the naming of 
Judas can only be used with caution 
as showing the author s interest in 
hosts and lodging, though this interest 
is doubtless elsewhere manifested. 
(See on Mnason in xxi. 16.) Harnack, 
however (Acts of the Apostles, p. 109), 
thinks these references show both the 
author s interest in the houses in 
which Peter (or Paul) stayed, and 
special information about Damascus 
(p. 87) and Lydda, and adds (p. 85 
note) : "If Peter enters into a house 
on the seashore and stays there a 
long time, we may perhaps assume that 
his trade of fisherman influenced him. 
He was no tanner." 

praying] It is noteworthy how often 
in Luke and Acts prayer is associated 
with visions. Cf. Luke i. 10, iii. 21, 
ix. 28 [xxii. 44] ; Acts x. 9 f., xxii. 7 ; 
and see Cadbury, Making of Luke- Acts, 
p. 269, note 16. 

12. vision] er opd/uari is omitted by 
NA, etc. (see Vol. III. p. 85) and may 
be a gloss ; but even if so it is a correct 
explanation. Apparently it refers to 
another vision of Paul, of which no 
further details are given. The whole 
verse is omitted by Cod. h, but it is 
quite doubtful whether this is not 
accidental. 

It has been argued by Corssen 
and Preuschen that the hesitation 
of Ananias in vs. 13 is unintelli 
gible after this explanation. Doubt 
less he ought to have had no further 
scruples, but vs. 13 seems to repre 
sent nothing more than a natural 



tendency to question so remarkable 
a vision. 

regain his sight] avafiXtirw has 
this force not only in describing Paul s 
recovery (cf. vss. 17, 18 and xxii. 13 
note), but even in relating the cure of 
those born blind (John ix. 11, 15, 18). 
Its occurrence in an account of a cure 
in the temple of Asclepius (Ditten- 
berger, Sylloge 3 1173. 15 ff.) makes a 
specially interesting parallel with its 
use in connexion with the miracles of 
Jesus (cf . Bartimaeus in Mark x. 46 ff . 
= Matt. xx. 29ff. = Luke xviii. 35). 

13. saints] Cf. vss. 32 and 41, 
xxvi. 10. dyiot is the common Pauline 
word for Christians. In Acts it is used 
only in this chapter (vss. 13, 32 and 
41) and in xxvi. 10, which is in some 
sense parallel to ix. 13. Its use in 
vss. 32 and 41 suggests that it is due 
to the editor, for these verses can 
hardly come from the same source as 
vs. 13. The question may be raised 
whether ay 101 and St /ccuot (xiv. 2 in the 
Western text) do not represent the 
same Aramaic word. Cf. also Sluaio* 
as a title of Jesus in iii. 14, vii. 52, 
xxii. 14 (see also Addit. Note 30). 

14. high priests] Either in the 
sense of the high-priestly class, or a 
generalization from the singular in 
vs. 1. Cf. vs. 21 and see note on iv. 6. 

15. chosen instrument] &lt;r/ceuos 
K\oyrjs, cf. Rom. ix. 22 ffKevrj opyTJs. 
The traditional rendering in English 
vessel has too narrow a meaning, 
at least now. The Greek means not 
only vessels but implements in 
general. 

children] Literally sons, but the 
phrase is of course biblical and 
children of Israel is the conventional 
English just as viol laparjX is the con 
ventional Greek. 



104 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



suffer for my name." And Ananias went forth and entered into 17 
the house and laid his hands on him and said, " Saul, my brother, 
the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the road by 
which you came, in order that you may regain your sight and be 
filled with Holy Spirit." And immediately there fell from his eyes 18 
a scaly substance, and he, regained his sight and stood up and was 
baptized, and after taking food, he was strengthened. 19 



16. suffer] The reference to future 
sufferings as the contents of the in 
struction to Paul is a little unexpected 
when compared with vs. 6 and xxii. 
10 where he is to be told what he 
must do. But the phrase VTT&P TOV 
6t&gt;6fji.aTbs fjiov guarantees the reading 
(pace Pallis) when v. 41 and xxi. 13 
are compared. The general shadow 
of Christian persecution falls over the 
Book of Acts (cf. xiv. 22) as it does 
over the Gospels. 

17. my brother] The meaning 
really would be given better by my 
fellow-Christian. 

the Lord] One of the minor differ 
ences between this passage and the 
parallel in chapter xxii. tends to grow 
in importance when closely considered. 
In this passage Ananias is sent by the 
Lord, Jesus. In xxii. he comes to 
Paul with a message from the God of 
our fathers, and Jesus is not referred 
to as the Lord, but as the Righteous 
One, the typical Zaddik. perhaps 
the oldest title given to Jesus, and 
inherited if the phrase may be for 
given by his brother James. This 
seems to me much more likely to be 
original, and makes me think that in 
some respects at least the account 
in xxii. has been less edited than the 
parallel version. Chapter xxii. gives a 
story which is typically Jewish-Chris 
tian in phraseology, while chapter ix. 
is typically Hellenistic-Christian. It 
is, however, true that the Jewish-Chris 
tian phraseology of chap, xxii., as 
contrasted with chap, ix., may well be 
due to the fact that it is a speech to a 
Jewish audience. 

Holy Spirit] It is noteworthy that 
the message of Ananias was that Paul 
should regain his sight, and be filled 
with the Holy Spirit, and that in the 
sequel he regained his sight and was 
baptized. This is one of the many 



incidental indications that, at least 
in some circles of early Christians, 
baptism was regarded as conveying 
the gift of the Spirit (cf . esp. xix. 1 ff . 
and see Vol. I. pp. 332 ff.). But this 
element is quite lacking in the parallel 
passage in xxii., where Paul receives 
his sight before his baptism ; baptism 
is regarded as the washing away of 
sin, and there is nothing at all about 
the Holy Spirit. 

It is also notable that, as it were, 
just behind the text of the present 
verse which clearly regards baptism 
and the gift of the Spirit as a regener 
ative process analogous to the recovery 
of sight there is the more purely 
Jewish concept which thought of the 
Holy Spirit mainly as the prophetic 
gift. Paul was to bear witness before 
Gentiles and Emperors and the Sons 
of Israel, and therefore he must 
receive the Spirit, for the testimony 
of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 
(Cf. also Mark xiii. 11.) 

18. a scaly substance] Cf. Tobit 
xi. 13 /cat fXeiriffd-r] airb ruv Ka.vQwv rCov 
6&lt;pOa\iJ. jov TO, XeuKw/tzara, and see Vol. 
II. p. 76. The fact that XeTrtoes are 
described in medical books as falling 
ofi (dTroTriTrretj ) has been used to sup 
port the view that the writer of Acts 
was a doctor (see Hobart, pp. 39 f.), 
but the medical use applies to skin 
diseases, not to the eyes. Further 
more the word \e-n-is is used of many 
other forms of scales or flakes, such as 
thin vegetables or metal coatings (see 
the dictionaries). * A scaly substance 
seems to give the meaning of ws \eiri5es 
better than as it were scales, which 
in English suggests a simile. It 
might be better to render \ewi5es 
flakes, as scales has come to be 
associated chiefly with fish. 

regained his sight] It would be 
absurd to argue that this is merelv an 



TX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



105 



20 And he was with the disciples at Damascus for some days, and 
immediately preached Jesus in the synagogues, that this is the Son 

21 of God. And all who heard were amazed and said, " Is not this he 
who in Jerusalem ravaged those who call on this name, and here 
he had come for this purpose that he might bring them bound to 

22 the high priests ? " And Saul gained all the more in power and 
went on perplexing the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, demon- 

23 strating that this is the Messiah. But when many days were 

2 4 completed, the Jews made a plot to kill him, but their plot was 
known to Saul. And they were watching the gates day and night 

allegory of baptism, though the con 
junction of phrases may have been 
influenced by the fact that baptism 
is often called 0umcr//6s. 

But if there is any force in this argu 
ment it probably ought to be applied 
the other way, and the story of his 
baptism be taken as another version 
of his recovery of sight. But I do 
not think that the writer of Acts had 
any such idea. 

19. disciples] Either refugees from 
Jerusalem or a little colony of original 
disciples. See note on ix. 10. 

20. Son of God] This is the only 
instance of this title of Jesus in Acts. 
It is implied, of course, in the use of 
Father on the lips of Jesus (though 
Acts does not limit Father to Jesus) 
and perhaps in the obscure phrase in 
xx. 28 (see note). It may be regarded 
as significant that at its only occur 
rence the term is applied to the preach 
ing of Paul (W. Bousset, Kyrios 
Christos, 2nd ed., pp. 56, 151, arid see 
Vol. I. pp. 392 ff.). 

21. ravaged] irop9e ii&gt; is used in 
the N.T. only^ here and in Gal. i. 13 
and 23, and then also of Paul s perse 
cution. This is perhaps the nearest 
approach that there is to verbal 
evidence of literary dependence of 
Acts on the Pauline Epistles. See 
Vol. II. p. 266 note 2. The suggestion 
of Tropdfiv is the sack of a city ; that 
of \vfji.aivfiv (viii. 3) is the ravaging of 
a body by a wild beast. 

this name] See Addit. Note 11. 

22. gained . . in power] The West 
ern text makes it plain that this refers 

to his preaching by adding rc3 Xoyw. /cat probably does not qualify rds 7ri &lt;Xaj. 
Probably this is correct, but evedwa.- A divergent account of this plot 



might refer to physical strength 
and continue the line of thought 
started by evia-^ Or] in vs. 19. 

perplexing] See note on ii. 6. 

the Messiah] See Vol. I. pp. 346 ff . 
The earliest Western text was probably 
6 xpto"r6s, ets 6*&gt; cuSoK-rjcrev 6 tfeus. It 
may be the original reading, for it is 
not at all the type of addition which 
was customary at any late date, and it 
may have been omitted for theological 
reasons. Its adoptionist nature may 
have led Irenaeus to change it to 
6 i tos TOV deov, o xpi&lt;rrc&gt;s. 

23. many days] A singularly vague 
note of time, of which, however, the 
real difficulty is that it so obviously 
means that Paul was in Damascus 
from the time of his conversion to 
the time of his escape to Jerusalem, 
while he himself says that he was in 
Arabia. 

completed] See note on ii. 1. The 
meaning of the imperfect e-rrXrjpovvTo 
would perhaps be best brought out by 
some such phrase as as time went on. 
The implication is that the Jews felt 
that the situation was daily becoming 
more intolerable. Paul had been sent 
to arrest malefactors. He had not 
fulfilled his commission ; he had not 
handed it over to anyone else; he 
was actually supporting those whom 
he had come to suppress. 

24. And they] The sentence begins 
iraperripouvTO 8 /ecu rets Tri Xas, which 
might be rendered And they were 
watching even the gates, but Luke 
uses 5e KO.L as a connecting particle at 
the beginning of a sentence, and the 



106 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IX 



in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let 25 
him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when 26 
he reached Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, and they were 
all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But 27 
Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and explained 
to them how he had seen the Lord on the road and that he had 
spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken publicly in 
the name of Jesus. And he was with them going in and out at 28 
Jerusalem, speaking publicly in the name of the Lord. And he 29 
talked and argued with the Hellenists, but they tried to kill him. 
And when the brethren knew it they brought him down to 30 
Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. 



and Paul s escape is given in 2 Cor. 
xi. 32 f. See Addit. Note 15. 

25. over] did in this context is 
scarcely through ; if the expression 
were permissible it might best be 
rendered via the wall. 

basket] virvpldi. OTv^vpiSi. (The spell 
ing is discussed in modern grammars 
or lexica.) In 2 Cor. xi. 33 the word 
used is ffa.pya.vrj, which was a large 
woven or network bag or basket suit 
able for hay, straw (see Preisigke, 
Worterbuch, s.v.), or for bales of wool 
(P0xy2154). A a-irvpls was of similarly 
pliable material but probably smaller. 
It would be used for food as after the 
Feeding of the Four Thousand. A 
third word, used by all the gospels at 
the Feeding of the Five Thousand, is 
Kdfiivos, which, if any consistent differ 
ence can be seen, apparently meant a 
smaller and stiffer basket than the 
other two. On the three words see 
F. J. A. Hort in JTS. x., 1909, pp. 
567 ff . ; G. Farmer in Hastings, D.C.G., 
i. pp. 173 f. 

26. disciples] Presumably they 
thought he was an agent provocateur 
collecting evidence. 

27. spoken publicly] -n-app-rjcnd^a-dai 
is found seven times in Acts ix. 27, 
28, xiii. 46, xiv. 3, xviii. 26, xix. 8, 
xxvi. 26, but only twice elsewhere in 
the N.T. (1 Thess. ii. 2; Eph. vi. 20). 
Its exact meaning is hard to define. 
It seems improbable that it merely 
means bold or plain speech, and 
possibly may imply some kind of 



inspired utterance. See notes on iv. 
31 and xxviii. 31. Cf. Mark viii. 32 K al 
Trapprjaig. TQV \byov AdAet ? Publicly 
is here scarcely the right meaning, 
nor does freely seem strong enough. 

28. going in and out] A Semitism 
for free intercourse ; see i. 21, and cf. 
1 Sam. xviii. 13, 16. 

29. Hellenists] See notes on vi. 1 
and xi. 20, and Addit. Note 7. 
Here it may well mean heathen. 

30. knew it] eTriyvovres without 
any object is perhaps idiomatic. 
Field, Notes, etc., ad loc., says : " The 
absolute use of this word for re cognita 
* when they knew of it has its parallel 
in Diod. Sic. xvi. 10 d/caracrx^rou e 
rrjs 6pfj.TJ^ T&V 6~x\wv ov&lt;r7js, eiTLyvovres 

TOUS /itCT0006pOl&gt;S K.0.1 TOVS TO. TOV 5vi&gt;d(TTOV 

(fipovouvTas ijdpoiffav." In Acts xii. 12, 
xiv. 6, vvviSuv, -bvTes is used in the 
same sense and in the same absolute 
way. A curious evidence of the like 
ness of the two is in BGU . 1139. 13 
(5 B.C.), where the writer having 
written eiriyvovs erased it and wrote 

(TUfl5u&gt;J&gt;. 

Tarsus] A somewhat different ex 
planation of his leaving is suggested 
in xxii. 17-21, where he is told in a 
vision to leave the city promptly since 
his message will not be received, and to 
go to the Gentiles. The natural mean 
ing is that he went by boat from the port 
of Caesarea. It is surely unnecessary 
to consider whether Gal. i. 21 implies 
that he went through Syria to Cilicia 
(Tarsus) and therefore by land. In 



IX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



107 



3 1 So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria 
had peace, being built up, and living in the fear of the Lord and 
the comfort of the Holy Spirit was multiplied. 

3 2 And it happened that as Peter was passing through all, he also 



the first place Syria and Cilicia is 
probably a phrase of which the order 
was fixed by custom, and does not 
mean that Paul went to Syria first 
any more than an American who said 
he had visited England and Wales 
would necessarily imply that this was 
the order of his route. In the second 
place the divergencies between Acts 
and Galatians are so great that this 
tiny discrepancy is of no importance 
in any case. The probability that he 
went by boat is perhaps supported by 
Luke s custom elsewhere of mention 
ing escort to the sea (xvii. 15) and the 
name of harbours, especially of em 
barkation (xiii. 5, xiv. 25), possibly 
because there was often a somewhat 
long delay when transferring from land 
to sea travel. 

31. church] It is uncertain what 
the Western text read, as Ddh are 
all defective, but the Antiochian text, 
which often preserves the Western 
reading, has Churches. If this be 
an emendation it is probably early. 
It may be original; and it is un 
fortunate that there is any doubt, for 
it is an interesting question whether 
Acts has really the Catholic usage 
of the word the Church. The phrase 
the Church 5 comes in v. 11, viii. 1, 
xii. 1, xiii. 1 and xviii. 22, but in each 
case it may mean the local assembly 
of Christians, and in xiii. 1 the 
matter is complicated by the obscure 
phrase TTJV ovcrav fKK\7}ffia.v of which 
the meaning is uncertain, and has 
therefore been used as evidence both 
for the Catholic and the local 
sense of the word. It should, however, 
be remembered that the question is 
lexical. There can be little doubt 
but that Acts has the Catholic con 
cept of the Church : the point at issue 
is whether the word eK/cX^o-to, had 
as yet been consciously adopted to 
express that concept. (See also note 
on v. 11 and Addit. Note 30.) 

Judaea] Here clearly in the 
narrower sense, and not, as is perhaps 
possible elsewhere, in the general 



sense of the Holy Land. See note on 
ii. 9. 

Galilee] This is the only mention of 
a Christian community in Galilee. 

peace] Does the writer imply that 
the peace of the church was increased 
by the absence of Paul ? More prob 
ably the p.ev o$v implies that this verse 
is the introduction to the story of 
Peter s work in Lydda and Joppa. 
(See also Addit. Note 31.) 

living] Literally proceeding. But 
it is possible, as Torrey suggests, 
that this may be the Hebrew idiom 

1 -jSt, which indicates that the change 
involved in the accompanying verb 
is continuing (Gesenius - Kautzsch, 
Hebrew Gram. $ 113w). This is found 
also in the LXX in most of the pass 
ages where it occurs in Hebrew, e.g. 

2 Chron. xvii. 12 rjv Iw0-a(/&gt;dT iropevo- 
/u,i&gt;os /meifav e w? els v\f/os, and perhaps 
at Luke i. 6, viii. 14. If this view be 
taken, we should translate and was 
continuously multiplied in the fear of 
the Lord and in the comfort of the 
Holy Spirit. 

comfort of the Holy Spirit] Or per 
haps inspired exhortation. Trapd/cX^cris 
is exhortation rather than comfort ; if 
so, the meaning is that the preaching of 
the disciples added to the church, and 
that it was effective because the Holy 
Spirit was speaking in them. 

ix. 32-xi. 18. THE STORY OF PETER 
AND CORNELIUS (Joppa, Caesarea, and 
Jerusalem). This section may be the 
continuation of viii. 25 where Peter 
is last mentioned, and it is tempting 
to interpret the difficult &lt;3td TTO.VTUV 
of vs. 32 as referring to the many 
villages of the Samaritans mentioned 
in viii. 25 as the scene of Peter s 
preaching. In that case, however, it 
should read 5ia Tracr&v unless it be 
thought that the intervening narrative 
had so broken the continuity of con 
struction that the author changed 
iraff&v to TrdvTWV. 

But it is possible that vss. 31 and 
32 are editorial, and if so this story of 



108 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



IX 



visited the saints who lived in Lydda. And there he found a 33 
man named Aeneas, bedridden for eight years, who was paralysed. 



Peter may be an extract from another 
source, and perhaps out of place. See 
Vol. II. pp. 156 f. It is also worth 
asking whether one of the secondary 
objects of the editor, which may have 
partially modified his arrangement of 
sources, was not to show how Caesarea 
was a landmark in the history of 
Christianity. It is certainly notice 
able that after dealing with the death 
of Stephen, which he clearly regards 
as the event which led to the scatter 
ing of the disciples, he first brings 
Philip to Caesarea, then takes up 
the story of Paul, and follows him 
until the disciples bring him to Tarsus 
through Caesarea, and finally re 
turns to Peter, and shows how he 
went to Caesarea and converted the 
Gentile Cornelius. It is not until 
xi. 19 that he turns to another land 
mark and focuses his attention on 
Antioch. It should also be noticed 
that just as the end of the Caesarean 
chapter is a conference in Jerusalem, 
in which the Caesarean school, headed 
by Peter, convinces the Christians in 
Jerusalem (xi. 1-18), so there is a 
similar end to the Antiochian chap 
ter in the conference described in 
chapter xv., in which Peter and James 
again convince the Jerusalemites. 
Can this parallelization be traced 
even further, and noted in the return 
of Paul to Jerusalem after his mission 
to Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia, and 
in the favourable reception given him 
by James and the other Christians in 
Jerusalem ? 

32. passing through] Both 5ie/o- 
Xecrflat and KareXOelv are constantly 
used in missionary contexts. 5tf \dciv 
means to pass through a district in 
order to preach in it, and KareXdeiv to 
come down from Jerusalem (or other 
centre) for that purpose. It would, 
however, be an exaggeration to de 
scribe them as technical terms. The 
sense is derived from the context, not 
from the inherent meaning. Thus 
here at least ifp-%bfj.evov does not 
mean to pass through and preach in 
heathen territory, as it seems to do in 
xiii. 6, but rather to visit recent con 
verts, as it seems also to do in xvi. 6. 



For the connexion of ditpxf&lt;r0(u 
missionary preaching see W. M. 
Ramsay, Expositor, 1895, pp. 385 ff. 

all] This phrase is as strange in 
Greek as in English. Through all 
what ? cud TTOLVTUV is not an ordinary 
Greek phrase for everywhere, and 
it is certainly contrary to the genius 
of the language to supply ayiwv from 
the following phrase, as some com 
mentators have done, as though it 
were dt.fpxofJ.ffov 5ta iravruv rwv ayiuv 
KareXdelf /cat irpos rovs KCLTOLKOVVTO.? 
\6S5a. The Peshitto reads through 
the cities, and some Latin manu 
scripts have per civitates et regiones, 
but these merely show that the diffi 
culty of 5id TT&VTUV was felt. It is 
possible that if a new source begins 
here there was once something in the 
context which would have explained 
the phrase. 

Lydda] Formerly Lod, later the 
Greek Diospolis. According to 
1 Chron. viii. 12 it was built by 
Shamed the Benjamite, and it is 
mentioned in Neh. xi. 35 as a town 
inhabited by Benjamites after the 
return from the captivity. It had 
belonged to Judaea since 165 B.C. 
(1 Mace. xi. 34) and was the capital 
of one of the 10 or 11 Jewish pro 
vinces or toparchies (Josephus, B.J. 
iii. 3. 5, 55 ; Pliny, N.H. v. 70). It 
played a considerable part in the 
Jewish war of A.D. 66 (Josephus, 
B.J. ii. 19. 1 and iv. 8. 1). After the 
destruction of Jerusalem it was a 
famous centre of Rabbinical learning. 
It was also celebrated for its trade in 
purple-dyed stuffs. It figures in the 
legend of St. George, and it will be 
the scene, according to some author 
ities, of the final overthrow of Anti 
christ. (See Baedeker s Palestine 
and Syria and Schiirer, GJV. ii. p. 
183.) Apparently there were already 
Christians in it before Peter came. 
Were they refugees from the persecu 
tion of Stephen ? or were they some 
of Philip s converts ? Lydda is be 
tween Ashdod and Caesarea. It is 
the same problem as is raised by the 
existence of Christians in Damascus. 

33. Aeneas] Apparently Aeneas 



ACTS OP THE APOSTLES 



109 



34 And Peter said to him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Arise and 

35 lay the table for yourself." And he arose at once, and all who 
dwelt in Lydda and the Sharon saw him, and they turned to 
the Lord. 

36 And in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha, which when 



was not a Christian, but the point is 
not emphasized. The mention of the 
length of his illness is typical of the 
stories of cures (iii. 2, iv. 22 and note, 
xiv. 8, Mark v. 25 and ix. 21, Luke 
xiii. 11, John v. 5, ix. 1, and see 
Dittenberger, Sylloge 3 1168. 95; 1171. 
5). It is to be noted that the 
names of those cured are given here, 
and in the raising of Dorcas (cf. the 
case of Eutychus in xx. 9), whereas 
in the gospels the names of those 
cured had almost completely vanished 
out of the tradition before it was 
recorded. 

for eight years] Or possibly since 
he was eight years old. 

34. lay the table] crrpuxroz aeavrif. 
The object to be supplied is doubtless 
K\ivr)v and the literal rendering would 
be spread your couch. But the 
common phrase K\Lvrjv &lt;rrpuvvv/M (see 
Wettstein on Mark xiv. 15) refers to 
eating rather than to sleeping quar 
ters, and is often associated with 
preparing a rpdire^a. The idiomatic 
translation must be that given here, or 
something similar. The command of 
Peter is not to lift up his Kpafiarros to 
show that he is cured (see note on iii. 8) 
but to get himself something to eat 
(cf. Mark v. 43 = Luke viii. 55). The 
aeavry probably excludes the sugges 
tion that Peter asked Aeneas to pre 
pare a feast. 

35. the Sharon] i.e. the coast plain 
(|riB&gt;n). In the LXX and Josephus it 
is usually called either TO -jrediov or 
6 dpv/mos (the oak thicket) or oi 5pv/j.oi, 
but in Is. xxxiii. 9 the LXX has 6 
Zapwv. Are there any other instances 
of the use of this transliterated Hebrew 
as the Greek name of the district along 
the coast from Lydda to Carmel, 
famous for its fertility (cf. Is. xxxv. 
2 and Cant. ii. 1, whence the Rose of 
Sharon has become proverbial) ? 

and they] o mj&gt;fs introduces a sub 
sequent act; cf. viii. 15, xi. 20, etc., 
and sec note on i. 11. 



36. Joppa] The Old Testament 
Yofa (13-) and the modern Jaffa. In 
Greek it is either lo-rnnj or TOTTT?. 
I OTTTTT? is the best attested form in the 
LXX and Josephus ; it is also found in 
Pausanias, but Strabo has I^-n-rj, and 
so has the Zeno papyrus ii. 14. 7 
(Annales du service, xviii. 3). The 
Arabic Yafa and Syriac Yophe have 
the single consonant of the Hebrew. 
Both Greek forms are found in coins 
and inscriptions (see Schiirer, 4th 
ed. ii. p. 128, note). The city was con 
quered from the Philistines by Jona 
than the Maccabee in 148 B.C. In 63 
B.C. Pompey left it free of Roman con 
trol, while putting the rest of Judaea 
into the province of Syria, but in 47 
B.C. it passed to Hyrcanus, and re 
mained Jewish until Judaea became 
Roman in A.D. 6 (see 1 Mace. x. 74 ff . ; 
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4, and xiv. 10. 
6; and cf. Schiirer, OJV. ii. pp. 99 ff.). 

disciple] jULadrjrpta is only found 
here in the N.T. It occurs also in 
Ev. Petri, xi. Its good Hellenistic 

Saality is confirmed by its use in 
iod. Sic. and Diog. Laert., and by 
the explicit condemnation of the word 
in Thomas Magister and Moeris as 
Hellenistic for /xa07?Tts. Perhaps it 
only occurs here because in this 
chapter the author makes especial use 
of fj.a.OriT-T]s. See verses 1, 10, 19, 25, 
26, 38. Earlier than this nadijT-r)* is 
used only in chapter vi. (again several 
times in a short space, vss. 1, 2, 7). 
Its distribution in later chapters is 
more uniform eighteen times from 
xi. 26 to xxi. 16. For an attempt 
to use the word as a clue to a source 
of Acts see R. Schiitz, Apostel und 
Jiinger. Compare the almost exclusive 
use in this chapter, or its parallels, 
of ayioi (note on vs. 13), ZaouX (note on 
vs. 4), eiri.Ka.Xe iaBa.i TO ovo/na (ix. 14, 21, 
xxii. 16). See Addit. Note 30. 

Tabitha] The Aramaic Njvnu which 
means a gazelle, or in Greek Aop/cds. 
For the use of these names in Aramaic 



110 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



interpreted is called Dorcas. She was full of good works and 
charities which she did. And it happened in those days that she 37 
was taken ill and died, and they washed her and laid her in an 
upper room. And as Lydda is near Joppa, the disciples, hearing 3 
that Peter was there, sent two men to him begging him, " Do not 
fail to come to us." And Peter arose and came with them, 39 
and when he arrived they took him up to the upper room, and 



and Greek see Waddington, Inscr. 
No. 2155, and Dalman. Grammatik d. 
paldst. Aram. i. p. 109, n. 5. Tabitha 
appears to be the Aramaic equi 
valent of the Hebrew Zibiah (2 
Kings xii. 1), but in the O.T. 
Peshitto this becomes Sauba (Sibya). 
It was the name of a slave of 
Gamaliel II. (Wayyikra Eabbah, xix., 
ed. Wiinsche, p. 125). It was taken by 
the Western text of Mark v. 41 as a 
name instead of Talitha in the phrase 
Talitha cumi, and Zahn (Commen 
tary on Acts, p. 337) points out the 
extraordinary coincidence (for it can 
be nothing more) that this is misspelt 
Tabea in the Codex Palatinus (e) of 
Mark and in the modern German 
texts of Acts, though not in the 
original Lutheran edition of 1522. 
(See also E. Nestle, ZNTW., 1910, 
p. 240.) 

which] Here alone in Acts is the 
form 77 used instead of 77x15. But rts 
and olives have just preceded and 77 
avoids repetition. See Cadbury, JBL. 
xlii. (1923), pp. 153 f. 

which when interpreted is called 
Dorcas] Literally we should render 
which when translated means ga 
zelle, but the Greek language had 
already become accustomed to SopKas 
as a proper name, and by vs. 39 the 
author has perhaps unconsciously 
gone over to that usage. An English 
translation cannot easily follow this 
course. Animal names (e.g. Ad^aXis, 
cf. Acts xvii. 34) represent a cate 
gory familiar in Greek nomenclature, 
perhaps originally with reference to 
personal characteristics (Lucretius iv. 
1161 nervosa et lignea dorcas). For 
instances of Dorcas see W. Drexler 
inPMoZo^s,1899,pp.316ff.; Moulton 
and Milligan, Vocabulary s.v., and 
(with other names from the same root) 
Fr. Bechtel, Attischen Frauennamen, 



1902, pp. 87, 91; Die historischen 
Personnennamen, 1917. p. 589; Fr. 
Preisigke, Namenbuch, s.v. From the 
last named it appears that no instance 
of Dorcas itself has been published 
from Egyptian remains. 

For the use of Ao/was to translate 
an Aramaic name see Josephus, B.J. 
iv. 3. 5, 145 Aop/cdSos ouros (a 
certain Iwdvj T/s) ^KaXelro ircus Kara. 
rr(i&gt; e-jnx&pLov yXfiHTffav, where Niese 
notes that ra^rjdd is written by scribes 
(Christian ?) in the margin of some 

MSS. 

37. washed] The references to 
washing the dead are frequent in 
classical literature, and, though Wett- 
stein gives no instances, it was also 
practised by the Jews (see Mishna, 
Shabbat xxiii. 5, and Maimonides, Yad. 
Abel iv. 1). The custom still obtains 
among the Jews, and is known as the 
Purification of the dead. 

38. near] Joppa is about ten 
miles north-west of Lydda. 

two men] As so often, this author 
regards two messengers as appropriate. 
Cf. x. 7, xi. 30, xv. 27, xix. 22, 
xxiii. 23, and Vol. II. p. 140 note 2. 

Do not fail to come] No transla 
tion can exactly indicate the idiomatic 
character of ^77 O/CI/T^S. (i.) 6/c^e w is 
one of those verbs (a class found pre 
sumably in every language) which 
for some reason the genius of the 
language requires to be used mainly 
if not exclusively with a negative. 
In Greek &lt;kWw occurs rarely in the 
positive, (ii.) Politeness has led in 
many languages to a softening of the 
blunt imperative with, inter alia, 
auxiliary prefixes like, Be so good as 
to, Please, etc. In Hellenistic Greek 
/j.7] &Kvei (oKvrjcrrjs) etc. appears to have 
had this character in speech and as 
an epistolary formula. See Moulton 
and Milligan, Vocab. s.v. ; Field, Notes, 



IX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



111 



all the widows stood by him wailing, and showing the tunics 
and cloaks which Dorcas had been making while she was with 

40 them. But Peter had all go out and knelt down and prayed. 
And he turned to the body and said, " Tabitha, arise." And she 

41 opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he 
gave her his hand and raised her up, and called the saints and 

42 widows and presented her to them alive. And it became known 
throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. 

43 And it came to pass that he stayed many days in Joppa with 
Simon a tanner. 



p. 118. In Num. xxii. 16, and appar 
ently Ecclus. vii. 35, the Greek trans 
lators have skilfully used it to para 
phrase similar negative auxiliaries in 
the Hebrew. Thus may be explained 
what is really the most striking of 
all the elaborate parallels drawn by 
Krenkel between Acts ix. 36-xi. 18 
and Num. xxii. See Vol. II. pp. 102 f. 
39. widows] It is possible that 
the widows came in the capacity, 
which they certainly had later in the 
Christian church, of nurses and pro 
fessional mourners (see Achelis, TU. 
xxv. 2, pp. 274 ff., and cf. note on vi. 
1), but it seems more probable that 
they are present merely because they 
had benefited from the good deeds of 
Dorcas. Here, as in vi. 1, widows seem 
to be the recipients not the adminis 
trators of charity, and there is a real 
difference between Acts and the later 
ecclesiastical literature, beginning with 
the Pastoral Epistles. 

tunics and cloaks] We may not 
decide whether these were her own 
wardrobe or evidence of her work of 
charity to the poor (vs. 36). oaa 
might suggest that the quantity rather 
than the quality of her needlework was 
the object of the demonstration, but 
in view of the fact that the simple 
relative a was obsolescent, 6Va is 
probably merely a substitute (cf. note 
on xiv. 27 and Cadbury, JBL. xlii. 
(1923), p. 157). Many interpreters 
press the middle e-n-Ldei.Kvvfj.evaL as 
meaning that the exhibitors owned 
and were wearing Tabitha s gifts. In 
any case the pathetic scene was one 
that appealed to the author. 

40. had all go out] Cf. Mark v. 



40, the raising of the daughter of 
Jairus. It is noteworthy that in the 
gospel (Luke viii. 51) Mark v. 37 
OVK d(f&gt;TJKev ovdeva . . . el 7x77 /u.6i ov TOV 
HeTpov KT\. is combined with Mark 
v. 40 Kpa\&lt;jJv Travras 7rapaAa/.i/3dj&gt;ei TOV 
iraTepa KT\. into OVK a.(f&gt;rjKev eicreXdelv 
Ttva crvv a.VT(f ei [AT] Ilerpov KCLL ludvrjv 
Kal UK(i)j3ov /cat TOV Trarepa KT\. 

In other respects the accounts may 
be influenced by the raisings by Elijah 
(1 Kings xvii. 23 inrep^ov] and Elisha 
(2 Kings iv. 33 irpoo-rji^aTO [cf. John 
xi. 41], iv. 35 Kal rfvoi^ev TO tra.ioapi.ov 
TOUS 6(pea\/j.ovs, cf. Vol. II. p. 103). 
But prayer is associated by this writer 
with cures at xxviii. 8, and above at 
vs. 11 (see note), and these coinci 
dences are too slight and too natural 
to be of much importance. 

arise] The Western text reads 
arise in the name of Jesus Christ 
(see Vol. III. p. 91), which is doubtless 
the right formula. 

sat up] Cf. Luke vii. 15, the rais 
ing of the son of the widow of Nain. 

41. saints] It does not follow that 
the widows were not Christians, 
though this is the strict implication 
of the phraseology, the saints and 
widows. See also note on vs. 13. 

presented her . . . alive] The 
phrase is almost identical with that 
in i. 3 TrapeffTtjaev eavTov ^u&gt;vTa. 

42. became known] yvwcrrbv lye- 
vero, cf. i. 19. 

Lord] Here Jesus is obviously 
meant. 

43. a tanner] The work of a tanner 
was defiling according to Jewish 
law. A psychologist might think 
that lodging in so questionable a 



112 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY x 

And a man in Caesarea by name Cornelius, a centurion of 10 



house may have turned Peter s mind 
to the problem of clean and unclean 
foods, which is raised in the next 
chapter; but it is doubtful whether 
this idea, however true it may be, was 
in the mind of the writer. Was he a 
Christian, as W. Bauer says ? For the 
mention of a trade cf. xvi. 14; xviii. 
3 ; xix. 27 and Alexander the xaX/cei -s 
in 2 Tim. iv. 14. His trade is perhaps 
mentioned merely because the author 
or his source, realizing that in this 
scene two Simons occur, decided to 
differentiate them, thus leading to the 
regular "Simon that is surnamed 
Peter " and to the unusual " Simon 
the tanner" (see also note on Judas 
in vs. 11). But he did not make the 
same consistent differentiation between 
Simon (whom we call magus) and 
(Simon) Peter in Acts viii. 

1-18. THE EPISODE OF CORNELIUS. 
Apart from minor difficulties of exe 
gesis, which are discussed in the notes, 
the chief obscurity of this episode is 
the relation of the vision to two cognate 
but separate problems the admission 
of the Gentiles without the obligation 
of circumcision, and the social inter 
course of Jews (whether Christian or 
not) with Gentile Christians. 

The vision itself seems at first sight 
to be connected with the question of 
food, which has always been a barrier 
to social intercourse between Jews and 
Gentiles. The same suggestion is 
made by x. 28, " You know that it is 
improper for a Jew to mix with or go 
to the house of a foreigner," and also 
by xi. 3, " You went to the house of 
men who were uncircumcised and ate 
with them." On the other hand, the 
outcome of Peter s visit, the defence 
which he made at Jerusalem on his 
return, and his further reference to the 
matter at the meeting described in 
Acts xv., all point to the question of 
the admission of the Gentiles. 

It is possible that in the minds of 
some Jews the question of going to 
the house of a Gentile and eating with 
him came first, as a probable though 
scarcely necessary antecedent to his 
conversion. But it is also possible, 
and perhaps more probable, that Luke 
has telescoped together two distinct 



controversies the admission of un 
circumcised Gentiles to Christianity, 
and the terms of social intercourse 
with them. It is argued in Additional 
Note 16 that this has happened in 
chapter xv., and the case is a strong 
one in that chapter, because we have 
the parallel evidence of Galatians ii. 
In the story of Cornelius we have no 
parallel evidence, but the internal 
evidence is rather stronger than 
in xv. 

It is of course impossible to date 
the episode of Cornelius. The present 
order of Acts suggests that it was 
earlier than the Antiochian mission to 
the Gentiles described in xi. 19 ff ., and 
certainly earlier than Peter s imprison 
ment described in xii. 1 ff., but there 
is a possibility that the order of events 
has been dislocated by the editor s 
arrangement, and that the story of 
Cornelius should really be placed after 
Peter s escape from prison, so that his 
preaching would have been practically 
contemporaneous with the Antiochian 
mission, and his return and defence in 
Jerusalem would be at about the same 
time as the historic conference described 
in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, xv. 1-29, and 
Gal. ii. (see Additional Note 16, and 
Vol. II. pp. 156f.). 

I.Cornelius] The name is common 
to the families of all freedmen who 
had been liberated by Sulla, and had 
therefore acquired his family name. 
Cf. the frequency of the name of 
Aurelius in Egypt at a later period 
for a similar reason. (See Pauly- 
Wissowa, iv. 2431.) 

There has probably been some 
assimilation between the description 
of this centurion of Caesarea and the 
one of Capernaum who also, according 
to Luke vii. 3 ff. (not the parallel in 
Mark), had a good reputation among 
the Jewish elders. It is difficult to 
say which account has affected the 
other. There is an interesting parallel 
to the detail given in Luke vii., that 
the centurion in Capernaum built a 
synagogue, in the inscription from 
Athribis which describes the dedica 
tion of a synagogue by Ptolemy 
the chief of police. On the Roman 
army see Addit. Note 33. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



113 



2 the cohort called Italica, a pious man and fearing God with 
all his household, doing many deeds of charity to the People 

3 and praying to God continually, saw clearly in a vision at about 
the ninth hour of the day an angel of God come in to him and 

4 say to him, " Cornelius." And he gazed at him and became 
frightened and said, "What is it, sir ? " And he said to him, " Your 
prayers and deeds of charity have gone up as a memorial before 

5 God, and now send men to Joppa and fetch a certain Simon 



the cohort called Italica] See 
Addit. Note 33 (iii) (a). 

2. fearing God] See Addit. Note 8. 
the People] i.e. the Jews, who are 

constantly described as 6 Xa&lt;5s in 
contrast to ra Qvr], the Nations or 
Gentiles. It appears, however, rather 
cumbersome to render it the Jewish 
people, and the People, with capital 
letter, seems the best device for 
representing this shade of meaning. 

praying] For the combination of 
prayer and almsgiving see Matt. vi. 
2-6, 1 Pet. iv. 7 f., Didache xv. 4, 
2 Clement xvi. 4. The combination 
is certainly Jewish as well as Christian, 
of. Tobit xii. 8 and many parallels in 
rabbinic literature. Prayer and alms 
giving are constantly associated with 
fasting. (Cf. vs. 30 v.l. and note on 
xiii. 3.) 

continually] Sid, TTCLVTOS : the phrase 
is used of the perpetual incense in 
the LXX (Exod. xxx. 8, etc.), but it 
seems far-fetched to think that this 
fact was in the writer s mind, as Zahn 
argues. The only point in favour of 
such a connexion is the recurrence of 
sacrificial terminology in pvyv-bawov in 
vs. 4. The use of such an adverb in 
reference to prayer was in any case 
familiar in other religious circles, as 
in the letters preserved in Egyptian 
papyri in the customary formula at 
the "beginning of a letter referring to 
the writer s prayers 5td TTCLVTOS for his 
correspondent. 

3. at about the ninth hour] wcrei 
irepl &pa.v ii&gt;a.TT)V. The use of both tixret 
and irepi may have seemed strange to 
the scribes, who omitted the latter (see 
Vol. III. p. 92), leaving an accusative 
of time which would be regular enough 
(cf . John iv. 52) even if not so common 
as the simple n-fpl upa.v. Luko, how- 

VOL. IV 



ever, follows his custom of adding to 
numbers the cautious qualifying wcrei 
(Cadbury, Style, p. 129). An exact 
paralleroccurs in P Tebt i. 15 (114 
B.C.) line 2 f. ry a! TOU viroKeifievov 
Wvos uxret irepi wpav la, and appar 
ently in like manner line 25. 

4. sir] Or should we translate 
Lord ? Cf. xi. 8. The difficulty is 
that in Greek there is one formula of 
address to gods, angels and men, but 
not in English. Therefore it depends 
on the context which is the better 
rendering. This is a border-case. 
Cf. also vs. 14. 

memorial] Possibly with refer 
ence to the use of this word in the 
LXX for the part of the meat-offering 
which was burnt (Lev. ii. 1), and the 
constant comparison of prayer and 
alms with sacrifice (cf. Ps. cxli. 2; 
Philipp. iv. 18 ; Hebr. xiii. 15 f.). The 
whole phraseology is reminiscent of 
the LXX. It is noticeable that in 
x. 31 the writer substitutes c/m^rjaB-rjaav 
ev&TTLOv rov deov for aveft^crav els /j,vr}/Li6- 
avvov e/jiirpoffdev rov 6eov. The message 
is appropriately delivered by an angel, 
since according to Jewish thought 
angels were the transmitters or inter 
cessors in prayer. In Tobit xii. 12 ff. 
Raphael, one of the seven angels who 
offer the prayers of the saints, says 
" when you prayed, I brought the 
memorial of your prayer (rb \j.vi]^- 
ffvvov rrjs Trpoffevxys v^uv) before the 
Holy One." 

5. Simon] Peter is mentioned 56 
times in Acts i.-xv., but he is called 
Simon surnamed Peter only in this 
verse and in x. 18, x. 32, and xi. 13. 
In xv. 14, in the speech of James, he 
is called Symeon. In Mark he is called 
Simon in the three first chapters until 
the list of the apostles is given, where 

I 



114 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



who is sumamed Peter. He is lodging with. Simon the tanner, 6 
whose house is on the shore." And when the angel who spoke to 7 
him departed he called t v o of the servants and a pious soldier of 
those in attendance on him and related everything to them and s 
sent them to Joppa. And on the next day as they were journey- 9 
ing and approaching the city Peter went on the roof to pray at 
about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry and wished 10 



it is stated that Jesus gave him the 
additional name of Peter. After that 
he is called Peter, except in the garden 
of Gethsemane where Simon is used. 
The same general usage is found in 
Matthew and Luke, but John uses 
Peter and Simon Peter equally, 
and on no distinguishable plan. 

6. shore] A late tradition identifies 
the house with the present Latin 
monastery (see Baedeker s Palestine,; 
see also note on ix. 11). 

7. in attendance on him] irpo&lt;r- 
KaprepovvTuv, probably the equivalent 
of his orderlies. 

8. everything] (LiravTa. The West 
ern text perhaps read 6pa/j.a (d has 
* visum ), but D and h are not extant. 

9. the next day] The distance 
between Caesarea and Joppa is about 
thirty miles, so that if they had started 
at 4 P.M. one day they must have 
travelled through the night to reach 
Joppa by noon the next day. This 
seems improbable, and it is doubtful 
whether it is borne out by the other 
notes of time in the story. In vs. 30 
Cornelius says that he had seen his 
vision diro rerdpr^s 7/^pas. That is, 
if for instance the vision was on a 
Monday, Peter came on a Friday. If 
so, the messengers started on Tuesday, 
arrived at Joppa in the course of 
Wednesday, left again on Thursday, 
and arrived back in Caesarea on 
Friday. But strict attention to the 
tiravpiov . . . ewavpiov . . . eiravpiov 
of vss. 9, 23, and 24 would shorten 
this period by one day, hence the 
Western text changed rerdprTjs into 
rplTrjs in vs. 30. But I think it is 
far more probable that the soldiers 
started early on the day after the 
vision, so that the morrow in vs. 9 is 
relative to their starting, not to the 
vision of Cornelius. This is one of 
the places where it is clear that the 



textual variation is the result of in 
terpretation and emendation ; cf . the 
treatment of the incident at the 
Beautiful Gate of the Temple. There 
our choice of reading is handicapped by 
our ignorance of the locality, but here 
it seems plain that the Western text 
is a natural emendation, due to a care 
ful reading of the story, but proving 
intrinsically inferior when geography 
is taken into consideration. 

roof] Apparently e-rri TO 8u&gt;fj.a must 
mean roof. Did the houses in Joppa 
have awnings ? Otherwise it is ex 
tremely unlikely that Peter went on 
the roof to pray at noon-time. But 
the custom of praying on the roof is 
unquestionable. Origcn discusses the 
custom at length in Horn, in Jerem. 
xix. 13 (p. 169. 11 ff. ed. Kloster- 
mann). The practice in the O.T. 
is more often associated with the 
worship of the host of heaven (cf. 
2 Kings xxiii. 12; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph. 
i. 6). 

sixth hour] The sixth hour (noon) 
is not one of the usual hours of praver. 
But if prayer was made thrice a day 
(instead of at morning and evening), 
as Ps. Iv. 17 and Dan. vi. 10 suggest, 
the middle hour may have been at 
noon. (Cf. also the injunction in 
Didache viii. to recite the Lord s 
prayer thrice daily.) It is, however, 
possible to suggest that some other 
reason than Jewish or Christian 
customs of prayer has led Luke in 
this place, and all the evangelists 
in the narrative of the passion, to 
confine their references to the hour 
to the multiples of three. The third 
hour (Mark xv. 25 ; Acts ii. 15 ; 
cf. xxiii. 23 CLTTO Tpirrjs upas rr/s 
VVKTOS), the sixth hour (Mark xv. 33 
and parallels ; Acts x. 9 ; John iv. 6, 
xix. 14), arid the ninth hour (Mark xv. 
33. 34 and parallels; Acts iii. 1, x. 3, 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



115 



to eat food. And as they were getting it ready a trance fell on 

n him, and he sees the sky opened and an object like a great 

sheet descending, let down by four corners on to the ground. 

12 And in it were all the quadrupeds and reptiles of the earth and 

13 the birds of the sky. And a voice came to him, " Rise, Peter, 

14 kill and eat." And Peter said, " Not so, sir, because I never ate 

15 anything common and unclean." And a voice came again a 
second time to him, " What God made clean do not you count 

1 6 common." And this happened three times, and the object was 
at once taken up into the sky. 

17 And as Peter was perplexed in himself, what might be the 



30) divide the day into quarters, and 
perhaps these hours were used as 
round numbers for the approximate 
time within the day, as we use the 
quarter-hours as convenient round 
numbers for the periods within the 
hour. Matthew s parable of the vine 
yard, xx. 1 ff ., begins at -rrpwi and ends 
at 6\j/ia, and the reference to the work 
man who started at the eleventh hour 
is familiar. But Matthew also refers 
in the same parable to shifts beginning 
about (trepi) the third, sixth, and ninth 
hour respectively. There is some 
evidence that at night also similar 
quarter-night units were employed 
(Mark xiii. 35). 

10. hungry] Trpb&lt;nreii&gt;os is one of 
the small and diminishing number 
of words in Acts which have not yet 
been found elsewhere. 

eat] In Rome noon was the usual 
lunch-hour (prandium), but did this 
custom extend to the East ? (See 
Marquardt - Mau, Privatleben der 
Romer, i. p. 265, in Marquardt and 
Mommsen, Handbuch der rdmischen 
Altertilmer, ed. 2, vii. 1.) yeu^a. is still 
an ordinary word for midday lunch 
and irpoyev/bia for breakfast. 

11. sees] The most striking of 
Luke s few instances of historical 
present are Oewpei here and evplo-tcei in 
vs. 27. For a full list soe Hawkins, 
Horae Synopticae, p. 119. 

object] See note on ix. 15. 

12. all the quadrupeds, etc.] Cf. 
Gen. vi. 20. 

13. kill] Ovcrou, sacrifice, seems 
quite to have lost its original sense 



(cf. Mt. xxii. 4: Luke xv. 23; John 
x. 10; 1 Mace. vii. 19). 

14. never] ouSerrore . . . 7rai&gt; is a 
Semitism. Cf. Luke i. 37 and Moulton, 
Grammar, i. 3 pp. 245 f., and see Blass- 
Debrunner, 302. 1. The phrase is 
here dependent on Ezek. iv. 14. For 
the question of Peter s conduct in 
Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 ff.) see Additional 
Note 16. 

common and unclean] The general 
nature of the food-law is well known ; 
all animal flesh was forbidden except 
of those which had cloven hoofs and 
were ruminants. For the elaborate 
details see Lev. xi. and Schtirer, GJV. 
ed. 3, ii. 70 ff. and iii. 116 ff. 

15. clean] When did God make 
them clean ? By his command to 
kill and eat? Or is there an allu 
sion to Mark vii. 14 ff.? If the second 
alternative be taken it is tempting to 
see in the Kadaplfav Tra.vra. ra ppd/naTa 
of Mark vii. 19 an allusion to the 
vision of Peter, as though Mark were 
saying "this is the occasion of the 
cleansing referred to by the voice 
which Peter heard at Joppa." 

count common] From what is ap 
parently a Jewish use of Kotvbs the 
verb Koiitoto comes to mean in the N.T. 
defile, profane, like the classical 
pejSrjXoM xxiv. 6. Here the paraphrase 
in vs. 28 suggests a variation of sense 
from make profane to count pro 
fane similar to that found in SiKai^u 
and other verbs in -ow. 

17. what might be the meaning of 
the vision] It seems, at least in the 
immediate context, to have been in- 



116 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



meaning of the vision he had seen, behold the men who had been 
sent by Cornelius had asked their way to the house of Simon and 
stood at the doorway. And they called and enquired " Is Simon 18 
surnamed Peter lodging there ? " And as Peter was considering J 9 
about the vision the Spirit said, " Behold two men are seeking 
you. Now get up and go down and go with them without any 20 
hesitation, because I have sent them." And Peter went down 21 
to the men and said, " Behold, I am he whom you seek. What 
is the reason for which you are present ? " And they said, 22 
" Centurion Cornelius, a righteous man and fearing God, and 
with a good character from all the nation of the Jews, was 



terpreted as referring to intercourse 
with Gentiles rather than to the law 
concerning food. The natural develop 
ment of this line of thought is the 
allegorical explanation of the Law, 
which finds its highest point in the 
Epistle of Barnabas, where the whole 
food-law is explained as referring to 
men. Thus the command not to eat 
pork merely forbade intercourse with 
those who behave like pigs (Barnabas 
x. 3), and the Jewish or literal inter 
pretation is held to be the invention 
of the Devil (Barnabas ix. 4). The 
fact is that the Church, in face of the 
obvious meaning of the Law, had to 
choose between (a) the Pauline posi 
tion that the O.T. was for Christians 
valuable as Prophecy rather than as 
Law ; (6) the still more radical position 
of Marcion ; (c) the allegorical explana 
tion of Barnabas ; (d) the more complex 
position of the Didascalia that the 
Law was binding up to Exod. xxxii. 
(the golden calf) but that the rest 
was devrepuffis (Mishna), punishment 
inflicted on the Jews and not on 
anyone else. In general the Church 
accepted the last solution (see also 
note on x. 35). 

asked their way to] Siepwrrja-avres. 

18. enquired] eirvdovro d ^t/nuv 6 
TriKa.\ov/J,ei&gt;os Herpes i&gt;6ade eri(~ercu 
is usually translated as an indirect 
question : whether Simon surnamed 
Peter was lodging there. In favour 
of the translation given above may be 
cited not only the use of Trwddvo/uat 
(iv. 7, xxiii. 19) and of el (i. 6, xix. 
2) in direct questions, but the fact 



that, while Herpes is used everywhere 
else in narrative, Si/j.uv 6 TriKa\ov/j,ei&gt;os 
llerpos is found, in this verse, in x. 32 
and xi. 13, when it is quoted from 
a speaker. See note on vs. 5. 

19. And as Peter, etc.] Preuschen 
thinks that either vss. 17 f. or 19 f. are 
superfluous. The Syriac Didascalia 
omits vss. 17 f., but Preuschen would 
rather leave out 19 f. Yet, admit 
ting the awkwardness, neither clause 
is really redundant; 17 f. shows how 
the men arrived, 19 f. why Peter was 
inclined so readily to go with them, 
though not until vs. 28 does he explain 
the full significance of his vision. 

two men] There is a curious 
amount of variation in the text; see 
Vol. III. p. 94. 

20. I] i.e. the Spirit, cf. vs. 19. IP 
this Spirit the same as the voice 
in vss. 13 and 15 which Peter 
addresses as Kvpie ? It would seem 
probable. But is it not also identical 
with Jesus, and what difference did 
the writer see between the Spirit 
which spoke to Peter and the angel 
who spoke to Cornelius ? Cf the 
variations in viii. 26, 29, 39 (ayyeXos 
KvpLov ... TO iri&gt;v/j.a . . . iri&gt;ev,u.a Kvpiov). 
Cf. Vol. I. pp. 322 ff. and Additional 
Note 9. 

22. Centurion Cornelius] This is 
perhaps too formal, and implies a use 
of the name of an office as the title 
of a person in too modern a way. At 
the same time it not unfairly repre 
sents the difference between Kopj^Xtos 

CLpXTT* and Kopvrj\Los Tt?, e / 

in the Western text. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



117 



instructed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house 

23 and to hear what you have to say." So he called them in and 
gave them lodging. And the next day he arose and went out 
with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa went with him. 

24 And on the next day he entered Caesarea, and Cornelius 
was expecting them and had summoned his relatives and 

25 intimate friends, and when Peter entered, Cornelius met him 

26 and fell at his feet and worshipped. And Peter raised him 

27 up, saying, " Arise, I too am myself a man." And as he talked 

28 to him, he went in and finds many assembled. And he said to 
them, " You know that it is improper for a Jew to mix with or 



reads "What are you doing? I also 
am a man, even as you." The vigor 
ous monotheism of early Christianity 
is repeatedly asserted by the rejection 
of such acts of reverence. Compare 
xiv. 14 f. (from which the Western 
text may have taken its rl wot els ;); 
Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8 f. ; Ascension of 
Isaiah vii. 21, viii. 4-5, and even 
Mark x. 17 f. and parallels. It is 
very curious that in Rev. xxii. 8 f . the 
angel who refuses worship is identified 
in the context as Jesus himself, for 
the speaker who says " Do it not. 
Worship God," is the same as he 
who goes on to say " Behold I come 
quickly," and that he is "the First 
and the Last," which can hardly 
mean anyone except Jesus. 

28. improper] aOt^iTov (cf. 1 Pet. 
iv. 3). This translation is too weak, 
and abominable would bo far too 
strong, but both give the right general 
idea, whereas wicked would be 
actually wrong. The word means 
contrary to flouts, the divinely consti 
tuted order of things, breaking a taboo, 
hence it connotes profanity. As xi. 
2 f. shows, this was the actual point 
made against Peter in Jerusalem ; he 
had done wrong to eat with heathen. 
It is easy to overlook the fact that 
this was an immediate contention at 
the beginning of the Judaistic contro 
versy, not the question of preaching 
to the Gentiles. After all, provided 
that the substance of the preaching 
was right, there was no reason why 
any missionary, Jewish or Christian, 
should not try to convert the heathen . 



was instructed] fxp^/xcrrto-tfT?. Cf. 
Matt. ii. 12, 22; Luke ii. 26; Hebr. 
viii. 5, xi. 7. The word is used of a 
divine revelation or oracle in all these 
places (all in the passive voice). It 
is similarly used in secular writings. 
For instance, it is found in an in 
scription commemorating the cure 
of a blind soldier at the temple of 
Asclepius on the island in the Tiber 
(Dittenberger,7///o0e 3 , No. 1173) quite 
in the same way as it was used by the 
LXX translator of Jeremiah. It is 
therefore appropriate here in the 
mouth of a Gentile. 

what you have to say] Literally 
words from you. Cf . xi. 14. 

23. brethren] Cf. the saints of 
ix. 32 and 41. 

25. when . . . entered] fyfrero TOV 
eureA0eu&gt;. This construction with the 
genitive infinitive is only found here 
and in D in ii. 1, but cf. Luke xvii. 1, 
Acts xxvii. l,and see Blass-Debrunner, 
400. 7. An exact parallel is quoted 
from the Apocryphal Ada Barnabae 
vii. ws 5s ey^vero TOV reX&rcu avrovs 
oiba.ffK.ovTa.s. Apparently influenced by 
the difficulty that Cornslius could not 
have known exactly when to go out 
to meet Peter, the Western text has 
freely rewritten the passage, " And as 
Peter was approaching Caesarea one 
of the slaves ran ahead and announced 
his arrival. And Cornelius leapt up 
and met him," etc. 

worshipped] Cf. the story of the 
centurion in Capernaum, in Matt. viii. 
8 ff . and Luke vii. 2 ff . 

26. Arise, etc.] The Western text 



118 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



go to the house of a foreigner. And to me God showed that I 
should not call any man common or unclean. Wherefore when 29 
I was sent for I came without any objection. I ask then, Why 
did you send for me ? " And Cornelius said, "It is four days 30 
ago to this hour that I was praying at the ninth hour in my 
house, and behold a man stood before me in shining clothing, 
and says, Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your deeds 31 
of charity have been remembered before God. Send therefore 32 
to Joppa, and summon Simon who is surnamed Peter. He 
is lodging in the house of Simon the tanner on the shore. 
Immediately then I sent to you, and you were so kind as to 33 
come. Now therefore we are all present before God to hear all 
that has been enjoined on you by the Lord." 



It was quite a different thing if the 
missionary ate with his hearers, or if 
he lessened the requirements of the 
Law by waiving circumcision (see 
Addit. Note 17). 

And to me, etc.] See vs. 14. 

any man] The tiLvtipuirov is not to 
be overlooked. If the author wished 
to say anyone ^o/Seca would have been 
sufficient, but fj.r)5tva followed at the 
end by &i&gt;6pwnov means anybody, 
provided that he is a human being. 
Compare dvOpuwos in vs. 26. 

30. It is four days ago to this hour] 
In other words, it was again the ninth 
hour. This seems the only meaning 
possible, but the phrase does not read 
like ordinary Greek, and its difficulty 
is shown by the variations in the text, 
and the emendations of commentators 
due partly to the superficial impression 
that it ought to mean that Cornelius 
had been praying for four days. See 
Vol. III. p. 96. One suspects (1) 
either that ^XP L nere means about 
(in vs. 3 we have both dxret and irepi) ; 
or (2) the author or a scribe was mis 
led by the suggestion of diro to write 
its usual correlative /u^xP - Such dis 
crepancy is not unlikely in the original 
author. Even if it cannot be exactly 
paralleled (almost the reverse pheno 
menon occurs in Acts iii. 24), it is 
quite in a class with many in Harnack s 
long list (Acts of the Apostles, chap. vi.). 

the ninth hour] It would be 



tempting, if not so anachronistic, to 
render it I was saying nones, for the 
ninth hour puts too much emphasis 
on the time, whereas TT?J&gt; evar^v is the 
name of the evening hour of prayer, 
TO 5eiAtj/op, cf. iii. 1. 

shining clothing] The angel of vss. 
3 and 22 (cf. xi. 13) is here called 
* a man (avajp) in bright apparel. 
Similarly the two men in shining 
apparel in Luke xxiv. 4 are subse 
quently identified as angels (vs. 23; 
John xx. 12). This confirms the 
explanation that the two men in 
white garments in Acts i. 10 were 
angels. Compare in Luke s narrative 
of the Transfiguration scene his use of 
dvdpes ovo ... 6/ &lt;56?7 and also the 
white shining apparel of Jesus (Luke 
ix. 29 f.). See also Mark xvi. 5. 

32. the shore] The Western text 
continues, " who will come and speak 
with you." It goes on " therefore I at 
once sent to you, asking you to come 
to us, and you were so kind as to 
come quickly. Now, behold, we are 
all before you, wishing to hear from 
you what has been enjoined by God." 
The most attractive detail in this 
reading is evuiriw aov for tvuiriov 6eov. 
I suspect that deou is a misplaced cor 
rection of Kvpiov in the next line. On 
the detailed address see note on ix. 11. 

33. you were so kind as to come] 
/caXcDs (e5) TroiTjcrets is a common epis 
tolary formula in making a polite 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



119 



34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, " Truly I comprehend 

35 that God has no favourites, but in every nation he who fears 

36 him and works righteousness is received by him. He sent 
the word to the children of Israel bringing the good news 



request. In the past tense it expresses 
gratitude. For the future, as in 3 
John 6, see letters in 1 Mace. xii. 
22; Aristeas 39, 46; and from the 
papyri in Moulton-Milligan, Vocabu 
lary, p. 319 ; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 
pp. 281 f.; cf. Acts xv. 29. For the past, 
as here, see Phil. iv. 14; Ign. Smyrn. 
x. 1. The instances of the past tense 
from the papyri given by Moulton and 
Milligan are with ov and take the verb 
following in the infinitive rather than 
the participle. There can be little 
doubt that the affirmative phrase 
here conveys the polite gratitude of 
Cornelius. 

34. God has no favourites] trpoffuiro- 
XT^UTTTT/S, lit. accepter of faces, or 
persons. For the history of this 
truly Pauline idea and expression see 
Sanday-Headlam on Romans ii. 11; 
Thackeray, Gramtnar of the O.T. in 
Greek, pp. 43 f . In Deut. x. 17, Ps. Sol. 
ii. 19, it is said 6 deos . . . ov 6av/j.d- 
^"(cr)et irpsffwirov. TrpocrunroX^/oiTrTT/j like 
the other Greek compounds (-XTJ/ZTTT^W 
James ii. 9, -X^i/a a James ii. 1 ; Rom. 
ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; Polyc. 
Phil. vi. 1) outside the N.T. occurs in 
later ecclesiastical writers, but neither 
in Jewish nor secular Greek nor in the 
Christianity of the second century. 
d.7rpocrw7roX77^7rrws appears in 1 Peter 
i. 17 ; 1 Clem. i. 3 ; Barnabas iv. 12. 
The underlying phrase is both Hebrew 
33 HBO and Aramaic ?N 3D3. See 
Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 30. 

35. works righteousness] The 
phrase is not very explicit, for the 
question was very largely what 
righteousness is. It seems to imply 
that vague distinction between cere 
monial and moral law which appears 
in later Christian literature in the 
discrimination between the Law, which 
means roughly the decalogue, accepted 
by Christians, and the secundatio 
(devrtpuffu) rejected by Christians as a 
secondary enactment intended merely 
to punish the Jews for worshipping 
the golden calf. There is also a trace 



of this distinction in the Oracula 
Sibyllina and in the theory sometimes 
found in Jewish circles that the 
righteous heathen may inherit the 
World to come if they obey the 
Noachian precepts (see Addit. Notes 
8 and 17). 

36 ff . the word, etc.] The difficulty 
of this sentence in the Neutral text 
is (1) absence of connecting particles, 
which produces a general impression 
that it is not Greek ; (2) the construc 
tion of Iriaouv TOV dwo Nafap^#, which 
seems to be in a very harsh apposition 
to pij/na ; (3) dpd/j&lt;.vos, which is im 
possible to construe according to the 
usual rules of ordinary Greek. 

(1) The first of these difficulties 
cannot be mitigated the particles 
which ought to be there in any 
ordinary Greek sentence are absent. 
It is of course possible to adopt the 
Western text, which inserts ydp after 
\6yov, but it is almost inconceivable 
that if this were original it would 
ever have been omitted by all the 
representatives of the B-text. It is 
also probably true that the words TOV 
\6yov cl7recrretAej&gt; are a quotation from 
Ps. cvii. 20 ; failure to recognize this 
led not only to the insertion of ydp 
but also to that of ov, and this in turn 
made it necessary to take \6yov as the 
object of i^ets otdare, leaving TO prj/ma 
KT\. without any verb, and making 
the whole sentence finally impossible. 
Transcriptionally the omission of ov 
would be far harder to understand 
than its insertion, for any casual 
reader would rather expect TOV \6yov 
to be the emphatic object of some 
distant verb, and look for a relative 
between it and dTr^crreiXe^. 

(2) The construction of Ir/orovv KT\. 
is undoubtedly very harsh. But so is 
the use of pij/^a with the meaning of 
event, yet that is certainly Lucan (see 
note on vs. 37). I am, however, 
inclined to suspect that the original 
text may have been /xera TO fidirTHrna. 
6 d flair r icr ev Iwaj i Tjs TOV Irjaovv KT\., 



120 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you know the 37 
event which happened, throughout all Judaea, beginning from 
Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, 
how God anointed him with Holy Spirit and power, who went 38 



and that this was changed to 6 eicfi 
for doctrinal reasons. This would 
certainly improve the construction, 
and make ws exP i&lt;re * ne content of 
TO pTJfjia, as it ought to be, while 
by emphasizing in this connexion 
the baptism of Jesus by John it 
would soon be somewhat objection 
able to Christian thought. It is, 
however, possible that ITJCTOVV . . . 
cbs efxpicrez O.VTOV is merely a rather 
clumsy periphrasis for u&gt;s 



(3) The construction of dp^ 
outside the sentence is a construction 
to which Luke xxiii. 5, xxiv. 47, and 
Acts i. 22 provide sufficient parallels 
(see Vol. III. p. 98). It has been 
claimed as a Semitism (cf. note on i. 
22), but there is some evidence that 
the participle was used in a quasi- 
adverbial sense in contemporary Greek, 
and it has even been suggested that 
this use and the employment of an 
abbreviation may account for the 
grammatical confusion found in N.T. 
passages (Moulton-Milligan, Vocabu 
lary, s.v.). It is noteworthy that 
whereas the Antiochian revisers felt 
this adverbial use of dp^d/jievos was 
wrong, and corrected it to dp^d/jievov, 
the earlier Western reviser felt no 
objection to the adverbial nominative, 
and retained dp^dfjievos. 

If these explanations be thought 
unsatisfactory, there is probably no 
remedy for the sentence except to 
emend it heroically on the lines sug 
gested by Preuschen, who wiskes to 
read rbv \byov ct7r&rrei\e . . . Ir/crou 
Xpi&lt;TTOi/. v/m.e is oi Sare cos ^xP Lffv /cr\., 
omitting the rest as a gloss on rbv 
\oyov. But I should prefer in this 
case to retain the Lucan TO p^ua and 
omit rbv \6yov . . . I^crou XpiaroO as 
a gloss on TO p?}/xa by some scribe who 
had been struck by this way of inter 
preting Ps. cvii. 20. 

It is worth noting that though the 
Western text puts in connecting par 
ticles and a relative pronoun, it does 
nothing which really makes a good 



sentence. This is characteristic ; for 
the Western reviser was a commen 
tator, not a critic. He freely decor 
ated intelligible passages, and added 
little scraps of elucidation, but really 
serious difficulties he left untouched. 
A critic, on the contrary, leaves in 
telligible sentences, and emends those 
which he fails to understand. 

bringing the good news of peace] 
Is. lii. 7. 

he is Lord of all] A very difficult 
phrase in this context. The OUTOS 
ought to refer to rbv \uyov, not to Jesus 
or to God, therefore Blass once sug 
gested emending /ci/pios to Koivbs, and 
afterwards advocated rendering Kvpios 
as an adjective, translating the phrase 
the word . . . holds good for all. 
But Kvpios would be very much out of 
place in the N.T. with this sense. It 
seems on the whole decidedly better to 
refer Kvpios to Jesus, and to treat the 
phrase as an ejaculatory parenthesis. 
Nevertheless the expression does not 
seem to me to be unquestionably 
Lucan. See Addit. Note 29, 4 end. 

37. event] p7?/xa in the sense of -i:n 
= fact or history as well as word. 
Cf. Luke ii. 15 idufj-ev rb pf?/xa TOUTO T6 
yeyovos ; cf. Luke ii. 17 and 19 for the 
variation of meaning. 

38. anointed] The speech has the 
early Christology of Mark, which repre 
sents Jesus as becoming Christ at the 
baptism. But in ii. 36 Peter seems to 
suggest that Jesus became Christ at 
the Resurrection. Again, in iii. 12 ff. 
Peter seems to avoid using the word 
Christ until in connexion with the 
Passion and Resurrection. Finally, it 
is probable that Luke s own view was 
that Jesus was born Christ, because 
he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 
It is these divergent points of view 
which suggest, though they do not 
prove, that Luke was using at least one 
and probably more than one source 
for the Petrine speeches in Acts. 
Possibly this verse may echo the 
language of Is. lx. 1, quoted in 
Luke iv. 18. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



121 



about doing good and healing all who were overpowered by the 
39 devil, because God was with him, and we are witnesses of all 

that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. 
4 Him whom they killed, hanging him on a tree him God 

41 raised up on the third day, and made him become visible, not 
to all the People but to witnesses who had been appointed 
beforehand by God, namely to us, and we ate and drank 

42 with him after he rose from the dead. And he enjoined on us 



doing good] evepyer&i , possibly 
with reference to the royal title of 
Hellenistic kings evepyer^s. (Cf. Luke 
xxii. 25.) 

the devil] It is scarcely possible to 
over-emphasize the extent to which 
Jesus appeared to his immediate fol 
lowers as the great conqueror of the 
devil and of demons. Not chiefly as 
a preacher of good conduct and high 
ethics of which neither the Jewish 
nor the heathen world was ignorant 
but as the triumphant conqueror over 
the source of evil does he appear in the 
Synoptic gospels. Still more is this 
true of Acts, the speeches in which 
must at least be regarded as represent 
ing the message about Jesus which 
the apostles were supposed to have 
delivered. It is surely remarkable in 
this connexion that in the Synoptic 
gospels the commission given to the 
disciplss is so different to announce 
the Kingdom of God and to call on 
men to repent even though exorcism 
is included. 

39. they killed] The 8v K ai dvelXav 
does not continue the last sentence 
but is closely connected with the 
following rourov which in English must 
be taken first. The /ecu before avelXav 
serves for emphasis and cannot be 
properly rendered by also ; it means 
rather they actually killed. 

a tree] In classical Greek j-u\ov 
means wood rather than a tree, but 
there is some evidence in the Papyri 
that %v\ov had popularly extended its 
meaning to cover trees as well as 
timber. A similar tendency can be 
noted in English. In the LXX it is 
used to translate j-y which means tree 
as well as wood. Here of course it 
means the cross, which was wood, 
not a tree, and it is doubtful whether 



it ought to be translated by tree, 
because that suggests the parallelism 
with the tree of knowledge in the 
Garden of Eden (TO %v\ov rou eto^-cu 
yvwffTov /caAou /ecu irovripov}. This 
parallelism was much pressed in later 
writers ; but it is doubtful if it was 
present to the mind of the writer of 
Acts. Cf. note on v. 30. 

40. the third day] The reading of 
D, [Aera TTJV TpLTTji i]/ut.e pav, is remarkable 
and may be original, as it is hard to 
see how it could have been introduced 
by any reviser. 

made] 25uce in this sense seems to 
be a Semitism. Cf . ii. 27 ( = Ps. xvi. 
10) and xiv. 3, StSjim atj/j.da . . . 



visible] This whole passage clearly 
refers back to i. 3, but Luke as usual 
(cf. J. H. Ropes, Harvard Studies in 
Classical Philology, xii ., 1901 , pp. 299 ff .) 
varies his phrase and writes e^avr} 
-yeveada-L instead of oTrravo/.^vos (see 
note on i. 3). 

41. witnesses] Cf. Luke xxiv. 48 
and Acts i. 8. 

ate and drank] The reference 
doubtless is to Luke xxiv. 13 ff. (the 
supper at Emmaus) and to Luke xxiv. 
36 ff. (the eating of the fish). The 
emphasis on eating and drinking is 
doubtless antidocetic. There may be 
an allusion to Tobit xii. 19, where 
Raphael points out that he, being an 
angel, had never eaten or drunk. The 
Western text adds "and sojourned 
(&lt;rvve&lt;rTpa4)rifj.fv) with him for forty 
days." Inasmuch as (rvvaXi^o/nevos in 
i. 4 is often rendered by convivens 
(d) and conversatus (Augustine) and 
may be merely a variant spelling of 
&lt;7wav\L^6fj(.vos (see note on i. 4), it is 
quite likely that &lt;rvi&gt;ecrTpd&lt;prifj.ei&gt; repre 
sents 



122 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



to preach to the People and to testify that it is he who is ordained 
by God as judge of the living and the dead. To him all the 43 
prophets bear witness that every one who believes on him receives 
remission of sins through his name." 

While Peter was still speaking these words the Holy Spirit 44 
fell on all who heard the Word. And the believers of the circum- 45 
cision who had come with Peter were amazed that on the Gentiles 
as well the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out, for they 4 6 
were hearing them speaking with tongues and glorifying God. 



42. to preach] Cf. the Western 
text of i. 2 (see Vol. III. p. 2). 

who is ordained by God as judge, 
etc.] i.e. the Son of Man (see Vol. I. 
pp. 368 ff .). The fact that the Man 
of the Apocalypses when rendered 
vibs TOV avOpuTrov was neither idiomatic 
nor intelligible led to the interpreta 
tion of the phrase by Hellenistic 
Christians in a manner remote from 
its original meaning (cf. the use of the 
phrase in the Fourth Gospel), and to 
the substitution of other phrases to 
indicate the functions attributed to 
Jesus as the * Son of Man. Among 
these judge of the living and the 
dead was one of the best and most 
popular. It occurs in 1 Peter iv. 5; 
2 Tim. iv. 1 ; Barnabas vii. 2 ; 2 Clem. 
i. 1 ; Polycarp, Philipp. ii. 1 ; Justin, 
Dial. 118. 1; Symb. Apost. etc. The 
origin of this form of thought is clear, 
for whatever doubt there may be as to 
the opinion of Jesus himself, there can 
be none that an unbroken tradition 
going back to his actual hearers 
identified him with the Son of Man of 
whose coming he had spoken and 
whose functions are accurately indi 
cated in the passages quoted. But 
the problem seems likely to be in 
soluble why the unidiomatic ui6s TOV 
avdpu-rrov was retained even by Luke 
in the gospel but abandoned by him 
in Acts in favour of a periphrasis, 
as here, or of dvdpi idiomatically so 
correct in xvii. 31 ear^ae ii^pav kv 77 

/J.\\l KpLveiV T7]V OLKOV ^JLV TfV 6V &KCUO- 

crvvrj v dvdpi oS tipKrev. Obviously the 
reason is somehow connected with 
the authority of the Marcan tradi 
tion. But why was this tradition 
followed by Luke so rigidly on some 



points, and so seriously changed on 
others ? 

43. prophets] The reference is 
doubtless to such passages as those 
quoted in Peter s speeches in chapters 
ii., iii., and iv. There is some difficulty 
in seeing where the prophets promised 
salvation to those who believed, but 
the difficulty is partly because we 
overlook that the emphasis is on 
irdvTa all, Jew or Gentile, partly 
owing to our having a point of 
view influenced by the sequence 
Paul Augustine Calvin. This re 
gards damnation as the natural fate 
of man, from which he is rescued by 
Faith and Grace. Acts is certainly 
quite ignorant of this, and merely 
means that those who do not accept 
the Christ will perish at the judgement. 
The concept is eschatological, not 
psychological or mystical. For salva 
tion by the name in this passage, 
Rev. xiv. 1, and xxii. 4 may be com 
pared more legitimately than the 
Pauline doctrine of salvation by faith, 
though the Apocalypse is perhaps 
more material in its concepts than 
is Acts. 

remission of sins] The reference is to 
Luke xxiv. 46 f . Cf . also Acts xvii. 30. 

44. the Word] rbv \byoi&gt; means the 
gospel message rather than merely 
Peter s speech, though linguistically 
this meaning is not impossible. 

45. circumcision] Snowing that the 
Christians in Joppa had been Jews. 

46. tongues, etc.] Cf. ii. 11, and 
note how the Lucan tendency to vary 
the phrase while repeating the sub 
stance changes \a\ovvTuv . . . yXucraais 
TO, peyaXeia TOV Oeov into \O.\OVVTWV 
"yAuxrcrcus KO.I /jLeyaXwovTuv TOV Oebv. 



XI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



123 



47 Then Peter answered, " Can anyone forbid the water that these 
should not be baptized, who received the Holy Spirit just as 

48 we did ? " And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for some days. 

