The reference in the Text of the expression: “the Gospel which ye received,” (1 Cor. xv. 1) to Luke’s “gospel” is, of course, groundless. Paul speaks of it as the gospel which he preached unto them. It is “his gospel” as in Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25; Gal. i. 11, etc. The use of ἐυαγγέλιον to denote a book is post-apostolic.—G.B.S.

Hom. in Princip. Act. p. 54. “First we must see who wrote the Book.…whether a man, or God: and if man, let us reject it; for, ‘Call no man master upon earth:’ but if God, let us receive it.”

The statement that the Acts is a “Demonstration of the Resurrection” has a certain profound truth, but is incorrect if intending to assert that such was the conscious purpose of the author. The resurrection of Jesus is a prominent theme in the Apostolic discourses but the book is no more designed primarily to prove the resurrection than are the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The immediate purpose of the book is to record the labors and triumphs of the Apostolic Church as supplementary to the narrative of the teaching and work of Jesus (i. 1, 2). The events narrated presuppose the resurrection and would have been impossible without it.—G.B.S.

“He taught them to be poor.” Here we have a tinge of asceticism. Even if we suppose that the beatitude of the poor refers to literal poverty (Luke vi. 20) as well as to poverty in spirit (Matt. v. 3), it is still incorrect to say that Jesus taught his disciples that poverty was in itself a virtue. The ascetic principle is of heathen, not of Christian origin. It is noticeable that Chrys. quotes no passage to sustain his statement.—G.B.S.

Προτιμότερος, b.c.: προτιμώμενος A. and Catena: τοῦ χοροῦ πρῶτος, E. D. F. Comp. Hom. in Matt. liv. t. ii. 107. “What then saith the mouth of the Apostles, Peter? He, the ever ardent, the coryphæus of the choir of the Apostles.”

Chrys. seems to have read on to the end of the chapter. The rest of the citation being omitted in the mss. the remodeller of the text makes alterations, and adds matter of his own, to make the exposition run smoother. “Why did he not ask Christ, alone, to give him some one in the place of Judas? And why of their own selves do they not make the election?” Then instead of βέλτιον γέγονε λοιπον πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ, κ. τ. λ. he has, βελτίων λοιπὸν ἦν γεγονως ό Πετρὸς αὐτὸς ὲαυτοῦ, κ. τ. λ. “Peter has now become a better man than he was. So much for this point. But as to their request to have their body filled up not simply, but by revelation, we will mention two reasons; first,” etc.

Τοῦτο παραμυθίαν ἐκείνοις ἔφερε. Something seems to be omitted here.

῞Οτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνό ἐστι: i.e. The Spirit here given to the disciples, is the same that was given to those: but more intense in operation; therefore it appears not merely under the emblem of cloven tongues, but as tongues of fire.

Chrys. seems to understand by διαμεριζόμεναι (v. 3), divided, distributed among the members of the company, rather than of a cloven form, a forked appearance, as indicating the shape of the fire-like tongues. The former is the preferable interpretation. (So the Rev. Vers. vs. A.V.). The latter view cannot explain the singular verb which follows, ἐκάθισεν.—G.B.S.

So C and Cat. B. transposes Elisha and Ezekiel, A. omits the clause. Chrys. elsewhere makes it a special praise of Ezekiel, that he chose rather to accompany his people into captivity, than to remain in his own land: Interp. in Isai. i. t. 1. 2. and ad Stagyr. ii. t. ii. 228. In this manner then (he would say here), Ez. “left all,” and having thus given proof of his worth, received the gift of prophecy. The modern text reads: “Ezekiel again. And that the case was thus, is manifest from what followed. For indeed these also forsook all that they had. Therefore they then received the Spirit, when they had given proof of their own virtue.”—By these (οὗτοι) we must understand the Old Test. saints just mentioned. It should rather have been ἐκεῖνοι, but Chrys. is negligent in the use of these pronouns. See Hom. in Matt. Field. Adnot. p. 709, B.

᾽Ηλαττοῦτο. Alluding to Numb. xi. 17. “I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them.”

῞Ινα δὲ ἐξῇ. (Cat. ἵνα δείξῃ.) Œcumen. ἵνα ἔχωσι, “that they may have it in their power, according to the law of their fathers, to appear thrice in the year, etc.” The modern text has, ἐπεὶ ἐξῆν…διὰ τοῦτο. “Because it was permitted…therefore.”

Here our leading ms. after οὐ γαρ ὡς ὑμεῖς, has ἀποπληροῦται, φησὶ, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνεται ὅτι μεθύουσιν. “For not as ye.”—It is fulfilled (he says) and it is supposed that they are drunken!” which may have been said by Chrys., but certainly not in this place.

There is no reason to doubt that the company who witnessed the scenes at Pentecost really supposed the Christians to be intoxicated. To this opinion they were, of course, the more readily inclined because of their prejudice against the new sect. The force of Peter’s refutation of the charge of drunkenness: “Seeing it is but the third hour, etc.,” lies partly in the fact that 9 a.m. was too early for any such general intoxication, and still more in the fact that the third hour was the first hour of prayer, at which time it would have been sacrilege to drink to excess.—G.B.S.

Here the innovator, again mistaking his author’s meaning, as if it were—Peter did not say, “These are not drunk,” but what he did say was, “They speak by the Spirit”—finds it necessary to add, Καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, And not merely so, but, etc.

Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὡρισμένον ἦν, φησὶν, ὅμως ἀνδροφόνοι ἦσαν. B. C. after ἀπαλλ. τοῦ ἐγκλήματος, and before the text. As the sentence so placed seemed to make Chrys. contradict himself, the other mss. and Edd. before Ben. omit it. Something is wanting, which perhaps may be supplied from Œcumen. ᾽Αλλὰ καὶ ἀπαλλάσσων οὐκ ἀφίησιν αὐτοὺς πάντη τοῦ ἐγκλήματος. ᾽Επάγει γὰρ, ὅτι διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων ἀνείλετε.

In v. 23, the preferable reading is διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων, “through the hand of lawless men,” instead of διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων of the Text. Recep. So A, B, C, D, Tisch. W. and H., Lach. Treg. R.V. This reading is also to be preferred in accordance with Bengel’s first rule of text-criticism—Lectio difficilior principatum tenet.—G.B.S.

The confusion may be cleared up by supposing that Chrys. here commented upon the words διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων as admitting of a double connection: viz.: with ἔκδοτον λαβόντες and with προσπ. ἀνείλετε. In the former, it refers to Judas: while at the same time, it is shown that of themselves they had no power against Him. He was delivered up by the predestination and will of God, by means of the wicked hands of Judas; upon whom (already gone to his doom) the evil is shifted entire. But again, as ἔκδοτονis not put simply and without addition (ἁπλῶς), so neither (οὐδὲ) is ἀνείλετε: but “by wicked hands ye slew,” i.e. by the soldiers.

The text seems to be corrupt: καὶ αὐτὸ διδόντος ἔστιν τίδείκνυσιν ὅτι. B. omits ἔστιν τί. Perhaps καὶ αὐτὸ is derived from an abbreviation of κρατεῖσθαι αὐτόν: and διδόντος ἔστιν τι· may be, “is (the expression) of one assigning something, i.e. some special prerogative to Him:” or, possibly, “For the expression, Καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν even of itself implies the granting of something (in His case):” viz. as a postulate. E. καὶ αὐτὸν διδόντα ἐμφαίνει κατασχεῖν· καὶ ὅτι, i.e. “that it was even He that gave death the power to hold Him:” this, which is adopted by Edd. is, however, not a various reading, but only an attempt to restore the passage. Œcumen. gives no assistance: he has only, διὰ δὲ τοῦ, καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυν. αὐτὸν κρατ., τὸ μεγαλεῖον αὐτοῦ παρίστησι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκέτι ἀποθνήσκει. In the next sentence E. and Edd. have: “For by ‘pains of death’ Scripture is everywhere wont to express ‘danger:’” but Œcumen. and Cat. agree with the old reading, ἡ Παλαία. Possibly the meaning of the whole passage may be somewhat as follows. “It is something great and sublime that Peter has darkly hinted in saying, ‘it was not possible that He should be holden of it.’ And the very expression καθότι implies that there is something to be thought of (comp. Caten. in 1). Then, in the Old. Test., the expression ὠδῖνες θανάτου means pains in which death is the agent; but here they are the pangs inflicted upon death itself, travailing in birth with Christ ‘the first-begotten from the dead.’ It shows then both that death could not endure to hold Him, and, that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more. For the assertion, etc. But then, without giving them time to ponder upon the meaning of what he has darkly hinted, he goes off to the Prophet,” etc.—On the expression ὠδῖνας λύειν Mr. Field, Index to Hom. in Matt. s. v., remarks, that “it is said sometimes of the childbearing woman herself, as p. 118. B., sometimes of the child born, as p. 375. A., sometimes of the person aiding in the delivery, as Job xxxix, 2. Hence the obscure passage Acts ii, 34 is to be explained. See Theophylact in 1.”

Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι παρέλαβον. St. Chrysostom cannot mean to say that they received the gift of faith in baptism, not having it before: (see Mark xvi. 16, Acts viii. 37.) But the meaning seems to be, with allusion to the traditio symboli in baptism, “He does not as yet say, “Believe:” the question, “Dost thou believe?” would be put to them in their baptism, when the Creed was delivered to them. So that the injunction “Believe” is in fact included in the “Be baptized.”

We adopt the reading of A. N. The other mss. have καὶ τῶν παρόντων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἀπαλλάττει κακῶν, “both from present and from future evils.” Below, v. 42, ὁμοθυμαδὸν, which Chrys. seems to have had in his copy, was probably derived into this verse after προσκαρτ. from προσκαρτ. ὁμοθ. v. 46.

The exact force of κοινωνία here has been much disputed. By many it is thought to mean communication (to the needy) in the having all things common (κοινά), Ols., Lechler, et al. By others it is understood to refer to the Lord’s Supper, but against this view is the fact that κοινωνία did not become a name for the sacrament until the third or fourth century. Others render: fellowship understanding either the participation in common meals (ἀγάπαι) or the enjoyment of mutual sympathy, helpfulness and encouragement—the fellowship of Christian friendship. So Bengel, Mey., Hack., Gloag. This view is the preferable one.—G.B.S.

Of our mss. N. E. have the true reading, πεπύρωτο, which is attested by the Catena: the rest, πεπώρωτο “were hardened.”

Œcumen. “That he leaped was either because he was incredulous of what had happened, or, by way of trying his power of stepping more surely and firmly, or, the man did not know how to walk.”

E. and Edd. τοιοῦτοί τινες ἦσαν καὶ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι (for οἱ ᾽Ι.) χωλεύοντες…οἱ δὲ (for αὐτοὶ) μᾶλλον χρήματα αἰτοῦσι…οἳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο…“Such sort of people were also [the] Jews, being lame (i e. like many beggars among ourselves): even when they have only to ask for health, yet they rather ask for money…who even for this reason beset the temple,” etc. But the meaning seems rather to be: “See here an emblem of the Jews. Lame, and needing but,” etc.

Πολέμοις attested by Cat. and Œc. but A. has πόνοις, E. and Edd. κακοῖς. In the following sentence, Πρὸς γὰρ τὸν καυσούμενον καὶ παραμυθίαν ἐπιζητοῦντα οὗτος ἂν ἁρμόσειεν ὁ λόγος, B. and Œc. read κλαυσόμενον, C. F. D. N. κλαυσούμενον, (“to him that shall weep,”) A. καυσάμενον, Cat. καυσούμενον, the true reading. The scribes did not perceive that Chr. is commenting on the word ἀναψύξεως, “refrigeration,” as implying a condition of burning: hence the alteration, κλαυσόμενον, or in the “Doric” form (Aristoph.) κλαυσούμενον. E. and Edd. Διὸ καὶ οὕτως εἶπεν εἰδὼς ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πάσχοντα καὶ παραμυθ. ζητοῦντα κ. τ. λ. “Wherefore also he speaks thus, knowing that it is to the case of one who is suffering,” etc.—In the text here commented upon, ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσι καιροὶ ἀναψ., E.V. makes ὅπως ἂν temporal, “When the times of refreshing,” etc. But here and elsewhere in the N.T. Matt. vi. 5; Luke ii. 35; Acts xv. 17; Rom. iii. 4; the correct usage is observed, according to which, ὅπως ἂν is nearly equivalent to “so (shall);” i.e. “that (ὅπως) they may come, as in the event of your repentance (ἂν) they certainly shall.” And so Chrys. took the passage: Εἶτα τὸ κέρδος ἐπάγει· & 169·Οπως ἂν κ. τ. λ. “Then he adds the gain: So shall the times,” etc.

τὸν προκεχειρισμένον. Other mss. of N.T. read προκεκηρυγμένον, whence Vulg. E.V. “which was before preached.”

E.V. has “all,” and so some mss. πάντων, and St. Chrys. gives it a little further on.

Instead of this clause, “by the mouth.” etc. the Edd. have from E. “Still by keeping the matter in the shade, drawing them on the more to faith by gentle degrees.”

῞Οταν γὰρ μὴ ᾖ τι κατορθῶσαι. Quando enim non est aliquid præclare agendum. Ben. Non est corrigendum aliquid, Erasm. But see the comment in the recapitulation. “Where need was to teach, they allege prophecies; where, to show boldness, they affirm peremptorily.” κατορθῶσαι, “to carry their point,” “to come off in the right;” viz. here, to convince by argument.

All our mss. and Cat. πεισθέντος ὅτι ἀνέστη, καὶ τοῦτο (A. C. N. τούτου, Cat. τὸ) τεκμ. λαβ., ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεὸς, except that B. reads ὅτι ἂν ἔστη Θεός. Hence we read, ὅτι ἀνέστῃ. The repetition of these words may have led to the alteration.

i.e. the ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ is not local, but moral, the union of all believers in one heart and soul: q.d. “Do not object that it is impossible for all believers to be together now.”

The Catena has preserved the true reading, τέως, for which A. C. N. have ἅτε ὡς, B. F. D. ἅτε. E. substitutes υἱοί.

A. B. C. N. τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων. ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον. & 173·Ιδωμεν λοιπὸν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα. Καὶ τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων τὴν φιλοσοφίαν. The clause ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον is to be restored to its place after the second τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων, as in the modern text, ὅρα τῶν ᾽Α. τὸ ἄ. και τὴν φ.

In the mss. this clause of v. 27, with the following comment, ὅρα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. is set in the midst of the comment on v. 29: viz. before the sentence which (in the old text) also begins with ὅρα πῶς. It is certainly misplaced there. See note 5.—Διαιροῦσι τὸ πάθος seems to refer to the mention of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

ὁ ἐπιτρέψας, ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν καὶ εἰς πέρας ἀγαγών. The meaning seems to be, that though permitting, He calls to account, and though holding men responsible, yet brought it to pass. The modern text omits ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν, and adds εἰργάσω at the end.

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ βουλήν. i.e. “hand” means “power,” and “hand” (or, power) and “purpose,” or, “will” here make one notion, “Thy will which is also power,” for to Thee to will is to prevail: not two notions, for we do not say that power determines, but only the will.—The Edd. however, adopt from E. τὴν χεῖρα for τὸ αὐτὸ, which spoils the sense. “By the hand he means the power and the purpose.”—Below, B. C. have ὅτι τῇ χειρὶ διέταττεν (A. omits the clause), we retain from E. F. D. διέπραττεν.—Œcum. “The hand and the counsel mean the same thing: for where there is power, there is no need of counsel. What Thou didst order from the beginning is done.”

Here the mss. insert, ῝Ον ἔχρισας, φησίν. & 169·Ορα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. “Observe how, even in prayer, they circumstantially describe the Passion, and refer all to God,” etc. And then: “Observe how they ask all,” etc. See note 2.—Here for the latter ὅρα or ὁρᾷς πῶς of the old text, E. has εἶδες πῶς.

Here A. B. C. N. insert v. 29 omitted above by the two first. The following sentence, omitted here by D. E. F. and inserted after v. 31, is there repeated by A. B. C.

E. Edd. “Observe the excess of their wickedness. When they ought to have been struck with alarm at what they heard, here they are cut (to the heart), and take counsel in their temerity (βουλεύονται εἰκῇ) to slay (them).” The innovator did not perceive the reference to ii. 37 in οἱ ἄλλοι “ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες κατενύγησαν.”

The meaning of the council’s statement: “Ye intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (28) probably is: You would cause an insurrection against us and thus be avenged for the crucifixion of Jesus (Meyer): others take it to mean: You would carry the idea that we had murdered an innocent man in crucifying Jesus (Hackett). The strong language of Peter in reply (29) which seems to imply: We cannot help consequences; we must obey God in our preaching and healing, favors the former view. The confusion of the text of Chrys. here (see note in loco) makes his view on this point uncertain.—G.B.S.

οὔτε γὰρ ἑλληνιστὶ διελέγοντο. So A. B. C. N. but Cat. οὗτοι, and E. D. F. add ῾Εβραῖοι ὄντες. “For these used the Greek language, being Hebrews.” There is no need to adopt this reading: the comment seems to belong to the words, against the Hebrews: viz. “they murmured against them, seeing they were overlooked, etc., for neither could these Hebrews converse with them in the Greek language.”

ἄρα(Cat. ὅρα) καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πλήρεις πίστεως ἦσαν (E. D. F. add οὓ καὶ ἐξελέξαντο). ἵνα μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ κ. τ. λ. The meaning seems to be: “If Stephen was a man full of faith, so were the others: (they were careful to choose only such,): in order that,” etc.

