THE

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Διὸ καὶ ἐμαυτὸν μάλιστα εἰς ταύτην ἀναγκαίως καθῆκα τὴν πραγ ματείαν, ὥστε ἐπισπάσασθαι τοῖς ἀγνοοῦντας, καὶ μὴ ἄφειναι τοσοῦτον λανθάνειν καὶ ἀποκρύπτεσθαι θησαυρόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλάττονα τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἡμᾶς ὠφελῆσαι δυνήσεται, τοσαύτης ἐμπέπλησται φιλοσοφίας καὶ δογμάτων ὀρθότητος, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν πνεύματος εἰρημένων. (Chrysostom.)

Preliminary remarks on the style of St. Luke, as it is found in this book, collected from Kuinoel's Prolegomena.

As to the style of St. Luke, one may observe, generally, that it is far more accommodated to the genius of the Greek language than that of the other sacred writers. This Evangelist is especially studious of brevity (see 13, 1. seqq. 14, 10, 20. 16, 3. 19, 2 & 4, &c.), and often omits what may easily be supplied from the rest of the narration, or even other passages (see 8, 36. 10, 23. compared with 11, 12. 11, 3. 15, 5 & 34., &c.); not unfrequently passes from the indirect to the direct form of expression (see 1, 4. 17, 3. 23, 22, 23. 25, 8, &c. ;) often so uses the relative pronoun that it answers to the case of the preceding noun, and not the verb following (see 1, 1. 3, 25. 9, 13. 17, 3. 20, 38, &c.); frequently employs the word uolupador (see 1, 14, 2, 1 & 46. 4, 24. 5, 12. 7, 57. 8, 6, &c.), and the verb çoσкартegεiv (Acts 1, 14. 2, 42 & 46. 6, 4. 8, 13, &c.). The words and formulas peculiar to Luke,

and which occur in no other writer, are the following: ἄνδρες κατ' ἐξοχὴν τῆς πόλεως, 25, 23. ἀπελεγμός, 19, 27. ἀφελότης, 2, 46. εξαρτίζειν, used of time, 21, 5. ἐνωτίζεσθαι, 2, 14. ἐπιβάλλειν τάς χεῖρας, suscipere, 12, 1. μοσχοποιεῖν, 7, 41. περιαστράπτειν, 9, 3. προσοπωλήπτης, 10, 34. πρόσπεινος, 10, 10. χρόVOTρIBE (a verb which very rarely occurs), 20, 16. woives vincula, 2, 24.

The words and formulas not used by the other writers of the New Testament, are the following: ἀπέναντι, adversus, 17. 7. ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, 2, 4 & 14. 10, 25. βίωσις, 26, 4. διάλεκτος, 1, 19. 2, 6 & 8. 21, 40. 22, 2. 26, 14. διαστρεφειν ἀπὸ, 13, 8. δωδεκάφυλον, 26, 7. ÈK TEÍVELY Thy xeîpa, a Hebrew formula, used of the Deity, 4, 30. ἐπάναγκες, 15, 28. ἐπίνοια, 8, 22. καταγγελεύς, 17, 18. λυμαίνεσθαι, 8, 3. μεταξύ, post, 13, 42. οἴκημα, carcer, 12, 7. προσκλίνεσθαι, 5, 36. συνέπεσθαι, 20, 4. τανῦν, 4, 29. 5, 38. 17, 30, 20, 32. 27, 22. τιθέναι παρὰ τοὺς πόδας, 4, 35. 5, 2. 7, 57. φάσις, 21.31. See Michaelis apud Eichorn's Introduction. To which I add ὀπτάνομεν.

CHAP. I.

VERSE 1. τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιήσαμην π. π.—ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ I. With the Commentaria which he formed on the sayings, doings, and fortunes of Christ, the Evangelist has connected this book on the Acts of the Apostles, repeating from ver. 1 to 14. the history of Christ's ascension unto Heaven, and offering a more copious detail of that event. (Kuin.) Thus Chrysostom, in his Proleg. calls this book the avaστάσεως ἀπόδειξις, and he adds that this may, in a rough and brief way, be called the whole scope of the book. Now there are some minute points concerning the phraseology of this Evangelist, which must be adverted to. The use of pè without the apodotic dè, an idiom which is found in the best Greek writers, and especially at the proeme of a book. Many examples of this are produced by commentators from Xenophon. It occurs, too, in

all the books of Herodian; as also in Sophocles, Philo, and Eurip. Hipp. See Kypke and Valckn. Πρῶτον is for πρότερον ; as is required by propriety of language, when there are but two things. This use of the comparative is not, however, unexampled. The commentators compare Cic. de Invent. 2, 3. Λόγον ἐποιησάμην. Λόγος is often used by the best Greek writers in the sense which it here bears, namely, of narration, history, or a book of history. For when any work, especially a history, is divided into several parts, those parts are called óyo; as in the histories of Herodotus and Herodian. Hence historians are, by Herodotus and others, called 20yoTool. Nor, indeed, is this without example in the Hebrew language; since 17 sometimes denotes a book of history; as in 1 Chron. 29, 29. Jer. 29, 29. Thus λόγον ποιεῖν, οι ποιεῖσθαι, will have the sense of compose a history. Of the examples adduced by Wetstein, Kypke, and Valck., the most apposite are the following. Diog. Laert. 7, 1, 21. where he tells. us that Zeno λόγον πεποιηκέναι περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος, de officio. Theophr. Char. poтov ev Our Tomoαím. TÒY λόγον. Philo T. 2, 445. ὁ μὲν πρότερος λόγος ἦν ἡμῖν, ὦ θεόδοτε, περὶ τοῦ πάντα δοῦλον φαῦλον. Galen de Usu, Part 2. περὶ πρώτων τῶν δακτύλων ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον.