11 i And the apostles and the brethren who were in Judaea 



47. Then] It is curious that here the 
Western text reads elirev 6V 6 Herpes, 
though in the next line it changes 
Trpocrera^e 6e to rare 7rpo0Vrai;e. rare is 
markedly characteristic of Matthew 
(see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 8). 
It is found more than twice as often in 
the Western text of Acts as in the 
Neutral. The distribution is as follows : 





Neutral 


Western 


i. 12 


r6re 


rore 


ii. 14 


6V 


r6re 


37 


6V 


rore 


iv. 8 


rore 


rore 


15 


S&lt;? 


tune 


v. 19 


6V 


rore 


26 


rore 


Tore 


vi. 11 


rore 


Tore 


vii. 4 


rore 


Tore 


26 


re 


Tore 


viii. 17 


Tore 


rare 


ix. 17 


de 


rore? 


x. 21 


5e 


rore 


23 


odv 


rore 


46 


rore 


6V 


48 


6V 


rore 


48 


rore 


r6re 


xi. 26 


re 


r6re 


xii. 11 


KO.L 


tune ? 


xiii. 3 


rore 


r6re 


12 


TOTe 


5e 


xiv. 20 


5e 


tune 


xv. 22 


rore 


Tore 


39 


re 


Tore 


xvi. 22 


KOI 


rore 


xviii. 6 




tune 


xix. 9 


. . 


rore 


15 


5e 


rore 


21 


. . 


r6Te 


xxi. 13 


rore 


5e 


26 


rare 


rore 


33 


rore 


Tore 


xxii. 27 


5t 


Tore 


29 


oZv 


T6re 


xxiii. 3 


rore 




xxv. 12 


Tore 




21 


6V 


tune 


xxvi. 1 


rore 


tune ? 


xxvii. 21 


r6re 


Tore? 


32 


r6re 




42 


6V 


tune ? 



baptized] There can of course be no 
doubt that this is part of the original 
text of Acts. The editor certainly re 
garded baptism as essential. For the 
reasons for doubting whether it was 
part of the source of Acts, and for 
regarding it as editorial, see Vol. I. 
pp. 340 ff . 

48. he ordered] It is curious that 
here and in viii. 12 the passive form 
is used. Combining this with 1 Cor. 
i. 17, Christ sent me not to baptize, 
but to preach the gospel, it has been 
assumed that the apostles did not 
baptize their converts personally. 
This seems a precarious inference. 

in the name of Jesus Christ] 
Apparently the oldest baptismal 
formula, afterward replaced in church 
custom by the Trinitarian formula. 
It is found in viii. 16 and xix. 5 with 
the variant els rb 6vo/u.a TOV Kvpiov 
bjo-ou. (See Addit. Note 11.) 

1-18. These verses present the first 
extensive illustration of the author s 
favourite method of repeating in a 
speech the content of an earlier narra 
tive. Some repetition has already 
occurred in x. 22, 28, 30-32. As 
usual in such cases the author varies 
his expression, sometimes apparently 
on purpose, but shows an identity of 
construction, which suggests the same 
habit of thought, rather than an 
imitator working on an original. Com 
pare the attachment of TTJS yrjs to ra 
epirerd in x. 12, and to TO. rerpd-n-oda in 
xi. 6, the curious d/coucrai p-^ara irapa 
&lt;rov in x. 22 with \a\elv pT^uara Trpos 
&lt;re KT\. in xi. 14 ; the reply of Peter 
/Ar/Sa^ws, Kvpte, tin ovdeinroTe e(pa.-yov irav 
KOLvbv /cat aKadaprov with the parallel 
reply, equally Semitic though variant, 
/m.r)da/uiujs, Kupie, OTL KOLVOV rj aKadaprov 
ovSeirore eiffr)\0ev eis rb &lt;rro/u,a /nor. The 
words of the voice before and after 
this reply are exactly the same in the 
two accounts. The coming of the 
Spirit while Peter was still speaking 
(x. 44) and when he began to speak 
(xi. 15) constitutes a contradiction of 



124 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XI 



heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 
And when Peter went up to Jerusalem those of the circumcision 2 
argued with him, saying, " Why did you go in to men who were 3 



form rather than of thought. That 
the words of xi. are adapted to Peter 
as speaker is shown by such differ 
ences as the personal and vivid /cat 
ri\dev &XP L epov- ei s r)i&gt; drej/tcras Kartvoovv 
/cat d8ov KT\. (cf. the colourless tv $ 
v-rrrjpxev of x. 12) and the self-defending 
attitude of Peter in xi. 16, 17. As 
usual also the second version not only 
omits details that the first version 
gives (it is in this case much briefer) 
but adds new details, as in vs. 12 the 
exact number () of the " certain of 
the brethren from Joppa " (x. 23) who 
accompanied Peter to Caesarea, and 
apparently the fact that they went 
with him to Jerusalem. On the other 
hand two small points indicate that 
the second account takes for granted 
a knowledge of the earlier narrative : 
(a) its use of the article in 12 f. TOV 
di dpos . . . TOV dyyeXov, though this 
might possibly be explained as a 
reference to the special angel who lays 
prayers and alms before God (see 
note on x. 4); (b) except on the theory 
of a conscious allusion to the former 
narrative it is strange that Cornelius 
is not mentioned before this in Peter s 
account, and not mentioned at all by 
name. 

1. apostles, etc.] The Western 
text rewrites and expands thus : " And 
it became known to the apostles and 
to the brethren who were in Judaea 
that the Gentiles also had received 
the word of God." Apparently this is 
taken as the end of the last paragraph, 
for the next sentence begins 6 ^v o5f 
and goes on, " So then Peter, after a 
long time, wished to go to Jerusalem, 
and calling the brethren arid having 
strengthened them, he departed (so 
Syr hi, see Vol. III. p. 103), speak 
ing much throughout the country and 
teaching them, and he met them (the 
Jerusalem representatives) and re 
ported to them the grace of God. 
But the brethren of the circumcision 
disputed with him, saying, You 
went in to uncircumcised men and ate 
with them. " Besides this complete 
rewriting there seem to be rather 
more than the usual number of small 



verbal changes in the context, so that 
the text almost seems to approach 
the completely free retelling of the 
story found in the Didascalia. One 
purpose of the expansion of vss. 1 
and 2 is perhaps a desire to emphasize 
the parallel to xv. 3, possibly also to 
minimize the suggestion that Peter 
was recalled to Jerusalem to answer 
to the Church. 

3. Why did you go in, etc.] The 
reading and translation are not quite 
certain. Some good manuscripts have 
the third person in the verbs : d&lt;r^\0ev 
. . . /cat avve(f)ayei&gt;. See Vol. III. ad 
loc. If with Ropes we adopt \tyovres 
OTL ei(rrj\6es . . . /cat (rw^&lt;payes, three 
alternatives are possible. The first 
two, taking OTL as recitative introduc 
ing direct discourse, render the clause 
(a) as a statement, " saying, You went 
in," etc. ; or (b) as a question, " saying, 
Did you go in ? " etc. The third alter 
native is that OTL is equivalent to a 
direct interrogative. This construction 
is used as a direct interrogative in 
Mark ix. 11, 28 (see Field, Notes, p. 33), 
and probably elsewhere (in Markii. 16, 
Hermas, Barnabas, etc., see Griinm- 
Thayer, s.v. ocrrty 4, and C. H. Turner, 
JTS. xxvii. (1925) 58 ff.). This view 
has been adopted in the translation, 
as it suits the context here, and it is 
not improbable that Luke used the 
construction himself as well as knew 
it in Mark, though grammars, lexica, 
and commentaries do not mention 
any instance in his writings. For the 
complaint as \\ r ell as the construction 
compare Luke xix. 7 /cat iduvres 
TrdvTfS OLeybyyvfrv \tyovres OTL irapa 
a/zaprwXcJ; avopi elarjXOev /caraXDcrat ; 
XV. 2 QLeyayyv $ov ot re 4&gt;api&lt;ratoi /cat 
ot -ypa/XyUarets \tyovTes OTL OVTOS a/uap- 
rwXokS TrpocrSe xerai /cat ffVVCff&lci ai rots. 
See also Mark ii. 16, where, in place 
of OTL, J&lt;DW and the parallels in 
Matt. ix. 11 and Luke v. 30 read 
5td rt. Possibly this curious construc 
tion should be regarded as not strictly 
an interrogative, but the enunciation 
of a difficult or surprising statement 
followed by what about it ? under 
stood. CLJBL. xlviii., 1929, pp. 423 if. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



125 



4 uncircumcised and eat with them ? " But Peter began and 

5 explained to them as follows, saying, " I was in the city of Joppa 
praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object coming 
down, like a great sheet let down by four corners from the sky, 

6 and it came straight to me. And I gazed at it and considered 
it and saw the quadrupeds of the earth and the wild beasts 

7 and the reptiles and the birds of the sky. And I heard a 

8 voice saying to me, Kise, Peter, kill and eat. And I said, 
Not so, Lord, because anything common or unclean never entered 

9 into my mouth. And a voice answered a second time from 
the sky, What God made clean do not you count common. 

10 And this happened three times, and everything was drawn up 

n again into the sky. And behold, immediately three men stood 

12 by the house in which I was, sent from Caesarea to me. And 

the Spirit told me to go with them without any hesitation. 



uncircumcised] e-^ovre^ d/cpo/3u- 
ffrlai , as in Gen. xxxiv. 14, not dTrepi- 
r/jL-rjroi, which is generally found in the 
LXX and papyri and Acts vii. 51. 
dKpopvffTia is not found in pagan 
writings, but is fairly common in the 
LXX, Paul, and later Christian writ 
ings. Possibly it is a corruption of 
CLKpoiroadia,. 

eat with them] It is again note 
worthy that the complaint against 
Peter is not that he preached to but 
that he dined with the heathen. The 
question of circumcision as a neces 
sary preliminary to being accepted in 
the Christian Church is not raised. 
It is, however, surely certain that the 
two points cannot have been discussed 
separately, and in Acts xv. the story 
of Cornelius is obviously taken as 
bearing on the question of circum 
cision. This difficulty is largely over 
come if we accept the suggestion made 
in Vol. II. pp. 156 f., and hold that 
Peter s journey to Jerusalem from 
Caesarea and Paul s from Antioch 
were made at the same time, so that 
the discussions of Acts xi. and Acts 
xv. really refer to the same gathering 
in Jerusalem. (See also Additional 
Note 16.) 

4. began] See notes on i. 1 and 
x. 36. 



as follows] See Vol. II. pp. 504 f . 

6. beasts] It is difficult to say 
what is the difference between 
rerpdiroSa and dijpia. In some dia 
lects of modern Greek 0Tjpioi&gt; is said 
to mean especially a serpent, and in 
antiquity it was often used of serpents, 
as by this writer in Acts xxviii. 5. 
But here it seems to be rather a 
superfluous alternative to rerpaTroda 
to express that group in the common 
classification of living things which is 
neither bird nor serpent (fish are not 
in view in this passage). The ex 
planation is probably to be found in 
the influence of Gen. i. 24 f. /cat el-rev 
6 Oeos, E^ayayeroj 17 yij \f/\}-)(T]v ^uxrav 
Kara -y6&gt;os, rerpdiroda /cat epirera Kal 
dypla. r?js 7775 Kara ytvos, /ecu eyevero 
OVTCJS. Kal (Troirjaev 6 6eos TO. O^jpia rrjs 
7775 Kara yevos Kal rd KT-^vr] Kara yev os 
/cat iravTa. TO. epireTa. TTJS yrjs /card yevos 
O.VT&V /cat t 5ei&gt; 6 6ebs on /caXd. It is 
clear that in this passage Terpdiroda 
Kal drjpia in the first verse correspond 
to KT7)i&gt;r) and Brjpia in the second verse, 
and the distinction is between wild 
and domesticated animals. 

11. stood by] Or perhaps e-rrear^a-av 
eiri, both here and in x. 17, should 
be rendered came up to the 
house. 

12. without any hesitation] The 



126 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



And there also came with me these six brethren, and we went 
into the house of the man. And he reported to us how he saw 13 
the angel standing in his house and saying, Send to Joppa and 
fetch Simon surnamed Peter, who will speak words to you by 14 
which shall be saved you and all your house. And as I began 15 
to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as it did on us at the 
beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he 16 
said, John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized in Holy 
Spirit. If then God gave just the same gift to them as to us on 17 
believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to 



B-text reads urjdtv SiaKpLvavra here 
instead of /j.r)Sei&gt; diaKpivo/jLcvov as in 
x. 20. This may be rendered (a) 
making no distinction (i.e. between 
Jews and Gentiles), for which idea the 
context and the use of the phrase 
ov8v diekpLvev (sc. 6 debs) in xv. 9, 
referring to this incident, give suffi 
cient warrant, or (6) we may suppose 
that Luke meant by the active just 
what he meant by the middle, * with 
out hesitation, though in his favourite 
habit of varying his expressions he 
has not used the verb idiomatically. 
More nearly synonymous with /j.-rjd^ 
didKpi.vofjiei oi was the adverb O.VO.VTI- 
prjTws of x. 29. The Antiochian text 
apparently took this view and 
emended dcaKpLvavra to SiaKpivbuevov. 
The Western text omits the whole 
phrase, and it may be a Western non- 
interpolation. It is characteristic of 
Luke that yet another use of the 
same verb ( dispute) in the middle 
voice is found in vs. 2. 

six] The number is not given in 
chap. x. Luke usually makes the 
number of delegates two ; see note 
on ix. 38. Even in x. 7 we have two 
servants and a soldier, which make 
rpcts avdpes. At x. 19 these are re 
ferred to as avdpes, avdpes rpe?s in 
different MSS., and even as tivdpes dvo 
in B. See Vol. III. ad loc. The six 
brethren with Peter would make the 
seven witnesses, which is the number 
sometimes required on Egyptian 
documents. Compare the seven seals 
of Roman law which reappear in Rev. 
v. 1 and in Evang. Petri 8. 

15. at the beginning] Referring to 
Pentecost, and parallel to x. 44, which 



echoes the language of chap. ii. instead 
of referring to its events. 

10. 1 remembered] Referring to Acts 
i. 5. But why, if Peter remembered 
this, did he at once order Cornelius to 
be baptized in water ? It is notice 
able that he does not say that he did 
so (see Vol. I. pp. 340 iff.). Did the 
author, who narrates this baptism in 
x. 48, omit it here because he saw the 
inconsistency of mentioning Christian 
water-baptism in connexion with the 
logion of Jesus or John on Spirit- 
baptism ? The expression c^v^adrji 
5 TOV p /lfAO.TOS TOV Kvpiov (is \e-yev 
should be noted as resembling the 
formula used for quoting the sayings 
of Jesus in xx. 35 and in other early 
Christian writings mentioned in the 
note there. This saying is really not 
attributed in the gospels to Jesus but 
to John the Baptist. 

with water ... in Holy Spirit] 
vdari . . . i&gt; Trvevp.a.rL ayiw. The 
contrast between water and spirit 
occurs three times in Luke-Acts, and 
once each in the other gospels. Luke 
consistently puts vdari as a simple 
dative but uses ev with Trvev/marL ayiy. 
Mark probably wrote uoart . . . Trvev- 
fjiaTi (though there is some textual 
variation in Mark i. 8) and Matthew 
wrote ev vdari . . . eV n-vev/J.aTi. These 
variations are doubtless stylistic and 
have no importance for interpretation. 

17. who was I, etc.] It is easier to 
grasp the meaning than to analyse 
the construction of the Greek eyu 
ri s -fju.r)v dwarbs ; apparently it is a 
mixture of two questions (a) Who 
was I to thwart God ? and (6) Could 
I thwart God ? 



XI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



127 



1 8 thwart God ? " And when they heard this, they stopped and 
glorified God, saying, " Why, to the Gentiles too did God give 
repentance unto life." 



19 So then they who were scattered after the persecution which 
arose in connexion with Stephen journeyed to Phoenicia and 
Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except only to 



18. stopped] i]&lt;rux affav is perhaps to 
desist rather than to be silent, though 
of course there is no real difference in 
meaning (cf. xxi. 14 and xv. 12). 
They stopped their objections (5ia- 
KpiveaQai) and began to glorify God. 

glorified God] Perhaps in the 
Jewish sense of admitting or con 
fessing (cf. John ix. 24), but the 
phrase is frequent in Luke in the 
plain sense of praised God for what 
he had done, and is as appropriate 
here as after miracles of healing. Cf. 
xxi. 20. 

19 ff. THE ANTIOCHIAN NARRATIVE. 
If Harnack s very probable sugges 
tion be correct, this section lay before 
Luke in a written form (source A, see 
Vol. II. pp. 151 ff.). It clearly refers 
back to viii. 1, and consists of three 
chief episodes. 

(a) xi. 19-26. The evangelization of 
Antioch, including the Gentile popu 
lation, by those who had suffered in 
the persecution of Stephen, and the 
accession of Barnabas and Paul to 
their work. This passage reads more 
like a summary than a full extract 
from a written source. 

(6) xi. 27-30. The famine-relief 
mission of Judaea, undertaken at the 
instigation of prophets from Jeru 
salem. This also reads like a sum 
mary. It may be the Antiochian 
doublet of the Jerusalem version of 
the same events, given in xv. 1 ff . 
(see Vol. II. pp. 153 ff. and Addit. 
Note 16). After finishing this the 
editor inserts a final section from the 
Jerusalem-Peter tradition in xii. 1-25, 
but the last verse (xii. 25) may be a 
rather clumsy repetition of xi. 30 (see 
note ad loc.). 

(c) xiii. 1-xiv. 28. The first mis 
sionary enterprise of the Antiochian 
Church. This reads as though it 



were an extract from a source, except 
perhaps the opening verses xiii. 1-3. 

Antioch is here dealt with on the 
same system as the Church in Caesarea : 
the story is told so as to lead up to 
the fact that Christianity was preached 
to Gentiles, and that on consideration 
the Church at Jerusalem accepted the 
situation. The phrasing of this verse 
ol fj.tv ovv diaffTrapefTes repeats viii. 
4, and clearly refers to Sieo-Trdprjaav in 
viii. 1. Harnack and others (see Vol. 
II. pp. 126 f . and 147 ff.) have therefore 
grouped vi. 6-viii. 3 with xi. 19 ff., 
and Harnack has argued that vi. 6- 
viii. 3 must be Antiochian inasmuch 
as xi. 19 ff . clearly belongs to Antioch. 

But the facts, especially the 
repetition of ot fj.ei&gt; ovv diacrirapevres, 
only show that Luke was conscious 
that the story of Antioch which 
begins with xi. 19 is not continuous 
with the story of Judaea (Caesarea) 
and Samaria, which begins with viii. 
4, but parallel to it, and he indicates 
this by a deliberate repetition of 
phrase. Oi diao-rrapevTes may belong 
either to the Antiochian or the 
Caesarean source, but /j.ev oftv is char 
acteristic of the editor, and the 
8iacnra.pei&gt;Ts both in viii. 4 and xi. 19 
may be merely editorial references to 
Sieffira-p-qaav in viii. 1. 

19. Antioch] Antioch on the Orontes. 
It was situated about fifteen miles 
from the coast, where the Orontes 
breaks through the hills. It was built 
partly on an island in the river, but 
mostly on the northern bank and on 
the slopes of the hill behind it. It 
was founded by Seleucus Nicator 
(Josephus, c. Apion. ii. 4) in the year 
300 B.C., and to it were transferred 
the inhabitants of Antigonia which 
had been built by Antigonus a little 
higher up the river seven years earlier. 
Strabo (p. 750) gives a full account of 



128 



THE BEGINNINGS OP CHRISTIANITY 



Jews. And some of them were Cypriotes and Cyrenians who 20 
came to Antioch and were speaking also to the Hellenists, bringing 
the good news of Jesus as the Lord. And the hand of the Lord 21 



the city in his own time. He says 
that it was a combination of four 
cities, each with its own wall. The 
first contained the population of Anti- 
gonia, the second was the settlement 
of Seleucus Nicator, the third was 
added by Seleucus Callinicus (246- 
226 B.C.), and the last, on the side 
of the hill (Mt. Silpius), was added 
by Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.C.). 
Round the whole of these four cities 
was a great wall including an area 
larger than that of Rome. Between 
the four cities ran two main streets 
which crossed each other obliquely. 

Five miles from Antioch was Daphne, 
the seat of a cult of Apollo and 
Artemis, and so famous that Antioch 
itself was often called 77 eTrt Ad^?/, 
which is the origin of Tacitus s refer 
ence (Annals ii. 83) to a city called 
Epidaphna. The port of the city 
was Seleucia (Acts xiii. 4), 16 miles 
from Antioch, which was also founded 
by Seleucus Nicator. Pompey made 
Antioch a free city, and it became 
the seat of the prefect and the 
capital of the Roman province of 
Syria. Herod the Great gave the 
city a marble-paved street, which can 
still be traced. According to Josephus 
(B. J. iii. 2. 4) it was the third city in 
the Roman Empire, inferior only to 
Rome and Alexandria. Its reputa 
tion, however, was remarkably bad ; 
Daphnici mores were a byword, and 
Juvenal (Sat. iii. 62) speaks of the 
Orontes flowing into the Tiber when 
he wishes to describe the invasion of 
Rome by eastern superstition and 
profligacy. It had a large Jewish 
colony, with many proselytes an 
important fact for the spread of Chris 
tianity (Josephus, B.J. vii. 3. 3, and 
cf. Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, in 
vi. 5). Tradition associates it with 
the name of Peter, who is said to have 
been its first bishop. Early in the 
second century its bishop was Ignatius, 
who was sent to Rome as a martyr. 
[The best modern sources of informa 
tion are E. S. Bouchier, A Short His 
tory of Antioch 300 B.G.-1268 A.D., 
and (for Antioch in early Christian 



history) K. Bauer, Antiochia in der 
dltesten Kirchengeschichte ; the articles 
in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 
in the Encyc. Bibl., and in Cabrol s 
Diction, d archeologie chretienne, s.v. 
Antioch, and Baedeker s Palestine, but 
there is much information and refer 
ences to early literature in K. 0. Miillor, 
Antiquitates Antiochenae, 1839, and 
a description of the city in Renan s 
Les Apotres, pp. 215 ff.] 

19, 20. Jews . . . Hellenists] The 
text is doubtful (see note in Vol. III. 
p. 106) but the meaning is clear. The 
first missionaries in Antioch preached 
only to Jews, that is to born Jews, 
whether Aramaic or Greek-speaking, 
and to Jews by adoption, or proselytes. 
But some of the Cypriote and Cyren- 
aean Christians began to preach to the 
heathen as well. The question is which 
word was used in vs. 20 to describe 
heathen "EXXT/i/as or EXX^j/tards. If 
the meaning of EXX^io-rds were at all 
certain the matter would be different, 
but it is not (see Addit. Note 7). Later 
tradition, at least since the time of 
Chrysostom, expounded EXX^tcrrdsin 
vi. 1 as Greek-speaking Jews, and 
therefore the whole textual tendency 
was to read "EXX^as hero. But that 
is a strong argument for the originality 
of EXXT/i/to-Tds, which however must 
mean heathen, for they are con 
trasted with lovdaioi, which covers 
both Greek- and Aramaic - speaking 
Jews. 

20. Cypriotes and Cyrenians] It 
would be natural to see in these words 
a reference to Lucius the Cyrenian 
and to Barnabas the Cypriote (iv. 36) 
mentioned in xiii. 1, but it should 
be noted against this that Barnabas 
cannot be intended by Cypriotes, as 
ho did not come to Antioch until 
afterwards. 

The list of names in xiii. 1, since 
it includes Barnabas, is not confined 
to the original preachers in Antioch. 
Simon the Cyrenian in Mark xv. 21 is 
an instance of a Cyrenian in Palestine. 
Cf . too the reference in vi. 9 to Cyren 
ians, and see note ad loc. 

Jesus as the Lord] The Lord Jesus 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



129 



was with them, and a great number which believed turned to 

22 the Lord. And the report was heard about them in the ears of 
the church which was in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas 

23 to Antioch. And when he arrived and saw the grace of God, he 
was glad and exhorted all to remain in the Lord in the purpose 

24 of their hearts, because he was a good man and full of Holy 
Spirit and faith. And a large multitude was added to the Lord. 

26 And he departed to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found 



is an equally possible translation, but 
in English does not sufficiently bring 
out in this passage the fact that the 
message of good news was the lord 
ship of Jesus. This distinguishes very 
clearly the evolution of preaching. 
In the first stage the good news 
was the coming of the Kingdom of 
God; this was the message of Jesus 
himself. In the second stage it was 
that Jesus was the Man ordained to 
be judge of the living and the dead : 
this was the preaching of the disciples 
to the Jews. The third stage was 
the announcement that Jesua was 
the Kvpios, which doubtless included 
the Jewish message, which Peter de 
livered to Cornelius, but must also 
have meant much more to heathen 
minds, and had connotations quite 
different from anything contemplated 
by Jewish-Christian preachers. (See 
notes on x. 36 and 38.) 

21. hand of the Lord] Probably 
the O.T. phrase meaning God, and 
with no reference to Lord as applied 
to Jesus. 

turned to the Lord] Doubtless 
Jesus, in spite of the awkwardness of 
giving it a different meaning from the 
previous verse. 

22. which was] rijs otiffrys ev lepov- 
ffa\r)/j, presents no difficulty, but see 
note on v. 17. 

sent out] e^a.Trea TeiXav, made their 
apostle. Barnabas is sent out to 
investigate in Antioch as Peter did in 
Samaria in chap. viii. 

23. the grace] The play on the 
words in the Greek defies translation 
(xdpcv . . . exdpi*)), and may be un 
intentional. Cf . James i. 1 f . 



KT\. 



xapeiv. Trcrav -%apai&gt; 



exhorted] TrapeKd\ei, probably with 
VOL. IV 



a reference to the etymology of his 
name given in iv. 36 (see note ad 
loc.). 

in the Lord] The text is not quite 
certain. B reads irpoff^veiv ev T$ Kvplip, 
but the other Neutral authorities and 
the Western text omit ev. The differ 
ence of meaning, if any, is very slight. 
Should ev r&lt; Kvplw be represented by 
in the Lord and T$ Kvpiu by with 
the Lord ? It is noticeable that in 
xiii. 43 we have irpoa^eveLv TTJ %dptrt, 
and it is difficult to see how to trans 
late this except remain in the grace 
of God. 

in the purpose of their hearts] 
Trp60e&lt;ns rrjs Kap5ias is a curious phrase, 
found only in Symmachus s rendering 
of Ps. x. 17. If ev T$ Kvpiy were read 
we might translate to hold fast to 
their hearts purpose in the Lord, 
but cv is probably to be omitted (see 
Vol. III. pp. 106 f.). Or is it possible 
that Tri -n-pod. T. Kapdias merely means 
with determination ? 

24. added to the Lord] B omits to 
the Lord, but this is probably merely 
an accidental error. The scribe seems 
to have been tired at this point, for 
in the next line he wrote dvaarfjaaL by 
mistake for dvafaTrjeai.. For -n-poffeTeO-rj 
TUJ Kvpiy cf. v. 14 and the note on it. 

25. Tarsus] According to Acts ix. 
30 Paul went there after his first visit 
to Jerusalem. If the chronology in 
Gal. i.-ii. be correct (i.e. if 14 be not 
a primitive textual error) this was 
some years ago, though it is impossible 
to reckon the period exactly. 

look for] dvaftrrjaai. Can this mean 
that the writer of Acts thought that 
Saul was not preaching at this time ? 
According to Galatians there was an 
interval of many years between Paul s 
going to Tarsus and his second visit to 



130 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XI 



him lie brought him to Antioch. And it happened to them that 
they were entertained in the church for a whole year, and taught 
a large multitude, and that in Antioch the disciples were called 
Christians for the first time. 

And during these days prophets came down from Jerusalem 27 
to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and 28 



Jerusalem, and Acts certainly suggests 
that this visit of Barnabas to Antioch 
was only a short time before the 
second visit. The general impression 
made by Acts would certainly not be 
that there is an interval of 14, or 
even 11, years between Acts ix. 30 and 
xi. 30. 

^j 26. entertained] ffvvaxdfyai might 

0**"* A mean were gathered together, but 

to be taken in as a guest is some 
what more probable. Cf. Matt. xxv. 
35 ff.; Deut. xxii. 2, etc. The real 
difference in meaning is in any case 
small. 

were called] The active form x/&gt;*7A*- 
rlffaL often has this passive meaning of 
be called. There are only a f ?w late 
examples of its transitive sense which 
in this passage would mean that Paul 
and Barnabas styled the disciples 
Christians for the first time in Antioch. 
These uses of xpT^aTi ^w, call, or be 
called, are so independent of the 
meaning receive an oracle (x. 22 
note) that J. H. Moulton, Grammar of 
N.T. Greek, ii. p. 265, regards them as 
"two entirely distinct words, the 
former from xp^ara business cf . 
our phrase trading as X. & Co. ; the 
latter from an equivalent of x/ 37 ? "/"^ 
* oracle. " 

Christians] The termination -iavos 
is a Latinism, and is used to express 
partisans, so "H.pu5iavoi, IIo/xTretia^oi, 
etc. Doubtless that is its meaning 
here, and it implies that xpicrros was 
already taken by the Gentile popula 
tion as a proper name a custom to 
which Christians surprisingly soon 
submitted, as is shown by Paul s use 
of the word. (See further Additional 
Note 30 for the various names used by 
the early Christians, and cf . Mommsen, 
Hermes, xxxiv. (1899), pp. 151 ff., 
Blass (on the spelling XP 7 ?^*)* 
Hermes, xxx. (1895), pp. 465 ff., and 
the articles by S. C. Gayford in 
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 



and by P. W. Schmiedel in the 
Encyclopaedia Biblica.) 

27. prophets] See Vol. I. pp. 305 ff . 
Few things are more necessary for an 
understanding of early Christianity 
than a perception of the fact that it 
was essentially a prophetic movement. 
irpofirjTrjs or Trpo^tjreveLv is used by 
Luke of Jesus and John the Baptist, 
of Silas and Judas (xv. 32), of five 
other Christians at Antioch (xiii. 1), 
of Philip s daughters at Caesarea (xxi. 
8), and once more of Agabus (xxi. 10). 

28. Agabus] See also xxi. 10, where 
Agabus warns Paul of his approaching 
imprisonment in Jerusalem. Note that 
in xxi. 10 he is called ovo/uart. " A-yapos, 
as if he had not been mentioned before 
possibly another sign that Acts has 
not been finally (or carefully) revised. 

The name does not occur elsewhere 
unless it be identified with Hagab in 
the list of Ezra ii. 46 = Neh. vii. 48 = 
1 Esdras v. 30 (cf. also Hagabah in 
the same contexts). The etymology 
and breathing are uncertain. (See 
Klostermann, Probleme im Apostel- 
texte, 1883, p. 10; Hort, Introduction 
to the New Testament, 408.) 

stood up] The Western text reads, 
" and there was much rejoicing, and 
when we had been in conversation 
together, one of them," etc. This is 
the first we passage (see Vol. II. 
pp. 158 ff.) in any text. If it is 
genuine it connects the beginning of 
the document in the first person used 
by the editor of Acts whether he 
was himself the writer or not is hero 
immaterial with Antioch. If, as is 
more likely, it is not genuine, it is 
equally important. The reviser who 
inserted it clearly thought Acts 
belonged to Antioch. He probably 
lived in the middle of the second 
century. Is there anywhere else as 
early evidence for the connexion of 
Acts or its author with Antioch ? See 
Vol. II. pp. 247 ff. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



131 



made known by the Spirit that a great famine would be over 

29 all civilization, which happened in the time of Claudius. And 
the disciples, in proportion as any had means, each of them 
arranged for a mission to send to the brethren dwelling in 

30 Judaea. And this they actually did, sending it to the elders by 
the hand of Barnabas and Saul. 



made known] eo-rj/Mivev. Though 
of ten refers to straightforward 
declaration (cf. xxv. 27), a more enig 
matic method of prophecy may be 
indicated. In connexion with the re 
peated ffrj/JUtivtav Troty davdriij TJ[j,e\\ei&gt; 
airo6i&gt;r)a-KLv (John xii. 33, xviii. 32, cf. 
xxi. 19; Rev. i. 1) W. Bauer in Lietz- 
mann s Handbuch on John xii. 33 finds 
evidence in extra-biblical writings 
(Epictet. i. 17, 18 f. ; Josephus, Antiq. 
vii. 9. 5, 214, x. 11. 3, 241) that 
ffTWuivu is a " terminus technicus fiir 
die nur andeutende Rede des Orakel- 
spenders." Heraclitus is quoted in 
Plutarch, De Pyth. orac. 21 p. 404 E, 
as saying of the Delphic oracle afire 
\tyei., o$re Kpinrrei, dXXd, o"r)(j.aivei. 
Other aspects of divine revelation are 
expressed equally idiomatically in 
Acts. See the -notes on xP r )/ J - a T tf fLV 
x. 22 and a.Tro(f&gt;6yyecr6a.i. ii. 4. (Cf. 
the prophecy in Pharaoh s dreams and 
of Agabus in xxi. 10.) 

famine] Of course there was no 
famine over all the world under 
Claudius. There never has been a 
world-wide famine. But the evidence 
of Suetonius (Claudius xix.) and 
Tacitus (Ann. xii. 43) shows that 
widespread famine was a feature of 
the reign of Claudius. Moreover, the 
real meaning of the evidence collected 
by Schwartz, Gott. Nachr., 1907, &lt;Zur 
Chronologie des Paulus, is that the 
famine probably started in Palestine 
(Josephus, Antiq. iii. 15. 3 ; xx. 2. 5 ; 
xx. 5. 2). 

all civilization] Either a natural 
exaggeration, or possibly a Semitism 
for Palestine, the whole land. The 
former seems more probable. It is 
very hard to translate oiKov^evt}. 
Literally, of course, it means the 
inhabited world, but it is a political 
rather than a geographical phrase. 
It almost but not quite equals * the 
Roman Empire, or the civilized 



world. Certainly anyone trying to 
translate * throughout civilization 
into Greek might do worse than 
render it /card rrjv oiKov/mev-rji . Torrey, 
however (p. 21), thinks that an 
Aramaic source read NSIK ^3 = all the 
land in accordance with the custom 
of calling Judaea the land, but the 
translator took land in a wider 
sense. Torrey thinks that the same 
mistake was made in Luke ii. 1 where 
Tracrav TTJV olKOVfJL^vijv is used. 

Claudius] The mention of Claudius 
may be taken as an implication (a) 
that the prophecy was made before 
the time of Claudius, (6) that the 
author was writing after his reign. 
(See also Additional Note 34.) 

29. arranged] tipKrav probably 
means that they fixed the amount 
that they would send, rather than 
decided to send undefined assistance. 
Tr^ti^cu should be regarded as explana 
tory of diaKoviav rather than directly 
governed by upLffav, for Kpivw is the 
author s word for decide with an 
infinitive, whereas bpifa does not 
seem to take this construction. (See 
Field, Notes, ad loc.) Or perhaps 
&pL&lt;rav indicates the joint resolve on 
a total sum what is called in America 
the goal of a drive. 

mission] The general term 5i.o.Kovia 
was perhaps beginning to have 
a special usage as an undertaking 
for financial relief. Cf . xii. 25 ; Rom. 
xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4, etc. In accord 
ance with this and the preceding 
note the whole passage would mean, 
" But the disciples fixed each of them 
upon an amount, proportionate to 
the means any had, for a relief fund 
to send to the brethren dwelling in 
Judaea." 

30. And this they actually did] 
This seems to be Paul s second visit 
to Jerusalem, for it is surely futile to 
argue that Judaea is not Jerusalem. 



132 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY xn 

And at that time Herod the king attempted to ill-treat some 12 



On the question of this visit see 
Vol. II. pp. 271 ff., and see Additional 
Note 16. It is customary to find a 
strange assonance (Loisy) or even 
actual dependence between this 
passage and Paul s reference to the 
request the pillars made of him to 
remember the poor, 8 KO! ta-jrovSaaa 
avro TOUTO Troifjcrai (Gal. ii. 10). But the 
use of 8 in reference to a whole 
sentence and of iroitv to a preceding 
verb must have been independently 
natural to both writers (cf. Acts 
xxvi. 10 8 /cat tiroi-rjaa). The un- 
emphatic character of the simple 
relative was often strengthened by 
/cat, especially when, as in these cases, 
it had no single nominal antecedent 
(cf. Col. i. 29 ets 8 /cat KOTTI&, and see 
H. J. Cadbury, JBL. xlii. (1923), 
p. 157). 

elders] The heads of the Church at 
Jerusalem. Wellhausen (Noten, p. 6) 
thinks that this means the twelve. 
But it is noticeable that in xi. 22 the 
twelve are not mentioned. Barnabas 
is sent by TT)S o&arjs iv ]epovffa\r)/j. 
KK\7]aias. It is possible that the 
twelve were away, and that the elders 
with James at their head were the 
heads of the local Church. In xxi. 18 
also only James is mentioned in Jeru 
salem with the elders, while in chap, 
xv. it is always apostles and elders 
at Jerusalem. But if we assume the 
entire absence of the apostles at this 
time it seems to prevent our identify 
ing this occasion with the visit in Gal. 
ii. 1 fL when Peter and John were 
there as well as James, who is how 
ever significantly placed first. (See 
also Addit. Note 6.) 

xii. 1-25. PETER S IMPRISONMENT 
AND THE DEATH OF HEROD. The editor 
here returns to the tradition of Jeru 
salem, and seems in the last verse to 
indicate a synchronism by mentioning 
the mission to Jerusalem of Barnabas 
and Saul, which is the last item in 
the preceding part of the Antiochian 
section. Unfortunately the text of 
that verse is obscure (see note ad loc.), 
but if we accept the reading which on 
general principles has the best attesta 
tion, it would seem that he repeated 
the substance of xi. 30 in xii. 25, in 



order to indicate the synchronism of 
these two verses, and not noticing 
the difficulty caused by his immedi 
ately going back to the Antiochian 
tradition, which he resumes in xiii. 1. 

For the possibility that the Caesar- 
ean-Peter story in ix. 32 ff. ought to 
follow xii. 25, instead of being in 
its present position, see Vol. II. pp. 
156 ff. 

1. at that time] Such general 
references are sometimes only editorial 
marks showing that the author is 
using a detached incident and has no 
real knowledge of its date. They are, 
in short, paragraph marks rather than 
genuine synchronisms. The pericopes 
in the gospels often begin in this way. 
See K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der 
Geschichte Jesu, p. 192 et al. Cf, 
Mark viii. 1; Matt, passim; Acts 
xix. 23 Kara rbv Kaipbv exelvov. But 
more often /car eKtlvov rbv Kaiphv 
and similar phrases are used by 
historians, notably by Eusebius, to 
indicate a general synchronism. As 
a rule, though not invariably, they 
imply that the narrator is going back 
to pick up another thread of his story. 
This would agree here with the prob 
ability that the famine mentioned in 
xi. 27 ff. came after the death of 
Herod. The writer, beginning with 
viii. 4, describes the work done by the 
Christians who were scattered after 
the death of Stephen in Caesarea and 
in Antioch down to a time a little 
later than the death of Herod. He 
first takes Caesarea, and then Antioch. 
He then re turns and picks up the thread 
of events in Jerusalem. In so doing 
I suspect that he overlooked the fact 
that xii. 1-17 is the chronological 
antecedent of ix. 32 ff. He did so 
because in ix. 32 ff . he was dealing 
with the Caesarean story, and in xii. 
1 ff. with the story of Jerusalem. See 
also Vol. II. pp. 156 ff. 

Herod the king] Herod Agrippa I. 
See Vol. I. pp. 14-25 for an account of 
his career. 

attempted] It is doubtful whether 
this is really the right translation, 
though Blass adopts it. There is no 
parallel for it in the N.T., which uses 
eTri/^dAAw meaning arrest or seize. 
This may be its significance here, but 



xii ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 133 

2 of those of the church, and he killed James the brother of John 



it would naturally require a dative or 
a construction with t-rri, for which the 
infinitive KaKuxrai rivets seems a clumsy 
substitute. (Cf. Acts iv. 3, v. 18, 
xxi. 27.) But xviii. 10 ovdds lirLd-f]- 
areraL croi rod KaK&cral &lt;re is an almost 
exact parallel in which ewt.Or]ffeTa.L &lt;roi 
replaces 6Trej3a\e %e?/)as and is simi 
larly doubtful in meaning. irif3d\- 
\eiv x ?P as i 8 found in Polybius (see 
Blass ad loc.) and in P Leid G 19 , 
P Tebt 6. 39; 24. 9 (all 2nd cent. 
B.C.), so it is not to be ranked as 
a Semitism. 

2. James] The son of Zebedee. 
In Mark he is regularly mentioned 
before his brother John, but nothing 
more is known of him. Since the 
discovery of De Boor s fragment of 
Papias it has been widely held that 
both brothers were put to death at 
this time. The facts are these : 
(1) Codex Coislinianus 305 of the 
Chronicle of Georgios Harmatolos 
makes the following statement : . . . 
Iwdj^^s fjiaprvpiov /car^^twTat. Ila- 
irias yap 6 lepairbXeidS 
avTOTTTTjs TOUTOV yevo[J.evos, ev 
\6yi{) T&V KvptaKuv \oyiit)i&gt; (pdffKei on 
vir6 lovdalwv dvypedt], TrXtjpwcras 3-r]\adr] 
fjiera TOV dde\(pou rr\v TOV xptcrroG irepi 
avT&v Trp6ppr)&lt;nv. This evidence was 
originally disregarded because Geor 
gios says that Origen corroborated 
this statement in the Commentary on 
Matthew, which is not the case. (2) 
But in 1888 De Boor (TU.v. 2, pp. 
167 fL) showed that in at least one 
manuscript Philip Sidetes (4th cen 
tury) makes the same statement : 
v T&lt; devT^py \6yy \fyei on 
6 #60X6705 Kal Id/cw/3os 6 
d5eX06s ai Tov virb lovdaiwv dvyptdya ai . 
This corroborates the statement in 
Georgios, and may be the source of it. 

(3) The Syriac Martyrology (seeA.SS., 
Nov., vol. ii. p. [Ixxi]) commemorates 
on the 27th of December John and 
James the apostles at Jerusalem. 

(4) The Carthaginian Martyrology 
(A.SS., Nov., vol. ii. p. [Hi.]) gives 
the 27th of December for "sancti 
Johannis baptistae et Jacobi apostoli 
quern Herodes occidit." But inas 
much as the usual date of John the 
Baptist, the 24th of June, is given 
in the same calendar, it is clear that 



John the Baptist is here a mistake 
for John the apostle. 

These four points present a reason 
able case in favour of the existence 
of an early tradition that John was 
martyred as well as his brother. It 
is of course incompatible with the 
other tradition found in Irenaeus, 
Haer. ii. 22. 5, that John lived to an 
extreme old age and died a natural 
death. Consequently various at 
tempts have been made to prove that 
one or the other tradition is a mistake. 

(i.) Those who hold to the alleged 
tradition of Papias think that the 
belief in the longevity of the apostle 
is due to a confusion between him 
and John the Presbyter, (ii.) Those 
who hold the traditional view argue 
that the early martyrologies inserted 
the names of Stephen, John and 
James, Paul and Peter on the days 
following Christmas. This, however, 
is a weak argument, because (a) the 
Feast of the Nativity is not mentioned 
in the Syriac Martyrology, which 
probably represents a Greek source in 
use at Nicomedia in the second half 
of the fourth century and earlier than 
the adoption of the 25th of December 
for that feast. The title of the Martyr 
ology makes it perfectly clear that 
the writer means martyrs in the later 
sense of the word and not merely 
apostles or teachers, (iii.) It has 
been argued that the reference to 
James is a confusion between James 
the son of Zebedee and James the 
Just. The best presentation of this 
case is probably to be found in J. H. 
Bernard, Studio, Sacra, pp. 260 ff . 

In the present condition of this 
controversy it may perhaps be said 
that neither side has completely suc 
ceeded in answering the other. The 
crucial points, which are often over 
looked, are that, on the one hand, if 
as is often supposed, the aged man 
named John who was known to Poly- 
carp was not John the son of Zebedee, 
the traditional story of his long life 
and natural death does not apply to 
the Apostle, and the confusion be 
tween the two Johns is early as early 
as Irenaeus ; but on the other hand, 
inasmuch as Papias was acquainted 
with two Johns, this confusion. 



134 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



xn 



with the sword. And seeing that it was acceptable to the Jews 3 
he proceeded to arrest Peter too (and it was the Days of 
unleavened bread), and he seized him and put him in prison, 4 
handing him over to four squads of four soldiers each to guard 
him, wishing after the Passover to bring him out to the people. 



however early, is still undeniable. 
Moreover, granted that the Apostle 
is not the Presbyter whose longevity 
became traditional, the saying of 
Jesus in Mark x. 39, "Ye shall 
drink of the cup that I drink of, and 
be baptized with the baptism where 
with I am baptized " implies a martyr s 
death for both brothers. 

See E. Schwartz, Abh. der Gesell- 
schaft d. W issenschaften zu Gottingen, 
N.F. vii. 5; Bousset, Theolog. Rund 
schau, 1905, pp. 225 ff.; Bernard, 
Studio, Sacra, pp. 260 ff.; C. Erbes, 
Zeitsch. f. Kirchengesch. xxxiii. pp. 
159 ff. ; Spitta, ZNTW . xi. pp. 39 ff. ; 
E. Schwartz, ZNTW. xi. pp. 89 ff . ; 
De Boor, TV. v. 2, pp. 167 ff. The 
evidence and the English bibliography 
on tho subject of John s early martyr 
dom will be found most conveniently 
collected for English readers in R. H. 
Charles, Revelation (Inter. Grit. Com.) 
i. pp. xlv ff. Cf. H. Latimer Jackson, 
Problem of the Fourth Gospel, 142-150. 

with the sword] Eusebius (H.E. 
ii. 9) quotes from Clement of Alex 
andria s lost Hypotyposes as follows : 
" He says that the man who led him 
to the judgement-seat, seeing him 
bearing his testimony to the faith, 
and moved by the fact, confessed 
himself a Christian. Both therefore, 
says he, were led away to die. On 
their way, he entreated James to be 
forgiven of him, and James, consider 
ing a little, replied, Peace be to 
thee, and kissed him; and then 
both were beheaded at the same time." 

3. proceeded] -rrpoa-^deTo (rv\\a(3e tt&gt; 
is possibly a Hebraism, but see Moul- 
ton, Proleg. p. 233. Cf. Luke xix. 11 
and xx. 11, 12, where it is not derived 
from Mark. 

Days of unleavened bread] There 
is a curious confusion in the termin 
ology of this verse. It reads as 
though the Days of unleavened bread 
came before the Passover. Herod 
arrested Peter during the Days, and 



waited until the Passover before deal 
ing further with him. Actually, how 
ever, the sequence was the reverse. 
The Passover was killed on the 14th 
of Nisan and the Days followed, from 
the 14th to the 21st (see Exod. xii. 
3-19). Possibly Luke regarded the 
Days of unleavened bread and the 
Passover as synonyms, for in Luke 
xxii. 1 he writes the Feast of un 
leavened bread, the so-called Pass 
over instead of Mark s more correct 
the Passover and the Unleavened 
bread. 

For the bearing of this episode on 
the date of Herod s death see Addi 
tional Note 34. 

4. four squads] One quaternion 
for each watch of three hours. Cf. 
Vegetius, De re militari iii. 8 (cited by 
Preuschen), " et quia impossible vide- 
batur in speculis per totam noctem 
vigilantes singulos permanere, ideo in 
quattuor partes . . . sunt divisae 
vigiliae ut non amplius quam tribus 
horis nocturnis necesse sit vigilare." 

to bring him out] What is the 
connexion of this with the Passover ? 
It might be interpreted on the lines 
of Frazer s theory that there was a 
survival among the Jews of the Baby 
lonian Sacaea. But it is surely more 
probable that it means merely that 
Herod did not wish to have an execu 
tion during the feast. Cf. Mark xiv. 
2, " Not on the feast day lest there be 
an uproar among the people," which 
is reduced in Luke xxii. 2 to "for 
they feared the people." This is one 
of several cases where a motif in the 
gospel of Mark is omitted by the 
parallel in the gospel of Luke only to 
reappear in Acts. Cf. i. 7, vi. 12, ix. 
40 (tK/3a\uv TrdvTas), and see note on 
vi. 11. For avayew in the forensic 
sense of a public trial or verdict com 
pare Dittenberger, Sylloge 3 799. 24 
dvaxdtvra e/s TOV 5r)p.ov ; P Magd 33. 
8; P Tebt 43. 19. In vs. 6 Trpodyeiv 
or Trpocrdyeiv is used. 



XII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



135 



5 So Peter was kept in the prison, and prayer to God was made for 

6 him earnestly by the church. But when Herod was going to put 
him forward, in that night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers 
bound by two chains, and guards before the door were watching 

7 the prison. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and 
a light shone in the building, and he struck Peter s side and 
woke him up and said, " Arise quickly," and the chains fell off his 

8 hands. And the angel said to him, " Fasten your belt, and put 
on your sandals," and he did so. And he says to him, " Put on 

9 your cloak and follow me." And he went out and followed him, 
and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but 



5. in the prison] There is some 
evidence for a Western reading which 
adds by a cohort of the king. See 
Vol. III. p. 110. 

earnestly] KTCVU&gt;S. Without ceas 
ing is the rendering of the A.V., but 
earnestly seems nearer the meaning. 
Cf. Judith iv. 9. It is used of prayer 
in Luke xxii. 44; cf. Acts xxvi. 7 
fv eKTeveiq. . . . Xarpevov. In later 
liturgical writings the word was used 
to mean rather at the top of the 
voice, loudly. See R. Knopf on 1 
Clem. 34. 7 in Lietzmann s Handbuch, 
who quotes examples from early Chris 
tian liturgical passages. 

6. between two soldiers] The 
custom of fastening a prisoner to a 
soldier is mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 
v. 7). Cf. also xxi. 33 and Ignatius, 
Rom. v. 1 d,7r6 "Zivpias /u-^XP*- Pw/^T/s 
d7)pio/u.ax&, Sia yrjs /ecu 0a\dcro"r)s, VVKTOS 
KO.L r/fj,epas, 5e8e[j.et&gt;os Select XeoTrdpSois, 
6 tariv &lt;TTpa.ri.wTi.Kbv Tayfj.a, and see 
Lightfoot s note on this passage. Ac 
cording to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6, 7, 
Herod himself when a prisoner at 
Rome had a soldier bound to him 
((rvvdede/JLevos ai/TU) ffTpaTUimjs). It is 
possible that the other two soldiers 
of the squad are mentioned in the 
(pv\a.Kes -rrpb TTJS Qvpas below and the 
irp&TrjV (pv\aKT]v K.a.1 devTepais (vs. 10). 
With the former cf. v. 23 roi)s &lt;pv\a.Kas 
ecrrwras CTTI TUIV 6vpwv. The whole 
scene in v. 17ff. should be compared 
with the present passage. 

7. angel] The following account 
is one of the most obviously legendary 



in Acts. This does not, however, 
render it improbable that Peter was 
put in prison and escaped, or that 
the miraculous nature of his deliver 
ance was fully believed quite shortly. 
The parallel passage in the story of 
Paul is his rescue at Philippi, but the 
details are quite different. A closer 
parallel is the quotation given by 
Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ix. 27. 23, 
from Artapanus, De Judaeis, describ 
ing an episode in the life of Moses 
VVKTOS 5e Triyevo/j.ei&gt;r)S rds re Oupas 
Trdcras airrOjUarws avoixdrivai TOV Secr/xa;- 
TTjpiov /ecu T&V (pv\a.K(jJv ovs fj.ev 
Te\6VTr)aai Tivas d virb TOV virvov irap- 
edijva.i TO. re 6 7rXa KaTeayrjvai. 

The point which is suggested is not 
that there is necessarily any literary 
connexion between these stories, 
though that is not impossible, but 
that there was a tendency to describe 
escapes from prison as happening in 
a certain miraculous way. For the 
general belief cf. such classical 
passages as Euripides, Bacch. 443 ff., 
and Ovid, Metamorph. iii. 696 ff. 
See also Reitzenstein, Hellenistische 
W under erzdklungen, p. 121, and note 
on xvi. 25-26. 

stood by] eWcrr?;. This verb is used 
of persons who come on the scene, 
but both Luke and Gentile writers 
use it especially of divine or angelic 
(demonic) apparitions. Cf . Luke ii. 9, 
xxiv. 4; Acts xxiii. 11. 

building] oiKr/pa is used in Attic 
Greek as a euphemism for prison. 
See Wettstein and Blass ad loc. 



136 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XII 



thought he saw a vision. And they passed through the first guard 10 
and the second, and came to the iron gate which leads to the city, 
which opened of itself to them, and they went out and went one 
street farther, and immediately the angel left him. And when n 
Peter came to himself he said, " Now I know truly that the 
Lord sent his angel and delivered me from the hand of Herod and 
from all the expectation of the people of the Jews." And when I2 
he was aware of it he came to the house of Mary, the mother of 



9. saw a vision] The story of 
Peter s release is exactly like a dream, 
and it is a little hard to resist the 
question whether the dream may not 
have included the imprisonment as 
well as the escape. But of course the 
writer of Acts had no such idea. 

It is also not impossible that some 
unknown sympathizer had drugged 
the soldiers and bribed the turnkey 
(cf. F. C. Burkitt, Christian Begin 
nings, p. 103). 

10. to the city] Where was the 
prison? It is quite unknown, but 
commentators agree that the tower of 
Antonia is the most likely place (see 
map in Vol. I. opposite p. 136). It 
had access both to the Temple and to 
the city, and this may be the implica 
tion of this definition of the iron gate. 
The Western text adds that when 
Peter and the angel " went out they 
descended the seven steps." This may 
be a piece of local knowledge on the 
part of the Western reviser (see note 
on iii. 2). But it should not be for 
gotten that we have no knowledge as 
to (i.) where the prison was, for the 
unanimity of commentators has no 
basis in knowledge, and (ii.) whether 
there really were seven steps. See 
Additional Note 35. 

of itself] Doors opening of their 
own accord (usually auro/udrw? as here) 
are a frequent element in miracles 
from Homer down, as Wettstein 
amply illustrates. It was natural 
still further to attest the miracle by 
emphasizing the weight and solidity 
of the door. We may compare the 
stone at Jesus grave which in Mark 
was very great. The Neutral text 
of Luke omits this detail, but the 
Western text (D etc.) probably added 
it and described the stone as ov 



eiKocrL KV\IOV (Luke xxiii. 53). In 
Matthew it was sealed and guarded 
by soldiers and only removed by an 
angel. In the Gospel of Peter it took 
all who were there, scribes, elders, 
centurion and soldiers, to roll the 
stone and place it at the door of the 
tomb, yet it rolled back of itself (d&lt;/&gt; 
eavrou). Beside the Jewish writer 
Artapanus quoted above compare the 
portents in Josephus, B.J. vi. 5. 3, 
293 (mentioned probably independ 
ently in Tacitus, Hist. v. 13): "the 
eastern gate of the inner court it 
was of brass and very massive, and, 
when closed towards evening, could 
scarcely be moved by twenty men ; 
fastened with iron-bound bars, it had 
bolts which were sunk to a great 
depth into a threshold consisting of 
a solid block of stone this gate was 
observed at the sixth hour of the 
night to have opened of its own 
accord" (auTo/udrws). 

one street] pv^v is a street or alley. 
The meaning may be, as the transla 
tion indicates, that they went along 
the main street until its intersection 
by a pit/Ay. But it is also possible 
that fj.iav, as so often in later Greek, is 
equivalent to nva. If so it might be 
rendered * they went along a certain 
street. 

11. And when Peter] The Western 
text reads then Peter. See note 
on x. 47. 

12. aware of it] &lt;rvvid&v. Cf. xiv. 
6, and see the notes of Wettstein and 
Field ad loc. 

the house] A tradition which goes 
back to the fourth century identified 
this house with that in which was the 
Upper Room, the scene of the Last 
Supper, and the centre of the earliest 
community in Jerusalem. Obviously 



xn ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 137 

John surnamed Mark, where many were assembled and praying. 



the evidence cannot prove this : a 
tradition which does not appear until 
300 years after the event is historic 
ally valueless. But at the worst it 
is an attractive guess. The testimony 
is collected by C. Mommert, Die 
Dormitio, and also given by Th. Zahn, 
Einleitung, ii. 51. 7. Nevertheless 
I doubt whether the guess is right, for 
from the context it is plain that this 
house was not the headquarters of 
James and the brethren. It is 
perhaps interesting to note that 
John xix. 26 indicates a tradition 
that John the son of Zebedee and 
Mary the mother of Jesus lived in 
Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. Is 
this another John-Mary house ? Is 
it another possible hint of an early 
confusion between two (or more?) 
Johns ? It is curious how many 
faint indications point in this direc 
tion. 

Mary, the mother of John surnamed 
Mark] It is more usual to designate 
a person by his father than by his 
son. Blass thought that by this 
curious phrase "quasi digito mon- 
stratur auctor narrationis." But 
similar expressions occur in the 
cases of another Mary (Mark xv. 40, 
etc.) and of Simon of Gyrene, the 
father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 
xv. 21), and suggest that they are 
employed because the readers would 
be more familiar with the children 
than with the member of the pre 
ceding generation. John Mark, at 
least, recurs in the sequel. 

Mark] Map/cos or Map/cos. For a dis 
cussion of the accentuation see Blass- 
Debrunner, Gram. d. N.T. Griech. 
13, and Moulton-Milligan, Vocab. 
s.v. 

The facts known from the N.T. 
about Mark are these : he was the 
son of Mary (Acts xii. 12) and was 
taken by his kinsman Barnabas to 
Antioch after the mission of Barnabas 
and Paul in connexion with the 
famine (Acts xii. 25). He then went 
with them on the first missionary 
journey (Acts xiii. 5). At Perga in 
Pamphylia he left them and went 
back to Jerusalem (Acts xiii. 13). 
After the return of Barnabas to 
Jerusalem Barnabas wished to take 



him again on the second journey, 
but Paul refused, and Barnabas and 
Mark went to Cyprus (Acts xv. 37 ff.). 
Neither appears again in Acts. In 
Col. iv. 10, however, mention is made 
of a Mark who was dve\{/i6s of Barna 
bas, which means cousin rather than 
nephew (see Lightfoot s note ad loc.). 
From this it has been concluded that 
Paul and Mark were reconciled, and 
that Mark was with him when he 
wrote Colossians (from Rome ? or 
Caesarea ? or Ephesus ?), and he is 
also mentioned in Philemon 24 and 
in 2 Tim. iv. 11. If all these letters 
come from Rome, it is possible that 
this Mark is mentioned in 1 Peter 
v. 13 as Peter s son and at Rome 
(Babylon). It is, however, not cer 
tain that this Mark is the same as 
the John Mark of Acts ; the genuine 
ness of 2 Timothy and 1 Peter is 
open to considerable doubt, and that 
of Colossians is questionable. But 
even if none of them is genuine, they 
may represent an early tradition 
which connects Mark with Paul, Peter, 
and Rome. Later traditions (Papias 
quoted by Eusebius iii. 39, Irenaeus 
iii. 1 in Eus. H.E. v. 8 and iii. 

10. 5, and Clement of Alexandria 
in Eus. H.E. vi. 14. 6) ascribe to 
Mark the writing of the second gospel, 
and still later traditions connect him 
with Alexandria (see Eusebius, H.E. 

11. 16). 

If it be accepted that Mark wrote 
the second gospel and Luke the third, 
it is interesting and important to 
notice that in Colossians, Philemon, 
and 2 Timothy both names appear in 
the same context. 

It is also worth asking whether 
the phrase in Col. iv, 10, "Marcus, 
concerning whom ye received com 
mandments, if he come receive 
him," means that the command 
ments were now cancelled. They 
may have been unfavourable; and 
if so this passage might be taken 
as dating the reconciliation of Paul 
and Mark. (See also, in addition 
to the standard commentaries on 
Mark, B. W. Bacon, Is Mark a 
Roman Gospel? 1919, and The Gospel 
of Mark, its Composition and Date, 
1925.) 



138 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



And when he knocked at the door of the entrance, a servant 13 
named Rhoda came forward to answer it. And when she recog- 14 
nized Peter s voice, for joy she did not open the entrance but ran 
in and reported that Peter was standing before the entrance. 
And they said to her, " You are mad," but she protested that it 15 
was so. And they said, " It is his angel." But Peter continued 16 
knocking, and they opened the door and saw him and were 
amazed. But he motioned to them with his hand to be quiet, 17 
and explained to them how the Lord had brought him out of 
prison. And he said, " Tell this to James and the brethren." 
And he departed and went to another place. 

And when it was day there was no little commotion among 18 
the soldiers as to what in the world had become of Peter. And 19 
Herod called him up, and when he did not find him he examined 



13. the door of the entrance] How 
ever sceptical one may be about the 
details in the prison, it is impossible 
to deny the convincing nature of the 
behaviour of Rhoda and of the family. 

Rhoda] The name is an ordinary 
Greek one, cf. Hermas i. 1. The 
Hellenistic nature of the house may 
be suggested by the names, Marcus 
and Rhoda, though Rhoda seems to 
have been a favourite name for a 
slave. But it must be remembered 
that Marcus and Rhoda were both 
likely to be used by Jews because 
they contain no heathen god s name. 
For the use of Greek names by Jews 
see note on i. 23. 

came forward] i.e. from the house 
proper. 

to answer it] This (not to listen ) 
is the exact idiomatic rendering of 
the Greek, cf. 6 dvpwp&t, dxnrep eiwdft 
viraKoveiv, Plato, Phaed. 59 E, and 
examples in Field, Notes, ad loc. 

15. his angel] It probably means his 
guardian angel. Cf. Gen. xlviii. 16; 
Tobit v. 21; Judith xiii. 20; Matt, 
xviii. 10; and see Moulton in JTS., 
1902, pp. 519 f.; M.Dibelius, DerHirt 
des Hermas in Lietzmann s Hand- 
buck, pp. 494 f. ; Strack i. pp. 781 ff. 

17. James] i.e. the Lord s brother. 
It ia clear that James was not living 
in this house ; also that he is regarded 



as the head of the community. On 
James see Additional Note 6. 

another place] Quite indefinite. 
r67ros may mean another house, or 
another town. Cf. Luke ix. 56 /ecu 
tiropevGr/a ai et s ertpav KW/J.T&lt;JV. I think 
that it means town, and that the 
narrative originally continued with 
ix. 32 ff., but of course this is merely 
a guess. The suggestion that the 
r67ros intended is Antioch seems to 
be less likely, because Gal. ii. 11 in 
dicates that Peter s visit to Antioch 
was after the Council in Jerusalem, 
which on any hypothesis must have 
been later than the famine, and this 
was at least a year later than the 
death of Herod. It therefore seems 
more likely that Peter, after leaving 
Jerusalem when he escaped from 
prison, went to the unnamed other 
place and then returned, perhaps two 
years later, to Jerusalem. If the hypo 
thesis mentioned above be accepted, 
the conversion of Cornelius took place 
during this absence. (See also Vol. II. 
pp. 156 f.) Roman tradition identifies 
the other place with Rome. 

18. no little] Perhaps the first of 
the series of instances of litotes in Acts 
(see Vol. II. p. 44, note 1), but some 
Western authorities omit no little, 
which suggests that perhaps it is 
taken from xix. 23. 



XII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



139 

And he went 



20 



the guards and commanded them to be executed, 
down from Judaea and stayed at Caesar ea. 

And he was furious with the Tyrians and Sidonians, and 
they waited on him in a body, and having won over Blastus, the 
king s chamberlain, they asked for peace because their country 
21 was supplied by the king s. And on a fixed day Herod put on 



19. executed] According to the 
Code of Justinian, which doubtless re 
presents Roman custom, a guard who 
allowed a prisoner to escape was liable 
to the penalty which the prisoner 
would have paid (Cod. Justinianus, 
ix. 4. 4). It has, however, been 
questioned whether o.Trax^i cu need 
mean more than led off to prison. 
Cf. Gen. xxxix. 22, xl. 3, xlii. 16, 
and Luke xxiii. 26, and see E. Nestle, 
Philologica Sacra, p. 53. Both meanings 
are attested in the Papyri ; see Moulton 
and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. Possibly 
it was to resolve this ambiguity that 
the Western text read airoKTavdiivai. 

stayed at Caesarea] eis KaLcrapeiav 
dulrpLpev. This is probably a some 
what more correct rendering than he 
went down from Judaea to Caesarea 
and stayed there, which would surely 
require dierpifiev e/cet. For the use of 
ets with verbs of rest cf. xix. 22 
tireffxtv * T V A-ffiav ; xxv. 4 
TTjpeTa dai. eis Kcu&lt;rapa az , and many ex 
amples both in Acts and elsewhere in 
Greek literature. 

It is interesting to note that 
Caesarea seems to be distinguished 
from Judaea, of which it was actually 
the capital for purposes of Roman 
administration. For the whole ques 
tion of Luke s use of names for politi 
cal and geographical districts see 
Addit. Note 18. 

20 iff. The death of Herod Agrippa I. 
is described by Josephus as divine 
punishment, on account, however, 
not of earlier sins but for the sin of 
omission in not rebuking the flatterers 
on this occasion at Caesarea. Acts 
also takes this view, but combines 
it with the sin against the Church. 
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 10. 6, in 
quoting Josephus has slightly modi 
fied the text in the light of Acts. 
See M c Giffert s note ad loc. in the 
Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 



The author of Acts does not in 
dicate the relation either of time or 
of cause between this scene and the 
preceding, but there can be little 
doubt that he intended the readers 
to see in the death of Agrippa divine 
punishment for his cruelty to the 
apostles. Such a lesson would be 
readily drawn by the reader. "Die 
erbaulichen Schriften der Zeit sind 
voll von Strafwundern, Aelian hat 
eine lange Reihe, und Plutarch 
schreibt ein ganzes Buch liber 
das Thema " (Wendland, Urchristliche 
Literaturformen, 1912, p. 264, note 6). 
The motive is the same in the death 
of Judas in Acts i. and in other 
accounts. But here a certain amount 
of historical setting, irrelevant to the 
principal point of the event and the 
author s interests, has remained in the 
narrative. 

20. furious] This meaning of dv/no- 
/uax&lt;l&gt;j&gt; is found in Polybius xxvii. 8. 4 
and elsewhere (see Wettstein ad loc.). 
It is, however, more often used of an 
actual state of war, which seems an 
impossible meaning in this context. 
There is no trace of this quarrel in 
Josephus, but it has been plausibly 
suggested that Tyre was disliked by 
Agrippa because it was the scene of 
a disagreement between him and his 
cousin Antipas (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 
6.2). 

Blastus] Nothing is known of him, 
but the name itself is not rare; see 
Preuschen-Bauer, s.v. 

chamberlain] The title is found in 
inscriptions and was common in the 
Byzantine period, and passed in trans 
lation from imperial usage to the 
courts of Europe. (See D. Magie, 
De Romanorum juris publici sacrique 
vocabulis, 1905, p. 73.) 

21. fixed day] According to Josephus 
it was a feast in honour of the Em 
peror, and E. Schwartz has identified 



140 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XII 



royal robes, sat on his throne, and made a speech to them, 
and the people cheered, " It is the voice of a god and not of 22 
a man." And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him 23 
because he did not give the glory to God, and he became eaten 
by worms and expired. 



And the word of God increased and multiplied. And 24, 25 



this with the Vicennalia, which came 
in March A.D. 44 (see Additional Note 
34). But it is quite plain that Acts 
means that it was a day fixed for 
a special audience to the Tyrian 
represent ati ves . 

robes] Josephus also emphasizes 
the effect of the robes. 

them] i.e. the Tyrians, as distinct 
from the d?j/j.os, theCaesarean populace. 
The Western text brought this out 
by adding " on the occasion of his 
reconciliation with the Tyrians," 
though the extant Greek is corrupt 
and cannot be reconstructed with 
certainty (see Vol. III. p. 114). 

23. give the glory to God] This is 
commonly understood to mean in 
stead of allowing divine honours to be 
paid to himself. But if we may omit 
the article with D and later MSS. we 
have the more frequent d6$av &lt;5i&lt;56i/cu 
which in John ix. 24, Rev. xvi. 9, 
Joshua vii. 19, seems to mean confess 
the truth or pray for forgiveness. 

eaten by worms] The compound 
&lt;TKu\T)K6f3puTos formerly found else 
where only in Theophrastus is attested 
for the unscientific vocabulary by its 
occurrence in the papyri, e.g. PSI. v. 
490, 14 (3rd century B.C.). Like our 
worm-eaten it seems to be applied 
to vegetable rather than animal 
substances. It was not invented 
by Luke, as Blass suggested, and 
it is not a technical term in medi 
cine (see Cadbury, JBL. xlv., 1926, 
p. 201). 

For gruesome diseases sent as 
punishment there are in antiquity 
frequent references to worms (&lt;r/cwX^:es) 
or to lice (00tt/)es), the two sometimes 
combined or confused. Probably 
here and elsewhere no merely natural 
disease is intended (cf . Harnack, Texte 
und Untersuchungen, viii., 1892, 4, 
p. 95). In any case its identification 



with any specific disease known to 
modern medicine would be impossible. 
See the full collection of passages 
in Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte 
undihr Geschichtswert, 1921, pp. 398 ff., 
including Job vii. 5 ; 2 Mace. ix. 5 ff .; 
Is. Ixvi. 24; Judith xvi. 17; Apoc. 
Petri, 27 ; Papias fragm. 3 (ed. Funk); 
Lucian, Pseudomantis 59 ; and others. 
In emphasizing that this phenomenon 
befell him while still alive (en fcDi/) 
Codex Bezae (Greek and Latin) agrees 
with several of the parallels, e.g. 
Herodot. iv. 205 ; Pausanias ix. 7. 2 ; 
Tertull. Ad Scap. 3, etc. 

Those who think that Luke knew 
the writings of Josephus but read 
him carelessly (see Vol. II. pp. 355 ff.) 
might derive this story from the 
narrative of the death of Herod the 
Great (Antiq. xvii. 6. 5 ; B. J. i. 33. 5). 
But it is also possible that being eaten 
by worms was a traditional punish 
ment for great men who had offended. 
See J. Z. Lauterbach, * A Significant 
Controversy (in the Hebrew Union 
College Annual, iv. pp. 190ff.), who 
quotes from Yoma 19 b etc. the story 
of a high priest who erred in the 
ritual of the Day of Atonement, and 
was killed by an angel. In his 
case worms came out of his nose. 

xii. 24-xiii. 3. Like the other sum 
maries in Acts this passage looks both 
backwards and forwards. It picks up 
the narrative from xi. 19-30 and intro 
duces the story of the missionary 
journey of chapters xiii. and xiv. 
xii. 25 is specially connected with xi. 
27-30, and the reference to Mark refers 
back to xii. 12 and looks forward to 
xiii. 5. Verse 24 is a characteristic 
opening of a summary, though more 
vague than common. Cf. vi. 7, xix. 
20, and Additional Note 31. 

But three questions may be quite 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



141 



Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem in completion of 
their mission, taking with them John surnamed Mark. 

And there were in Antioch in the local church prophets and 
teachers both Barnabas and Simeon called Niger, and Lucius 
the Cyrenian, and Manaen a companion of Herod the tetrarch, 



legitimately asked, though they can 
not be answered. 

(i.) How far is it the composition 
of the editor, and how far is it derived 
from a .source ? 

(ii.) Is xiii. 1-3 part of an Antioch ian 
source ? Harnack has been inclined 
to think that not only it, but also xi. 
19-30, and even chapters vi.-vii., are 
derived from an Antiochian source. 
But the feeling has grown on me not 
only that vi.-vii. are probably the 
Jerusalem tradition (or traditions) of 
the death of Stephen, but that even 
xi. 19-30 may be the Jerusalem tradi 
tion of the founding of the Antiochian 
church. In it Barnabas is a repre 
sentative of Jerusalem, and he fetches 
Paul from Tarsus as his assistant. 

(iii.) If I am right, did the 
original Antiochian source maintain 
that Barnabas, etc., were prophets, 
working in the power of the Spirit, 
not emissaries of Jerusalem, and 
was xiii. 1 -3 based on it ? If we 
had some of the letters of Barnabas, 
would they reveal the same independ 
ence of Jerusalem as the Pauline 
Epistles ? It is noteworthy that in 
Gal. ii. 11 f. Barnabas is not a 
representative of Jerusalem, but is an 
Antiochian teacher who is momentarily 
carried away by the emissaries of 
James. The proportion suggested is 
that the real Barnabas is to the 
Barnabas of Acts as the real Paul is 
to the Paul of Acts. 

25. to Jerusalem] It cannot be 
doubted that et s lepovcraAi^u is the 
most probable reading judged by the 
rules of textual criticism (see Vol. III. 
p. 114). It has the Neutral text and 
transcriptional evidence in its favour. 
But it is hard if not impossible to 
explain. The natural feeling of any 
one who reads xi. 27 to xiii. 1 is that 
xi. 30 gives the arrival of Paul and 
Barnabas at Jerusalem and xii. 25 
ought to give their departure. Thus 
the tendency of scribes would be to 



change the reading eis 
to d,7rd Iepov&lt;ra\r)/u.. The question is 
whether they were not right in regard 
ing et s lepova-aXrj/j. as a corruption. 
The possible explanations are (i.) Dr. 
Hort s (Westcott and Hort, ii., Ap 
pendix p. 94), which inverted the order 
and read TT)V els Iepovcra\r][j, dLaKoviav 
TrX-rjpuaavTes; (ii.) Dr. Bartlet s, which 
regards s lepovo-aXrjfj. as a gloss (Cen 
tury Bible, Commentary on Acts) ; (iii.) 
that suggested in The Earlier Epistles, 
pp. 317 ff., to the effect that xii. 25 
repeats the substance of xi. 30 in order 
to indicate that the famine was 
after Herod s death. Perhaps the com 
ment of Ephrem might be taken to 
support Dr. Hort s emendation (see 
Vol. III. p. 416). It is also perhaps 
just possible that Tr\-r)pu(ravTes is used 
to express purpose (see note on xxv. 
13). The translation given attempts 
to be as ambiguous as the Greek. 

Mark] Ephrem has the remarkable 
addition "and Luke the Cyrenian." 
His comment is, " And these were 
both evangelists, and wrote before 
the discipleship of Paul," which may 
mean " before Paul s conversion," or 
" before they became disciples of 
Paul." 

1. local] See note on v. 17. 

church] See note on ix. 31. 

Lucius, etc.] For the text of this 
verse see Addit. Note 37. 

Manaen] See note on Barnabas in 
iv. 36. The copula with Manaen is re 
instead of /ecu, as though Manaen and 
Saul went together in one class, as 
against Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius. 
Ramsay (PTRC. p. 65) suggests that 
the three were prophets and the two 
were teachers. It may be doubted 
whether an enclitic can quite bear the 
strain of this interpretation; moreover, 
surely Paul was quite as much a 
prophet as Barnabas. It seems more 
likely that Luke for variety sometimes 
continues lists with re . . . xal instead 
of the simple KCLL repeated between 



142 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



and Saul. And when they were engaged in service to the Lord 2 
and fasting the Holy Spirit said to them, " Come, separate to me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 
Then after fasting and prayer and laying their hands on them, 3 
they sent them off. 



So then they, having been sent out by the Holy Spirit, 4 
reached Seleucia, and thence they sailed away to Cyprus. And 5 



each term (or between every other 
term). Thus re KaL occurs three times 
in the list of Acts ii. 9 f . 

The Western text in D seems to 
mean " Manaen the son of Herod and 
companion of the tetrarch," which 
would mean Herod the Great by 
Herod, and Antipas by the tetrarch. 

companion] The title avvrpofyos is 
frequent and formal. It is a title of 
honour given at court to certain 
youths of the same age as a prince, 
and retained by adults. See Deiss- 
rnann, Bible Studies, pp. 310 ff., for 
examples from several kingdoms. 

2. engaged in service] It would 
be excessive to see in this word 
(XtLTovpyovvTwv} a clear instance of its 
later use in connexion with sacra 
ments. But it is to be remembered 
that by this time at least ten years 
had passed since the first preaching 
by the Stephen refugees. Probably 
the worship of the church was far 
more like that pictured in 1 Corinthians 
than a synagogue service, possibly 
including the Eucharist as a sacra 
ment, though I doubt if this was so 
in the James circle of Christians in 
Jerusalem. The connexion of Xetroup- 
yovvrwv with vrjffTev6vT(jji&gt; suggests that 
the service thought of was especially 
prayer, but the meaning of \eiTovpyovv- 
TUV cannot be narrowed to this, or even 
to worship, in view of Did. xv. 1 where 
it is said that bishops and deacons 
\eiTOvpyoucri /cat auroi rr]v Xecrovpyiav 
TUJV Trpo4&gt;rjTQiv /cat StSacr/cdXwi . 

Come] It is very difficult to render 
the Greek 5?? except by some such 
periphrasis. 8r) may have been con 
nected with -fjd rj but in Hellenistic 
Greek it had mainly an intensive force. 
Cf. Luke ii. 15 and Acts xv. 36. 

3. fasting and prayer] The com 



bination is a common one in Judaism. 
In the New Testament it appears in 
Luke s writings, e.g. Luke ii. 37, v. 
33; Acts xiv. 23. Compare ix. 11 
with 9 and 19 and with x. 9 f. Later 
scribes have supplied the combina 
tion at Acts i. 14, x. 30 ; Matt. xvii. 
21 ; Mark ix. 29. (See also Cadbury, 
Making of Luke-Acts, p. 269.) 

laying their hands on] See Addit. 
Note 11. 

xiii. 4-xiv. 28. THE FIRST MISSION 
ARY JOURNEY. There is no difficulty 
in understanding the meaning of the 
writer. He describes a journey made 
by Barnabas and Paul from Antioch 
to Cyprus, Perga in Pamphylia, 
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra 
and Derbe, returning through the 
same places, except Cyprus, to Antioch. 
This journey comes between Paul s 
second visit to Jerusalem (xi. 30 and 
xii. 25) and his third (xv. 1 ff.). But 
if the theory be accepted that these 
two visits are really one and the same 
(see Addit. Note 16), obviously the 
journey was either before or after the 
single visit. Assuming that it was 
after the visit, Schwartz thinks that 
xiii., xiv. and xvi. originally belonged 
together, and that the division of 
their narrative into two journeys is 
due to the editorial rearrangement of 
the material. It is, however, possible 
that there were really two journeys, 
and that the editorial rearrangement 
(which must in any case be postulated) 
consisted in putting xiii. -xiv. after xii. 
25 instead of making it come immedi 
ately after xi. 26. 