Edd. from E. “Saying this, he speaks nothing blasphemous against Christ, but what he most wishes, he effects. ‘If,’ says he, ‘it be of men, it will come to naught.’ Here he seems to me to put it to them by way of syllogism, and to say: Consequently, since it has not come to naught, it is not of man. ‘Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.’ This he said to check them,” etc.—Below, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο δηλοῖ, might be rendered, “but he is declaring this work” (viz. “if this work be of men,” etc.): the modern text, τὸ γάρ ἔργον τοῦτο ἐδήλου.

Meyer finds in the expression of Gamaliel (38, 39): “if it be of men—ἔαν ἦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων” and “if it is of God—ἐι δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστίν” an indication that he leaned to the latter opinion. While this distinction is grammatically valid it can scarcely be justified as intentional. Gamaliel, although tolerant toward Christianity, as the Pharisaic party in general were at this time, was not a Christian in secret, but an orthodox Jew. His advice was politic even from a Jewish point of view. He saw, as the more bitter party did not, that this sort of opposition would only serve to rouse all the energy and perseverance of the Christian disciples and thus indirectly tend to the increase and spread of their doctrines among the people.—G.B.S.

E. “And observe how the charge is twofold. ‘Shall destroy,’ say they, ‘the place,’ and, ‘shall change the customs.’ And not only twofold, but bitter,” etc. So Edd. but Savil. adds, “and shall introduce others instead.”

A. B. C. N. Οὐχὶ σημεὶων ἐδεήθη, καὶ (A. B. οὐ) πολλὴν ἐπεδείξατο την παρρησίαν. Cat. has πολλῶν for σημείων, and reads it affirmatively. Edd. οὐχὶ σημεῖα ειργάσατο; οὐ (D.F. καὶ) πολλὴν κ. τ. λ. Perhaps the passage may be restored thus: “Did he not work miracles—though he needed not many—and show great boldness?”

Chrys. commonly denotes the oriental nations, generally, by the name “Persians.” Ben.

Edd. from E. “And how, it may be asked, doth the Scripture say this concerning Abraham’s father? Because it does not trouble itself about matters that are not very essential. What was useful for us to learn, this only it has taught us, that in consequence of his son’s vision, he went out with him: the rest it leaves untold, by reason that he died soon after settling in Charran. ‘Get thee out of thy kindred.’ Here he shows that these men,” etc.

E. Edd. “but these disobedient: or rather, we learn from what he does, as he was bidden, that he endured,” etc.

ἡ δε ἀναστασις καθ᾽ εαυτήν. This clause is found in the Catena alone. Something seems to be required as the antithesis to the preceding clause, ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ μετὰ προαιρ. ἀνθρ. ἦν—for which E. Edd. have ταῦτα γοῦν οὐκ ἀπὸ προαιρ. ἀνθρ. ἦν. “These things however did not come of man’s purpose.”—At the end of the next sentence, Edd. (with E. alone) omit the clause, ὁ ὀφείλων ἀποθανεῖν: and for Εἶτα πάλιν, have, “This he says, by way of showing both him (Moses) as savior, and these ungrateful to their benefactor.”

Τί γὰρ εἰ μὴ ἀνεῖλον αὐτὸν τῷ πράγματι; τῷ λόγῳ ἀνεῖλον ὥσπερ κᾀκεῖνοι. N. and Catena read ἀνεῖλεν, both times, as if the Compiler understood the passage in the sense of a preceding comment extracted from S. Clem. Alex. Strom. “φασὶ δὲ οἱ μυσταὶ λόγῳ μόνῳ ἀνελεῖν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον: the initiated say that Moses struck the Egyptian dead by a word, as in the Acts Peter is related to have done in the case of Ananias,” etc. But Chrys. nowhere thus interprets the fact, and the context, ὥσπερ κᾀκεῖνοι, is against this view.—Below, δἰ ὃν ἔζη μετὰ Θεὸν: i.e. the Hebrew whom Moses saved, v. 24, who is here supposed to be one of the parties in the strife mentioned in v. 26. This however not being clear, A., as usual omits: and the innovator assuming the passage to be corrupt, substitutes, δἰ ὧν ἔσονται μετὰ Θεοῦ, giving them counsel by means of which they shall be with God.” So Edd.: only Sav. notes in the margin the genuine reading of the other mss. and Cat.

E. “But do thou, observing this, stand amazed at the riches of God’s wisdom and resources: for, had those not been plotted against, these had not been saved.” So Edd.

It is not probable that this passage (v. 39, 40) means that the people proposed to return to Egypt (as Chrys.). In the O.T. the constant representation is that the golden calf (or bull) was worshipped as the image of the divinity who had led them out of Egypt (Ex. xxxii. 4; 1 Kings xii. 28). It seems clearly implied in Ezek. xx. 7, 8, 24, that the Israelites while in Egypt had been much addicted to the idolatry of the country. The meaning here is that, being discouraged and disappointed on account of Moses’ continued absence in the mount, they were ready to transfer their allegiance from Jehovah to some of the divinities to whose worship they had previously been accustomed. The worship of cattle was especially common, as of Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.—G.B.S.

῎Ενθα μὲν εὐχαριστεῖν ἔδει, A, B, C. D. F., but N. and Cat. ἀχαριστεῖν.—Ε. Καὶ ἔνφα μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀχαριστεῖν ἦν. Edd. εὐχ.

This clause, omitted by A. B. C , is preserved by N. and the Catena. The calf was one, yet they called it Gods: on which St. Chrys. remarks elsewhere, that they added polytheism to idolatry.—The next sentence may perhaps be completed thus: “that they did not even know that there is One God.”—Edd. from E.F.D. “So frantic are they, that they know not what they say.”

διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἐπισημαίνεται. The meaning is: Stephen was accused of speaking against “the customs,”—sacrifices, temple, feasts, etc. Therefore he significantly points to that critical conjuncture from which these “customs” date their introduction: namely, the Provocation at Horeb. Prior to that, he tells of “living oracles,” life-giving precepts: after it, and as its consequence, sacrifices, etc., those statutes which were not good, and ordinances by which a man shall not live, as God says by Ezekiel. Not a word of sacrifice till then: and the first mention is, of the sacrifices offered to the calf. In like manner, “they rejoiced,” “the people ate and drank, and rose up to play:” and in consequence of this, the feasts were prescribed: καὶ εὐφραίνοντο, φησίν· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἑορταί.—᾽Επισημαίνεται might be rendered, “he marks,” “puts a mark upon it” (so the innovator, who substitutes, τοῦτο καὶ Δαυὶδ ἐπισημαινόμενος λέγει): we take it passively, “there is a mark set over it—it is emphatically denoted.” In the active, the verb taken intransitively means “to betoken or announce itself,” “make its first appearance.”—In the Treatise adv. Judæos, iv. §6. tom. i. 624. C. St. Chrysostom gives this account of the legal sacrifices: “To what purpose unto Me is the multitude of your sacrifices? etc. (Isaiah i. 11, ff.) Do ye hear how it is most plainly declared, that God did not from the first require these at your hands? Had He required them, He would have obliged those famous saints who were before the Law to observe this practice. ‘Then wherefore has He permitted it now?’ In condescension to your infirmity. As a physician in his treatment of a delirious patient, etc.: thus did God likewise. For seeing them so frantic in their lust for sacrifices, that they were ready, unless they got them, to desert to idols: nay not only ready, but that they had already deserted, thereupon He permitted sacrifices. And that this is the reason, is clear from the order of events. After the feast which they made to the demons, then it was that He permitted sacrifices: all but saying: ‘Ye are mad, and will needs sacrifice: well then, at any rate sacrifice to Me.’”—(What follows may serve to illustrate the brief remark a little further on, Καὶ ἡ αἰχμαλωσία κατηγορία τῆς κακίας.) “But even this, He did not permit to continue to the end, but by a most wise method, withdrew them from it…For He did not permit it to be done in any place of the whole world, but in Jerusalem only. Anon, when for a short time they had sacrificed, he destroyed the city. Had He openly said, Desist, they, such was their insane passion for sacrificing, would not readily have complied. But now perforce, the place being taken away, He secretly withdrew them from their frenzy.” So here: “Even the captivity impeaches the wickedness (which was the cause of the permission of sacrifice.”)

Our passage here follows the lxx. which speaks of Moloch and Remphan. The terms in the original (vid. R.V.: Amos v. 25–27) are “Siccuth” and “Chiun.” It is a disputed point whether these are in the prophecy names of divinities or whether they mean respectively “tabernacle” and “shrine” (or image). The difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text. The name Moloch being akin to the Hebrew word for king (מלך), confusion might easily arise. The N.T. text varies from the lxx. only in adding the word προσκυνεῖν (43) to lay emphasis upon the charge of idolatry, and in replacing Damascus by Babylon (43), an interpretation from the standpoint of subsequent history. The statement of our text that the Israelites fell into the worship of these divinities in the wilderness rests upon extra-Pentateuchal tradition, derived, perhaps, from such prohibitions of Moloch-worship and similar idolatries as are found in Lev. xviii. 21, and Deut. xviii. 10. The charge in the prophecy of Amos is a general one referring to the frequent lapses of the people into image-worship down to his own time.—G.B.S.

