And So to Corinth (Acts 18)
And So to Corinth (Acts 18)
18:1-17: Textual Issues
Vs. 4 Observe a stupid gloss of D.
Vs. 5 τῷ λόγῳ Lachmann, Tischendorf, A, B, E, G, etc. The Textus Receptus’ τῷ πνεύματι has very slender support.
Vs. 12 ἀνθυπατεύοντος, Lachmann has ἀνθυπάπου ὄντος [as does] A, B, D, et al.
Vs. 15 ζητήματά, not the T.R. which has ζήτημά.
Vs. 17 Textus Receptus adds οἱ Ἕλληνες after πάντες, others add ‘the Jews.’ Both are glosses.
Vs. 1 Κόρινθον Corinth contrasts with literary Athens, as the busy commercial and political capital of Achaia.
Vs. 2 Ἀκύλαν Like Aquila, the translator of the Old Testament (LXX), this Aquila also came from Pontus. From this we should conclude it was a common name in Pontus. The church of Pontus. No direct account of the evangelizing of it. It lay outside of St. Paul’s route. See Acts 2:9; 1 Pet 1:1. Pliny was in Pontus. Dionysius of Corinth wrote to the diocese of Pontus, Eusebius H.E. iv. 23. On the spread of Montanism in Pontus, Eusebius H.E. v.16. The Paschal Controversy, Palmas (?) its bishop, v.23.
προσφάτως ἐληλυθότα By calculation of the relative chronology of the Acts itself, we arrive at the conclusion that St. Paul arrived in Corinth in the year A.D. 52. Suetonius Claud. xxv, ‘Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit.’ Chrestus = Christus see Lightfoot, Phil. p. 16. False messiahs, or the true Messiah? Probably both. If Priscilla and Aquila had already been converted, they would be among those for whom the edict was directly intended. There is no certainty about the date of the edict of Claudius but so far as probabilities go, it coincides: 1) Agrippa the younger was high in the favor of Claudius. He resided in Rome until A.D. 50 when he left to take possession of his dominion. He returned to Rome at the close of A.D. 52, and in A.D. 53 his favor with Claudius added a new district to his dominion. Claudius died in A.D. 54. 2) Tacitus, Annal. xii.52 on the year A.D. 52 speaks about problems with Jews in Italy and elsewhere. This was probably contemporaneous. Egyptians, Judeans, Chaldeans, all superstitious people who belong in the same category, in Roman feeling. There were a batch of edicts against foreign superstitions. The edict against the Jews seems to have been the first of these decrees. Tacitus describes the other decrees as about ‘atrox et irritum.’ See Diog. Laertius. The edict referenced by Tacitus as against Jews was issued early in A.D. 52. See on this subject Cresb. (?) pp. 121-28, Diog. Laert. lx.6. This is placed at the announcement of the reign of Claudius in A.D. 41 and probably states his earlier policy. The decree of Claudius against the Jews, like the other decree mentioned by Tacitus seems to have been ‘savage and fruitless’ (‘atrox et irritum’). It might cause the immediate removal of such folk as Aquila and Priscilla, but a few years after we find that they had returned and probably the majority of the Jews never left. Perhaps the reappearance of Agrippa may have caused Claudius to suspend or rescind the execution of the decree, or his successor may have abolished it.
Πρίσκιλλαν here and vss. 18, 26 i.e. wherever it occurs in St. Luke [the name takes this form]. But Prisca, Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19. Wherever it occurs in St. Paul the v.l. Priscilla is fairly supported in the Rom 16 and 2 Tim 4 references but slenderly in 1 Cor 16. On abbreviation of names see Silas and Silvanus, Sopater and Sosipater, Drusca and Druscilla, Livia and Livilla. This couple seems to have moved between Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, in prosecution of their trade. They are expelled from Rome by Claudius, visit Corinth and fall in with St. Paul, travel with him to Ephesus (Acts 18:18), where he leaves them. He finds them there on his return (Acts 18:26), and they are with him when he writes his First Epistle to the Corinthians from thence (1 Cor 16:19—see Stanley on that passage). When on the occasion of a subsequent visit to Corinth he wrote Romans, they were once more in Rome (Rom 16:3, and Paley, Horae Paulinae). When we last hear of them they are again in the East (2 Tim 4:19). This is during St. Paul’s second imprisonment.