4. Seleucia] The port of Antioch, 
about sixteen miles west of the city 
and five miles north of the mouth of 
the Orontes. It was founded by 
Seleucus Nicator (died 280 B.C.). 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



143 



when they arrived at Salamis they announced the word of God 
in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John as an 

6 attendant. And passing through the whole island as far as 
Paphos they found a man, a magian, a Jewish false prophet, 

7 whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius 
Paulus, an intelligent man. This man summoned Barnabas and 

8 Saul and sought to hear the word of God, but Elymas, the 



Cyprus] The island was incorpor 
ated in 55 B.C. with the province of 
Cilicia. It was given by Julius 
Caesar to Arsinoe and Ptolemy, and 
later by Antony to the children of 
Cleopatra. In 27 B.C. it was taken 
back as an imperial province, but 
in 22 B.C. Augustus gave it to the 
Senate in exchange for Dalmatia and 
Gallia Narbonensis, after which it 
was governed by propraetors with 
the courtesy title of proconsul. See 
Hogarth, Devia Cypria, esp. pp. 116 
ff . ; Marquardt, Romische Staatsver- 
waltung, i. pp. 391 ff., and cf. Dio 
Cassius, xlviii. 40, liii. 12 and 13, liv. 
4. It is noteworthy that Barnabas 
(and Mark ?) was a Cypriote (iv. 36), 
and that when Barnabas and Mark 
separated from Paul it was to Cyprus 
that they went (xv. 39). For the 
Jews in Cyprus see E. Schurer, GJV. 
iii. p. 27 ; and Hastings, DB. vol. v. 
p. 97. 

5. Salamis] The chief town of 
Cyprus ; the others of any size were 
Citium and Amathus on the south 
coast, Paphos on the west, and Soli 
on the north. 

John] John Mark. Cf. xii. 12. 

attendant] Cf. Luke i. 2 and iv. 
20. The former passage is of par 
ticular interest since in it this author 
refers to the vir-qperai. TOU \6yov from 
whom ultimately was derived the 
contents of gospels known to him, 
and since one of these is ascribed 
by tradition to John Mark. Cf. 
Expositor, Dec. 1922, p. 414 note. 

6. passing through] See note on 
ix. 32, and for the argument that 
no technical use is contemplated see 
W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church 
of Jerusalem, 1925, pp. 216 ff. 

Paphos] The official capital of 
Cyprus, not, however, the ancient city 
(Ila\cu7ra0os), famous for its temple 



of Aphrodite, but the New Paphos 
(see Strabo, p. 683). Paphos and 
Salamis are taken to represent Cyprus 
in Orac. Sibyll. iv. 128 ff . and v. 450 ff . 

a magian, a Jewish false prophet] 
Ramsay takes lovdaiov as a sub 
stantive, and draws attention to the 
triple beat, comparing xiv. 8 and xvi. 
6f. (PTRC. p. 115), to which might be 
added xxi. 39 and Luke vi. 38 7re7rte&lt;r- 
/jLevov, crffa\v/jivov, virepeKXvvojLievov. 
But surely lovdaiov is here an adjective 
qualifying ^/evooTrpo^T-rjv. In spite 
of Old Testament prohibitions the 
sorcery of the Jews was famous. (Cf . 
Pliny, N.H. xxx. 2 (11).) It played 
an important part in the religious 
fusion which the remaining magical 
papyri represent. Josephus mentions 
a Jewish sorcerer from Cyprus (Antiq. 
xx. 7. 2), and tells how other Roman 
officials, like Sergius Paulus, were 
interested in another Jewish sorcerer 
(Antiq. viii. 2. 5). On Jewish magic 
see further Schurer, OJ V. iii. 4 407 ff . 
The name of the Cyprian sorcerer is 
given in some MSS. of Josephus as 
Simon, probably to conform to Simon 
Magus, but in the better ones as 
"ATO/J.OS, which one naturally associates 
with the variant Erot/x,as of verse 8. 
On the exact meaning of fj.dyos see 
Addit. Note 14. 

Bar-Jesus] For variants in the 
spelling see Vol. III. pp. 116 f. See 
further on vs. 8. 

7. proconsul] The proper title for 
the governor of a senatorial province. 
See Vol. I. pp. 195 f. 

Sergius Paulus] See Additional 
Note 34. 

this man] i.e. Sergius Paulus, as the 
context shows, though grammatically 
it might mean Bar- Jesus. 

8. Elymas, etc.] If the text be 
correct, and if /metfepfj.r)veveTai means 
is translated, this sentence is in- 



144 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



magian, for thus is Ms name translated, withstood them, seeking 
to pervert the proconsul from the faith. But Saul, who is also 9 



explicable. The best attempt is that 
which points out an Arabic word 
which resembles Elymas (cf. H. 
Grotius, Annotations in N.T. ii. 
p. 71 of the 1756 edition, and H. 
Grimrne, Elym der Astrolog in the 
Oriental. Liter aturzeitung. , 1909, pp. 
207-211) and means wise man, and 
so might be the equivalent of /j,dyos. 
But why should a Jew in Cyprus 
at the court of a Roman consular 
governor be called by an obscure 
Arabic nickname ? Moreover, the 
meaning of the passage calls for 
something quite different. The writer 
says that the magian, Jewish false 
prophet, had the name Bar- Jesus, 
and he goes on to say that when it 
[Aedep/u-TiveveTai whatever that means 
this name was Elymas the Magian. 
The Magian is obviously common 
to both descriptions, so that the 
equation is really Bar- Jesus = Elymas. 
But it is equally obvious that Elymas 
is not a translation of Bar- Jesus, nor 
do any of the many variants in 
spelling (see Vol. III. pp. 116-119) 
give any help. F. C. Burkitt (JTS. 
iv. pp. 127 ff.) thinks that Elymas 
may be a corruption of 6 \oi/j,6s = 
the pest. 

It is, however, possible that the 
Western text originally had eroi.fj.ds 
for f\v/j.as, and that this is right. 
Accepting this, and assuming that 
troikas represents ZroifAos, Th. Zahn 
suggests that Bap-tr/o-oDs is a corrupt 
spelling of the Western reading 
teap-Lrjaouav, which he thinks repre 
sents rrcr"i2. This he connects with 
mr, which in the Piel might mean to 
make ready, and a name based on 
it might be erot/xos (Apg. ii. pp. 417 f.). 

This seems the best suggestion yet 
made, but the combination of a 
doubtful reading with a somewhat 
strained etymology is not quite con 
vincing. If we reject it we must 
choose between two possibilities, (i.) 
There is a primitive corruption which 
renders the passage hopeless. (ii.) 
/j.ed6p/uLr)veveTa.i does not mean is 
translated, but merely that this 
Magian, whose Semitic name was 
Bar-Jesus, had in Greek circles the 



name Elymas or Etoimas. In favour 
of (i.) is the fact that the editor of 
Acts does not seem to be very secure 
in his renderings (see note on iv. 
36, the rendering of Barnabas). In 
favour of (ii.) is the fact that Jews 
then as now naturally adopted 
Hellenic names which sometimes 
were translations, sometimes homo 
phones (cf. Menahem and Menelaus, 
Jesus and Jason, Levi and Lewis, 
Moses and Maxwell), sometimes were 
without any relation to each other 
(see also note on i. 23). John Mark 
is probably an illustration of the last 
class . His Semitic name was lohanan, 
his Greek or Latin name was Marcus ; 
though it is noteworthy that in 
modern times Mark or Marcus as a 
Jew s name often stands for Mordecai ; 
and other examples may be Joseph 
Barsabbas Justus (Acts i. 23) whom 
Papias seems to have called Bap&lt;ra/3as 
6 xai lovffTos (see De Boor, TU. v. 
2, 170), and perhaps "Lyvdrios 6 /ecu 
deofapos in the opening verse of each 
of the Ignatian epistles. This may 
have led to a gradual softening of 
the meaning of ^edep^veveran, which 
was really only appropriate to 
the first class, until it came to 
signify merely who in Greek was 
called. But I have not found any 
evidence which would demonstrate 
this hypothesis. 

The possibility that the name of 
the magician was eroi/xas rather than 
exacts suggests the further problem 
of the conceivable identification of 
this magician with the Cyprian 
magician whom Josephus calls "Aro^os 
(Antiq. xx. 7. 2), who acted as an 
intermediary between the Procurator 
Felix and Drusilla, the daughter of 
Agrippa I., who was at that time the 
wife of Aziz of Emesa. (See further 
J. Rendel Harris, Expositor, 1902, 
pp. 189 ff. ; Th. Zahn, Neue kirchliche 
Zeitschrift, 1904, pp. 189 ff . ; the article 
EXi)/xas in Preuschen-Bauer s lexicon, 
and Klostermann, Probleme, 1883, pp. 
21 ff.) 

from the faith] It seems more 
likely that this is the right transla 
tion, rather than from his belief! 



xm 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



145 



which would imply a more technical 
and later meaning of TriVrts. The 
Western text adds " because he 
was listening to them with great 
pleasure." 

9. who is also Paul] That is, Paul 
was the Roman name of Saul (for this 
custom of having two names see notes 
on i. 23 and xiii. 8). The use of 
6 Kai in this sense is frequent. Cf. 
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 1, and see 
Wettstein ad loc.; Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, pp. 313 ff. ; Zahn, p. 422, and 
especially E. Mayser, Grammatik der 
griechischen Papyri, ii., 1926, p. 61, 
who shows that 6 /ecu = alias, but is 
rare before the first century A.D., and 
not found before the first century 
B.C. Such an extra name is to be 
distinguished alike from the nomen, 
the cognomen, and the half -affec 
tionate shortening of the name which 
grammarians call hypocoristic. M. 
Lambertz has traced the history of 
such by-names from Egypt to Syria 
and Asia Minor until in the Christian 
era the custom penetrated the whole 
Greco-Roman world. See his com 
prehensive article "Zur Ausbreitung 
des Supernomen oder Signum im 
romischen Reiche," Olotta, iv. (1912) 
pp. 78 ff. ; v. (1913) pp. 99 ff. For its 
use by Jews see Strack, vol. ii. p. 712, 
and Juster, Les Juifs dans V Empire 
Romain, ii. p. 229, with the literature 
cited. The word signum is applied to 
such names on inscriptions beginning 
shortly before the third century A.D. 
(Diehl, Rheinisches Museum, Ixii. 
(1907), pp. 390 ff.). It is possible, 
therefore, that in Paul s case the name 
IlaOXos has nothing to do with his 
Roman citizenship or with the familiar 
Latin cognomen Paul(l)us. 

As Ramsay points out (PTRC. pp. 
81 ff.), it is very unlikely that this 
name is mentioned here for the first 
time merely by accident. Three 
reasons may be suggested. 

(i.) This begins a Paul source. 

(ii.) It marks the coincidence of 
name with the proconsul, almost as 
though 6 /ecu ITaOXos meant Saul, who 
was another Paulus. 

(iii.) For the first time the writer 
was dealing with strictly Gentile 
surr oundrngs . 

Naturally these do not exclude 
each other. All three may be true ; 
but the first may be the decisive 
VOL. IV 



factor, for it is quite probable that a 
new source begins with the description 
of this missionary journey, especially 
since up till now Barnabas has always 
seemed to take precedence of Saul, 
whereas now Paul takes precedence 
of Barnabas. The identity of names 
with the proconsul is also obviously 
curious and striking, though it is not 
sufficient to explain the facts by itself, 
for the use of Paul continues through 
out the rest of Acts. The force of the 
third point is somewhat weakened by 
the fact that when Paul returns to 
Jewish circles in chaps, xv. (the council 
of Jerusalem) and xxi. (the last visit 
to Jerusalem) the narrative does not 
revert to the use of Saul except in 
the vocatives xxii. 7, 13, xxvi. 14. 
But to the writer the apostle was 
Paul rather than Saul, and perhaps 
the noteworthy point is that he used 
Saul before this passage, rather than 
that he did not do so afterwards. For 
Luke s interest in names see Cadbury, 
Making of Luke- Acts, pp. 225 ff . 

Among the many attempts of 
ancients and moderns to explain the 
name the following are the most 
noteworthy : 

(i.) Origen is the first writer to 
discuss this question, and, as so often, 
is also the most intelligent. In the 
preface to his commentary on Romans, 
only extant in the translation of 
Rufinus (Migne, PG. xiv. 836), he says : 
" Prima nobis quaestio de nomine 
ipsius Pauli. . . . Invenimus in scrip - 
turis divinis quibusdam veterum com- 
mutata vocabula . . . Sed haec ex 
praecepto Dei legimus facta, nusquam 
vero erga Paulum invenimus tale 
aliquid gestum. De qua re quibusdam 
visum est quod Pauli proconsulis, 
quern apud Cyprum Christi fidei sub- 
jecerat, vocabulum sibi Apostolus 
sumpserit." He then goes on to say 
that while not wholly rejecting this 
view, which had the analogy of Roman 
custom, by which generals took as a 
title the name of a conquered nation, 
he preferred to rely on the fact that 
differences in the names of the apostles 
showed that it was a Hebrew custom 
to have more than one name. He 
concluded that the apostle always had 
the double name Paul-Saul, and he 
ends by saying, " Nam et hoc ipsum 
quod Scriptura dicit, Saulus autem 
qui et Paulus evidenter non ci tune 

L 



146 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



Paul, filled with Holy Spirit, gazed at him and said, " full of 10 
all deceit and all wickedness, son of the devil, enemy of all 
righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight paths of 
the Lord ? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you 1 1 
and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a while." And 
immediately cloud and darkness fell on him, and he sought some 
to lead him as he groped. Then when the proconsul saw what 12 



primum Pauli nomen ostendit imposi- 
tum, sed veteris appellationis id fuisse 
designat." 

(ii.) Jerome, De vir. ill. v., reviews 
the judgement of Origen, and accepts 
the view that Saul took the name 
Paul from the proconsul. This view 
has also been proposed by scholars 
thoroughly conversant with the 6 KCU 
= alias idiom, viz. H. Dessau, Der 
Name des Apostels Paulus, Hermes, 
xlv., 1910, pp. 347-368, followed by 
E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfdnge des 
Christentums, iii., 1923, p. 197. 

(iii.) Chrysostom thinks that the 
name was given to Saul at his " ordina 
tion (by the church at Antioch) just 
as in Peter s case" (Horn, xxviii.). 

(iv.) Augustine, using the meaning 
of the name, thinks that it is a reference 
to Paul s modesty, " I am the least of 
the apostles" (Augustine, De spirit, et 
litt. xii., Serm. cclxxix. 5, cccxv. 5). 

(v.) Among modern writers, Otto, 
Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wiss. und kirchl. 
Leben, 1882, pp. 235 E., suggested 
that it is a Hebrew name derived 
from the root SND, meaning chosen. 

gazed at] areviaas (cf. iii. 4) means 
rather more than looked at. In 
some cases at least it is connected with 
the Jewish belief in the power of the 
eye, especially of Rabbis, for good or 
evil. This belief, represented down to 
the present by the superstition of the 
evil eye, was widespread. According 
to one Rabbi ninety -nine out of one 
hundred deaths are caused by the evil 
eye. It is not impossible that the 
meaning of this passage is that Paul 
was suddenly inspired to use this 
power of the eye against Elymas (see 
Strack, ii. pp. 713 ff.). 

10. son of the devil] It is possible 
that this is chosen in antithesis to the 
etymological meaning of Bar-Jesus, 



but the situation sufficiently explains 
the language. 

perverting, etc.] Probably with a 
reminiscence of Prov. x. 9 and Hosea 
xiv. 9. The punishment of blindness 
may be taken from Deut. xxviii. 28 f ., 
" The Lord shall smite thee . . . with 
blindness . . . and thou shalt grope 
at noon-day." Note in this passage 
the emphatic repetition iravrcs , . . 



11. for a while] Cf. Luke iv. 13 
(the story of the temptation) 6 5td/3oXos 
a,TrffTT) CLTT cLVTov &X.P 1 - fcupoC. Chryso- 
stom deduces that Paul was anxious 
to convert Elymas and therefore in 
flicted on him the blindness which had 
accompanied his own conversion 
(Horn, xxviii.). 

cloud] dx\i7s is used by medical 
writers of an inflammation which 
brings a cloudy appearance into the 
eye. d%Xi&gt;s dt &lt;TTL Trepi 6 Xoy rb iJ.e\av 
O.TTO eX/cuxrews irnro\aiov (Galen, Medi- 
cus 16, xiv. 774 Kiihn, and see also 
Hobart, pp. 44 f.). But this implies 
a different kind of blindness, and if 
d%Xus be a medical term the writer is 
using it wrongly. Moreover it is 
used in connexion with blindness by 
Josephus (Antiq. ix. 4. 3, 56 f.; 
and other writers. No doubt it is 
used also of mental blindness, but 
here with CT/COTOS and xeipcfyaryous it is 
probably literal. 

to lead him] x eL P a yuyovs. Cf. %etp- 
ayuyovvres in ix. 8. 

groped] This is too strong for 
Trepi-dyuv, but it is strangely hard to 
find a rendering which is not too strong 
as this is or banal, as moved 
around would be. 

12. Then] rare as a rule is character 
istic of the Western text (see on 
x. 47), but here the Western reviser 
drops it and reads i3u&gt;j&gt; df. 



xm 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



147 



had happened he believed, in astonishment, on the teaching of 
the Lord. 

I3 Having started from Paphos, Paul and his party came 
to Perga of Pamphylia, but John departed from them and 



believed] Critics doubt with good 
reason whether Sergius Paulus was 
really converted. It is significant that 
there is no mention of his baptism. 
But it is hard not to believe that cer 
tainly the writer of Acts and probably 
Paul and Barnabas thought so. They 
may have mistaken courtesy for con 
version. 

astonishment] Blass may be right 
in connecting e/cTrX^Tro/x.ei os with the 
miracle. It is not believed, being 
astonished at the teaching, but 
believed, in astonishment, on the 
teaching, etc. In view of modern 
tendencies to regard Christianity as a 
wholly ethical movement, it is well to 
emphasize how much stress Luke puts 
on the miraculous power of the apostles; 
nor is this Lucan, it is early Christian. 
But on the other hand the combina 
tion of eKTrXrjffffeffdai. and tVt dioaxi) nas 
good support in parallels. It should 
be noted that (i.) it is thus combined 
in Luke iv. 32 = Mark i. 22 = Matt, 
vii. 28. Cf. Mark vi. 2 = Matt. xiii. 
54. Mark xi. 18 and Matt. xxii. 33 
also have explicitly ^e-w\r)ffaovTo tiri 
rrf Sidaxi) O.VTOV. Cf. Luke ii. 48. 
(ii.) StSax?? is in one sense inclusive of 
the miraculous element (e^ovata). It 
was this power in teaching which 
distinguished Jesus from the scribes 
(Mark i. 22 and 27) and Paul from 
Bar-Jesus. And for Sergius Paulus 
seeing, not hearing, was believing. 

13. Paul and his party] oi -rrepl 
TOV liaOXoi is noteworthy in contrast 
to the usual Paul and Barnabas or 
4 Barnabas and Paul. Since the 
author is about to mention Mark again, 
he prefers a more inclusive phrase, 
which shows that he regards Paul 
as the head of the party. Neither the 
occasional order Barnabas and Paul 
nor then- identification as gods by 
the Lycaonians (xiv. 12) really imply 
that the author himself ever thought 
of Paul as second in importance. 

Perga] Perga is about eight miles 
up the Cestrus, and some distance 
(about five miles) from the river (see 



Strabo, p. 667). The river is at 
present unnavigable by any boat that 
could sail from Cyprus. Possibly the 
river was then in better condition, or 
possibly they landed at the mouth of 
the river, but I think the most natural 
hypothesis is that they landed at 
Attalia (xiv. 25), the main harbour of 
the district, and then went on by road. 
Obviously the problem is as unim 
portant as it is insoluble. At Perga, 
or rather on a hill near it, was the 
Temple of the Artemis of Perga with 
an annual feast. 

Pamphylia] A small poor region 
between the Taurus mountains and 
the sea. In 103 B.C. it was put into 
the province of Cilicia, and was after 
wards given to Polemon, king of 
Lycaonia, but in 36 B.C., when Polemon 
was moved to Pontus, Pamphylia was 
given to Amyntas, king of Galatia 
(Strabo, p. 571, and Dio Cassius, xlix. 
32). At the death of Amyntas in 25 
B.C. Pamphylia was not included in 
the province of Galatia, but remained 
independent (Dio Cassius, liii. 26) 
until A.D. 43, when Pamphylia and 
Lycia were formed into a separate 
Imperial province (Dio Cassius, Ix. 
17). A little later, at a date which is 
not known, probably under Nero or 
Galba, Pamphylia was detached from 
Lycia and again given to Galatia, and 
after this was once more united to 
Lycia. (See Ramsay, Pauline and 
other Studies, p. 265.) 

departed] The reason for Mark s 
departure is not given, but Paul 
obviously was dissatisfied with it, and 
refused to travel with Mark when 
Barnabas wished to take him on their 
next journey (xv. 38). Perhaps Col. 
iv. 10 indicates that the dissatisfaction 
was not permanent. It is quite pos 
sible that the original plan did not 
contemplate anything more than 
Cyprus and that Mark did not feel 
it his duty to continue with the new 
enterprise. Although it is not so 
stated here (as in xvi. 6-10), the plans 
for travel were doubtless tentative 



148 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



returned to Jerusalem. And they passed on from Perga and 14 
arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and came into the synagogue on the 
Sabbath day and sat down. And after the reading of the 15 
Law and Prophets the archisynagogues sent to them, saying, 



and subject to change. Barnabas as 
a Cypriote (iv. 36) would perhaps feel 
most interest in Cyprus, and Mark, 
if his relative, would have the same 
feeling. Perhaps this is a reason for 
the fact that on the first missionary 
tour of the island Barnabas is named 
before Paul, and that after their 
separation Barnabas and Mark chose 
to go there again. (See note on 
verse 4.) 

14. passed on] They thus entered 
a new province, Galatia. Assuming 
that the Galatians addressed in Paul s 
epistle are Galatians in the sense of 
provincials, it is legitimate to think 
that they were the inhabitants of 
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and 
Derbe (but see Additional Note 18), and 
to connect Paul s arrival in Galatia 
with Gal. iv. 13, " You know that 
because of physical sickness (drrdtvaav 
TTJS trap/cus) I preached to you the first 
time." If so, it is tolerably clear that 
Paul was ill when or after he landed 
in Pisidia, and that he therefore 
went on to Antioch. The generally 
malarious nature of the coast and 
the far more healthy climate of 
Antioch (3GOO feet above the sea) 
render very probable Ramsay s guess 
that Paul had fever in Perga (see 
Ramsay, PTRC. pp. 92 ff.). 

Pisidian Antioch] Probably not 
Antioch of Pisidia, as the Western 
text reads. Antioch was not in but 
near to Pisidia. Strabo therefore on 
p. 569 calls it i] vrpos rrj llicndig., and 
on p. 577 T] irpbs lliffidiq. KaXovfJ-evrj. 
It had been built by Seleucus 
Nicator, and been made a colonia 
by Augustus. It was a Phrygian city 
which had been given to Amyntas, 
who was then king of Pisidia and of 
Pisidian Phrygia, in 39 B.C. At his 
death it naturally passed into the 
province of Galatia. The province 
of Pisidia was not founded until 
A.D. 295, and until then Pisidian 
Antioch belonged to Galatia (see esp. 
W. M. Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 
pp. 262 ff.). 



Sabbath] Ramsay thinks that this 
Sabbath was not necessarily the first 
after their arrival. But the natural 
meaning of the Greek is surely that 
Paul was asked to preach on the first 
Sabbath that he was in Antioch, and 
it is certainly more probable that the 
invitation was given before there had 
been any opportunity of hearing him. 
However much the populace may 
have been impressed, the leading 
Jews must have soon known that 
Paul s teaching was unorthodox. 

15. reading] Though the present 
lections were fixed later, the general 
outline of the synagogal service in 
the first century is known. It con 
tained (a) the recitation of the Shema 
(Hear, Israel, the Lord our God 
is One, etc.), (6) prayer by the leader, 
(c) lections from the Law and the 
Prophets with a translation into the 
local language, (d) a sermon, and (e) a 
blessing. The sermon was given by 
any suitable member of the con 
gregation. Cf. Philo (De spec. leg. 
ii. 6, 62, p. 282 M.) dvaards de 
TLS rCjv e/j.Trei.pOTa.Tu&gt;i&gt; vty-qyelTcu. rd 
dpiara Kal ffwoiaovra, and Luke 
iv. 16. 

archisynagogues] The word dp%i- 
awdyuyos is well attested by inscrip 
tions for both Gentile and Jewish 
assemblies (see Ziebarth, Das griechi- 
sche Vereinswesen, p. 55 ; Juster, Les 
Juifs dans r Empire Romain, i. ). In the 
New Testament the only occurrences 
in the plural are this passage (which 
implies that several held office for a 
single synagogue at one time) and 
Mark v. 22, where Jairus is intro 
duced as efs T&V dpx.Lffvvayuyb)v. Luke 
viii. 41, in copying Mark v. 22, sub 
stitutes apxwv TTJS (rvvayioyfjs. The 
reading of Codex Bezae and others 
at Acts xiv. 2 is oi 8 apxivvvdyuyoi 
rQiv lovdaiwv Kal ol dpxovres [TTJS 
o-waywyrjs]. Inscriptions also show 
that appointment was sometimes for 
life (5td ptov) and was held by suc 
cessive generations (cf. the Theodotus 
referred to in the note on vi. 9). That 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



149 



" Brethren, if there is with you any word of exhortation to the 

1 6 people, say it." And Paul arose and motioned with his hand and 

17 said, " Men of Israel and those who revere God, listen. The God 
of this people of Israel chose our fathers and exalted the people 
in their sojourning in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm he 

1 8 led them out of it, and when for forty years he had endured 

19 their behaviour in the wilderness, destroying seven nations in 



the title was sometimes honorary is 
shown by the fact that it was applied 
to women and children ; in the present 
passage it seems to be official (cf. 
Luke xiii. 14). Possibly here as else 
where Luke implies a multiplicity 
of officers where we should expect 
to hear of a single one (see notes 
on high priest, iv. 6 ; Asiarchs, Addit. 
Note 22 ; proconsuls, xix. 38). Two 
dpxLffvvdywyoi. are named at Corinth 
(xviii. 8, 17), but they may not have 
officiated in the same synagogue or at 
the same time. See Deissmann, Light 
from the Ancient East (Eng. trans. 
1927, pp. 440 ff.); Schiirer, GJV. 
vol. ii. 4 pp. 509-512; Lake, Earlier 
Epistles of St. Paul, 1911, p. 104 note ; 
Juster, Les Juifs dans VEmpire 
Romain, vol. i. pp. 450 ff. 

16. revere God] See Addit. Note 8. 

17. Israel] The repetition of Israel 
may indicate that the speech is 
directed principally to the heathen 
listeners, but there is nothing else in 
it to justify this view. Possibly the 
perception of this difficulty produced 
the reading of B the people of 
Israel (see note in Vol. III. p. 120). 
The omission of Israel, as Ropes 
suggests, has much in its favour. 

sojourning] Trapoiida originally 
means a place where one is irdpoiKos, 
a sojourner, as distinct from a settled 
resident or citizen. For the further 
development of the word in ecclesias 
tical language to mean diocese and 
* parish see the note of Valesius on 
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 1, and cf. 
Harnack, Acts, p. 56 note. The differ 
ence between TTCI/XHKOS and /J,TOLKOS 
illustrates the difference between 
Athenian and Imperial psychology. 

high arm] Forcibly. Cf. Deut. iv. 
34, etc. 

18. and when, etc.] tls does not 



qualify TecrcrapaKovTaeTr), unless KCU be 
read before KadeX&v. See note in Vol. 
III. p. 121. But Luke has a tendency 
to insert uxrei or cos even when his source 
has no such qualification (cf. Mark v. 
42 = Luke viii. 42), and the same idiom 
is used in vs. 20. 

endured their behaviour] ^rpo-rro- 
(j)6pr](Tev, from Deut. i. 31, where there 
is also the same variant erpo^oipop-rjcrei 
as here. The Hebrew means to 
4 carry rather than to endure, and, 
as Ropes notes (Vol. III. p. 120), 
erpo(f)0(p6 prjvev, nourished, seems to 
give a better meaning. But what is 
the evidence that the word really 
existed in Greek ? The only passage 
quoted is 2 Mace. vii. 27, and as 
there is no allusion to Tpo&lt;prj in the 
context the soundness of the spelling 
is doubtful (see Blass note ad loc. 
and Field s Hexapla on Deut. i. 31). 
rpoTro(f)opelv, however, seems to be 
authenticated by its use in Cicero, Ad 
Attic, xiii. 29, and the Schol. on Ari- 
stophan. Frogs 1432. On the other 
hand it is probable that if a verb 
was formed from the stem rpo0- with 
(popeu, euphony would modify the first 
into a TT (cf. dvw, aorist Mid-rjv}. 
Moreover, there was a certain tendency 
in Greek to use sonorous compounds 
with the same sense as a simple form 
(cf. epideia for epis and TrXfjpotpop^ for 
ir\r)p6w), so that though erpoirocpoprjirev 
is undoubtedly the right spelling, it is 
much less certain that endured is the 
right rendering. 

19. seven nations] Deut. vii. 1, 
"The Hittites, and the Girgashites, 
and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, 
and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, 
and the Jebusites, seven nations 

freater and mightier than thou." (Cf. 
os. iii. 10, xxiv. 11, but Deut. xx. 
17 omits the Girgashites.) 



150 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



the land of Canaan, he gave them possession of their land for 20 
about four hundred and fifty yeaxs. And after this he gave them 

11, 14; xiii. 1 ; xv. 20; 1 Sam. iv. 
18). But it is to be noted that 
this applies only to the Hebrew 
text. The LXX, which agrees with 
the Hebrew throughout the list of 
dates in Judges, gives Eli only 20 
years instead of 40 in 1 Sam. iv. 18. 
Thus, if it be true that this method 
of reckoning was followed by the 
maker of the Western text it implies 
that he used the Hebrew text, not 
the LXX. This is not usually true 
of Luke, who in case of variation is 
always on the side of the LXX. The 
fact may prove important for our ulti 
mate judgement as to the character 
and provenance of the Western text. 

There is, however, no trace that 
this way of calculating was ever used 
by the Jews. Josephus is quite in 
consistent with himself. In Antiq. viii. 
3. 1 he reckons the period from the 
Exodus to the Building of the Temple 
as 592 years, but in Antiq. xx. 10 as 
572, and in Antiq. xi. 4. 8 he reckons 
the period of the Judges as more than 
500 years. Moreover, in calculating 
this he reckons Saul s reign as 20 
years in Antiq. x. 8. 4, but as 40 
years in Antiq. vi. 14. 9. 

The official Rabbinical reckoning 
is given in Seder Olam R. 15 as 383 
years for the period of the Judges, 
and 440^ years from the Entry into 
Canaan to the Building of the Temple. 
This is based on the statement in 
1 Kings vi. 1 that Solomon began to 
build the Temple 480 years after the 
Exodus ("And it came to pass in 
the four hundred and eightieth year 
after the children of Israel were come 
out of the land of Egypt." Once 
more it is to be noted that this does 
not hold good if the LXX be followed, 
for it reads "in the four hundred and 
fortieth year "). The Rabbis reckoned 
40 years in the Wilderness, 302 years 
to Jephthah s death, 81 years from 
Jephthah to Eli s death, 10 years 
to the anointing of Saul, 3 years 
for Saul s reign, 40 years for David s 
reign, and 4 years of Solomon s reign 
before the Temple was begun (see 
Strack, ii. pp. 724 ff.). The best 
explanation of how the redactor of 
1 Kings reached his result is prob- 



possession] /caTa/cA^popo^etV is a 
LXX word which seems to have 
lost the sense of inheritance in 
favour of that which inheritance 
gives possession . 

20. four hundred and fifty] The 
B-text makes this period cover the 
time from the promise to Abraham 
to the occupation of the land. The 
period from the Promise to the Exodus 
is reckoned, as in vii. 6, in accordance 
with Gen. xv. 13 ("And he said unto 
Abram, Know of a surety that thy 
seed shall be a stranger in a land that 
is not theirs and shall serve them ; and 
they shall afflict them four hundred 
years "), rather than with Exod. xii. 40 
("Now the sojourning of the children 
of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 
four hundred and thirty years") as 
400 years, to which is added 40 years 
for the wandering in the desert, and 
about 10 years for the occupation 
of the land. (It is noteworthy that 
to modern eyes it would seem that 
both Genesis xv. 13 and Exod. xii. 40 
refer to the period of the Oppression 
in Egypt, but Rabbinical opinion 
apparently did not take this view, 
and reckoned the sojourning of 
Israel as covering the whole period 
from Abraham to the Exodus. The 
Rabbinical explanation of the differ 
ence between Exodus and Genesis is 
that Genesis reckons from the birth 
of Isaac, and Exodus from the first 
promise to Abraham. See Strack, ii. 
p. 668.) 

The Western and Antiochian texts 
and the majority of the modern 
editors think that 450 ought to refer 
to the period of the judges. There 
fore the Western text reads "and 
after destroying seven nations in 
the land of Canaan, he gave them 
for their inheritance the land of the 
aliens, and for about four hundred 
and fifty years he gave judges," etc. 
This seems to represent a mechanical 
addition of all the notes of time 
in the Judges, without considering 
synchronisms, which makes 410 years, 
to which the addition of the 40 
years of Eli makes 450 (Judges iii. 
8, 11, 14, 30; iv. 3; v. 31 ; vi. 1; 
viii. 28 ; ix. 22 ; x. 2, 3, 8 ; xii. 7, 9, 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



151 



21 judges until Samuel the prophet, and after that they asked for 
a king and God gave them Saul, son of Kish, a man of the tribe 

22 of Benjamin, for forty years. And he removed him and raised 



ably that of Noldeke as emended 
by G. F. Moore, who suggests the 
redactor adopts the eastern custom 
of not counting periods of oppression, 
and also omits the reigns of Saul 
and Abimelech as illegitimate. This 
theory gives 40 years to Joshua 
and 40 to Samuel, but only 20 to 
Eli, following the LXX rather than 
the Massoretic text. (See Noldeke, 
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A. T., 
1869, pp. 173 ff., and G. F. Moore, 
Judges in International Critical Com 
mentary, pp. xli f.) 

This is another case in which 
textual and exegetical problems go 
together. If we knew the solution 
of either we could solve the other. 
Both texts are plain, and each gives 
a plausible meaning. It is in any 
case a curious coincidence that so 
reasonable an explanation of the 
number 450 can be given with either 
text. On the whole I think the 
B-text and the interpretation based 
on it is the more probable, because 
the Western text seems to have 
disregarded the plain statement of 
1 Kings vi. 1, whether the Hebrew 
or the LXX be followed, and the 
problem resolves itself into the further 
question : which was less likely to 
disregard 1 Kings vi. 1, Luke or the 
Western reviser ? Personally I think 
Luke ; but I am not very sure about 
it. Moreover, the Western text as 
shown above implies the use of the 
Hebrew text, which Luke is less likely 
to have followed. 

It is interesting, and important for 
the history of the text, to note that 
Chrysostom s text, as printed, gives 
the Antiochian reading (Horn, xxix.), 
but his comment implies the B-text. 
He says :"... He divided the land 
to them by lot, and the time was 
long, four hundred and fifty years. " 
Obviously the four hundred and 
fifty years goes, as in the B-text, 
with the occupation of the land. 
But the lemma clearly follows the 
Antiochian reading. There is much 
reason for thinking that the text of 



Chrysostom in the lemmata has been 
accommodated to the later text. 
Unfortunately most statements about 
the text which he used are based on 
these lemmata, not on the comment, 
which sometimes as here reveals 
the truth, though often it cannot do 
so. 

Samuel] As in the early chapters 
of 1 Samuel he is the connecting link 
between Judges and Prophets and 
can be reckoned with either. Cf. 
iii. 24. 

21. Benjamin] Is it possible that the 
writer emphasizes this point because 
the Saul who is speaking was also a 
Benjamite (Rom. xi. 1 ; Philipp. iii. 
5) ? There were various grounds for 
pride assigned to this tribe. See 
Strack, Kommentar, iii. pp. 286 ff., 
622. For the whole custom of patro 
nymics and tribal designations com 
pare Luke ii. 36. 

forty years] This is not stated in 
the O.T., but it is found in Josephus, 
Antiq. vi. 14. 9, 378, where it is 
said that Saul reigned 18 years during 
the life of Samuel, and 22 years after 
his death. But in Antiq. x. 8. 4, 
143, Saul is given only 20 years. 
Rabbinical reckoning in Seder Olam 
R. 13 gives him only 3 years and a 
third. It is possibly not an accident 
that this 40 years is combined with the 
450, for 490 (450 + 40) was a favourite 
number with the Jews and with 
Christians. Cf. the apocalyptic 70 
weeks of years (7 x 70), and the 
generations in Matthew, which prob 
ably represent 3 periods of 490 
years (14 x 35, 35 being traditionally 
a generation). See G. F. Moore, 
Harvard Theological Review, xiv., 1921, 
pp. 97 ff. 

22. removed] /xeracrrTjcra?, with re 
ference either to the rejection of 
Saul (1 Sam. xv. 23) or to Saul s 
death. The former view is perhaps 
more probable in view of Luke xvi. 4. 
It might indeed be rendered deposed, 
but it is better to keep the more am 
biguous verb removed. Josephus 
uses j-ediaTfju in both senses. 



152 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



up David for them as king, in testimony to whom he said, 
Ps.ixxxix.2i I found in David the son of Jesse a man after my own heart, 

who will do all my wishes. His is the seed from which according 23 
to his promise God did bring for Israel a saviour, Jesus, when 24 
John had preached beforehand before his coming a baptism of 
repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing 25 
his course he said, As for what you suspect that I am, no ! I 



I found, etc.] Combining Ps. 
Ixxxix. 20 (LXX, Ixxxviii. 21) &poi&gt; 
ActuetS rbv oov\bv yu.oi&gt;, ev eXeet ayiip 
?XP&lt;- ffa O-VTOV, 1 Sam. xiii. 14 Kal 
^r/TYjaei Kvpios eauro; avdpwrrov /card rrjv 
Kapdiav avrov, and Is. xliv. 28 6 \4yuv 
Ktfpy (ppovf.1v, Kal TrdvTa ra deXru^ard 
fjiov iroL7]&lt;rei. The importance of the 
first part of the combination is that 
it is also found in 1 Clem, xviii. 1 
T L 5e LTrwfj,ev ewl r$ /xe/iaprupTj/iepy 
(cf. Acts /aaprvp-rjcras) AaueiS, Trpos ov 
elirev 6 6e6s~ evpov avdpa Kara TT\V 
Kapdiav /mov Aaveld TOV TOV lecrcrcu , The 
identity of the combination and the 
use of avdpa for avdpwirov are very 
significant. (For the doubt as to 
the text of Acts see note in Vol. III. 
p. 122.) It may be one of two 
things : (a) 1 Clement is quoting Acts, 
(6) Acts and Clement both used a 
book of Testimonies. (Cf. Vol. II. 
p. 94, note 2.) The choice between 
these possibilities depends largely on 
the view taken of the whole problem 
of Testimonies/ 

In view of the suggestion ol 

Quotation of Acts xx. 35 in 1 Clem. 
. 1 (YJOLOV 8i86vTcs r/ Xa/ufidvovTes), I 
incline to think that Clement knew 
Acts. The other quotation from 
Acts sometimes ascribed to him (the 
use of iropeueffOai els TOV TOTTOV of 
the death of Peter and Paul, com 
pared with Acts i. 25) seems to me 
negligible (see The N.T. in the 
Apostolic Fathers by the Oxford Society 
of Historical Theology). 

It should be noted that the date 
of 1 Clement is by no means so 
certain as is often assumed. The 
only serious reason for dating it in 
96 is that it is thought to refer to 
the persecution of Domitian. But 
there is very little reason to believe 
in a persecution under Domitian, and 
the evidence would fit equally well 



some other period of persecution, such 
as the time of Trajan. 

23. promise] Possibly the primary 
allusion is to 2 Sam. xxii. 51 
(jieyaXvvbjv rds crwr^ptas /3acrtX^ws avrov 

Kal TTOl&V XeOS T( XP LcrTt ? 0-VTOV, T($ 

Aaveld Kal roJ cnrtp/maTi ^avrov ews 
al&vos. Cf. also Ps. cxxxii. 11 and 
17, and Acts ii. 30. 

bring] The reading tfyayev rc 
la-parjX ffurijpa Itjaovv is both the 
oldest (BXA) and the most difficult. 
The later and easier reading, de 
fended by Pallis, substitutes the more 
idiomatic -fjyeipev. Cf. verse 22 and 
the formula of Judges translated in 
the LXX at iii. 9 /cat tfyeipe K^ptos 
(TUTTJpa TO; l&lt;rpar)\ (cf. iii. 15). It is, 
however, possible that tfyayev is an 
error for an original tfyapev (cf. Acts 
v. 30), as D at xiv. 2 reads eirriyayov 

for TT7)yLpaV. 

saviour] Possibly with a reference 
to the meaning of the name Jesus 
(Jahveh is salvation). Cf. Matt. i. 21. 

24. before his coming] -n-pb-n-poauTrov 
7-77$ eiabdov is a Hebraism which Torrey 
claims as an instance of translation. 
But it may be due to the LXX 
version of the proof text about John 
from Malachi iii. 1 TOV &yye\ov . . . 
irpo Trpoffwirov /u.ov . . . 7/yU.epaf eiaodou 
avTov. 

25. was finishing] See note onii. 1. 
The meaning of the imperfect seems 
to be clear, for John had not finished 
his course at the time referred to. 
Though the words given to him do 
not quite correspond, the allusion is 
clearly to Luke iii. 15 if. 

It is noteworthy that this speech 
implies that all Paul s hearers know 
John the Baptist, and apparently also 
the existence of Jesus, but the doctrine 
about Jesus is presented as something 
new. 

what] The Western text emends ri 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



153 



am not he, but behold he is coming after me, and the shoes of 

26 his feet I am not worthy to undo. My brothers, sons of the race 
of Abraham, and those who fear God among you, to us has the 

27 word of this salvation been sent out. For those who dwelt in 
Jerusalem and their rulers did not know him, and fulfilled by 
their judgement the words of the prophets which are read every 

28 Sabbath, and though they found no capital charge they asked 

29 Pilate for him to be put to death. And when they had fulfilled 



to riven, which Blass takes as the 
equivalent of ov (see Blass ad loc.), and 
the grammarians are generally agreed 
that ri or rlva is an instance of the 
interrogative used as a relative. This 
is Hellenistic ; see Blass -Debrunner, 
298. 4, and Mayser, n. i. p. 80. 

worthy] The synoptic gospels have 
LKCLVOS. John i. 27 has dios as here, 
and Matt. iii. 11 (Q ?) agrees with this 
passage in omitting latchet of. 

26. fear God] Does this mean 
half -proselytes or those among you 
who are really pious ? The latter 
seems to give the better meaning with 
the B-text, ol ev VIMV (ftofiov^evoi TOV 
6e6i&gt;, i)fuv KT\. , but * half -proselyte 
is preferable if TJ/JLIV be read for V/MV. 
In view of the readiness with which 
v/juv and ijfjuv are interchanged in MSS. , 
and of the generally technical meaning 
of oi (f)o(3ovfJ.eitoi TOV 6ebv, yfjuv should 
probably be adopted. (See Addit. 
Note 8.) 

this salvation] Possibly again with 
reference to 2 Sam. xxii. 51, but 
the primary allusion is to aurTJpa in 
vs. 23. 

27-29. The text of these verses is 
extraordinarily corrupt. The trans 
lation given above represents the 
B-text. Unfortunately it gives a 
rather smoother rendering than the 
Greek justifies. The difficulty is that 
KpivavTas apparently refers to TOVTOV, 
and Tr\ f]pwffa.v to TO.S (pfjjvas T&V 
jrpotytjT&v. It is not absolutely im 
possible to construe, but few are likely 
to think that it is tolerable Greek. 

The reconstructed Western text 
given in Vol. III. p. 261 might be 
rendered, " For the dwellers in Jeru 
salem and her rulers, not understand 
ing the scriptures of the prophets, 
which are read on every sabbath, 



fulfilled them, and though they found 
no capital charge in him judged him 
and handed him over to Pilate for 
destruction, and as they were fulfilling 
all that was written about him, they 
begged Pilate, after he was crucified, 
for him to be taken down from the 
tree, and, gaining their request, took 
him down and put him in a tomb." 
This is much clearer and better. It 
is probably in the main a revision, 
but in several points, especially the 
position of Kpivavrfs, is perhaps more 
nearly the original than is the B-text. 
(See the Detached Note in Vol. III. 
pp. 261-263.) 

27. him] Or possibly it. TOVTOV 
may refer to Jesus or to A 670? in vs. 
26. In favour of the connexion with 
Xo7os is its nearness, but the probability 
that it is Jesus is rendered at least 
equally great by the fact that in vs. 
28 O.VTOV must refer to him. 

by their judgement] Blass suggests 
the emendation avayivwa-Koiuevas /U.TJ 
dvaKpivavTes, which is very attractive, 
but ought to have left more trace in 
early witnesses if it be right. 

28. they found no capital charge] 
The innocence of Jesus is a favourite 
subject for emphasis by this writer. 
See Cadbury, Making of Luke- Acts, 
pp. 308 ff. But what in Luke xxiii. 
4 is applied to Pilate is here referred 
to the Jews in general, just as the 
latter replace Joseph of Arimathea 
in the next verse. The desire for 
condensation of expression and gram 
matical simplicity is probably re 
sponsible for both these changes here 
and not a really different impression 
about the facts of the Passion story. 
Cf. iii. 13 where Pilate appears in 
the same light as in the Gospels. 

for him to be put to death] 



154 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



all the things that had been written about him they took him 
down from the tree and put him in a tomb, but God raised him 30 
from the dead, and he was seen for many days by those who 31 
had gone up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his 
witnesses to the People, and we bring you good news of the 32 
promise which was made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled 33 
this to our children by raising up Jesus as it is written in 



OLVTOV. Probably iva avai- 
pwffi, that they might destroy him, 
is the original text. See Vol. III. 
p. 263. 

29. tree] See notes on v. 30 and 
x. 39. 

and put him] This makes Joseph 
of Arimathaea act as a representa 
tive of the Sanhedrin. It is only 
in Matthew and John that he is 
made into a disciple, and only in 
Luke xxiii. 50 f. that he is described 
as a good and righteous man who 
had no part in the condemnation of 
Jesus. For the doubt whether he was 
a disciple, and the suggestion that 
this verse, even if only accidentally, 
is correct, see K. Lake, The Historical 
Evidence for the Resurrection, pp. 48 ff. 

tomb] Unlike the tomb of David, 
which is mentioned in ii. 29 to show 
that David was not raised from the 
dead, the tomb of Jesus is mentioned 
here and in 1 Cor. xv. 4 tTafirj is put 
in, to show the reality of the death 
and thus the miraculousness of the 
resurrection. For the same reason 
it is mentioned fully in the Gospels and 
included in the Creed. The atmosphere 
of the docetic controversy is very 
perceptible. 

31. for many days] TrXa ous used 
with no sense of comparison, cf . ii. 40. 
For the whole phrase note that a 
comparison with i. 3 (&lt;5t ^epo)^ 
TecraapaKOi Ta OTrTavd/j-evos) gives an 
example of the Lucan tendency to 
vary a phrase while repeating its 
general meaning. 

from Galilee] Is this a Lucan 
variant for in Galilee just as Mark 
xvi. 7 He goes before you into 
Galilee, there ye shall see him 
becomes in Luke xxiv. 6 Remember 
how he spoke to you while he was 
still in Galilee ? 



It is somewhat strange that Luke 
makes Paul mention appearances to 
the Galilean disciples but none to 
himself. Contrast 1 Cor. xv. 1 ff. ; 
Acts xxii. and xxvi. This and the 
other likenesses to Peter s speech 
suggest that in spite of verses 21 
(Saul) and 39, the author is not 
constantly thinking of Paul. 

now] vvv may be an addition. It 
is omitted by B, put after ei&lt;ri by K, 
before it by AC 81, and in the form 
&XP L v $ v by D vg. It is also strangely 
omitted in the ecclesiastical text. 

the People] i.e. the Jews : does 
this imply a contrast between these 
witnesses to the Jews and Paul ? 

33. to our children] ro?s TCKVOI.S 
i)fj.uj&gt;. The evidence for this reading is 
overwhelming (see Vol. III. p. 124), 
yet all the editors rightly agree that 
it is impossible and that it is a primi 
tive corruption of a text, which, 
however it is read, meant to us, 
their children. 

by raising up] It is at first sight 
plausible to interpret avaarriffas, in 
the light of iii. 26, as referring to the 
ministry, not to the Resurrection of 
Jesus. But the immediate context in 
vss. 34 ff. suggests the Resurrection. 
The crucial point is, what is the 
tirayyeXLa which was fulfilled by 
raising up Jesus ? The answer 
might be that it was in this passage 
SUKTW v/juv TO. ftaia Aaveid TO, TTIGTO., 
and since that is interpreted as mean 
ing the Resurrection, dvaarria-as must 
refer to the Resurrection. But I think 
that this quotation is part of the 
argument for the Resurrection, not a 
definition of the promise. The promise 
is that implied in vs. 23, the Davidic 
kingship as the source of salvation for 
Israel. In this case dvaa-rrjaas is not 
exactly a reference to the Resurrection, 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



155 



the first Psalm, Thou art my son, it is I who have begotten PS. a. 

34 thee to-day. And that he raised him from the dead, destined 

to return no more to corruption, he said thus, I will give is. iv. 

35 you the holy things of David which are faithful, because he 



but to the whole career of Jesus, 
including the Resurrection and the 
Glorification. (Cf. also iii. 26 f.) 

The main interest of this speech is 
that it is perhaps the earliest clear 
statement of the Messianic claims of 
Jesus as the Davidic king rather than 
as the Son of Man. In Peter s speech 
in x. 34 ff. Jesus is clearly regarded 
as the Son of Man who is to judge the 
living and the dead (see esp. x. 42). 
There is nothing about the Davidic 
Messiah, and judging the living and 
the dead was not a function of the 
Davidic Messiah in any writing of 
this period. In Peter s speech in iii. 
12 ff. there is nothing about a Davidic 
Messiah who will restore the fortunes 
of Israel, but vss. 19-20 seem to refer 
to a Son of Man eschatology, though 
they are not very clear. Peter s 
speech in ii. 14 ff. does indeed imply 
the Davidic descent of Jesus, but his 
Messianic mission seems to be to pour 
out the Spirit, so as to cleanse the 
baptized from their sins. This is 
neither the doctrine of the Davidic 
Messiah nor of the Son of Man 
eschatology. 

The importance of these facts is 
missed if emphasis be laid mainly on 
the difference between these speeches. 
The real point is twofold : (a) It is, 
in general, the earlier views about 
Jesus which are given first in Acts. 
This seems to point to an historical 
basis in the Lucan presentation, in 
spite of editorial colour, sketchiness 
of statement, and many unhistorical 
details, (b) However different these 
concepts of the Messiah may have 
been originally, and however separate 
their origin, they came together in 
Christian doctrine. They are very 
skilfully combined in Luke s writing, 
so that, though these speeches seem 
so alike, nevertheless each adds a 
new point. This is due to the fact 
that Acts partly registered, partly 
brought about, this Christian synthesis 
of originally distinct ideas. 

first Psalm] See Detached Note in 



Vol. III. pp. 263-265, where it is shown 
that Hebrew and Latin Psalters in the 
third century treated the first two 
of our Psalms as one. There is no 
evidence that Greek MSS. of the 
Psalter did not divide these two 
psalms, though Justin Martyr quotes 
them both as one. The present 
division of the Psalms elsewhere some 
times combines two separate poems or 
divides a continuous poem into two. 

it is I] The eyu seems emphatic in 
the Greek rather than the a-rj/^epov. 

who have begotten thee to-day] At 
the Resurrection ? Or at the Baptism ? 
Or at the Birth ? See note on x. 38, 
and cf. the Western text of Luke iii. 
22. The Western text continues the 
quotation : " Ask of me and I will give 
thee Gentiles (Zdvy} for thine inherit 
ance, and for thy possession the ends 
of the earth." 

34. I will give you the holy things 
of David which are faithful] ra 6 &lt;na 
TO. TTLffrd is as unintelligible in Greek 
as in English. The A.V. gives the 
phrase a meaning, but destroys the 
argument, by taking refuge in the 
Hebrew original, Is. Iv. 3, and renders 
I will give you the sure mercies of 
David. But the point of the argu 
ment turns on the Greek word otria, 
and on its unintelligibility. When 
the Rabbis found a phrase which 
could not be explained by any ordinary 
method in its own context they inter 
preted it by * analogy, that is, they 
found the same word in some other 
place where its meaning was clear, 
and interpreted the obscure passage in 
the light of the intelligible one. Here 
Stria is unintelligible; therefore the 
writer takes another passage in which 
the adjective 6 0-tos is used substanti- 
vally, Ps. xvi. 10, " Thou wilt not g ive 
thy holy one 8&lt;rtov to see corrup 
tion," and introduces it by 5i6rt, to 
show that this is the justification 
for his interpretation, and that by 
perfectly correct Rabbinical reasoning 
TO. oVict means the Resurrection. More 
over the two quotations are not only 



156 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



PS. xvi. 10. says also in another place, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One 

to see corruption. For David in his own generation, having 36 
served the will of God, fell asleep, and was added to his fathers 
and saw corruption, but he whom God raised up did not 37 
see corruption. Therefore be it known to you, my brethren, 38 
that through this man forgiveness of sins is announced to you, 



alike in using oVtoj, but both in Acts 
use the same verb (Soxrw . . . Swcrets), 
and in the first case Soxrw is Luke s 
emendation for the StaflTjcro^cu of the 
LXX. It is important to notice that 
the whole argument is based on the 
LXX, and disappears if the speech be 
not in Greek. It is also noteworthy 
that the pronoun vfuv seems to be a 
main point in the argument, as it is 
later developed (see note on vs. 36). 
For here, just as in ii. 29, the promise 
not to see corruption must be turned 
from David himself to another. The 
passage from Isaiah, as rewritten in 
Acts, says explicitly that the 6 &lt;na 
vouchsafed by God to David are to 
be given to you rather than to 
David. 

36. in his own generation, etc.] 
Another rendering is "having served 
his own generation, by the will of 
God fell asleep," which is adopted by 
B. Weiss and others, but it is scarcely 
possible to accept the A.V. " after he 
had served his generation by the will 
of God, fell asleep." The combination 
of two datives after VTreperrja-as is 
improbable and unnecessary. Of the 
two possible renderings the one given 
above seems best to suit the natural 
way of reading the Greek. The words 
are perhaps merely the fulfilment of 
VS. 22 TroiTycm TT&VTO, ra deXruJLara /JLOV. 

The general argument of vss. 36 ff. 
is that the psalm refers, according to 
Christian hypothesis, either to the 
author David or to the Messiah (cf. 
viii. 34). Verse 36 is to show that it 
refers to the Messiah by proving that 
it does not refer to David, since the 
latter belonged only to his own genera 
tion, was buried, and saw corruption, 
and his tomb remains to this day. Cf . 
ii. 29. At the risk of explaining 
obscurum per obscurius it is perhaps 
possible to bring into contrast with 
this passage the very dubious line 



from Isaiah liii., quoted in viii. 33, 
T7]v yeveav avrov TLS 5t7/7?}crerat / on 
ai percu CLTTO rrjs yrjs i) $~wr; CLVTOU. If 
these words are interpreted as a 
reference to the permanent exaltation 
of the Messiah by his survival of 
death, the question is a rhetorical 
one : he belongs to no single genera 
tion. David, on the contrary, is 
described in the present passage as 
belonging definitely to his own genera 
tion because he did not survive death. 
He was added to the generations 
before him. His life was not taken 
from the earth. "It is possible to 
speak boldly of David that he died 
and was buried " (ii. 29). 

was added to his fathers] See 
Judges ii. 10 and the phrase, common 
in the books of Kings, and he slept 
with his fathers. The use of yeved in 
the earlier part of the verse makes this 
phrase particularly suitable here, as 
it is in Judges ii. 10 /ecu ye 7rct&lt;ra 77 yevea 
^Keivr] Trpofferedir) irpos TOVS irarepas 
OLvrCov. 

38. forgiveness] Forgiveness of sins 
was the complement to salvation 
because all ills came from sin, so that 
the taking away (&lt;z0e&lt;m) of sins 
removed the cause of ills. The posi 
tion of Acts on the forgiveness of sins 
seems to be between the Jewish posi 
tion and that of the Church of the 
second century in the Empire. Jewish 
doctrine was that repentance, which 
is always in the power of the sinner, 
secures forgiveness and salvation (see 
Vol. I. pp. 71 ff.). If the Parable of 
the Prodigal Son be rightly attributed 
to Jesus, this was certainly his teach 
ing, and there is nothing in the 
synoptic gospels which points to any 
other conclusion. 

But in the Church in the second 
century the dominant doctrine was 
that man could be saved only by a 
change of nature, which was conferred 



XIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



157 



39 and from all things from which you could not be acquitted by 
the law of Moses, by him everyone who believes is acquitted. 

40 Beware, then, lest there come on you what was spoken in the 



on him sacramentally in baptism by 
the power of the Name. Whether 
Paul took this view or not is open to 
question. There are passages in the 
epistles such as Rom. vi. 3 which 
point in that direction, but his 
emphasis on Faith is difficult to har 
monize with them. (See K. Lake, 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 383 ff .) 
Later on the Church regarded Faith 
as the necessary precedent condition 
rendering possible the sacramental 
regeneration of Baptism, which 
changed the nature of the convert, so 
that he became a child of God. The 
classical evidence for this view is in 
the main in the fourth gospel; cf. 
John iii. 3 ff. and i. 12 (eov&lt;riai&gt; 
yevecrdaL reKva deov). 

Acts nowhere gives a clear exposi 
tion of its teaching on this subject. 
But in general it seems very close to 
the Johannine position. The writer 
believed that the exalted Jesus had 
given the Spirit to the Apostles, and 
they in turn could give it to others by 
the power of the Name of Jesus. In 
this way forgiveness of sins could be 
obtained by the believers. 

This much seems clear. But on two 
points there is room for considerable 
difference of opinion, (a) How far 
did this forgiveness imply the real 
change of nature which the Johannine 
doctrine suggests ? (6) How far can 
we distinguish between the efficacy of 
sacramental baptism and that of the 
Name ? With regard to (a) there 
seems no evidence ; perhaps the writer 
and his circle did not think in terms 
of nature. With regard to (6) it is 
largely a question of emphasis and 
proportion. In later Christianity the 
Name is part, and only part, of the 
sacrament. In Acts it seems rather 
that the Name was the outstanding 
feature. It worked miracles in Bap 
tism, but also independently and 
Baptism is one way of using the Name, 
rather than the Name part of Baptism. 

How far did this belief in the for 
giveness of sins as the essential work 
of Jesus take the place of the eschato- 
logical expectation ? Later on it 



probably did so, but in Acts it rather 
belongs to the eschatological expecta 
tion. It is the opportunity for that 
national purification which was to 
come before the end, and was at 
least in part the work of the Messiah 
(see further H. Windisch, Taufe und 
Sunde, pp. 34 ff.). It is even possible 
that the restoration of the Davidic 
glories of Israel, which seems to be 
part of the background of Paul s speech 
in Pisidian Antioch, was held to de 
pend on national repentance and on 
the forgiveness of sins. Cf. iii. 19- 

39. and from . . . acquitted] This 
seems the only possible translation 
of the B-text, but the Western text 
smoothed out the roughness of the 
Greek and wrote " through him for 
giveness of sins is announced to you, 
and repentance from all those things 
from which you could not be acquitted 
by the law of Moses ; by him therefore 
every one who believes is acquitted." 

Critics advocate two interpreta 
tions : (i.) the &v OVK rjdvvydrjTe etc. 
means that by the Law of Moses 
acquittal of some things was possible, 
but not of others, and Paul was 
announcing this possible method of 
going beyond what the Law could do ; 
(ii.) &v etc. merely qualify Trdfrw^, 
forgiveness for everything which 
the Law never offered. The former 
view is possible, but the latter seems 
more natural. Nor can I resist the 
belief that this verse is an attempt to 
express Pauline doctrine. Whatever 
hypothesis be adopted, it is incredible 
that the author of Acts was ignorant 
of the main outlines of Paul s teaching, 
and it was surely a part of his message 
that salvation is open to everyone 
who believes, in a way which was not 
given by the Law, even though he 
may have been unfair to Judaism in 
so presenting it. 

40. spoken in the Prophets] From 
the LXX of Habakkuk i. 5. The 
minor prophets formed a single book, 
hence Amos, Habbakuk, and perhaps 
Joel (see Vol. III. p. 16) are quoted 
as the prophet or the prophets. 
See also on xv. 15. 



158 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



Hab. 



Prophets, See, ye despisers, and wonder and vanish away, for 41 
I work a work in your days, a work which ye will not believe if 
one relate it to you. And as they went out they asked that 42 
these things might be spoken to them on the next Sabbath. 
And when the synagogue had broken up many of the Jews and 43 
worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke 
to them and urged them to remain in the grace of God. 

And on the next Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered 44 



41. wonder] dav/jLaaare. The LXX 
reads dav^aaiq. 6av/mdcra.T6, but the 
writer here avoids the Hebraism, just 
as in xiii. 35 he reads Swcrw instead of 
diad^(rofji.at with diadrjKt]v from Is. Iv. 
3 (cf. Heb. viii. 8-10). 

vanish away] The corresponding 
Hebrew text of Habakkuk means be 
astonished. The Greek d(f)avL(rd7]T 
is in form a passive, be made to 
vanish, but the verb d0am fcu is used 
of disfiguring, making away with, and 
otherwise destroying utterly (so as to 
be invisible). It occurs in the LXX 
with such meanings, but some of the 
corresponding Hebrew words mean 
both destroy and appal. 

42 f. The textual correctness of 
these verses and their interpretation 
make up a complex problem. The 
B-text is translated above. The diffi 
culty felt by commentators is that 
^LOVTWV O.VT&V is a doublet of Xvdeicr^s 
TTJS (Tvvayuyrjs. This is so, but it is 
possible to exaggerate the difficulty. 
The picture called to my mind is that 
as they were going out some of the 
congregation desired to hear Paul 
again, and that when the meeting 
was dispersed, some of them made 
Paul s acquaintance without waiting 
for the next Sabbath. Therefore it 
scarcely seems necessary to regard vs. 
42 as an interpolation as Spitta does, 
or to reject vs. 43 with Wendt. But 
doubtless the passage is awkward. 
Therefore the Western text reads, 
" And they stopped speaking, and as 
they were going out they asked that 
these things might be told them the 
next Sabbath," and the Antiochian 
text reads, " And as they were going 
out from the synagogue of the Jews, 
the Gentiles asked that these things 
might be told them the next Sabbath." 



If the text must be emended, the best 
suggestion is that of Hort, who pro 
posed (W.H. ii. App. pp. 95 f.) to read 
a^iovvruv for e^LovTwv, to omit rj^iow 
or TrapeKoKow, and to have no break 
at the end of vs. 42. 

42. things] prj/j-ara might be ren 
dered sayings, but the translation 
given is probably right. Cf. note on 
x. 37. 

next] /jiera^v in this sense is common 
in Josephus (see Krenkel, Josephus 
und Lucas, p. 216, and Holtzmann, 
ZWTh., 1877, pp. 547 f.), and is also 
found in Barnabas xiii. 5 ; 1 Clem, 
xliv. 2 ; the Western reading in xxiii. 
25 ; and elsev/here. 

43. worshipping proselytes] The 
phrase &lt;refib[j.evoi TrpotrnAuToi is only 
found here, and its meaning is very 
doubtful. See Addit. Note 8. 

God] dfov, or possibly Lord (itvpiov), 
which Ropes and von Soden prefer. 
The evidence is about equal (see note 
in Vol. III. p. 127). 

44. The Western text reads, "And it 
came about that the word of God 
went through the whole city ; and on 
the next Sabbath almost the whole 
city was gathered together to hear 
Paul." 

next] This must be the meaning, 
but the text is doubtful. The oldest 
authorities (NBD) read ^pxofj.evv, which 
Blass and others say cannot mean 
anything except future ; they there 
fore accept the reading of the inferior 
MSS., CXO/ULCVU. It must be admitted 
that the evidence of D is of little im 
portance here, e^b/jitvos in the sense 
of next is found in Acts xx. 15, xxi. 
26, Luke xiii. 33, and Mark i. 38. In 
each case D changes the word to 
^pXO/J-ffri, e-rrLOVff-ri, tpxo/u.cvri, an( ^ tyyvs- 
But Josephus uses epxb^evo^ in this 



xm 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



159 



45 together to hear the word of God. And when the Jews saw the 
crowds they were filled with jealousy and contradicted what was 

4 6 said by Paul, blaspheming. But Paul and Barnabas were bold 
and said, " It was necessary that the word of God should first 
be spoken to you ; since you push it away and do not judge 
yourselves worthy of the life of the Age to come, lo, we turn to 

47 the Gentiles. For thus the Lord has commanded us, I have is. xiix. o. 
placed thee as a light of the Gentiles for thee to be for salvation to 

48 the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard they were 
glad and glorified the word of God, and all who were appointed 



sense in Antiq. vi. 9. 1 TV) de 
TTO\LV e\6wv, and in Antiq. vi. 11. 9 rrj 
de epxo/u.ei 7] veo/m rjvia 5 fy. See Wett- 
stein ad loc. 

45. The Western text (D) com 
pletely rewrites the passage : " And 
when he (Paul) made a long discourse 
about the Lord, and the Jews saw 
the crowd, they were filled with 
jealousy, and contradicted the words 
spoken by Paul, contradicting and 
blaspheming . There is unfortunately 
no other Western witness at this 
point, and the roughness of the text 
may suggest that it has been partly 
conflated with the B-text. 

blaspheming] /SAao^/ioiWes might 
mean speaking evil of him, i.e. of 
Paul. But the analogy of xxvi. 11 
weighs strongly against this inter 
pretation. 

46. were bold] I doubt the correct 
ness of this translation. As in other 
places I think Trappy &lt;ffLa.crafj.evoL suggests 
abnormal eloquence and emotion, not 
merely boldness. See note on ix. 27. 

push it away] Cf. vii. 27, 39, 
Rom. xi. 1 f., and 1 Tim. i. 19. 

life of the Age to come] Not 
eternal life, which is a metaphysical 
concept entirely foreign to Acts. It 
refers to the Jewish belief in the Age 
to come, which would be divinely 
established after the End. (See Vol. 
I. pp. 133 ff. and 271 ff.) It is 
characteristic that Luke uses the 
phrase twice in rapid succession (cf. 
vs. 48) but not elsewhere in Acts, and 
in the Gospel only when it was found 
in his source. 

we turn to the Gentiles] The 



suggestion can scarcely be that Paul 
had not preached to Gentiles already, 
but rather that he would continue to 
do so, without troubling about the 
Synagogue. Far too much attention 
is paid to Gal. ii. 7-9 as though it 
means that Paul and Barnabas were 
never to preach to the Jews. As the 
epistles themselves amply prove, the 
main intention is merely that Paul 
and Barnabas were to undertake a 
mission to the heathen. If Acts be 
believed, it is clear that they carried 
this out by going into heathen terri 
tory, and used their right, as Jews, 
of admission to the Synagogue to ad 
dress the Gentile attendants who were 
present. It was the obviously quick 
est and best method of approach ; 
though it is also obvious why the 
Jews were not pleased to see those 
whom they had hoped fully to con 
vert led astray to a sect of which 
they strongly disapproved. 

47. I have placed, etc.] Is. xlix. 6. 
The passage referred in the original to 
Israel, the Servant of the Lord. 

48. glorified] To glorify God is a 
common phrase, but to glorify the 
word of God is not found elsewhere. 
Perhaps for this reason the Western 
text reads ede^avro (received) instead 
of c86aoi&gt;. With this reading 



rbv \6yov TOV 6eov) compare viii. 14, 
xi. 1, xvii. 11, and also Luke viii. 13 
(Luke s version of the Parable of the 
Sower) OTOLV aKovawcrLv //.era xapas 
dexovTai TOV \6yov. But the B- 
text sounds characteristically Lucan 
enough to be genuine. 



160 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIII 



to the life of the Age to come believed. And the word of the 49 
Lord was carried about through the whole district, but the Jews 50 
incited the God-fearing women of position and the chief men of 
the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas and 
turned them out of their neighbourhood. But they shook off: the 51 
dust of their feet against them and came to Iconium, and the 52 
disciples were filled with joy and with Holy Spirit. 

And it came to pass that they went in together into the syna- 14 i 
gogue and spoke in such a way that a great number both of Jews 



appointed to the life of the Age 
to come] The phrase is common in 
Rabbinical literature (see Strack ii. 
p. 726). It is noticeable that the 
belief in predestination, so strong 
though usually unformulated in early 
Christian thought, makes the writer 
say that those who were appointed 
to life believed, rather than those 
who believed were appointed to life. 
The verb rerayfj-evoi perhaps means 
explicitly inscribed, enrolled. It 
is so used in the papyri and once 
quite definitely in Theodotion (Dan. 
vi. 13 (12)) for the Aramaic DBH ; see 
J. A. Montgomery, Journal of Biblical 
Literature, xlvi. (1927) p. 73. For this 
idea Luke supplies a parallel in Luke 
X. 20 ra 6v6}J.aTa v/j.wv evyeypaTTTai iv 
Tols ovpavois, cf. Philipp. iv. 3; Rev. 
xiii. 8, etc., the book of life. 

49. district] Ramsay thinks that 
this word (xupa) means regio in the 
technical sense of an official division 
of a province. It may be so; but 
the word is quite an ordinary one, 
and need no more imply a reference 
to Roman organization than the word 
district need in English. 

50. God-fearing] See Addit. Note 8. 

women] Wettstein quotes in illus 
tration Strabo vii. p. 296 TO 8 dr] 
Kai dfocrefte is vo/j-ifeiv /cat K air vo {Saras 
TOVS ^prjfMovsyvvaLKaJv &lt;r&lt;t&gt;oSpa dvavrtovTat. 
TOIS KOLvals viro\ri\{/e(Tii&gt;, airavTes yap 
rrjs Sei&lt;riSai/J.ovias dpxyyovs oiovrai TO.S 
yvvatxas avrai 8e /cat TOVS avSpas irpo- 
KaXovvTat trpbs Tas iri TT\^OV deparreias 
rdov deuii&gt;, /eat copras, /cat Trorviacr/ttofo. 

of position] Or ev&lt;rx ni j - wv may mean 
rich, for Phrynichus says that it was 
so used, and warns elegant writers 
against it. In Mark xv. 43 Joseph 



of Arimathaea is called 

and Matthew replaces the word by 

TrAoucrios. 

chief men] For the use of Tr/xiros 
of the leading citizens cf. Josephus, 
Vita 34 (TOVS TTO\\OVS TOV drj/j-ov TT/XUTOUS 
dvdpas), and examples in Wettstein. 

51. shook off the dust] If this 
natural expression requires explana 
tion it may be found in the belief 
that land outside the Holy Land was 
unclean, so that a traveller was 
careful not to bring dust with him 
from abroad into Palestine. Thus 
to shake off the dust against anyone 
was equivalent to calling him a 
heathen (Strack i. p. 571). But 
probably, like other gestures of 
contempt, its meaning was intelligible 
rather than definite. See Addit. Note 
24. 

Iconium] The modern Konia, 
always important because it is at the 
junction of several roads. It was 
originally a Phrygian city (Xenophon, 
Anab. i. 2. 19), and at the time of 
Justin Martyr one of the accused, 
Hierax, says that he came from 
Iconium of Phrygia. See further 
Addit. Note 18. 

1. together] /cara TO avTo is prob 
ably a Lucan variant for tiri TO avro, 
which is common in the earlier 
chapters and seems as a rule to mean 
together. It is found in this sense 
in P Eleph 1. 5. 

But it possibly may mean, as 
Chrysostom and other commentators 
have thought, in the same way, 
presumably with a reference to the 
way in which they had done in Pisidian 
Antioch. The only passage which 
Wettstein quotes (Aelian, V.H. xiv. 8) 



xrv 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



161 



2 and Greeks believed. But the Jews who did not believe incited 
and irritated the souls of the Gentiles against the brethren. 

3 So they stayed a long time, being bold in reliance on the Lord, 



is susceptible of either meaning. Of 
Kypke s more numerous examples 
most are susceptible of either meaning, 
and few plainly indicate identity of 
time or place (as he understands 
them) rather than an identity of 
manner. For the last-named force 
cf . in the LXX Exod. xxvi. 24 (where, 
however, the Hebrew has HIV), and 
for the meaning at one time cf . 
Aristeas 104. Elsewhere Aristeas 
uses Kara rd avrd (cf . Luke vi. 23, 26, 
xvii. 30) to mean in the same way. 
In xvii. 2 it is said that at Thessa- 
lonica Paul entered the synagogue 
Kara 5e TO eiwffbs r&lt;2 Iloi Xy. 

2-7. The Western reviser not un 
naturally found considerable diffi 
culties in this passage and rewrote it. 
His version is certainly much clearer, 
but it is hard to believe that if it 
were original the obscure and difficult 
B-text could ever have arisen. It 
is easier to think that this is one of 
the passages which escaped final re 
vision (see Addititional Note 1). The 
Western text reads : " But the chiefs 
of the synagogue and the rulers (i.e. of 
the Iconians, following the Harclean 
margin) raised persecution [against 
the righteous] and rendered the minds 
of the Gentiles hostile to the brethren. 
But the Lord soon gave peace. So they 
stayed a long time, speaking boldly 
in reliance on the Lord who witnessed 
to the word of his grace, giving signs 
and wonders to be done by their hands ; 
and the populace of the city was 
divided, and some were with the Jews 
and others were with the apostles, 
cleaving to them for the sake of the 
word of God. And the Jews with the 
Gentiles again raised persecution a 
second time, and they stoned them, and 
turned them out of the city, and they 
fled and came to Lycaonia, to the 
cities called Lystra and Derbe, and 
the whole neighbourhood, and were 
preaching there, and the whole popula 
tion was moved by the teaching. And 
Paul and Barnabas were staying in 
Lystra." The text of this passage is 
not quite certain in all details (see 
VOL. IV 



Vol. III. pp. 128 ff.), but the original 
Western text was probably not 
seriously different from that thus 
translated. The words italicized repre 
sent the chief additions and changes, 
and all seem to be comments calcu 
lated to remedy the difficulty of the 
B-text. 

2. the Jews] It is hard to see any 
difficulty in this, or why the Western 
text (according to the Harclean 
margin) expanded it to the chiefs of 
the synagogue and the rulers, unless 
the reviser thought that Jews alone 
would not have had enough influence 
and was influenced by other passages 
in Acts in which the dpx^vvdycoyos or 
the dp-%oi&gt;Ts (T?;S (rwaywyrjs) are intro 
duced. The reading of D is surely 
impossible; the chiefs of the syna 
gogue and the rulers of the synagogue 
is a meaningless tautology. Either 
the Harclean margin is the original 
Western text, or this had only one of 
these phrases as a gloss on the Jews 
who did not believe, and the later 
variants represent attempts at con 
flation. 

did not believe] dweidri&lt;ravTes, 
literally disobey, has become the 
regular word for not believe, and is 
used as the opposite of TnaTeuoj (as 
here) in 1 Peter ii. 7 f., John iii. 36, 
and as the verb for the noun dirtffTia 
in Hebrews iii. 18 f. 

irritated] endKuaav : cf. Ps. cvi. 32 
(cv. in LXX) KaKu0T] Mwixn?s 5i 
aurovs. It is also found in this sense 
in Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2; xvi. 7. 
3; xvi. 8. 6, and P Tebt 407. But 
elsewhere -a/cow is used in the sense 
of to injure (cf. xii. 1, xviii. 10), which 
is the classical meaning of the verb. 

brethren] Several further details 
of the trial of Paul at Iconium are 
given in the Acta Pauli, but they 
are entirely without historical value. 

3. a long time] The difficulty is to 
see why the persecution mentioned in 
the previous verse resulted in their 
staying a long time; yet that is the 
natural implication of the ^ v o&v. The 
story would read perfectly well if vs. 3 

M 



162 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIV 



who testified to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders 
to be done by their hands. And the population of the city was 4 
divided, and some were with the Jews and some were with the 
apostles. But when a movement, both of Gentiles and Jews 5 
with their leaders, was made to ill-treat and stone them, they 6 
perceived it and took refuge in the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra 



were read before vs. 2. But there is 
no evidence for this change, and the 
Western text implies that the difficulty 
was present when the reviser was at 
work. 

who testified, etc.] A comparison 
with xx. 24 (dia/uapTvpaadai TO evay- 
ye\iov rrjs %dptros rov Oeov] and xx. 32 
(T&lt; Kvplip KO.L TUJ \6yi{) TTJS xdptros 
O.VTOV) illustrates Luke s tendency to 
repeat a phrase not exactly but with 
variation. 