A. E. N. Cat. omit the τὸν Θεόν.

ὅτι τῇ χάριτι μόνον κατώρθουν. Or, “that by grace they only succeeded,” i.e. always, without failure.

Chrys. seems to assume that ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς refers to Christian men, a view that has been taken by some modern expositors (as Ewald and DeWette). It is better to understand by the term, pious Jews who were favorably disposed to Christianity (So Meyer, Olshausen, Lechler, Lange, Gloag, Hackett). The usage of εύλαβής in the N.T. favors this view as it is applied to devout persons who were not Christians (vid. ii. 5; Luke ii. 25) in every case, except in xxii. 12when it refers to Ananias, a Christian, but is used in describing him in a legal point of view: εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Moreover, if Christians had been meant, they would not probably have been designated by so vague a term, but, as uniformly, would have been called disciples or brethren. The burial of Stephen by devout Jews recalls the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathæa and Nicodemus (John xix. 38, 39).—G.B.S.

ἀκρίβειαν. Below, ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὰ δόγματα ἀπηρτισμένα εἶχε. The 37th verse (Philip’s answer and the Eunuch’s confession) seems to have been absent from St. Chrysostom’ copy (unless indeed it is implied in the passage just cited). It is found in Laud’s Gr. and Lat. copy of the Acts, part is cited by St. Irenæus, p. 196. and part by St. Cypr. p. 318, but unknown to the other ancient authorities.

ὥστε οὖν ὕστερον αὐτὸν θαυμασθῆναι, τοῦτο ἐγένετο: i.e. as below, the eunuch saw that it was the work of God: it was done in order that he might not think ὅτι ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἁπλῶς.—Edd. from E. “Why, it may be asked, did the Spirit of the Lord carry Philip away? Because he was to pass through other cities, and to preach the Gospel. Consequently this was done, etc. that he might not think what had happened to him was of man, but of God.”

συναπελθεῖν (Œc. συμπαρελθεῖν) αὐτᾷ. As there is no αὐτὸν, the meaning seems to be as above expressed, not, “would have desired Philip to go with him.”

What follows is confused in the mss. and Edd., by transposition of the portions of text here marked a, b; and c, d: the order in the mss. being b, a, d. c, e.

Καὶ γὰρ τὸ τῶν πιστευόντων ἀξιόπιστον ἱκανὸν αὐτοὺς ἆραι· εἰ δὲ ἐπέμεινεν (B. ἐπέμενον) ἐκεῖ, ποῖον τὸ ἔγκλημα; Meaning, perhaps, that the character and station of such converts as the eunuch would weigh much with their countrymen (τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους). Though if the eunuch had stayed behind in Judea, who could have blamed him?—The modern text:“—sufficient to persuade the learners to be roused up themselves also to the same zeal.”

It is probable that this eunuch was an Ethiopian by birth and a Jewish proselyte. It was customary for such foreign proselytes, as well as for Jewish non-residents, to go up to Jerusalem to worship. Others suppose him to have been a Jew, resident in Ethiopia; but he is designated as “an Ethiopian.” The fact that those in his condition were not admitted to full standing in the congregation of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 1) is not a sufficient reason for the opinion of Meyer that this man must have been an uncircumcised heathen—a “proselyte of the gate,” since he could occupy the same relation as native Jews in his condition. Ethiopia lay to the S. of Egypt and Candace was queen of Meroë, the northern portion of the country. Eunuchs not only served as keepers of the harem but sometimes, as here, as royal treasurers.—G.B.S.

τὶ δὲ ἐκώλυσεν πάντα αὐτὸν ἀκριβῶς μαθεῖν καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀχήματι ὄντα; καὶ γὰρ ἔρημος ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπίδειξις. We conjecture the first clause to be meant as the answer to an objection: How should Philip know all these particulars? It may indeed relate to the eunuch’s accurate knowledge (ἀκρίβεια) above mentioned, note 1. The latter part, however, seems to belong to v. 28 to which the Catena refers the mention of the χαλεπώτατον καῦμα.—Edd. (from E. alone), “Pray what hindered, say you, that he should learn all, even when in the chariot, and especially in the desert? Because the matter was not one of display. But let us look over again what has been read. And behold,” etc.

Καὶ φοβούμενον ἰδὼν, οὐδὲ οὕτως εἶπεν. Οὐκ ἀπιστηθήσῃ. The mod, t. prefixes Μᾶλλον δ, and adds, ἀλλά τι; ᾽Αναστὰς πορεύθητι. “Nay, even seeing him afraid, even then He said not, Thou shalt not be disbelieved: (Erasm. negligently, Be not unbelieving:) but what? Arise,” etc. So Morel. Sav. but Ben. puts a full stop at ἰδών: as if the meaning were, “because He would teach us,” etc.: or rather, “because He also saw him to be afraid. Nor did He speak thus. Thou shalt not,” etc. But the full stop should be placed at εἶπεν: “nay, though he saw him afraid, He did not tell him what had happened to Paul—the victory He had won over this adversary. But only, Fear not to be disbelieved for he hath seen,” etc.

ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐξέπληττεν τούτῳ, οὕτω κἀκείνῳ. (Sav. marg. τοῦτο, κἀκεῖνο.) “That as He (Christ) astonished (Ananias) by the one, so He may by the other.” τούτῳ, by the announcement of Saul as a believer; ἐκείνῳ, by that of his becoming a preacher, and before Gentiles and kings. (Chrys. is negligent in his use of the pronouns οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος.) Or it may be, “that as he (Saul) astonished (men) by his conversion, so by his wonderful boldness as a preacher.”—E. Edd. omit this, and substitute, “as to prevail over all nations and kings.”

Chrys. here confuses the visits of Paul to Jerusalem. That mentioned in Acts xi. 30, was the second visit, when he went to carry the gift of alms to the poor. The visit mentioned in Gal. ii. 1, synchronizes with Acts xv. 1, sq., when Paul went to attend the Apostolic council.—G.B.S.

The incredulity of the Christians at Jerusalem concerning the genuineness of Saul’s conversion is difficult to understand, especially since they must have heard of the miraculous manner of it. It can, however, more readily be conceived of if, as we suppose, the three years absence from the city had intervened, and during this period, Saul had been unheard of. The impression might have gone abroad that he had fallen back into his old Jewish life. Certainly the persecution which the Christians at Jerusalem had suffered at his hands would incline them to be incredulous concerning his conversion, unless there were positive proof of it. When it is said (27) that Barnabas brought Paul “to the apostles” in Jerusalem, we must hold this statement subject to the modification made in Paul’s own statement (Gal. i. 18) that during this visit he saw, of the apostles, only Peter and James, the Lord’s brother. These may have been the only apostles then in the city, for Paul’s stay was but for fifteen days. The purpose of this visit was to see Peter (Gal. i. 18).—G.B.S.

A. B. C. ἐκεῖνο. Βαρνάβας δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐπιεικὴς καὶ ἥμερος ἥν· καὶ ὅρα κ. τ. λ. Cat. ἐκεῖ. Βαρνάβας ἄνθρωπος ἐπιεικὴς ἦν· καὶ ὅρα. The epithet ἥμερος, “tamed,” was felt to be unsuitable to Barnabas, hence Cat. omits it, Œc. substitutes (from below) καὶ χρηστὸς σφόδρα. The mod. t. transposes the clause to the comment on v. 27. The fact seems to be, that Βαρνάβας δὲ is out of its place, and that ἄνθρ. ἐπ. καὶ ἡμ. is a description of Saul’s present bearing contrasted with his former character: and that the sentence should begin with ἐκεῖνο, somewhat in this way: οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὄντως προσδοκίας ἀνθρωπίνης. ᾽Εκεῖνο e.g. τὸ θήριον, that raging wild-beast, now was a man, mild and gentle.—Below, all the mss. have ἅτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, which is not easily reconciled with the former passage (note c). There it is represented, that he assayed to join himself to the disciples as being a teacher, and not a disciple; here, that he did this as being a disciple, and διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν. Œc, combines this with the former statement: “he went not to the Apostles, but assayed,” etc., μετριάζων, ἅτε διδ. ὢν, καὶ οὐ μαθ., where Henten. renders modeste de se sentiens “quum tamen” præceptor esset et non discipulus: rather, forbearing to put himself forward as he might have done, seeing he was himself a teacher, etc. The Catena has the διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν after ἀπιόντα, and again after ὄντα. Hence the true reading may be, καὶ ὅρα αὐτὸν οὐ πρὸς τ. ἀπ. ἀπιόντα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς· οὐχ ἃτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν.