προσῆλθεν αὐτοῖς This seems to show that if they were not already Christians, they had shown some pre-disposition toward Christianity.
Vs. 3 ἠργάζετο His earnings were however supplemented by contributions from the Macedonian churches (2 Cor 11:9) and were especially from the Philippians (Phil 4:15). This support was only supplementary τὸ ὑστέρημα (2 Cor 11:9 v.l.) and he subsisted mainly by his own labours.
ἦσαν γὰρ σκηνοποιοὶ 1) the precepts of the rabbis See C+H, I p. 58; 2) cilicium C+H, pp. 58, 209. Used in Asia Minor (p. 177)—goat’s hair tents.
Vs. 4 ἔπειθέν is not necessarily connected with διελέγετο . . . ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ so that Ἕλληνας need not mean proselytes. Yet it probably does mean this [here]. cf. Acts 14:1.
Vs. 5 Ὡς δὲ κατῆλθον Cf. 1 Thess 3:1-7 and Paley, Horae Paulinae iv. Paley seems to have given the right account of the matter though he has overpressed the narrative in the Acts to get a coincidence (see Jowett’s remarks, though he gives more wrong the other way). It is quite possible that St. Luke may have known of Timothy’s visit to Athens and return to Thessalonike, and yet have passed it over, just as he passed over the return of Silas from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 15), though his account presumes Silas’ return, and is unintelligible without it.
Silas and Timothy. See 17:14-16. He is expecting them at Athens, but they come to him in Corinth. But see 1 Thess 3:2. But if 1) εὐδοκήσαμεν ἐπέμψαμεν (1 Thess 3:1-2) can refer to St. Paul alone then it is only reasonable to suppose a mission of Timothy from Berea to Thessalonike and both he and Silas would join St. Paul at Corinth. But if 2) the plural cannot refer to St. Paul alone, and must include Silas, then Silas at least must have found St. Paul at Athens as was expected, and afterwards have started hence on a mission to Macedonia where he picked up Timothy and they together joined St. Paul at Corinth. We have already had a parallel instance of a mission of Silas in Acts 15:33, 40 (where the received text supplies the omission).
συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ ‘was constrained by the Word.’ λόγῳ almost = τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, viewed as something concrete and objective. For the construction see Luke 4:38. Comp. 2 Cor 5:14. A.V. adds of St Paul ‘was pressed in the Spirit.’ The construction συνείχετο τινι is common in St. Luke e.g. Luke 8:37; Acts 28:8.
εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν The omission of the εἶναι in the received text is an attempt to make χριστὸν a part of the proper name.
Vs. 6 ἐκτιναξάμενος comp. 13:51, and Mt 10:14. The fact that St. Paul is borrowing the language of Ezekiel (which applies to him as a preacher) and that he was speaking to Jews, who would understand the meaning of the expression is quite sufficient to explain this ‘unPauline speech.’ Cf. Acts 20:26; 1 Cor 14:8. In both of these passages he seems to be referring to ancient prophet’s imagery.
Vs. 7 The reading ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ was corrupted into ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙΤΙΤΙΟΥΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ and since such a name would be very strange it was corrected to ONOMATITITOΥIOΥΣTOΥ.
On the whole Titus or Titius Justus seems the right reading. Perhaps Titius would explain the other readings, but supposing that Titus is the Titus of St. Paul’s Epistles (and if not, Titus is not mentioned by St. Luke). Νote as to the place: 1) this Titus is a resident of Corinth, the other a resident of Antioch; 2) the other Titus had been converted two or three years before and would hardly be called a proselyte! In Galatians he is a ‘Greek,’ which suggests he did not pass through the intermediate stage of proselytism. Titus however had some later connection with Corinth. 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, but Paul does not speak of him as a Corinthian, but rather otherwise. See 2 Cor 8:23. Cf. James who is called ‘the just’ (ὁ δίκαιος).