5. movement] bp^y may mean an 
actual hostile attack, but it also 
signifies mental motion, as frequently 
in Epictetus and in James iii. 4 
something between our words im 
pulse and plan. The latter mean 
ing is confirmed by the context, 
especially by o-vvidovres (cf. Field, 
Notes on the Translation of the N.T., 
ad loc.). The Harclean margin, which 
probably represents the original 
Western text, emphasizes that this 
was the second attack. 

leaders] apxovres : this word is 
sometimes a technical term for the 
magistrates of a city (see on xvi. 19). 
It is also a definite office in Jewish 
communities, as Greek inscriptions 
show ( Juster, Les Juifs dans I Empire 
Romain, i. pp. 443 fL). But in Luke 
and Acts it is used loosely of the Jewish 
leaders, and is sometimes apparently 
a substitute for dpxiffwdyuyos (Lk. 
viii. 41, cf. 49 and Matt. ix. 18), and 
more often (at Jerusalem) for the 
apxtf/aels or all the members of the 
Sanhedrin (Acts iii. 17, xiii. 27, etc.). 
The position of the word here suggests 
that the dpxovres were Jewish, or both 
Jewish and Gentile. Ramsay, think 
ing that they were the city magistrates, 
has supposed that the subsequent 
return to Iconium and Antioch (verse 
21) was made possible by the retire 
ment from office of these officials at 
the close of their annual term. 



ill-treat and stone] Not a climax, 
but the author, like other Greek 
writers, tends to associate the strong 
but vague i&gt;j3pi.s or vppifa with some 
more definite word to explain the 
form which the ill-treatment took. 

6. they perceived] a-widovres (cf. xii. 
12, note) is often used of information 
not gathered easily by the senses 
and of obscure situations which 
men become aware of. In colloquial 
English realized would express this 
better than perceived. But Zahn 
still advocates a meaning like con 
sider, weigh the situation. 

took refuge] The obvious suggestion 
of this phrase is that the visit to 
Lystra and Derbe was a change of 
plan, and when circumstances per 
mitted they returned to Iconium. 

Lycaonia] Possibly meaningL?/cao- 
nia Galatica, the district which had 
been given to the province when the 
rest of Lycaonia was formed into the 
kingdom of Antiochus, commonly 
called Lycaonia Antiochiana, in A.D. 
41 (see Earlier Epistles, p. 3] 2). It 
was part at least of the Tetrarchy 
or Added Territory (Tr/xxretXT/jU/^z/??) 
spoken of by Pliny, N.H. v. 25, and 
by Ptolemy, Geogr. v. 4. See further 
Addit. Note 18. 

Lystra] The site was found by 
Sterrett in 1885, who found an in 
scription at Khatyn Serai which not 
only identified the site, but also 
proved that Augustus had made it a 
colonia. Since then coins have been 
found proving the same fact, and an 
inscription at Pisidian Antioch on a 
statue of Concord put up in honour 
of Antioch by the colonia Lystra 
(see J. R. S. Sterrett, The Wolfe 
Expedition to Asia Minor, Boston, 
1888, and W. M. Ramsay, CUE. pp. 
47 ff.). It is curious that both here 
and in chapter xvi. Lystra has in 
Greek a singular accusative 



XIV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



163 



7 and Derbe, and the surrounding country, aud they were preaching 
there. 

8 And a man used to sit in Lystra impotent in his feet, lame 

9 from his mother s womb, who had never walked. He heard Paul 
speaking, who gazed at him, and seeing that he had faith to be 

10 healed said with a loud voice, " Stand upright on your feet," and 

11 he leaped and walked. But the crowd, seeing what Paul had 



and a plural dative Avtrrpo^ (so also 
in 2 Tim. iii. 11). The two cases 
come so closely together in both 
chapters in Acts that this may merely 
mean that this is customary, or, as 
grammarians say, that the word is 
heteroclitic, not metaplastic ; it is 
perhaps only an accident that the 
singular accusative comes each time 
in an introductory and summarizing 
narrative, the plural dative in a 
story which must come from a 
tradition, if not from a source. 

Derbe] Not yet completely identified. 
Ramsay thinks it was at Gudelissin, 
Sterrett at Bossola or Zosta, 3 miles 
E.S.E. from Gudelissin. (See Sterrett, 
op. cit. p. 23, and Ramsay, CRE. pp. 
54 ff.) It was granted the use of the 
imperial name by Claudius, who gave 
the same privilege to Iconium, so that 
the two cities were officially called 
Claudio-Derbe and Claud-Iconium. 

country] Either the neighbourhood 
of the cities with no further con 
notation (cf. Luke iv. 14) or the 
country-side, without cities or muni 
cipal organization (see Ramsay, The 
Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 39n.). 

8-20. PAUL AND BARNABAS AT 
LYSTRA. The story contains four 
episodes: (1) the miracle of healing 
the lame man (vss. 8-10) ; (2) the 
identification of the apostles with 
Hermes and Zeus, and the attempt 
to offer sacrifice to them (vss. 11-14); 
(3) Paul s speech (vss. 15-18) ; (4) the 
revulsion of feeling in Lystra caused 
by Jews from Iconium and Antioch, 
and the consequent flight of the 
apostles "to Derbe. The fullest modern 
discussion of these incidents is by 
A. Bludau, Katholik, 3. F. xxxvi. 
(1907), pp. 81-113 and 161-183. 

8-10. THE MIRACLE AT LYSTRA. 
Cf. the story of Peter s miracle at the 



Beautiful Gate in iii. 2-8. The number 
of phrases which recur suggest (a) 
that this is an instance in which the 
writer is conscious of the parallelism 
between Peter and Paul; (b) that 
there is a certain vocabulary which 
belongs to stories of this kind ; (c) 
that the writer in telling one story is 
influenced by his recollection of 
another. Attention may be called to 
the following phrases common to both 
narratives. The man in each case is 
XwXos K K0i\ias /m.r)Tp6s, the apostle 
cures each drei/tVas, and in each case 
the man leaps up and walks in iii. 8 
f^aXXo/xepos earrj /cat TrepteTrdrei, in xiv. 
10 TJXaro /ecu TrepieiraTfi. The Western 
reviser makes the parallelism even 
closer. He adds the proper formula 
of healing, ev ry ovofj-an. rov Kvpiov 
1-rja-ov Xpiffrov (cf. iii. 6), and says 
that cure was instantaneous, evBeus 
Trapaxprj[J.a (cf. iii. 7). The most re 
markable difference between the 
narratives is that the miracle of 
Lystra introduces the element of faith, 
which is absent in the miracle of the 
Beautiful Gate, but it is the miracle of 
the Beautiful Gate which is abnormal 
in this respect, as is seen by a com 
parison with the miracles of the 
gospel (cf. Luke v. 20; vii. 50; viii. 
48; xvii. 19; xviii. 42), and it is 
noticeable that Peter s speech after the 
miracle specially emphasizes faith. 

9. speaking] I) adds being in fear. 
This is difficult to understand, and in 
the African text is in a better position 
at the end of vs. 8. Can it mean that 
he was a God-fearer ? (See Ramsay, 
PTRC. p. 116.) 

11-14. THE IDENTIFICATION OF 
PAUL AND BARNABAS WITH HERMES 
AND ZEUS. On the hypothesis that 
the Lystrans were among the Galatians 
to whom Paul sent his epistle, Gal. iv. 



164 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIV 



done, raised their voice, saying in Lycaonian, " The gods have 
taken human form and come down to us." And they called 12 
Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, because he was the leader of 



14 ws &yye\ov deov ede^acrdt /J.e is an 
interesting comment on the identifica 
tion of Paul with Hermes. There is 
also a notable parallel in the story of 
Baucis and Philemon who were visited 
by Zeus and Hermes in this neigh 
bourhood (Ovid, Metam. viii. 626 ff.). 
If the populace had been talking 
Greek a conscious reference to this 
story would be probable, but since 
they were talking Lycaonian it is very 
unlikely that they used the names 
Zeus and Hermes, or even that the 
temple in which they wished to 
sacrifice was really that of Zeus. 
Probably these Greek names represent 
native Lycaonian gods, whose names 
are now lost. It is true that Prof. 
W. M. Calder (Expositor, July 1910. 
pp. 1 ff.) has pointed out two Greek 
inscriptions in the neighbourhood of 
Lystra, of which one refers to * priests 
of Zeus, and the other is on a statue 
of Hermes with a sun-dial dedicated 
to Zeus. He argues that this supports 
the combination of Zeus and Hermes 
in the mouth of the Lycaonians ; 
but these inscriptions are Greek, not 
Lycaonian, and belong to the third 
century A.D. (See Calder, Classical 
Review, 1910, pp. 76 ff.; Expos., 1910, 
pp. 148 ff., and cf. Expository Times, 
xxxvii. p. 528, August 1926.) 

The three serious problems of the 
episode therefore remain unsolved: 
(a) What were the Lycaonian gods 
who are here Graecized into Zeus and 
Hermes ? (6) Did the Lycaonians 
themselves thus * Graecize because 
Paul and Barnabas were (to them) 
Greeks ? (c) Is the name of the temple 
part of this Graecizing, or was there 
really a Greek temple to Zeus just 
outside of Lystra ? It is a pity that 
no serious research has been made by 
archaeologists at Lystra. The ruins 
of the temple may well be in existence. 

11. in Lycaonian] Little definite 
seems to be known of this language. 
(See Conder, Palestine Exploration 
Fund, 1888, iv. pp. 250 f.) Presum 
ably the population was bilingual and 
understood Greek, but preferred to 



speak Lycaonian. Chrysostom ex 
plains that the apostles did not under 
stand what was said, and therefore 
did not more speedily check the 
preparations for offering sacrifice to 
them. 

12. Barnabas . . . and Paul] The 
order is the same as at the beginning 
of the narrative in xiii. 2 and in xiii. 
7. But in xiii. 13 the missionaries 
are called oi ire pi UaCXof, in xiii. 43, 46 
and 50 the order is Paul and Barnabas ; 
in xiv. 20, however, the phrase used 
is that Paul went out with Barnabas 
(^rjXOev avv TCJ Eapvdfia), and it is 
doubtful whether this implies that 
Paul or Barnabas was the leader. 
Probably no great emphasis can be 
put on these variations, but they may 
indicate that sometimes one, some 
times the other apostle was prominent. 
Speaking generally it is clear that 
Barnabas was originally the leader, 
and was gradually superseded by Paul. 
The reason was doubtless that given 
here, that Paul was the chief speaker. 

the leader of the speaking] Blass, 
Ramsay, and Preuschen followed 
Berger in the statement that the 
Fleury palimpsest (h) omits these 
words. Berger accidentally omitted 
a whole line, which however is cer 
tainly in the MS., teste F. C. Burkitt 
who examined the point. Nor is it 
clear why Ramsay thinks that the 
words are a gloss. For the phrase 
itself lamblichus, De mysteriis Aegypt. 
1, gives a striking parallel by saying 
that Hermes is debs 6 r&v \6yuv 
r)ye/j.uv, and for the well-known fact 
that Hermes was the god of oratory 
Wettstein ad loc. gives half a column of 
references (see also Bludau, Katholik, 
1907, pp. 108 f.). Blass points out 
that there was no other resemblance 
to Hermes in the traditional picture 
of Paul preserved in the Ada Thedae 
3 (&v8pa jjuKpov Tif /j-fyedei, \[/i\6v TTQ 
K(pa\rj, a.yKV\ov rats Kvrj/J.ais, fvenriKov, 
ffvvoippvv, /J.IKP&S eirippLvov), but he fails 
to note that the description continues 

TTOT6 pl&gt; eCpalvCTO US 

dyyehov 



XIV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



165 



13 the speaking. And the priest of the Zeus, which is before the 
city, brought bulls and garlands to the portals and wished to offer 

14 sacrifice with the crowd. But when the apostles Barnabas and 
Paul heard it they tore their clothes and rushed into the crowd, 

15 shouting and saying, " Men, what is this you are doing ? We 



13. the Zeus, which is before the 
city] The Western text is ol d iepels 
rov 6vros Atds irpb 7r6Xews . . . ijde\ov 
e-TTidvecv, which is either original or 
represents a correction based on exact 
knowledge of the probable situation. 
A college of priests is more probable 
than a single priest ; rov 6i&gt;ros Ai6s 
(the local Zeus, cf. note on v. 17) is 
a characteristically Lucan idiom; and 
the phrase Atos irpb TroXews rather than 
irpb TTJS 7r6Xeu&gt;s is justified as correct 
and equivalent to an adjective by 
epigraphic evidence. Cf. GIG. 2963 
TTJS fj.tya\7]s deas [ Apre/uJcJos irpo 
7roA[eoj]s tepas, and Bull. corr. hell. 
i. 136 f\ yepaia rov TrpOTroXews KCU 
eTrL^avecrrarov 6ewv Aiovvo ov. The 
latter illustrates the adjectival force 
of irpb 7r6Xewy which is synonymous 
with the adjective Trpodcrrtos. (Cf . the 
inscription at Claudiopolis to Au 
Trpoatrrtcjj cited by Ramsay, CRE. p. 
51, who even proposes in the inscrip 
tions and in D to read 7rpo7r6Xews as 
one word. This is not impossible, for 
there is nothing to show how the 
words were divided either in the 
inscriptions or in the MS., but there is 
no evidence for any such adjective.) 
See also W. M. Calder, Classical 
Review, xxiv. (1910) pp. 67-81, and 
Wikenhauser, Apostelgesch. pp. 362 
ff., where the epigraphic evidence is 
fully given. In Aeschylus, Septem 
adv. Theb. 164, the MS. reads ^d/coup 
tivaffa 6yxa irpb TroXews, referring to 
Athena who had an altar and statue 
v-rraldpy near one of the gates of 
Thebes (Pausanias ix. 12. 2), but the 
editors question whether the text in 
this passage is trustworthy. 

garlands] Or woollen fillets. For 
the custom of thus decorating victims 
Wettstein ad loc. quotes many pass 
ages. The most striking is perhaps 
Lucian, De sacrificiis 12. 

the portals] TrvXuvas : compare x. 
17, and also Luke xvi. 20 Adfapo? 
rbv irvK&va. O.VTOV. The 



most obvious place for a beggar was 
near a great gate which was much 
used, such as was the Beautiful Gate 
of the Temple (iii. 2). The irv\uv re 
ferred to in this story is not specified. 
In the following note the view is taken 
that it means the gate of the city. 
It is also possible that it was the 
portico of the temple of Zeus. This 
would make the parallelism to chapter 
iii. even more striking. The Peshitto 
has an interesting periphrasis " they 
rushed out of the house they were in." 
Cf. also the noteworthy if erroneous 
comment of Ephrem, "adduxerunt 
taurum ad sacrificium usque ad portas 
domi eorum ubi ingressi erant." 

14. rushed into the crowd] The 
reconstruction of the whole incident 
is that the lame man was sitting at 
the gate of Lystra, opposite the temple. 
When the man was healed the crowd 
recognized Barnabas and Paul as gods, 
and the priests of the temple accept 
ing this view came out and proposed 
a sacrifice, for which they provided 
the animals, doubtless on the usual 
terms, and brought them to the gate. 
When Paul and Barnabas saw this 
they recognized for the first time 
what the unintelligible Lycaonian 
shouts had meant and they rushed 
from the gate into the crowd, which 
was between the gate and the temple. 
It is, however, to be noted that this 
reconstruction must not claim too 
much support from the e/c in e^-m ]- 
drfffav. In Hellenistic Greek the force of 
compounds is usually weak and e/c7r?7&lt;5a;&gt; 
means to start up rather than implies 
definite motion out (cf . edXXo/x,cu in 
iii. 8). There is a striking parallel in 
Judith xiv. 16 f. e^frrridrjirev ets rbv \abv 



. . . TOUS %iT(2)z&gt;as avrCov 
15-18. PAUL S SPEECH AT LYSTRA. 
The great importance of this speech is 
that for the first time we have an 
address to a strictly heathen audience 
which did not accept the Jewish 
doctrine of God. In the earlier chapters 



166 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIV 



too are human beings of like feelings with you, bringing you good 
news that you should turn from these vain things to a living 
God, who made the sky and the earth and the sea and all that is 
in them, who in past generations allowed all the heathen to go 1 6 
in their own way. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, 17 
for he did good, giving you from the sky rain and seasons of 
fruit-bearing, filling your hearts with food and gladness." And 18 



Peter s speeches are all made to pro 
fessed Jews. At Antioch of Pisidia 
Paul speaks to Jews and to God -fearers 
who had accepted the Jewish theology, 
though not the whole of the Jewish 
Law. In none of these speeches 
is there any indication that the 
Christians were teaching a new doctrine 
about God. But in Lystra a purely 
heathen audience is met, and a charac 
teristically Jewish teaching about God 
is presented. There is but one God, 
and man must give up idolatry and 
worship the creator, the evidence for 
whose existence is the ordered and 
beneficent course of nature. The past 
ignorance of men is said to have been 
overlooked, and this suggests that the 
writer intended to go on to describe 
a new message as to the future. But 
this is omitted. Presumably it would 
have been the same eschatological 
teaching as is found in the speech at 
Athens in chapter xvii. 30 ff. For 
the general accuracy of these two 
speeches as really representing Paul s 
message to the heathen see 1 Thess. i. 
9 f. avroi yap ire pi rjfj.u)v a.trayye\\ovcnv 
oiroiav e lcrodov &r%o/uej irpbs vfj.as, /ecu 
TTtDs 7Tf(rrpe\f&gt;are irpbs rbv dfbv airb r&v 
et ScoXwv dov\evii&gt; 6f( U&gt;VTL /ecu a.\r]6i.vi2 
/cai dva^veLv rbv vlbv avrov e/c r&v 
ovpav&v 8v r/yeipev IK. r&v veKp&v, Ir/crovv 
rbv pvbfjievov r]fj.ds K TTJS dpyrjs TTJS 



There may be reason to fancy that 
the style of the speech is more literary 
than the context. The author may 
have felt himself in a setting where 
poetical phrases (cf. ovpavbdev in vs. 
17 as at xxvi. 13, and Tra/icox^^cus 
in vs. 16) were appropriate, just 
as he did at the speeches in Athens 
and before Agrippa. Note also the 
idiomatic litotes OVK d/j.dprvpov, and 
the compounds dyadovpyuv and 



&lt;f)6povs. Like the speech at Athens 
this one begins with a description 
of the creator in Biblical phrase 
ology. The final words are claimed 
by Torrey, Composition and Date of 
Acts, p. 38, as a mistranslation from 
the Aramaic, but see the reply of 
Cadbury, American Journal of Theo 
logy, xxiv., 1920, p. 444 note, where it is 
suggested that the Greek Psalter has 
influenced this passage. 

15. like feelings] As compared with 
the dTradda of God? See M. Pohlenz, 
Vom Zorne Gottes, 1909. 

a living God] Or possibly the liv 
ing God, for the article is regularly 
omitted in this phrase which originally 
was a metonymy for Jehovah, though 
free use is made of its actual meaning 
in polemic against idols (cf. xvii. 25, 
28). 

16. allowed] Cf. Rom. i. 18ff. But 
there is a real difference. The whole 
point of Paul s argument is that the 
heathen have no excuse. Their ignor 
ance is the necessary punishment of 
their refusal to see the facts. The 
point of the speech in Acts is that 
men had been ignorant, and God had 
overlooked their sin of idolatry be 
cause of their ignorance, but now the 
truth had been told them and they 
must repent. 

17. yet] Kalroi or the variants /ccu- 
7-0176, Kaiye are synonyms used more 
commonly in concessive participial 
clauses. Here the following indicative 
suggests that we have a new sentence 
with adversative connective. It is 
striking evidence of common origin 
that the nearest grammatical parallel 
in Acts is in a passage expressing a 
like thought in the speech at Athens 
(xvii. 27). There, however, the particle 
is followed in more regular fashion by 
the participle. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



167 



by saying this they barely restrained the crowd from offering 

19 sacrifice to them. And there came Jews from Antioch and 
Iconium and persuaded the crowd, and stoned Paul and dragged 

20 him out of the city, thinking that he was dead. But when the 
disciples surrounded him, he arose and went into the city ; and 

21 on the next day he went out with Barnabas to Derbe. And when 
they had brought the good news to that city and made many 
disciples they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 

22 fortifying the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain 



18. sacrifice to them] The margin of 
the Harclean adds but to go home, 
which is preserved also in a corrupt 
form in the African Latin. (Cf. the 
Western text of v. 18 and John vii. 53.) 

19. And there came] The suddenness 
of this transition may have been felt 
by the Western reviser, who added 
a connecting clause, "and when they 
stayed there and taught, there came 
against them Jews from Iconium and 
from Antioch, who openly disputed 
the word of God; these persuaded 
those men not to believe their teach 
ing, saying that they were not telling 
the truth at all, but were liars at every 
point." But it is possible that this 
represents a perverted tradition as to 
the Judaistic controversy in Galatia. 
The author not only usually attri 
butes Paul s troubles to the Jews, but 
often, as here, represents them as 
coming from a distance. Antioch, 
for example, was over a hundred miles 
away. Yet the existence of a close 
connexion between these cities is 
shown in the erection of a statue in 
Antioch by the citizens of Lystra (see 
note on vs. 6). 

stoned] Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 24 f. virb 
lovdaitav . . . arra^ eXiddadyv, and 
2 Tim. iii. 11 (old IJ.OL eyfrfro tv 
AiTco^e/a, v IKOVIQ, ev Avarpois, which 
is more explicit as to the localities, but 
not as to the details of Paul s afflic 
tions. It is remarkable that neither 
Acts nor 2 Timothy suggest any mis 
fortune in Derbe. 

20. surrounded] The Western text 
suggests that this means that the 
disciples rallied and prevented any 
further attack, for it reads " then the 
disciples surrounded him, and when 



at evening the mob went away, he 
got up." But this reconstruction of 
the Western text rests wholly on h, 
and in it populus may be a mistake 
for Paulus, as it is in vss. 9 and 12. 
Derbe] See note on vs. 6. 

21. brought the good news] Critics 
who think that a discrimination of 
sources is possible in this narrative 
point out that this verse seems to 
continue the narrative of vs. 7. They 
conclude that the episode in Lystra 
comes from a separate source (see 
especially Spitta, pp. 170 ff.). Un 
doubtedly the episode at Lystra is 
inserted into the narrative which is 
resumed in this verse, but how else 
could it have been told ? It might 
be said that the mention of Derbe in 
vs. 6 is clumsy, as Paul did not go 
there until after he had been to 
Lystra, but the meaning of that verse 
is to indicate the general field of 
Paul s preaching after he left Iconium. 
After stating this the narrative goes 
on to give some of the details of what 
happened in that field. 

22. to remain in the faith] ewtvciv 
rfj TrtVret. For the use of tn^tveiv cf. 
xi. 23 TT poff jjifv civ TI$ Kvpiy and xiii. 
43 irpoff/jieveLv rr) x^P LTL T v d^ou. ij 
iriffTis seems here clearly to mean 
Christianity. This usage is frequent 
in later Christian literature, and in 
the Pauline and Catholic epistles is 
far the most probable explanation 
of many passages in which modern 
Protestant exegesis has been too much 
influenced by the Lutheran tradition. 
Other passages in Acts which can 
most naturally be interpreted thus 
(making 77 7rt &lt;ms equivalent to rj 686s) 
are xiii. 8, xv. 9, xxiv. 24. Apart 



168 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIV 



in the faith, saying that through many afflictions we must enter 
into the Kingdom of God. And they chose elders for them in 23 
each church, and prayed with fasting, and committed them to 
the Lord on whom they had believed. And they passed through 24 
Pisidia and came to Pamphylia, and spoke in Perga the word, and 25 
went down to Attalia, and thence sailed away to Antioch, from 26 



from Luke xviii. 8, which is doubtful, 
jriarts is not found in this sense in the 
synoptic gospels, and it is very curious 
that though TrLareveLv is a markedly 
Johannine word, TT/O-TIS is not found in 
the fourth gospel, and only once in the 
Johannine epistles (1 John v. 4), where 
it perhaps has the later meaning. Cf. 
Additional Note 30. 

we] This first person must be 
understood as a generalization. The 
sentence obviously depends on a 
\tyoi Tfs implied in the TrapaKa\ovt&gt;Tes, 
and is a speech, though a very short 
one, rather than a we -passage in the 
sense of narrative in the first person. 

the Kingdom of God] The eschato- 
logical sense is obviously intended: 
the persecution in Lystra and Derbe 
was interpreted as part of the Woes 
which precede the End. Cf . Rev. i. 9. 

23. chose] xetporo^eti/ means origin 
ally to elect by show of hands, and 
in later usage to appoint. Cf. 
Acts x. 41, which speaks of the 
witnesses of the resurrection as irpo- 
K x,LpoTovrnj.^voL by God a phrase 
which excludes the possibility of the 
original meaning. In the other pass 
age where the word is found in the 
N.T. (2 Cor. viii. 19), x^ P " 7 ?^ * 
virb TWV KK\r)ffi.uiv ffw^Kdrj/mos rffj- jov, it 
is capable of either meaning. The 
implication of the phrase (especially 
when the O.VTOLS following it is con 
sidered) is that the apostles appointed 
converts whom they thought best 
fitted to be the presbyters of each 
church. The same is the natural mean 
ing of Titus i. 5. In all these passages 
the idea of choice by the church has 
to be inserted before it can be found. 
The same theory is supported by 
1 Clement xliv. f., which, though not 
very clear as to the procedure of the 
next generation, is quite unambiguous 
in ascribing the first presbyters to the 
appointment of the apostles. 



elders] -rrpefffivTepos was a title used 
in Egypt for civil and religious office 
bearers (Deissmann, Bibelst. pp. 153ff. 
and Neue Bibelst. pp. 60 ff.). It was 
also commonly used to translate 
D jpT, who with the high priests and 
the scribes composed the Sanhedrin, 
called in the N.T. the &lt;rvi&gt;e5pioi&gt;, or 
7rpecr(3vTtptoi&gt; or ytpovcria. According 
to Strack (ii. p. 631) the Trpeo-pvrepoi 
were the non-legal members of the 
council. As a Christian official title 
the word is frequent in Acts, and is 
used at least once in the Pastoral 
epistles (Titus i. 5, cf. 1 Tim. v. 17 
and 19) but not in the undoubted 
Pauline letters. eViV/vOTros is used in 
Philipp. i. 1 apparently as a synonym 
of Trpeafivrepos, but here it need not 
be an official title, and the same word 
is found in 1 Tim. iii. 2 and Tit. i. 7. 
In the Titus passage it is clearly 
synonymous with the TT pea ftvre pos who 
has been previously mentioned, and 
neither there nor in 1 Tim. is it clear 
that eVicr/coTros is a title rather than 
the description of an office. For the 
later history of these words and the 
complicated problems which they in 
volve see F. J. A. Hort, The Christian 
Ecclesia; the Appendix on the Ministry 
in Lightfoot s Commentary on Philip - 
pians ; J. Reville, Les Origines de 
V Episcopal ; Sohm s Kirchenrecht, and 
Harnack, Kirchenverfassung. 

prayed with fasting] Cf. xiii. 3. 

the Lord] Jesus, rather than God, 
seems the more probable meaning 
in this passage. 

24. Pisidia] Either the name of the 
old kingdom or of a region of the pro 
vince of Galatia. The difference be 
tween the two interpretations is here 
unimportant. See Addit. Note 18. 

Pamphylia] See note on xiii. 13. 

25. Attalia] The chief port of 
Pamphylia, now called Adalia, at the 
mouth of the Catarractes. 



XV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



169 



which they had been commended to the grace of God to the work 
which they had fulfilled. 

27 And when they had arrived and had assembled the church 
they reported what God had done with them, and that he had 

28 opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they stayed no 
i little time with the disciples. And men came down from 



xiv. 27-xv. 2. This short paragraph 
may be the true end of the narrative 
of the first missionary journey, but 
it reads somewhat more as though 
it were the editor s summary mark 
ing the division and serving as the 
conjunction between the probably 
Antiochian narrative in chapters xiii. 
and xiv., and the probably Jerusalem 
narrative in chapter xv. 

27. what] Literally how many 
things, but 6aa in New Testament 
Greek seems to be little more than a 
relative. 

with them] /nerd with the genitive 
was used in Biblical Greek with /roteo 
as a synonym for the dative. Cf. 
Luke i. 72 (TroiTJaai Aeos /mera ruiv 
Trarepuv TIIJ.CJV), Tobit xii. 6, xiii. 6, 
Judith viii. 26 (1 Mace. x. 27). This is 
doubtless due originally to Semitic 
idiom, but it is also found in P Amh 
135, 15 (2nd cent. A.D.), in Hermas, 
Mand. v. 2. 1 and Simil. v. 1. 1, and 
in theByzantine papyrus EG U. 798. 6 f . 
(ei/xapi-O Tovfj.ev . . . rfj r\^v dftrwoifr) els 
jravTO. TO, Ka\a a. eiroiycrev yuerd T&V 
dov\ui&gt; 0,1)7775). The same idiom is 
found in xv. 4, and perhaps in the 
Western text of xvi. 40, where, 
however, D reads Troi"rjffev ev aurots, 
though d has fecit cum eis. (See 
also Vol. III. p. 138, and cf. 
Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts, 
p. 38.) 

1-5. The most obscure point in the 
actual wording of this paragraph is 
the meaning of ^ra^av in vs. 2. Does 
this imply that the envoys from Jeru 
salem is its subject ? (See note ad 
loc.) This was the assumption of the 
Western reviser, who therefore rewrote 
the whole story as follows (for Greek 
text and notes on doubtful points 
see Vol. III. pp. 138 ff.) : "And some 
who came down from Jerusalem were 
teaching the brethren unless you are 
circumcised and walk in the custom 



of Moses, you cannot be saved. And 
when no small strife and discussion 
arose between them and Paul and 
Barnabas, for Paul said emphatically 
(8n(7xvpi.^6/j.evos) that the converts 
should stay as they were when con 
verted, those who had come from 
Jerusalem ordered (Trapr)yyei\av) Paul 
and Barnabas themselves and some 
others to go up to the apostles and 
elders at Jerusalem to be judged 
before them about this question. So 
then they were sent on their way 
... [as in the ordinary text to the 
end of vs. 5]. But those who had 
enjoined on them to go up to the 
elders, arose and said that they 
must circumcise them, and com 
mand them to observe the law of 
Moses." 

The grammar of this sentence 
is defective, but there is no doubt 
as to its meaning. The representa 
tives of Jerusalem were in control : 
Paul and Barnabas obeyed their 
orders, and went to be judged at 
Jerusalem. 

In the final judgement on the textual 
question, if such ever be reached, this 
passage will certainly play a consider 
able part. It cannot be dissociated 
from Gal. ii. 2 ff. in which Paul protests 
BO vigorously that he went to Jeru 
salem by revelations, and seems to 
be rebutting throughout the suggestion 
that he had acted in subjection to the 
authority of the apostles in Jerusalem. 
There is a choice between two possi 
bilities : (i.) that the story reached 
Luke in the form in which it was 
current in Jerusalem, and that a 
reviser, familiar with Galatians, toned 
down the suggestion that Paul acted 
under the orders of the delegates from 
Jerusalem, thus producing the B-text ; 
or (ii.) that Luke wrote it in the 
guarded form of the B-text, and some 
reviser from Jerusalem emended it in 



170 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XV 



Judaea and were teaching the brethren, " Unless you are 
circumcised according to the custom of Moses you cannot be 
saved." And when there was no small disturbance and dis- 2 
cussion by Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for 



the interests of his own local tradition, 
thus producing the Western text. 
The time has scarcely come for any 
decision between these possibilities. 
On the one hand it might seem very 
improbable that the Western reviser 
was anti- Pauline, or unacquainted 
with Galatians. It is more likely that 
the maker of the B-text was influenced 
by the epistle and emended the narra 
tive of Acts. On the other hand it 
is arguable that the Western reviser 
may have had the same point of view 
as the Clementine Homilies which 
magnify the office of James. In any 
case he seems to have had a local 
interest in Jerusalem (see especially 
iii. 2 note). My own tentative opinion 
is that the intrinsic superiority of the 
B-text indicates that the Western text 
is in the main a paraphrastic recension 
based on a text resembling the B-text 
but not identical with it. The B-text 
itself is not the original text but is a 
revision. It is not paraphrastic like 
the Western text, but it is none the 
less a recension. The work of the 
next textual editor of Acts will be to 
investigate the difference between the 
B-text and the text presupposed by 
the Western paraphrase. It would 
not be surprising if he found that the 
difference varied considerably, and 
that in chapter xv. the B-text has been 
edited rather more than in most places. 
The alternative would be to accept 
the Western text as original, and to 
regard the B-text as a * scholarly 
revision. The present edition has not 
attempted to deal fully with this 
problem, because the first step was 
to fix clearly the nature of the 
Western text and establish the 
facts. 

1. the custom of Moses] i.e. ac 
cording to the Law. The West 
ern text makes this an addition to 
the requirement of circumcision, in 
stead of a definition of it, and the 
Didascalia goes still further : " ex 
cept you are circumcised, and walk 



in the custom of Moses, and are 
purified from foods and all other 
things." 

On the relation of this dispute to 
that recorded in Galatians see Addit. 
Note 16. 

2. arranged] era^av. What is the 
subject ? (i.) Strict grammar would 
make it 01 KareXdovres airo T??s I. This 
is possible and grammatically most 
natural. Nor is it really difficult. The 
story of Peter s visit to Samaria to 
inspect the work of Philip, and of 
Barnabas to Antioch to inspect the 
work of the Cyprians and Cyrenians 
who had founded the Gentile church 
there, show that whatever the facts 
may have been, Luke regarded the 
church at Jerusalem as having some 
authority over younger communities. 
His point is not that Jerusalem had 
no authority, but that it always 
decided in favour of the Gentile 
mission. Moreover, Galatians suggests 
that Paul s opponents actually did 
claim that he had acted in virorayfi 
to the false brethren. Therefore, in 
an account which may well be that 
of Jerusalem, it is not strange to 
find a cognate word (^ra^av) in a 
description of the relation of the 
delegates from Jerusalem to Paul and 
Barnabas. 

The Western text takes this view 
and makes it definite (see note on vss. 
1 -5) ; Chrysostom is unfortunately 
ambiguous. 

(ii.j Most modern commentators 
think that the subject of ^ra^av 
must be supplied from TOUS ddeXtpous. 
This implies that the brethren at 
Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas 
as their delegates, and may be sup 
ported by a comparison with xi. 30, 
and perhaps xiii. 1-3. Moreover, 
in verse 24 the attitude of these 
emissaries from Jerusalem is so re 
pudiated that it is unlikely that Luke 
regarded them as representative of 
Jerusalem authority, whatever his 
source may have done. 



XV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 171 

Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the 
apostles and elders at Jerusalem about this question. 

3 So then they were sent on their way by the church and travelled 
through Phoenicia and Samaria narrating the conversion of the 

4 Gentiles, and caused great joy to all the brethren. And when 
they arrived at Jerusalem they were received by the church 
and the apostles and the elders, and reported all that God 

5 had done with them. And some arose of the party of the 
Pharisees who were converts, saying that it is necessary to 



some others] including Titus ; cf. 
Gal. ii. 1. No one has ever yet found 
a good answer to the riddle why Titus 
who looms so large in the epistles is 
not mentioned in Acts. Hence the 
ingenious but improbable conjectures 
that Titus wrote Acts, or the tradi 
tional view that Luke is the brother 
(of Titus) whose praise is in the 
Gospel (2 Cor. viii. 18) and that 
Luke s excessive modesty suppressed 
his brother s name as well as his 
own. 

apostles and elders] Pauline nomen- 
clature included James among the 
apostles, if Gal. i. 19 (erepov 5e TUV 
OVK tldov, cl //,TJ Id/cw/Soi rbv 
rod Kvpiov) means that (ex 
cept for Peter) James was the only 
apostle whom Paul saw. But Luke 
probably reckoned him among the 
elders, and it is possible, though I 
think not probable, that Gal. i. 19 
means that he saw no apostles but 
only James, who was not an apostle. 

xv. 3-29. THE COUNCIL AT JERU 
SALEM. For the relation of this episode 
to the Famine relief visit, and the 
possibility that this is the Jerusalem 
tradition of the same event, see 
Addit. Note 16. 

3. So then] This ol [ilv otv clearly 
marks the beginning of the story. 
What has gone before is structurally 
rather the end of the previous narra 
tive, though it is surely editorial and is 
intended to lead up to the following 
narrative. If we had not vss. 1-2 no 
one would doubt but that the journey 
described in vss. 3 ff. was a joyful 



progress from one Christian community 
to another, throughout Phoenicia and 
Samaria, with no controversy until 
Jerusalem was reached, and I think 
that this may have been the general 
tenor of the Jerusalem narrative 
(see Additional Note 16), though the 
style of vss. 3 f . rather suggests that 
the editor is responsible for much of 
the wording. 

Phoenicia] The implication is that 
the region of Tyre and Sidon contained 
Christian churches. Acts contains no 
hint as to when they were converted. 
This is another instance of how unsafe 
it would be to regard Acts as giving a 
complete history of the beginnings of 
evangelization. 

4. with them] Cf. xiv. 27. 

5. party] cupe&lt;m means a party ; 
not a heresy, and not even a sect. 
A Pharisee was in no sense separated 
from other Jews by his difference of 
practice or opinion in the way in 
which a Protestant is separated from 
Catholics, or a nonconformist from 
members of an established church, 
but rather in the same way as in 
politics a Conservative is separated 
from Liberals, or in the English church 
Anglo-Catholics are separated from 
Evangelicals. The use of the word in 
the sense of heresy is probably not to 
be found before the middle of the 
second century. In Titus iii. 10 
aipertKos means partisan more prob 
ably than heretical. 

converts] This gives in this pass 
age the sense of ireirio-TevKbres better 
than the more literal * who had 
believed. 



XV 



172 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY 

circumcise them and enjoin the observation of the law of 
Moses. 

And the apostles and elders were assembled to see about this 6 
subject. And when there had been much discussion Peter arose 7 
and said to them, " Brethren, you know that in the days of the be 
ginning God made choice of you that by my mouth the heathen 
should hear the word of the good news and believe, and God 8 



circumcise them] avrovs is very 
awkward. Hence the Antiochian text 
inserted into the previous verse, * and 
that he had opened a door of faith 
for the Gentiles, from xiv. 27, thus 
providing an antecedent for avrovs, 
and Blass points out that the phrase 
is really much more appropriate here 
than in xiv. 27. But the question 
may be raised whether the Antiochian 
text interpreted the passage correctly : 
it obviously took avrovs to mean the 
heathen converts in general. This is 
certainly a possibility, and may be the 
meaning of the editor. Lekebusch, 
however, in his Composition und 
Entstehung d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 
114, suggests that avrofa refers to the 
* some others who went with Paul 
and Barnabas. The attractive point 
of this is that Galatians tells us that 
Titus, a Gentile, was Paul s com 
panion, and that pressure was put on 
him to be circumcised. Was this the 
meaning of the source, even if not 
of the editor ? 

6. the apostles and elders] Later, 
without any break, there is mention 
of Trai&gt; TO TrXrjOos (vs. 12, see note on 
iv. 32) and 6X77 r? KK\rjaia (vs. 22). It 
is characteristic of Luke to mention 
thus belatedly further details of a 
situation. But for the purpose of 
reconciling this account with Gal. ii. 
some scholars prefer to regard this 
verse as the private conference with 
01 5oKovi&gt;Ts of Gal. ii. 2, and vss. 7 ff. 
as a public conference. As far as 
TTO.V rb 7r\7)0os is concerned, it is not 
impossible that it implies no larger 
company than the apostles and elders. 
In Luke xxiii. 1 and Acts xxiii. 7 it is 
used of the Jewish Trpeo-fivrtpiov or 
Sanhedrin. 

subject] \6yov, which like pTJ/j.a 
almost loses the meaning of speech 



or word. The evolution of thought 
is obvious, word story episode. 

7. arose] The Western text adds 
ev irvev/jiaTi. It was an inspired 
utterance. But there is nothing in 
the context to suggest that the 
audience felt that it was more than 
an ordinary speech. 

in the days] The Greek idiom is 
from the days, but this is not 
English. 

of the beginning] apxaiwv scarcely 
means ancient here ; it is the adjective 
of dpxri, cf. xxi. 16, where apxaios 
/j.a07)Tris surely means an original 
disciple. These phrases show that 
Luke recognized that the history of 
the church had covered a longer time 
than his relatively few and rapid 
narratives might suggest. 

made choice] What is the object 
of eeX^aro ? A possible solution is 
perhaps to regard 5ta crro^aris /u-ov as 
a sense construction = e/x&lt;?, modified 
by the necessities of the following 
dKovaai. TO, tdv-r]. But this is very 
harsh, and the passage is one of 
Torrey s best arguments. He thinks 
that ei&gt; vfjuv represents an Aramaic 
jm&gt; and the translator did not realize 
that the 3 only indicated the direct 
object. But the theory of an Aramaic 
original is not necessary, for an exact 
parallel is provided by 2 Esdras xix. 
7 ( = Neh. ix. 7) e ^eXe^w ev Aj3pad/u.= 
thou didst choose Abraham. This 
parallel seems sufficient to justify 
the translation given above. (See 
Torrey, p. 21, and note that his 
argument was anticipated by the 
Hebraists of the seventeenth cen 
tury and rejected by the grammarians. 
See Winer, 32. 3a, and Buttmann, p. 
138 (Thayer s translation, p. 159).) 

good news] The noun evayyeXiov 
occurs in xx. 24, but except for these 



XV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



173 



who knows the heart bore witness to them by giving the Holy Spirit 

9 to them, even as also to us, and he made no difference between 

10 us and them purifying their hearts by the faith. Therefore why 

do you now tempt God to put on the neck of the disciples a yoke 



two speeches of Peter and Paul to 
Christian audiences not again in Acts 
or in Luke. Contrast the frequent 
verb evayye\io/LLai. This marks either 
the author s fidelity to his sources 
even in speeches (Harnack, Constitu 
tion and Law of the Church in the. 
First Two Centuries, p. 289) or his 
choice of suitable words for his 
characters in their speeches. 

8. who knows the heart] Cf. i. 24. 
These are the only instances of the 
word in the N.T. It is curious that 
in the African text the prayer in i. 24 
is attributed to Peter. Note also 
the relation between this word and 
Kadapicras rds Kapdias avruiv in vs. 9, and 
the corresponding, though negative, 
phrase in X. 34, OVK tern irpoffuiro\riiJLirTTi&lt;i 
6 6eos. 

to them] avrols may be dependent 
on e/LLapTvprjffev (of. x. 43, xiii. 22, etc.) 
or it may depend on dous. The 
general run of the words connects 
it with tfj-apTvprjcrev, but the phrase 
KO.OWS Kal rtfjt.lv seems to be parallel to 
avrols and to be more naturally con 
nected with cW ?. Either construction 
is possible, and as the sense is the 
same in each case the point is of little 
importance. The reference to the 
story of Cornelius is unmistakable, 
and is confirmed by verbal similarities, 
e.g. KaBapifa is found in Acts only in 
x. 15, xi. 9, and xv. 9. diaKpivu is 
found only in x. 20, xi. 2, 12, and xv. 
9, and in this verse /ca#u&gt;s /ecu TJ/JUV 
seems to refer to x. 47 (/caflws /ecu 
77/Aets) and xi. 17 (/catfcbs /ecu -rjfuv). 

8-9. giving . . . purifying] These 
phrases illustrate the difficulty of 
rendering the aorist participle. The 
rendering given might be taken to 
imply a process of continuous giving 
and purifying an idea which is not 
in the Greek. On the other hand, to 
render it having given . . . having 
purified would imply a sequence in 
time which would be equally wrong. 
A striking parallel to the combination 
of the Spirit and purification is the 
possibly correct Lucan text of the 



Lord s prayer which reads * Send thy 
Holy Spirit and make us pure instead 
of Thy Kingdom come. SeeStreeter, 
The Four Gospels, p. 277. 

9. hearts] The belief that the heart 
of man is the source of thought, voli 
tion, and desire is common in the 
O.T. Cf. Ecclus. xxxviii. 10 diroarrjffov 
w\f]/iJL/ji\eiav . . . /ecu CLTTO 7rdcr7;s a[j.ap- 
rtas Kaddpi&lt;rov KapSiav. 

the faith] Faith without the 
would be a possible rendering, but I 
think that i) trleris in Acts is much 
nearer the faith in the later Catholic 
sense, than to faith in a Pauline or 
Lutheran sense. Cf. xiv. 22. 

10-11. This passage is in some 
ways the most Pauline in Acts. It 
implies (a) the belief that the Jewish 
Law had been found intolerable, 
though whether Paul himself really 
thought so is a different question 
(see Addit. Note 17); (b) that Jesus 
had given his disciples the special 
privilege of salvation. It is the 
last reference to Peter in Acts. 

10. now] In distinction to the 
days of the beginning. 

tempt God] Cf. v. 9. The phrase 
is borrowed from the O.T. (cf. Exod. 
xvii. 2 ; Deut. vi. 16, etc.). It seems 
to mean acting against the declared 
will of God, and so tempting him to 
inflict punishment. Thus in Is. vii. 
12 the meaning of Ahaz is that he 
will not ask for further signs to decide 
a question on which he believes that 
God s will is clear to do so would be 
to tempt the Lord (cf. Matt. iv. 7). 
In the present passage God has suffi 
ciently declared his will by giving 
the Spirit to the Gentiles, and to 
refuse the natural conclusions to be 
drawn from this fact is to tempt 
God. Similarly in v. 9 the implica 
tion is that the declared will of God 
was that Ananias should give to the 
apostles what he had really received 
for his property, but he lied about it 
and so tempted God. 

yoke] Ivybv (Siy) was commonly 
used by Jewish writers in the sense of 



174 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? But through 1 1 
the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe that we shall be saved 



obligation. Thus they spoke of the 
yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, of 
the yoke of the commandments, or 
simply of the yoke, with ellipse of 
God or of the Kingdom, to express 
the religious obligations of Israelites. 
Similarly the yoke of flesh and 
blood or the yoke of the govern 
ment and analogous phrases were 
used to describe the obligations of 
service or servitude. A curious by 
product of this use was that, inasmuch 
as those who recited the Shema 
(Hear, Israel, etc.) were said to 
take up the yoke of the Kingdom, by 
an inversion of this usage, to take 
up the yoke meant * to recite the 
Shema. (See Strack, i. pp. 608 ff.) 

Here, however, the figure suggests 
a burden (cf. fidpos, vs. 28) and is not 
the more favourable stereotyped 
Jewish metaphor by which yoke 
means religious duty. In Ps. Sol. 
vii. 8 (Syriac omits) thy yoke is 
parallel to fj.daTi.ya TrcuSeias crov, and 
in Ps. Sol. xvii. 32 it is used of 
slavery (cf. Didache vi. 2 ; 1 Clem, 
xvi. 17), but Matt. xi. 29 f. may 
be comparable with the rabbinic 
usage, though even there (popriov 
e\a.(ppbv is parallel to fvyos xp^aros. 
Cf. also vy$v 8ov\eias as a description 
of Judaism in Gal. v. 1. The figure 
is so easily applied to various kinds 
of burdens and restrictions that the 
present passage (with eiri rbv rpd- 
X^ov) may quite well be treated as 
an independent and slightly different 



were able to bear] The question 
may legitimately be raised whether 
this is a fair statement. The follow 
ing propositions may reasonably be 
defended, (a) Some Jews in the first 
century doubtless felt that the Law 
was a burden. But the majority 
found their delight in the Law of 
the Lord. See Vol. I. pp. 35-81 and 
C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. 
Paul and The Old Testament and After, 
(b) Jesus showed no desire to abolish 
or even to emend the Law, but was 
impatient with much of the current 
interpretation of it. (c) Paul objected 
not to any details of the Law, but to 
the whole concept of salvation by a 



code of conduct, (d) The Catholic 
Church introduced a distinction be 
tween the primary and secondary 
Law (6 vofjios and r] Seurepwcrts = 
Mishna). of which only the former was 
binding on Christians. The classical 
statements of this doctrine are found 
in the Didascalia and the Apostolic 
Constitutions, (e) A different method 
was suggested in the Epistle of 
Barnabas, which accepted the Law 
but allegorized all precepts concerning 
food and ceremony. 

11. we believe that we shall be 
saved] The aorist infinitive is used in 
this sense with verbs which impart 
a future meaning, cf. e-n-riyyeiXa.Todoui ai 
(he promised that he would give) in 
vii. 5, irpoKa.T7]yyei\e -rradelv (he pre 
dicted that he would suffer) in iii. 18, 
and w/uocre Kadiffai (he swore that he 
should sit) in ii. 30. The infinitive 
itself is timeless, and the phrase might 
be rendered we believe in salvation 
were it not that this would imply 
merely an intellectual assent to a 
theory, whereas the Greek implies the 
expectation of an event. (See Blass 
ad loc.) An alternative view is that 
since elsewhere in Luke-Acts Trtarej/w 
is often quite independent, or ex 
presses its object clause with on, one 
is perhaps justified in conjecturing 
that the infinitive here is rather in the 
loose epexegetical construction of 
result (or purpose) of which gram 
marians speak occasionally. Compare 
for example e-mdelvai in the preceding 
verse and \a[3eli&gt; in verse 14. In that 
case we should render we believe so 
as to be saved, or unto salvation. 
This interpretation may explain the 
variant in fc^D irLcrTevao/mei ffwdijvai. 

The salvation referred to was 
thought of eschatologically, and there 
is certainly no reason to read into the 
TTHTTevo/Jiei the Pauline doctrine of a 
mystical union with Christ through 
faith. Other examples of the com 
bination of TricrTei u? and cra&gt;fo/zcu are at 
Luke viii. 12 (contrast Mark iv. 15), 
Acts xvi. 31, and in connexion with 
cures, Mark v. 34 and parallels, Mark 
x. 52 and parallels, Luke xvii. 19, 
Acts xiv. 9 (where we have the in 
finitive as here, iriar TOU ffudrj 



ACTS OP THE APOSTLES 



175 



12 even as they also." And the whole meeting was silent, and they 
heard Barnabas and Paul explain all the signs and wonders that 

13 God had wrought among the heathen by them. And after they 
stopped speaking James replied saying, " Brethren, listen to me. 

14 Symeon explained how God first made provision to take a people 



even as they also] Ka6 bv rpoirov 
KaKelvoL is ambiguous in two ways : 
(a) Does tKelvoi mean the Gentiles or 
Jewish Christians and their ancestors? 
(6) Is the verb to be supplied saved 
or believe ? Doubtless the general 
meaning is that salvation is open to 
all who believe, Jew and Gentle alike ; 
but the exact way in which Peter 
represents this meaning is obscure. 

12. was silent] The aorist is prob 
ably inceptive, and perhaps the idiom 
atic translation would be the meeting 
came to order. The Western text 
reads "and when the elders assented 
((rvvKaTCLTede/uLevwis, cf. Luke xxiii. 51 
and the Western text of iv. 18) to 
what was said by Peter, the whole 
gathering was silent." 

Barnabas and Paul] Only here and 
in xiv. 14 and xv. 25 is this order 
used since xiii. 7. If there is any 
reason for this exception it may be 
the greater prestige that Barnabas 
enjoyed at Jerusalem as a primitive 
Jerusalem disciple. 

all the] This is the force of ova. in 
later Greek. It was rapidly losing its 
force, and is sometimes hardly more 
than a simple relative. Cf. vs. 4. 

signs and wonders] See note on 
ii. 43. 

13. stopped speaking] Mytjffav, the 
same verb that is rendered above 
was silent, for in English a meeting 
is silent, and an orator stops 
speaking. 

James] Presumably the Lord s 
brother, cf. xii. 17, but see Addit. 
Note 6. 

replied] Perhaps d-n-eKpiB-rj here as 
in iii. 12 (air e Kpiva.ro] merely means 
* began to speak (see Blass note on 
iii. 12), but I suspect that it had a 
stronger meaning (cf. the Latin 
responsa for legal decisions) and that 
for this reason it was removed from 
the Western text (see Vol. III. p. 
143). 

listen to me] Cf. James ii. 5. 



aKovaare /ULOV is not found elsewhere in 
the N.T. 

14. Symeon] It seems obvious that 
this Symeon is Peter ; yet this name 
is given to him only in 2 Peter i. 1, 
and it apparently never occurred to 
Chrysostom that the allusion here is 
to the speech which Peter had just 
made. He explains it as a reference 
to Symeon and to the Nunc 
dimittis (Luke ii. 29-32), though- 
according to some MSS. he adds that 
others think that this Symeon may 
have been another man of the same 
name (Chrysostom, Horn, xxxiii.). I 
have found no other trace of this 
extraordinary theory, but it can 
scarcely have been Chrysostom s 
original invention. The choice of this 
particular form of Peter s name is 
probably due to the author s sensitive 
ness to the appropriateness of words 
to occasions, especially in the speeches. 
It was fitting that Peter should be 
addressed by a Palestinian Jew by 
his Jewish name and even in its most 
Jewish spelling. On this trait in the 
speeches see above on good news, 
vs. 7, Cadbury, The Making of Luke- 
Acts, pp. 227 f., and Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, p. 316 note. In 2 Peter 
i. 1 as well as here the Semitizing form 
is regarded by R. Knopf, in Meyer s 
Commentary on 2 Peter, as " an in 
tentional archaism of the author who 
wishes thereby to give a name of 
foreign sound to the great authority 
cited." 

first] Not for the first time, which 
would be in Hellenistic Greek Trpwrus 
as at xi. 26. 

made provision] eTreo-Keif/aro is often 
translated by visited. See Matt, 
xxv. 36, 43. Its real meaning is more 
to make provision for. It is used in 
Luke i. 68, 78 and vii. 16, especially of 
the providential action of God for his 
people. So here it means that God 
made provision for the call of the 
Gentiles. 



176 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XV 



Amos ix. 
11 f. 



from the Gentiles for his name. And with this agree the words 15 
of the Prophets as it is written : * After this I will return and will 16 
rebuild the tent of David which has fallen and will rebuild that of 
it which is destroyed, and will put it up again, in order that the 17 
rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles on whom my 
name has been called upon them, saith the Lord, making these 18 



to take] The author s free use of 
infinitives in lyrical passages (e.g. 
Canticles of Luke) and speeches is 
well illustrated here. See also vss. 7, 
10, 11. We must simply admit the 
difficulty of translating them and of 
finding satisfactory parallels to the 
constructions which they thus give to 
the verbs which they accompany. 

15. the Prophets] i.e. the roll of 
the Twelve Prophets. Cf. vii. 42, xiii. 
40 f., and see Cadbury, The Making of 
Luke-Acts, p. 326. 

16 f. The quotation is from Amos 
ix. 11 f. in the LXX with small 
variations. The important point is 
that the argument depends on variants 
found in the Greek and apparently 
based on misreading of the original 
Hebrew. Amos said, " In that day 
will I raise up the tent of David that 
is fallen, and close up its breaches, 
and I will raise up his ruins, and will 
build them as in the days of old, that 
they (the Israelites) may inherit (IB&gt;T ) 
what remains of Edom (DHN n-iNsj- nx) 
and of the other nations over which 
my name is named. A saying of 
Jahweh who doeth this." But the 
LXX read im" as IBHT (omitting rm), 
and translated it e/c^TTjo-oxrt, and 
read DHN as D-IN, which they took 
as the subject of the verb instead 
of the object and translated it men 
instead of * Edom, thus producing a 
prophecy of the conversion of the 
heathen out of a promise that Israel 
should possess their lands. It is 
incredible that a Jewish Christian 
could have thus used the LXX in 
defiance of the Hebrew, or that an 
Aramaic source should have done so. 
Either the whole source of this chapter 
was Greek, or the speeches at least 
are due to a Greek editor. This is the 
most decisive evidence against Torrey s 
theory of a continuous Aramaic source, 
and is scarcely answered by his antici 



pation of this criticism (Torrey, pp. 
38 f.). It is possible that the narrative 
was Aramaic but the speeches inserted 
by the translator; but the awkward 
fact remains, that the Aramaic evi 
dence is perhaps more marked in the 
speeches than elsewhere. The fact is 
that a theory of an Aramaic source can 
not explain a preference for the LXX 
as a basis for argument, and a theory 
of purely Greek composition has diffi 
culty in explaining individual phrases. 

16. destroyed] For the reading 
Ka.TeffTpe/ji/j.tva (KB) we may add the 
support of Codex Alexandrinus in 
Amos ix. 11, since that manuscript 
usually agrees with the form of N.T. 
quotations from the O.T. 

17. on whom . . . upon them] In 
English we should of course say * on 
whom without upon them, but the 
Hebrew doubles the construction, and 
since the Greek, to which it is also 
foreign, has literally reproduced this 
idiom, it seems better to do so in 
English. 

saith the Lord, etc.] This is the 
B-text. It seems to be a combina 
tion of the last words of Amos ix. 12 
( saith the Lord who doeth this ) with 
a comment by James. The Western 
text felt the awkwardness of this 
combination, and probably emended 
it to " saith the Lord known to 
him from the beginning of the world is 
his work," though some of the details 
are obscure (see Vol. III. p. 144). 
Possibly the B-text merely illustrates 
the tendency of the author to round 
out his Biblical quotations in Biblical 
style (cf. the changes in Acts ii. 17a, 
vii. 43c, d). For the thought (not 
the Greek wording) of the addition 
see Isaiah xlv. 21 (so W.H.) and 
Acts iii. 21. But d-rr al^vos may be 
a confused memory of the KO.OUS ai 
71/uepat. TOV aiwvos in Amos ix. 11. In 
free scripture quotation (and that 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



177 



ig things known from the beginning of the world. Wherefore I 

20 decree to stop annoying the Gentiles who turn to God, but to write 
to them to abstain from the contaminations of idols and from 

21 fornication [and strangled meat] and from blood. For Moses from 



verse of Amos has been freely quoted 
in vs. 16) Luke and presumably 
others often transfer a phrase from 
one part of a quotation to another. 
The Hebrew parallelism lent itself to 
such transfer of phrases. 

19. I decree] In the context this 
seems the probable meaning. It is 
the definite sentence of a judge, and 
the tyu implies that he is acting by 
an authority which is personal. For 
Kpivw cf. Luke vi. 37, xix. 22, xxii. 
30; Acts hi. 13, xiii. 27, xvi. 4, xx. 
16, xxi. 25, xxiii. 3, etc. It must, 
however, be admitted that the trans 
lation of * decree does not leave room 
for the possibility that Kpivu means 
no more than recommend, for it is 
certainly used with a less formal sense 
in Acts xiii. 46, xvi. 15, and xxvi. 8 
(cf. Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 80). 
It may be suggested that there is 
room for a more complete study than 
has yet been made of the meaning of 
xpivu in the Pauline Epistles. The 
Western text, however, represented 
by Irenaeus and Ephrem (see Vol. III. 
pp. 145 and 426), seems to have inter 
preted Kpivu as decree and there 
fore softened it by reading &lt;5i6 ^ycb TO 
KCLT /j.e Kplvu. Perhaps the reviser 
felt that Peter, not James, had settled 
the matter. Certainly it is remark 
able that in chapter i. he edits the text 
so as to make Peter more prominent, 
that in this chapter he inserts the 
statement that Peter s speech was 
inspired and that the elders all agree 
with him, and that he softens phrases 
which imply the authority of James 
(cf. note on vs. 13). 

stop annoying] An alternative 
translation which has often been 
suggested is put additional burdens, 
and it has been argued that the wapd 
in Trapevox^eiv implies the sense of 
extra. There are two reasons for 
rejecting this interpretation. (i.) 
irapevox^ew is a common Hellenistic 
double compound in which wapa has 
no special force. It is used, for instance, 
of the attitude of the lions towards 

VOL. IV 



Daniel in the Greek of Dan. vi. 18. 
(ii.) No one was suggesting any extra 
burden on the converts ; the question 
was whether the usual Jewish law 
with regard to proselytes should be 
enforced or whether they should be 
treated as pious heathen subject only 
to the Noachian regulations. Note 
that the force of the present infinitive 
with fji-f] is stop annoying rather 
than do not annoy. Cf. notes on 
i. 4 and xv. 38. 

20. For the text of this verse and 
of vs. 29 see Vol. III. pp. 144 f. and 
265 ff ., and for its meaning see Addit. 
Note 16. 

contaminations] The substantive 
d\i&lt;ryr)fj,a seems a hapax legomenon, 
but the verb is in the LXX and is 
used of food. In the MSS. of Aristeas 
142 the form awa\Layo(v)^evoi. appears 
a context where ritual dietary de 
filement is suitable. That it implies 
ritual rather than moral pollution 
may indicate the author s interpre 
tation of the decrees. 

21. For Moses, etc.] The reason 
ing is obscure, and the explanations 
offered by commentators are numerous 
and unsatisfactory. It is clear that 
yap gives a reason either for the itpivw 
fj.7) wapevoxKetv or for the decrees. 
But the fact that Moses has advocates 
in every city seems to be no reason 
for either one or the other. Com 
mentators have therefore been usually 
divided between such explanations as 
that the legitimate claims of Jewish 
propaganda were sufficiently taken 
care of by the Jewish preachers and 
the services in the synagogues, so that 
it was not necessary to irapevo-xXelv 
the converts, or that, since there were 
so many missionaries on the Jewish 
side, a modus vivendi was necessary, 
which the decrees provided. Neither 
line of explanation seems to be really 
satisfactory. 

A much more satisfactory sugges 
tion has been made by J. H. Ropes 
in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 
xv., 1896, pp. 75-81. He argues that 

N 



178 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XV 



the generations of the beginning has had in every city those who 
preach him, for he is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." 
Then it was voted by the apostles and elders with the whole 22 
church to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch 
with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, 



James was maintaining that it was 
God s intention to call a nation for 
himself from the Gentiles. In support 
of this James quotes Amos ix. 11. 
But it might have been argued against 
James that this prophecy only means 
the restoration of the ancient kingdom 
of David, and indeed the contention 
would be correct. Therefore, to prove 
that the prophecy means more, James 
puts in the argument that the Jews 
have synagogues all over the world, 
and thus the nations which are 
called by my name covers not only 
the old kingdom of David, but the 
whole civilized world. In connexion 
with this it should be noted that 
the word K-r}pv&lt;raeu&gt; is much more ade 
quately expounded by this explana 
tion than by any other. Its natural 
meaning is proclaiming something 
which is previously unknown to 
those who hear the proclamation. 
The point is that inasmuch as the 
synagogues were open to the pious 
heathen, the reading of Moses was a 
KTjpvyfjia to them. 

of the beginning] Apparently Luke, 
like the rabbis, had an exaggerated 
view of the antiquity of the institution 
of the synagogue. See Strack ad loc. 

has had] With phrases such as e/c 
ycve&v or TrdXcu the present tense is 
used in Greek for action begun in the 
past and continuing in the present, 
but the English idiom is different. 
See Burton, Moods and Tenses, 17. 

22. it was voted] ?5oe is the 
technical term in Greek of all periods 
for voting or passing a measure in 
the assembly. It may be thought 
that this translation implies too 
much parliamentary procedure, but 
voted has become a common word ; 
and &lt;5oe has about as much suggestion 
of parliamentary methods as * voted 
has in modern English. According 
to Dalman, Aramaische Dialektproben, 
p. 3, the same idiom is found in 
Aramaic. 



to choose] K\^a/jL^vovs would have 
been put more elegantly into the 
dative, and this is the right reading 
in the parallel passage in vs. 25, but 
this idiom was probably becoming 
obsolete, and there are many excep 
tions to its use. (See Blass note 
ad loc.) The close connexion of the 
word with avdpas immediately follow 
ing led the Latin translator in Codex 
Bezae to render eKXei-antvovs as though 
it were passive (electos), and the trans 
lators of the English version (A.V.) 
also render it by chosen men. But 
there is no evidence in the N.T., and 
apparently none outside it, for the use 
of ee\ed / u,77J in a passive sense. (See 
esp. Luke vi. 13, x. 42 ; Acts i. 2, 24, 
vi. 5; and cf. e-mXe^d/mevos in xv. 40.) 

Judas called Barsabbas] Cf. 
Bapo-a/Sa rbv /ScKTiXfo in Test. XII. 
Pair., Judah, viii. 2. Barsabbas may 
merely mean born on the Sabbath. 
But if it is really a family name, pre 
sumably he was the brother of the 
Joseph Barsabbas mentioned in i. 23. 
It is strange that though there are 
many variants in the spelling of 
Barsabbas in both verses, there is no 
trace of any attempt to identify 
Joseph with Judas there are no 
early variants in the first name in 
either verse. To what is said in the 
note on i. 23 concerning the name 
Bap&lt;ra/3/3as it may be added that 
names in Sa/3/3ar- (Sa/z/Safl-, etc.) 
appear to be quite common in Hellen 
istic Judaism. Evidence from Egypt 
(including, for example, a man who is 
called sometimes 2a///3a0cuos, some 
times Sa/i/SaraFos, sometimes hypo- 
coristically Za/x/Sas) may be found 
collected in L. Fuchs, Die Juden 
Agyptens, 1924, pp. 140 f., 153, cf. 
155 f., from Rome (including appar 
ently 2a/3ds, -arcs) in Nik. Miiller and 
N. A. Bees, Dielnschriften derjudischen 
Katakombe am Monteverde zu JRom, 
1919, pp. 13 f., 40 f. 

Silas] On the spelling of the name 



XV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



179 



23 leaders among the brethren, writing by them : " The apostles 



see Vol. III. pp. 269 f. The name is 
given for several Semitic persons in 
Josephus, in Dittenberger, Orientis 
Graeci inscriptiones selectae, 604, and 
in Cagnat, Inscriptiones Graecae ad 
res Eomanas pertinentes, iii. 817. 
Prof. Burkitt points out that the 
Talmudic j^t?* which is really the 
same as the Palmyrene x^ itty, is a 
diminutive meaning little Saul or 
little Wolf. This was seen by the 
Syriac version which treats the name 
as Semitic, not Greek. It is there 
fore not unlikely (of. Gen. xlix. 27, 
Benjamin shall ravine as a wolf) 
that, like Paul, Silas thought him 
self a Benjamite. In modern times 
Wolf would doubtless be their family 
name. (See Dalman s Grammar (1894), 
p. 124, and F. C. Burkitt, Christian 
Beginnings, p. 132.) Silas is at present 
generally identified with the Silvanus 
who appears in 1 Thess. i. 1 and in 
2 Thess. i. 1 as the joint author of 
these epistles along with Paul and 
Timothy. According to 2 Cor. i. 19 
he joined with Paul and Timothy in 
preaching in Corinth, and 1 Peter 
states in v. 12 that the epistle was 
written through (5ici) Silvanus. It 
seems probable, though from the 
nature of the case not certain, that 
Silas and Silvanus are the same 
person. There has been much un 
profitable discussion whether ZtXas 
is a contraction of a Latin name (Sil 
vanus) and should be written 2tXs, 
or a transliteration of a Semitic name 
(nW) and should be StXcts. Of these 
points it may fairly be said " nee con- 
stat, nee refert." Even less import 
ance can be attached to efforts to 
identify Silas with Luke or with 
Titus (see P. W. Schmiedel s article in 
Ency. Bibl.}. In the later traditions 
Silas and Silvanus appear as distinct 
persons, both being included in the 
lists of the Seventy, according to which 
Silas became bishop of Corinth, and 
Silvanus bishop of Thessalonica. 

leaders] rfyou/ncu, except in the 
participle, means to consider, to 
reckon (2 Cor. ix. 5 and frequently 
in the Epistles). It is only found with 
this meaning ( to reckon ) in Philipp. 
ii. 3 and 2 Pet. ii. 13 (contrast Luke 
xxii. 26; Acts vii. 10, xiv. 12; Hebr. 



xiii. 7, 17, 24), but it is noticeable that 
the participle is not found in the 
Pauline Epistles except in the passage 
quoted. The participle -fiyou/mevos means 
a leader with almost the same mean 
ing as rjyfjj.ovvwv (cf. Acts vii. 10), and 
often is virtually a substantive. The 
fact that a.vr)p is used with it here 
does not prevent our regarding it in 
this sense. Cf. Luke xxiv. 19 avrip 
7rpo07?T7?s and Acts iii. 14 dvdpa (povta. 
Cf. also XV. 23 ol TrpeafivTepoi a8e\&lt;f)ol. 
There seems no evidence in support 
of Wendt s rendering who were in 
honour if this implies that rj-yotfjievos 
is taken as a passive. In later Greek 
i]"yovp.vo^ became the title of the head 
of a monastery, and it now only means 
abbot. Harnack ( Lehre d. zwolf 
Apostel, TU. ii. 2, pp. 94 f.) thinks 
that the title was in early Christianity 
given especially to teachers. No doubt 
a teacher was an Tiyov/nevos, but does it 
follow that an yyou/j-evos was a teacher ? 
Vs. 32 says that Judas and Silas were 
prophets, and 1 Clement, in which 
iiyovp.evos is constantly used of civil 
rather than ecclesiastical leaders 
(see Index Patrist.), represents its wide 
range of meaning. Cf. also Ecclus. 
xxx. 27 01 rjyovfj.ej oi eKK\rjaias. 

23. writing] ypd\f/avTs is a nomina 
tive entirely outside the construction of 
the sentence, but its meaning is quite 
plain. It is natural that with imper 
sonal verbs Greek as well as English 
should occasionally slip into the use 
of a nominative participle as though 
the verb were personal. Kypke, 
Observationes ad loc., illustrated this 
nominative with the impersonal 5oe 
from Lucian, Isaeus, and Thucydides. 

by them] &lt;5td xa/&gt;6s is literally by 
the hand of, but in English this would 
mean that Judas and Silas were the 
secretaries who penned the letter, and 
the Greek means that they were the 
messengers who carried it. 5id x i ps 
is scarcely if at all more than by. 
It is found four times in Acts (ii. 23, 
vii. 25, xi. 30, xv. 23, to which v. 12 
and xiv. 3 may be added, but the 
phrase is there 5td r&v x L P^ v an d the 
word hand has more significance), 
but not elsewhere in the N.T. (but see 
Mark vi. 2 dia T&V x*&lt;-puv KT\. ). It may 
be a Semitic idiom, and it is significant 



180 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XV 



and the elders, brethren, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria 
and Cilicia from among the Gentiles, greeting. Inasmuch as 24 
we heard that some from us disturbed you by their words, 
perverting your souls, to whom we gave no instructions, we 25 
decided when we were assembled together to choose men and 
send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who 26 
have devoted their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, orally reporting 27 
the same things themselves. For it was voted by the Holy 28 
Spirit and by us to put no further weight on you than these 
necessities, to abstain from things offered to idols and blood 29 



that it is not found in the second part 
of Acts ; but it would be hard to prove 
that it is not an idiom of the koine 
Greek. 

The apostles, etc.]. On this letter 
as a whole see Additional Note 16. 

brethren] dde\&lt;poL in apposition to 
apostles and elders may be some 
what harsh, but there seems no 
reason to reject or emend it as Blass, 
Preuschen, and Schwartz, Gott.Nachr., 
1907, pp. 271 f., have thought. The 
reading of the Antiochian text and 
the brethren is clearly an emendation, 
for the TrpeafturepoL dSeXcfiot is found 
in the Western as well as in the B-text. 

Syria and Cilicia] Acts xvi. 4, xxi. 
25, and the Western text of xv. 41 
imply a wider currency for the decrees. 
With the combination Antioch and 
Syria and Cilicia (i.e. a city and the 
connected double province) compare 
the expression in Acts i. 8, in Jeru 
salem and [in] all Judaea and Samaria. 

24. perverting] dvaaKevdfrvTes. 
Only here in the N.T. If upset were 
not too colloquial it would perhaps 
be the best rendering. It means 
reversing what has been done, tearing 
down what has been built, or cancelling 
what has been agreed upon (Polybius 
ix. 31. 6). 

25. together] 6fj,odv/j.aS6v, see note 
on v. 12. 

to choose] tK\eafjievoi.s, see note on 
vs. 22. The Western text has an 
accusative, e/cAea^j&gt;ous, in this verse 
as well as in 22. 

beloved] dyairr)T6s with or without 
ci5eA06s was apparently a term of 



Christian epistolary intercourse. By 
using it in this letter and not else 
where Luke is perhaps again showing 
his sense of suitable terminology. See 
note on good news (vs. 7). 

26. devoted their lives] The Eng 
lish rendering hazarded for wapade- 
6u)/c6crt is indefensible ; it means given 
up, not risked, cf. Gal. ii. 20. The 
fact that Trapadovvat rr\v tyvxftv is not 
usually applied to a man who is still 
alive doubtless influenced the Western 
reviser to add els iravra. Tret/oacryuoj . 
Note, however, that in Galatians, where 
Paul is speaking of the accomplished 
act of the Passion, he uses the aorist, 
but in the present passage the perfect 
is used. * Men of devoted lives would 
almost give the meaning. 

to] The Greek idiom is VTT^P, but in 
English to is necessary. 

27. reporting] The present parti 
ciple dirayy\\ovTas may be regarded 
as an Hellenistic idiom and equivalent 
to the future participle of purpose, 
and rendered in order that they may 
themselves report, etc. 

28. these necessities] This rendering 
unfortunately obscures the difficulty 
of the Greek, TOVTMV r&v tirdvayxes, 
which can hardly be right. ^irdvayKes 
is used in Attic Greek as an adverb 
(see Blass note) but not with the 
article. There are no traces of any 
other reading, but Clement of Alex 
andria, who writes in Stromata iv. 15. 
97 tjj.rjvvffa.v yap ^TrdvayKes o,7rexecr#cu 
detv eiSw\o6vT&lt;&gt;}v KCU cu/iaros Kal TTVIKT&V 
Kal Tropveias, % &v diaTrjpovvTas eavrovs 
e5 irpd^eiv. This quotation though 



XV 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



181 



[and strangled meats] and fornication. And if you keep your 
selves from them you will be doing right. Farewell." 
30 So then they were dismissed and came down to Antioch, and 



translated into oratio obliqua seems to 
show that Clement tookeirdvayKes with 
air^effda.L and not with rovrwv. More 
over the Didascalia seems to have felt 
that somehow it ought to read irXty 
rovrwv * TO tirdrayKes aTr^xeaflcu, i.e. 
the necessary abstinence from, etc. 
Is it possible that by a slip of the pen 
or of the mind the TO was attracted to 
the rovrwv ? G. F. Moore, quoted in 
Torrey, p. 39, suggests that r&v is a 
dittography from rovrwv. He would 
read /j.ri8v ir\tov eirirldeffda.!. vfj.lv /3dpos 
Tr\T]v rovrwv eirdvayKes dTr^xeaflcu /CT\., 
that is, to lay on you no more burden 
than this: it is necessary to abstain, 
etc., but there is little if any evidence 
for eirdvayites as an adjective or im 
personal verb. 

A slight variation of this suggestion 
is possible. If a colon be put after 
/Sdpos instead of after rovrwv we could 
translate to put on you no further 
burden but perforce to abstain from 
these things, etc. This is supported 
by the fact that Clement and the 
Didascalia took eirdvayKes with direx*- 
&lt;rdcu, and that the word is used in this 
adverbial sense (cf. Latin necessario) 
both in literature and in papyri. In 
the latter, indeed, it is apparently used 
most of ten to strengthen an imperative. 

A solution which is only slightly 
different supposes that the original 
reading, represented by Irenaeus and 
Tertullian, had neither rovrwv nor rwv, 
but the relative &v, and ran, to put 
no further weight upon you, except 
what you should necessarily abstain 
from things offered to idols, etc. 
(A. Klostermann, Probleme imApostel- 
texte, 1883, pp. 132 ff .). Modern gram 
marians are, however, more willing 
than was the case a generation ago to 
admit that the infinitive can be used 
as a principal verb. In this case 
d7r&lt;?xe0"#cu could be rendered much 
as though it were the imperative 
direxevQe (Radermacher, Neutesta- 
mentliche Grammatik 2 , 1925, p. 180). 
Moreover, in Greek MSS. of every age 
-cu and -e are almost interchange 
able spellings, and it is far from im 
possible that the verb here is really 



imperative, and that the spelling 
dTT^xefflcu is partly due to a false 
assimilation to vs. 20. 

29. The variants of the Western 
text are the same as those in vs. 20 
(see note ad loc.), but here it adds 
(f&gt;p6/j,evoi v TLJ} ayiij} Tn&gt;ev[j.ari (see 
further Addit. Note 16). 

if you keep yourselves] tt- &v dia- 
rypovvres cavrous is strange Greek but 
can be paralleled in Ps. xii. 7 and in 
John xvii. 15 ^77/577(777$ avrous CK rov 
Trovripov). ~D preferred the construc 
tion with a? as in Ps. xii. (see Blass, 
Gramm. 40. 3). 

you will be doing right] An alter 
native rendering is you will prosper, 
but in Ignatius, Eph. iv. 2, Smyr. 
xi. 3, and Justin, Apol. xxviii. 3, ei5 
n-pdrreiv can only mean do right, 
and this undoubtedly suits the context 
better in this passage than prosper. 
It should also be noted that there is 
a tendency in Hellenistic Greek to 
replace ev by /caXu;?, and /caXws TrotetV 
had become an epistolary formula for 
making a polite request. See note on 
x. 33. At the end of a letter a closing 
salutation is sometimes expressed by 
an imperative form of eft irpdrrei.v. 
See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 
p. 534. A slightly different conven 
tion finishes a letter with a formula 
which runs with small variations if 
you do this, you will do rightly. 
This is illustrated by Kypke ad loc, 
from Thucydides, Lysias, and Diogenes 
Laertius. Very probably this is the 
convention used here. 

Farewell] eppw&lt;r8e is the exact Greek 
equivalent of valete. See 2 Mace. ix. 
20, xi. 21, 28 (cf. 38 byiaiverf). 

xv. 30-xvi. 5. THE RETURN OF THE 
ANTIOCHIAN REPRESENTATIVES FROM 
JERUSALEM. Is this the continuation 
of the Jerusalem narratives which is 
the source of the rest of the chapter, or 
is it the resumption of the Antiochian 
source, or is it a piece of connective 
narrative by the editor ? I suspect 
the last is the truth, but there is no 
possibility of any proof. See note 
on xvi. 5 xviii. 22 on p. 185. 