A. B. C. (and Cat.) give the text, “But Barnabas—in the way,” continuously, and then the comments all strung together. Also the clause “it is likely—about him” is placed last, after γοργὸς ἦν ὁ ἀνήρ. This expression (Cat. adds γὰρ) may denote either the quick, keen glance of Paul’s eye, or the terror with which he was regarded—“to them the man had a terrible look with him.”—The modern text: “‘But Barnabas—in the way.’ This Barnabas was a mild and gentle sort of man. ‘Son of Consolation’ is the meaning of his name: whence also he became a friend to Paul. And that he was exceedingly kind and accessible, is proved both from the matter in hand, and from the affair of John. Whence he is not afraid, but relates ‘how he had seen,’ etc.—‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ For it is likely, etc. Wherefore also ταῦτα ἐκείνων κατασκευαστικὰ ποιῶν, διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐβεβαίωσε τὰ λεχθέντα.” In the original text it is simply Ταῦτα ἐκείνων κατασκευαστικά, καί διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐβεβαίωσε τὰ λεχθέντα, which being put before v. 28, would mean, that the conduct of Paul “in Damascus,” the πῶς ἐπαρρησ., evidenced the truth of what he said, about the Lord’s appearing to him in the way. Hence in the mod. text: “wherefore Barnabas making the latter prove the former, confirmed by (Paul’s) deeds the things told of him.” (But Ben., Ideo hæc ad illa præparant, dum ille operibus dicta confirmat. Erasm., Ideo et hæc præparatoria facit operibus confirmans ea quæ dicta erant.) We have transposed the clause, as comment on v. 28.

καὶ τὸ, μηδὲ καιροῦ καλοῦντος. As above xix. p. 120, note 2, Chrys. remarks, that there was no festival which required the presence of the eunuch at Jerusalem. Probably he was led to this by the circumstance, that the incident of the eunuch occurs after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen and the Conversion of St. Paul, i.e. according to the Church Calendar, between the 26th of December and the 25th of January.

“Σπεῖρα and cohors in Polyb. differ. The Greeks call the cohort λόχος, it contained about five hundred men. Polyb. vi. καὶ μὲν μέρος ἕκαστον ἐκάλεσε καὶ τάγμα καὶ σπεῖραν καὶ σημεῖον. Casaubon: Ac singulas partes appellant ordinem, manipulum, signum.” Downe ap. Sav.

ἀλλὰ πρὸς εὐτελῆ. The innovator (E. Edd.) having made Chrys. say above, Hom. xx. §1, that Ananias was a man of note, here alters the text to: “But the Lord Himself appears: neither does He send him to some one of the Twelve, but to Ananias.” Below καὶ οὐκ αὐτοὺς πέμπει πρὸς αὐτὸν: meaning, it seems, Cornelius and his hour. The same hand substitutes (for explanation of the plural, αὐτῶν τῇ ἀσθενεί& 139·), “as He did Philip to the eunuch, condescending to their infirmity.” And in the following sentence; “Since Christ Himself is often seen going to them that are ill, and in their own persons unable to come to Him.”

The clause οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν is not recognized by Chrys., nor by the leading authorities. See infra, p. 145, note 6.

Καὶ ἐν τισὶν ἡμέραις· so all the mss. with Cat. (ἔν τισιν ἡμ.) and Œcum. If the text be not corrupt, Chrys. must be understood to interpret ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμ. of the “fourth day of the week:” i.e. Cornelius had anticipated, among other pious observances, this practice also, viz. of the Wednesday fast. Otherwise, there is no intelligible connection for the following words, Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο εἶπεν, ᾽Απὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας. This, he says, was an advance in piety: and then it was that the Angel appeared to him. Then he proceeds to argue, that it is not “four days ago,” for the time does not amount to that number of days: the day on which Peter arrived was not the fourth, but between that and the day on which Cornelius prayed, there are but two entire days. It seems that this must be St. Chrysostom’s meaning, though it is obscured by mistakes of the scribes. B. C. αὕτη μία ἡμέρα· καὶ ἥν ἦλθον μία· καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἐφάνη· ὡς εἶναι δευτέραν μεθ᾽ ἣν προσηύξατο. (A. omits the passage.) E. D. F. Edd. αὕτη μία ἡμέρα· καὶ ἣν ἀπῆλθον οἱ πεμφθέντες, μία· καὶ ἣν ἦλθον, μία· καὶ τῂ τετάρτῃ ἐφάνη· ὡς εἶναι δευτέραν μεθ᾽ ἣν προσηύξατο. Cat. and Œc. agree with E. D. F. in supplying the clause omitted in B. C , to which however they add παρὰ Κορνηλίου: they have also τετάρτῃ ἐφάνη, but for the last clause they read, ὡσεὶ τρίτην ὥραν μεθ᾽ ἣν προσηύξατο. But the sense intended by Chrys. should be: “This, the day (on which they left Joppa), is one day (before the day on which Cornelius is speaking): and the day on which the messengers from Cornelius came, one day; (therefore the second day before that on which Cornelius is speaking:) and on the third day (previous) the Angel appeared: so that, exclusively of the day on which Cornelius is speaking, and that on which Cornelius prayed, there are two days.” This sense will be satisfied by reading, αὕτη μία ἡμέρα· καὶ ἣν ἦλθον οἱ πεμφθέντες παρὰ Κορνηλίου, μία· καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἐφάνη· & 244·στε εἶναι δυὸ ἡμέρας μεθ᾽ ἣν προσηύξατο. The scribes, mistaking both the drift and the method of the calculation, supposed αὕτη ἡμ. to mean “the day of Peter’s arrival:” but the day before that was the day on which they came away (ἀπῆλθον) from Joppa, and on the previous day the messengers arrived (ἦλθον), and on the day before that, which is therefore the fourth, the Angel appeared: hence they insert the words καὶ ἣν ἀπῆlqon…μία, in order to make out the calculation, i.e. to verify the day of the Vision as the fourth day before that on which Cornelius is speaking. So Cat. Œc. and. E.D.F. But B. C. retain the original reading, and only mistake the abbreviated form ὥστε εἶναι β'ἡμ., i.e. δυὸ ἡμέρας, as if it meant “the second day,” δευτέραν ἡμέραν: which reading, though unintelligible, was retained by the later Editors. But what Chrys. means to say, is, that, not reckoning the day of the vision and the day of the meeting, there are two whole days: therefore the day of the vision was not “the fourth day hence;” consequently, that it means “the fourth day of the week.” This hasty and ill considered interpretation of the expression απὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας, was suggested by the circumstance that the rule was to fast on the dies stationum, τετρὰς and προσάββατον, to “the ninth hour:” so that the practical scope of the interpretation may be of this kind: “See how this man, Gentile as he was, had forestalled our rule of discipline: he fasted on the fourth day of the week, and to the ninth hour of the day: and see how God was pleased to approve of his piety, by sending the Angel to him on that day, and at that hour. But you who know the rule, and why it is prescribed, do not obey it,” etc.—On the Dies Stationum, see Tertull. de Jejun. 1. where in defence of the Montanists, who extended the fast beyond the ninth hour, (or 3 p.m.) he says: Arguunt nos quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus: ib. 10. Æque stationes nostras ut indignas, quasdam vero et in serum constitutas, novitatis nomine incusant, hoc quoque munus et ex arbitrio obeundum esse dicentes, et non ultra nonam detinendum, suo scilicet more: i.e. the Catholics maintained, that the fast on these days ought not to be compulsory, nor to be prolonged beyond the ninth hour. Epiphan. Expos. Fid. §. 22. δἰ ὅλου μὲν τοῦ ἔτους ἡ νηστεία φυλάττεται ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἁγί& 139· καθολικῇ ἐκκλησί& 139·, φημὶ δὲ τετράδι καὶ προσαββάτω ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης.

It is wholly improbable that ἀπὸ τετράτης ἡμέρας refers to the fourth day of the week, as Chrys. supposes. The meaning is that, four days ago (reckoning from the time when he was speaking) he was praying (“observing the ninth hour of prayer”) until the time of day at which he was now saying these words to Peter. There is still less ground for Chrysostom’s interpretation if with Lechler, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort νηστεὑων be omitted from the text.—G.B.S.

The letters a, b, c, d, mark the order of these portions in B. C. At the end of (a) the clause, “We are present,” etc. is repeated. In A the order is, a, d, the rest being omitted: in the modern text, a, d, c, b: and the text, “Now therefore are we all present,” etc. between (c) and (b).—With the interpretation of δεκτὸς comp. Severianus of Gabala in the Catena on x. 4, οὐκ εἶπεν ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην σώζεται, ἀλλὰ δεκτός ἐστιν. τούτεστιν, ἄξιος γίνεται τοῦ δεχθῆναι. And St. Chrys. Hom. viii. in 1 Cor. C. δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστι· τούτεστι, καλεῖ καὶ ἐπισπᾶται αὐτὸν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Paul is cited as an instance: persecutor as he was, “yet, because he led a blameless life, and did not these things of human passion, he was both accepted and far outwent all. But if some one should say, ‘How is it that such an one, the Greek, kind as he is and good and humane, continues in error?’ I answer, that he has a fault of a different kind, vainglory or sluggishness of mind, or not being in earnest about his salvation, but thinking that all the circumstances of his life are mere chance-medley and haphazard. But by ‘him that worketh righteousness,’ Peter means, him that is blameless in all things (comp. infra p. 151.)……‘How is it then,’ you will say, ‘that impure persons have been accounted worthy to have the Gospel preached to them (κατηξιώθησαν τοῦ κηρύγματος)?’ Because they were willing and desirous. For some, even which are in error, He draws, when they become cleansed from their vices; and others coming of their own accord, He repulses not: many also have inherited their piety from their ancestors.”