Vs. 8 Κρίσπος 1 Cor 1:14. A common Jewish name (comp. Josephus Vit. 6, 69).
ἀρχισυνάγωγος See on vs. 17. One of the synagogue officials, and when in the plural it can refer to the elders Acts 13:15 cf. Mark 5:22.
ἐβαπτίζοντο But not necessarily by St. Paul’s own hands, cf. 1 Cor 1:14. Silas and Timothy were with St. Paul assisting him. 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1. He was one of the few at Corinth Paul was responsible for having baptized. Of the others see Baumgar.
Vs. 9 Comp. 2 Cor 12:8.
Vs. 10 λαός . . . πολὺς
Vs. 11 Ἐκάθισεν δὲ A.V. ‘He continued’ but it is much more precise a word.
Luke 5:3, καθίσας . . . ἐδίδασκεν, or comp. Mt 23:2, καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν—‘a professional chair,’ ex cathedra.
ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἓξ So that with the time which elapsed before and after, we may set down the whole length of his stay as about two years.
Vs. 12 Γαλλίωνος It does not follow from the mention of Gallio’s name here that he continued on his proconsulate during St. Paul’s sojourn at Corinth. See similar constructions in Luke 2:1; 3:1. But the more probable explanation is: 1) The Office—Another instance of St. Luke’s accuracy. Achaia was a senatorial province, therefore governed by a proconsul. ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος is the right reading here. It had originally been a senatorial province. Tiberius (see Tacitus Annal. i.76) took it from the Senate in A.D. 15. (See Becker and Marquardt, I p. 321). Claudius in A.D. 44 (Suetonius, Claud. xxv; Dio Cassius, lx.29) gives it back to the Senate. Thus between A.D. 15–44 the term that Luke uses here, ἀνθυπάτος (cf. Howson, I p. 175) would be inappropriate. 2) The Present Holder of the Office—The elder Seneca had three sons. Lucius Annaeus Novatus is the original name of the man who took the name Junius Annaeus Gallio, from his adoptive father L. Junius Gallio. His proconsulship in Achaia is not directly mentioned, but the notice in St. Luke is a connecting link between two notices in Roman writers. Pliny, N.H. xxxi.33, speaking of the advantage of taking a sea voyage, when suffering from a malady, mentions in passing Gallio. Seneca, Epistle 104 speaking of taking charge, mentions his brother ‘Gallionis, qui cum in Achaia.’ Connecting these two passages we see that immediately after his consulship (‘proxime post consulatus’) he was in Achaia (Seneca). Luke gives the reason for his sojourn in Achaia. He was proconsul. This would naturally come immediately after he was consul, according to the Roman practice.
But when was this? Gallio was not one of the consuls who gave the name to the year. He was only suffectus. Hence, we do not know the date. But Seneca was in disgrace and exile until A.D. 49. His brother Gallio is not likely to have been appointed until Seneca’s return to imperial favor. Therefore, Gallio was not consul until A.D. 50, and not proconsul until 51, though perhaps a year or more later. This accords with the date [for the Acts account] of A.D. 52–54. This way of putting things is quite after St. Luke’s manner cf. Luke 2:2; 3:1.
Vs. 13 παρὰ τὸν νόμον . . . If the accusation had been τоί θεоί and not τоν θεόν, Gallio might have accepted it and proceeded against St. Paul, as teaching a ‘religio illicita’ but as it was the νόμος plainly appealed to was the law of Moses, not the law of Rome. The Jews may have tried to mystify the matter but the real meaning was betrayed in τὸν θεόν. Clearly then, it was νόμου τοῦ καθ’ ὑμᾶς.