30. dismissed] dwoXvdevres is more 



182 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XV 



having assembled the community delivered the epistle. And 31 
when they read it they rejoiced at the comfort, and Judas 32 
and Silas themselves, being prophets, comforted the brethren at 
length orally and strengthened them, and having spent some 33 
time they were dismissed in peace by the brethren to those 
who sent them. And Paul and Barnabas stayed at Antioch, 35 



often used of the dismissal of an 
accused person. (Cf. Acts iii. 13, iv. 
21, 23, v. 40, etc.) It is just possible 
that this meaning is present here, if 
the scene were conceived as a trial 
of the Antiochian missionaries, and 
doubtless it was so conceived by the 
Western reviser. But it is also used 
of those who are sent on their way 
by the church (cf. xiii. 3 and xv. 33). 

community] See note on iv. 32. 

delivered] &lt;?Tri8i56vat. is the tech 
nical term for handing over a letter 
in later Greek, but not in Attic. See 
Blass and Wettstein ad loc. dvaoibbvai 
is also used (cf. Acts xxiii. 33). 

31. comfort] Trapd/cX^cm may mean 
comfort (cf. Luke vi. 24) but more 
often exhortation. Here it seems to be 
* comfort, and so Jerome interpreted 
it (consolatione), but the old European 
Latin (gigas) rendered it by exhorta- 
tionem, and d has orationem ; there is 
no African evidence. As it stands 
the word expresses the relief of the 
Antiochians at what was substantially 
a triumph for their view. But the 
suspicion comes into one s mind that 
the writer was thinking more of 
the next sentence (-jrapeKdXeffav TOI)J 
ddf\&lt;povs) than of the actual letter. 

32. The phraseology of this verse 
repeats that of vs. 27. The letter 
says that Judas and Silas were sent /cat 
avrovs did \6yov dirayyeXXovras TO. avrd, 
and vs. 32 therefore says that they 
/cat avrol dia \6yov TTO\\OV TrapeKd\ecrav. 
It follows that the same meaning 
must be given to TrapeKdXecrav as to 
Trapa/cXTycm, though comfort is less 
usual with the verb than with the 
substantive. The words irpo&lt;f&gt;rjTai 
fibres are a parenthesis, not specially 
connected with /ecu avrot, and the 
rendering is to be rejected which 
translates who also were themselves 
prophets with reference to the 
prophets in Antioch mentioned in 



xiii. 1, though this would be an attrac 
tive suggestion if the relation between 
vss. 27 and 32 were not so clear. 
For the connexion between prophets 
and irapdK\r}&lt;Tis cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 3 6 5&lt;: 
TrpOfp-rjTtvuv dvdpuTTOLS XaXet oiK.odoiJ.riv 
/cat TrapdK\~r]cnv /cai IT a pa p.v 6 Lav. 

33. spent some time] TrotetV, used 
in this sense with a word of time, has 
parallels in classical Greek as well as 
in other languages. But the curious 
part of the phrase is the use of XP OVOV 
without TIV d or a specifying adjective. 
Wettstein s parallels all refer to the 
use of Troieiv : none of them cover 
this absolute use of xp vov &gt; In later 
Greek xp ov s is used in the sense of a 
year, but I know no evidence which 
would make this usage probable in 
the N.T. Probably xp v * generally 
connotes delay, as in Rev. x. 6. Cf. 
xpovifa and xpo^orpt^etj/ (Acts xx. 16), 
and note eirtexe XP VOV = f tarried in 
Acts xix. 22. 

in peace] Referring to the formula 
of farewell, go in peace. Cf. Mark 
v. 34; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48; Acts 
xvi. 36. 

34. This verse is omitted in the 
B-text. In the Western text it reads, 
But Silas chose to remain (eVt/ietj/at 
ai)rot/s=for them to remain, or is 
avrovs a mistake for avrov ?) and only 
Judas went. In the Antiochian text 
it reads, But Silas chose to remain 
there (auroO). Either (i.) the verse 
has been omitted by accident in the 
B-text, or (ii.) Luke forgot to insert 
something of the kind, and it was 
added by a scribe who felt that it was 
needed, for obviously if Silas had 
gone to Jerusalem Paul could not 
have taken him from Antioch instead 
of Mark (cf. vs. 40), or (iii.) the StXas 
of vs. 40 is not the ZiXas of the pre 
ceding narrative. 

35. stayed] According to Well- 
hausen, Noten, p. 7, in the Gott. 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



183 



teaching and with many others telling the good news of the 
word of the Lord. 

3 6 But after some days Paul said to Barnabas, " Come, let us 
return and visit the brethren in every city in which we preached 

37 the word of the Lord to see how they are." And Barnabas 

38 wished to take with them also John, called Mark, but Paul 
decided, in the case of one who had deserted them in Pamphylia 

39 and not gone with them to their work, to stop taking him. And 
there was a quarrel so that they were separated from each other, 

40 and Barnabas took Mark and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul 
chose Silas and went forth commended to the grace of the Lord 

41 by the brethren. And he travelled through Syria and Cilicia 
strengthening the churches. 

16 i And he arrived at Derbe and at Lystra, and behold, there was 

13 describes a quarrel at this time 
with Barnabas. But according to 
the epistle the cause of trouble was 
because Peter was also in Antioch 
with Paul and Barnabas, and, after 
having been quite willing to mix 
freely with the converts from the 
heathen, had gone over to the Jewish 
side, as represented by James emis 
saries. In Galatians the quarrel is 
mainly with Peter, but Barnabas is 
also involved. (See further, Addi 
tional Note 16.) 

Cyprus] His own home. 

40. Silas] See note on vs. 34. 

41. Syria and Cilicia] There is 
no mention in Acts of any missionary 
enterprise in this district outside of 
Antioch, but this is surely implied by 
xv. 23, and by Paul s own statement 
in Gal. i. 21. 

xv. 41-xvi. 1. The Western text 
reads " he passed through Syria and 
Cilicia, confirming the churches and 
delivering the commands of the 
(apostles and) elders, and when he 
had passed through these people (edvy) 
he arrived at Derbe and Lystra." 
The intention is to emphasize the fact 
that Paul enforced the Apostolic 
decrees. It is also remarkable that 
codex Bezae calls them merely the 
commands of the Elders, but this 
may be accidental. 

1. arrived] Some words are strik- 



Nachr., 1907, this resumes 
of xiv. 28. 

36. after some days] This form 
of connecting (^erd with a note of 
time, or merely yuerd, raCra) seems as 
characteristic of the second part of 
Acts as /JL^V o$v is of the earlier part 
or of the editor (cf. xviii. 1, xxi. 15, 
xxiv. 1, 24, xxv. 1, xxviii. 11, 17). 

Come] drj can only be rendered in 
some such way. Cf. note on Acts xiii. 
2. This use of the particle with im 
perative or hortatory verbs, common 
in early Christian literature, is both 
ancient and popular. 

visit] The context seems here to 
necessitate this rendering of TTI- 
&lt;ri&lt;e\f/ufj.f6a, but see the note on vs. 14. 

in which] tv ah, a technically un- 
grammatical but obvious reference to 
iraffav 7r6\Lt&gt;, which is grammatically 
singular but in meaning plural. 

38. deserted] Cf. xiii. 13. 

to stop taking] This is the force of 
the present infinitive with /*??, as con 
trasted with the aorist infinitive in vs. 
37. It is impossible to bring out fully 
the emphatic position of TOVTOV at the 
end of the sentence. The Western text 
has lengthened but weakened the sen 
tence (see Vol. III. p. 151). 

39. quarrel] Trapo^va^os, sometimes 
quoted as a medical term. But 
among the doctors it appears to mean 
the height of a fever. Galatians ii. 



184 



THE -BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



a disciple there by name Timothy, son of a Jewish woman who 
believed, but of a Greek father, who had a good character among 2 
the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him Paul wished to come 3 
out with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the 
Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father 



ingly limited to certain parts of Luke s 
writings. KaravTau, which is found 
here for the first time, occurs alto 
gether nine times in the remaining 
chapters of Acts. Compare 5^px- ucu 
with the accusative of the region 
covered, a combination that occurs 
nine times in the accounts of Paul s 
missionary work. 

a disciple there] Does eKfl refer to 
Derbe and Lystra, or to Lystra only ? 
Modern commentators are almost 
unanimous in making it refer to Lystra, 
but Blass thinks that xx. 4 should be 
read so as to make Timothy come from 
Derbe (see the following note and the 
notes on xix. 29 and xx. 4). 

Timothy] According to 2 Tim. i. 5 
his mother s name was Eunice and his 
grandmother s was Lois. They were 
both Christians, and probably both 
had been Jews, though their names 
are Greek. According to Jewish law 
Eunice cannot have made a legal 
marriage with a Gentile, and her 
children, as in the case of all illegiti 
mate children, followed their mother s 
nationality and were Jews. For the 
same reason the children of a Jew 
and a Gentile woman were Gentiles. 
(See Strack, ii. p. 741.) It is perhaps 
legitimate to conclude from the tense 
of inrr/pxf that Timothy s father was 
dead. Probably this accounts for the 
addition of viduae in some Latin texts, 
though it might be due to the confusion 
of iudeae and viduae. This is true even 
of the Latin translation of Origen s 
Commentary on Romans x. 39, p. 
686 (on Rom. xvi. 21), which reads 
" de Timotheo plenissime refertur 
in Actibus Apostolorum quod fuerit 
Derbaeus civis, films mulieris viduae 
fidelis, ex patre gentili." But it is 
more probable that it really carries 
back at least to Rufinus, and probably 
to Origen, the tradition that Timothy s 
mother was a widow and (see previous 
note) that his city was Derbe. 

2. Lystra and Iconium] Lystra and 



Derbe is the usual grouping, but Paul 
was going northwards, and Iconium 
was the next city after Lystra in this 
direction. The expression has more 
force if Blass be right in thinking that 
Timothy came from Derbe. In this 
case it means that he took Timothy 
from Derbe to Lystra and Iconium, 
and there found that it was advisable 
to circumcise him. 

3. circumcised] Presumably in 
Iconium. It would seem from this 
incident that Paul recognized the law 
as binding on Jews, but the relation 
of this incident to Paul s statements 
in Galatians is very obscure. On the 
one hand it is true that Paul says in 
Gal. v. 11, "If I still preach circum 
cision, why am I persecuted ? " which 
suggests that Paul s opponents said 
that he had favoured circumcision. 
The circumcision of Timothy would 
give them an excuse for this attitude. 
But of course Paul is denying that lie 
really preaches circumcision, and it is 
very hard to reconcile this circum 
cision of the Galatian Jew Timothy 
with Gal. v. 2 ff., "Behold, I, Paul, 
say to you that if you practise circum 
cision (irepi.Tt/j.v&gt;i(rdf), Christ will be of 
no advantage to you. And again I 
testify to every man that is being cir 
cumcised that he is under obligation 
to perform the whole law. You have 
been annulled from Christ, you who 
seek righteousness in the law, you 
have fallen from grace." How could 
Paul say this if he had just circumcised 
a Galatian ? The whole passage, in 
cluding the delivery of the decrees, 
seems to be editorial, and rouses the 
suspicion that it is a confused and 
perhaps erroneous memory of the 
story of Titus (Gal. ii. 3). Cf. Vol. II. 
pp. 293 and 320, and see Additional 
Note 16. 

those places] i.e. the cities of 
Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, and the 
adjacent district. Iconium was the 
border town between Lycaonia and 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



185 



4 was a Greek. And as they passed through the cities they 
delivered to them for observance the decrees which had been 
decided on by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. 



5 So then the churches were strengthened in the faith and 
increased in number daily. 



Phrygia, and it is not clear to which 
district Acts gives it, but Acts xiv. 6 
implies that it was not Lycaonian. 
(See Lake, Earlier Epivtles, p" 315, and 
Addit. Note 18.) 

4. the cities] Luke s tendency to 
vary his phraseology may be invoked 
in favour of the suggestion that verse 
6 repeats this statement, so that TTJJ/ 



which in turn have been previously 
described as Derbe, Lystra, and 
Iconium. Similarly in xix. 1 it is 
possible that SieXtfovra ra avurfpiKO. 
fjitpTj is intended as an alternative 
description of rr\v YaXariKTjv -^dopav Kal 
^&gt;pvyiav in xviii. 23. See, however, 
Additional Note 18. 

decrees] 567/xara, the decisions 
which 6oe to the apostles and elders. 
The same word is used of imperial 
decrees in Luke ii. 1 and Acts xvii. 7. 
Whatever may have been the facts 
Luke obviously wishes to represent 
Paul as the delegate of the apostles in 
Jerusalem in a manner which is in 
compatible with the Epistle to the 
Galatians. 

xvi. 5-xviii. 22. THE SECOND MIS 
SIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL. This is 
the traditional nomenclature; but it 
may well be doubted whether the 
author intended to distinguish a 
second and third journey. There 
is no clear separation or junction of 
4 panels at xviii. 22, such as is usually 
found when the writer is consciously 
moving from one topic to another. 
On the other hand it is very clear 
that xvi. 6 begins a new section. In 
the mind of the author this is cer 
tainly the description of a different 
journey from that of chapters xiii. and 
xiv., and having finished the story of 
the Council he is moving on to another 
topic. 

The So then (^v otv) is the charac 
teristic phrase of the editor in finishing 



one scene and passing to another. It 
indicates that to him this verse closes 
the episode of which the narrative 
began in xv. 1. It is probable that 
this narrative was taken from a Jeru 
salem source (see Additional Note 16). 
If so, it is plausible to suggest that 
the story of Timothy s circumcision 
belongs to this, not to the Antiochian 
or to a Pauline source. The negative 
side of this result is, however, more 
secure than the positive; it is more 
probable that the story of Timothy is 
not Antiochian or Pauline than that it 
is definitely from the Jerusalem source. 
The whole narrative xv. 30-xvi. 5 
seems to be very summary and re- 
dactorial in character. Luke covers 
his traces too well for certainty to be 
attainable, but I suspect that the use 
of the real journey-source begins 
with xvi. 6, and that xv. 30-xvi. 5 is 
connecting-narrative into which the 
story of Timothy has been put by 
the editor. If so, it is important to 
notice that 8if)\6oi&gt; ot cannot be the 
beginning of a narrative, any more 
than it can be fitted on to xvi. 5. We 
plunge into the middle of a story. 
Where is the beginning ? Schwartz s 
theory is that the original included 
the missionary journey of xiii. f., prob 
ably down to xiv. 20, the arrival of 
Paul at Derbe, and that it continued 
with xvi. 6ff. Luke cut it in two 
because he was obliged to have two 
missionary journeys, since he had two 
visits to Jerusalem. But there are con 
siderable difficulties in this theorv, 
especially with regard to Barnabas. 
(See Additional Note 18.) 

5. strengthened] Note the author s 
variation of phrase between eKK\Tj&lt;rla.i. 
(crrfpfouvTo here and eiritrT-rjpifav rds 
tKK\rj&lt;rias a few lines before. The 
likeness of sound between the verbs 
perhaps gave the impression that they 
were synonyms and etymological 
cognates. . 



186 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



And they passed through Phrygia and Galatian country, 6 
prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia. 
And when they came opposite Mysia they tried to go into 7 
Bithynia, and the spirit of Jesus did not permit them. And 8 
they passed by Mysia and came down to Troas. And a vision 9 
appeared in the night to Paul : a Macedonian was standing and 
entreating him and saying, " Cross over into Macedonia and help 
us." And when he saw the vision, immediately we sought to 10 
depart into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to 
bring the good news to them. Putting out therefore from Troas 1 1 
we made a straight run to Samothrace, and on the next day to 



6. they] Obviously this means 
Paul and his companions, but the 
construction is very clumsy, since 
the churches was the subject of the 
previous sentence. It suggests that 
the preceding paragraph is editorial, 
and that the transition to the main 
source has been left too obvious. 

passed through] diyXOov is not 
confined to the meaning of a missionary 
journey, but it is often used in that 
sense, and a contrast seems implied with 
Asia where they were prevented from 
preaching. There is no textual reason 
for emending 5iTJ\6ov to SLeXVovres, the 
Antiochian reading ; and the following 
participle /cwAutfeVres must be explana 
tory of di.T)\0oi&gt;. This does not mean 
that the aorist participle is in itself 
retrospective. The aorist participle is 
in itself timeless, but the context 
generally gives a * time-factor to the 
statement made. (See the discussion 
in Askwith s The Epistle to the 
Galatians, pp. 14 ff. and 26 ff.) Thus 
it is impossible to translate the passage 
without doing violence to the Greek, 
unless we recognize that the phrase 
means that Paul first contemplated 
preaching in Asia, and, being prevented 
from doing this, passed through -n&gt; 
&lt;$&gt;pvyiav /ecu FaXan/crji %u&gt;pai what 
ever that may mean. See Additional 
Note 18. 

9. Macedonian] The question has 
been raised how Paul knew that he 
was a Macedonian ; but to ask this is 
contrary to the psychology of dreams. 
Ramsay s belief that the Macedonian 
was Luke is unsupported by evidence, 



and in the next verse the use of the 
first person, if the writer be identified 
with Luke, shows that he was already 
in Paul s company (see Ramsay, 
PTRC. pp. 200 ff.). Reitzenstein 
(Hellenistische W under erzdhlungen, p. 
53) points out that there is a parallel to 
this story in Philostratus, Apollonius 
of Tyana, iv. 34 ff. But he seems to 
attach too little weight to the fact 
that the reason why dreams are 
introduced into Aretalogical writings 
is because they often do have a real 
significance. A modern psychologist 
would interpret the dreams differently, 
but he would not doubt that the 
dream was really dreamed. 

10. we sought] The beginning 
of the first long we -passage, con 
tinuing to the arrest of Paul and 
Silas in Philippi (xvi. 17, see also 
note). 

concluding] trvfji^i^d^eiv. See note 
on xix. 33. 

11. we made a straight run to 
Samothrace] That is to say, they 
found a favourable wind, probably 
from the north-east, enabling them to 
make Samothrace, which from its 
height (over 5000 feet) is the great 
landmark in this corner of the Levant. 
Sailing from Troas, Imbros, which is 
nearer, is much less visible, and is 
partly indistinguishable from Samo 
thrace which towers above it. From 
Troas to Samothrace would be a 
good day s sail with a favourable 
wind. On another occasion Paul took 
five days for the journey from Philippi 
to Troas (xx. 6). 



xvi ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 187 

12 Neapolis, and thence to Philippi, which is a first city of the district 



Neapolis] The modern Cavalla 
(Ka^SdAAa), the main port of the 
Macedonian tobacco industry, of which 
the chief fields are to the east, 
between it and the ancient Aenos, 
or the modern Dedeagatch. There is 
a roadstead rather than a harbour 
at Dedeagatch, but Cavalla is the 
only real port on the south coast of 
Macedonia except Salonica, and for 
sailing boats it is far safer than 
Salonica. It was therefore made the 
terminus of the Via Egnatia, which is 
still plainly visible. 

12. thence] Behind Cavalla, im 
mediately to the north, is a curious 
line of hills, rising rather steeply 
from the town, and descending again 
at once to the level of the great 
central plain of Macedonia, then as 
now extremely fertile. To the west 
is the high mountain of Pangaios 
(6000 feet) on which there used to be 
gold and silver mines, and there is no 
convenient road to the south of this 
mountain to Erissos (Acanthus), so 
that the only feasible route is to go 
over the hills to the plain and, if 
going westward, leave Pangaios to 
the south. This leads to Philippi, 
then a prosperous city, though now 
only a cemetery remains. 

Philippi] Originally a small town 
called Krenides (so Strabo, Geogr. 
vii., fragm. 41 oi 5e ^iXunroi Kpr)i&gt;i8es 
exaXovvTO Trpbrepov, Karoiida fjuxpd). It 
is uncertain whether Krenides, like the 
neighbouring towns of Galepsus, 
Oesyme, and Scapte Hyle, belonged 
at an early period to the Thasians 
(Herod, vi. 46), who mined gold and 
silver in the region (Thucyd. iv. 107 ; 
Diodorus xvi. 8. 6), but it was certainly 
in their possession when taken by 
Philip of Macedon (Diod. xvi. 3. 7) 
about A.D. 360. The town was in 
creased by Philip (Diod. xvi. 8. 6), 
given his name, and fortified to defend 
his frontier against the neighbouring 
Thracians (Appian, B.C. iv. 105). 
Under Philip the gold mines of the 
place, hitherto slight and unknown, 
were greatly developed (Diod. xvi. 
8. 6-7), and the gold coins of Philip, 
the Philippei, became everywhere 
known. According to Strabo the 
town was enlarged after the defeat of 



Brutus and Cassius by Antony and 
Octavian in 42 B.C., probably by an 
addition of colonists (Kornemann, 
Pauly-Wissowa, art. Coloniae, iv. 
530). Hence perhaps the title Colonia 
Julia of GIL. iii. 386. Its importance 
was greatly enhanced after the battle 
of Actium when along with Actium 
and several other towns in Macedonia 
it received a settlement of Italian 
colonists who had favoured Antony 
and had been obliged to surrender 
their land to the veterans of Octavian. 
From this foundation may be de 
rived the additional title of Augusta. 
See the narrative of Dio Cassius, Hist. 
li. 4, in which, after describing the 
meeting of Augustus with his veterans 
at Brindisi, he continues : /cat avr&v 6 
Kaura/) rot s ^v dAAots x/ 37 ?/ mra e Su/ce, 
rots d 8ia iravrbs airn aucrrparetftracrt 
/cat yrjv TTpoffKareveifJ-e. roi)s yap dri/movs 
TOVS ev ry IraAt a TOVS rd roO AVTUVIOV 
(fipovriffavTas eot/c&lt;ras, rots fiev &lt;rrparta&gt;- 
rais rds re ?r6Aas /cat rd x w P a O.VTWV 
^XapLcrcLTO eitdvuv 5e or) rots fj.ev TrAetocrt 
r6 re Avppdxiov /cat TOVS &lt;5?t.\iTrirovs $AAa 
re e Troi/cetV avrtowKe rots 5e AotTrots 
apyvpiov dvTi TTJS x^P a ^i ro ^ v eVet/ae, 
r6 5 UTreVxero. avx^a ju.v yap /cat e"/c 
rrjs i&gt;iKT]S eKTrjaaro, iro\\( de eYt TrAet co 



The full name of the town, Col(onia) 
Jul(ia) Aug(usta) Philip (pensis), is 
found on coins (Eckhel, ii. 76) and 
in one inscription (Annual of the Brit. 
School, Athens, 1918-1919, p. 95 ; Revue 
Archeologique, 1921, p. 450, No. 4). 
The grant of Italic right by which 
the colonists enjoyed the same rights 
and privileges as if their land were 
part of Italy was probably contem 
poraneous with the Italian settlement 
after Actium. (See v. Premerstein, 
art. lus Italicum, Pauly-Wissowa, 
x. 1239; Digest, 1. 15. 6 (Celsus) ; 
1. 15. 8. 8 (Paulus).) The town con 
tinued to exist into the Middle Ages, 
being mentioned in the Itinerary of 
Antonine (Cuntz, I tin. Prov. pp. 48 
and 50) and the Tabula of Peutinger. 

The decay of Philippi, now entirely 
deserted, is probably due largely to 
malaria, and its position has been 
taken by Drama, in the hills to the 
north of the plain. 

a first city] The Western text 



188 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY xvi 

of Macedonia, a colony. Now, we had been staying at this city 



interpreted this as meaning the 
capital of Macedonia. This produced 
the Latin rendering caput. The Greek 
K(f)a\rj may be retranslation from the 
Latin, but is more probably merely 
a characteristic example of Western 
exegetical paraphrase. Since Philippi 
was not the capital of Macedonia 
or of any part of it, this is unlikely 
to be the meaning. The analogy 
of such passages as xxviii. 17 (roi&gt;s 
6vTas T&V lovdaiwv Trpwrcws, cf. also 
xxv. 2 and xxviii. 7) suggests that 
TTpuiros had acquired the meaning of 
leading. 

It is true, however, that in Asia, 
Bithynia, and in Macedonia itself the 
term -n-pdorr} was used as a definite 
title. In Bithynia, Nicaea and Nico- 
media disputed with each other the 
titles of Trpwrrj and fj,r)Tp67ro\is, and 
it appears that Nicaea was 
and Nicomedia both Trpwr?; and 
TroXts (Dio Chrys. Oral, xxxviii. 39 
ai&gt; be TO fj.ev TTJS jitT/rpoT^Xews vfjuv 
8vo/j.a ^aiperov 77, TO 5e T&V irpwTeiwv 
KOLVOV 77, rl /card TOVTO eXarroutrfle ;). 
The rivalry of the various cities of 
Asia for these titles excited the 
derision of Dio Chrysostom (Or at. 
xxxiv. 48 et re A^atoi irpos v/Aas 
etre Aira/mels ?rp6s AvTioxeis et re eiri 
TUIV Troppwre pw S/iupj/aTot Trpos E0ecrt oi;s 
ptov&lt;n, irepi 8vov cr/cta?, (pavL, dia(f&gt;poi&gt;- 
rat. rb yap irpoevraval re /cat /cparetV 
d\\uv tarlv : cf. Dio Cassius, lii. 37. 
10 eiruivv/Jiias TLVOLS Kevds) and of 
Aristides (ed. Dindorf, i. p. 771 
0epe drj /cat rds TroXets eVAflw rets 
wepl TOV TrpWTciov vvv d/uXXwyiAeVas). 
In the cases of Ephesus, Smyrna, 
and Pergamum the rivalry grew so 
great that Antoninus Pius was led to 
state by decree the honorary titles of 
each. His answer to an Ephesian 
complaint regarding an omission of 
these titles by the Smyrnaeans is 
extant (Dittenberger, Sylloge*, 849). 
The title of Ephesus thus confirmed 
was 7rpi6r?7 Kai /ze-ytcm; /j.rjTp6jro\LS rr)s 
Acrtas (Dittenberger, Sylloge 3 , 867). 
In Macedonia, Thessalonica was known 
as irpwT-r) MaKedbvuv (GIG. 1967) and 
/ Lt??rp67roXis (Strabo, vii. fg. 21), but is 
termed so on coins dating only from 
the time of Decius, A.D. 249 (Eckhel, 
D.N. ii. p. 80). Beroea, the meeting- 



place of the Macedonian KOLVOV, 
possessed the title //^r^TroXts in the 
time of Nerva (see Marquardt, 
Staatsverw.* i. pp. 319-320; Korne- 
mann, Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. iv. col. 
930 f., article Kotvov ). 

This evidence all dates from the 
imperial period (see Marquardt, op. 
cit. i. pp. 343-346) and is mostly later 
than the first century A.D., but is 
probably valid for that period also. 
TTp&T-ti therefore was an honorary 
title given to or claimed by many of 
the more important cities in the 
eastern provinces. But as a definite 
title it has been found so far only in 
the cases of cities which were members 
of a KOivbv in their particular province, 
and were not Roman colonies at the 
time. Nicomedia was first termed a 
colony under Diocletian, and Tralles 
though reinforced by Roman colonists 
did not possess colonial status (Korne- 
mann, Pauly-Wissowa, iv. 550, article 
Coloniae ). Thessalonica does not 
appear as a colony until Valerian 
(Marquardt, op. cit. i. 320). Ramsay 
(Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 
p. 429, and St. Paid the Traveller and 
Roman Citizen, pp. 206 f.) argues that 
Philippi claimed for itself the title of 
TrpuTTj, and was, although technically 
not the capital, at least the most im 
portant city of that part of Macedonia. 
Philippi, however, was a Roman 
colony. There is no evidence that it 
was a member of the Macedonian 
KOLvbv, and no evidence except this 
passage in Acts that it possessed or 
claimed the title of Trpwr??. The 
absence of the article before -n-pujTrj is 
no indication that this was a definite 
title, because, as Blass has pointed 
out, this was customary with ordinals 
(see his note on Acts xii. 10 ; and cf. 
xx. 18. xxiii. 23). It is more prob 
able, therefore, that the meaning of 
TrpuT-rj in this passage is simply a 
leading city. It may be added that 
if the reading TTPWTTJS be accepted 
instead of -rrpdoT-rj, the whole discussion 
of the primacy of Philippi is beside 
the point (see following note). 

the district of Macedonia] Textu- 
ally it is doubtful whether we should 
read r??s peploos Ma/c. or uepidos TTJS 
Ma/c. or TIJS uepidos TT}S Ma/c. I think 



xvi ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 189 

13 for some days ; and on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate 



that probably the original B-text was 
rrjs /jiepidos MaKedovias, and that codex 
Vaticanus accidentally transposed the 
rrjs. The Western text interpreted 
/j.epidos as meaning province, and, 
treating it as pleonastic, omitted it. 
But in any case Ma/cedojuas is more 
probably dependent on /j.ep[5os than 
in apposition to it. It is also very 
unlikely that /mepidos means provincia. 
Rather it has its technical sense, an 
actual subdivision of the province. 
This geographical use of /*epis, denied by 
Hort (Notes, ii. App. 96), is sufficiently 
proved by papyri and late writers (see 
Ramsay, Expositor, Oct. 1897, p. 320, 
and cf. also the inscription, Revue 
Archeologique, 1900, p. 489, No. 130, 
quoted below). 

The interpretation of the word 
/j.epi5os in the sense of subdivision is 
probably the cause of the reading 
primae partis in the old Languedoc 
Latin version, which presupposes 
TrpwTT/s for 7i-/)u&gt;TT7, a plausible correc 
tion on account of the article TTJS. 
This suggestion, made by Field (Notes 
on the Translation of the New Testament, 
p. 124), has been rejected in Vol. III. 
pp. 154 f. on account of its slight 
manuscript authority. But it was 
accepted by Blass (Philology of the 
Gospels, pp. 67 f.), who explained it by 
reference to the division of Macedonia 
into four districts by Aemilius Paullus 
in 167 B.C. (Livy xlv. 17, 18 and 29). 
Coins are extant referring to MaKedovuv 
?rpu r&gt;7;, etc. (see Eckhel, D.N. ii. p. 
63, and Mommsen, Gesch. d. rom. 
Munzwesens, pp. 691 f.). It has been 
supposed that this division of Mace 
donia, which was primarily intended 
by the Romans to prevent the in 
habitants of the country from taking 
combined action, did not continue 
after Macedonia became a regular 
province in 146 B.C. (see The Ex 
positor s Greek Testament, ii. pp. 355 f.). 
There is, however, sufficient evidence 
that arrangements made by Aemilius 
Paullus, and in particular the division 
of Macedonia into districts, con 
tinued into the period of the Empire : 
(i.) A passage of Justinus, xxxiii. 2. 
7, referring to the general internal 
regime in Macedonia, Ita cum in 
dicione Romanorum cessisset, magi- 



stratibus per singulas civitates con- 
stitutis libera facta est legesque quibus 
adhuc utitur a Paulo accepit. (ii.) An 
inscription of Beroea, Revue Archeo 
logique, 1900, p. 489, No. 130, in 
which, despite its broken state, it is 
evident that the KOLVOV ~M.a.Ke5bvuv, a 
7rpuTr)s /j.ep[dos, and a [GW- 
rerd/)T7?s fj.epL8os are mentioned: 

/xAKEAOXON TO KOI- 

XON KAT 
rHN EHAPXEIAN . A . 

BAIBIOT ONOPATOT 
OT AMTNTA EK TftN 

IAK2X IEPO 
ffatfvov . . . STNEAPIOT HPfiTHS 

MEPIAOS AHA 
AIPOT TOT KAE12XOS 

TETAPTHS ME 
piSos 

As the KOLVOV ~MaKe86v&lt;t}v was probably 
called into life by Augustus, these 
/mepides which the KOLVOV recognizes 
must have existed in the Imperial 
period. (See Geyer, Pauly-Wissowa, 
xiv. 1 col. 767, article Macedonia ; 
cf . Kornemann, Pauly - Wissowa, 
Suppl. iv. col. 930 f., article Koiv6v ; 
Demitsas, II Ma/reSoia a, Nos. 55, 60, 
811, 812.) 

From Livy s description (xlv. 29) 
of the boundaries of these divisions 
we find that Philippi was in the first 
district of Macedonia. Thus, if irpuTfjs 
/j.epidos had better manuscript author 
ity it would be the more satisfactory 
reading, since it corresponds to the 
actual geographical position of Phi 
lippi, and in contrast to the tradi 
tional text gives a precise meaning 
to the passage. Besides, there is no 
evidence that Philippi was given the 
title TrpuT-rj (see previous note), and 
however much Amphipolis may have 
been overshadowed later by Philippi, 
the only Roman colony in the dis 
trict, it was the actual capital of the 
first district of Macedonia (Livy xlv. 
29. 9). On the other hand the reading 
primae partis may be late and refer 
merely to Diocletian s division of 
Macedonia in 386 B.C. into Macedonia 
Prima and Macedonia Secunda or 
Salutaris. 

a colony] Kohavia, not the native 
Greek word d-rroiKla but a translitera- 



190 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



along the river, where we thought there was a place of prayer, and 



tion into Greek of the Latin colonia. 
The problem of the magistrates in 
vss. 19 ff. would have been easier 
for us if the author had there also 
transliterated instead of translating 
Latin terms. 

The Roman colonies were origin 
ally settlements of Roman citizens in 
captured territory as garrisons. Later 
on they were used in times of agrarian 
distress as a relief for the surplus 
population of Rome. Still later they 
were used to provide for the needs of 
veteran soldiers, directly or indirectly. 
Philippi is an example of the indirect 
provision. The rights of a colony 
were summed up as libertas, immunitas, 
and I us Italicum. Libertas, repre 
sented on coins by the figure of Silenus 
or Marsyas (which Servius ad Vergil. 
Aeneid. iii. 20 explains as connected 
with the god Liber), meant the right 
to autonomous government ; it was 
a basic right of all Roman colonies, 
whether on Italian or provincial soil, 
but a Roman colony differed from a 
municipium, and from a civitas libera, 
in having a definite Roman form of 
local administration, and in neces 
sarily using Roman law in local as 
well as external matters (see Toutain, 
art. Municipium, in Daremberg and 
Saglio). Immunitas, or freedom from 
tribute and taxation, was an addi 
tional right granted to many colonies 
on provincial soil, not however to all, 
since provincial land, even if owned 
by Roman citizens, was normally 
subject to tribute. (See list of 
Coloniae Immunes in Kornemann, 
Pauly-Wissowa, iv. col. 580.) A final 
privilege which really included all the 
others was the grant of lus Italicum, 
by which the whole legal position of 
the colonists in respect of ownership, 
transfer of land, payment of taxes, 
local administration, and law, be 
came the same as if they were 
upon Italian soil ; as, in fact, by a 
legal fiction, they were. (See von 
Premerstein, Pauly-Wissowa, x., art. 
lus Italicum. ) It is probable that 
the Augustan veteran colonists in the 
provinces owned their land ex iure 
Quiritium as in Italy (see Frank, 
Journal Rom. Stud., 1927), and the 
same right appears to have been given 



to the colonists of Philippi, who were 
Roman citizens but had espoused the 
cause of Antony, and were deported 
to Macedonia to make room for 
settlements of Augustan veterans in 
Italy (see previous note). (On the 
rights and status of Roman colonies 
see Kornemann, Pauly-Wissowa, iv., 
art. Coloniae ; Toutain, Melanges de 
VBcole, 1896, pp. 315 ff. ; 1898, pp. 
140 ff. ; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 
i. 2 pp. 86 ff., 118 ff. ; W. T. Arnold, 
Roman Provincial Administration, 
pp. 219 ff.) 

Several other cities mentioned in 
Acts were also colonies, viz. Pisidian 
Antioch, Lystra, Troas, Ptolemais, 
Corinth, Syracuse, and Puteoli, and it 
has been supposed that the author s 
personal interest in Philippi is shown 
by his using this designation only 
here. But it is, of course, possible 
that the definitely Latin character 
of Philippi (see Harnack, Mission 
und Ausbreitung., 4th ed., p. 788, note 
1) was more conspicuous than that of 
some other towns of the class. Be 
sides, Paul s experiences here have 
to do with Roman law and Roman 
officials and Roman rights. When in 
a later incident (xxii. 25-29) the 
question of flogging a Roman citizen 
is raised again, we are again told the 
status of the authority involved: 
Claudius Lysias was a citizen by 
purchase. 

13. the river] The little stream 
of the Gangites or Angites. The 
Greek IT a pa nora.^.ov omits the 
article, either because it means a 
river or because irapd irora^ov has 
become one of the idiomatic anar 
throus prepositional forms like irapa. 
6d\aa&lt;rav (x. 32), ev ayopq. (Luke vii. 
32), Iv dyp&lt; (Luke xv. 25). See the 
grammars of A. T. Robertson, p. 792, 
and J. H. Moulton, i. p. 82, note. The 
phrase -n-po TroXews of deities whose 
shrines lie outside the city may be 
compared. It is well attested in in 
scriptions and is in Codex Bezae at 
xiv. 13, though the other uncials read 
irpb rrjs TroAews. (See note ad loc.) 

we thought, etc.] The text seems 
irrevocably corrupt (see note, Vol. III. 
p. 155). The meaning is either we 
thought that there was a synagogue 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



191 



14 we sat down and talked to the women who had assembled. And 
a woman named Lydia, a purple-seller of the city of Thyatira, 



or there was customarily a synagogue . 
The latter would be the meaning of 
Blass conjecture, adopted by Ropes ; 
but I incline to prefer f 



place of prayer] avvayuyf] and irpoa- 
"&gt;7 are about synonymous, though 
theoretically a place of prayer is 
not necessarily a synagogue (see note 
on i. 14, and Vol. I. p. 161, note). 

There is no rabbinic evidence (ac 
cording to Strack, ii. p. 742, and E. 
Schiirer, GJV. ii. 4 519) that syna 
gogues were built near rivers, though 
Blau, Papyri und Talmud in gegen- 
seitiger Beleuchtung, 1913, p. 9, refers 
to the Mekilta as showing that it was 
customary ; but Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 
10. 23, states that in Halicarnassus 
the public was specially forbidden to 
interfere with the irarpiov etios of the 
Jews to pray by the seashore, and 
the letter of Aristeas (304 f.) tells how 
the makers of the LXX went down 
to the sea to wash their hands and 
pray before beginning to translate. 
That the Jewish ablutions required 
plenty of water is a natural reason for 
building synagogues near the water s 
edge. The n-pocrevx h mentioned in 
P Tebt 86 (2nd cent. B.C.) was on 
the waterside. 

These passages hardly amount to 
proof of a custom of having a syna 
gogue by the river, and perhaps the 
belief that this was a Jewish custom 
is merely a Christian guess ; cf . Ter- 
tullian, De jejuni. xvi. "Judaicum 
certe jejunium ubique celeb ratur, cum 
omissis templis per omne littus quo- 
cunque in aperto aliquando iam pre- 
cem ad coelum mittunt " ; Ad nationes 
i. 13 " Judaei enim festi, Sabbata et 
coena pura, et judaici ritus lucernarum 
et jejunia cum azymis et orationes 
littorales." Moreover, we know from 
Egyptian papyri that the dpxovres of 
the irpoaevxri of Theban Jews paid the 
metropolitan waterworks a handsome 
semi-annual water rate in A.D. 113 
(P Lond 1177. 57, and cf. Expos. 
Times, xix. 41), so that presumably 
it was not so situated as to be able to 
take water directly out of the river. 
In Josephus, loc. cit., ras 



irpbs TTJ daXdcrarj need not be 
understood of fixed places of prayer. 

The present passage, therefore, prob 
ably means no more than it says 
Paul and his companions had reason to 
think that there was a synagogue in 
that direction, or, with the alternative 
reading, the Jews in Philippi were, as a 
matter of fact, accustomed to go to a 
synagogue near the river. The writer 
describes a local, not a general custom. 
At Alexandria, Philo (In Flacc. 14, 
122, M. p. 534) tells how the Jews, 
having heard of the arrest of their 
arch enemy, " spent the night in 
hymns and songs, and at dawn pouring 
out through the city gates came to 
the nearby beaches for they had 
been deprived of their wpoaevxai and 
standing in the very open space lifted 
up their voices," etc. 

sat down] This was the usual 
posture in teaching in the synagogue 
(Luke iv. 20) and elsewhere (Matt. v. 
1, xxvi. 55 ; Mark ix. 35 ; Luke v. 3, 
and rabbinic passages cited by Strack- 
Billerbeck, Kommentar, i. p. 997, and 
Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Eng. trans, 
p. 45, note 9). But sometimes one 
stood to speak (Acts xiii. 16), as one 
did also to read the Scriptures (Luke 
iv. 16). 

women] It is said that women were 
especially liable to become proselytes. 
Women have often been more addicted 
than men to frequenting places of wor 
ship. Cf. Schiirer, GJV. iii. 4 p. 168. 

14. Lydia] A well-known name, 
especially in Latin literature (cf. 
Horace, Odes i. 8, etc.). Here, how 
ever, it may be connected with the 
fact that Thyatira was a Lydian city. 
For Thyatira in connexion with dyes 
cf. GIG. 3496 ff ., and for the existence 
of dyers-guilds see Liebenam, Zur 
Geschichte und Organisation d. rdm. 
Vereinswesens, p. 117, and E. Ziebarth, 
Das griechische Vereinswesen, 1896, 
p. 102. Possible evidence of another 
Thyatiran representative in Macedonia 
is a stele found at Thessalonica in 
which i) (rvvrjOeLa rCov irop(pvpo(3d&lt;j)Mi 
honour M^iTTTroi/ A./ji.(/J,)lov rbv /ecu 
"Ze^yjpov QvareLpyvov. See Wikenhauser, 
Die Apostelgeschichte, 1921, pp. 410 f. 



192 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



worshipping God, was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to 
believe what was spoken by Paul. And when she and her family 15 
were baptized she asked us, saying, " If you have judged me to be 
a believer in the Lord, come in and stay in my house." And she 
constrained us. And it happened that, while we were going into 16 
the place of prayer, a slave girl who had an oracular spirit met 



There was also a Jewish colony 
in Thyatira, which Ramsay conjec 
tures may have influenced Lydia, but 
the suggestion that there was in the 
city a hybrid worship, half Jewish, 
half pagan, is a precarious conclusion 
to draw from the allusion to Jezebel 
in Rev. ii. 20, the meaning of which 
is quite unknown. 

worshipping God] See Additional 
Note 8. 

opened her heart] Cf. 2 Mace, 
i. 4 for dtavolyew Tr\v Kapdiav and the 
similar phrase (Str^ot^e rbv vovv] in 
Luke xxiv. 45, and see Blass s note 
here. 

believe] 7rpoa^x LV See note on 
viii. 6. 

15. a believer in the Lord] i.e. if 
you really look on me as a Christian. 
See Addit. Note 30. 

house] Or, since okos in the pre 
ceding sentence clearly means family, 
perhaps it should be rendered stay 
in my family. Blass points out that 
OIKOS = family, ot/da = house in Attic 
Greek. But in the N.T. ot/cos and ot/da 
seem to be synonyms. Cf. vss. 31, 32, 
and 34. 

constrained] Cf. 2 Kings ii. 17; 
Luke xxiv. 29. 

16. while we were going] The 
picture is not quite clear. In com 
bination with vs. 13 it may mean 
that Paul and his companions had 
walked out along the river looking 
for a synagogue ; on the way they had 
met some women, and talking to them 
before they found the synagogue had 
converted Lydia. Then, as they were 
going into the synagogue itself, there 
followed the incident of the girl with 
a Python spirit. Or the writer may 
mean to describe two distinct incidents 
on different days. It depends on 
whether in vs. 13 KaOitravres means 
sat down in the synagogue the 
regular position of the speaker cf. 



Luke iv. 20, or sat down by the 
river, and whether o-ui/eAfloDcrat means 
that the women had assembled for the 
synagogue. Or possibly both the refer 
ences to going to the synagogue be 
long to the same day ; the narrative is 
dislocated because, though the episode 
of the slave girl really began before 
the conversion of Lydia, it culminated 
later, and therefore is put second in 
the story. 

slave girl] TratStV/c??, as in xii. 13 of 
Rhoda. 

oracular spirit] irvevij.a irvduva. 
According to Plutarch, De defect, orac. 
ix. p. 414 E, soothsayers through 
whom the gods spoke were once called 
evpvKXtas and later Trvdwvas, in allusion 
to the snake which embodied the god 
at Delphi. Plutarch and others call 
these soothsayers eyyaffrpip-vBovi or 
ventriloquists, but this word seems to 
have changed its meaning. It came to 
mean a man who can make his voice 
appear to come from some other part 
of the room in which he is; but 
presumably the original meaning was 
that the speaker was pregnant 
(ev yaffrpi) with a god. Moreover, 
a ventriloquist knows what he is 
doing, but this Python was convinced 
that she was inspired, and when Paul 
exorcised the demon she was power 
less to speak any more. 

The LXX attests the use of ey- 
yaffTptnvtios for wizard or soothsayer 
(m )&gt; while -rrvduv occurs in Clem. 
Horn. ix. 16 (ed. Lagarde) /cat irvOuve? 
fj.avTevovTa.1, d\\ u&lt;f&gt; rip.CJv u&gt;? 8ai/j.oves 
6pKi6/j.evoi (pvyadfi/ovrai, and in the 
Syntipas (ed. Eberhard, p. 66. 14 ff.) 
dvrjp ns 8aifj.6vLOf eix e jJ.avrevbp.evos /cat 
\eywv ocra epwTovffav avrbv oi & v6p a; Trot 
6 crTis dai/j.wv e/caXftro Trvevfj.a irvduvos 
Ta.-%a 5e \eyuv euros 6 tLvdpuiros CK TOV 
8aiiu,ovos avvijye K^pSrj TroAAd. Possibly 
these passages, especially the latter 
(whose Trvfv/jia irvduvos agrees with 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



193 



us. And she brought much profit to her owners by her divination. 

17 She followed Paul and us and cried out, saying, " These men are 

servants of the most high God, and announce to you a way of 



the Antiochian text of Acts), and 
the definitions in the glossaries of 
Erotian, Hesychius, and Suidas, are 
not independent of Acts. They serve 
in any case as commentaries on our 
passage. Whether the word is really 
connected etymologically with irvBuv, 
serpent, or with Ilvdias, Hvdu, and 
other words with v connected with 
Apollo or Delphi or their oracles, is 
doubtful. Jerome, De nom. Hebr. iii. 
103, displays his Hebrew learning by 
deriving it from os abyssi (oinns). 

See the full discussion in Wiken- 
hauser, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1921, pp. 
401-407. Note that /cta^Teuo/xat, used 
only here in the N.T., is also confined 
in the LXX to non- Jewish divination. 

profit] epyaaiav. It could be trans 
lated business, but profit seems to 
suit the context, and there is really 
not much difference between the two 
ideas. For instances of a similar use 
of the word see Moulton and Milligan, 
Vocabulary, and Blass ad loc. 

17. us] The first person is not used 
again until xx. 6, when we sailed 
from Philippi introduces a long 
section which continues to xxi. 15 
when Jerusalem has been reached. 
After this the first person is dropped 
until xxvii. 1, when Paul s voyage to 
Rome begins. 

Two observations may be made, 
though their exact significance is open 
to doubt, (i.) The we ceases when 
the narrative does not concern a 
journey, (ii.) Both here and in xxi. 
18 Paul is distinguished from the * us. 
Is this an indication by the writer 
that he proposes at this point to 
drop out of the story and leave the 
whole stage to Paul ? 

cried out] txpafe, not /cpae. She 
made a habit of it. 

most high God] Cf. Luke viii. 28, 
but there Luke is following Mark v. 7 
(the story of the Gadarene swine, 
which is not a Jewish scene). But 
where the term is used by Luke with 
a Jewish background the expression is 
6 V\//i(rTos without 6 deos (Luke i. 32, 
35, 76, vi. 35; Acts vii. 48). This 
VOL. IV 



may be another case of Luke s varia 
tion of synonym to suit different 
speakers or setting. 

For attributing the term to pagan 
speakers he has considerable precedent 
not only in Hellenistic Greek, e.g. 
1 Esdras ii. 3, which may be translated 
from the Semitic, but in the Hebrew 
use of jr^y for a single God spoken 
of in connexion with others than 
Hebrews, e.g. Num. xxiv. 16; Isaiah 
xiv. 14. Cf. Daniel iii. 26 et al See 
Montgomery, I.C.C. Daniel, pp. 215 f. 
Not only is there evidence of the 
actual use of the corresponding Semitic 
word in pagan religion, but a consider 
able body of inscriptional evidence 
from many lands attests the use of 
v^iffTos 0e6s. See article Hypsistos 
in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyklopddie. 
In many cases it is either purely 
Jewish or due to Jewish influence. 
Whether it is used by purely pagan 
groups not subject to syncretism with 
Judaism is perhaps not yet clear, 
though the term has claimed a good 
deal of attention. See further Addi 
tional Note 8. 

a way of salvation] The Greek 656s 
ffwrriplas without any articles may, 
however, also be rendered the way 
of salvation. The slave girl would 
perhaps speak of a way of salvation, 
as though there might be many ways, 
but would not Luke tend to think of 
her remarks as more nearly mono 
theistic ? (Cf. the use of tfi/acrros 
has it the same meaning in Luke s 
mind as it had in that of the slave 
girl ?) The alternatives in Greek are 
to use the article with both the noun 
and its dependent genitive or to use 
it with neither. When the article is 
used the English definite article is a 
safe translation, but it does not follow 
that when the article is not used in 
Greek we should use the English in 
definite article. The same problem of 
translation the words of a polytheist 
quoted by monotheists is found also 
in xvii. 23 ayvuffry deu&gt;, and in Mark 
xv. 39 ( = Matt, xxvii. 54) vlb ? 6eov a 
son of a god or the son of the god. 
O 



194 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



salvation." And she did this for many days. But Paul was 18 
annoyed and turned round and said to the spirit, " I enjoin you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her." And it came 
out of her that very hour. And her owners, seeing that their hope 19 
of gain had departed, seized Paul and Silas, and dragged them 
to the Agora to the magistrates, and brought them to the praetors 20 



18. for many days] tirl TroAAas 
i]fj.tpas. Cf. note on 5t rj/nep^v in i. 3. 

annoyed] 5i.a.Troi&gt;7)dLs. Cf. iv. 2. 

I enjoin you] This is the first 
example of exorcism by the Name of 
Jesus in Acts, but there is in principle 
no difference between this and the 
healing miracles in the earlier chap 
ters. In the opinion of that age, 
demons and disease were almost con 
vertible terms. 

that very hour] For the use of 
this phrase to express immediacy cf. 
xxii. 13. In this passage the Western 
text reads eu^ws. 

19. owners] The plural need not 
mean that she was owned by a syndi 
cate or business organization. Plurality 
of ownership was common, especially 
where the owners were kindred or 
married, and it is possible that Ki/pioi 
here and in Luke xix. 33 (of the colt) 
means master and mistress. See A. 
Souter, Expositor, July 1914, pp. 94 f., 
January 1915, pp. 94 ff., and the note 
of Windisch on Barnabas, xix. 7. 

Agora] The courthouse rather 
than the market-place would give 
the meaning, but the word is better 
transliterated than translated. 

magistrates] &pxovres is a general 
Greek name for the magistrates of a 
city. In the case of a Roman colony 
these were usually termed duoviri and 
aediles, but quattuorviri frequently 
appear instead of duoviri. There 
were also quaestors, augurs, and 
pontiffs. The main sources of our 
knowledge of the organization of 
colonies and municipia are the Lex 
Rubria of 49 B.C., Bruns, Fontes luris 
Romani 1 , p. 97 ; the Lex lulia Muni- 
cipalis of 45-44 B.C., id. p. 102 ; the 
Lex Coloniae Genetivae, id. p. 122, and 
the Leges Salpensana and Malacitana, 
id. pp. 142 ff. ; the first two of these 
contain general provisions regarding 
the constitution and administration 



of Italian municipal units, and the 
succeeding three the municipal con 
stitutions of the colony of Urso, 
and of the Latin towns of Salpensa 
and of Malaca in Baetica (Southern 
Spain). (On these laws see Mar- 
quardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 2 pp. 67 ff., 
135 ff. ; E. G. Hardy, Three Spanish 
Charters ; Mommsen, Gesamm. Schr. 
i. pp. 194-382.) It appears that the 
magistrates, duoviri, aediles, and 
quaestores, were elected by the votes 
of the community (Lex lulia Munici- 
palis, 83 ; Marquardt, op. cit. p. 141), 
but variations in the method of 
appointment of magistrates are found 
from town to town (e.g. for Africa 
cf. Toutain, Cites romaines de la 
Tunisie, pp. 354 ff.), and as time 
passed the constitutions of towns 
tended to become aristocratic. The 
three Spanish charters, however, may 
be considered typical. Duoviri, aediles, 
and decuriones appear in the inscrip 
tions of Philippi (GIL. iii. 633, 654, 
7339, 14206 15 ; Revue Archeologique, 
1921, p. 450, No. 4). Resident 
foreigners or incolae, such as composed 
a large part of Paul s audience in 
Philippi, voted in Malaca with the 
citizens of the town, Lex Malac. 53, 
but in Roman colonies generally this 
was probably not permitted, or was 
permitted only in special circum 
stances, as for instance at Gigthis 
(GIL. viii. 30). 

20. praetors] a-TpaT-rjyoi is not only 
the usual Greek equivalent for the 
Latin praetor but is also found for 
consuls, proconsuls, and consuls and 
praetors collectively (Dittenberger, 
Syll. 3 , Index, 0^07-77765 ; also for 
duoviri, Cagnat, IGRR. iii. 1040, 1047 
(Palmyra), and Libanius, i. p. 429 R. 
(Corinth)). In fact, in Greek usage 
the word may refer to any chief 
official, whether magistrate of a Greek 
city, prefect of an Egyptian nome, a 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



195 



and said, " These men are disturbing our city, and they are Jews 

21 and are announcing customs which it is illegal for us to accept or 

22 to do, seeing we are Romans." And the crowd gathered against 
them, and the praetors tore off their clothes and commanded 

23 them to be beaten. And when they had laid many lashes on 
them they threw them into prison and enjoined on the jailer 

24 to keep them securely. And he having received so strict an 



civil or military prefect under the 
Ptolemies, or a governor under the 
Seleucids, as well as having the 
primary sense of a military leader 
(see Dittenberger, OGIS., Index, &lt;rrpa- 
T-rjyos). The association of (rTparrjyos 
with praetor in the sense of duovir may 
be due to local custom which gave the 
duovir the title of praetor (cf. Cicero, 
De lege agr. ii. 34 "cum ceteris in 
coloniis duoviri appellantur, hi se 
praetores appellari volebant "). Prae 
tors were the regular magistrates in 
some of the early Latin towns and 
citizen colonies. Praetores duumviri 
(e.g. Grumentum, GIL. x. 221, 226) 
and praetores quattuorviri (Nemausus, 
GIL. xii. 3215) are found elsewhere, 
but duovir is the term which appears 
on the inscriptions of Philippi (see 
note above). 

The older editions of Meyer and 
Ramsay (PTRC. pp. 217 f.) suggest 
that the a-Tpar^yoL are not identical 
with the &PXOVTCS, whom they regard 
as an inferior class of magistrates 
who referred the case to the duoviri. 
But in a later article in the JTS. 
i. (1900) pp. 114 ff. on The Title of 
the Magistrates at Philippi Ramsay 
suggests that the crrparTjyoi are iden 
tical with the dpxovTes mentioned 
immediately before, but doubts 
whether the author would have used 
both words. This is the most prob 
able view, except that so far from 
Luke being unlikely to have used 
two words to describe the same 
magistrates, he is characteristically 
fond of varying his phraseology in 
just this manner. Probably therefore 
dpXovTes is merely a general term 
defined more closely by the following 
ffrparriyoi. It is as though we might 
say " he was brought before the magis 
trates, and his Honour remanded 



him." No one would suppose that 
his Honour was not included in 
the magistrates ; the phrase would 
merely define the rank of the magis 
trate in question. The argument for 
this identification of the a-Tparrjyoi and 
the apxovres is further supported by 
the fact that in Roman colonies the 
duoviri had jurisdiction in both civil 
and criminal processes (cf. Lex lulia 
Municipalis, 119 ; Lex Col. Genetivae, 
95, 96, 105 ; Marquardt, Staatsver- 
waltung, i. 2 pp. 154 f. ; Hardy, Three 
Spanish Charters, pp. 17 ff.). Claims 
and complaints might be laid by 
citizens and by the duoviri them 
selves. 

21. it is illegal] Though Judaism 
waa tolerated and protected in the 
Empire, its adherents were not allowed 
to make proselytes of Romans. This 
was probably the cause of persecution 
of the Christians, who in the eyes of 
the Roman law were at the best Jews 
engaged in illegal proselytism. If 
they were not Jews they had no 
possible defence, for though Rome 
tolerated any national religion it did 
not permit the indiscriminate manu 
facture of new cults. 

22. their clothes] Commentators 
generally interpret this as meaning 
that the praetors adopted the Old 
Testament custom of rending their 
garments in horror (cf . Ramsay, 
PTRC. p. 219). It seems to me un 
likely that they adopted this Jewish 
custom to express their horror at 
Jewish propaganda. It is more likely 
that the clothes were those of the 
apostles. Throughout the sentence 
O.VT&V . . . a.uTU}i&gt; . . . aurots . . . aurous 
refer to the apostles. It is not neces 
sary to think that the praetors did this 
with their own hands. See also Addit. 
Note 24. 



196 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



injunction put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet 
into the stocks. And about midnight Paul and Silas were singing 25 



24. inner] From the use of A 
in vs. 34 Blass concludes that the 
inner prison was underground, but 
this seems to put too much stress 
on avayayuv. It does not necessarily 
mean * to bring up from below any 
more than does the phrase bring 
the matter up for decision in legal 
English. Possibly taurtpav is an 
instance of that preference for the 
comparative rather than the super 
lative which has ultimately made the 
superlative obsolete in modern Greek. 

fastened] Almost shut, which is 
the meaning of o-0aAtw in modern 
Greek. 

stocks] Lit. the wood. This was 
a Roman instrument of torture, often 
mentioned in the Acta of martyrs. 
It was apparently made like the 
traditional village stocks, but had 
more than two holes for the legs so 
that they could be forced widely apart 
into a position which soon became 
intolerably painful. Of. Eusebius, 
H.E. v. 1. 27 (the letter of the 
church of Vienne brought by Irenaeus 
to Rome). 

25-26. R. Reitzenstein has pointed 
out in his Hellenistische Wunder- 
erzdhlungen, p. 121, that in chapters 
v., xii., and xvi. we have three stories 
of escapes from prison, and suggests 
that they, as well as the parallel 
narrative in Acta Thomae, are due 
to the influence of a Greek conven 
tion as to the way in which escape 
from prison was effected, combined 
with a widespread belief that magic 
could effect this result. His sugges 
tion certainly ought to be taken 
seriously, but its importance can 
easily be overestimated. So far as 
the theory of a literary convention 
is concerned, it merely means that 
there was an established way of telling 
certain stories, and that those telling 
that kind of story would be apt to 
add certain incidents even if there 
were no actual justification for them. 
Thus for instance, even if Paul and 
Silas had not sung in the prison, 
literary convention might have sug 
gested that it was the proper thing 
for a prisoner to do. The associations 



of this passage are literary or religious 
(the Dionysus cult) rather than 
magical. A likeness has long been 
recognized between this and the other 
scenes in Acts of release from prison 
(in v. and xii.) and the Bacchae of 
Euripides 443 ff . : 

&s 5 aS 



(ppoudaL 7 ^Kelvat \e\v/j.evai Trpbs opydSas 



avTo/J,a.Ta 5 airrais Secr/xd 5te\v6r) 
K\fj8es T avrixav dvperp dvev 



This parallel to the BaccJiae was first 
suggested by Celsus (cf . Origen, Contra 
Celsum, ii. 34) and has been empha 
sized lately by various scholars P. 
Fiebig, in "A77eAos, ii., 1926, p. 157; 
S. Lonborg, in Eranos, xxiv., 1926, 
pp. 73 ff. ; G. Rudberg, in Symbolae 
Osloenses, iv., 1926, pp. 29-34. For 
other possible connexions of Acts 
with the Bacchae of Euripides see P. 
Fiebig, loc. cit., below on xxvi. 14, and 
the article there cited by F. Smend, 
and on xxi. 39 with references to 
Rendel Harris. There may be some 
weight in this line of argument, but 
it seems to me to have been too 
much stressed. Doubtless there was 
a literary convention on many sub 
jects, as there is now, and the prob 
lem of distinguishing convention from 
fact is not easy. It can, indeed, 
never be completely solved in any 
given case, and the whole question 
can be stated best by enumerating 
the various imperfectly known factors 
which compose it. 

(i.) Escapes from prison were prob 
ably not infrequent, and in many 
cases were due to combinations of 
circumstances which the prisoner did 
not always understand. 

(ii.) In describing the adventures 
of philosophers and magicians, there 
was a tendency to reproduce stock 
incidents. This is true of all litera 
ture, and calls for no detailed dis 
cussion. But it must be noted that 
the incident became a stock one 
because it was believed to happen 
often. 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



197 



(iii.) In deciding whether an incident 
really happened or not, general prob 
ability is in the end our only guide. 
Thus in Acts v. and xii. the inter 
vention of angels appears improbable 
to those who do not believe in angels. 
But if the problem be turned round 
a little and we ask whether a prisoner 
who did believe in angels may not 
have thought that an angel had 
released him, the question takes a 
different aspect. Or again, it is 
certainly not impossible that the 
writer of Acts or his source may 
have introduced an angel to explain 
what was otherwise mysterious. Simi 
larly an earthquake seems to us 
singularly unlikely to have loosened 
the stocks but not otherwise injured 
either prison or prisoners. If there 
were any evidence that an earthquake 
was often introduced into accounts 
of escapes from prison, I should think 
that the earthquake was a Literary 
convention; but I know of no such 
evidence, and I am inclined to believe 
that the earthquake is history. Earth 
quakes are common enough in that 
district. It seems to me quite possible 
that the jailer, aware that he had 
with him two distinguished magicians 
and that they had been singing magic 
charms all night, released them in the 
belief that they were responsible for 
the earthquake. Naturally enough 
the direct and indirect result of the 
earthquake were confused in tradition. 

(iv.) So far as magic is concerned, 
the belief that magicians could bring 
about release from prison was wide 
spread, and it was recognized as a 
possibility which Celsus might sug 
gest in this episode by Origen, Contra 
Gels. ii. 34, since the doors were 
opened and the fetters loosed upon 
the singing of a hymn, and /cat yorjres 
rives ^TrwSats d^fffj-ovs \vovcri /cat dvpas 
Avoiyovffiv, (See A. Dieterich, Abraxas, 
190 ; R. Reitzenstein, Hell. Wundererz. 
pp. 120ff. ; and Pap. Osloenses, Fasc. 1, 
ed. by S. Eitrem, Oslo, 1925, p. 112.) 

But it is important to remember that 
Christians and Jews were in the main 
addicted not to magic but to religion, 
using the words in Frazer s sense. 
He maintains that the point of 
difference is that magic claims to 
control happenings by the direct 
action of the magician, who knows 
what to do and what to say. Religion 



claims to control happenings, if at 
all, only by persuading supernatural 
beings to take action. * Happenings 
are not in the power of man, but of 
these superhuman beings. Obviously 
mixture has often taken place between 
magic and religion, and a common 
form is that in which magic is 
employed not directly in the happen 
ings, but on the superhuman beings 
who are compelled rather than per 
suaded. Christianity and Judaism 
have not been free from this mixture ; 
it seems, for instance, to be illustrated 
in Acts by the use of the Name. In 
the main, however, both Christianity 
and Judaism are definitely religions, 
not forms of magic. In the first 
century and later, when magic was 
dominant, Christianity was always 
against it. Thus there arose a contro 
versy between heathen magic and 
Christian religion, on the basis of the 
miracles which each could perform. 
Therefore the real significance of the 
miracles in Acts to which Dieterich 
and Reitzenstein can adduce parallels 
from magical papyri is not quite 
what is sometimes thought. They 
are not so much a proof of the influ 
ence of magic on Christianity, but 
rather of the struggle between religion 
and magic. Religion may use the 
same formula as magic, but it is not 
identical with it. It is, however, well 
to remember that neither is religion 
in this its ancient sense the same 
as modern religion. 

25. singing] Owing to the frequency 
with which singing is introduced into 
hagiographical literature it has been 
suggested, especially by R. Reitzenstein 
(H ellenistische W under erzdhlungen, p. 
121), that it is a literary convention, 
and that there is little historical fact 
behind this whole account. Doubtless 
singing in prison is a common detail 
in hagiographical accounts, but it is 
also a common practice for political 
prisoners of all kinds and at all times. 
It is naturally introduced into litera 
ture ; but it also often really happened. 
Cf. Tertullian, Ad martyras 2 "Nihil 
crus sentit in nervo cum animus in 
coelo est " (nervus is the Latin name for 
%v\o}&gt;, stocks), and especially Epictetus 
ii. 6. 26 f. /cat ror e&lt;r6fj.e6a 



In each instance the decision, 



198 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVI 



praise to God as they prayed, and the prisoners were listening to 
them ; and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the 26 
foundations of the jail were shaken and at once all the doors were 
opened and the fetters of all were loosed. And the jailer woke up, 27 
and seeing the doors of the prison open drew his sword and was 
going to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped. But 28 
Paul called to him with a loud voice, saying, " Do yourself no 
harm, for we are all here." And he called for lights and rushed in, 29 
and in his fright fell down before Paul and Silas and brought them 3 
out, and said, " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? " And they 31 



whether literary or historical, depends 
on the general character of the narra 
tive. Preuschen quotes from Test. 
XII. Patr., Joseph, viii. 5 (Recension 
(3) Ko.1 ws ijfjirjv tv rois Secr/icus 77 AtyvTrria 
avveixcTO airb TTJS XvTnjs. /ecu tirrjKpoard 

/MOV TTcis V/J.VOVV KtiplOV v OlKlp ffK^TOVS. 

This is a closer and more convincing 
parallel than any of Reitzenstein s, 
but the question of Christian influence 
in this recension of the Testaments 
has not yet been completely cleared 
up. For other resemblances in thought 
and wording between Acts xvi. 23-29 
and the account of Joseph in the Test . 
XII. Patr. see Vol. II. pp. 77 f. But 
the use of eiainjddw (see vs. 29) in the 
two passages is less striking than was 
there implied, for while the verb is 
found only once again in the Greek 
Bible, it is common for violent acts 
in the Greek papyri (see Preisigke, 
Worterbuch, s.v.) and in Greek litera 
ture generally. Cf. xiv. 14 and note. 

26. the foundations] Perhaps with 
an allusion to Ps. Ixxxii. 5. 

loosed] Ramsay (PTRC. p. 221) 
suggests that the earthquakes so 
shook the house that the staples of 
the prisoners fetters were detached 
from the wall, " which was so shaken 
that spaces gaped between the stones." 
But if so, the roof would have collapsed, 
and in any case a fettered man could 
scarcely be described as freed merely 
if the staple which fastened him to 
the wall were detached. 

27. woke up] Qvirvos yevb^evos. To 
the instances of ^vTrvos commonly 
cited (1 Esdras iii. 3 and Joseph. 
Antiq. xi. 3. 2) should be added Enoch 
xiii. 9, Test. XII. Patr., Levi, v. 7. It 



is strange that an example of the 
adjective from a pagan writer has 
not yet been found. In all cases 
yivofj.ai is used, so that for once the 
use of yevo^fvos with an adjective 
need not be regarded as a mannerism 
of Luke. 

kill himself] Either as a point of 
military honour or perhaps to avoid 
the punishment due to a jailer who 
let prisoners escape, although under 
the circumstances he would have had 
a good defence, and could surely have 
recovered prisoners who, if Ramsay s 
view be accepted, were still dragging 
their fetters after them. 

29. lights] The word 0wra raises 
some questions of interest to the 
textual critic and the grammarian. 
The earliest versions without excep 
tion apparently render it as singular, 
as did the Authorized Version and 
indeed our own translation in proof. 
But though there are other variants 
in the passage no Greek evidence has 
&lt;/&gt;&lt;$. Did such a reading once occur ? 
Is 0cDra translated as collectively 
equivalent to 0ws ? Or was it taken 
(correctly?) to be a form of the 
accusative singular of 0cDs, like ^pcDra, 
idpura, and all other third declension 
nouns which are masculine including 
0tDra from the poetic 0a&gt;s, man. If 
not, we have here the plural found 
in other Hellenistic writings and 
meaning lamps or torches. Would 
the jailer call for more than one ? 

30. brought them out] The Western 
text adds having fastened up the 
others. 

to be saved] The implication in 
the jailer s mind probably was that 



XVI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



199 



said, " Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be 

32 saved." And they spoke the word of God to him with all who 

33 were in his house. And he took them at that hour of the night 
and bathed their stripes and was baptized at once, he and all 

34 his household, and brought them up into the house and pro 
vided a meal for them, and rejoiced with all his house, having 

35 believed on God. And when it was day the praetors sent the 



this earthquake justified the assertion 
of the Python that Paul and Silas 
were announcing a way of salvation. 
This may well be so, but doubt is raised 
by the fact that this is the traditional 
question which literary convention 
naturally put into the mouth of a 
future convert. 

33. bathed their stripes] The Greek 
^Xovcrev O.TTO T&V TrXyyijov could mean 
either that he bathed them because 
of their stripes or that he bathed 
them after their stripes. See Kypke, 
ad loc. But more probably we should 
regard it as a pregnant construction, 
he bathed them so that they were 
relieved from their stripes. Deiss- 
mann, Bible Studies, p. 227, illustrates 
the construction Aouo^cu O.TTO from 
inscriptions concerning ceremonial 
ablutions. Cf. Hebrews x. 22. 

baptized] As a rule there is 
some allusion to the further history 
of an apostolic convert in the legends 
of the saints. But there seems to 
be nothing about the jailer of Philippi 
except that two minuscules (see note, 
Vol. III. p. 156) say in vs. 27 that 
his name was Stephanas. Doubtless 
they mean the Stephanas referred 
to in 1 Cor. i. 16 ; his family was 
baptized by Paul and he is called 
the first-fruits of Achaia in 1 Cor. 
xvi. 15. The only other allusion 
to Stephanas in legendary lives of 
apostles is in the list of the Seventy 
in Cod. Sinait. Syr. 10 (Th. Schermann, 
Prophetarum Vitae, p. 220). This 
identification of the jailer with Ste 
phanas is not merely a scribal whim 
but goes back to some commentator, 
not Chrysostom so far as I can dis 
cover. It appears in Oecumenius, 
but Oecumenius in Acts takes over, 
unacknowledged and with the omis 
sion of the names of commentators, 



an older catena on Acts (published 
by J. A. Cramer as Catena in Ada 
88, Apostolorum, Oxford, 1838) which, 
however, gives no name for its note : 
"This is the Stephanas whom Paul 
mentions in the first letter to the 
Corinthians." 

Other unconvincing attempts are 
made to find references in the epistles, 
especially in Philippians, to persons 
who are mentioned anonymously in 
Acts. Thus E/enan suggests that Paul 
married Lydia and refers to her as 
yvr]&lt;rie &lt;rvvye in Philipp. iv. 3. Zahn 
goes further and, assuming that 
Lydia is a nickname given to 
the woman of Thyatira in Lydia, 
identifies her either with Euodia or 
Syntyche in Philipp. iv. 2. He also 
thinks that whichever of these two 
was not Lydia was probably the wife 
of the jailer, whom he identifies 
with the Clement mentioned in the 
same passage (Zahn, Komm. pp. 
581 ff.). 

34. provided a meal] The expres 
sion irapaTidy/M Tpd.ireav is an old and 
idiomatic one like a-rpuvw/uLi K\ivrjv 
(see on ix. 34), with which it is often 
associated. 

35 ff . In these verses there is no 
further reference in the B-text either 
to the jailer or to the earthquake. 
For this reason, and because of the 
intrinsic improbability of the earth 
quake episode, many critics regard 
vss. 25-34 as an insertion in an other 
wise historical narrative. (See B. 
Weiss, Einleitung, 50. 5 ; Spitta, pp. 
217 ff., and especially Wendt s note 
in his commentary, ed. 9 (1913), p. 
248. On the other side see Harnack, 
Lukas d. Arzt, pp. 80 f., and Apg. p. 
179, and Ramsay, PTRC. pp. 220 ff.) 

The maker of the Western text 
seems to have felt the lack of any 



200 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



lictors, saying, " Let those men go." And the jailer reported 36 
the words to Paul, " The praetors have sent to let you go. 
Therefore come out now and go in peace." But Paul said to 37 
them, " They scourged us publicly, uncondemned, though we are 
Roman citizens, and put us in prison. And now they dismiss 
us secretly ! Why, no ! Let them come themselves and conduct 
us out." And the lictors reported these words to the praetors. 38 
And they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman 



reference to the earthquake, and 
gave the story a different turn not 
only by small changes, but by two 
long additions : (i.) in vs. 35, " And 
when it was day the praetors as 
sembled together (tirl TO auro) in the 
Agora, and when they remembered 
the earthquake which had taken 
place they were afraid, and sent the 
lictors to say Let go those men 
whom you received yesterday. " 
(ii.) In vvs. 38 f . " The lictors reported 
to the praetors these words that had 
been said, and when they heard that 
they were Roman citizens they were 
afraid, and came with many friends to 
the prison, and asked them to go out, 
saying, We did not know your case, 
that you are righteous men, but 
leave this city, lest those who made 
an uproar against you make another 
riot. " (For the details of this reading, 
which is imperfectly preserved, see 
Vol. III. pp. 160 f.) 

35. lictors] The highest Roman 
officials were attended by lictors 
who carried the fasces. These were 
rods (virgae) bound together round 
an axe (securis) by a band of red 
colour, but the term was also used 
of the fasces without an axe carried 
by the lictors of municipal officers. 
Cicero calls these bacilli in distinction 
from the true fasces (De lege agr. ii. 34. 
93, Ad Att. xi. 6. 2). The clearest 
attested example of these lictors is 
in the accounts of the Colonia Julia 
Genetiva, in which 600 sesterces are 
allowed to two lictors for the duoviri. 
The lictors at Philippi doubtless 
belonged to this class. (See Th. 
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ed. 3, vol. 1, 
pp. 355-356 and 373-393.) 

Let those men go] The natural 
meaning is that the matter was 
not of enough importance to justify 



further detention. It had been dealt 
with by summary methods. A public 
flogging and a night in the stocks 
was sufficient. The earthquake has 
nothing to do with it. 

36. in peace] Ropes regards these 
words as a Western non- interpolation. 
If so they were doubtless inserted 
to indicate the Christianity of the 
jailer (cf. xv. 33). 

37. uncondemned] The meaning 
is doubtful, and the context suggests 
untried rather than uncondemned. 
The duoviri had exercised their right 
of inflicting punishment by way of 
police discipline or coercitio. But 
the word d/card/cpiros has not yet 
been found except here and at xxii. 
25, where uncondemned or un 
tried are equally possible in the 
context, though of course it may 
yet come to light in profane Greek 
(as has Kard/cptcris). It does not 
seem etymologically to come as near 
the meaning we expect of untried 
(Latin re incognita) as the more 
frequent and classical tf/cpiros, but in 
the late Greek the meaning of pre 
positions in composition was greatly 
blurred, and it is possible that 
d/card/cptros was vulgarly used as a 
synonym for #/cpiros. The Western 
avairios would mean not guilty, 
innocent, as at Matt. xii. 5, 7. 

Roman citizens] If it be pressed 
the plural would imply that Silas 
as well as Paul was a citizen. Citizens 
were protected against flogging by 
the Lex Valeria and the Lex Porcia ; 
the matter plays a large part in 
Cicero s Verrine orations, which, how 
ever, go to show that in the provinces 
the law did not prevent the occasional 
flogging of obscure Roman citizens. 
(See Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, 
pp. 31 f. and 47 f.) 



XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



201 



39 citizens, and they came and requested them and brought them 

40 out and asked them to leave the city. And they went out from 
the prison and entered into Lydia s house, and they saw and 
exhorted the brethren and departed. 

17 i And they took the road through Amphipolis and Apollonia 



38. they were afraid] The obscure 
point in the story is why Paul and 
Silas did not claim their Roman 
citizenship before they were flogged. 
The obscurity deepens when it is 
remembered on the one hand that 
in Jerusalem Paul claimed his citizen 
ship and the Roman officials im 
mediately released him from all 
danger of flogging, and on the other 
hand that in 2 Cor. xi. 25 Paul 
himself says that he had been flogged 
three times obviously by Roman 
officials, as he distinguishes these 
floggings from five others which he 
received from the Jews. It may be 
said that police administration was 
not always careful to consider nice 
points of law, and that they dealt 
with obscure citizens without much 
attention to the Lex Portia, but it 
then becomes even more difficult to 
see why the duoviri were afraid ; but 
cf. xxii. 29 o %tXtapxos 5e ^o^Q-rj. 

The historicity of this incident has 
been doubted by Th. Mommsen, 
Die Rechtsverhaltnisse des Apostels 
Paulus, ZNTW. ii. (1901) pp. 89 f. 
(= Gesammelte Schriften, iii., 1907, 
pp. 440 f.), and others, but beside the 
possibility that 2 Cor. xi. 25 refers to 
a beating at Philippi, we have in 
1 Thess. ii. 2 a general reference 
TrpoTradbvres /cat vfipLadtvres /ca#ws 
ot Sare ev $L\lTnroi.s. 

There were no doubt serious 
penalties for the breaking of the law 
which protected Roman citizens. If 
officials were the culprits they could 
be deprived of office and disqualified 
from further office (Cicero, In V err em, 
v. 66) ; if a municipality had offended 
it could be deprived of its privileges, 
as when the Rhodians put to death 
some Roman citizens (Suetonius, 
Claudius, xxv.). The last passage 
shows that to claim Roman citizen 
ship falsely was punishable by death. 
The effectiveness of the cry Civis 
Romanus sum, and the seriousness of 



the violation of citizens rights are of 
course rather rhetorically exaggerated 
by Cicero in In V err em, v. 57. Cf. v. 
66 and Pro Rabirio iv. 12, " Porcia lex 
virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum 
corpore amovit . . . Porcia lex liber- 
tatem civium lictori eripuit." See 
below on xxii. 25 and 29. It is curious 
that we seem to have no knowledge of 
the papers or other means by which 
a claim to citizenship could be sub 
stantiated. See also Addit. Note 26. 