῎Αλλως δὲ οὐ τοσοῦτον τὸ διάφορον Σαμαρειτῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν. Edd. (from E. alone,) for οὐ τοσοῦτον have πολὺ καὶ ἄπειρον, “great and infinite the difference between Samaritans and Gentiles.”

A. B. C. (after v. 11. which we have removed), ᾽Εκεῖνα ἀναγκαῖα ἦν (read τὰ ἀν.) ἀλλὰ διὰ τούτων αὐτὰ κατασκευάζει. By ἐκεῖνα he means, what we have heard above, what happened at Cæsarea. The modern text (Edd.): “What points were essential, he relates, but of the rest he is silent: or rather by these he confirms them also, καὶ αὐτὰ κατασκευάζει.”

While the textual evidence for the reading ῾Ελληνιστάς (v. 20.) predominates over that for the reading ῞Ελληνας (A. C.), yet the latter is the reading adopted by Meyer, Tischendorf, and most critics (not so, W. and H.) on grounds of internal evidence, such as: (1) That they should preach to Hellenists—men of Jewish nationality residing out of Judea—would be nothing noteworthy, since they had long been received into the Christian community. (2) The contrast between vv. 19 and 20 would be greatly weakened, if not lost, on the supposition that Hellenistic Jews were meant. If this view is correct, they now preached to the Greeks, the uncircumcised heathen, and the Antioch Church was founded and its reception into Christian fellowship approved by the mother church at Jerusalem. Antioch now became an important centre of Christian work, second only to Jerusalem. Here Paul labored a year, and from Antioch he went forth to his three great missionary journeys.—G.B.S.

ἐν δὲ καιρῷ τοιούτῳ τοιαῦτα ἔπραττον. So mss. and Edd. But the Catena has ἐν δὲ καιρῷ τοιούτῳ πράττειν οὐκ ἤθελον. “They had no objection to killing, but they had rather not do it at such a time.”

This seems more suitable to the clause, “And his chains fell off from his hands:” but see below in the recapitulation, p. 170.

i.e. so unexpected was it, so entirely had he made up his mind that he was to be put to death, that he thought it all a dream.

i.e. on the morrow, to be led out to execution, and then and there deliver him.

μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἐποίει διαπρίεσθαι (as in ch. vii. 54, cut to the heart with passion) καὶ καταγέλαστον εἶναι. The last words are either misplaced, or something is wanting; perhaps (after διαπρίεσθαι), τὸ διακρούεσθαι καὶ καταγέλαστον εἶναι.

i.e. what was to be drawn from them by the torture? Had they let him out, they would have contrived appearances, or would themselves have fled. But the reporter’s notes of what St. Chrys. said, seem to be very defective, and the arrangement much confused.

ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα πῶς οὗτος οὐ κρύπτει ταῦτα. In the recapitulation (see note 3, p. 175) he says, that the death of Herod was regarded as a judgment for his having slain James and the soldiers. Here, it seems, he must have said something to that effect; then, “but observe how St. Luke does not conceal the true state of the case, viz. that he was punished not for this, but for the sin which he proceeds to mention.” We have transposed the text v. 20–23. mss. and Edd. place it before οὐ μικρὸν οὐδὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν, thus separating these words from their connection with the preceding question.

Josephus’ narrative of the death of Herod (Ant. xix. 8, 2) is of peculiar interest here on account of its substantial agreement with that of Luke. The following points of agreement may be noted: (1) The place was Cæsarea. (2) He was attacked by disease in a public assembly when, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, he received the impious flatteries of the people. (3) His disease and death were a penalty for accepting the flattery of those who accorded to him divine honors. Thus the main outlines are the same. Josephus introduces some historical notices, such as that the occasion was a celebration in honor of the Emperor Claudius, which are wanting in Luke. He also relates that after receiving the people’s flattery, Herod observed an owl perched on a rope above him, which he interpreted at once as an omen of the fate which soon befell him. The supernatural element—“an angel smote him”—is wanting in Josephus. The Jewish historian is less specific in describing the disease which he speaks of as violent pains in the bowels and adds that after the attack, Herod lingered five days and died in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventh of his reign.—G.B.S.

At this point (ch. xiii.) begins the second part of the Book of Acts which has chiefly to do with the missionary labors of Paul. It is a reasonable supposition that the previous chapters rest upon different documents from those which follow. From chapter xvi. onward occur the so-called “we” passages (e.g. xvi. 10; xx, 6. xxi. 1; xxvii. 1) in which the writer, identifying himself with his narratives, indicates that he writes from personal knowledge and experience. The appointment of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch for missionary service, marked an epoch in the history of the early church and practically settled the questions relating to the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian community.—G.B.S.

mss. and Edd. δἰ ἀνθρώπων, but the singular is implied below in οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦδε. In the old text, B. C. Cat. “Not from men nor by men? Because not man called nor brought him over: that is, neither by men; therefore he says, that he was not sent (B., I was not sent) by this,” etc. The mod. text “Not from men neither by men. The one, not from men, he uses to show that not man, etc.: and the other, neither by men, that he was not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore,” etc.

It can hardly be meant that the smiting of Elymas with blindness was not a judicial infliction to himself; but that the proconsul should see it rather on its merciful side as being only ἄχρι καιροῦ. The Hebraistic use of Χεὶρ Κυρίου clearly implies a divine judgment upon Elymas as does the whole force of the narrative.—G.B.S.

Mod. text omits this sentence. The connection is: Paul inflicts this blindness upon him, not in vengeance, but in order to his conversion, remembering how the Lord Himself had dealt with him on the way to Damascus. But it was not here, as then—no “light shown round about him from heaven.”

ὅπερ ἦν συμφορᾶς ὄνομα, in regard that a proselyte might be deemed inferior to a Jew of genuine descent, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews.”

καὶ μὴν τοὐναντίον γέγονεν. Here also we have transposed the comment to the clause to which it belongs. In the Edd. it comes after “And with a high arm,” etc. whence Ben. mistaking its reference says, “i.e., if I mistake not, God brought them out of Egypt, that he might bring them into the Land of Promise: but, for their wickedness, the contrary befell: for the greatest part of them perished in the wilderness.” It plainly refers to ὕψωσεν—i.e. how is it said, that He exalted them in Egypt, where, on the contrary, they were brought low? This is true—but He did exalt them by increasing them into a great multitude, and by the miracles which He wrought on their behalf.

Upon the reading of the T. R. (A.V.) the period of the Judges is here stated to have been 450 years. This agrees with the chronology of the book of Judges and of Josephus, but conflicts with 1 Kings vi. 1 where we are told that “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, he began to build the house of the Lord.” This would give but 331 years for the period of the Judges. It is the view of many critics that Paul has here followed a different chronology from that of 1 Kings which was also in use among the Jews and was followed by Josephus (so Meyer.) But if the reading of Tischendorf, Lechler, and Westcott and Hort (R.V.) is adopted—and it is sustained by A. B. C. א—the difficulty, so far as Acts xiii. 21 is concerned, disappears. This reading places μετὰ ταῦτα after ὡς ἔτεσιν sq. and inserts a period after πεντήκοντα. Then the translation would be, “He gave them their land for an inheritance for about four hundred and fifty years. And after these things He gave them judges,” etc. On this reading the 450 years is the period of their inheritance, approximately stated, up to the time of the judges. The point from which Paul reckoned is not stated and is uncertain. This is the preferable reading and explanation.—G.B.S.

The order of the exposition in the mss. and Edd. marked by the letters a, b, etc. is much confused, but not irremediably. The matter falls into suitable connection, when the parts are taken in the order c, a, d, b.

ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα τὴν παρρησίαν μετὰ μέτρου γινομένην. Α. μετὰ τὸ μέτρου. Mod. text μέτρῳ. If this be not corrupt, it may be explained by the clause at the end of c, πολλῆς ἐπιεικείας ἡ παρρ. γέμουσα, but then the connection with the following εἰ γὰρ Πέτρος κ. τ. λ. is obscure. Perhaps from A. we may restore μετὰ το Πέτρου: “the boldness coming to them after the affair of Peter.”

ὡς ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνων σπουδῆς μὴ (om. A. B. ) τυγχάνοντα τῶν ἀγαθῶν.