ἂν ἤρξατο ποιεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν is for ἃ ἐποίησε καὶ édidate. For the pronoun relative, by an Attic idiom, does not answer to the case of the noun preceding, but the verb which follows. The idiom is, indeed, familiar to Luke, and is found not only in the New, but the Old Testament; as Gen. 2, 3. Thus Markland observes that the antecedent being in the genitive case, causes the relative to be put in the same case; and the relative draws the following adjective after it; instead of περὶ πραγμάτων ἃ πάντα ETоinoe. He then compares a similar construction in Luke 3, 19. περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησε πονηρῶν ὁ Ἡρώ dns & 19, 37. Acts 10, 39. 22, 10. Most commentators also suppose a pleonasm in ἤρξατο ποιεῖν

for éroise; since yes, like the Heb.hr, when joined to verbs is redundant; and, as Glass observes, ayeria is sometimes used of complete action. The words weì áo must not be pressed, but are to be regarded as a popular mode of speaking, in which rigid accuracy is not observed.

9. ἄχει ἧς ἡμέρας εντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου, ὡς ἐξελέξατο. There has been much doubt on the construction, and consequently the interpretation of this passage. The ancient Fathers and Commentators join διὰ πνεύματος with ἐντειλάpes. And so the English Version. Some interpreters tell us that Jesus is here considered as a Divine Legate; and that did veguros signifies "by divine impulse and authority." They render ètehapes promised the Apostles divine assistance, endowments, and faculties necessary for their work. Others, however, observe that os éro will then be pleonastic. But that may be doubted. Some modern commentators, as Beza, Sanctius, Elsner, Barrington, and Heinrich, join égezéĝaro and did. But (as Kypke observes) as enaro thus yields a very languid sense, and the trajectio is exceedingly harsh; since not only are these words separated, but also the words oὓς ἐξελέξατο and ἀποστόλοις. Utterly unauthorized, too, is the sense quod attinet ad, which some ascribe to d.à. Kuinoel follows the mode of construction adopted by Beza, Heumann, Kypke, Michaelis, and Rosenmuller, who place a comma after ἀποστόλοις, thus uniting διὰ πνεύματος úziou eλéaro, and transposing only os. This trajectio is, he thinks, the easiest, and, (since in whatever way the words be taken, some trajectio must be admitted) is, upon the whole, preferable. This punctuation is found in some MSS., and is confirmed by the Syriac, Arabic, and Æthiopic versions, as also Cyrill. Nor is the transposition unusual. Examples of it are found in 3, 24. προφήται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ, καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς, ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν for προφῆται ὅσοι κ. τ. λ. Joh. 9. 40. Cic. Verr. 3, 31. cum civitatibus frumentum, in cellam quod sumi oporteret, æstimavit.

"Thus (continues Kuinoel) the words añoσróñois oûs διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐξελέξατο may be explained either whom he had chosen by Divine impulse' (see the note on Matth. 4, 1. Luke 4, 14), or according to the Divine virtue and power, with which he had been endued, in order to the fitting them for their Apostolic office.' 'Evreshάuevos, having given orders.' In ver. 3. (continues Kuinoel, from Bengel) Luke expresses generally what the Lord had said to the Apostles during those forty days: but at ver. 2. he adverts to what he had said on the day of ascension. Therefore evreiλáμevos must be referred to the things which are here mentioned, ver. 4. seqq.

After all, however, the first mentioned mode of interpretation seems the most satisfactory, and, as being supported by the weighty authority of the ancient Fathers, may deserve the preference. Nor do I see how oὓς ἐξελέξατο can be thought superfluous. This mode of interpretation is adopted, too, by Wetstein, who renders, He issued his commands by the Holy Spirit (i. e. a prophet predicting future events), that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the effusion of the Holy Spirit. (See infr. 11, 28. 21, 4. Heb. 11, 22. Gen. 18, 19. 47, 33. 2 Sam. 17, 28. 2 Kings 20, 20.) Not as other men, who, at the approach of death, make their wills, wholly ignorant of the events which shall fall out.' This, however, though ingenious, is very precarious. Schoettgen observes that the whole will be clearer and less difficult, if the words dià veúμatos άyíou be understood of the Divinity of Christ (on which he refers to his note on Rom. 1, 3.); since those things which Christ commanded and ordained, respecting the Church, he commanded and ordained, not as a mere man, but as God, as King of the Church, who could, of his own proper authority, issue his commands with respect to it.

Certainly we are not authorized to limit the term EvTeháμevos having issued his orders to any one order, but must apply it generally to any order which respected the right discharge of their Apostolic office.