39. leave the city] This does not 
seem to have been their original inten 
tion. It may mean that the duoviri 
did not care for the responsibility of 
protecting two unpopular citizens of 
Jewish birth from the hostility of the 
Greek and Roman crowd. 

40. exhorted] The Western text 
reads: they described what the 
Lord had done to them, exhorting 
them." The reading of D is e-rroirja-eis 
KvpLos avrois, but d has fecit dominus 
cum eis, suggesting that the Western 
text repeated the formula of xiv. 27, 
XV. 4, fTroo/cre yuer O.VTUIV. But there 
is no Greek evidence for this, and if 
D should be original it shows how 
less Semitic synonyms replace more 
Semitic ones as Acts progresses, 
whether this is due to the cessation 
of a written Aramaic source (Torrey) 
or to the author s own variation. 
Note how the language of the sum 
maries in Acts becomes less Biblical, 
for example in xvi. 5, xix. 20, compared 
with vi. 7, xii. 24. See also Addi 
tional Note 32 on the change from 
6ebv &lt;pofiov[j.evoi. to debv cre/36/xe;/oi. 

1. took the road] diodevaavrts prob 
ably implies that they took the 
Via Egnatia, which would be the 
natural if not the only way from 
Philippi to Thessalonica ; but Luke s 
use of SioSetfei* in Luke viii. 1 suggests 
that it may be merely a synonym 



Amphipolis and Apollonia] Cities 
on the Via Egnatia, at which Paul 



202 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVII 



and came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews. 
And according to his custom Paul went in to them, and for three 2 



may have broken his journey. This 
would give three stages : Philippi to 
Amphipolis, 33 Roman miles ; Am- 
phipolis to Apollonia, 30 miles, and 
Apollonia to Thessalonica, 37 miles. 
If this passage is taken to mean 
that the journey was really finished 
in three stages which is its natural 
though not its necessary meaning 
Paul must have used horses, and 
it is the best evidence which I know 
to settle the question whether Paul 
always went on foot (see note on 
IT e fete iv in xx. 13) or was in a posi 
tion to hire horses. The Western 
text has the interesting variant, 
"Taking the road through Amphi 
polis they came down to Apollonia 
and from it to Thessalonica." Pre 
sumably this means that they made 
a rather longer stay than usual in 
Apollonia. (See Lake, Earlier Epistles, 
pp. 62 ff.) 

Thessalonica] The modern city 
Salonica. Its ancient name was 
Therme, which was changed to Thes 
salonica by Cassander, the son-in- 
law of Philip of Macedonia, and 
named by him after his wife. Origin 
ally the capital of the second division 
of Macedonia it became the official 
headquarters of the Roman province. 

synagogue of the Jews] There is no 
inscriptional evidence for the existence 
of a colony of Jews in Thessalonica, 
and the present large number of Jews 
in the city is due entirely to the 
expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 
time of Ferdinand and Isabella. They 
still speak and write (in Hebrew 
characters) an interesting dialect of 
Spanish. 

2. three Sabbaths] This, not three 
weeks, is the natural rendering of 
rpla adppara. In Hebrew n3&&amp;gt; for 
week is not found in the O.T. 
(in Isaiah Ixvi. 23, which is often 
quoted, it can quite well be translated 
Sabbath, and other examples are even 
more doubtful). But it is more 
frequent in the Mishna and Talmud 
(e.g. M. Nedarim viii. 1). In the 
LXX the usage varies somewhat. 
Sd/3/3ara is regularly used in the books 
of the Law to mean the sabbath 1 



and the singular is not found. In 
the later books TO &lt;rd/3/3aToi&gt; is used 
and 0-d/3/3ctra means sabbath days. 
The phrase rj r//j.epa r&v aa.pfia.Tuv is 
found throughout the LXX but is 
increasingly frequent in the later 
books. There is no instance of 
a-dftfiaTov or &lt;rd/3/3ara meaning week 
or weeks, but the genitive (usually 
singular) is used to express the days 
of the week in the titles of Pss. xxiii., 
xxxvii., xlvii., xci., xcii., and xciii. 
(devTepaffafifiaTov = Monday,?? rnj.tpa.Tov 
Trpoffa(3j3dTov = Friday, and rerpdSt 
cra/S/Sdrwi = Wednesday). Similarly in 
the N.T. ff&ppa.Tov or adppaTa with 
the meaning week is used only in 
the genitive dependent on a numeral 
to indicate a day (only of Sunday, /j.ia 
(T&V] &lt;raj3l3dTuv Mark xvi. 2= Matt. 
xxviii. 1 Luke xxiv. 1 = John xx. 1, 
Acts xx. 7 ; Trp&Ti) oa.pf3a.Tov Mark xvi. 
9 ; fjila aappdTov 1 Cor. xvi. 2), and 
in the expression Sis TOV a-a[3/3dTov 
(Luke xviii. 12). The origin of this 
idiom is obvious. The custom arose 
of describing the days of the week as 
the first, second, etc., TOV aapfidTov. 
This must have originally meant the 
first, second, etc. day after the 
Sabbath, though a different but 
natural method of speech was used 
for Friday, which was -rrpoadpfiaTov 
or later 7rapa&lt;TKevr) TOV ffa($(3a,TOV. It 
might naturally have paved the way 
for the use of o-d/y/3aro^ =week, but 
the nearest approach to proof that 
the step was actually taken is the 
phrase 5ts TOV aajBpdTov (Luke xviii. 
12) ; nor did the tendency spread, for 
in later Greek ad/3(3a.Tov always means 
Saturday, not week, which is 
e/3&lt;5o//ds. Omitting the examples of 
this idiom the gospels differ curiously 
in their usage of the singular and 
plural, as the annexed table indicates : 



crdppaTOv 
aa.ppdTov 

0-dppa.Ta 



1 







XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



203 



3 Sabbaths argued with, them out of the scriptures, expounding 
them and setting forth that the Messiah must suffer and rise from 



This shows that Mark is consistent in 
declining &lt;rd/3/3arov, aapfidrov, &lt;rdl3(3a&lt;Ti. 
John is consistent in using only the 
singular forms, but Luke and Matthew 
vary between (ra/3/3drco and &lt;rd/3/3a&lt;Ti. 
Apparently when Luke found crd/3/3a&lt;n 
in Mark he changed it to &lt;ra/3/3drco when 
it really meant one special sabbath, 
but retained &lt;rd/3/3ao-t when it meant 
on the sabbath day in general. Acts 
uses the singular, but twice has the 
plural genitive in the phrase rrj ij^epa 
T&V o-appdruv (Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13). 
This is found also in Luke iv. 16, and 
in the cognate form TV rj/mtpq. rov 
o-a/SfBdrov in Luke xiii. 14, 16, xiv. .5, 
but not in the other gospels, though 
it is common in the LXX. The 
present phrase rpia o-d/3/3ara is appar 
ently the only example in the N.T. of 
a true plural ( = three Sabbaths) as 
distinct from a plural with a singular 
meaning. It is this fact which led 
Zahn (Einleitung, p. 152) to think 
that it might mean three weeks, but, 
as was shown above, there is no 
evidence for this usage in the N.T. or 
in later Greek. 

For the history of the seven-day 
week see E. Schiirer, Die siebentagige 
Woche in ZNTW . vi. pp. 1 ff. The 
point of importance is that the seven - 
day week has a double origin. It is 
partly due to the Jewish and possibly 
primitive Semitic custom of dividing 
into quarters a lunar month of 28 
days, partly to the later astrological 
theory that each of the seven astral 
powers (sun, moon, and five planets) 
had its own day. The latter custom 
paved the way for the adoption of 
the week in the Roman Empire, but 
one of the curiosities of history is that 
the astrological nomenclature, which 
the Greek Christians wholly avoided, 
and Latin Christians rejected for 
Saturday and Sunday, has completely 
triumphed in a translated form in the 
Teutonic and Scandinavian languages. 
Owing to this, the fact that Saturday 
is the Sabbath was no longer recog 
nized in these languages, and it was 
possible for the curious custom of 
giving the name and attributes of the 
Sabbath to Sunday to creep in among 



those who spoke these languages. (See 
also F. H. Colson, The Week.) 

3. expounding them and setting 
forth] The context and the exact 
parallel in Luke xxiv. 32 cos Sifyotycv 
7jiu.iv rds ypa&lt;pds points to the peculiar 
use of diavoiyw here. Normally it 
takes as its object the mind, ears, 
or heart. TrapariOe/jLevos apparently 
means presenting evidence. That the 
evidence adduced is in writing is also 
in accordance with the usage of this 
verb in other writers. Possibly the 
phrase dirb ruiv ypaQ&v should be 
taken with the participles that follow 
it rather than with SteX^aro which 
precedes it. In that case we might 
translate " argued with them, giving 
interpretations and citations from the 
scriptures to the effect that the 
Messiah," etc. But Luke is ac 
customed to place clauses in am 
biguous positions perhaps with the 
intention of not attaching them ex 
clusively either to what precedes or 
to what follows. See Plummer, 
I.C.C., St. Luke, Index, s.v. "Amphi 
bolous constructions." 

the Messiah] The Greek has no 
article, and could be rendered a 
Messiah, but the next phrase oSr6s 
taTw 6 X/H0-r6? must surely mean this 
is the Messiah, and turns the balance 
in favour of the translation given. It 
should be noted that &lt;5et has a more 
definitely past reference than can be 
rendered by the ambiguity of English 
construction after said. 

suffer and rise] Since the Jews 
had never contemplated a suffering 
Messiah, the crucifixion of Jesus was 
one of the chief obstacles to the con 
version of Jews to Paul s message. 
(Cf. 1 Cor. i. 23 ; Acts in. 18, xxvi. 
23 ; Luke xxiv. 26 and 46.) But the 
Lucan writings seem to represent a 
slightly different attitude, and to 
suggest that the writer had found the 
resurrection rather than the crucifixion 
the main obstacle to belief. (Cf. this 
passage and Acts xxiii. 6ff. and the 
combination of the two ideas in xxvi. 
23.) It is probably true that a 
suffering God was congenial to the 
Greek mind but not to the Jewish, 



204 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVII 



the dead, and that this is the Messiah, " the Jesus whom I 
announce to you." And some of them were persuaded and joined 4 
Paul and Silas, a great number of the worshipping Greeks and not 
a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and 5 
associating with themselves some bad men of the lower class 
collected a mob and disturbed the city, and stood before the house 



while the reverse is true of a resurrec 
tion of the dead. The apotheosis of 
* a suffering God was an ascension, 
but hardly a resurrection. 

whom I announce] For the change 
to direct discourse from indirect com 
pare i. 4 f ., xxiii. 22 ; Luke v. 14. 

4. And some of them were per 
suaded] The narrative clearly means 
that Paul preached for three weeks in 
the synagogue and made many con 
verts among the Gentiles. This led 
to trouble, and he had to leave the 
city. It gives us no warrant for 
the view that Paul preached for 
three weeks in the synagogue, and 
afterwards for a longer undefined 
period to the heathen population of 
Thessalonica. It may, however, be 
questioned whether the epistles do 
not imply a more prolonged stay. 
Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 1-2 and 9, " For your 
selves, brethren, know our entering in 
unto you, that it has not been found 
vain : but having suffered before and 
been shamefully treated, as you know, 
at Philippi, we waxed bold in our 
God to speak unto you the gospel 
of God with much struggling " ; 
"For you remember, brethren, our 
labour and travail : working night and 
day, that we might not burden any 
of you, we preached unto you the 
gospel of God," and Philipp. iv. 16, 
"For even in Thessalonica ye sent once 
and again unto my need." 

worshipping Greeks] Does this 
mean a special class of Greeks, or 
merely those who were in the syna 
gogue ? The Western text reads 
0-efio/j.tvwv /cat E\\r)i&gt;uv, which can 
be rendered worshippers and Greeks, 
and suggests that the Western re 
viser thought that the ae[36/j.cvoi were 
Jews, but does not prove that he did so. 
d reads coelicolarum, which may point 
the other way. 

The reading of the B-text seems the 



more probable, but a-eftd/j-evoi is not 
found elsewhere joined to " EXA^es (see 
Vol. III. p. 162 ; Lake, Earlier Epistles, 
p. 64 ; Ramsay, PTEC. pp. 226 f ., and 
Addit. Note 8). 

leading women] Or possibly wives 
of the leading men, an interpreta 
tion which the Western text enforced 
by reading yvvaixes r&v Trpwruv OVK 
oXiyai. 

5. were jealous] Cf. xiii. 45. The 
jealousy is not strange when it is 
remembered that the God -fearers 
among whom Paul had his chief 
success were probably looked on 
by the synagogue as prospective 
converts. There is in 1 Thess. ii. 15 f. 
a probable reference to this action of 
the Jews, "who drove us out, and do 
not please God, and are hostile to all 
men, and prevent us from speaking to 
the Gentiles." 

lower class] To judge from the 
many examples collected by Wettstein 
the word dyopalos is contrasted with 
well-born, refined and educated, and 
is associated with the ill-bred coarse 
class, especially hucksters and artisans. 
The etymology of the word suits the 
reference to this working class, and the 
Greek scorn for the petty trading and 
labouring class had given the word its 
unfavourable meaning. Whether Luke 
himself shared this feeling is uncertain. 
In the Gospel he seems to show other 
sympathies. It is doubtful whether 
dyopalos retained any suggestion of 
loafing in the dyopd. Perhaps that is 
rather the meaning of (nrep/moXdyos. 
(See Eustathius as quoted on vs. 18.) 
But probably cnrep/moXoyos and dyopalos 
were more nearly equivalent in usage 
than in etymology. The use of the 
word in Plutarch, Aemil. Paul. 38 
(dvOp&TTovs ayevvtls /cat 5eoi&gt;Xeu/c6ras, 
dyopaiovs 5 /cat SwafJ^fOVt 6%\oi 
ffvva.ya.yeiv), suggests the possibility of 
rendering it by agitator, but there 



XVTI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



205 



6 of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when 
they could not find them they dragged Jason and some brethren 
before the politarchs, shouting " These who have upset the 

7 civilized world have come here too, and Jason has harboured 



seems to be no other evidence for this 
meaning. In xix. 38 the word is of 
course used quite differently. 

Jason] The name is common in 
the adjacent section of Thessaly and 
elsewhere. It was borne by Jews, 
sometimes as an alternative to Ir/crovs 
(Joshua). It is not clear that this 
Jason is to be regarded as a Christian. 
In vs. 6 we read Jason and some 
brethren, not other brethren. His 
introduction is rather abrupt. In 
like manner we are not clear whether 
Sosthenes and Alexander, who bear 
the brunt of the attack on Paul at 
Corinth and at Ephesus, are Christians. 
No Thessalonian converts are men 
tioned as such in the letters addressed 
to that church, but Acts mentions Arist- 
archus and Secundus as Thessalonians 
(xx. 4, xxvii. 2). Gaius also may 
have been one. (But see the notes on 
xix. 29 and xx. 4.) Later tradition 
(A.SS. June v. p. 414) made Jason 
bishop of Thessalonica. There is 
obviously no reason for identifying 
him with the Jason mentioned in. 
Romans xvi. 21, traditionally ithe 
bishop of Tarsus (see the Menology 
for April 28), but the two are often 
confused in the later legends (see Th. 
Schermann, Vitae fabulosae, pp. 122, 
140, 169, 174, 182, and 220). For the 
confusion between Jason and Mnason 
see A.SS. July iii. p. 248. Jason and 
Sosipater are celebrated in the Greek 
Menology on April 28 (see A.SS. Apr. 
iii. p. 547 c). 

to bring them out] irpoayayeiv, 
correctly explained in the Western 
text as &lt;!ayayeii&gt;, the obvious intention 
being to subject them to the violence 
of the crowd. 

the people] Cf. the use of ST^UOJ in 
xix. 30 and 33, where it is clearly 
synonymous with #x\oj&gt; in xix. 33 and 
35. Ramsay (PTRC. p. 228) wishes to 
render drj/mov a public meeting, but 
there is no justification in the context 
for this translation which introduces 
an element quite foreign to the general 



tenor of the narrative. Possibly rbv 
dij/jiov means the dyopaloi whom the 
Jews had brought together. 

6. brethren] a5e\(f&gt;ous, i.e. Chris 
tians. 

politarchs] TroAtrapx^s is mainly if 
not exclusively a Macedonian title for 
the non-Roman magistrates of a city. 
It is found in inscriptions ranging 
from the second century B.C. to the 
third century A.D. Fourteen belong to 
Macedonia (five to Thessalonica), two 
to Philippopolis in Thrace, one each 
to Bithynia, Bosporus, and Egypt 
(P Oxy 745. 4, c. A.D. 1). The volume 
of the Corpus Inscriptionum contain 
ing Macedonian inscriptions was pub 
lished in 1833, and contains few of 
these inscriptions, but they are con 
veniently collected in Demitsas, Ma/ce- 
8ovia, Athens, 1896, and by E. D. 
Burton in the American Journal of 
Theology, ii., 1898, pp. 598 ff . It would 
appear that Macedonian cities had 
several politarchs, the number vary 
ing with their importance. Amphipolis 
had five, Pella only two, Thessalonica 
had five in the time of Augustus, but 
afterwards six. The word is also 
found in the form Tro\irapxos. 

who have upset, etc.] The modern 
equivalent would be these Bol 
shevists. The Western text gives a 
slightly different nuance " these are 
they who have upset the civilized 
world, and they have come here too." 
The verb dvaffrarovv occurs also at 
xxi. 38, Gal. v. 12, and in the Greek 
translations of the O.T., but nowhere 
in profane authors. It is, however, 
sufficiently attested in the papyri of 
driving from home, BGU. iv. 1079. 
20 (A.D. 41), and figuratively, as here, 
in the boy s letter P Oxy i. 119. 10 
(A.D. ii/iii) avaaraTol fj.e. &ppov avrbv. 
Cf. P Par 574 (magical), 2244. 

civilized world] TTJJ/ oiKov^v-rjv, see 
note on xi. 28. 

7. harboured] Possibly Jason pro 
vided the work which Paul says he did 
while in Thessalonica (1 Thess. ii. 9). 



206 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



them. And these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, 
saying that there is another emperor, Jesus." And they dis- 8 
turbed the crowd and the politarchs when they heard this, and 9 
they took security from Jason and the others, and let them go. 

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by 10 
night to Beroea, and when they arrived they went their way to the 
synagogue of the Jews. And these were more generous than those 1 1 



saying that] Paul s own version 
of his preaching is that he urged the 
Thessalonians "to turn from idols to 
serve a living and real God, and to 
await his Son from heaven, him whom 
he raised from the dead Jesus, who 
saves us from the wrath to come" 
(1 Thess. i. 9f.), which could easily 
be perverted into the preaching of 
another emperor. 

emperor] /ScurtXe a. It seems better 
not to render it king, which would 
imply the Latin rex, a title never used 
by the emperors. Of. Luke xxiii. 1 
TOVTOV diaaTpecpovra TO i-dvos 
/ecu KUi\vovra (popovs Katcrapt 
/ecu \tyovra eavrbv XpiaTov 
el^ca. But the translation is 
not wholly satisfactory. It implies 
a distinction between King and 
Emperor which was clearly felt by 
the Latin mind, but not by the Greek. 
To the Greek the King of Parthia and 
the Emperor of Rome were both 
/3a&lt;nAe?s. In translating a Greek 
document like Acts ought we to take 
account of purely Latin sentiment ? 
For the emphatic position of Irjffovv 
cf. Cadbury, Making of Luke- Acts, 
p. 218, where a collection is given 
of other examples from Acts and 
Hebrews. 

9. took security] iKavbv \afielv is a 
literal rendering of the Roman legal 
term satis accipere, which is correctly 
used in the Old Latin and Vulgate, 
and means to take security or a bond 
which can be forfeited if the offence 
be repeated. Cf. the phrase in Mark 
xv. 15 iKavbv iroieiv. If these were once 
Latinisms (cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 
pp. 20 f.), their occurrence in contem 
porary papyri and inscriptions shows 
their acceptance in the Greek. For 
LKO.VOV \a/uL^dvLv Moulton and Milligan, 
Vocabulary, cite W. Dittenberger, 
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 



484. 50 and 629. 101. It is not clear 
what was the exact bearing of the I 
procedure in this case, but certainly 
the charge against Jason was that J 
he had harboured seditious persons. 
There was, however, no clear proof 
of this, as the seditious persons 
could not be found. Presumably, 
therefore, Jason s defence was a denial, | 
and the bond was to be forfeited if 
he were found really to have been I 
connected with Paul. This view I 
seems to be supported by the speed 
and secrecy with which Paul was [ 
hurried out of Thessalonica. From 
1 Thess. ii. 14 it would seem probable r 
that after Paul s departure the matter 
was taken further, for the epistle . 
speaks of a persecution of the Thessa- I 
Ionian Christians by their own country- i 
men. 

10. Beroea] A city about 50 miles 
west of Thessalonica, south of the Via 
Egnatia which went from Thessalonica 
through Pella to Dyrrachium on the 
coast of the Adriatic Sea. Its posi 
tion doubtless led Cicero in speaking 
of another fugitive from Thessalonica 
to describe it as oppidum devium (In 
Pison. xxxvi. 89), for it was off 
the road for anyone going to Rome, 
though a traveller to Athens would 
naturally pass through it. It has still 
the same name, but in Franco-Turkish 
transliterations it is spelt Verria, and 
so appears on most maps. 

went their way] dTrriecrav : see Blass s 
treatment of Greek words meaning to 
go in his commentary, pp. 17 f., and 
cf . his note on aire\duv = went off 
rather than went away in v. 26. 

1 1 . generous] The Greek word has 
undergone exactly the same change as 
the Latin generosus, and had reached 
the modern meaning of generous 
earlier than did the Latin, so that 
Cicero was driven to use Greek and 



XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



207 



in Thessalonica, and they received the word with all eagerness, 
examining the scriptures every day to see if these things were 

12 so. So then, many of them believed, and of the Greek women 

13 of position and of men not a few. But when the Jews of 
Thessalonica knew that in Beroea also the word of God had been 
announced by Paul, they came and made disturbance there also 

14 and incited the crowd. Then the brethren at once sent Paul out 



wrote to Atticus (xiii. 21. 7) " evyevt- 
arepos est etiam quam pater." See 
Blass s note ad loc. 

12. many] The only one whose 
name is known is Sopater, the son 
of Pyrrhus (xx. 4). The presence of 
a representative of Beroea in this list 
of companions suggests that Paul s 
work at Beroea had more permanent 
results than either Acts or the epistles 
otherwise reveal. For the companions 
on this journey appear to be delegates 
of the churches from which they come 
in the matter of the collection for 
Judaea. That Sopater, almost alone 
of the Christians named in Acts, is 
given his father s name may not be 
significant. It hardly proves his own 
good family, or that of his fellow- 
Christians at Thessalonica. See on 
evyeveffTcpoi, vs. 11. 

of position] See note on xiii. 50. 
Beside the alternative meaning rich 
there mentioned, the rendering by d 
as non placentium (by which must be 
meant conplacentium as in vs. 34) 
reminds us that eva-xji^uv often refers 
to character rather than position, as 
does evyevrjs in the preceding verse. 
On the other hand t\xjyj}y.uv became 
a title of certain officials in Egyptian 
villages, as the papyri show. 

The Western text reads " and of the 
Greeks and of those of good position 
many men and women," which gives 
the same meaning as the B-text, but 
is preferable grammar. 

13. of Thessalonica] In the context 
ot dwo rfjs Qea-ffaXovLKr/s should probably 
be so rendered rather than from 
Thessalonica, and be regarded as an 
example of the deterioration of pre 
positions in later Greek. But it can 
be explained as a somewhat loose con 
struction which regards the episode 
from the point of view of Beroea, and 
is influenced by the sense that the 



Jews who raised trouble in Beroea 
came from Thessalonica. A similar 
phrase is r&v dirb loTnrijs in x. 23, 
where again the phrase which means 
men of Joppa is perhaps influenced 
by the fact that the narrator is looking 
at the facts from the Caesarean end. 
The passage is important for the dis 
cussion of the meaning of ot dirb rrjs 
IraAtas in Heb. xiii. 24. 

14 f. This passage is completely 
rewritten in the Western text : " The 
brethren therefore sent off Paul to go 
to the sea, but Silas and Timothy 
stayed there. And those who con 
ducted Paul brought him as far as 
Athens, and he passed by Thessaly, 
for he was prevented from speaking 
the word to them, and they took 
instructions from Paul to Silas and 
Timothy to come to him quickly, and 
went away." The important part of 
this text, assuming that it is a para 
phrase of the B-text, is that it takes 
tws t-rri rr)v 0d\aa&lt;rai&gt; as fulfilled by 
Paul s arrival at Athens, and therefore 
has to explain why nothing happened 
on his journey through Thessaly. I do 
not think that Thessaly is a corruption 
of 0d\aff(Ta (see Vol. III. ad loc.) : the 
Western text, if it be not original, 
seems deliberate exegesis, and, more 
over, it retains the reference to 
6d\a&lt;raa. It is also valuable evidence 
that the Western reviser regarded 
Trape\9bvTs as meaning to pass 
through without preaching in dis 
tinction to dicXdovres. The com 
mentary of Ephrem is partly missing 
(see Vol. III. p. 432), but it seems to 
imply that Paul went back through 
Thessalonica. This is, however, prob 
ably a corruption of Thessaly. 

The usual interpretation is that 
Paul was taken to some port on the 
coast, possibly Dium, and then went 
by boat. But there is much prob- 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



to go as far as to the sea, and Silas and Timothy stayed there. 
And those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, 15 
and departed with instructions to Silas and Timothy to come 
to him as soon as possible. 



And while Paul was waiting for them in Athens his spirit 



was 1 6 



ability in the Western reviser s view 
that e ws 4-n-l TTJV 6a\d&lt;r&lt;Tav corresponds 
to ws Adrjis&v : otherwise Paul s guide 
would have left him at Dium. More 
over it is contrary to Luke s custom 
to omit the port of departure. It 
is perhaps some confirmation of the 
suggestion that ews eirl rty 6d\aa&lt;rav 
really is fulfilled in ews Ad-rjvwi , that 
elsewhere the author seems to repeat 
his geographical notes. Cf. xviii. 18 
e7T\et et s rr)v Zivpiav = 22 KareXO&v els 
Kaiaapiav ; 19 /ca/ceii/ous /carAiTrei avrou 
(at Ephesus) = 21 avr/x^ a^o rrjs 
E0ecroL ; more doubtful instances are 
perhaps 23 5tep%6/x,ej os /ca$e?)s TT\V 



di\66vTa TO, avurepiKo. ^p-rj ; xvi. 4 
dieiropevovro ras Tr6\eis = Q dL7}\8ov 8 
TT]v 3?pvyiav /cat FaAaTt/cT?* x&pa-v, and 
the double references to arrival at (or 
approach to) Jerusalem and Rome in 
xxi. 15, 17, xxviii. 14, 16. Cf. note 
on xvi. 4. It is possible that the 
original intention of going to the 
sea was to go homewards. The 
successful work in Corinth was the 
partly accidental outcome, not the 
original purpose, of leaving Macedonia. 

14. as far as to] Of the two read 
ings cos iir i (Antiochian) and ws tirl 
(Old Uncial) Hopes and Field, Notes, 
ad loc., prefer the former. But the 
scale is turned in the other direction 
by the fact that " -n-opevecrdcu ws tirl to 
go in the direction of a place, whether 
the person arrives there or not, is an 
excellent Greek idiom " (Field, cf. also 
Radermacher, Neutestamentliche, Gram- 
matik, 2nd ed., pp. 26 f. note), though 
the idiom probably does not imply 
pretending to go without actually 
going, while 2us with a preposition 
seems to be characteristic of Luke 
(Luke xxiv. 50 ews wphs, Acts xxi. 5 
ws w, xxvi. 11 e cos /cat eis). 

Timothy] The omission of all 
reference to Timothy up to this point 



is strange, even if Timothy was a 
subordinate. In fact, even Silas is 
easily overlooked by the reader in 
spite of the plurals and his mention 
at verses 4 and 10. 

15. to come to him] According to 
1 Thess. i. 1 and iii. 1 f., as usually inter 
preted, Timothy and Silas joined Paul 
in Athens, though this is not mentioned 
in Acts (see note on xviii. 5). 

16-34. PAUL IN ATHENS. Athens 
is the only place in which Paul 
preached without raising persecution. 
The story is almost wholly confined 
to the episode of Paul s preaching 
in the Agora and his speech before 
the Areopagus. Taken as a whole, it 
commends itself at once as a genuinely 
historical narrative. The Agora, the 
Stoics and Epicureans, and the Areo 
pagus are all correct local details : 
the characterization of the city as full 
of idols and of the people as curious 
for novelty was made in other con 
temporary records. It has, however, 
been legitimately doubted whether 
the actual words of the speech of Paul 
are part of the original source or are 
rather the composition of the editor 
a problem which would of course 
disappear if we accepted Harnack s 
view that the author of the source is 
himself the editor. Possibly no final 
decision can be reached, and the 
importance of the problem can easily 
be exaggerated, for it is indisputable 
that the speech is both similar to 
other speeches in Acts, which suggests 
that it is the work of the editor, and 
also is similar to what Paul probably 
would have said, which suggests that 
it was in the source. 

The speech, like the other typical 
speech to the heathen, that at Lystra 
(Acts xiv. 15 ff.), is a plea for the 
Jewish doctrine of God, and for the 
specifically Christian emphasis on a 



XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



209 



enraged within him when he saw that the city was full of idols. 
1 7 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the wor 
shippers, and in the Agora every day with those who chanced 



* Son of Man doctrine of judgement. 
Its nearest parallels in the N.T. are 
Rom. i. 19 ff. and the short summary 
of Paul s preaching in 1 Thess. i. 9 f . 
Its structure is simple, (i.) An intro 
duction, taking the inscription on 
an altar in Athens as a text the 
Unknown God. (ii.) A typically 
Jewish exposition of the folly of idol 
worship, (iii.) A statement of the 
natural evidence for God, and 
further warning against idolatry, (iv. ) 
The announcement of the judgement 
of the world by the Man whom God 
has appointed and guaranteed by 
raising him from the dead. Just as 
the speeches to the Jews are full of 
quotations from and references to the 
O.T., so this speech has a quotation 
from Aratus, and probably at least an 
allusion to Epimenides. 

Beside the use of familiar quotations 
from the poets and the omission of 
O.T. quotations, some of the follow 
ing are interesting evidences of the 
more secular style of this speech, 
(a) The use of the neuters 8 . . . . TOVTO 
si vera lectio (23) and TO delov (29, v.l, 
in 27) ; (b) the use of ye or infrequent 
compound particles of ye (27 bis); 
(c) the paronomasia fwV /cat TTVO^V 
(25); (d) the frequent alliteration; 
(e) the accumulation of forms or 
derivatives of was, often in connexion 
with alliteration ; (/) the repetition of 
the participle virdpxuv (24, 27, 29); 
(g) the idiomatic phrase -wlynv jrapexu 
(which is not Pauline TTLO-TLS). Possibly 
the context of the speech also has 
some choice or unusual words or 
forms. See Norden, Agnostos Theos, 
Aeets Arn/ca^. But K.a.LVQTpov for 
news {9 not exclusively literary (see 
BGU. vol. iii. 821 . 4), as has been some 
times claimed for it. Nor are the many 
phrases claimed as local Athenian 
parlance probably not to say veri- 
fiably such. Likewise many words 
in this section formerly considered 
rare or biblical are probably natural. 
Some of them are already attested in 
inscriptions and papyri, as avaaraTow 
(6), TroXtrdpXT/s (6, 8), Ka.Tayye\evs (18), 
VOL. IV 



opodecria (26), though not yet ^xAoTrot^w 
(5) or /caretSoAos (16). 

There is no reason to suppose that 
this speech was consciously based on 
Stoic models. It is eminently Jewish, 
and the resemblance to Stoic doctrines 
is equally traceable in such writings 
as the Wisdom of Solomon and the 
Oracula Sibyllina. Just as there was 
a Koine Greek language which was 
adopted by Hellenistic Jews, so there 
was a Koine Greek philosophy which 
was also adopted. 

16. enraged] irapw^vveTo. Cf. irap- 
o i;&lt;r/x,6s used in xv. 39 of the quarrel 
between Paul and Barnabas. 

full of idols] The adjective KO.T- 
etSwAos is regularly formed, though 
it is not found elsewhere, /caret- in 
composition meaning full of, like 
Ko.Tddev5pos, thickly wooded. Secular 
writers do occasionally use d5u\ov of 
images of gods, and would understand 
this compound even if they had not 
used it. 

The abundance of statues in Athens, 
and in general the evidences of the 
Athenian religiosity, were remarked 
by other visitors. Cf . Livy xlv. 27 ; 
Pausanias i. 17. 1; Strabo ix. 1. 16; 
Sophocles, Oed. Col. 260 rds y Afli^as 
0a0i deoo-e^effTaTas elvai ; Josephus, 
Contra Ap. ii. 11 TOVS 5e eu 



Though Paul probably did not do 
so, he could have seen the statue of 
John Hyrcanus in the temple of the 
Graces, and if an ingenious though 
daring emendation of Curtius be 
accepted an inscription in the shrine 
of Athena Ergane to the God of the 
Jews, for Pausanias i. 24. 3 says that 
along with Athena and Hermes was 
"ETTOvSaluv dai/mui , and Curtius emends 
(nrovdaidjv to lovdaLuv, connecting the 
story with the other benefactions of 
Herod (see Curtius, Stadtgeschichte von 
Athen, pp. 260 f.). 

17. the Agora] If Paul approached 
Athens from the north he would see 
the high hill of Lycabettos on his 
right, the Acropolis in front of him, 
and the Areopagus to his left. He 



210 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



to be there. And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers 18 



would come in through the business 
section of the city, and walk up a 
shallow depression with an elevation 
on each side. On the right was the 
Theseion, on the left the gate of 
Athena Archegetis ; it is, however, 
doubtful whether the gate of Athena 
was actually visible, and it would 
certainly be shut out by the Stoa of 
Attalos. Soon he would find himself 
entering the commercial agora, or 
market in the modern sense. Passing 
through this open space, along the 
whole length of the Stoa of Attalos, 
he would come to the line of Hermai, 
which stretched, with an opening in 
the middle, from the Stoa Poikile on 
his left to the Stoa Basileios on his 
right. Going through the Hermai he 
was in the Agora proper, amid a 
forest of statues with buildings on all 
sides. Immediately on his left hand, 
at the end of the Hermai, was the 
statue of Hermes Agoraios, and the 
Stoa Poikile the traditional head 
quarters of Zeno and the Stoics who 
took their name from it stretched 
for two-thirds of the left-hand side of 
the Agora. In the further right-hand 
corner was the altar of the Twelve 
Gods, and above it towered the cliff 
of the Acropolis. Next to it were 
the statues of Harmodios and 
Aristogeiton, the tyrannicides; then, 
forming the southern end of the Agora, 
came a cluster of buildings, the 
Tholos an offshoot of the primitive 
Prytaneion the council - chamber 
standing above the rest on the side 
of the Areopagus, and a group of the 
statues of national heroes at the back 
of the Tholos. Above the council- 
chamber, as Paul stood by the Hermai 
he must have seen the temple of Ares, 
built on the side of the Areopagus, 
which shut out the view straight in 
front of him, and above this in a cave 
on the side of the hill near the top 
was the altar of the Eumenides, the 
dark goddesses who avenge murder. 
Turning to his right hand Paul would 
have seen in an almost semicircular 
arrangement, starting from the council - 
chamber, the Metroon, the temple of 
the primitive Mother Goddess, the 
temple of Apollo Patroos, the Hall 
of the Twelve Gods, and finally, at 



the end of the Hermai on his right, 
the Stoa Basileios, in which the 
officials of the city and the council 
of the Areopagus used to meet. It 
is, however, impossible to give a plan 
of Athens showing exactly where 
these buildings were. Of the buildings 
in the Agora nothing remains above 
ground except the ruins of the Stoa 
of Attalos. Our knowledge of what 
Paul must have seen is derived from 
Pausanias. Even the position of the 
Stoa Basileios is still in dispute. (See 
Curtius, Stadtgeschichte vonAthen, and 
Judeich, Topographic von Athen.) 

who chanced to be there] This is the 
first place in which it is definitely 
stated that Paul preached to heathen 
who were not worshipping, though 
this may be true of Lystra where the 
synagogue is not mentioned. In the 
other places where there is a detailed 
account of Paul s work Antioch of 
Pisidia, Iconium, Philippi, and Thessa- 
lonica he approaches the heathen 
through the synagogue, and there is 
no evidence that he conducted any 
separate mission. In Athens, Corinth, 
and Ephesus he used the synagogue 
as a means of approach to the Jews 
and to Gentiles worshipping there, 
but also carried on a mission of direct 
approach to the heathen. 

18. Epicurean] The school of philo 
sophy founded by Epicurus (c. 300 
B.C.). The centre of the school in 
Athens was the Garden. The best 
general description of the system is 
that of Lucretius, De rerum natura, 
and in modern literature nothing 
takes the place of Zeller, but there 
are valuable discussions of the general 
system in Edwyn Bevan s Stoics and 
Sceptics, Gilbert Murray s Five Stages 
of Greek Religion, G. F. Moore s 
History of Religions, vol. i., and 
P. Wendland s Hellenistisch-rdmische 
Kultur. 

Stoic] The school of Zeno (c. 300 
B.C.), called Stoics because they fre 
quented the Stoa Poikile. Both Stoics 
and Epicureans held a materialist 
theory of the universe. 

The Epicurean system was based 
in the main on the Atomic theory of 
Democritus. According to this the 
universe consists of atoms, which are 



XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



211 



took issue with. him. And some said, " What does this cock- 
sparrow mean ? " others, " He seems to be an announcer of 
foreign deities," because he was bringing the good news of 



eternal, without origin and without 
end, constantly forming new com 
binations, which gradually break up 
and give rise to new ones. The 
combination is due to chance acting 
on the atoms which are eternally 
falling through infinite space. 

The Stoic theory rested on the 
essential eternity and transient com 
binations not of atoms, but of the 
four elements, earth, water, air, and 
fire (see Additional Note 9 for their 
doctrine of spirit). In the sphere 
of ethics there was little practical 
difference between the Stoics and 
Epicureans. The Stoics held that 
life according to nature (Kara &lt;J&gt;ucn.v} 
was the ideal of conduct, and the 
Epicureans made happiness their goal, 
but * nature and happiness were 
so construed that the practical life 
based on them was much the same. 
(See, in addition to Zeller, Dill, Roman 
Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius ; 
E. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics; 
Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme ; Gilbert 
Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion ; 
P. Wendland, Hellenistisch-rdmische 
Kultnr, and in preference to any 
modern books Cicero s De natura 
deorum ; Seneca s philosophic works ; 
Epictetus ; Marcus Aurelius s treatise 
To himself; and the Fragmenta col 
lected by von Arnim.) 

And some said] There is much to 
be said for putting a full stop before 
these words (with Blass and E. Meyer). 
The sentences which follow refer to 
the Athenians in general (of. vs. 21), 
not to the philosophers who are rather 
mentioned as a piece of local colour. 
Like others in Luke s writings 
Philip s daughters, for example they 
are left in the air. A false con 
nexion of the sequel with the philo 
sophers has given to the interpretation 
of (nrep/j.o\6yos too much stress on 
intellectual scorn for the dilettantism 
of Paul, and to the interpretation of 
the scene before the Areopagus too 
much the suggestion of a kind of oral 
examination for the degree of Doctor 
of Philosophy (see below on vs. 19). 



It is unnecessary to exaggerate Paul s 
persecutions. 

cock - sparrow] a-irep/moXoyos. The 
only important evidence as to the 
meaning seems to be the comment of 
Eustathius of Thessalonica on Homer, 
Odyssey v. 490. He says : lareov 8 
on. &&amp;lt;nrep evravda rpoiriK&s tppeOij 

ffTTpfJ.a TTVp6s, OVTd) T^TpaTTTai /Cat TO 



d/j.e665&lt;ji}s tirl nadri/ji.aa Lv K nvuv irap- 
aKov&lt;r/j.dTdi}v. Kadd e/j.(paii&gt;eiv EiiTroAts 
\tyerai TOV (pvffLnbv IlpuTayopav 5ta- 
ev T(^, 6s 



TV /J.Tit)p&lt;jJV, TO. 

i. 6 5 /ci/pt ws &lt;pacrl 
cnrep/j,o\6yos /cat (Tirep/ut.oi 6/ui.os, e!56s tcrnv 
6pvov \&lt;j}f3wfji.evoi&gt; TCL ajrepfj-ara.. % o5 
oi Am/cot cnrepfj-oXoyovs i(d\ovv TOVS 
Trepi /j.7r6pia Kal dyopds 
did TO dvaX^yeffdai TO. K r&v 
(f&gt;a&lt;riv diropptovTOL /cat dia^rjv. K TOVTUV 



ovdevbs \6yov &ioi (Eustathius, Com 
mentary on the Odyssey, ed. Lips., 
vol. i. p. 233, ed. Rom. p. 1547). 
From this it would seem that the 
word was used first of birds that pick 
up grain, then of men who picked up 
odds and ends in the market ; it was 
then transferred to men who were 
zealous seekers of the second-rate at 
second hand, and finally to generally 
worthless persons. * Cock -sparrow 
keeps the original meaning and has 
something of the proper connotation, 
but is far from a perfect rendering, 
for it implies someone who is small 
and pert rather than an intellectual 
scavenger. Moreover, the etymological 
approach doubtless throws more dark 
ness than light on the actual meaning 
of such a word. Its frequent occur 
rences (e.g. those cited in Wettstein) 
show that it had become a term of abuse 
a class of words that most promptly 
forget their origin. Beside the older 
discussions of the word see especially 
E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, p. 333; 
E. Meyer, Ur sprung und Anfdnge des 
Christentums, iii. p. 91. 

foreign deities] Sat/xojua is here 
used in the true Greek sense, without 



212 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEISTIANITY 



Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him 19 
before the Areopagus, saying, " Can we know what is this new 



the connotation of evil. It is note 
worthy that dai/j.6via in the bad sense 
is not found in Acts, and that in the 
rest of the N.T. it is not found in 
the Greek sense. The resemblance to 
the charge against Socrates almost 
exactly 450 years before occurs to 
the modern reader, and can scarcely 
have been overlooked by the author 
or by Theophilus. Compare Xen. 
Mem. i. 1. 1 re/m 5 KCU.VO, 5cu/x6j&gt;ia 
eifffpepwv ; cf . Plato, Apol. 24 B. The 
plural in the case of Socrates was a 
generalization from the daifj.6vi.oi&gt; of 
which he spoke. Acts explains that in 
Paul s case it was his preaching not 
of the true God but of Jesus and 
the resurrection (though the Western 
text omits the explanation). Not 
only Socrates but also Anaxagoras 
and Protagoras were accused of intro 
ducing new gods, and Cicero mentions 
a criticism that Chrysippus the Stoic 
" magnam turbam congregat igno- 
torum deorum, atque ita ignotorum, 
ut eos ne coniectura quidem inf ormare 
possimus, cum mens nostra quidvis 
videatur cogitatione posse depingere " 
(De nat. deornm, i. 15. 39). 

Josephus, C. Apion. ii. 37, tells of 
a priestess who was executed on the 
charge 8n %frovs /j.6ei 6eous. Whether 
the objection was the same at Athens 
or not, in Rome new conventicles of 
worshippers were frowned on because 
of political suspicion, e.g. in the advice 
of Maecenas to Augustus in Dio 
Cassius, Hi. 36. 1 f ., to hate and punish 
irepl avrd [i.e. TO Beiov]. 



If the story of Socrates has coloured 
that of Paul, in the end perhaps 
the tables were turned and the story 
of Paul coloured that of Socrates. 
Origen at least, and probably Celsus, 
ignoring the known facts of the year 
399 B.C., represents Socrates as tried 
by the Areopagus (C. Gels. iv. 67, 
vl 20 f.), though Keil (see on vs. 19) 
thinks Celsus was influenced by the 
fact that in his own time such matters 
fell within the jurisdiction of the 
Areopagus. Socrates was of course 
really tried before the court of the 
King Archon before a special jury 
probably numbering 501. 



More clear to many ancient readers 
than to modern ones would be the 
similarity in meaning between the 
charge of foreign (evui&gt;) deities, the 
strange (^evi^ovra.) words, the new 
(KO.LVT]) teaching, the love of novelty 
(Kaivdrepov), and the worship of 
the unknown (dyvuo-Ty) God. The 
adjectives would be felt to be nearly 
synonymous. Cf. Lucian, Bis accus. 
11 ciyvtjjcrTa /j.oi /ecu ^va OVO/JLCLTCL. 
Paul s speech, then, like Stephen s, 
so far from being a denial of the 
charge, is more nearly an admission of 
it using their own inscription as a 
text and justification. 

Jesus and the resurrection] It 
has been suggested that the Greeks 
took dvdtrTaa-Ls as the name of a 
goddess, but this though ingenious is 
improbable. Cf. Chrysostom, Horn, 
in Act. xxxviii. 

19. before the Areopagus] ^TTI = 
before ; cf. xvi. 19 and xvii. 6. The 
Areopagus might mean the hill at 
the back of the Agora, north-west of 
the Acropolis. This was the tra 
ditional site for murder trials. Ori 
ginally the whole trial doubtless 
took place on the hill ; later only 
the ceremonial verdicts of the court 
were given there, and in Roman 
times the power of capital punish 
ment was no longer in Greek hands. 
But the council of the Areopagus 
i) (3ov\r) 7] ^ Apeiov irdyov had 
come to be known familiarly as 
6"Apetos irdyos, so that the Areopagus 
here is much more likely to mean 
the council than the place. (See 
Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Dis 
covery, pp. 102ff.) 

The seat of the council in the first 
century was before the Stoa Basileios, 
to which Euthyphron went (cf. Plato, 
Euthyphro, 2 A) and where Socrates 
was tried. According to Curtius 
the Areopagus in the first century 
was the chief police commission, and 
had power to control the erection 
of buildings and statues. Probably 
a subdivision was charged with 
the duty of keeping order in the 
Agora. ( See Curtius, Paulus in Athen, 
SB A., 1893, reprinted in Gesammelte 



XVII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



213 



20 teaching which is spoken by you ? For you are bringing some 
strange things to our hearing, therefore we wish to know what 

21 this means." (Now all the Athenians and the resident foreigners 



Abhandlungen, vol. ii. pp. 527-543.) 
Among the activities of the Agora 
none would be more important than 
those of controlling lecturers, who 
used the Stoa Poikile and the open 
space of the Agora for advocating 
their theories. Obviously there must 
have been some control over these 
lectures or the scene would soon 
have rivalled Babel, and it is ex 
tremely probable though apparently 
there is no demonstrative evidence 
that this control was exercised 
by the Areopagus. The nearest 
approach to proof of this is that 
it was the council which invited 
Cratippus the peripatetic philosopher 
to lecture in Athens (Ramsay, PTRC. 
p. 247). Paul may have been brought 
before them to see whether he was 
suitable to lecture, or on the general 
ground that he was creating a dis 
turbance. 

It would be, however, a mistake to 
regard the Areopagus as a kind of 
philosophical academy or as a board 
of moral and religious censors, or to 
suppose that its powers were limited 
to somewhat academic functions, or 
that it lived in reputation mainly on 
its past glory. One is too apt to 
think, as a parallel example, of the 
Jewish Sanhedrin shorn of its political 
powers after A.D. 70, but glorying 
in imaginative and restricted local 
functions such as the licensing of 
rabbis. Popular criticism has too 
often regarded this episode as a 
kind of application for a teacher s 
licence. But such a view is true 
neither to the actual position of the 
Areopagus nor to the apparent inten 
tion of the historian. 

No quite satisfactory account of the 
Areopagus in the Roman period exists. 
The materials, literary and epigraphic, 
are strangely scanty. The best articles 
are those of W. S. Ferguson (Klio, ix., 
1909, pp. 325-330) and of B. Keil 
( Beitrage zur Geschichte des Areo- 
pags in Berichte uber die, Verhand- 
lungen der sdchsischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften, 1919). The Areo 



pagus was certainly a very powerful 
body the real government at Athens 
though its membership was small 
and select, and Athens as a civitas 
libera etfoederata enjoyed considerable 
local autonomy. The reputation of 
the Areopagus elsewhere was of course 
enhanced by its tradition, but in the 
period of Acts was also fully deserved, 
for it was the dominating factor in 
the current constitution of Athens. 
During the preceding century it had 
absorbed prerogatives that other 
branches of the government had 
previously held, and it became pre 
eminent above both /3ov\r] and 
4KK\T)aia. The control of religious 
matters was doubtless the one thing 
it had always retained even during 
the period of its least influence. But 
in the Roman period it had jurisdiction 
in criminal law of other kinds. Prob 
ably Cicero s famous words are not far 
from the truth when he says (De, natura 
deorum, ii. 29. 74) " Atheniensium rem 
publicam consilio regi . . . Areopagi." 
According to Acts, therefore, just 
as Paul is brought before the arpaT^yoi 
at Philippi, the iroXiTapxcu at Thessa- 
lonica, the avduiraTos at Corinth, so at 
Athens he faces the Areopagus. The 
local name for the supreme authority 
is" in each case different and accurate. 
The wording of the charge against him 
also differs, perhaps to suit the 
different local situation. At Athens 
there are not the malicious Jewish 
prosecutors, and the matter scarcely 
ends like a trial with a clear-cut de 
cision, but the account of trials in 
Acts is often blurred in this way. Li 
any rpiPfLJJ fcft thft ^fturt without 



condemnation. 

RamsSyT~Tiowever, is confident 
that no formal trial is indicated 
(PTRC. pp. 243 ff.), while P. Corssen 
(ZNTW. xiv., 1913, pp. 317 f.) and 
Th. Birt, Rheinisches Museum, Ixix., 
1914, pp. 361 ff., though admitting 
that the court in the days of Paul 
had jurisdiction in cases of dcr^eta, 
have curiously little confidence in the 
historicity of the account in Acts. 



214 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVII 



had no leisure for anything but talking about or listening to the 
last new idea.) And Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus 22 
and said, " Men of Athens, I see you are in every way very 



21. had no leisure] It is worth 
noting that this is one of the few 
asides in the whole book. The 
subject was notorious (see next note). 

last new idea] Kaivdrepov. Many 
other examples of vtov, z/ecirepo*/, 
KO.LVOV, Kai-vbrepov, may be found in 
Wettstein ad loc., and Norden, Ag- 
nostos Theos, pp. 333 f. Norden fol 
lows Harnack (Acts of the Apostles, 
Eng. trans, p. 108) in emphasizing 
the whole scene as true to the best 
tradition and indicative of the author s 
culture. He regards the characteriza 
tion of the Athenians as the most 
cultured item (Gebildetste) in the 
whole New Testament, or at least the 
most Atticistic. He mentions especi 
ally the use of this comparative 
not to be confused with the Hellen 
istic use of the comparative for the 
superlative as a conscious Atti 
cism. To this claim it may be 
answered that TL Kauvbrepov is found 
in the papyri (BGU. 821. 4 and 6), 
and that evidently some Atticists 
actually condemned the use of pewrepos 
for ve6s since the anti-Atticist defends 
it (Bekker, Anecdota, p. 109). 

On the reputation of the Athenians 
for curiosity Blass quotes the re 
markable parallel from Demosthenes, 
Or. iv. 10, p. 43 f3ov\ea6e . . . Trepudvres 
O.VT&V TTvvOaveffdaL, \tyeral rt xaivbv ; 
A. Hallstrom (Eranos. xiv., 1914, 
p. 57) adds a remarkable parallel 
from Charito Aphrodisiensis, a near 
contemporary of Luke, which also 
brings in the "Apetos irdyos, appar 
ently meaning the court. Charito 
(i. 11), writing of some pirates who 
are discussing where to land with 
their booty, continues : ^56/cet ST? Tracn 
/caraTrAetV ets A.9r)i&gt;as OVK rfpecrite 5 
G^pwju rrjs 7r6Xews r? Trepiepyia. i^bvoi yap 
vfj.els OVK (cf. Luke xxiv. 18) d/couere 
TTJV Tro\vjrpayiJ.o(jvvrjv T&V Adyvaiuv ; 
d?)/j,6s tan. AdAos /ecu 0tAo5i/cos. "Apeios 
770,705 ev6vs ^/cet. 

22. in the middle] tv pfot? is 
obviously more appropriate to the 
council than to the hill. Cf. iv. 7, 
xvii. 33. 



22-31. PAUL S SPEECH. See Addi 
tional Notes 19, 20 and 32. 

very superstitious] u&gt;s deiai.da.i/ut,ove- 
(TT^povs is difficult for two reasons, 
(i.) Does cl?s apologize for deiffidaifAove- 
ffrtpovs or soften its meaning ? If 
so, should it be rendered apparently 
very superstitious ? Or if, as ap 
pears almost certain, the compara 
tive is elative and equivalent to 
the superlative, does ws here have 
the same intensive force that it has 
with superlatives (ws rdxicrTa = as 
quickly as possible) ? 

(ii.) Aei&lt;Ti5al/j.oi&gt;es means literally 
fearers of the gods. The com 
parative is used with an elative 
meaning, as is common in later Greek, 
and the word has often been inter 
preted as complimentary, not critical 
(see Chrysostom ad loc.). But though 
the word is used by Xenophon and 
other early writers as a synonym of 
deocrep-ris, in Polybius and Plutarch 
it is usually a term of reproach 
rather than compliment, and the 
passages quoted by Wettstein from 
Hellenistic writers show that at best 
it meant religiosity, not religion. 
In Acts xxv. 19 it is put into the 
mouth of a Gentile talking to a 
Hellenized Jew (Agrippa) about the 
dispute between Paul and the Jews, 
and is certainly not intended to be 
complimentary, even though supersti 
tious is perhaps too strong. In 1929 
two monographs were published giving 
a very full study of the term, H. 
Bolkestein, Theophrastos Charakter 
der Deisidaimonia als religionsge- 
schichtliche Urkunde, Giessen; P. J. 
Koets, &i&lt;ri6aifji,oi&gt;ia., A Contribution 
to the Knowledge of Religious Termin 
ology in Greek, Purmurend, Holland. 
It appears from these studies that the 
word was used in a good sense even as 
late as the Roman period, and that it 
is not the date of an author but his 
relation to religion that determines 
the sense in which he uses the word. 
(See Zahn, ad loc. ; E. Hatch, Essays 
in Biblical Greek, pp. 43 ff . ; articles 
in Expository Times, xviii. pp. 485 ff . 



XVJI 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



215 



23 superstitious. For as I went about and looked at your objects of 
worship, I found also an altar on which was inscribed, * To an Un 
known God. Now it is what you do not know but do worship that 

24 I announce to you. The God who made the world and all that is. xin. 5. 
is in it, he, being Lord of sky and earth, does not dwell in shrines 

25 made by hand, nor does he receive service from human hands 
from need of anything, but he himself gives life and breath and 



and xix. p. 43, and D. B. Durham, 
The Vocabulary of Menander, p. 53.) 
Field ad loc. points out the curious 
coincidence that Lucian tells us that 
complimentary prooemia for securing 
the goodwill of the members of the 
Areopagus were forbidden (De Gym 
nast. 19). 

23. looked at] This rendering is 
not strong enough, avadewpuv seems 
to mean a more systematic inspection 
than the English quite suggests. 

objects of worship] o-e/Sdo-^ara, 
2 Thess. ii. 4 and Wisd. xiv. 20, xv. 
17. The context of the word both 
here and in Wisdom shows that it 
means particularly images. Of. vs. 
16 /caretSwXos, Wisd. xiv. 12 et SwXa, 
15 eiKuv, 16 TO, yXvTrrd. Is it possible 
that the author owes the word to 
Wisdom ? That depends largely on 
whether the influence of Wisdom is 
to be traced in vs. 29. 

Unknown God] See Additional 
Note 19. Paul s argument is that 
God is " unknown^ and yet well 
known," OVK ayvucrros, cf. OVK afj-dprvpos 
in -xiv. 17 and P Giss i. 3. 2 f. 
(A.D. 117) TJK(jJ (rot, cD S^ue, OVK 



do not know, etc.] This transla 
tion of 5 ovv ayvoovi/TCS evcrefitire is an 
attempt to avoid the ambiguity of 
worship without knowing (it) and 
the erroneous implication of scorn or 
censure in the old English ignor- 
antly worship. The latter transla 
tion only intensifies the mistaken 
effect of the too harsh rendering of 
oci.o-i.o a.iu.uv as * superstitious and of 
the comparative -eo-repos as too 
instead of as very. The dyvoovvrcs 
simply takes up the Athenians own 
description of the god as one that 
they did not know (dyvuvTos). As 
in defending himself before the 



Sanhedrin (xxiii. 5 ff., cf. xxvi. 6), 
Paul is here represented as being 
interested in precisely that which his 
hearers accepted. Compare the some 
what different phrase in John iv. 22 
u/xeis Trpocr/cwetre 8 OVK o ldare, ^/x,ets 
TrpoffKvvov/mev 8 OLa,/nev. 

24. made by hand] This word is 
much more frequent than the negative 
dxfi-poTroL rjros. The use of the idea 
in religious philosophy is by no means 
limited to Judaism and Christianity, 
but belongs to the pagan dualism 
of divine and human. Cf. Mark xiv. 
58 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; Cicero, De natura 
deorum, i. 8. 20, "sed ilia palmaris 
quod, qui non modo natum mundum 
introduxerit sed etiam manu paene 
factum, is eum dixerit fore sempi- 
ternum." See Windisch in Meyer s 
Kommentar on 2 Cor. v. 1. 

Nearly the same sentence occurs 
in vii. 48, but there we have 6 tf^tcrros 
for 6 #eos and no noun in place of 
fact s here. 

25. life and breath] The par- 
onomasia of faty /cat irvorjv cannot 
be reproduced in English. I do not 
know of any other occurrence of 
the combination. Contrast the stereo 
typed Xoi^oy /cat Xt/zos, introduced 
into Mark s text at Luke xxi. 11. 
Compare with this passage 2 Mace, 
vii. 22 TO TTvevfj-a /cat rr\v farjv and 

23 6 TOV K6ff/U,OV KTiaTr/S . . . /Cttt TO 

TTvevfJ.a Kal rrjv farjv v/juv Trd\ii&gt; O.TTO- 
oioucriv. Is the occurrence of 0*77 
and up.v in this passage due to 
the influence of the pagan literature 
in praise of Zeus, whose name popular 
etymology had connected with the 
words ^dw, far) ? Compare Plato, 
Cratylus 396. Zeus was the original 
theme both of Aratus and Epimenides, 
and in the line attributed to the 
latter in vs. 28 (see Addit. Note 20) 



216 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



all things unto all. And he made out of one every nation of men 26 
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and fixed appointed seasons 
and the boundaries of their dwelling to seek God if it so be that 27 
they might feel him and find him. And indeed he is not far from 



the word &gt;nev is a play upon the 
name. The argument is "How can 
Zeus be dead as the Cretans affirmed 
since his name means * living (uv), 
and our living depends on his 
living ? " Apparently Theodore of 
Mopsuestia saw this point, if it be 
he that Isho dad quotes on Titus 
i. 12, as seems probable (J. R. Harris, 
Expositor, January 1915, pp. 31 ff.), 
for Isho dad says "[he] had been 
called Dios, but afterwards changed 
his name and was called Zeus, that is 
to say living. " 

all things] In the B-text ra Trdvra 
clearly goes with faty and Trvofy, 
but the Western text (/cat T& Travra 
eiroirja ei evos cu/uaros irav Zdvos 
KT\.) seems to suggest the trans 
lation "And he made all things of 
one blood every race of man to 
dwell," etc. This view appears to 
be taken by the Latin of codex Bezae, 
but not by Irenaeus, who seems to 
have read the B-text eiroi^ff^v re. 

26. one] To * make out of one 
is perhaps a somewhat easier expres 
sion in English than in Greek, but 
it is a natural idiom, and scarcely 
calls for the discussion of commen 
tators whether edvovs or dvQpuirov 
should be supplied, nor does it 
require the addition of cu/m-ros. There 
is, however, some force in the argu 
ment that al /xaros was left out of 
the B-text, because Genesis ii. 7 says 
that God created man out of the 
dust of the ground, not out of 
blood. 

seasons] Either in the sense of 
fruitful seasons (KGU/OOI); KapTro&lt;p6povs 
xiv. 17) or with reference to the 
theory of Daniel that each nation 
has its appointed period. Possibly 
the latter view is rendered the more 
probable by the allusion to this 
doctrine in Luke xxi. 24 "Jerusalem 
shall be trodden down by the Gentiles" 
&XP L v 7r\77/&gt;a)#w&lt;ni Kaipoi tdv&v : cf. 
Daniel viii. 10, and the absence of the 
article may be noted both in Luke and 



Acts, as though Kaipoi were a technical 
term. 

As it is certain that the writer 
quotes from Aratus, line 5 in vs. 
28, it is perhaps legitimate to com 
pare with this passage lines 7-9. (See 
Addit. Note 20.) 

boundaries] The feminine opoOe&ia 
was formerly said not to be found 
elsewhere, the normal form being 
the neuter plural 6pod4&lt;ria = bound 
aries, but it has recently been found 
in an inscription and also in a papyrus. 
(See JBL. xliv. (1925) pp. 219 ff., and 
cf. Galen, Definitiones medicae, ii. 
(ed. Kiihn, xix. 349) ; for the general 
thought cf. Ps. civ. 9E.) 

27. to seek] As usual when writ 
ing rhetorically the author adds loose 
epexegetical infinitives which defy 
literal translation. (Cf. xv. 14.) In 
the preceding verse Ka.roi.Ktlv is prob 
ably to be treated as another such 
infinitive. This view would leave 
^Troiricrev e evos as the main thought 
instead of requiring eTroirja-ev to do 
double duty first as he created, 
and then with the infinitive as he 
caused ... to dwell. 

God] The Western reading rb 
deiov, the divine or deity, is 
genuine or else a very happy emenda 
tion, for rbv de6v is a very clumsy 
object in a sentence in which 6 debs 
is the subject. The fact that in vs. 
29 tieiov is the undoubted reading 
may be used to confirm the Western 
text here, or to explain its genesis. 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, i. 19.91) 
confirms the Western reading, though 
in deference to grammar he reads 
ov , not 6 in vs. 23, where he otherwise 
has a remarkable agreement with 
the Western text in the reading 
iaTopwv for avadeupuv. 

And indeed he is not far from 
each one of us] The thought is 
congenial enough to much pagan 
philosophy and may, like its context, 
be an echo of actual literature. For 
example, Dio Chrysostom more than 



xvii ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 217 

28 each one of us, For by him we live and move and are, as also some 



once has similar expressions. It is 
very improbable that he knew Acts, 
and the suggestion that the phrase 
was a current philosophic common 
place has much in its favour. 

by him, etc.] As is shown in Addi 
tional Note 20 this is a conscious or 
unconscious quotation from a poem 
attributed rightly or wrongly to 
Epimenides. If it were really from 
Epimenides the Cretan, the contem 
porary of Solon, and if ev avr^j be 
an accurate quotation, it cannot be 
explained as Stoic, for Epimenides 
is earlier than Zeno, but it is very 
improbable that Epimenides wrote 
any of the poems attributed to him. 
The ev is an obvious example of 
the meaning in the power of ; 
cf. Sophocles, Oed. Col. 1443 ravra 
5 v TOJ daifj.oi i, and other examples 

ven by Liddell and Scott. To a 
reek of the first century, especially 
one belonging to Jewish circles, this 
sense was probably indistinguishable 
from by, and should be thus trans 
lated. A Christian might conceivably 
understand it mystically as in the 
Pauline ev Xpia-rf. Furthermore, the 
whole argument of the original pagan 
writing as quoted is : Zeus cannot be 
dead, as the Cretans who show his 
tomb say, since our living depends on 
him. The argument is from living 
men to a living God. The reverse 
contention arguing from a living God 
to living men was drawn by Jesus 
and other Jews from the words to 
Moses, " I am the God of Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob." See on life and 
breath in vs. 25. 

28. some of your poets] See 
Additional Note 20. With the B-text 
this phrase may refer either backwards 
or forwards or both. To enforce the 
belief probably erroneous that it 
refers only to what follows, Irenaeus 
(see Vol. III. p. 169) inserts an extra 
and so that his text reads, " and 
as some of your own writers have 
said for of him, " etc. The original 
text of the phrase is curiously 
doubtful. Codex Vaticanus reads 
some of our poets, which indicates 
the confusion between rj/^as and vfj.as, 
so common in Greek MSS. * Your * 
must mean you Greeks, and like 



wise the our, if we could accept 
it, would mean we Greeks. Did 
the author, who contrasted us with 
jSdpjSapoi. in xxviii. 2, go so far as 
to think of himself as one with the 
Greeks or make Paul so think ? Philo 
once did so, and the reading of Codex 
Vaticanus is supported by at least 
one interesting minuscule, 33. Cf. 
7105 in gig. The Western text omits 
poets, and Ropes thinks that this is 
a Western non-interpolation and 
should be accepted. But the argu 
ments for and against the Western 
reading are nicely balanced. 

(i.) The Ko.6 v/j.as (or rjyttas) is not an 
emphatic expression but a common 
substitute for the genitive it is 
your (or our ), not your own. 
/card was used in this way particularly 
with the personal pronouns (theposses- 
sives were becoming rare) and usually 
after another genitive (where am 
biguity is often possible), as has 
been extensively shown by G. Rud- 
berg, Eranos, xix., 1919, pp, 173 ff. 
(So Acts xviii. 15 irepl \6yov /cat 
6vo/j.dr&lt;jjv /cat VQ/J.OV TOV xad v/j.as, xxvi. 
3 Trdvruv T&V Kara lovSaiovs eddov re 
This is perhaps an 



argument against omitting 
with the Western text, as Ropes 
recommends. It is easy to see that 
in Latin the literal translation would 
be awkward and might easily lead to 
the secundum vos (without poetarum) 
of d gig Iren. If so, the omission in 
D, like the tarnv in the preceding 
verse, may be due to retranslation 
from the Latin. Moreover, we may 
note that D, besides omitting -rroiriT^v, 
has quite consistently substituted the 
prose TOIJTOV for the poetic TOV as the 
next word. Perhaps there was some 
moral objection in the mind of the 
Western editor to quoting poets. If 
these arguments be considered valid, 
the case for regarding the Western text 
as editorial is much strengthened. 

(ii.) On the other hand transcrip- 
tional probability favours the Western 
reading, because ol KaO i^ias without 
a substantive is rare, though ret xad 
i//Ltas is common. Thus the tendency 
of scribes would have been to insert 
n-oirjTwv, not to omit it. Possibly the 
Western text is original omitting 



218 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



xvn 



of your poets have said, For of him we are also kindred. Being 29 
therefore God s kindred we ought not to think that deity is like 
gold or silver or stone, engraved by the art and design of man. 
Well, then, God has overlooked the times of ignorance and now 30 



and reading TOVTOV for TOV. 
rovrov was then corrected by some 
one who recognized rovrov yap /ecu 
yevos eo&gt;eV as an imperfect quota 
tion from Aratus. The next stage was 
the insertion of iroi-nr&v in the text, 
and later still came the marginal notes 
referring to Aratus and Homer. 

The omission of the name or names of 
the writers quoted is not really strange. 
The anonymous citation of authors 
was common in classical and Hellen 
istic writers (of. Titus i. 12 elirtv TIS 
^ auruH Idibis avTuv TrpoffrrjTrjs and 
the notes on ii. 16, vii. 42, etc., 
above). Sometimes they were re 
ferred to by the historians as tvioi 
when the source being followed was 
for the moment contradicted or 
questioned. At other times, by a 
literary convention of affected inde- 
finiteness intelligible even to-day, rts 
irov, -m, etc., were used. (See Cad- 
bury, Making of Luke-Acts, p. 159, 
note.) rives, however, is not custom 
ary and may therefore be a real 
plural, and may indicate that the 
author either (i.) intended to refer 
to both the preceding (Epimenides) 
and the succeeding (Aratus) quota 
tions, or (ii.) was aware that the words 
in the latter had been used by more 
than one poet (Aratus, Cleanthes). 

For of him] The emphasis in the 
Greek is clearly on the of him. The 
quotation is from the Phaenomena 
of Aratus, in which the rou refers to 
Zeus. It is curious to note the extent 
to which Greek Christianity both in 
literature and in sculpture adopted 
the features of Zeus and attributed 
them to Jehovah or to God the Father. 
For Aratus see Additional Note 20. 

29. Being therefore] The argument 
is that since we are the yevos of God, 
rb delov cannot be like gold or silver 
or sculpture which are the product of 
human skill and belong to a different 
yevos. Cf. Wisdom xiii. 5, xv. 15 ff. 

The whole passage can be under 
stood best if it be regarded as part 
of the century-long controversy about 



images. On the one side is the 
Hebrew position, which maintains 
that it is wrong to worship anything 
except the real God reality not 
imitation is, as it were, the keynote 
of the Jewish horror of images. 
Unfortunately its limits are well 
marked by the word x^P 071 " ^ 7 " 05 * s 
much used as a form of abusive argu 
ment in this controversy. The typical 
Jew whether racially Semitic or 
not rarely perceives that an image 
can be made by the mind as well as 
by the hands, and so drifts into an 
idolatry of the image made by his 
own mind, which is all the more 
dangerous because it is unconscious. 
The opposite school, typically Greek, 
recognizes that reality in its fullness 
can never be reached by men. We 
move on from image to image, but 
reality escapes us. We ought not for 
that reason to reject images, but 
rather, remembering always that they 
are not reality, to use every and any 
image which offers help in the search 
for truth. The weakness of the Greek 
position is ultimately the same as that 
of the Jewish the difficulty men have 
in remembering that the images are 
only images, and the consequent 
danger of converting eiKovoXarpda 
which is good into et 5w\oXarpeta 
which is evil. 

30. overlooked] Cf. Horn. iii. 25 
5id rr\v irdpecnv rCsv irpoyeyovbruv 

a/HapTTJ/JLOiTCOV il&gt; TTJ CLVOxH TOU 060V. The 

same idea is found in the speech at 
Lystra, ev rals Trctpyx^/xo cus yeveais 
etacrev Travra ra Z6vr} Tropeuecrdai. rats 
bdois, just as OVK a^aprvpov at Lystra 
corresponds to the references at 
Athens to ayvwaros and ayvoia. For 
the finest expression of the belief that 
the mercy of God was drawing to an 
end and judgement was impending see 
4 Ezra vii. 33 ff. The call to repent 
ance is common to all Jewish and 
Christian teaching, cf., for instance, 
Proverbs i. 22 f . ; Orac. Sibyll. iv. 
162 ff. ; Mark i. 4 (John the Baptist), 
and Mark i. 15 (Jesus). 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



219 



31 announces to men that all should everywhere repent, seeing that 
he fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness 
by a man whom he appointed, having given proof to all by raising 

32 him from the dead." And when they heard resurrection of the 
dead some jeered, others said, " We will hear you about this 

33, 34 once more." So Paul went out from among them, but some 
men joined him and believed, and among them were Dionysius 



31. judge the world in righteous 
ness] These words (cf. Psalms ix. 8, 
xcvi. 13) and the possibly liturgical 
reference to God as the Creator in 
verse 24 are the most conspicuously 
Jewish or Old Testament phrases in 
the speech. But cf. also eirl iravTos 
n-pocruirov TT?S 7?}? in verse 26 with 
Gen. ii. 6, xi. 8, and Luke xxi. 35 
iri TrpbcruTTov Trdarjs rrjs 777?. 

a man whom he appointed] This 
is pure Son of Man eschatology, and 
if the custom of the gospels had been 
followed the underlying bar nasha 
would have been rendered by vibs rou 
dvdpuTrov instead of by dv5pi (see 
Vol. I. pp. 368 ff.). 

32. resurrection] This has, of 
course, nothing to do with any Greek 
doctrine of ddavavlav with which 
Norden has tried to connect it. An 
Athenian audience would have listened 
with curiosity if not conviction to any 
argument about immortality, which it 
would have regarded as an interesting 
possibility; but the majority thought 
that a resurrection of corpses was 
absurd. Some mocked openly, others 
more politely suggested a postpone 
ment. It is possible, however, that 
Luke intended here to indicate a real 
division of the audience. Cf. in 
general ii. 12 ff. which also resembles 
this passage in phraseology. It has 
even been suggested that the Stoics 
and Epicureans were divided into 
opposite camps as the Pharisees and 
Sadducees were in xxiii. 7 ff . It is 
rash to say that the author of Acts 
regarded Paul s sermon at Athens 
as comparatively fruitless, or that 
1 Cor. ii. 7 ff. shows that Paul himself 
regarded his encounter with philosophy 
as a failure. There may even be a note 
of triumph in the epithet Areopagite 
written after one of the converts 



A similar doubt is left in 
the reader s mind as to how far the 
examination was formal or official. 
But other scenes in Acts, e.g. the 
trial of Stephen, are likewise obscure 
in this regard. 

33. from among them] e/c /u&rou 
avT&v corresponds to tv /^&lt;ry rov 
Apeiov irdyov in verse 22, and confirms 
the view that Areopagus means the 
council, not the place. 

joined him and believed] This 
statement has caused difficulty to 
those who object to any contradic 
tion between Paul and Acts, for in 
1 Cor. xvi. 15 the household of 
Stephanas is called the firstfruits 
of Achaia. But it is improbable 
that the solution lies either in ex 
cluding Athens from Achaia, as Stein - 
mann argued (Leserkreis des Oalater- 
briefes, 1908, pp. 88-94), or in ex 
cluding from baptism Dionysius and 
Damaris, as Ramsay suggested (Bear 
ing of Recent Discovery, 1915, pp. 
385-411). 

34. Dionysius] Often confused with 
St. Deny s of Paris. Nothing trustworthy 
is known of him, but Eusebius twice 
(H.E. iii. 4. 11 and iv. 23. 3) states 
that Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 180) 
said, apparently in a letter to the 
Athenians, that Dionysius the Areo 
pagite was appointed the first bishop 
of Athens by Paul himself. This was 
also affirmed by later legend and in 
the commentary of Isho dad. But 
oddly enough there is nothing about 
Dionysius in the various vitae fabulosae 
collected by Schermann. The later 
fame of the Areopagite depended 
mainly on writings composed and 
attributed to him in the fifth century. 
See H. Koch, Der pseudepigraphische 
Charakter der dionysische Schrif ten in 
Theol. Quartalschnft, 1895, pp. 353 ff. ; 



220 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVII 



of the Areopagus, and a woman named Damaris, and others 
with them. 

After this he left Athens and came to Corinth. And finding 18 i, 2 



F. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 318 fL, 
and N. Bonwetsch, Hauck-Herzog, 
E.E. ed. iii. vol. iv. pp. 687 fL ; and 
for the later legend which represents 
Dionysius as carrying his head in his 
hand see Cahier, Caracteristiques des 
saints dans Vart populaire, ii. pp. 761 fif ., 
and G. L. Kittredge, Gawain, pp. 
147 ff. 

of the Areopagus] Concerning the 
composition of the council in this 
period little clear evidence is avail 
able as concerning its functions. See 
on verse 19. It is perhaps safe to 
infer from such data as we have that 
the council was small, perhaps about 
thirty. The members were taken 
from those who had held certain 
offices which would have been open 
only to the wealthy because of the 
expense they involved, and in fact the 
membership was practically limited 
to certain well-known families (cf. 
the high-priestly families in Jeru 
salem). In other words, the govern 
ment of Athens as represented in 
this its principal organ was both 
timocratic and aristocratic. It was 
pre-eminently a closed body. In 
Athens ApeoTrcrxir?;? is meant by the 
author to give the same impression 
as eucrx^wz in Beroea (vs. 12), which 
also may apply either to family or to 
wealth. Some MSS. add evax^fJ-^v 
here (see below). 

Damaris] The name has not yet 
been found in exactly this spelling, 
but Aa/jLapluv and other personal 
names, apparently derivatives from 
dd/jiapis, are found. See Fr. Bechtel, 
Die historischen Personennamen des 
Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, 1917, 
and Fr. Preisigke, Namenbuch, 1922. 
Possibly Damalis, which is fairly 
common as a woman s name, is the 
right reading. It is found in the 
African Latin. The interchange of X 
and p appears in the Greek trans 
literations (t&gt;paye\\6u (Lat. flagellum) 
and pe\iap (Heb. ^y^-), where, how 
ever, dissimilation may have co 
operated (Moulton, Grammar of N.T. 
Greek, vol. ii. p. 103). It is very 
common in the papyri in both direc 



tions, e.g. P Cornell 25, verso 14 
TrcuSaXto. for TrcuSapta ; ibid. 29. 3 
epetyavTivov for e\e&lt;&gt;a,VTivov (which 
occurs correctly written in the very 
next line). In Epiphanius Barbelo and 
Barber o interchange, and F. C. Burkitt 
has argued that Barbelo is ultimately 
derived from the Egyptian Belblle a 
seed (JTS. xxvi., 1925, p. 398). 

It should be noted that there is 
some evidence of early textual varia 
tion in this verse. It is perhaps 
simplest to enumerate the problems, 
(i.) Does the eiVx^wv of D applied 
to Dionysius reflect a parallelism with 
the evax^lf^^ 1 Jewish councillor, Joseph 
of Arimathaea ? Why is efoxrHJ-wv ren 
dered in d by complacens ? Cf . the read 
ing of d in vs. 12. It looks as though 
the Latin translator in d thought 
that eucrx^wz/ meant friendly. 
(ii.) Is the omission of Damaris in 
D accident or design ? (iii.) If it be 
accident, does evv-xji^uv really belong 
to Damaris, as Ropes suggests (Vol. 
III. p. 170), just as in xvii. 12 it is 
applied to women? (iv.) What is 
the relation of these difficulties to 
the peculiar wording of the sentence 
avdpes . . . ev ols . . . yvf-rj o^o/u-art 
Ad^apts /ecu erepoi. ? It must be ad 
mitted that no more clumsy way 
could be found of saying that the 
converts included one woman, but 
I do not know the answer to any 
of these questions. 