The expression: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” has been both minimized and exaggerated. Chrys. points the way to its correct interpretation in saying: “set apart for God” and adding later: “not in regard of necessity.” The writer is by no means seeking to define a doctrine of the divine plan in its bearing upon human self-determination, but pointing out a historical sequence. Those who became believers were as truly so in God’s plan as they are so in fact. The passage says nothing of the relation of God’s ordainment to the believer’s choice. It is an example of the Pauline type of thought which grounds salvation upon the eternal purpose of God. Whoever are saved in fact, were saved in God’s purpose. If as matter of fact they are saved on condition of faith and not through the enforcement of a decretum absolutum, then it is certain that their salvation as foreseen in God’s purpose does not exclude their self-determination and personal acceptance.—G.B.S.

διεφέρετο, was published, E.V. διαφέρειν ἀγγελίας, “to bear tidings,” and διαφέρεται ὁ λόγος, “the saying is bruited,” are classical, but perhaps the expression was not familiar to Chrysostom’s hearers.

᾽Αντὶ τοῦ, οὐκ ἔστησαν μεχρὶ τοῦ ζῆλου. As in the mss. this clause follows that at the end of a, ἀντὶ τοῦ, διεκομίζετο, the ἀντὶ τοῦ may be only an accidental repetition. At the end of this clause, the mss. have ὅρα πάλιν πῶς (om. A. C. Cat.) διωκόμενοι, and then, πῶς (C. Cat.) ἕτερα κατασκ. (beginning of c.) The former clause, as the conclusion of b, may be completed with “they extend the preaching,” or the like. But probably διωκόμενοι is due to the scribes, who seem to have understood by ζήλου here the zeal of the Apostles, not the envy of the Jews, v. 45.

τῶν σημείων ἦν. A. has σημεῖον ἦν. In the preceding clause, C. μεχρὶ πολλοῦ σημεῖα ποιοῦσι, the rest οὐ ποιοῦσι. The antithesis τὴν μὲν (om. A.) παρρησίαν…τὸ δὲ πιστεῦσαι must be rendered as above: not as Ben. immo fiduciam addebat ipsorum alacritas.…Quod autem auditores crederent inter signa reputandum.

Here all the mss. have καὶ μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ (to which mod. text adds καὶ πῶς, ἄκουε.) then the text 8, 9, 10, followed by Διὰ τί, μεγ. τῇ φ. and so all the Edd. But in fact that clause is only the reporter’s abbreviation of the Scripture text, καὶ [ἐν Λύστροις.…to] μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, followed by its comment.

Mod. text adds, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἤκουσεν.—Below παρεβλάβη is an expression taken from the foot-race: this was a race in which his lameness was no hindrance.

῎Ηδη ᾠκείωτο τὴν προαίρεσιν. Strangely rendered by Erasmus, Jam præelectione assumptus familiariter erat, and Ben. Jam præelectionem in familiaritatem assumserat.

A. B. C. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡσύχασαν. The true reading is preserved by Cat. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν. Mod. text ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡσυχάζουσιν.

All our mss. τῶν προφητῶν. From the recapitulation we restore τῶν ἀοράτων. The meaning may be, He abstains from the mention of things invisible, because he would recall them from their polytheism, therefore avoids whatever would seem to favor the notion of inferior gods. With the restoration ἀοράτων we obtain a suitable connection for the part b, both grammatically (in respect of the plur. ἔμαθον), and in respect of the sense: they spoke only of things visible, for they had learned not always to speak according to the dignity of the subject, but according to the needs of the hearers. In the next sentence (a) in A. B. C. τί οὖν; εἰ πάντων ἐστὶ δημιουργὸς, διὰ τί μὴ καὶ εἰς ταῦτα προνοεῖ; we may understand by εἰς ταῦτα “the nations of the world, or their doings:” but the sense perhaps would be improved by supplying εἷς after εἰ, and restoring εἷς for εἰς. Perhaps also ταῦτα is a corruption of πάντα. “If One be the Maker of all, why not One also direct all by His Providence:” i.e. if One Creator, why not One Providence? Why imagine a number of inferior Providences?—Mod. text “nowhere mentioning the Prophets, nor, saying for what reason, being Maker of all, He left the Gentiles independent, τὰ ἔθνη ἀφῆκεν αὐτόνομα.”

From this point to the end of the recapitulation the matter required to be rearranged. The letters show the sequence of the parts in the old text: in the mod. text a partial restoration of the order has been attempted. The “method” of the derangement explains itself thus—the true order being denoted by the figures 1, 2, 3, etc. we have two portions transposed into the order, 2, 1; (a, b): then four portions taken alternately in the order 1, 3, 2, 4. (c to f): then again two portions in the order 2, 1, (g, h): then again four portions in the alternate order 1, 3, 2, 4, (i to m): and lastly, two in the order 2, 1.

ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν τὸ πᾶν ἄγειν αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους, A. B. C. As v. 17, “Nevertheless,” etc. is placed in the mss. before “Observe, he does not wish,” etc. the intention is that τὸ πᾶν should refer to the contents of that verse: “he does not say this to increase their culpability, but he wishes them to refer all to God.” But then ἐκείνους is idle, accordingly mod. text substitutes παιδεύει. We have removed the text v. 17. to the end of this sentence, so that its comment is (c) ὅρα πῶς λανθανόντως κ. τ. λ. and ὅρα οὐ βούλεται κ. τ. λ. will belong to v. 10, and τὸ πᾶν will refer to their ignorance and walking in their own ways.—So Cat. seems to take it, reading ἄγει ἢ αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους, viz. he rather refers the whole to God, than to those (the heathen) themselves.

There was doubtless something polemic in the words of vv. 16, 17 inasmuch as the apostle ascribes to the “living God” alone the blessings which the heathen were wont to attribute to their divinities. The language has also a conciliatory element. Their guilt is mitigated, no doubt, by their limited light, but by no means removed, because God had given them evidences of his goodness and power in the return of seasons and harvests. The thought is closely akin to that in the address at Athens (xvii. 23–31) where God is said to have overlooked the times of the ignorance of the heathen, and to that of Rom. i. 18–32; Rom. ii. 14, 15, where emphasis is laid upon the revelation of God to the heathen world which renders their sinful lives without excuse. The three passages combined yield the following ideas: (1) God has revealed Himself to the heathen in nature and conscience. (2) This revelation is sufficient to found responsibility. (3) As obedience to this inner law would merit God’s approval (Rom. ii. 14), so disobedience to it would merit his displeasure. (4) As matter of fact the Gentiles have not followed the light which they had and thus they have wickedly brought upon themselves the wrath of God and the penalties of his moral law.—G.B.S.

Mod. text ἴσως οὐδαμῶς ὕποπτος ἦν, “perhaps he would not have been any way suspected.”

With Luke’s narrative of the Apostolic council at Jerusalem should be compared Paul’s (Gal. ii.) which gives additional particulars. The conference marked an epoch in the history of the church. Here came into decisive conflict two opposing tendencies—the Pharisaic tendency which insisted that the Gentiles must enter the Kingdom through the door of the law, and the catholic spirit which, following the principles of Stephen’s apology and appreciating the revelations made to Peter, insisted that adherence to the Mosaic law was not only unnecessary, but was positively inconsistent with the freedom and completeness of Christ’s salvation. The decree of the council was, no doubt, of great service in checking the Judaizing tendencies of the early church. It was in the line of this decree that the work of Paul was done, as the champion of catholic Christianity. The chief points to be noted in v. 1–12 are: (1) The representatives of the narrower Jewish view came to Antioch on purpose to antagonize the work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles (v. 1). (2) They took the extreme position that salvation depended on circumcision and caused great anxiety and debate among the Gentile Christians regarding their relations to the Mosaic law (v. 2). (3) The Apostles and messengers who were sent to appeal the question to the leaders of the mother church at Jerusalem answered their objections by the fact of the Gentiles’ conversion (v. 3–5). (4) Peter’s position was now clear and pronounced. This is implied even in his subsequent conduct at Antioch whence he withdrew from the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) which Paul represents as an inconsistency. (5) Peter’s view is first given both on account of his prominence among the Apostles and because he had been the first to bear the gospel to the Gentiles.—G.B.S.

Mod. text “Therefore they depart (thither) and stay no short time there (ch. xiv. 28). ’But there arose certain of the Pharisees (v. 5) yet laboring under the disease,” etc.

τῶν εἰς τοὺς ᾽Ιουδαίους συμβεβηκότων: i.e. of the dispute about circumcision, see below p. 203, note 7. The first sentence of (c) “Great effrontery (this) of the Pharisees,” etc., would come in suitably here, but it is required for introduction of the sentence which follows it, “But see the Apostles,” etc.

Here mod. text has the formula, ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα.

Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ οὐ μικρὸν, ᾽Ιουδαίων πιστεύοντων καὶ τούτων οὐκ ἀποστραφέντων, ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου, ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. Mod. text substitutes the sense of the latter words: δύο τούτοις ὃ λέγει πιστοῦται, τῷ καιρῷ καὶ τῷ τόπῳ: but for the former, οὐ μικρὸν δὲ τὸ καὶ ᾽Ιουδαίων πιστευόντων τοῦτο ἀποστραφῆναι, quod etiam Judæis credentibus hoc avertatur. Ben. We reject τούτων, which disturbs the sense. He says: “Long ago—therefore why raise this question now, which was settled in those early days, when Jews received the faith, not rejected it with aversion? which aversion of theirs is now the occasion of the preachers’ turning to the Gentiles. Yet even then the will of God was plainly declared. Thus the Apostle argues strongly both from the place—here in the midst of the Jews—and from the time.”

ὥσπερ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν: referring to i. 24. as below on καρδιογνώστης. He means, “It was a purpose of the Lord, and a high distinction: therefore he does not say, He would, or was willing that the Gentiles should hear, but He elected me for this work, as He elected us to the Apostleship.”

Edd. ἐπιχωριάζειν, Cat. ἐγχρονίζειν, substituted for the less usual ἐγχωρίαζειν of A. B. C. Sav.—Below, Συμεὼν, φησὶν, ἐξηγήσατο ἐν τῷ Λουκᾷ προφητεύσας. Cat. “He who in Luke prophesied, Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart.”—It is remarkable that it does not occur to Chrys. that Symeon is Simon Peter, though 2 Pet. i. 1 has Συμέων Πέτρος in the Cod. Alexandr., and many other mss. In the Mod. text Chrys. is made to say: “Some say that this is he who is mentioned by Luke: others, that he is some other person of the same name. (Acts xiii. 1?) But whether it be the one or the other is a point about which there is no need to be particular; but only to receive as necessary the things which the person declared.”

ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ χρόνου δῆλος ἦν, τὸ δὲ ἀξιόπιστον οὐκ εἶχε: the former clause seems to be corrupt. The sense in general is, He was manifestly (a prophet), but had not the same authority as the old prophets. Probably the form of opposition was this: ἐπειδὴ ἐκεῖνος ἀπο μὲν * * δῆλος ἦν, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οὐκ εἶχε διὰ τὸ μὴ παλαιὸς εἶναι. “Since Symeon, though from * * he was manifestly (a prophet), yet from time had not the like authority because he was not ancient.”

Mod. text, “But it is not of these things that he speaks. And what raising up, you will say, does he mean? That after Babylon.” We point it, ποίαν λέγει ἔγερσιν τὴν μετὰ Βαβυλῶνα; “Was it raised up? was it not rather razed to the ground (by the Romans)? True it was rebuilt after the return from Babylon, but what sort of raising up does he call that?” For the answer to these questions, not given here, see the Recapitulation (note 4, p. 207).

Most modern texts omit πάντα at the end of v. 17 and then join directly to it γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ ἀιῶνος only, dropping out the words of the T. R.: ἐστι τῷ θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. This reading yields the following translation: “the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world.” (So Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, Gloag. R.V.). This reading encounters the difficulty that the words γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰ& 242·νος are considered as a part of the quotation which, in reality, they are not. It is probable that this fact may have led to their expansion into an independent sentence.—G.B.S.

All our mss. ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν ἀκηκοότες τοῦ νόμου, which contradicts v. 21. We restore ἐπειδὴ οὖν. In B. C. v. 21, with the words ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν ἀκ. τοῦ νόμου is repeated after, “We have judged.”

mss. and Edd. Καὶ ὅρα πῶς φορτικῶς ἐκείνους διαβάλλοντες ἐπιστέλλουσιν. The sense absolutely requires πῶς οὐ φορτ. It would be strange if Chrys. made τὸ φορτικὸν and τὸ διαβάλλειν matter of commendation: moreover in his very next remark he says just the contrary, and below, p. 209.

Mod. text omits this question: C. for ἀφεὶς has ἀφεθεὶς, “he that was left, or, dismissed.” Part of the answer has dropped out, “Paul did well: for” etc. The interlocutor rejoins: “Then if Paul did well, Barnabas did ill?” Here Edd. and all our mss. οὐκοῦν, φησὶ, κακὸς ὁ Βαρνάβας; to which mod. text adds, “By no means: but it is even exceedingly absurd to imagine this. And how is it not absurd to say, that for so small a matter this man became evil?” We restore οὐκοῦν κακῶς ὁ Βαρνάβας;

μάλιστα μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν (as by other instances of human infirmity, so by this also) δείκνυται τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, i.e. we are shown what in the preaching of the Gospel proceeded from man: that man, as man, did his part, which part is betokened by the ordinary characters of human nature. If even in Christ it behooved that He should not do all as God, but that His Human Nature should also be seen working, much more was it necessary that the Apostles, being but men, should work as men, not do all by the immediate power of the Spirit.

This refers to ἠξίου in the sense “he begged,” as he says below, in the beginning of the Recapitulation, καίτοι οὐκ ἔδει ἀξιοῦν αὐτὸν ἔχοντα κατηγορεῖν μετὰ ταῦτα.

If this sentence be in its place, something is wanting for connection: e.g. (It was a great οἰκονομία) for the more extended preaching of the word: since on Barnabas’s plan these “at Cyprus” were to have a second visitation, but those “in Asia” not even once. But it may be suspected that this part is altogether misplaced: and that the οὗτοι are the brethren “in the cities where we have preached,” and ἐκεῖνοι the people of Macedonia," etc. See end of Recap. where Chrys. says, had it not been for this parting, the word would not have been carried into Macedonia.

Chrys. has treated the dissension of Paul and Barnabas with discrimination, without, however, placing quite the emphasis upon ἠξίου—“he thought good not to”—“he determined not to”—and upon τον ἀποστάντα—“who had fallen away from—apostatized from,”—which those terms seem to require. The conduct of Mark in returning to Jerusalem from Pamphylia (Acts xiii. 13) was clearly regarded as reprehensible by Paul, apparently as an example of fickleness in the service of Christ. It is not strange that Barnabas, Mark’s cousin (Col. iv. 10) should have been more lenient in his judgment of his conduct. It is certain that this difference of opinion regarding Mark did not lead to any estrangement of Paul and Mark, for in his imprisonment the apostle speaks of Mark as a trusted fellow-worker (Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11).—G.B.S.

So Edd. and all our mss. ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ Βαρνάβας: which may mean, “And so the same may now be said of Barnabas, viz. that he departed (from Paul),” etc. The same word ἀπέστη is applied to Barnabas below, p. 216.

συγκατέβησαν ἀλλήλοις οὕτω μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸ χωρισθῆναι. The meaning is as below, that they parted κατὰ σύνεσιν. Mod. text “συγκατ. ἀλλ. ἰδεῖν. The point required is to see that,” etc. Then, Οὕτω μ. ἀ. γέγονε τὸ χωρ. “Thus their being parted became a greater good,” etc.—Καὶ πρόφασιν ἐκ τούτου τὸ πρᾶγμα ἔλαβε, i.e. “They saw that it was best to part viz.: that so the word would be more extensively preached, and this difference gave a pretext for so doing.” He means that the contention was οἰκονομία (see the Recap.), the object being, partly this which is here mentioned, partly a lesson to Mark.

B. and Cat. ἐβούλετο λοιπὸν ἀξιόπιστον ἑαυτὸν (B. αὐτὸν) ποιεῖν. The other mss. ἐβούλετο (ἐβουλεύετο A.C.) γὰρ μὴ ἀξ. αὐτὸν ποιεῖν: wished to make him (Paul) not credible. That the former is the true reading, is shown by what follows: ἵνα στήσῃ τὰ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ: i.e., to gain credit with the believers in order to deceive them afterwards. In the next clause, we read with Cat. and Sav. τὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, our mss. ἑαυτοὺς, and so the other Edd.

The scribe has copied the parts in the order 1, 3, 5: 2, 4, 6. See p. 213, note 5.

Edd. have ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ, and join this sentence with the following. The compiler of the Catena perceived that the Recapitulation begins with the next sentence, which he therefore gives to v. 13, though he repeats it wrongly under v. 24.—Mod. text, inserts the ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ. before Γνύη, φ., πορφυρόπωλις.

This is the first recorded instance of the persecution of Christians by the Roman power. Hitherto the persecutions have proceeded from the Jews and here it is inflicted upon the Christians because they are considered to be Jews who were now under special disfavor, having been shortly before banished from Rome by Claudius.—G.B.S.

mss. and Edd. τὸ γὰρ κηρύττειν οὐκ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ Πν. ᾽Επεὶ οὖν ἀλαζονικῶς ἐποίουν βοῶντες κ. τ. λ. The passage needs emendation. We read οὐκ for οὖν. “They did not catch at praise, least of all from a demon: for they were no braggarts, knowing that the power to preach was not of men,” etc.

ἵνα μείζονος θαύματος αἴτιοι γένωνται. B. Cat. Sav. marg. The other mss. read ἵνα μείζονος ἄξιοι θαύμ. γ., “They forbear to answer, so as to become worthy of more admiration.” Hence this clause has been transposed. We refer it to v. 23. “The magistrates give order for their safe custody, thereby becoming the means of a greater miracle.”