1-23. CORINTH. Owing to the pre 
servation of two of Paul s epistles to 
the Corinthians we know the story 
of Christianity in Corinth better than 
in any other city. It is noticeable 
how many details are omitted in Acts, 
and especially how complete is the 
absence of any indication of the char 
acter of the religious life of Corinth. 
Luke s interest is centred, at least 
here, on two points the opposition 
of the Jews, and the refusal of the 
Roman authorities to take action 
against Paul. 

1. Corinth] The city had lain in 
ruins since its destruction by Mummius 
in 146 B.C., but it was rebuilt a century 
later by Julius Caesar with the name 



xvin 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



221 



a Jew, Aquila by name, a man of Pontus by family, lately come 
from Italy, and Priscilla, his wife, because Claudius had decreed 



Laus lulia Corinthus, and in 27 was 
made the capital of the province 
Achaia. The Roman character of its 
population is perhaps indicated by 
the Latin names of the Corinthian 
Christians mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 14, 
xvi. 17 ; Rom. xvi. 23. It became a 
great commercial port, being a favour 
able junction between Ephesus 
and other ports of Asia Minor to the 
east and Italy to the west. Its great 
natural advantage was that by tran 
shipping at Corinth it was possible to 
avoid the dangerous voyage round the 
Peloponnesus, and to keep a more 
northerly route. With the prevalence 
of northerly winds in the Mediter 
ranean every mile northward was an 
enormous advantage. The population 
was largely immigrant, and there were 
temples to Isis, Serapis, the Magna 
Mater, and Melkart. It was famous 
for its immorality, and for the temple 
of Aphrodite, in which a Hellenized 
version of the worship of Astarte pro 
vided, according to Strabo, over a 
thousand Hierodoulai, or priestess- 
prostitutes. Alciphron says that he 
did not go there because he had a 
general knowledge that the life of the 
rich was abominable and of the poor 
miserable. (See Preuschen, and J. 
Weiss, * Griechenland in d. Apostol. 
Zeit, in Herzog s Realencyklopddie, ed. 
3, vii. pp. 165 ff., and the introduction 
to his Commentary on 1 Cor.) 

2-3. The awkwardness of the Greek 
in the B-text may be at least partly 
responsible for the interesting and 
smoother version of the Western text, 
" And he found Aquila, of Pontus by 
race, a Jew who had lately come from 
Italy with Priscilla, his wife, and he 
went to them (or perhaps, "and he 
greeted them"). Now they had left 
Rome because Claudius Caesar had 
ordered all Jews to depart from Rome, 
and they had come to Achaia. And 
Paul made the acquaintance of Aquila 
because they belonged to the same 
race and the same trade, and he 
stayed with them and went to work, 
for they were leather-workers by 
trade." 

2. Aquila] The name, the Greek 



spelling (A/cu = Aqui, cf. Kvpr)i&gt;ios = 
Quirinius), the variation of N.T. 
MSS. between A. and AX, and even the 
occurrence of the name in Pontus, 
are all well attested in epigraphic 
material. 

It is an interesting coincidence that 
Aquila, the translator of the Old 
Testament, is also said to have come 
from Pontus. A somewhat over- 
ingenious criticism has asked whether 
the Christian writers (Irenaeus and 
Epiphanius), who speak of Aquila the 
translator, may not have assimilated 
his birthplace to that of Aquila the 
Christian. It has also been questioned 
whether HOJ/TI/COS may not be a mistake 
for I^Tios, as Aquila is a name con 
nected with the Gens Pontia (cf. 
Cicero, Ad Fam. x. 33). For this reason 
Ramsay thinks he was a freedman of 
that gens. But the names Aquila and 
Priscilla are to be found associated 
with another gens, in the cemetery of 
the gens Acilia at Rome. On Aquila 
and Priscilla see especially Harnack, 
ZNTW. i., 1900, pp. 33 ff., and the 
collection of modern opinions in R. 
Schumacher s article in Theologie und 
Glaube, xii., 1920; A. Deane, Friends 
and Fellow-Labourers of St. Paul, 1907, 
and Polzl, Die Mitarbeiter des Welt- 
apostels Paulus, 1911. 

Priscilla] It seems certain that the 
Prisca of the Epistles is the Priscilla 
of Acts. There are three other cases 
where it may be suspected that the 
same person has one name in the 
Epistles and another in Acts, though 
in no case is the evidence so con 
vincing as for Prisca = Priscilla. These 
are Silas ( Acts) = Silvanus (Epistles), 
Sopater ( Acts) = Sosipater (Epistles), 
and Lucius (Acts) = Luke (Epistles). 
(See Addit. Note 37.) Perhaps even 
in the Epistles Epaphroditus (Philip- 
pians) = Epaphras (Colossians and 
Philemon). 

decreed] The decree is presum 
ably that mentioned by Suetonius, 
Claud. 25, " ludaeos impulsore Chresto 
adsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," 
and Orosius fixes the date as A.D. 49 
or 50, but this is doubtful. See Addit. 
Note 34, and for the discussion of 



222 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



that all the Jews should leave Rome, he came to them, and 3 
because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and they 



Imperial policy towards the Jews see 
Addit. Note 25. 

3. stayed with them] The repeated 
mention of Paul s hosts Lydia, 
Jason, Aquila and Priscilla, Titius 
Justus (but see on vs. 7), Philip, 
Mnason, etc. indicates the author s 
interest in lodging. See H. J. Cad- 
bury, JBL. xlv., 1926, pp. 305 ff. ; 
Making of Luke- Acts, pp. 249 ff. 
Chrysostom notes the humble trades 
of the hosts named this is the third 
tanner, purple-seller, tent-sewer (a-Kr]- 
vopdfios in Chrysostom s commentary). 

them] Were they Christians ? 
The Western reviser appears to have 
regarded them as Jews, and represents 
Paul as leaving Aquila s house when 
he broke with the synagogue (see note 
on xviii. 7). The Neutral text leaves 
the question more open and probably 
implies the opposite view. No weight 
need be attached to the fact that 
Aquila is called a Jew, for in Acts the 
word is not necessarily antithetical 
to Christian; but the custom of the 
writer is to refer to Christians as 
believers or brethren when they 
are first mentioned. As he does not do 
so here the implication is that Aquila 
and Priscilla were not Christians. Yet, 
on the other hand, it is the custom 
of the writer of Acts to mention the 
conversion and baptism of persons 
prominent in his narrative. As he 
does not do so here the implication 
is that Aquila and Priscilla were 
already Christians. This argument 
seems the stronger. Moreover in 1 
Cor. xvi. 15 Stephanas, not Aquila, is 
called the first fruits of Achaia. It 
is hard to escape the conclusion that 
they were Christians before they left 
Rome. 

If so, the church in Rome was 
founded before A.D. 49, and there is 
no reason to doubt the obvious con 
clusion that impulsore Chresto, in 
the passage from Suetonius quoted 
above, refers to the introduction of 
the gospel into Rome. Does it mean 
that the original Christian community 
was broken up ? 

The further history of Aquila and 
Priscilla is only partly known. They 



went with Paul to Ephesus (xviii. 18), 
and their house became at least one 
of the centres, and probably the chief 
centre, of the Christian community in 
Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 19 daird^erai 
V/JLO.S iv Kupty TToXXo, A/civXas KO.L UptaKa 
(rtiv rrj /car olKov avr&v 4KK\r]aig.). 
According to the Western text of 
1 Cor. xvi. 19, Paul stayed with them 
as he had in Corinth (DG add Trap 1 ols 
/ecu %fviofj.a.i to the end of the verse). 
At a later date they were still in Asia, 
according to the opinion of the writer 
of 2 Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 19). They 
are also mentioned in Rom. xvi. 3, 
where Paul says that they risked their 
own necks to save his life, but the 
exact interpretation of this passage 
is complicated by doubt as to whether 
Rom. xvi. is an integral part of 
Romans or a note to the church at 
Ephesus. If it be an integral part 
of Romans it probably means that 
Aquila and Priscilla helped Paul when 
his life was in danger in Ephesus, but 
that the misfortune which overtook 
him led to the collapse of the church 
in their house, and that they returned 
to Rome soon afterwards. The 
evidence of 2 Timothy can be taken 
for what it is worth to show that 
they then went back once more to 
Asia. If, however, as I incline to 
think (see Earlier Epistles, pp. 324 ff.), 
Rom. xvi. is really intended for the 
Ephesian church, there is no need to 
interpolate this visit to Rome, or to 
suppose that the church in Ephesus 
collapsed. In any case the risk run by 
Aquila and Priscilla on behalf of Paul 
ought probably to be connected with 
the troubles which befell him in 
Ephesus, of which Acts says so little 
and the epistles to the Corinthians 
relatively so much. 

It is noticeable that in Acts xviii. 18, 
26, Rom. xvi. 3, and 2 Tim. iv. 19, but 
not in 1 Cor. xvi. 19 or here, Priscilla 
is mentioned before Aquila. On this 
foundation has been built an imposing 
edifice of hypothesis to the effect that 
she was a woman of great importance 
in the early church, and may have 
written the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Preuschen points out another Priscilla 



xvm ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 223 

4 worked, for they were leather-workers by trade. And he dis- 



in OIL. iii. 3153, who is also mentioned 
before her husband. (See also Vol. III. 
pp. 178 f.) 

worked] See note on xx. 34 f. 

leather-worker] This word crKrjvo- 
TTOIO? raises in an acute form one of 
the primary questions which confronts 
a translator. Shall he translate accord 
ing to the meaning conveyed by the 
words to their first readers or by 
etymology ? In this case, if he trans 
late by etymology ffK^voiroios is tent- 
maker, but if he translate by the 
sense given it by its first readers he 
will render it leather- worker. 

The obvious etymological transla 
tion of ffKrjvoTroi.b s is tentmaker. If 
this were accepted the reference would 
probably be to the felted cloth made 
of goat hair (cf. Exod. xxvi. 7), which 
was so specially a product of Cilicia 
that it was called Cilicium in Latin, 
KiXixiov in Greek, and *p^ p in Rab 
binic Hebrew. It is of course 
tempting to connect Paul of Tarsus 
in Cilicia with the special product of 
his own province. Possibly this is 
what he really worked at. It doubt 
less was similar to the felted goat 
hair still used by Bedouins for tents, 
etc., though leather seems to have 
been sometimes used (see S. Krauss, 
Talmud. Archdologie, i. pp. 7 f . and 138, 
and Mau, s.v. Cilicium, in Pauly- 
Wissowa). 

Therefore CTK^OTTCHOS is usually and 
naturally rendered tentmaker, but 
it is impossible to resist the weight of 
ancient testimony that to the Greeks 
it meant a leather - worker. The 
oldest Latin rendering is lectarius 
(Cod. h) which means a maker of 
beds, presumably cushions covered 
with leather; the Peshitto used a 
word which merely transliterates the 
Latin lorarius, a maker of leather 
thongs; Chrysostom (Cramer s Catena, 
iii. 302) says that ewi (TKiivoppcKpeiov 
earus dep/mara ZppairTe ; Theodoret (Gr. 
aff. cur. ix., PG. Ixxxiii. 1056) says 
that Paul was a (r/cirroro/uos, and 
Origen (in Eom. xvi. 3) probably used 
the same word, for Rufinus, who 
translates aK-t^oiroLos by artifices taber- 
naculorum, adds hoc est sutores, which 
seems more likely to translate &lt;TKT)VO- 



(TKVTOTOfj.ot than to be 
a gloss of Rufinus himself; finally 
Marcus Diaconus (Life of Porphyrius 
of Gaza, 9) says that Porphyrius was 
a aKVTor6fj.os in imitation of Paul. 
The early and widespread nature 
of this evidence seems to prove 
that though O-K^OTTOIOS etymologically 
means tentmaker it does actually 
mean leather - worker. A partial 
parallel is afforded in English by 
saddle-maker, which, formerly at 
least, meant a leather-worker who 
could, if necessity arose, make a 
saddle. (See Zahn s note ad loc. and 
cf. Blumner, Technologic und Ter- 
minologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste bei 
Griechen und Romern, ed. 2, vol. i. ; 
Grosheide, Theolog. Studien (Dutch), 
1917, p. 241, and E. Nestle, JBL. xi. 
(1892), pp. 205 f., the Expos. Times, 
viii. (1897) pp. 153 f., ZNTW. xi. 
(1910) p. 241.) 

4f. The Western text completely 
rewrites these two verses: "And 
going to the synagogue every Sabbath 
he argued and introduced the name of 
the Lord Jesus, and persuaded not 
only Jews but also Greeks. And there 
arrived from Macedonia at that time 
Silas and Timothy [Paul was engaged 
in preaching, protesting to the Jews 
that the anointed Lord is Jesus], 
and again great discussion arose, 
and interpretations of scripture were 
given." This is one of the passages 
which make one hesitate in accepting 
the general verdict that the Western 
text is intrinsically inferior. The 
following points are noticeable : 

(i.) The passage in brackets (Paul 
. . . Jesus) seems an interpolation in 
D from the B-text. It is betrayed 
by the lack of construction in D, 
and by its absence from the African 
Latin. 

(ii.) The phrase introducing (gvn- 
0efs) is without parallel in Acts, but 
it is undoubtedly a correct estimate 
of what Paul did. It and protesting 
to the Jews, etc. are clearly parallel 
versions. One is a paraphrase of the 
other. Surely probability here favours 
the strange Western reading, rather 
than the conventional and inoffensive 
phrase in the Neutral Text. 



224 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



coursed in the synagogue on every Sabbath and persuaded Jews 
and Greeks ; but when Silas and Timothy came down from 5 
Macedonia, Paul began to be engrossed in preaching, protesting 
to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. And when they opposed 6 



4. the synagogue] The use of the 
article has led Zahn to conclude that 
there was only one synagogue in 
Corinth, but this is probably pressing 
the grammar too far. An inscription, 
which can be dated with probability 
in the century before or after Christ 
(Deissmann, Licht votn Osten, ed. iv. 
pp. 12 f., Eng. trans, pp. 13), refers to a 
[&lt;rvt&gt;a]y(nryt} e/3p[aiui&gt; ], and it has been 
thought that this was the synagogue 
to which Paul went. Zahn argues, 
however, that Hebrews means 
Aramaic-speaking Jews, and thinks 
that it was unlikely that Paul went 
to it. There is, however, no reason 
for thinking that E/Spatot means more 
than Jews. (See Addit. Note 7.) 

5. came down] Nothing is said in 
Acts of any previous meeting between 
Paul and Silas and Timothy since they 
separated in Beroea, and after this 
Silas is not mentioned again. The 
writer obviously regards this as the 
fulfilment of Paul s command to them 
to join him as soon as possible. But 

1 Thessalonians shows that this was a 
mistake. According to 1 Thessalonians 
(iii. 1), which was written in the 
names of Paul, Silvan us (Silas), and 
Timothy, Paul and Silas chose to be 
left alone in Athens (/ULOVOL seems to 
imply the inclusion of Silas) and sent 
Timothy to Thessalonica. The letter 
goes on to describe Timothy s return, 
and seems to have been written 
immediately afterwards. There is no 
hint that this was not a return to 
Athens. Thus, while Acts represents 
Silas and Timothy as coming from 
Beroea to join Paul in Corinth, and 
never in Athens at all, the epistle 
which does not imply any previous 
separation implies that all three were 
together in Athens, and that Timothy 
was sent back to Thessalonica. That 
Timothy and Silas (Silvanus) were in 
Corinth with Paul later is shown by 

2 Cor. i. 19. 

To meet this discrepancy an in 
genious theory was made popular by 



Paley s Horae Paulinae to the effect 
that Timothy and Silas joined Paul 
in Athens, that they then left him, 
Timothy going to Thessalonica and 
Silas probably to Philippi, whence 
he brought the help mentioned in 
Philipp. iv. 15 f., that during their 
absence Paul went to Corinth, and that 
they joined him there on their return. 
Thus 1 Thessalonians was written from 
Corinth. In favour of this theory 
is the mention of Athens by name in 
1 Thess. iii. 1, which suggests that Paul 
was writing in some other place, other 
wise he would have said to be left here 
alone, not to be left in Athens alone. 
This view was adopted in Lake, Earlier 
Epistles, pp. 73 ff., but it is rather 
complicated, and still leaves a real 
discrepancy between Acts and 1 Thes 
salonians, so that it is perhaps easier 
to accept the plain statement of 
1 Thessalonians and assume that the 
writer of Acts made a mistake in 
thinking that Silas and Timothy did 
not join Paul before he had reached 
Corinth. The best discussion of the 
subject is in E. von Dobschutz s 
Commentary on 1 Thessalonians (in 
the Meyer series). 

began to be engrossed] crwetxero 
is probably an inchoative imperfect. 
The meaning is that until Silas and 
Timothy came down to Corinth Paul 
had to work all the week and preached 
only on the Sabbath, but when they 
arrived he was able to give up all his 
time to preaching. Was this because 
Silas and Timothy earned enough for 
all three ? Or had they brought funds 
from Macedonia ? Cf . Philipp. iv. 15 f. 
and see note above. 

the Messiah was Jesus] This is 
probably the right rendering of elj&gt;cu 
rbv Xptoroi Irjcrovv, as it also is in 
xviii. 28. (Cf. also ix. 20, 22, where 
the rendering is more doubtful.) The 
normal rule in Greek is that the 
subject rather than the predicate is 
given the article (see Blass-Debrunner, 
273). It is noteworthy that in 



XVIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



225 



him and reviled lie shook out his garments, and said to them, 
" Your blood be on your head ; I am clean. Henceforth I 

7 will go to the Gentiles." And he moved thence and went to the 
house of a worshipper of God, Titius Justus by name, whose house 

8 was adjoining the synagogue. And Crispus, the archisynagogue, 
believed with all his family, and many of the Corinthians who 

9 heard believed and were baptized. And the Lord said at night 



xviii. 28 where the B-text reads dvai 
rbv Xpiffrbv iTfjcrow D reads rbv Irjaovv 
elVcu Xpio To; . This change is probably 
due to the influence of later Christian 
practice, which, starting with Jesus 
as the known quantity, explained 
his nature by interpreting Scripture. 
But in the beginning it was not so : in 
the Jewish synagogues the Messiah 
was the known and Jesus the unknown 
quantity. The first missionaries had 
to convince the Jews that the Messiah 
whom they expected could be dis 
covered in Jesus. Only when they 
were expounding their doctrine to 
Gentile converts who had accepted 
Jesus as the Lord did they reverse 
the process and argue that the Lord 
had been foretold by the prophets, 
and was he whom the Jews called 
Messiah. 

6. shook out] Cf.xiii. 51 and Addit. 
Note 24. 

blood, etc.] A Jewish formula (2 
Sam. i. 16, cf. Matt, xxvii. 25); see 
Strack, i. p. 1033. 

7. thence] The probable meaning 
is that he ceased to speak in the 
synagogue, but, with a view to 
keeping a hold on the Gentiles who 
frequented the synagogue, kept as 
near as possible to it, and used a 
room in the house of Titius Justus, 
as he later used the School of 
Tyrannus in Bphesus. The advan 
tage of proximity to the synagogue 
is obvious, but it must have been 
extremely irritating to the Jews. It is 
perhaps also possible to take exeWev 
temporally ( = after this). Cf. xiii. 21. 

The Western reviser takes a differ 
ent view, and emends CKtWev to airb 
A/cuAa, assuming that Paul went to 
live with Titius Justus instead of with 
Aquila. This seems less likely, in 
view of the further relations of Paul 
VOL. IV 



with Aquila. The opposition of the 
Jews was a good reason why Paul 
should not preach in the synagogue, 
but not for leaving Aquila. 

The further question remains of the 
relation between the meetings in the 
house of Titius Justus and the church 
in the house of Aquila (1 Cor. xvi. 19). 
In the absence of evidence one guess 
is almost as good as another, but it 
may be noted that the * parties in 
the church of Corinth, and the size 
which it attained, may well have 
necessitated more than one meeting- 
place. 

Titius Justus] See Ropes note in 
Vol. III. pp. 172 f . He inclines to read 
Justus (without Titius). It may be 
added that the reading of the Peshitto 
(Titus without Justus) may represent 
the theory that this was the Titus who 
figures so largely in the Epistles, but 
is not mentioned in Acts. This view is 
taken by Chrysostom, Ammonius, etc. 
The objection to this theory is that on 
any probable theory of chronology the 
reference to Titus in Gal. ii. 1 shows 
that he was with Paul before his visit 
to Corinth, and that he was more prob 
ably an Antiochian who joined Paul, 
whereas Titius Justus was a resident 
Corinthian, not one of Paul s com 
panions. See also A. van Veldhuizen, 
Theol Studien (Dutch), xx. (1903). 

8. Crispus] His baptism is men 
tioned in 1 Cor. i. 14 in a remarkable 
passage in which Paul thanks God that 
he baptized no one except Crispus 
and Gaius, and the household of 
Stephanas. 

the archisynagogue] This does not 
mean that he was the head of the 
synagogue, but that he was one of 
the prominent men who had the title 
of archisynagogue (see Justin, Dial. c. 
Tryph. 137). Cf. note on xiii. 15. 



226 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



in a vision to Paul, " Do not be afraid, but speak and do 
not be silent, because I am with you and no one shall attack 10 
you to harm you, because I have much people in this city." 
And he stayed a year and six months, teaching among them u 
the word of God. And when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, 12 



9. speak] The change of tense (Qbpov 
. . . XdXet . . . criwnr7)crr)s) is noticeable: 
" Give up being afraid, go on speaking 
and do not stop." 

10. attack you to harm you] As 
the writer apparently did not think 
that the attack on Paul which led 
to his appearance before Gallio con 
tradicted this prophecy, the emphasis 
must be on the harm rather than 
on the attack. But it may be 
questioned whether the writer was 
very sensitive as to any verbally 
accurate fulfilment of the prophecies 
which he introduces. In xxi. 11 it is 
foretold that the Jews would bind 
Paul, but as a matter of accurate 
detail it was the Romans who did 
this. Similarly in xxvii. 10 Paul 
foretells loss of life to those on the 
ship, though in the end no one was 
lost. It should be noted, however, 
that in this case Paul retracted his 
original statement, because an angel 
had told him that God had granted him 
all who were on the ship (xxvii. 22 ff.). 

11 f. These verses form, since the 
discovery of the Delphi inscription, 
the first clear chronological note in 
the life of Paul. Gallio was pro 
consul in 51-52, with a possible though 
improbable extension of one year in 
either direction. Therefore if the trial 
before Gallio came at the beginning 
of his proconsulate, and as is prob 
ably the case at the end of Paul s 
eighteen months in Corinth, A.D. 49 is 
the almost certain date for his arrival 
in Corinth. (See further Additional 
Note 34.) 

12. Gallio] Junius Annaeus Gallio 
was the son of M. Annaeus Seneca, a 
Spanish provincial from Cordova who 
came to Rome and gained admission 
to the order of the Equites. M. 
Annaeus Seneca had three sons 
Junius Annaeus, Lucius, and Mela. 
Mela has been immortalized by Tacitus 
in Ann. xvi. 17 : " Mela, quibus Gallio 
et Seneca parentibus natus, petitione 



honorum abstinuerat per ambitionem 
praeposteram, ut eques Romanus con- 
sularibus potentia aequaretur; simul 
adquirendae pecuniae brevius iter 
credebat per procurationes admini- 
strandis principis negotiis." He is, 
however, best known as the father 
of the poet Lucan. Lucius was the 
famous Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the 
philosopher and dramatist who v/as 
Nero s tutor. The oldest son, Junius, 
was adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, 
a wealthy Roman, and had a political 
career. He was proconsul of Achaia 
c. A.D. 51. He apparently was ill 
at Corinth, for Seneca says: " Illud 
mihi in ore erat domini mei Gallionis, 
qui cum in Achaia febrem habere 
coepisset, protinus navem ascendit 
clamitans non corporis esse, sed loci 
morbum" (Ep. 104). (For the evidence 
as to the date see Addit. Note 34.) 
He was also consul at some unknown 
date, for Pliny says that he took a 
sea voyage after his consulate because 
he was threatened with consumption. 
His fortunes doubtless moved parallel 
to those of his brother Seneca. When 
Nero ordered Seneca to commit sui 
cide, Gallio pleaded for his own life, 
and was spared for the moment, but 
according to Dio Cassius he and his 
brother Mela were afterwards put to 
death. The Chronicle of Eusebius, 
indeed, according to Jerome s version, 
puts their death in 64, while Seneca 
died in A.D. 66, but these notes are 
not in the Armenian version, probably 
are additions made by Jerome, and in 
any case can scarcely be regarded as 
weighing at all against the evidence 
of Dio Cassius and of Tacitus who 
describes the scene in the Senate after 
Seneca s death : " At in senatu cunctis, 
ut cuique plurimum maeroris, in 
adulationem demissis, lunium Gal- 
lionem, Senecae f ratris morte pavidum 
et pro sua incolumitate supplicem, 
increpuit Salienus Clemens, hostem et 
parricidam vocans, donee consensu 



XVIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



227 



the Jews made a concerted attack on Paul and brought him 

13 before the Bench, saying, " Contrary to the Law, this man is 
persuading men to worship God." But when Paul was on the 

14 point of opening his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were 
a crime or wicked misbehaviour, Jews, I would, of course, 



patrum deterritus est, ne publicis 
mails abuti ad occasionem privati 
odii videretur, neu composita aut 
obliterata mansuetudine principis 
no vam ad sae vitiam retraheret. This 
is clearly a picture drawn from life. 
(See Tacitus, Ann. xii. 8, xiv. 53, xv. 
73, xvi. 17; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxi. 
33; Dio Cassius, Ixi. 20, Ixii. 25.) 

was proconsul] The phrase must 
not be pressed to mean at the begin 
ning of his proconsulate. The prob 
ability that the trial of Paul came at 
the beginning of his period of office is 
not based on the language, but merely 
on the presumption (admittedly not 
very strong) that the Jews are more 
likely to have tried an experiment 
with a new proconsul. Achaia had 
been restored to the list of senatorial 
provinces in A.D. 44. 

The Western Text enlivens this 
verse by reading " The Jews, after 
talking among themselves, made a 
concerted attack against Paul, and laid 
hands on him and took him before the 
Bench, yelling and saying." 

the Bench] TO pr)/*a, cf. xii. 21, 
xviii. 16 f., xxv. 6, 10, 17. An alter 
native rendering might be Court, 
and in xii. 21 it seems necessary to 
translate throne. Bench seems best 
because, like TO /3r?/xa, it means origin 
ally the official seat of a judge, then 
the general surroundings of that seat, 
and finally is almost if not quite 
identified with the magistrate himself. 
In English, however, it often implies 
magistrates in the plural. Could TO 
pfj/jia. do this ? 

13. Contrary to the Law] The 
form of the accusation suggests a 
comparison with xvi. 20 and xvii. 7. 
In these passages the accusation 
against Paul is that he is breaking 
the Roman law, (a) by teaching 
customs forbidden to Romans, (b) 
by teaching that there is another 
emperor, Jesus. In harmony with 
these passages it may mean that 



Paul was illegally seducing Gentiles to 
worship the Jews God. The objec 
tion to this interpretation is (a) that 
the circumstances are not quite the 
same ; at Philippi and at Thessalonica 
the accusation, even though prompted 
by Jews, was brought by Gentiles, (6) 
that Gallio s comment seems to make 
it plain that the law referred to was 
the Jewish not the Roman law. 
Still, these objections are not quite 
final. Gallio may merely have meant 
that the point was not one of Roman 
law, and it is conceivable that the 
Jews brought the accusation with the 
suggestion that they were not re 
sponsible for an infraction of the law, 
which they disclaimed and denounced. 
If Roman law be intended it is hard 
to say what law was meant, for 
though Romans were forbidden to 
become proselytes, this did not apply 
to non-citizens. It would appear that 
Gallio s decision was correct. 

worship God] o-^Seo-tfcu rbv debv. 
See Addit. Note 8. 

14. The admirable though col 
loquial Greek put into Gallio s mouth 
is one of the proofs that the editor 
could write more than one style, which 
he adapted to his subject. The com 
pact scorn of the answer suggests that 
Gallio s subjects would have described 
him by some other adjective than 
* dulcis which his brother Seneca 
applied to him. 

misbehaviour] pg.Siovpyrj/j.a. Cf. 
pydiovpyias in xiii. 10. Judging by 
the company they keep both in that 
passage and elsewhere this family of 
words particularly implies fraud and 
deception, while crime (dcn /c^a) also 
includes open or violent wrong-doing. 

of course] This is about the force 
of Kara \6yov, which in Hellenistic 
writers varies between * proportion 
ately, willingly, reasonably, accord 
ing to one s desire. Here it might 
be rendered * duly. (See Preisigke, 
Worterbuch, s.v.) 



228 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



tolerate you. But if it is questions about talk and words and 15 
a law which is yours, look to it yourselves. I have no wish to 
be a judge of these things." And he drove them away from 16 
the Bench. And they all took Sosthenes, the archisynagogue, I7 
and beat him before the Bench. And Gallio was not troubled 
at all by these things. 

mismanaging the case, and by the 
Greeks on general principles. 

Ammonius, quoted in the catena, 
suggests other reasons : they beat 
Sosthenes just to vent their dis 
appointed rage on somebody, or be 
cause he was, like Crispus, an adherent 
of Paul s, or because they wished to 
kill Paul and Sosthenes had prevented 
them. For the obscurity of Sosthenes 
role in Acts compare the accounts of 
Jason in xvii. 6 and Alexander in 
xix. 33. 

Sosthenes] The name is rare 
enough (papyri and inscriptions attest 
a few cases in Egypt, Magnesia, 
or Rhodes) to make its recurrence 
in 1 Corinthians i. 1 striking; and 
perhaps the Sosthenes of this chapter 
may be the same as Paul s later 
companion. But Paul s letter does 
not call Sosthenes a Corinthian. It 
is not impossible that two Corinthian 
archisynagogues became Christians. 
The office was not held by one in 
cumbent at a time. 

troubled at all by these things] 
As an alternative translation none 
of this troubled Gallio may be sug 
gested as representing another but 
less probable way of explaining the 
grammar of the Greek (w5ti&gt; subject 
instead of adverbial accusative, TOVTUV 
partitive with /XT? 8tv instead of geni 
tive object of ^ueXep, e/x.eXei personal 
instead of impersonal), but the con 
structions assumed by the trans 
lation adopted are more probable. 
The Western variant is that Gallio 
pretended not to see. The tradi 
tional English rendering Gallio cared 
for none of these things, though a 
delightful phrase which has become 
proverbial, must be regretfully aban 
doned as it implies that Luke was 
condemning Gallio. He is, on the 
contrary, showing how Gallio a 
learned judge was so neutral in the 
controversy that he refused to become 



tolerate you] d^^o^at is particu 
larly used of patient listening while 
allowing others to speak. This mean 
ing, scarcely recognized in lexicons, is 
sufficiently illustrated by Kypke here 
and by Wettstein on 2 Cor. xi. 1. 

15. talk] \6yos, * talk as opposed 
to deeds (Zpyov). Gallio, though 
he belonged (or because he belonged) 
to a family greatly gifted with the 
power of speech, has a true Roman 
contempt for talking. A Greek might 
have felt that he did not realize the 
difference between \6yos and XaXict, 
but the context makes it plain that 
the word is used contemptuously. 

words] ofo/zara certainly can have 
this meaning, and in grammar is the 
technical term for a substantive 
(hence nomen, noun). It is an at 
tractive but unnecessary hypothesis 
that it means persons as it does in 
i. 15 (see note on that verse). The 
suggestion that it refers to Messianic 
doctrine seems quite improbable. 

look to it yourselves] This collo 
quial use of the future indicative 
occurs in Matt, xxvii. 4 and 24, in 
Epictetus often, e.g. ii. 5. 29 ^Troi-rjaa 
ey& TO e/jLov, el d /cat &lt;n) rb ffbv tTroLycras 
8\//i avrds, and in Marcus Aurelius. 
Both third and second persons are 
used and imply not so much a com 
mand to another as the speaker s 
renunciation of his own responsibility, 
as if to say "that is your look-out." 
Compare modern Greek S,s 8\f/cTai, 
Latin videris, viderit. See D. C. 
Hesseling s discussion of the idiom in 
Mededeeling der Koninklijke Akademie 
van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Ixv., 
serie A, no. 4, 1928. 

17. all] Who ? The Western text 
says all the Greeks and a few 
manuscripts emend this to all the 
Jews. Both readings seem to be 
amplifications of the original iravres, 
and possibly Sosthenes was beaten 
by both parties by the Jews for 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



229 



1 8 Paul remained for many days longer and then took leave of 
the brethren and sailed for Syria, and with him went Priscilla 
and Aquila, having had his hair cut off in Cenchreae, for 



an agent of Jewish animosity against 
Paul, and (if Sosthenes was not a 
Christian) allowed an anti-Semitic 
reaction to take its own course. It 
is tempting to say that when one 
remembers to what an extent our 
knowledge of the early history of the 
Bab is due to a diplomat who was 
interested in new cults, one recognizes 
how different might be our knowledge 
of early Christianity if Gallic s attitude 
had not been universal. But it must 
be admitted that probably the sen 
tence merely means that Gallic was 
not concerned with the commotion in 
the court-room and the ill-treatment 
of Sosthenes. 

18-23. PAUL S FLYING VISIT TO 
SYRIA AND PALESTINE. It is possible 
to explain this visit as really a 
doublet of the journey to Jerusalem 
in xxi. Just as some have suspected 
that the visits of Paul and Barnabas 
to Jerusalem in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, 
and in xv. are really only one, and 
that the journeys that follow each 
visit are also only one (xiii., xiv., and 
xvi. 1 fL), so perhaps one journey of 
Paul from Corinth to the Levant has 
been divided into two (xviii. 18-22 
and xx. 3-xxi. 17 with ei s ^Lvpiav at the 
beginning of each). Such doublets 
may be due to different sources. One 
account is likely to be full and prob 
ably quite accurate, the other is a 
brief precis between two episodes but 
not without hints of its parallelism to 
the fuller narrative. As the relief 
funds of xi. 30 belong either to the 
visit concerning circumcision (Gal. ii.) 
or to the visit concerning the collection 
for the saints (Rom. xv. 25 ff.), so in 
the present passage not only does 
the vow suggest the vow in xxi., but 
even the ominous 0eoO d\ovros (see 
next note) at Ephesus may reflect the 
fear for the outcome of his trip to 
Jerusalem, more fully expressed in 
Acts xx. 22 f. (to the Ephesians!), 
xxi. 4, 10-14 TOV Kvplov rb 6^\rj/j.a 
yivtcrdu, and remarkably confirmed by 
Romans xv. 30-32. 

Under such an hypothesis of doub 



lets the omission in xviii. 22 of all re 
ference to what occurred in Jerusalem 
is parallel to the omission in xxi.-xxvi. 
(except possibly xxiv. 17) of refer 
ence to the gift for the saints and 
the like. The hypothesis supposes 
that the author in one account usually 
passed quite lightly over the matters 
told more fully in the other version. 

The Western reviser, however, per 
haps with an unconscious instinct for 
the true background, multiplies the 
parallel motifs. Thus he knows here 
that Paul is hurrying to a feast as in 
xx. 16 (but see Ropes s note, Vol. III. 
p. 177), just as elsewhere he likes to 
explain Paul s actions as due to 
divine guidance in contrast to Paul s 
own will or the natural demands of 
the situation, thus reproducing the 
ideas of xvi. 6-10 in xvii. 15, xix. 1, 
xx. 3. 

On the whole, however, I should 
reject this hypothesis on the ground 
that the paragraph does not seem to me 
to have the editorial meagreness of, 
for instance, xvi. 1-6, that there is 
nothing improbable in the story as it 
is told, and that the suggestion of 
doublets in this place makes more 
difficulties than it solves. 

18. longer] ?n is not redundant 
with Trpoa/uielvas since the preposition 
Trpos in this (xi. 23 and xiii. 43) and 
other compounds (xvii. 25 TrpocrSco/icu) 
often has not the etymological force 
of in addition. 

had his hair cut off] Who? 
Paul or Aquila ? The point is obscure, 
but perhaps the run of the sentence 
suggests Paul rather than Aquila, and 
inasmuch as Luke is writing in the 
main about Paul, in case of doubt the 
reference is likely to be to Paul. 

Keipa/mevos seems to mean cut with 
shears or scissors, ^vp-fiaovraL (xxi. 24) 
cut with a razor. Both verbs are 
used in 1 Cor. xi. 6 as though there 
were such a distinction, cf. Micah i. 
16 in the LXX, but where the verbs 
are not in the same context it is hard 
to be sure that the author felt the 
distinction. 

Cenchreae] The eastern port of 



230 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



he had a vow. And they arrived at Ephesus and he left them 19 
there, but he himself went into the synagogue and discoursed with 
the Jews. And when they asked him to stay for a longer time, 20 
he did not agree, but took leave of them, and said, " I will return 21 



Corinth, to which Phoebe belonged 
(Rom. xvi. 1). 

he had a vow] From the mention 
of hair-cutting it is clear that it was 
a Nazirite vow. In ancient Israel the 
Nazirites were men who had been 
consecrated to a life of abstinence 
from wine and never cut their hair. 
The classical instance of a life-long 
Nazirite is Samson. Later a temporary 
Nazirite vow was customary, which 
entailed the same manner of life, but 
only for a stated period. It was 
concluded by a sacrifice and by cutting 
the hair. The Law of the Nazirite is 
given in Numbers vi. 1-21. In the 
New Testament John the Baptist 
appears to have been a life - long 
Nazirite (Luke i. 15), and according 
to the tradition of Hegesippus pre 
served by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 
23. 4) so also was James the brother 
of the Lord. 

The difficulty of this passage is its 
correlation with the rest of the narra 
tive. Why is this vow mentioned at 
all ? Not, probably, to indicate Paul s 
obedience to Jewish custom, but to 
explain his (or alternatively Aquila s) 
movements. Ordinarily cutting the 
hair marks the completion of a vow, 
and if that be so here, we can suppose 
that Paul had taken a temporary 
Nazirite vow during his stay in Corinth 
for some purpose which is not ex 
plained. Rabbinical parallels show 
that it was customary to make a 
Nazirite vow in connexion with 
doubtful enterprises, and that it de 
generated in later times into a mere 
formula, " May I be a Nazirite, if that 
is not the man I met," etc. There was 
much discussion among the Rabbis as 
to the binding nature of such an ejacu 
lation. (See Strack, vol. ii. p. 749.) 
No exegesis on these lines gives a 
quite satisfactory explanation. I am 
inclined to suggest the possibility 
that just as in the Greek church a 
monk s hair is cut when he takes the 
vow, and is then never cut again, 



so a Nazirite cut his hair before 
beginning his vow. If so, this episode 
marks the beginning of a vow. But 
I have no evidence that this custom 
of preliminary hair-cutting was a 
Jewish custom. 

19. left them there] The position 
of this phrase makes a very awkward 
though quite intelligible sentence, and 
probably for this reason the Western 
text leaves it out and inserts the sub 
stance of it into vs. 21 (see note in Vol. 
III. p. 176). 

Jews] For Jews at Ephesus see 
Schiirer, GJV. iii. 4 pp. 15 f. ; Juster, 
Les Juifs dans r Empire Romain, i. p. 
190, note 3. The literary evidence is 
more numerous than for most of the 
Aegean cities. (Cf. note on xvii. 1.) 
But as yet no references have been 
found to the synagogues of Ephesus, 
nor are there any Jewish inscriptions 
at all before the second century. 

21. and said] The Western and 
Antiochian texts insert " I must at all 
costs keep the approaching feastday 
in Jerusalem, but," etc. And this 
widely read text has given rise to the 
belief that vs. 22 means that Paul 
actually visited Jerusalem after going 
to Caesarea. E ven after the Antiochian 
text was deserted by most modern 
interpreters they continued to extract 
the same meaning from the Neutral 
text by interpreting ryv eKK\-rjaiav as 
the church in Jerusalem. There is, 
however, in the text no word about 
Jerusalem; the church mentioned 
would naturally be the church in 
Caesarea ; going up means going 
from the port to the city. 

Oddly enough the Western reviser 
whose addition produced this inter 
pretation did not himself share it. He 
makes Paul go to Caesarea, Antioch, 
and Galatia, and then in xix. 1 returns 
to the proposed visit to Jerusalem, and 
explains that though Paul still wished 
to go to Jerusalem the Spirit forbade 
him. Perhaps the real motive of the 
reviser was to explain Paul s vow. 



XVIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



231 



22 to you if God will," and started from Ephesus. And when he 
reached Caesarea he went up and saluted the church and came 

23 down to Antioch, and after staying some time departed, passing 
successively through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirming 
all the disciples. 

24 But a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by family, an 



if God will] Strange as it may seem 
this is a heathen rather than a Jewish 
formula. There is no evidence for its 
use by Jews in Biblical or Talmudic 
times, and it was introduced to them 
by Mohammedan practice. (See the 
full note in J. H. Ropes s commentary 
on James in the International Critical 
Commentary, pp. 279 f.) 

22 f. The succession of participles, 
. . avaas /cat 



ikas . . . 5tep%6/zei os . . . 
is regarded by Blass-De- 
brunner ( 421) as an attempt at 
style. 

22. Caesarea] Why did he go to 
Caesarea if Antioch was his goal ? 
The apparent inappropriateness of 
the route has doubtless helped to 
strengthen the view that he went 
to Jerusalem. But I think the reason 
was that the winds prevalent in the 
summer rendered a j ourney to Caesarea 
easier than one to Antioch; gener 
ally speaking the summer winds are 
northerly, and if, as often happens, 
they are east of north, it is difficult 
for a boat coming from Ephesus to 
point as high as Antioch. 

23. successively] /ca^e^s. See Vol. 
II. pp. 504 f. 

the Galatian country and Phrygia] 
See Additional Note 18. 

24-28. The action of Priscilla and 
Aquila in vs. 26 shows that in their 
opinion and in that of the writer there 
was some inadequacy in the teaching of 
Apollos. The inadequacy is summed 
up by saying that he knew only the 
baptism of John. This phrase would 
most naturally mean the baptism 
administered by John, as it does in 
xix. 3. The possibility is therefore 
seriously to be considered that the 
meaning of the whole is that Apollos 
knew and taught accurately the story 
of Jesus, but knew nothing of Christian 
baptism which was part of the 656s 



but not of TO, Trepi Irjaov. It is notice 
able that it is stated that Priscilla 
and Aquila gave him accurate (or 
more accurate) teaching, not about 
Jesus, but about the Way. In this 
case cLKpiptarepov is probably * elative 
rather than a true comparative (see 
note on vs. 26). 

If this interpretation be correct 
the passage can be grouped with the 
story in xix. 1-7 of the Ephesian 
Christians who also knew only the 
baptism of John. Paul did for them 
what Priscilla and Aquila did for 
Apollos. The two passages xviii. 
24 ff . and xix. 1 ff . seem to be brought 
together by the writer to illustrate 
the way in which Christian baptism 
supplanted John s baptism. But it 
is to be noted that he does not 
regard the Ephesians as disciples of 
John or deny that Apollos was a 
Christian. The two episodes taken 
together are the best evidence which 
we possess as to the evolution of 
Christian baptism, and support the 
view suggested on pp. 7 and 93, and 
in Vol. I. pp. 341 ff., that Christian 
baptism was probably introduced by 
Hellenistic Christians rather than by 
the original disciples in Jerusalem. 
As known to the writer of Acts, Spirit 
baptism was already conflate with 
water baptism, and he did not realize 
that this had not been so from the 
beginning. Perhaps this is one cause 
of the obscurity of this narrative. The 
writer was using sources of informa 
tion, whether written or oral, which ho 
has interpreted in accordance with his 
own general ideas. What else could 
he do ? But the result is that he has 
sometimes obscured what he sought to 
illumine. Possible examples of this 
may be the references to baptism in ii. 
38 ff. (see the discussion in Vol. I. pp. 
339 f.), and in the story of Cornelius 
in x. 46 ff . (see Vol. I. pp. 340 ff . ). The 



232 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



stories of A polios and the Ephesian 
Christians seem to belong to the same 
category. 

The most serious objection to this 
line of interpretation is summed up in 
the question Why, then, did Aquila 
not baptize Apollos ? Perhaps the 
answer is that he did. Or perhaps 
he did not because Apollos was al 
ready wv T(p Trvev/maTi, in which case 
he affords both a parallel and a con 
trast to Cornelius. Nevertheless these 
answers are not quite satisfying and 
the objection remains. 

An alternative theory is based on 
the statement that Apollos moved to 
Corinth and preached that the Messiah 
was Jesus. Does this not imply that 
before this time he had not preached 
this doctrine ? It may be so, and in 
that case the baptism of John would 
mean the baptism of Jesus by John as 
it probably does in i. 22, and it is 
to be contrasted, not with Christian 
baptism, but with the fuller Messianic 
preaching which was not part of the 
public teaching of Jesus, but of the 
teaching about Jesus which was the 
work of the small body of disciples 
who were witnesses of the resurrection, 
and knew more of the true nature of 
Jesus than was implied by the story of 
his baptism. In this case d/tpi/^crrepop 
is a true comparative, and there is 
a contrast between Apollos s original 
knowledge of TO. irepi I^crou accurate 
so far as it went and the * more ac 
curate knowledge which constituted 
the Way, (See note on vs. 26.) 

The main points against this theory 
are that it gives a meaning to the 
baptism of John, which though quite 
possible is somewhat less usual, and 
that it scarcely does as much justice 
as the other interpretation to the 
implied contrast between ra -rrepl rov 
I-rjffov and the Way. In its favour 
is the fact that undoubtedly Jesus did 
not publicly teach that he was the 
Messiah. He may have believed this, 
but he only proclaimed the approach 
of judgement and the need of repent 
ance, and gave much teaching as to 
the kind of conduct which repentance 
called for, to qualify his hearers for 
the approaching Kingdom. There 
must have been many who heard this 
teaching and were impressed by it. 
Those who emphasize quite rightly 
- the arresting personality of Jesus 



might well consider whether, so long 
as a living memory of Jesus survived, 
there are not likely to have been many 
who remembered his teaching and de 
sired to perpetuate it, but did not 
know and in some cases perhaps did 
not believe the disciples teaching 
about Jesas. It is not impossible that 
Apollos had been converted by one 
of them. It is conceivable that Q 
(if such a document ever existed) was 
the embodiment of their recollections 
of the teaching of Jesus, just as Mark 
is fundamentally the story of Jesus as 
told by those of the Way, who held 
that he was the Messiah. If so, the 
accurate knowledge which Priscilla 
and Aquila communicated was the 
message of the disciples that Jesus 
was the Messiah. 

To choose between these theories 
is neither practicable nor desirable. 
Neither is impossible : neither can be 
proved. They do not wholly exclude 
each other. Possibly both are true. 
But I am unacquainted with any third 
alternative which seems to have equal 
probability. The attempt to explain 
the difficulties as due to a conflation 
of divergent traditions (see P. W. 
Schmiedel, Ency. Bibl. s.v. Apollos) 
does not seem satisfactory. 

24. Apollos] Cf. 1 Cor. i. 12, xvi. 

12. His name is spelt in various 
ways. Codex Bezae gives AiroXXuvios 
(Apollonius d). There is some possi 
bility that this is the right spelling. 
Acts and the epistles have a strange 
tendency to disagree (see note on 
Priscilla in vs. 2), and the natural 
tendency of scribes was to harmonize 
them, so that transcriptional prob 
ability favours Apollonius. But the 
variant does not reappear in xix. 1. 
N reads AwtXXrjs, and that this is not 
accidental is proved by the quota 
tions from Didymus arid Ammonius 
in Cramer s Catena which have the 
same spelling. Its chief value is that 
the combination of Didymus, Am 
monius, and x supports the Alexan 
drian provenance of ^. Possibly it is 
a learned attempt to identify Apollos 
with the Apelles of Rom. xvi. 10. An 
Apollos is also mentioned in Titus iii. 

13, but the name is quite common, 
and there is obviously no decisive 
argument for or against his identity 
with the Apollos of Acts. On the 
other hand, there can be no doubt 



XVIII 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



233 



eloquent man, arrived at Ephesus, being effective in the scriptures. 

25 He had been informed in the way of the Lord and was fervent 
in spirit, and he was speaking and teaching accurately the 

26 story of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John. And he 
began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla 
and Aquila heard him, they took him and accurately expounded 



that the Apollos of Acts is the same 
as he who was the second founder 
of the Church in Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 6). 

(On the history of Apollos see 
J. H. A. Hart, JTS. vii., Oct. 1905, 
pp. 16-28 ; R. Schumacher, Der Alex- 
andriner Apollos, 1916; G. A. Barton, 
JBL. xliii., 1924, pp. 207-223 ; A. 
Deane, Friends and Fellow -Labourers 
of St. Paul, and Polzl, Die Mitar- 
beiter des Weltapostels Paulus.) 

eloquent] The word \6yios has more 
than one meaning. Originally it meant 
learned, as it does in modern Greek. 
In Herodotus it is used of one with 
good knowledge of a locality. Phry- 
nichus, however, is good evidence that 
a Hellenistic meaning was eloquent. 
This meaning was adopted by the 
Latin and Syriac translators (so A.V.), 
and in modern times by Fr. Field, 
J. H. Moulton, and others. But in 
Josephus, Ant. xvii. 6. 2, 149, the com 
bination lovdaiuv \oyubraToi /cat Trap 
oiVriJ/as ^r/yriral rCJv irarpLwv 



suggests the rendering educated or 
learned. In the secondary version 
of Eusebius, Martyr. Palest, xi. 1 (ed. 
Schwartz), p. 933, 1. 5, \6yioL re /cat 
tStwrat means educated and unedu 
cated. But this version is probably 
not the genuine text of Eusebius. 
For a full lexical study of the word 
see Logios by Emil Orth, Leipzig, 
1926. This monograph, complete in 
evidence and admirably arranged, 
shows how alongside of its meaning 
learned the word began in the first 
century A.D. to show the meanings 
eloquent and also intelligent 
(verstdndig). We are still left, there 
fore, without any decisive evidence 
of its meaning here. 

25. The Western text has the remark 
able reading " who had been instructed 
in his own country (i.e. Alexandria) 
in the word of the Lord." If this 
reading were right, or a correct in 



ference (and this is not impossible), 
it would prove that Christianity had 
reached Alexandria, as it did Rome, 
not later than A.D. 50, and moreover 
that it was of the same type as the 
teaching of Apollos before he met 
Priscilla and Aquila. 

informed] Karr)x r l Tai - without d/cpt/3i2&gt;s 
would probably have implied in 
accurate information, and even the 
addition of d/c/H/3u)s perhaps leaves 
room for the suggestion of imper 
fection. /caT7?x??Mai had not yet the 
later technical sense of formal instruc 
tion, and rather means hearsay 
knowledge (cf. xxi. 21 and 24, the 
note on the word in Vol. II. pp. 508 if., 
and E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anf tinge 
des Christentums, i. p. 7). 

the way of the Lord] Both here 
and in vs. 26 (where of the Lord or 
of God should probably be omitted, 
see Vol. III. p. 178) 656? seems clearly 
to mean Christianity. Cf. p. 100. 

fervent] Cf. Rom. xii. 11 tfovres 
T&lt; TT^ei /yLtart : it does not, however, 
mean that his own spirit was * fervent, 
but that he was boiling over with 
the Holy Spirit that had come into 
him. 

26. Priscilla and Aquila] As in vs. 
18 the wife is named first (see on vs. 2). 
But the Western text has the order 
reversed. See Vol. III. pp. 178f. 

accurately] aKptpforepov is perhaps 
what grammarians term elative 
rather than a true comparative. 
(See the discussion of this form 
in Blass - Debrunner, 244, and in 
Moulton s Prolegomena, pp. 78, 236.) 
Instances of its probable use are to 
be found in xvii. 21, xxiv. 26, 
and in the Western text of iv. 16. 
There is obviously only a shade of 
difference between an elative com 
parative and a positive, so that 
there was a tendency in some words 
for the comparative to supplant the 



234 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XVIII 



the Way to him. And when he wished to pass into Achaia the 27 
brethren encouraged him to do so, and wrote to the disciples 
to receive him. And when he arrived he was very helpful to 
those who had believed through grace, for he vigorously refuted 28 



positive. This is especially so when 
the word marks a change from a 
previous position with which it offers 
some comparison. A/cpt/3iDs, a.Kpi(3t- 
are an example of this usage; 
ws is found only in xviii. 25, 
ov in xviii. 26, xxiii. 15, 20, 
xxiv. 22. In xxiv. 22 it can hardly 
be a true comparative, and the elative 
sense is easy in each instance, but it 
is possible to argue that there is the 
implied suggestion that the know 
ledge acquired was more accurate 
than it had been. The same is true 
of the usage of the Papyri ; cf. P Oxy 
vol. vi. p. 226 OTTWS eerd&lt;rai T[es] 
Kara rb aKpfifitffTepov, and BGU . ii. 
388. ii. 41 e^eraadrjcreTai Trepi TOVTOV 



In the present case the doubt 
whether aKpL^earepov is an elative or 
a true comparative is increased by 
the apparent antithesis between 
dKpifius and aKpt^effrepov. But this 
is largely offset by Luke s tendency 
to vary his phraseology. Two lines 
of interpretation are possible: (i.) 
Aquila and Priscilla gave Apollos 
more accurate information as to 
what he already knew accurately. 
If so, ra -jrepi rou Irjaov is a synonym 
for ri)v 6S6v TOV deov. (ii.) Apollos had 
already accurate knowledge of TO, Trepi 
TOV I-rjaov, but he did not know the 
Way, which was accurately explained 
to him by Aquila and Priscilla. On 
purely linguistic lines no final choice 
can be made between these two 
possibilities. 

27 f . The Western reviser gives a 
different text : "And some Corinthians 
staying in Ephesus who heard him, 
asked him to cross with them to their 
own country. And when he con 
sented the Ephesians wrote to the 
disciples in Corinth to receive him, 
and while he stayed in Achaia he 
was very helpful in the churches, for 
he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly 
proving and demonstrating from the 
scriptures that Jesus was a Messiah." 
The request of the Corinthians seems 



to echo 1 Cor. xvi. 12: "Concerning 
Apollos, the brother, I have pressed 
him to go to you with the brethren 
(i.e. Stephanas, Fortunatus, and 
Achaicus), but he had no wish at all 
to go now, but he will do so when 
an opportunity presents itself." But 
in fact 1 Cor. xvi. refers to a later 
period, after Apollos had been to 
Corinth and returned to Ephesus. 

It is also noteworthy that the 
Western reviser replaces the rots 
irtTTLVTevKbaiv of the B-text by ev rats 
eKK\Ti&lt;riais, and changes the emphasis 
of elvai TOP Xpicrroj iTjcrovv into rbv 
lycrovv elvai. Xpurrdv. Both changes 
seem to reflect later usage. (See note 
on vs. 5.) 

27. encouraged . . . wrote ... to 
receive] The Greek TrpoTpe^d/u-evoi . . . 
eypa^av . . . a.7rodeacrdai permits but 
does not favour the alternative render 
ing which assigns to the participle the 
dependent infinitive rather than leaves 
the participle with no object or com 
plement. The translation would be 
the brethren wrote exhorting the 
disciples to receive, as in A.V. and 
some modern English translations. 
The TTpoTp\^dfj.evoi was encouragement 
given to the Corinthians to receive 
Apollos, not to Apollos to go. The 
ambiguity of this participle and of 
the ot dde\(pol . . . ro?s /u.a6r)Tais is 
elaborately resolved by the Western 
text (see previous note). 

was very helpful] ffwefidXero TTO\V. 
This meaning of avfj.[3d\\e&lt;r6ai is not 
found elsewhere in the New Testa 
ment, but it fits best with the context, 
and is well authenticated in other 
writers (cf. Liddell and Scott 8 , s.v. 
cri^dXXo) 7). It may be doubted 
whether it was so interpreted by 
the Western reviser who emended 
avvefidXeTO ro?s TreiriffTevKtxnv to crvv- 
e/3d\\eTo iv rcus ^/c/c\77&lt;ricus. Possibly 
he took aufjifSaXXecrOai. as conversing. 
But the ydp in the next sentence is 
then meaningless. 

28. Acts tells us nothing more 
about Apollos, but 1 Corinthians sup- 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



235 



the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that the Messiah 

is Jesus. 

19 i And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth Paul passed 



plements its information. Apollos was 
very successful in Corinth : I planted, 
Apollos watered, says the Apostle. 
But, though Paul and Apollos appear 
always to have been friendly to each 
other, their disciples formed rival 
parties which threatened to injure 
the life of the Church. It is unfortu 
nately impossible to reconstruct from 
the Epistle to the Corinthians the 
tenets of either party. After preach 
ing in Corinth Apollos seems to have 
returned to Ephesus and to have 
been there when 1 Corinthians was 
written in any case he was no 
longer in Corinth. He intended to 
visit Corinth again if a favourable 
opportunity arose, but it is not 
known whether he actually did so, 
and nothing is known of his later 
career (see 1 Cor. i. llff., iii. 3ff., 
xvi. 12). 

1-20. PAUL IN EPHESUS. These few 
verses are all that Luke directly allots 
to the Ephesian ministry of Paul. In 
vs. 21 he explains how Paul decided 
to move farther westward to Rome 
and though the next section, vss. 
20-41, deals with Ephesus it seems 
mainly to explain the delay in Paul s 
plan of visiting Macedonia and Corinth 
before going to Jerusalem and thence 
to Rome. 

From the epistles we know some 
thing of what Paul was doing during 
this period of nearly three years when 
Ephesus was his centre. A summary, 
which is all that can be given here, 
must at least contain the following 
points : (i. ) The arrival in Corinth either 
of Peter or of his followers. This may 
have been before Paul s first arrival, 
(ii.) The growth of parties in Corinth, 
(iii.) The sending of a letter by Paul 
from Ephesus. (iv.) A reply from 
Corinth, probably brought by Ste 
phanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus. 
(v.) 1 Corinthians, (vi.) The mission of 
Timothy to Corinth, (vii.) An unsatis 
factory visit of Paul from Ephesus to 
Corinth, which failed to end the strife 



in the Church, (viii.) A strong letter 
sent by Paul, perhaps partly preserved 
in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. (ix.) The mission 
of Titus, (x.) Paul s departure from 
Ephesus ( = Acts xx. 1). (xi.) His 
meeting with Titus in Macedonia, 
(xii.) 2 Corinthians, or, on the partition 
theory (see K. Lake, Earlier Epistles 
of St. Paul, pp. 154 ff.), 2 Corinthians 
i-ix. (xiii.) The collection for Jeru 
salem, (xiv.) A probable imprisonment 
in Ephesus (see note on p. 245). (xv.) 
An extensive evangelization of Asia, 
especially of the Lycus valley, either 
by Paul himself or by his helpers. 
To this bare skeleton of events must 
be added the whole story of the 
quarrel in the Church at Corinth, its 
origin, course, and end. Perhaps 
the most important for a general per 
spective of history is the coming 
to Corinth of Peter or of his repre 
sentatives. In conjunction with the 
fact that there were already Christians 
in Rome, and perhaps in Alexandria, 
it affords an indication of how much 
important history was being made 
about which Acts is silent. 

Why is there nothing in Acts about 
any of these points ? Why is Luke 
even more silent on the great contro 
versies about sex problems, things 
offered to idols, and spiritual persons 
(TTvev/ji.a.TiKuv), than he is about the 
Judaizing controversy revealed by 
Galatians and Romans ? 

Even more difficult, though less 
spectacular, is the question of the 
collection for Jerusalem, for here it 
is a question of apparent contradic 
tion rather than omission. 

According to his own epistles 
Paul went to Jerusalem primarily in 
order to take money to the Christians 
in Jerusalem. According to Acts it 
is a journey planned by the Holy 
Spirit, working through Paul, in order 
that Paul may thus be brought to 
Rome. Possibly Luke knew some 
thing of the collection, for in xxiv. 17 
he makes Paul say that the purpose 
of his visit to Jerusalem was to bring 



236 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found 



alms and offer sacrifice, but it is not 
clear whether this refers to the * col 
lection or to the vow which he under 
took at the instigation of James. If 
he knew of it why did he omit it ? 
Was it because he did not wish to 
represent Jerusalem as indebted to 
Paul ? If he did not know of it can 
he have been a companion of Paul on 
this journey ? Can he have erred as 
to the date of the collection and 
ascribed to the visit of Acts xi. 30 
what really belonged to the later 
visit ? (See also notes on xviii. 18-23 
and xxiv. 17.) 

We can hardly assume that Luke 
was ignorant of the facts referred to 
in the epistles. He must have written 
as he did because the events narrated 
interested him and fitted his purpose 
in writing, while those mentioned 
in the epistles seemed to him unim 
portant. What light, then, does his 
selection of events throw on his interest 
and purpose ? The following points 
may be suggested. 

(i.) The story of Apollos, and of the 
Christians at Ephesus who had re 
ceived the Spirit at baptism, show the 
writer s interest in the question of 
inspiration an interest which runs 
all through, and is not peculiar to any 
one section. 

(ii.) The story is told, as is almost 
svery story in Acts, to emphasize the 
breach with the Jews and the con 
version of the Gentiles. 

(iii.) The conflict of religion and 
magic is the main theme of vss. 11-20. 
It is parallel to the stories of Simon 
Magus and Elymas. It is noticeable 
how here, as in the parallel story of 
Peter in v. 12-16, emphasis is laid on 
the miraculous power of physical con 
tact with the apostles, and on the 
power of the name of Jesus. 

(iv.) Finally, though the episode of 
Demetrius actually comes outside this 
section, it may be noted here that it 
plays the usual part in showing that 
opposition to Paul never came from 
constituted Gentile authority, but 
only from the crowd stirred up by 
Jewish hatred or ignoble impulses. 
The Secretary of Ephesus and the 
Asiarchs protect Paul ; it is only 
the mob and Demetrius, influenced 



by financial motives, who attack 
him. 

These four points may perhaps be 
reduced to two : Luke wishes to em 
phasize the supernatural power of 
Christianity and its obvious Tightness, 
as witnessed by the highest Gentile 
authorities, in its disputes with the 
Jews and with the Greek rabble. He 
is not concerned with ethical teaching 
Christianity is to him essentially 
supernatural and he prefers to be 
silent about disputes among Christians. 

It should be added that the local 
colour at Ephesus is as appropriate 
as it was at Athens. Magicians in 
Ephesus, philosophers in Athens, the 
worship of Artemis and the Unknown 
God, the meeting in the theatre and 
the sitting of the Areopagus, Asiarchs, 
the Secretary, and the silversmiths 
all are correct and vivid. (For a 
detailed consideration of the facts in 
the epistles see especially J. Weiss, 
Lietzmann s, or Windisch s commen 
tary on 1 Corinthians, or K. Lake, 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 102 ff.) 

1. The Western text omits eyevero 
d iv TI ATroXAcb eZVcu ev KopivOy 
and substitutes " Now though Paul 
wished, according to his own plan, to 
go to Jerusalem, the Spirit told him 
to return to Asia." See note on 
xviii. 18-23. 

the upper country] ra avurepiKa. 
fjL^pr) is obscure. It might mean the 
hill country, and Ramsay takes it in 
this sense to indicate a trail through the 
hills north of the road from Pisidian 
Antioch to Ephesus. I think it is 
more likely to mean the hinterland 
used from the Ephesian point of view. 
We have the same idiom when we 
speak of going * up count ry, and 
&vw is used commonly in classical 
and Hellenistic Greek to mean 
inland (Herodotus, Xenophon, 
Plutarch, LXX (Judith), and Papyri). 
Chrysostom s view that it means 
Caesarea in Cappadocia seems im 
probable. But it is quite possible 
that the phrase is intended to pick up 
the narrative of Paul s journey, which 
was interrupted after xviii. 23 in order 
to make room for the story of Apollos. 
If so, TO, avwrepLKo. ^prj means the 
same as TI)V 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



237 



2 some disciples, and said to them, " Did you receive Holy Spirit 
on believing ? " And they said to him, " No, we have not 

3 even heard that there is Holy Spirit." And he said, " With 
what, then, were you baptized ? " And they said, " With 

4 John s baptism." And Paul said, " John baptized with the 
baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should 
believe on him who was to come after him, that is on Jesus." 



$&gt;pvyiav, and is a characteristic Lucan 
change of phrase. 

The comparative form d^wrept/cos 
figures in the lists of words found in 
medical writers and in Luke. These 
lists are often nugatory because the 
compilers have not considered suffi 
ciently how far the words were also 
used by writers who were not medical, 
but in this case there is no evidence 
for avwreptKos except in medical books. 
In them, however, it is only used of 
emetics or other medicine administered 
by the mouth in contradistinction to 
other methods. It is hard to see the 
bearing of this on Paul s approach 
to Ephesus (see Cadbury, Style and 
Literary Method of Luke, p. 62, note 
76). 

disciples] This must mean Chris 
tians, both from the use of /mtfr/rds in 
Acts and from the context. Chryso- 
stom s theory that they were disciples 
of John has nothing to commend it, 
but from his point of view it was of 
course difficult to think that there was 
ever a time when persons who had 
not received Christian baptism could 
be generally regarded as Christians. 

2. on believing] i.e. when you 
became Christians. 

we have not even heard, etc.] 
The harshness of this expression 
to ears which regarded the Spirit as 
the essential gift of Christianity led 
to various attempts to soften it, none, 
however, very early, and to a para 
phrase in the Western text which 
presumably gives the correct sense, 
* we have not even heard if any do 
receive Holy Spirit. This is probably 
right, for the concept of * Holy Spirit 
was strange neither to Jew nor Greek ; 
both were familiar with the idea of 
inspiration. The point and it is of 
very great importance is that to 



Paul and to Luke, Christianity was 
essentially a means of obtaining Holy 
Spirit, while the Ephesian Christians 
had looked on it in a different way 
which had not contemplated inspira 
tion as its result. Was the same 
thing true of Apollos ? Such at least 
must have been the case if in xviii. 
25 the baptism of John is contrasted 
with Christian baptism. It may also 
be worth considering whether the 
divergent forms of Christianity in 
Corinth, in which the wevfj.a.T(.Koi 
men who had received the Spirit 
played a large part, may not among 
other elements have included an 
opposite party which did not claim to 
be inspired. (On the irvevfWTiKol see 
especially W. Lutgert, Freiheitspredigt 
und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, K. 
Lake, Earlier Epistles, pp. 222 ff. : 
the commentaries on 1 and 2 Cor 
inthians by J. Weiss and H. Windisch 
(in Meyer s Kommentar), and J. H. 
Ropes, The Singular Problem of the 
Epistle to the Galatians, p. 10.) 

3. With what] This is probably all 
that is implied by ets ri. The question 
did not refer to the details of baptism, 
but to the difference unfortunately 
not fully described between John s 
baptism and Christian baptism. 

4. that* they should] iva is 
taken out of this usual position in 
order that it may be next to the verb. 
This has become its regular position in 
modern Greek, in which vd with the 
aorist subjunctive has completely 
taken the place of the infinitive and 
is almost as closely bound to the 
verb as to is with the English 
infinitive. 

believe on him who was to come 
after him] This view of John s 
preaching is not that of the Syn 
optic narrative. In all the Synoptic 



238 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



And when they heard, they were baptized in the name of the 5 
Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit 6 
came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 
And the total of the men was about twelve. ~ 



gospels John s message is one of 
repentance, not of faith in one who 
is coming. Moreover, in Matthew 
and Luke, who have here a common 
source, it is said of the Coming one, 
" He shall baptize you with holy 
spirit and with fire. His fan is in 
his hand and he shall thoroughly 
purge his threshing-floor, and gather 
the wheat into his garner, and the 
chaff he shall burn with unquenchable 
fire." The meaning is clear: the 
Baptist is preaching repentance ; those 
who do not repent will be consumed 
by the Wrath to come, and the agent 
of the Wrath to come is the Coming 
one, who will purify the nation 
the Lord s threshing-floor by Holy 
Spirit (which by a play on the word 
TTvevfj.a, that which is blown, is re 
presented as the wind made by the 
thresher s fan) and by fire, which will 
consume the chaff that remains. It 
is unnecessary here to discuss the 
possibility that Q originally only men 
tioned fire, and that the text of 
Matthew and Luke is conflated with 
Mark, which mentions only Holy 
Spirit. The baptism by Holy Spirit 
and by fire is one of judgement, not 
as was John s of repentance. The 
picture of Mark is less explicit, but has 
the same meaning. Thus the Syn 
optic gospels represent John as giving 
a picture of the Coming one which 
ultimately survived in Christianity 
only in connexion with the Second 
coming. It is, moreover, essentially 
the same as the picture in the Gospels 
in the narratives of the Judgement 
(not of the Passion) connected with 
the Son of Man. 

The Fourth Gospel omits this 
element, and instead makes John the 
conscious Forerunner, who recognizes 
Jesus and points him out, not as the 
coming punisher and purifier by spirit 
and fire, but as the Lamb of God 
which taketh away the sins of the 
world. The difference is enormous, 
though the difference in time between 



the Synoptic gospels and the Fourth 
was perhaps less than a single genera 
tion, and this passage in Acts shows 
how rapidly the transition was being 
made. It is interesting that the scene 
is Ephesus, the traditional home of 
the Fourth Evangelist. 

5 f . Is a distinction made between 
the baptism and the laying on of 
hands ? The point is not clear, but 
it seems probable that here at least 
the laying on of hands is regarded as 
the climax of baptism, for Paul ob 
viously regards baptism as the source 
of the gift of the Spirit, and in the 
event the gift of the Spirit follows the 
laying on of his hands (see note on 
viii. 16). The Western text shows 
distinctly less understanding of the 
situation than the B-text, and reads 
"they were baptized in the name of 
the Lord Jesus Christ for the remis 
sion of sins." This obscures the fact 
that according to the gospels the 
baptism of John did give remission of 
sins. The point was that it did not 
confer the Spirit. See also Addit. 
Note 11. 

6. spoke with tongues] See Addit. 
Note 10. 

7. twelve] The parallelism to the 
twelve apostles must be noted, but 
there is no further evidence to throw 
light on it. For the Western text see 
Addit. Note 23. 

In view of the common tendency to 
find in this and other New Testament 
passages evidences of the existence 
of a Johannine sect in the apostolic 
age, it is worth while to remind the 
reader again that these men are re 
garded by the author as partially 
Christians (disciples, believers), not 
disciples of John. I would go even 
further than Burkitt does in Christian 
Beginnings, pp. 17 f. note. The bap 
tism of John does not for our author 
necessarily imply direct or indirect 
influence from the Baptist, it is his 
name for Christian water baptism 
without the Spirit. 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



239 



8 And he entered into the synagogue and spoke boldly for 
three months, arguing and persuading about the Kingdom of 

9 God. And when some were obstinate and did not believe, 
abusing the Way before the congregation, he separated from 
them and took away the disciples, arguing daily in the hall of 

10 Tyrannus. And this went on for two years, so that all the 
residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and 

1 1 Greeks. And God wrought extraordinary miracles by the hands 

12 of Paul, so that from his skin kerchiefs and handkerchiefs were 



8. Kingdom of God] Either in the 
eschatological sense, or as a synonym 
for the Christian church. 

9. the congregation] -rr\Tj6os is used 
here as meaning the congregation 
(cf. note on iv. 32). 

I hall] School gives a wrong im 
pression of the meaning of crxoX/y. It 
(was a hall used for lectures or other 
meetings. It is, of course, as un- 
, certain as it is unimportant whether 
I Tyrannus was a lecturer or a landlord. 
Tyrannus] Nothing is known of 
him. The Western text says Tvpav- 
vlov TLVOS, and it also adds from 
the fifth to the tenth hour. The time 
was reckoned so that sunset was 
always at the twelfth hour. Thus 
5-10 meant at the equinox from 11 A.M. 
to 4 P.M., but in the summer it was 
later, and in the winter earlier in the 
day. If the custom of the country 
was the same as it is now, this period 
almost exactly covers the time devoted 
to the mid-day meal and the siesta. 
At 1 P.M. there were probably more 
people sound asleep than at 1 A.M. 
It may be suggested that Tyrannus 
himself used the hall for teaching 
from early morning (Martial ix. 68, 
xii. 57, Juvenal vii. 222 S.) until the 
fifth hour, and that during the same 
time Paul was engaged in his own 
labour (xx. 34). Martial iv. 8 indicates 
that the fifth hour was the usual time 
for stopping work : in quintam varios 
extendit Roma labores. Then Paul 
could secure the use of the building 
for his mission. The hall appears to be 
introduced as a well-known building 
unless we accept the Western riv6s. The 
Western addition has been repeatedly 
discussed by Ramsay (ORE. p. 152, 



PTRC. pp. 270 f. ; Hastings Diction 
ary of the Bible, iv. 821 f., v. 476; 
Expos. Times, xv. (1904) pp. 397 f.) 
with a conclusion unfavourable to its 
originality. (Cf. xxviii. 23 curb trpui 
2o&gt;s eo-Tr^pas.) But the improbability 
that this time of day was chosen for 
teaching renders it difficult to regard 
the Western text as a mere expansion. 
11 f. These verses read very much 
like an editorial addition paralleling 
v. 15 f. ; see note on that passage. 
(Preuschen refers to F. Pfister, Reli- 
quienkult im Altertum in Relig. gesch. 
Vers. und Vorarb. v. pp. 331 ff.) 

11. extraordinary] ov ras rvxovcras. 
Cf. xxviii. 2. This litotes is a fixed 
idiom of Hellenistic Greek. 

hands] 5id %etpoj may be a Semitism 
for by the agency of, but this can 
hardly be so when the plural is used, 
as it is here and wherever miracles are 
described as being done by someone 
(cf. v. 12, xiv. 3). The underlying 
theory is that power is transmitted 
by actual contact. 

12. skin] This is the strict mean 
ing of %po&gt;s, though it is used in the 
LXX to render IBQ. 

kerchiefs and handkerchiefs] This, 
according to Ammonius (Cramer s 
Catena, pp. 316 f.), is the difference 
between sudaria and semicinctia. He 
says that sudaria were worn on the 
head, and semicinctia were carried in 
the hands by ot fj,rj 5vva.ij.evoi. updpia 
&lt;f&gt;op&lt;rai. (See Radermacher, ed. 2, 
pp. 15 f., and L. Hahn, Rom und 
Romanismus.) But the exact mean 
ing of the two words is somewhat 
doubtful. 

Both words are transliterated into 
Greek from the Latin, but while 



240 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



brought to the sick, and their diseases left them, and the evil 
spirits went out. But some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists 13 



ffov5a.pt.Qv (cf. Luke xix. 20 ; John xi. 
44, xx. 7) is common in both languages 
and also transliterated from the Greek 
into Hebrew or Aramaic, cniJ.iK.Lvdi.ov 
is of infrequent occurrence even in 
Latin. Its meaning is therefore 
doubtful, perhaps apron. The ora- 
rium by which Ammonius explains it 
is also a Latin word, and this in turn 
is explained by linteum, which in its 
Greek form is used by John xiii. 4, 5 
of the towel with which Jesus girded 
himself. Perhaps this shows why the 
article in question is called half -girt 
semi-cinctium. The meaning may 
be therefore towels used in this way. 
Have the commentators on John any 
other examples of this costume ? 

The story means that cloths (not 
clothes) which were taken from con 
tact with Paul s skin and applied to 
the bodies of the sick worked cures. 
Cf. the tassel (Kpaff-rredof) of Jesus 
and the shadow of Peter in Acts v. 15. 

13-19. The incidents of exorcism 
and magic agree in several respects 
with other sources. Cf . Wikenhauser, 
Die Apostelgeschichte, 62. (i.) Such 
practices were especially associated 
with Ephesus. The books containing 
incantations or certain words in them 
were called E0^&lt;rta ypd / u/xara. These 
are mentioned by various ancient 
authors, e.g. Clem. Alex. Stromata, v. 
viii. 45. 2 TO. E0^(Tta 

ypdfJ./J.Q.TCL V TToXAlHS 677 

&vra. Plutarch, Symp. vii. 5. 4 (p. 
85 B), says ol /jidyoi TOVS dai/j.ovtofj.evovs 
K\evovaL rot, E0^(Tia ypd/u./JLara irpbs 
avrovs Kara\^yeiv /cat 6vo[j.deii&gt;. See 
Ziebarth, Nachr. d. Gesell. d. Wiss. z. 
Oottingen, 1899, pp. 129 ff.; Wiinsch, 
Rhein. Museum, lv., 1900, pp. 78 ff.; 
Roscher, Philologus, Ix. (1901), pp. 
88 ff . ; Kuhnert, Pauly-Wissowa, Real- 
Encycl. v. 2 (1905), col. 2771 ff.; 
Deissmann in ZATW. Beihefte 33, 
1918, pp. 121-124. 

(ii.) In the magic of the ancient 
world the Jews played a prominent 
part. The extant books of magic, 
mostly derived from Egypt, show the 
Jewish influence in the use of such 
names as Abraham, Sabaoth, Jabe, 
etc. It is altogether probable that in 



other countries they played an im 
portant part in transmitting the more 
eastern elements of magic. Jewish 
magic was similarly influenced by 
Gentiles, though in less degree. Even 
stricter Jews were not prevented by 
Old Testament prohibitions from 
practising exorcism. The syncretism 
was such that no doubt those who 
were not Jews passed as Jews, and 
possibly even as Jewish high priests. 
Jewish exorcists are mentioned in Q 
(Matt. xii. 27 = Luke xi. 19); in 
Josephus, Antiq. viii. 2. 5 et al. ; Justin 
Martyr, TrypTio 85, and often else 
where. See L. Blau, Das altjiidische 
Zauberwesen, 1898; Strack, iv., Ex- 
kurs 21, Zur altjiidische Damono- 
logie, and the standard works on 
magic in general. 

(iii.) The use of the name of Jesus 
in casting out demons was known to 
the Jews, and was objected to by the 
rabbis much as was exorcism in the 
name of an idol. See Chwolson, 
DasletztePassamahl, pp. 100, J 02, 107 ; 
Strack, i. p. 468, and elsewhere. The 
references are to the Minim or Jewish 
(?) Christians. On the other hand 
the casting out of demons by Jews 
in the name of Jesus was evidently 
a question with which the early 
Christians were concerned. Naturally 
it was objected to, though the Gospels 
record a mild reply of Jesus to a 
question on the subject (Mark ix. 38- 
41 ; Luke ix. 49, 50). In the present 
passage the view implied is that when 
the name is used by those who have 
no right to use it, so far from quieting 
the possessed it turns them to greater 
violence. The moral is much the 
same as in viii. 18-24, but the power 
of Jesus name is enhanced by the 
story. The Paris Magical Papyrus 
574, which is certainly neither Christian 
nor orthodox Jewish, though strongly 
affected by the LXX, has in lines 
3018 ff. the notable adjuration opKifa 
ere Kara. TOU deov T&V Ef3paia}i&gt; Irjaov, 
and in lines 1227 ff. this ir/oais (charm, 
cf. VS. 18) yevvala ^/c/SdAXoucra daifj.ovas, 
written in the Egyptian language but 
in the Greek alphabet, " Hail, God of 
Abraham, hail, God of Isaac, hail, God 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



241 



tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus on those who had evil 
spirits, saying, " I charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches." 

14 And there were seven sons of a certain Scaeva, a Jewish 

15 high priest, doing this. And the evil spirit answered them 
and said, " Jesus I know, and Paul I understand, but who are 

1 6 you ? " And the man in whom the evil spirit was leapt on them 
and mastered them all and prevailed over them, so that they 



of Jacob, Jesus Chrestus, Holy Spirit, 
Son of the Father," etc. Cf. Justin, 
Trypho 85, et al. 

13. itinerant] irepLpxoiJ.i&gt;wv. 

the name] See notes on v. 41 and 
xvi. 18 and Addit. Note 11. 

14. seven sons of a certain Scaeva, 
a Jewish high priest] This refers 
back to and illustrates the itinerant 
Jewish exorcists of the preceding 
verse, as the Western reviser par 
ticularly emphasizes. Although the 
textual difficulties of the passage are 
serious (see Additional Note 23), the 
essential meaning is plain. Among 
the exorcists were a group who claimed 
to be brothers and to be sons of a 
high priest. Since they were foreigners 
in Ephesus the truth or falsity of such 
a statement could not readily be 
shown, and Professor F. C. Burkitt 
suggests a very plausible reason for 
their having made the claim : " What 
was," he says, " the special function 
and privilege of the Jewish high 
priest ? To go into the Holy of Holies 
and utter the Name. A Jewish high 
priest, therefore, knew the great magi 
cal Jewish Name. Scaeva was no 
doubt a rascally Levantine (real race 
very uncertain) who claimed to be 
kin to the Masters of the Name. 
dpxiepevs I regard as an advertisement. 
Do not Old Moore and Zadkiel claim 
antique descent (? from the Druids) ? " 

At any rate, in spite of the diffi 
culties involved in the name Scaeva, 
it seems clear that Luke regarded 
these men as Jews. Even if lovdaiuv 
is an interpolation there is no evidence 
for omitting lovdaiw in verse 13. 
That Scaeva, as distinct from his sons, 
was ever in Ephesus is not stated. 

The question of how many brothers 
were involved is not plain. Whether 
there were seven or two or a number 
VOL. IV 



which is not specified is involved in 
the problem of the variants in the 
text (see Addit. Note 23), and prob 
ably cannot be determined with any 
degree of security. 

a certain] The text varies be 
tween TITOS (BD pesh hl in s etc.) and 
TLves (XAS~). Ropes prefers rivts in 
spite of the evidence, because the sons, 
not the father, are the persons in 
troduced. But in Luke s practice rts 
is used to apologize, as it were, for a 
foreign word here for the obviously 
strange name Scaeva. 

Scaeva] The Greek name is found 
in GIG. 2889, and seems to be the 
Latin Scaeva. There is no evidence 
that it was a Jewish name, still less 
that it ever was used by a member 
of a high-priestly family. 

high priest] D reads te/^w?. This 
may be an attempt to soften the im 
probable apxifpfus, or it may be the 
influence of the Latin on D. The 
Old Latin seems inclined to render 
dpxiepevs by sacerdos. Cf. iv. 1, v. 27, 
vii. 1, ix. 14, 21, xxiii. 4 (Cypr.), 
14. This may represent an original 
Western preference for iepeus, but is 
more likely to be a Latin characteristic. 
The Michigan papyrus reads apxiepfas. 

16. all] If there were seven sons 
the normal translation of d/nfiortpuv 
is clearly impossible, and one must 
fall back either on the assumption of 
textual corruption or regard d/nfiorepuv 
as an instance of the rather late usage 
by which it equals irdv ran-. This usage 
was denied by J. B. Bury in the Class. 
Review, xi., 1897, pp. 393 ff. He 
believed that in passages using d/m.(f)6- 
repoi for more than two persons, the 
implication was that they formed 
two groups, so that here we should 
understand it as meaning both the 
sons and Scaeva. He subsequently 
R 



242 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



fled naked and wounded from that house. And this was known 17 
to all, both Jews and Greeks, residing in Ephesus ; and fear fell 
on all of them, and the name of the Lord Jesus was glorified. 
And many of those who had believed came and confessed and 18 
revealed their spells. And some of those who practised magic 19 



admitted in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 
xi., 1902, p. Ill, the existence of a 
case in Theodore of Studium in the 
ninth century A.D. where d/j.&lt;poTtpwt&gt; 
rCjv i)yov/ui.^v(i}v means the abbots of 
four monasteries. Meanwhile Eb. 
Nestle pressed the application of the 
idiom to this passage, Berl. Phil. 
Wochenschr. xviii., 1898, col. 254; 
xx., 1900, col. 1467 f. ; Expos. Times, 
xii., 1900, p. 144. Since then the 
papyri (cf . P Gen i. 67. 5 ; 69. 4, and 
P Lond 336) have enabled us to carry 
the idiom farther back, apparently to 
the second century A.D. The present 
passage in Acts may be regarded as 
a slightly earlier instance and under 
stood as meaning all seven sons. It 
is possible that xxiii. 8 is another 
instance of this idiom. On that pass 
age Ammonius, the sixth-century (?) 
commentator, says (Cramer, Catena, 
iii. p. 368) o"r)/j.ei&lt;j}Teov OTL rj X^is i] 
\eyovaa dfJ.(poTepa ov /j.6vov wepl dvo 
X^yet, tiircp Kvpius 77X01 TO, d/j-fibrepa, 
dXXa Kal irepl rpi&v. (See Moulton 
and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v.) 

fled naked] Cf. Mark xiv. 51 f., 
Genesis xxxix. 12, Amos ii. 16. 
Escape from assault by leaving the 
outer garment in the hands of the 
assailant is nothing unusual, yv/mvos 
sometimes means with the XITWP only, 
without the L^CLTLOV (or cr^duv see 
commentaries on Mark loc. cit.). 

house] This belated mention of the 
house is somewhat awkward but quite 
in the manner of Luke. See the 
references to a city in Luke vii. 37, 
viii. 27, ix. 5. 

17-20. Both this passage and xix. 
1 1 f . make on me the impression that 
they may be editorial summaries in 
tended to lead up to and from the 
story of Scaeva, which was not part of 
his source but had come to the editor 
incidentally. Into the second sum 
mary he inserts a further small detail, 
the destruction of the magical books, 
which he had heard somewhere (cf. 



iv. 36). The main source then goes on 
with vs. 21. 

18. confessed] eo/zoXo7oi /ze / oi and 
di&gt;ayyt\\ovTs do not necessarily imply 
disclosure of secrets, though the former 
is liable to be so misunderstood from 
its frequent English translation as con 
fession of sins. But the confession 
of sins is emphasized both in Judaism 
and in pagan religion. Plutarch, De 
superst. 1 (p. 168 D), says ^ayopetieiv 
ras a/jLaprias was characteristic of 
the superstitious. The same verb is 
used of confession in inscriptions (F. 
Steinleitner, Die Beicht in Zusammen- 
hange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege, 
1913, p. 109), in the LXX and in 
Philo (e.g. Deexsecr. 163 c^ayopeixrav- 
res 5 /cat 6/j,o\oyr]ffai&gt;Ts ocra ij/naprov), 
and would have been appropriate here 
if that was meant. Did Luke use 
dvayyt\\ovTs in the same way ? 

spells] ?r/)deis and the verb -rrpdaa-w 
are frequently used of evil deeds (see 
Vol. II. p. 136, note), and that may 
well be the meaning here, but the 
noun also has the technical meaning 
of magic spell, so that the prob 
able meaning here is that the former 
exorcists now disclosed the secret 
formulae that they had used. (See 
note on vss. 13-19, quoting P Paris 
574.) This would be an act of re 
nunciation like the burning of the 
scrolls on which they were written. 
It was customary to keep the charms 
secret, and to tell them to others or 
to supply written copies only for the 
payment of considerable money. 

19. magic] irepiepya = curiosa, 
which is also used in Latin as a 
euphemism for magic, irepiepyoi are 
found frequently in Vettius Valens 
(see Kroll s index) always in bad 
company, perhaps as magicians, but in 
Test. XII. Pair, (see Charles s index), 
though associated as here with 7rpdas 
(Trpdaaa)), the words ireplepyos, -d^o/aai 
have their more general meaning of 
meddler, busybody (2 Thess. iii. 11; 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



243 



brought together their books and burnt them before everyone, 
and they counted up their value and made it fifty thousand 
pieces of silver. 

20 Thus mightily was the word of the Lord growing and gaining 
strength. 



21 



And when this was finished Paul was inspired to purpose to 



1 Tim. v. 13). For the magical asso 
ciations of -nepiepya and 7rpdas see 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 323, note 5. 

books] This rendering of /3t/3\&lt;w 
probably suggests more than is meant. 
The pi(3\oi of the magicians were 
doubtless parchments or papyri of 
relatively small size with magical 
charms written on them. /3t /3Xos as 
distinct from fiiSXiov seems often to 
connote * sacred or magical. 

burnt] A common method of re 
pudiating a form of thought. Cf . Livy 
xl. 29 (magical writings) and Suetonius, 
Augustus 31 (prophetic books other 
than the Sibylline oracles), Diogenes 
Laertius ix. 52 (of Protagoras), and 
Lucian, Alexander 47 (of Epicurus). 
Wettstein cites other examples. Its 
adoption by Christian theologians ex 
plains the loss of the Diatessaron, of 
many of the works of Origen, and of 
almost all Gnostic and heretical writers. 

before everyone] The publicity is 
an essential feature of such literary 
autos-da-fe, and is mentioned in the 
passages quoted above from Livy (in 
comitio ... in conspectu populi), Dio 
genes Laertius, and Lucian (in the 
dyopd). 

fifty thousand] Said to be the 
equivalent of 2000, but in the absence 
of exact information as to the cost of 
living such figures do not really give 
much information. The unit of money 
is not mentioned in the Greek, and 
commentators simply assume that 
dpax^ai is to be understood. The 
omission of the word (or its symbol) 
can hardly be paralleled even from 
the papyri and ostraca with all their 
simple money reckonings. But dpyv- 
piov fjivpiddes without the name of the 
unit of money (probably either de 
narius or Spa-x^y since the two were 
equivalent) occurs in literature, as for 
example in Josephus, Ant. xvii. 8. 1, 



189 f., which gives dpyvplov 
/uy&gt;tdes x ^ as as the equivalent of 
XiMa rdAc^ra, B.J. i. 32. 7, 646; 
Plutarch, Galba, 17 (p. 1060) /ecu 
trpoviriev 6 Ti7e\XtVo5 avrrj Trevre /ecu 
eiKotn pvpiddas dpyvpiov. 

20. the word of the Lord] An 
alternative rendering would be, So 
according to the power of the Lord 
the word grew, etc. In favour of this 
might be alleged the fact that 6 \6yos 
is found elsewhere without qualifica 
tion with the meaning of * the Christian 
mission, and that it is not found with 
a precedent genitive. But on the 
other hand /card /cpdros is a well-known 
adverbial phrase, which, however, 
more often means violently than 
mightily. 

21-41. PAUL S CHANGE OF PLANS 

AND THE PvIOT AT EPHESUS. This 

is the real beginning of Paul s last 
journey to Jerusalem. It marks the 
time when he decided to change his 
centre of work from Ephesus to Rome, 
just as he had previously changed it 
from Antioch to Corinth, and from 
Corinth to Ephesus. 

The usual division of Paul s work 
into three journeys is probably foreign 
to the mind of the writer. He regards 
Paul as having settled first in Tarsus, 
whence he was summoned by Barna 
bas ; next in Antioch, whence he made 
a missionary journey to Cyprus and 
the cities in the south of the province 
of Galatia, returning to Antioch. 
Later on he proposed to repeat this 
visit, but a quarrel with Barnabas 
drove him farther afield. Leaving 
Barnabas to go to Cyprus (and 
probably to Galatia) he hurried 
through the Galatian cities, passed 
through Asia, and began a mission 
in Macedonia, Achaia, and Ephesus. 
Ephesus now became his centre, just 



244 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



pass through Macedonia and Achaia and to go to Jerusalem, 
saying, " After I have been there I must also see Rome." And 22 
he sent to Macedonia two of those who were serving him, 
Timothy and Erastus, and he stayed some time longer. 



as Antioch had been. Then he de 
termined to go back once more to 
Jerusalem not to Antioch as a pre 
liminary to moving yet farther west 
ward, to Rome itself. In this decision 
he was guided by the Spirit, and 
throughout the account of the journey 
Luke emphasizes the constant action 
of the Spirit, which in every city 
warned Paul that affliction awaited 
him in Jerusalem (cf. xx. 22, and note 
how characteristically Luke illustrates 
this by introducing the inspired warn 
ings of the Church at Tyre and of 
Agabus in xxi. 4 and 11 f.). In this 
dramatic account of a journey to 
Jerusalem, undertaken at the bidding 
of the Spirit, which nevertheless 
warned him of affliction at the end of 
the journey, Luke was surely aware 
of the parallel with the last journey 
of Jesus to Jerusalem, and the pre 
dictions of suffering which marked its 
progress. Nevertheless, in the mind 
of the writer of Acts, the important 
point was not that Paul was going to 
Jerusalem, but that he was going to 
Rome, which would thereafter be his 
centre of operations as first Antioch 
and then Corinth and Ephesus had 
been. One of the strongest arguments 
in favour of the theory that Luke 
intended to write a third book is 
the absence in Acts of any detailed 
account of what Paul actually did 
when he reached Rome. His relations 
with the Jews are described, but his 
missionary work is dismissed in a 
single verse. Cf . pp. 349 f . 

21. when this was finished] ravra 
probably means this series of events. 
Possibly it may refer to try in verse 
10, and Tr\r}pw6tj suggests the end of 
a definite period. But TT} seems too 
far away from ravra for this theory 
to be probable. 

was inspired to purpose] This is 
probably the meaning of gOero v ry 
Trvevfj-art, and the alternative render 
ing, * purposed in spirit, excludes the 
meaning that the plan was due to the 
Ht)ly Spirit. But the rendering given 



is not sufficiently ambiguous, for the 
possibility cannot be wholly denied 
that rLdeadai fv T Trpei^uan is merely 
a synonym of rideadat v ry icapdig. (cf. 
Luke i. 66, xxi. 14; Acts v. 4). A 
similar problem is presented by r$ 
Trvet/jLaTi. in xviii. 25 and in xx. 22. 
In each case it is doubtful whether it 
means the Holy Spirit or the human 
spirit. The journey referred to is 
doubtless the same as that in 2 Cor. 
i. 15, and the two extant epistles to 
the Corinthians show how much took 
place after he left Corinth (xviii. 18) 
(see note on vss. 1-20) of which Acts 
says nothing. 

22. two] For the author s tendency 
to represent deputations as containing 
two persons see note on ix. 38. Paul s 
associates are mentioned in pairs in 
xix. 29, and to some extent in xx. 4, 
xxvii. 1 (Aristarchus and me ), but 
not so often in Paul s letters. We 
have Titus and the brother in 2 Cor. 
viii. 16-18, but at least one other 
brother in vss. 22 f. 

Timothy] According to 1 Cor. iv. 17, 
xvi. 10, Timothy was to go to Corinth. 
This may be the mission here re 
ferred to (Lake, Earlier Epistles, pp. 
134 f .), but it may have been an earlier 
occasion. On the hypothesis that 
Philippians was written from Ephesus 
this mission of Timothy to Macedonia 
may be the one anticipated in Phil. ii. 
19-23. This visit is followed by one 
from Paul himself (xx. 1), just as was 
also anticipated in Phil. ii. 24. 

Erastus] An Erastus is mentioned 
in Rom. xvi. 23 and called the OLKOVO/JLOS 
of the city (i.e. Corinth), and in 2 Tim. 
iv. 20 we read that Erastus stayed 
at Corinth. But it is quite uncertain 
whether these passages all refer to the 
same person. Possibly, too, Erastus 
was one of the unnamed * brethren 
of Paul in 2 Cor. viii. 23. 

A recently discovered inscription 
at Corinth mentions an Erastus who 
apparently held office as aedile. The 
text is ERASTUS PRO AED S 
P STRAVIT. For his date, status 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



245 



23 And there was at that time no little commotion about the Way. 

2 4 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, making silver shrines 



and possible identity with a Christian 
Erastus see H. J. Cadbury, J.B.L. 1., 
1931, pp. 122-138. 

23-41. Some of the local colour of 
this vivid narrative is illustrated by 
the results of the excavations carried 
oninEphesus by English and Austrian 
archaeologists and published princi 
pally in Discoveries at Ephesus, by 
J. T. Wood, 1877; Ancient Greek In 
scriptions in the British Museum, 
parts iii. (ed. by E. L. Hicks, 1890) 
and iv. 2 (ed. by F. H. Marshall, 
1916) ; Forschungen in Ephesos ver- 
offentlicht vom osterreichischen archdo- 
logischen Institute, i. (1906), ii. (1912), 
iii. (1923), preceded by Jahreshefte of 
the same institution. For its applica 
tion to Acts see Bludau, Katholik, 
Ixxxvi. (1906) pp. 81 ff., 201 ff., 258 ff.; 
C. M. Cobern, The New Archaeological 
Discoveries, 1917, pp. 461 ff.; L. 
Schneller, Paulus, 1923, pp. 247 ff. 
Among many books and articles on 
Ephesus the following are important : 
G. A. Zimmermann, Ephesos im ersten 
christl. Jahrhundert, 1874 ; J. B. Light- 
foot, The Acts illustrated by Recent 
Discoveries, Contemporary Review, 
xxxii. (May 1878), pp. 292 ff. ( = 
Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 
291 ff.); W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul 
at Ephesus, Expositor, July 1890, 
pp. 1 ff . ( = The Church in the Roman 
Empire, chap, vii.); J. Weiss, Prot. 
Realencyk. x., 1901, pp. 543 ff.; A. 
Pincherle, Paolo a Ef eso in Recherche 
Religiose, iii. (1927), pp. 422 ff. ; R. 
Tonneau, Ephese au temps de Saint 
Paul in Revue Biblique, xxxviii. 
(1929), pp. 5ff., 321 ff. 

It is probable that the trouble 
went far further than Acts describes ; 
indeed, comparison with the epistles 
always suggests that Acts understates 
the dangers which Paul underwent. 
In any case, either at this time or at 
another during his stay at Ephesus, 
Paul was in such serious trouble that 
he despaired even of life (2 Cor. 
i. 8). This passage might be referred 
to the riot at Ephesus, but it seems 
excessive language for anything de 
scribed. Paul was not in the mob, 
and his friends and the Asiarchs 



prevented him from endangering him 
self. Similarly the expression in 1 Cor. 
XV. 32 fl /card avdpuirov e^pto/xdxTjcra 
ev E06TV cannot refer to the riot. 
The epistle was probably written 
before it, and it would seem naturally 
to mean that Paul was in a position 
which rendered fighting with beasts 
a possibility. It is not likely to be 
used merely as a metaphor, and even 
if it were it would mean a high degree 
of danger. From this argument it has 
been concluded that Paul probably 
suffered imprisonment while in Ephe 
sus, and the further suggestion has 
been made that Philippians and 
Colossians might belong to this im 
prisonment. It is certainly true that 
the setting of Philemon the story of 
a slave who ran away from Hierapolis 
or Colossae fits Ephesus much better 
than it does Rome, or even Caesarea. 
(See G. S. Duncan, St. Paul s Ephesian 
Ministry, 1930.) 

24. silversmith] Dittenberger, 
Sylloge 2 873 lt quotes an inscription 
from Smyrna which refers to the 
avvepyacrLa (guild?) of silversmiths 
and gold-founders (xpi &lt;rox&lt;W). 

silver] B omits, probably by acci 
dent. 

shrines] Chrysostom points out 
in his commentary that he does 
not know exactly what this means, 
and archaeologists have not found any 
silver shrines of the kind described 
by commentators. The custom of 
having terra-cotta shrines, or minia 
ture temples, is well established, but 
there is a complete lack of evidence 
that they were made of silver. E. L. 
Hicks, editor of the corpus of Ephe 
sian inscriptions, pointed out that 
i&gt;ew7roi6s (or J cto7roi6s) was the official 
title of a board of wardens or vestry 
of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. 
There appear to have been twelve, 
two for each of the six tribes. In 
the Expositor, i. (1890), pp. 401 ff., he 
made the brilliant suggestion that 
Demetrius was a silversmith who 
was also veuiroibs, and that Luke s 
phrase, vaovs woiuv, is a misunder 
standing of his title. Presumably 
his interest in the cult of Artemis 



246 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



of Artemis, provided the craftsmen with considerable profit, and 25 
called together them and the workmen in such crafts, and said, 
" Gentlemen, you know that from this business comes our 
affluence, and you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but 26 
in almost the whole of Asia, this fellow Paul has persuaded and 
perverted a great multitude, saying that those which are made 
by hands are not gods. And there is risk for us not only that 27 



was that he made silver statuettes 
of Artemis of a kind familiar to 
archaeologists. Hicks went further 
and identified him with a Demetrius 
who is mentioned as a veuiroids in 
Brit. Mus. Ins. iii. 2, 578. His first 
suggestion seems extremely probable, 
as even supposing that this part of 
Acts is the first-hand observation of an 
eye-witness, he is quite likely to have 
misunderstood such a curious phrase 
os = vestryman when it 



obviously ought to mean * maker of a 
temple. Official titles are very easy 
for a stranger to misinterpret. For 
instance, comparatively few foreigners 
understand what is meant in English 
when an eminent judge is described 
as an Elder Brother of the Trinity. 

Artemis] See Addit. Note 21. 

profit] tpyacria, which like busi 
ness means * profit as well as work. 

* Profit seems here the preferable 
meaning. As a silversmith he was 
doubtless a manufacturer of the 
silver images of Artemis or Astarte, 
of which there are many examples, 
and so gave work to the Texvirai, 
who were the skilled workmen who 
manufactured them, and doubtless 
to the merchants who sold them. 
The epydrai in the next sentence 
means workmen. Demetrius was 
trying to organize the whole trade 
manufacturers, retailers, and work 
men in a common protest against 
revolutionary movements, and if 
Hicks s emendation be accepted was 
exploiting his position as a veuTroids 
to inflame religious and patriotic 
sentiment to his economic interest. 

26. at Ephesus] This rendering 
does not quite represent the difficulty 
of the Greek. Are E^^croi; and Ac-fas 
genitives of place an unusual idiom 

or are they dependent on 6x\ov 
which is a strange use in Greek, 



though frequent in English, the 
crowd of Ephesus ? See Moulton, 
Grammar, i. 73. 

Asia] There is nothing to show 
whether the word is used in a Roman 
or local sense. Ramsay advocated 
a narrower meaning (Asia Ephesus 
and the neighbouring Greek cities) in 
ORE. p. 166, but interpreted it as 
meaning Asia provincia in PTRC. 
p. 278. It may even mean Asia in 
the widest sense (as contrasted with 
Europe), for the context calls for the 
most exaggerated statement possible. 

27. The construction is clumsy but 
not impossible in the B text. It 
consists of a string of infinitives, 
4\deiv . . . \oyi&lt;T B rjfai . . . fjL^XXeiv 
Kadaipdadai, all dependent on KIV- 
8vvevL. I do not feel so sure as 
Ropes that this is not the original. 
The great difficulty of the sentence 
is the meaning of TOUTO r& //.epos cis 
Xdelv, and of the genitive 



risk for us, etc.] Though the 
general sense is clear, the exact mean 
ing of this sentence is obscured by 
doubts attaching to the meaning of 
dir\yfj.6s and /mtpos. (i.) a.7re\ey/j.6s is 
apparently an #7ra \eyoij.evov, but its 
obvious connexion with A^yxw sug 
gests that its primary meaning is 
refutation or exposure, and so 
disrepute. (ii.) /xfyos, which clearly 
cannot have its primary sense of 
part or division, might mean 
affair, a sense most often found in 
the phrase tv roury ry ptpei = in this 
respect. Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3; 
1 Pet. iv. 16, v. 1; and Polybius 
xviii. 35 (18) 2 rr)i&gt; -wiuTiv iv rovri^ Tip 
/j.epi 5ia.&lt;f)v\6.TTLv, but Moulton and 
Milligan claim that P Flor i. 89. 2 shows 
that /x^pos was used in the sense of 
line of business. In the belief that 
they are probably right the rendering 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



247 



the business come into disrepute, but the temple of the great 
goddess Artemis may be reputed as nothing, and she whom all 
Asia and the civilized world worships may be deprived of her 
28 majesty." And when they heard him and became full of anger 
they cried out, saying, " Great is Artemis of the Ephesians." 



given above has been tentatively 
accepted, though it must be admitted 
that the evidence is slight. It gives 
an interestingly cynical turn to the 
speech of Demetrius. Perhaps the 
tone of the sentence might be given 
by that our business will be shown 
up. But is dire\ey[ji,6s a literary or a 
colloquial word ? 

It is noteworthy that the attack on 
Christianity comes not from the priests 
of Artemis, but from those engaged 
in the making of * accessories. Simi 
larly in Bithynia, Pliny (Epp. x. 96) 
attributes to the spread of Christianity 
the decline in the business of supply 
ing fodder for sacrificial victims in 
the temples. So also in the reign of 
Queen Elizabeth the guild of fish 
mongers was the zealous advocate of 
the custom of abstinence from meat 
on Fridays. 

temple] This temple had been 
famous as one of the seven wonders 
of the world. The burning of the 
earlier structure by Herostratus was a 
notable synchronism in history. The 
later structure was located on the 
seashore (Pliny, N.H. ii. 87) outside 
the city (hence CIG. 2963c r/ neydX-q 
6ea"A.pTfji.is irpb 7r6Xews, cf. Acts xiv. 
13). The site of the temple and some 
ruins were discovered by Wood and 
have permitted a tentative recon 
struction of the building. Cf. J. 
Fergusson, The Temple of Diana at 
Ephesus, 1883. 

whom] rjv probably refers to the god 
dess, though grammatically it may 
equally be taken with fj.eya\ei6TT]s. 

the civilized world] See on xi. 28. 
The archaeological evidence alone, as 
collected by Wernicke in Pauly-Wis- 
sowa ii. 1385, shows over thirty places 
where the reverence for Ephesian 
Artemis is attested. 

Apparently the widespread worship 
of the Ephesian Artemis rather than 
its decline is claimed in like fashion in 
Brit. Mus. Inscr. iii. 482s (c. A.D. 161) : 



d]XXa /ecu Trapa 



e7rei5?7 17 Tr]poe&lt;rTw&lt;ra TTJS TroXews ij/ 

debs "ApTe[[jus 
ov fj.bvov] iv TTJ eavTTJs irarpidi [ 

~ 5ia rrjs idias 0ei6- 



re K[CU 



So Ramsay, Class. Rev. viii., 1893, 
pp. 78 f ., against E. L. Hicks, the first 
editor, whose restorations are in part 
given. (See also Addit. Note 21.) 

28. anger] The Western text 
adds, "they ran to the square 



Great is Artemis] The same cry is 
raised in the theatre (vs. 34) where 
Codex Vaticanus picturesquely gives 
the phrase twice over. Cf. Luke 
xxiii. 21 ; John xix. 6, 15. Pallia is 
probably right in saying that this 
was the usual way of cheering, though 
his examples from Heliodorus viii. 9 
and 15 are not so good as those taken 
after Wettstein from Aristides i. 467, 
471 Dindorf (in both instances /Sodw 
and /x^yas 6 A&lt;rK\r)iri6s). Cf. in the 
LXX Bel and the Dragon 18 /mtya s 
cffrlv 6 B??X, 41 /j.tyas ecrri Kvpios 6 6e6s 
(Theodotion in both cases has the 
second person el). The cry is also 
very common in Christian sources 
and is now abundantly illustrated in 
E. Peterson, Eft Qe6s, 1926, pp. 
196 ff ., and Wortregister, s.v. * Mya? 
Akklamation. He suggests (p. 199) 
the influence of the Greek romances 
on these passages. 

The attributive use of ptyas with 
the name of a god as in vss. 27 and 
35 (cf. viii. 10) is entirely appropriate, 
as is shown in the dissertation M^yas 
9e6s by Br. Miiller (Halle, 1913), and 
is attested for Artemis from literature 
and Ephesian inscriptions (ibid. pp. 
331 ff.; Ramsay, GEE. pp. 135 ff.). 
There is another reference to her 
majesty in the expressive word for 
divine greatness fj,eya\ci6Tr)s in vs. 
27. 



248 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



And the city was filled with confusion, and they rushed together 29 
into the theatre after seizing Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, 
Paul s fellow-travellers. And when Paul wished to go to the 30 
people the disciples did not let him ; and some of the Asiarchs, 31 
who were friends of his, sent to him and begged him not to 
venture into the theatre. Thus different persons were uttering 32 
different cries, for the meeting was in confusion and the majority 



29. confusion] (ru7%i &lt;rews. Luke has 
a particularly rich vocabulary of words 
suitable for scenes like these. The 
corresponding verb is used several 
times in Acts. An example of the 
noun is found in Brit. Mus. Inscr. 
792. 4 ff., an inscription from Cnidus 
which in other details illustrates the 
language of Acts. It runs : 6 /j.ev da/mos 
(vss. 30, 34) ev ov peTpiq (cf. xx. 12) 
avyx^vffei yevb/mevos . . . /x,erd Trdcras 
wpoOvaias (xvii. 11) &lt;rvv\6wi&gt; et s TO 
Otarpov (vs. 29). 

theatre] This building s location, 
size, and history are thoroughly in 
dicated by modern excavations of its 
well-preserved ruins. Its capacity 
has been estimated at nearly 25,000. 

Gaius and Aristarchus, Mace 
donians] According to the natural 
rendering of xx. 4 Aristarchus came 
from Thessalonica, but Gaius came 
from Derbe. It is tempting, therefore, 
to read here Ma/ce5&lt;W, applying the 
word to Aristarchus only. The plural 
MaKedovas may be a slip of the writer, 
or a case of primitive dittography in 
duced by the initial cr of the next word. 
(See also note on xvi. 1.) But Gaius 
is a common name (cf. Rom. xvi. 
23, 1 Cor. i. 14, 3 John 1), and 
there may have been one in Mace 
donia as well as in Derbe. The 
name Aristarchus is found in Acts 
xxvii. 2, Col. iv. 10, Philemon 24. 
This is probably the same as the 
Aristarchus of this verse. It is a well- 
attested name in Macedonia. The 
politarchs first named on Thessalonian 
inscriptions of this century or the 
next (cf. note on xvii. 6) include an 
Apiarapxos TOU Apttrrd/o^ou (Demitsas, 
H MaKeSovla, Athens, 1896, No. 
368) as well as Sosipatros the son of 
Cleopatra and of Lucius Pontius 
Secundus (ibid. No. 364). Cf. the 



Macedonian Christians Sopatros of 
Beroea (Sosipatros, Rom. xvi. 21) 
and Secundus of Thessalonica in 
Acts xx. 4. 

30. people] S^ov is unlikely to 
mean assembly. The view of the 
Secretary was that it was a riot, and 
not an jwo/uos 6KK\rjaia. 

31. Asiarchs] See Addit. Note 22. 

32. meeting] Here and in verse 41 
this gathering is called e/c/cXvyo-ia, which 
is the right name for the duly con 
stituted public assembly of Ephesus. 
The inscriptions of Ephesus constantly 
refer to the ^KK\T)&lt;ria and they indicate 
that it was held in the theatre. 
Cf. Brit. Mus. Inscr. iii. 481. 394 
(A.D. 104) rd aireiK.ovlffiJ.aTa iravTa TTJS 
Oeov (peptTuaav .... Kara iraaav 
KK\ri&lt;rlav eis TO Oearpov ; Forschungen 
in Ephesos, ii. pp. 147 ff., a bilingual 
inscription of the same date found in 
the theatre concerning a silver Artemis 
and two other silver images &TIVO. 
Kaditpwcrev Iva Tidr)i&gt;Tai /car" eKKKyffiav 
(and in Latin also omni ecclesia) cirl 
TUV fiacreuv. Cf. Dittenberger, OGIS. 
No. 480. That in other cities also the 
eKK\rj(ria met in the theatre is amply 
evidenced by both inscriptions and 
literature. (See J. Krebs, Deer eta 
Romanorum pro ludaeis, 1768, pp. 
421 ff.; Branch s in Pauly-Wissowa, v. 
col. 2169.) This would seem to imply 
that we have here to do with a gather 
ing qualified to transact business. On 
the other hand the theatre was also 
the natural meeting-place for im 
promptu gatherings. See the examples 
from literature in Wettstein with 
verbs like (ap^-rjcrav here ; and for in 
scriptions see Brit. MILS. Inscr. 792. 
4 ff . The only question is whether 
^KK\r)aia (vss. 32, 41) and orj/mos (vss. 
30, 33) could be used of a mass meet 
ing or riot as could avaTpofir] (vs. 40) 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



249 



33 did not know why they had come together. And at the instiga 
tion of the Jews some of the crowd put forward Alexander, and 
Alexander motioned with his hand and wished to make a defence 

34 to the people. But when they recognized that he was a Jew 
there was a single cry from them all, howling for about two 
hours, " Great is Artemis of the Ephesians, great is Artemis of 

35 the Ephesians." But the Secretary quieted the crowd and said, 

as hopeless by distinguished com 
mentators, and it still needs more 
light. But the LXX meaning is not 
quite impossible. 

make a defence] Apparently the 
meeting showed signs of becoming 
an anti-Jewish pogrom. There is 
no reason to suppose that Jews means 
Jewish Christians or that Alexander 
wished to defend Paul, but it must 
be admitted that the relation of 
Alexander to the controversy is as 
obscure as the position of Sosthenes 
in xviii. 17. The obscurity is not 
relieved by the verbs used, for aw- 
f3i(3acrai&gt; is extremely doubtful, and 
7rpoj3a.\\w is ambiguous, as it means 
elsewhere (a) to choose, appoint, 
(6) to accuse, as well as (c) to put 
forward. 

34. On the variants in the text 
which Ramsay discussed in ORE. 
139 ff., PTRC. p. 279, see also E. 
Peterson, Eft 0e6s, pp. 199 f. 

when they recognized] Note 
the irregular eiriyvbvTes . . . (frwvr) 
tytvero. This might be called a 
nominative absolute, but it is really 
nothing more than a sense con 
struction, calling for no explanation 
except from grammarians. 

a single cry from them all] E. 
Peterson, op. cit., note on vs. 28, 
illustrates this kind of phrase in 
acclamation, e.g. /jaq. (pwvy i^Kpa^av. 
Cf. Apoc. Petri v. 19, also 6/j.obv/madov in 
Acts iv. 24, Philo, Legatio 356, and 
6/J.o0vfjia86i&gt; iv evi crro/xart in Rom. XV. 6. 

Great, etc.] These words are re 
peated only in B. It may be a ditto- 
graphy ; if so, it is a happy one. 

35. the Secretary] The ypa/u,/jiaT(vs 
TOV drjuov was the executive officer who 
issued the decrees of the dij^os. He 
might be, but usually was not, an 
Asiarch (see also Addit. Note 22). 

quieted] /caraoreXXo; in this sense 



and #xAos (vss. 33, 35). See the note 
on legal assembly (vs. 39). 

33. some of the crowd] Probably 
K rod 8x\ov is the subject of the 
sentence. For this rather barbarous 
construction cf. Luke xxi. 16 (where e 
v^Q&gt;v is used as an accusatival phrase), 
Acts xxi. 16, John vii. 40, xvi. 17. 
It would be possible to render they 
put forward Alexander from the 
crowd, but the position of 6x\oi and 
the undefined they seem to militate 
against the rendering. 

put forward] (rvvef3il3a&lt;ra.i&gt; is pre 
sumed to mean this from the con 
text. The same guess seems to be 
involved in the paraphrase of the 
Peshitto, and in the Western read 
ing KaTejttpacrav and in the Antiochian 
n-poepipaa-av. But there is no evi 
dence to confirm the guess. The verb 
crvfMpipdfa occurs three times in Acts ; 
each time the context suggests a 
different sense, and one not well 
attested elsewhere for the verb. In 
the LXX it clearly means instruct, 
and though in ix. 22 &lt;rvnfii{$awv 8ri 
o5r6s dffTiv 6 Xpttrros is usually and 
naturally rendered proving, the 
LXX meaning is possible. In xvi. 10 



6 debs evayyeXiffaffdai. avrotis) it is 
usually rendered conjecturing or 
inferring, but the examples adduced 
from Plato in support of this render 
ing are not altogether pertinent. As 
to the present passage there is no 
consensus of opinion. If we associate 
it with the other two passages in Acts 
it may mean that the crowd in 
structed Alexander what to say, or 
else that, not knowing what the 
meeting was for, they conjectured 
that Alexander was the occasion of 
the difficulty. Evidently, to judge 
from the variants, the word puzzled 
early scribes. It has been given up 



250 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



:&lt; Why, men of Ephesus, what human being is there who does 
not know that the city of the Ephesians is a temple-guardian of 
the great Artemis and of that which fell from heaven ? There- 36 



is not unusual in Hellenistic writers. 
Cf. Josephus (BJ. ii. 21. 5, iv. 4. 4, 
Antiq. xx. 8. 7, and in 2 Mace. iv. 31). 
The participle KaretrraX/^fos (vs. 36) is 
also found in Epictetus iv. 4. 10, Diod. 
Siculus i. 96, and BGU. 1192. 5. 

Why] Some such addition must be 
made to render this common Greek 
idiom of yap at the beginning of a 
question. Cf . viii. 31 and Matt, xxvii. 
23. It might be translated, but rather 
clumsily, Be still, for . . . 

temple-guardian] veuxopos, origin 
ally applied to individuals, was trans 
ferred to peoples and cities. It in 
dicated that they wished especially 
to honour a given god and became in 
itself a title of honour to the city. 
It is used particularly in the Emperor 
worship in Asia Minor, but doubtless 
that took the place of an earlier 
usage relating to other deities. There 
is a reference to Ephesus as vewubpos 
rijs Aprefjudos in GIG. 2972; cf. 
Benndorf, Forschungen in Ephesos, i. 
p. 21 1. If the worship of the emperors 
was combined with the local worship 
of Artemis, the union of neocorates 
would be possible. Cf. note on xiv. 
13 and Additional Note 22. On the 
neocorate, and especially that of 
Ephesus, cf. Dittenberger, OGIS. 481 ; 
Head, Historia numorum, p. 498 ; J. 
Weiss in Prot. Eeal-encykl. x. 543 f . ; 
W. Biichner, De neocoria, 1888. 

that which fell from heaven] 
dio-n-erris is used of meteorites or other 
objects sent from the skies. It is not 
known what this particular otoTrer^s 
was, but it is a reasonable conjecture 
that some symbol of Artemis was 
supposed to have had a supernatural 
origin such as was afterwards not 
uncommonly claimed for Christian 
icons, for instance the Portaissa at 
Iveron on Mt. Athos which was 
brought to the monastery by the 
Virgin herself. The symbol of the 
Great Mother brought to Rome from 
Pessinus is supposed to have been 
a meteorite. (For the cult of Artemis 
see Addit. Note 21.) Reverence for 
meteorites is common among primi 



tive religions both ancient and modern. 
Compare Torston ( = Thor s Stone), a 
place near Oxford in England. 

In Greek and Roman religion such 
objects were honoured at many places, 
as for example the representation of the 
Great Mother which was mentioned 
above, and earlier the Palladium at 
Troy. See the examples and refer 
ences in Wikenhauser, Die Apostel- 
geschichte, pp. 364 f. The image of 
Artemis of Tauris is said to have 
fallen from heaven (Euripides, Iph. 
Taur. 87 f., 1384 f.), but except for the 
author of Acts no ancient writer 
implies the same of the Artemis of 
Ephesus. 

Whether it was so intended or not 
the phrase StoTrer^s is a kind of answer 
to the Christian (and Jewish) objection 
to images as made by human hands, 
as quoted by Demetrius in this scene 
(vs. 26 8ia \eLp(Jov yn&gt;6fj,ei 0i). At 
Athens Paul declares that God does 
not dwell in temples made with hands 
(v xeipo7rot?7Tois vaols), is not served 
by human hands (ov8 virb x et P& v 
avdpuirlvuv depaireveraC), and ought not 
to be thought like to gold or silver or 
stone, engraved by the art or design 
of man (xapcty/uart rtxyW KC " ivQv^-r]- 
crews avdp&TTov). But the pagan felt 
of their meteorites not merely that 
their material was of supernatural 
origin, but also emphasized that their 
design was not the work of human 
hands and was superior to human art. 
So Herodian i. 11. 1 says of the stone 
from Pessinus avrb i&v rb &ya\fj.a 
5u7rers eZVai \y overt o&re d TT\V \J\T\V 
afire re^viTuiv oaris eTroLrjffeit eyvwcrnevov, 
ovdt tyavffTbv %et/)6s dvdpwirivrjs, and 
Cicero, In Verrem, ii. 5. 187, says 
"simulacrum Cereris . . . quod erat 
tale, ut homines, cum viderent, aut 
ipsam videre se Cererem aut effigiem 
Cereris non humana manu factam sed 
de caelo lapsam arbitrarentur." Thus 
the Christian gloried in an imageless 
God because it was not man-made, 
and the pagan likewise made exactly 
the same boast of his meteorite 
image. 



XIX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



251 



fore, since these facts are incontestable, you must be quiet and 

37 do nothing rash, for you have seized these men who are neither 

38 sacrilegious nor blaspheming our goddess. If then Demetrius 
and the tradesmen with him have a case against anyone, 
sessions are held and there are proconsuls ; let them accuse 



It should be observed that here 
there is nothing to indicate that the 
object was an image. The use of 
crude stones or aeroliths far from 
representative of human figures as 
symbols of deity was widespread in 
antiquity, especially in Asia Minor. 
See Pauly-Wissowa, ii. col. 2779 ff. 
s. v. Baitylia , and de Visser, Die nicht 
menschengest. Goiter d. Griech. So even 
of the re presentation of Cybele brought 
to Rome from Pessinus some of the 
many ancient writers who mention it 
imply that it was a small stone a 
natural j3airv\os while others speak 
of it as an &ya\fj.a, 6avov, simulacrum, 
d&lt;pi5pv/j.a or pperas. See Ernst Schmidt, 
Kultilbertragungen, 1909, p. 5, note 4, 
and the passages there referred to. 
On the Palladium see Frazer s note on 
Apollodorus, Bibl. iii. 12. 3 TO duTreres 
7ra\\ddiov. 

37 sacrilegious] Literally robbers 
of temples, but it came to mean 
sacrilege as being the real crime 
involved in robbing a temple as 
distinct from other robbery (see 
Ramsay, PTRC. pp. 281 f.). In spite 
of their scornful monotheism a good 
Jew (or Christian) would regard it as 
important to avoid violent offences 
against other religions. Cf. Rom. ii. 
22 6 ^deXvcrtro/mevos rot, ei SwXa lepocrv\eis , 
and especially Josephus, c. Apion. ii. 
33, 237; Antiq. iv. 8. 10, 207 
/yXacr^T/ftetTw de /u,?;5ets deous oOs 7r6Xets 
AXXat vofilfovffC fj.r)5e av\dv iepd evi.Kd. 
In like manner Philo, on the basis of 
Leviticus xxiv. 15 f., declares three 
times that Moses forbade the Jews to 
blaspheme. These defences of the 
Jews by Josephus and Philo (and even 
the LXX?) imply a charge against 
them of blaspheming Gentile gods 
(probably included under the terms 
dire/Seta or ddeorrjs), just as we know 
there was a charge against them of 
iepoav\ia. Manetho accused them of 
the latter in the time of Moses 
(Josephus, C. Apion. i. 26), and it 



was even said that Lepocr6\v/jt.a was 
named originally Iepb(rv\a because 
of such crimes (ibid. i. 34, 311). 
From the time of Paul to the time of 
Julian (c. Galil. p. 238 c ff.) the usual 
charges against the Jews were levelled 
against the Christians also. Perhaps 
this fact explains why Alexander the 
Jew appears in the theatre on his 
defence. The crowd would hardly dis 
tinguish Jew or Christian, Alexander 
or Paul. 

38. sessions are held] Apparently 
either r]fj,epai. or vvvodoi is to be supplied 
with dyopcuoi. For its use with ayw 
cf. Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 21, and 
Cagnat, Inscr. Graec. ad res Roman, 
pert. iv. 788 (cf. 789, 790, 1381, all 
from Asia Minor) iv y /ecu 77 dyopatos 
J7X07/. We find also dyopalov iroiclv 
(Strabo xiii. p. 629), dyopav tiyeiv 
(Philostr. Apollon. i. 12) or o-vvdyeiv 
(Strabo viii. p. 341), dyopav KCU trvvoSov 
iraptxeiv (Dio Chrys. Or. xxxiv. 14). 
dyopaios as in Acts is always with 
out the noun. In Egypt other words 
were apparently used technically. 
In P Oxy 471. 126 ... dyopaiov 
KpLTrjpi ... a foreigner is perhaps 
speaking. Wilcken, Archivf. Papyrus- 
forschung, iv., 1908, pp. 371 f ., compares 
with our combination here P Flor 
61. 46. OTTOV 8ia\oyi(Tfj.ol nai ijye /moves 
Tra.payiv6iJ.evoi. The * sessions and 
proconsuls are not two separate 
forms of recourse, but the conventus 
of citizens was held in each province 
at stated times and places with the 
governor presiding. See Kornemann, 
art. Conventus in Pauly-Wissowa, 
iv., 1900, coll. 1173ff. 

proconsuls] Presumably the num 
ber is either the effect of the previous 
plural dyopaloi or it means there 
are such people as proconsuls. There 
was never more than one proconsul 
in the same province at the same 
time. The general meaning is clear 
there are proconsular courts to which 
they can go. 



252 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XIX 



each other. But if you are seeking for further action it can 39 
be settled in the legal assembly. For we run the risk of 40 
being indicted for to-day s disturbance, since there is no cause 
which we can give as a reason for this hubbub." And when he 41 
said this he dismissed the meeting. 

After the disturbance had ceased Paul sent for the disciples, 20 i 
and with exhortation and farewell departed to go to Macedonia. 
And he went through those districts and exhorted them with 2 
much discourse and came to Greece ; and when he had stayed 3 



39. legal assembly] According to 
Chrysostom, Horn. xlii. 2, this used 
to meet three times a month. The 
contrast is perhaps not so much be 
tween the present riot and an orderly 
meeting as between hasty action and 
waiting for the regular or stated meet 
ing of the eKK\rjaia. But see Ramsay, 
Pauline Studies, 1906, pp. 203 ff. ( = 
Expositor, Feb. 1896, pp. 137 ff.). The 
exact phrase here is found in Lucian, 
Deorum conciL 14 ^/c/cXrjcrtas Ivvb^ov 
dyo/j.ti&gt;Tjs, and on inscriptions (listed 
in G. Busolt, Oriechische Staatskunde, 
Part I., 1920, p. 447, note 1), of. 
/caret irciffav vbfjn.fj.ov KK\rjfficLV (Brit. 
Mus. Inscr. iii. 481. 339 f., the same 
inscription from which a quotation 
was made on xix. 32). Though the 
matter is not entirely clear it would 
seem that the author correctly dis 
tinguished the imperial or Roman 
procedure from the municipal. 

The latter was in the hands of the 
drj/uLos meeting as an eKKXrjcria, prob 
ably at stated times, in the theatre, 
presided over by the ypa^aret/s. The 
privileges of autonomy were subject 
to the good behaviour of the city, and 
the possibility that the Romans would 
withdraw them was not remote. See 
examples of such punishment in J. S. 
Reid, Municipalities of the Roman 
Empire, 1913, pp. 483 ff. 

The Roman proconsul (di&gt;9irrraTos, 
cf. xiii. 7, xviii. 12) was in supreme 
authority over the whole province of 
Asia, and whether Ephesus was his 
capital or not, he or his representa 
tives held court (conventus, dyopalos) 
in turn in this and some eight other 
(Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 105 ff.) cities, 
including Tralles, Pergamum, Smyrna, 



etc. Exactly what offence or what 
statute of Roman law the ypa/j./j.arevs 
might cite we do not know. Possibly 
in Ephesus, as Ramsay suggests (see 
preceding column), the right of the 
assembly to hold other than fixed 
meetings was to be had only by 
special appeal to the proconsul. 

40. we run the risk] Ki.vdvveijoiJ.tv 
with a side glance at Kivdweuei in vs. 
27, as though the secretary meant to 
say the real risk is not loss of business 
but trouble with the police for dis 
turbing the peace. 

of being indicted, etc.] The con 
struction of the sentence seems clumsy, 
but I suspect that this is because the 
technical language of the indictment 
is woven into the structure. For 
instance, (yKa.\iffdai &lt;TTcicrews jj.Tjdevbs 
alrlov vTr&pxovTos may be a regular 
legal formula, uncalled for disturb 
ance of the peace, but there is no 
evidence that this is so. 

cause] The meaning of the last 
part can be totally reversed by trans 
lating airiov * charge, as in Luke xxiii. 
4, 14, 22, instead of cause, and ren 
dering though there is no charge as 
to which we cannot give an explana 
tion in regard to this hubbub. 

xx. 1-xxi. 17. PAUL S JOURNEY 
FROM EPHESUS TO JERUSALEM. 

2. those districts] That is Mace 
donia. It must therefore have been 
exactly at this point that Titus joined 
Paul and that 2 Corinthians was 
written. See 2 Cor. ii. 12 f. and vii. 5 f. 

Greece] The word EAXcts is used 
only here in the N.T. Presumably it 
means Corinth, but it is curious that 
the writer is not more explicit. Dur 
ing this stay in Corinth Romans xv. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



253 



there three months, and a plot was made against him by the 

Jews as he was on the point of starting for Syria, he made up 

4 his mind to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied 



seems to have been written (see Rom. 
xv. 14-33), and possibly the rest of 
Romans. (For a discussion of the 
two recensions of Romans and their 
bearing on the composition and pro 
venance of the epistle, see K. Lake, 
Earlier Epistles, pp. 324 ff .) But here 
again it is clear that Luke has omitted 
many incidents. Paul says in Rom. 
xv. 19 that he had fulfilled the gospel 
of Christ as far as Illyricum. There 
is no trace of this in Acts. 

3. The Western text reads, "And 
he passed through all those districts, 
and did much speaking, and came to 
Greece; and when he had stayed 
three months and a plot was made 
against him by the Jews, he wished 
to start for Syria, but the Spirit told 
him to return through Macedonia." 

The difference between the B-text 
and the Western is that the B-text 
represents Paul as intending to 
go to Syria in any case, and only 
changing his route because of the 
Jewish plot, but the Western text 
makes the Jewish plot the reason 
for his leaving Greece, and his choice 
of the land route is ascribed to in 
spiration. Paul s own account of his 
intentions and of his actual move 
ments up to his arrival in Macedonia 
is given in 2 Cor. i. 16 ff. He 
originally meant to go from Ephesus 
directly to Corinth (i.e. by sea), to go 
thence to Macedonia, returning again 
to Corinth, and finally sailing thence 
to Judaea. But, in order not to reach 
Corinth too soon (or possibly doubting 
whether to go there at all), before the 
mission of Titus and the strong letter 
had had time to work on the factions 
in the Church, he changed his plan 
and went by land, through Macedonia, 
to Corinth. He does not say whether 
he still proposed to sail from Corinth 
to Judaea, but it should be noted that 
this was the normal method. Paul s 
route overland through Macedonia 
was quite exceptional. The B-text 
suggests that he took it because of a 
Jewish plot, but the number of his 
companions, and the fact, known 



from the epistles though not men 
tioned here, that he was collecting 
money, suggests rather that he was 
gathering together his party as he 
went, and that this made the Mace 
donian route preferable. 

three months] Presumably the 
winter. Notice how the difficulty of 
travel in winter is implied in 1 Cor. 
xvi. 5f. as well as in Acts xxvii. 12, 
xxviii. 11, and Titus iii. 12. 

4 ff .] The Western text is confused, 
see note in Vol. III. pp. 190 ff. It 
probably read: "And when he was 
about to start, Sopater, son of Pyrrhus, 
of Beroea, and of the Thessalonians 
Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius 
of Derbe, and Timothy, went with him 
as far as Asia, but the Ephesians, 
Eutychus and Trophimus, went on 
and waited for him at Troas." 

Even the B-text leaves doubtful 
who went with Paul and who went 
to Troas. I think the most probable 
view is that OVTOI 5 irpocreKdovTes fj.vov 
f//x.as ev Tpi^ddi refers only to the 
Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus ; but 
grammatically it might mean the 
whole group, which is distinguished 
from the us. It is noteworthy 
that the we-sections begin again in 
Philippi, where they ceased in xvi. 10. 
The obvious conclusion is that Avhat- 
ever may be the relation between the 
we-sections and the final form of Acts 
they represent the experience of some 
one who was in Philippi during the 
period of Paul s preaching in Thes- 
salonica, Athens, Corinth, and Ephe 
sus, and went with him from Philippi 
to Jerusalem, and ultimately to Rome. 
This excludes as possible writers of 
the we-sections all who were with 
Paul in Corinth Timothy, Titus, 
Lucius (Rom. xvi. 21), etc. 

It is an attractive supposition that 
the group of disciples mentioned here 
were the representatives of Paul s 
churches, Beroea, Thessalonica, Derbe, 
Lystra (Timothy), and Asia, or, 
if the Western text be taken, more 
definitely Ephesus. Who represented 
Philippi ? The author of the source ? 



254 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



him Sopatros, of Beroea, son of Pyrrhus, and of the Thessalonians, 
Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, 
and the Asians Tychicus and Trophimus. These went on and 5 
waited for us at Troas ; but we sailed after the days of unleavened 6 



Who represented Corinth ? Paul 
himself ? Possibly, but in 1 Cor. xvi. 
3 f . he suggested that the Corinthians 
appoint with letters of authorization 
persons to be the bearers of their gift 
whether accompanied by him or not. 
Perhaps they sent it separately. The 
other churches appointed one &lt;TWK- 
d-rjfj.os (2 Cor. viii. 19, the same word 
as used in Acts xix. 29) or more as 
aTrotrroXot fKK\rj(n&i&gt; (2 Cor. viii. 23). 

4. Sopatros] The usual English spell 
ing Sopater is taken from the Latin. 
SwTrctrpos and SwcrtTrarpos are well 
attested in papyri and inscriptions, 
as are the names of the other Mace 
donians. See p. 248. It is doubtful 
whether this Sopatros should be identi 
fied with the 2w(Ti7rarpos of Rom. xvi. 
21 (see note on xvii. 10 ff.), but if with 
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, 2nd Eng. trans, pp. 437 f., we 
accept this identification and that of 
the author of the diary with Lucius 
( = Lucas), these two and Timothy con 
stitute a coincidence of three persons 
represented in Rom. xvi. 21 as being 
with Paul in Corinth before he started 
to Jerusalem and in Acts as accom 
panying him on his journey. (For 
Lucius see Additional Note 37.) 

of Derbe] Codex Bezae reads 
Aou^pios doverius. The adjective is 
naturally taken of Gaius and this is 
not impossible. Gaius is a common 
name. Apparently there was also a 
Corinthian Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23 ; 1 
Cor. i. 14). But Gaius and Aristarchus 
are named together as Macedonians 
in xix. 29. This suggests that the 
Ae/&gt;/3cuos belongs, or at least belonged 
originally, to Ti/*60eos which follows 
it. The other gentilic words Thessa 
lonians and Asians precede the per 
sonal names in this list, and xvi. 1 (see 
note) says, somewhat ambiguously, of 
Derbe and Lystra that Timothy was 
there. The tendency of Luke to 
arrange lists in pairs (i. 13 ; ii. 9 f . ; 
xiii. 1) is satisfied by the last six 
names. The odd first name has the 
distinction of a patronymic. With 



it alone the verb grammatically 
agrees. 

Tychicus] Cf. Col. iv. 7. The 
Western text reads E#TI&gt;XOS. It also 
reads E06rioi for Aviavoi. Eutychus 
may be an emendation based on vs. 9. 
On the other hand Tychicus may be 
an emendation from Colossians. The 
change of AaiavoL to E06not or vice 
versa shows that in any case we have 
to deal with deliberate emendation, 
not accidental change. See further 
Eph. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 12 ; Tit. iii. 12. 

Trophimus] See 2 Tim. iv. 20, and 
cf. xxi. 29 where it is said that he 
was an Ephesian and implied that he 
was a Gentile. 

6. sailed] Actually they must have 
sailed fromCa valla (Neapolis). Philippi 
is half a day s journey from the coast. 
Three or four days sailing, probably 
with a stop at Samothrace, would be a 
normal voyage (cf. xvi. 11). 

after the days of unleavened 
bread] Doubtless Paul kept the 
Passover in Philippi. It is evidence, 
if such be needed, that the custom of 
keeping Easter, as distinct from the 
Passover, had not yet arisen. Is there 
any evidence for the Christian Easter 
earlier than Polycarp ? -By his time 
the West had a Sunday-Easter, but 
the churches of Asia still commemor 
ated the Passion in accordance with 
the Jewish feast, both as to the day of 
the month and of the week. (See the 
appendix on Quartodecimans in C. 
Schmidt s Epistola Apostplorum. ) The 
dating by Jewish festivals here and 
in xxvii. 9 (the Fast; cf. sabbath 
day s journey as a measure of dis 
tance in i. 12) and the absence of 
Gentile terms for the seasons is cer 
tainly strange in such a Hellenistic 
work as Acts. In this instance the 
Jewish festival is perhaps noted be 
cause Paul and his companions cele 
brated it. It is further possible that 
the incidence of the Passover while 
they were at Philippi was emphasized 
as a disappointment for Paul who, 
perhaps for the fulfilment of a vow 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



255 



bread from Philippi and came to them at Troas in five days, 
and stayed there seven days. 

7 And on the first day of the week when we were gathered 
together to break bread, Paul addressed them, as he was going 



(see xviii. 18, 21 notes), was hoping 
to be in Jerusalem for the Passover. 
Having failed in this he made it his 
aim to be there for Pentecost (vs. 16). 

in five days] The context makes 
the sense plain, though &XPL in this 
sense is unparalleled, but the transi 
tion from so long as to within was 
easy. The nearest to real parallels 
are perhaps Plut. Cic. 6 axp iravrds, 
continually ; Hermas, Mand. iv. 1. 
5 &XP 1 - T W ayvoias, so far as he is 
ignorant. Cf. the text of Acts xix. 26 
in D, e?ws E0&TOU. The Western text 
has the neat emendation Tre/xTrrcuot. 

7. the first day of the week] i.e. 
Sunday (see note on xvii. 2); but 
does it mean Saturday evening, when 
according to Jewish rules Sunday 
began ? The context seems to show 
that Luke did not follow the Jewish 
rule on this point. Paul was speaking 
in the late evening, certainly after 
sunset, and he continued his discourse 
until dawn, when he left, in accord 
ance with his intention expressed in 
VS. 7 (weXAwj egitvai rrj giravpiov). Thus 
the dawn belonged to ij tiravpiov. 
This suggests that for Luke the day 
began at dawn, or at least not at 
sunset. The only escape from this 
conclusion is that r\ fira.vpt.ov is used 
loosely with the sense of the next 
daylight. But eiravptov does not really 
mean this ; it seems to be clearly dis 
tinguished from ij IJ.LOL TUIV &lt;ra/3/3drcoi&gt;, 
and was the second day of the week. 
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that 
the meeting in Troas was on Sunday, 
not Saturday evening. (See also F. C. 
Burkitt on ^7rt0u&gt;&lt;r/ceii in JTS. xiv. 
pp. 545 f.) 

A confirmation that this view is 
consistent with Luke s practice is to 
be found in the notes of time in Luke 
xxiii. 54 ff . According to this, after 
the burial of Jesus the women went 
and prepared spices, i.e. on Friday 
evening before the Sabbath dawned 
(t 7r^0w&lt;r/&lt;:e). They rested on the 
Sabbath according to the command 
ment, and at early dawn on Sunday 



they went to the tomb. Luke appears 
to be paraphrasing Mark, who signifi 
cantly and correctly makes the women 
prepare the spices not on the night 
of Friday but of Saturday, when 
according to Jewish law the Sabbath 
had ended. Luke saw that the point 
of the narrative was that the women 
did not work on the Sabbath (xxiv. 1), 
but following his own instead of Jewish 
reckoning he thought that they must 
therefore have worked on Friday night. 

The same thing, curiously enough, 
may be true of Matthew xxviii. 1, 
which describes the visit of the women 
to the tomb as 6\{/ 5 aa(3pdTwi&gt; 
rfj iri(t&gt;&lt;i)(rKova"r) ets p-lav ffafifi&ruv. 
This seems a paraphrase of Mark s 
statement that the women s visit to 
the tomb was at early dawn, though 
it may be a different tradition re 
presenting the resurrection as taking 
place in the twilight between Saturday 
and Sunday. Influenced by the feel 
ing that the tradition that the women 
went to the tomb at dawn is the 
master-motive in all forms of the 
narrative, I still hold the former view 
(see K. Lake, The Historical Evidence 
for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
pp. 58 f.). In any case the Lucan evi 
dence is clear, and represents the usual 
Greco-Roman custom, still followed 
(until a few months ago) in the Ortho 
dox church, which though it reckoned 
the hours of the day from sunset, which 
was always 12 o clock, regarded the 
day as beginning at dawn, whatever 
the hour was. An interesting excep 
tion is the custom of the Caucasian 
district which, more logically, reckoned 
the hours from sunrise. (See note 
on xix. 9 ; C. H. Turner, JThSt. xiv. 
(1913) pp. 188 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, 
JTS. xiv. (1913) pp. 538-546, and 
xvi. (1914) p. 79; P. Gardner-Smith, 
JTS. xxvii. (1926) pp. 179-181; and 
G. F. Moore, Journ. Amer. Oriental 
Soc. xxvi. (1906) pp. 323-329.) 

break bread] With the meaning 
of having supper or of celebrating 
the eucharist ? The former seems the 



256 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY 



XX 



to leave the next day, and lie prolonged his discourse until 
midnight. And there were many lamps in the upper room 8 
where we were gathered. And a youth named Eutychus, 9 
sitting by the window, beginning to be overcome by deep sleep, 
as Paul went on talking, still further overcome from sleep, fell 
from the third floor to the bottom and was taken up dead. 



more probable, but there is no real 
evidence to enable the question to be 
settled. 

8. lamps] It has been thought that 
the lamps are mentioned because of 
the frequent suggestion in anti- 
Christian circles that these meals 
were occasions for immorality. But 
Acts seems to me to be too early 
a document to be contemplating such 
a charge. Moreover in sects where 
immorality was undoubtedly practised 
lamps were not absent; on the con 
trary, their extinction was part of the 
ritual. A much more probable ex 
planation is that the many lamps 
made the air of the upper room very 
hot and accounted for Eutychus s 
lapse. There is, however, something 
to be said for the reading of D, 
uTroXa/xTrdSes = * small windows, see 
note in Vol. III. p. 192. At least 
that is the meaning suggested for this 
passage and for Athenaeus xii. 9 by 
Ropes, by H. Smith, Expos. Times, 
xvi., 1905, p. 478, and by J. H. Moulton, 
Grammar, ii. 328. But the viroXcufjura.^ 
of the Delian inscription cited by these 
writers and of several other Delian in 
scriptions (Bulletin de Corr. Hell, xxxii. 
(1908), p. 83 passim, i] viro\a/j.iras rrjs 
ffToas rrjs vrpos TO; lloaideiifj, p. 88, note 4) 
has an unknown but apparently differ 
ent architectural character. Faculae 
in d probably means torches. 

upper room] See on i. 13, ix. 37, 39. 

9. Eutychus] According to the 
Western text he was one of the 
Ephesian delegates. 

overcome by deep sleep . . . over 
come from sleep] The use of Kara- 
&lt;t&gt;pff6a.i with VTTVOS was so common 
in contemporary Greek that the verb 
alone and the noun Kara^opd came to 
be used of going to sleep. Cf. Ps. 
Solom. xvi. 1 iv KarcKpopy tnrvov. The 
combination is therefore not a medical 
expression (Hobart, Medical Language 



of St. Luke, pp. 48 ff . ; Cadbury, Style 
and Literary Method of Luke, p. 62). 
When i/TTvos is used with the verb it 
is usually as els vTrvov, to sink into 
sleep. Neither of Luke s expressions, 
KaTa&lt;f)epb[j.evos VTTVU) fiadel, Kareve^Oeh 
airb TOV virvov, is quite idiomatic in 
itself, though VTTVOS fiadvs is common, 
and Hippocrates once uses the dative 
with this verb, TOICTLV VTTVQHSLV (1137 C 
= Kiihn, iii. p. 539), and the preposi 
tional phrases et s (v.l. -rrpus) inrvov 
(Diod. Sic. ii. 57) and e&lt;/&gt; VTTVOV (v.l. 
inrvti)) (Dion. Hal. iv. 3, 4) are found 
rarely. 

There is some doubt, therefore, 
as to exactly what Luke here means 
to convey. See Stephanus, Grimm- 
Thayer, s.v., and Wettstein, ad 
loc. But overcome from sleep is 
as doubtful English as Karate pu/m.fi&gt;o&lt;&gt; 
virvy is doubtful Greek. Note that 
the change of tenses in the Greek 
can only be rendered in English by 
beginning to be overcome or some 
such periphrasis. Also the article in 
rov VTTVOV is almost equivalent to this 
sleep the VTTVOS fia.dv&lt;i mentioned 
above. 

dead] If veKpos means that he was 
really dead presumably a miracle is 
intended in the following verse, but 
it is quite possible that the writer 
merely means that this verdict was 
the opinion of those who picked up 
Eutychus. After all, a fall from the 
second story (second floor in English, 
third in most other idioms) need not 
be fatal. It depends on the height of 
the stories, the weight of the Taller, 
and the nature of the ground. The 
context makes no suggestion of 
miraculous action by Paul, who merely 
picked up the boy and explained that 
he had not been killed. The supper 
then continued. On the other hand, 
if Luke really meant that he was only 
apparently dead he could have easily 



XX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



257 



10 But Paul went down and fell on him, and embracing him 

n said, " Do not make a fuss, for his life is in him." And he 

went upstairs and broke bread and ate, and after talking a long 

12 time until the dawn, he departed. And they brought the boy 
alive and were immensely comforted. 

13 And we came to the ship and sailed for Assos, and from 
there we were going to take Paul on board, for so he had arranged, 



expressed it by us vepKos as at Rev. i. 
17 ; cf. Matt, xxviii. 4, Mark ix. 26. In 
Test. XII. Pair. Jud. ix. 3 the same 
words are used as here /ecu -fjpdr/ 



10. embracing] A parallelism has 
been suggested with 1 Kings xvii. 17 ff. 
the story of how Elijah restored the 
son of the widow of Zarephath, but 
it seems far-fetched. Cf. Vol. II. p. 
103. 

make a fuss] Some such collo 
quial phrase seems the best rendering. 
Paul means the noisy Oriental method 
of showing grief. 

11. dawn] avyrj in modern Greek 
usage seems to mean the daylight 
before the sunrise (dvaroXi?) ; probably 
it has the same meaning here. 

departed] The Greek is ourws 
tr)\6ev, but this is scarcely thus 
departed. We might render collo 
quially off he went or at last he 
departed, but the idiom has no exact 
equivalent in English. (See xii. 23 D, 
xvii. 33, xxvii. 17 and note, and Cad- 
bury, Journal of Biblical Literature, 
xliv. (1925) p. 223.) 

12. This verse is hardly fitted 
well into the narrative. The writer 
is clearly divided in interest between 
Paul s action and the accident to 
Eutychus. He passes somewhat 
abruptly from one to the other, but 
there is no need to suspect any inter 
polation. Probably the meaning is 
that the boy was rendered unconscious 
by his fall, and remained so until just 
before Paul started. The they who 
brought the boy were those who were 
looking after him. This seems to be 
the interpretation of the Western 
reviser who writes " and as they were 
saluting him (in farewell) they (the 
tfyayev of D is shown to be an accident 
by the adduxerunt of d) brought the 

VOL. IV 



youth alive." Perhaps, however, the 
confusion is more deep-seated, if, as 
seems likely, the reference to eating 
(yevcrd/j.evos, vs. 11) as distinct from 
breaking bread originally belonged to 
Eutychus. For eating is the regular 
sign of cure or revival. Cf . x. 41 note 
and ix. 19, Luke viii. 55. For other 
motifs behind the story and for the 
mixture of elements see M. Dibelius, 
Stilkritisches zur Apostelgeschichte, 
pp. 42 f. in EvxapivTripiov Hermann 
Gunkel . . . dargebracht, 1923. 

immensely] ov /xerpiws is another 
case of idiomatic litotes used by Luke. 

13. we] The Armenian catena ex 
pands this into I, Luke, and those 
with me, but there is no reason to 
suppose that this is more than ex- 
egetical paraphrase interesting, how 
ever, as an example of how at least 
some Western variants may have 
arisen. 

came to] BA read Trpoae\66vTes, 
but NC read irpoeKdovrts and D has 
Ka.T\dbvTes. Editors often prefer 
jrpoe\6bvTs, but I think it an emenda 
tion from the context. Nor do I see 
sufficient reason for the cognate 
emendation which translates av^xd-rnmev 
with a pluperfect sense. Surely the 
writer who says we was in the 
party which had listened to Paul in 
the upper room. 

arranged] Possibly the boat was 
chartered by Paul, so that he was able 
to settle where it would stop; hence 
the omission of Ephesus, though 
perhaps he merely decided to take 
a boat which was omitting Ephesus 
because he could not wait for anything 
else. Why he preferred to go by land 
from Troas to Assos is obscure, but I 
suspect that he was a bad sailor, and 
to such the open water from Troas to 
Assos in the stormy north-east wind, 
S 



258 



THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY 



XX 



and was going himself by land. And when he met us at Assos 14 
we took him on board, and came to Mitylene, and from there 15 
we sailed on the next day and arrived opposite Chios, and the 
second day we crossed over to Samos, and the next day we came 
to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order 16 
that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hurrying 



prevalent about five days out of 
seven, can be most unpleasant in 
a small boat. Those who are only 
acquainted with modern steamers 
have no notion of the misery which 
can be caused by the Mediterranean. 
Moffatt quotes from Plutarch s Life of 
Marcus Cato (ix. p. 341) that one of 
the regrets of his life was TrXeuo-as oirov 
dvvarov fy TrefeCcrcu. After Assos the 
island of Lesbos and the mainland 
offer shelter. The variant 6d[cr](rov 
reads like a local mistake due to 
a Macedonian who thought instinct 
ively of the island of Thasos, though 
he must have known that it was im 
possible to walk to Thasos. See also 
Vol. III. ad loc. and p. ccxxxv, note 1. 
going ... by land] The word 
wefrijeiv means literally to go on foot, 
but being used in contrast with sail 
ing (cf. weft Mark vi. 33) it includes 
also riding on horse or mule. There 
appears to be no passage in Acts or the 
epistles which indicates whether land 
travel was done on foot or by riding, 
except in the case of the Ethiopian s 
{L P fj.a (viii. 28 ft.). The accounts of 
Paul s approach to Damascus gave an 
opportunity to mention animals if he 
was riding, but Luke did not take it. 
The carriages of xxi. 15 A.V. means 
baggage. (See, however, the reference 
to Chrysostom in the note there.) Of 
course at xxiii. 23 f. Paul is riding as 
a prisoner under Roman escort. On 
Paul s walking see Deissmann, Paulus, 
2nd ed. p. 181 note 7. 

14. Mitylene] The chief town of 
Lesbos. For the localities in this 
voyage see Map to Addit. Note 18. 

15. opposite Chios] They had to 
sail out across the open water towards 
Chios in order to round the long pro 
montory which has Smyrna on the 
north and Ephesus on the south. It 
is sometimes overlooked that Paul 
did not sail close by Ephesus : to have 



gone there would have been to follow 
two sides of a triangle. The natural 
course was the one taken, which 
keeps close to the north of Samos and 
so comes in to the coast at Miletus. 

second] The reading of B is in the 
evening (ecnrtpa for erepq.), but though 
attractive it has no support and is 
probably a slip of the pen. 

crossed over to] 7rapa/3dXXw some 
times seems to mean pass by, some 
times cross over to, sometimes perhaps 
stop at. Here, as in some other 
passages, its context fails to establish 
its exact meaning, but though ei s 
Sdyuoj/ is a little easier to understand 
if it means that they stopped there, it 
is on the whole the least probable 
meaning for 7rape(Bd\ofj,ei&gt;. Its use in 
connexion with ships is well attested 
by the examples in Field ad loc. (after 
Wettstein) and in Preuschen- Bauer, 
s.v. 2, even though its exact sense as 
a nautical term is not certain. In 
P Petr ii. 13 (5) 4 (third century B.C.) it 
is plainly contrasted with passing by 
without stopping. 

After Samos D reads " and after 
stopping at Trogyllium on the next 
day we came to Miletus." There is 
no obvious reason for inserting this 
statement, unless it be that the run 
from Samos to Miletus seemed too 
long. Possibly it is the true text, 
and dropped out by an early accident. 
(See Vol. III. pp. ccxxxv. and 195.) 

16. Asia] It would be an exaggera 
tion to argue that Luke regards Miletus 
as outside of Asia, but obviously here, 
as elsewhere, Asia for him is the 
district around Ephesus. 

he was hurrying] This gives a 
perfectly good reason for passing by 
Ephesus. Even if in the end Paul 
reached Jerusalem before the date 
which he had fixed, it cannot have 
been certain at this stage that he was 
going to do so. It is possible that 



XX 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



259 



in case it might be possible for him to be in Jerusalem on the 
day of Pentecost. 

1 7 But from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and summoned the elders of 

1 8 the church. And when they reached him he said to them, "You 
know yourselves how, from the first day that I came to Asia, all the 

19 time that I spent with you I was serving the Lord in all humility 
and tears and in the trials which came upon me from the plots 



conditions at Ephesus were unfavour 
able, but there is no reason for doubt 
ing that the main reason for omitting 
Ephesus was the one given. 

on the day] The accusative of a 
point of time in ryv r]/j.^pav is a Hellen 
istic development discussed by the 
grammarians : J. H. Moulton, i. 
p. 63 ; A. T. Robertson, p. 470 ; Blass- 
Debrunner, 161.3; Radermacher, 2nd 
ed. p. 133. 

17-38. PAUL S SPEECH TO THE 
EPHESIAN ELDERS. This speech is 
entirely different in tone and con 
tents from all the other speeches in 
Acts, but the difference is adequately 
accounted for by the fact that there 
is no other speech of Paul to a 
Christian community. It consists 
of three parts: (i.) an introduction, 
which seems almost apologetic, 
ending with the statement that they 
will not see him again, and a declara 
tion of innocence towards them; (ii.) 
an exhortation to the elders to look 
after the congregation, and a warning 
against false teachers; (iii.) a repeti 
tion of the apologetic theme and an 
appeal to follow his example of work 
and help for the brethren. See Addit. 
Note 32. 

17. elders] The same persons who 
are here called irpe&lt;r[3i&gt;Tepoi. are de 
scribed in vs. 28 as twicrKoiroi. They 
were obviously the leaders of the 
church, and probably the termin 
ology had not yet been fixed. It 
is futile to find in this passage any 
support for any theory of church 
government; but it may be pointed 
out that the writer regards inspira 
tion as giving function, not office as 
conferring inspiration. They were 
^Trtcr/coTTot because they had the Holy 
Spirit, they did not have the Holy 
Spirit because they were erricr /COTTON 



Nevertheless, though this distinction 
is important, in practice it was 
necessarily lost sight of. The usual 
and natural procedure was that the 
leaders of the community felt inspired 
to confer the Spirit on a certain 
brother (cf. xiii. 2-4), who was thus 
qualified to hold office. That has 
always been Catholic doctrine, but 
it is easy to see how quickly the belief 
could arise among the theologically 
uneducated that the Spirit was 
conferred through the office. 

19. plots of the .Jews] It is 
curious that the narrative gives no 
account of these plots. In the other 
cities the Jews are specifically 
mentioned as raising disturbances. 
This is so in Antioch in Pisidia (xiii. 
50), Iconium (xiv. 2), Lystra (xiv. 19), 
Thessalonica (xvii. 5), Beroea (xvii. 
13), Corinth (xviii. 12 and xx. 3) 
that is, in all the cities in which Paul s 
work was interfered with by inimical 
mobs Jews are said to be responsible 
except in Philippi and in Ephesus. 
In these two cases the trouble was 
raised by Gentiles who thought that 
th