Vs. 14 μέλλοντος δὲ probably the right reading. ‘Well then if . . . ’ the reply to something said by the Jews.
ῥᾳδιούργημα See notes on Acts 13:10. A light, thoughtless, reckless deed.
κατὰ λόγον Apparently a hapax legomena in the New Testament. ‘In all reason I had borne with you.’
Vs. 15 περὶ λόγου A mere ‘logomacchia’ [word battle], a contention over statements of doctrine, or form of words.
Vs. 17 πάντες Some few, but insufficient, add οἱ Ἕλληνες others, wholly inadequate, add οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Both are glosses, but which is correct [in meaning]? Probably the latter: 1) πάντες would naturally refer to those mentioned before. A Gentile crowd has not been alluded to before. 2) the position of Sosthenes. If he is identified with the Sosthenes in 1 Cor 1:1 which seems probable (the name is not heard of elsewhere, he is attached to St. Paul and Corinth in both cases which strong supports the conclusion that this is the same Sosthenes). If he returned to Corinth (after conversion) he would find himself the mark of the Jews’ anger. Compare the case of Jason at Thessalonike. They could not get hold of St. Paul who was still in the magistrate’s control and protection and so they wreaked their vengeance on Sosthenes.
τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον So Κρίσπος (vs. 8). In all probability Sosthenes was Krispus’ successor because he is said to be ‘the ἀρχισυνάγωγος,’ not ‘one of the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι,’ a body of men, see the notes above on Acts 13:15 cf. Mark 5:22.
οὐδὲν τούτων . . . Here we see the real character of Gallio’s action as related by St. Luke. He indiscriminantly blames and indiscriminantly praises: 1) his rejection of the case. Here he did his duty as a judge, but his manner and language showed his religious indifference; 2) his toleration of tumult, showing indifference to his duty as a magistrate. He was a weak, easy-going person, lacking a high sense of duty or purpose in respect to the public order. This is quite in keeping with his character as portrayed in Seneca, Quest. iv, Prob. I suppose the expression ‘dominus meus Gallio’ in Epistl. 104 denotes the ascendancy of his [career progress] over his brother and not. . . . his ‘official dignity.’ See also Statius Sil. ii.7.30sq.
Vs. 18 ἡμέρας ἱκανὰς An indefinite time, Acts 9:23, 43; 27:7. It will vary according to the circumstances.
κειράμενος To what or whom does it refer? No argument can be drawn from the word order. It is in different orders in St. Paul—Aquila and Prisca (1 Cor 15:19), Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19). It is indifferent also in St. Luke—Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18:2, and Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18:26 where the received text has A+P, however every argument internally and externally points to P+A as the right reading. Who then is meant? The immediate connection supports Aquila, but St. Paul is the principal person in the narrative and as the historian would hardly be concerned with a subsidiary act of Aquila, it would seem more probable then that St. Paul himself is meant. Consider: 1) that it would have a significance to him which it cannot have to us; and 2) that it may have been a carrying out of his rule of becoming a ‘Jew to the Jew’ as e.g. Acts 16:3; 21:20sq.
Κεγχρεαῖς See Rom 16:1. There was already a church there when this Epistle was written.
εὐχήν The cutting of the hair would come at the end of the vow, as in the case of the Nazarites. Num 6:5, 18. This instance was not strictly a Nazaritic vow, but was modified by the circumstances. On the other hand, in Acts 21:24sq. we have a strictly Nazaritic vow.
St. Paul’s stay in Corinth is marked by: 1) the writing of his earliest letters, those to the Thessalonians; 2) the foundation of the hitherto most important of the churches planted by him (on his converts see 1 Cor 1:14-16; 16:17; Rom 16:21-23). Of the contrast between St. Paul’s preaching at Corinth in contrast with his preaching at Athens see Baumgar. cf. 1 Cor 2:1-2, 8—‘I resolved to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.’ The manner of Apollos’ teaching had been somewhat different.
Vs. 19 κατήντησαν The right reading. Textus Receptus has κατήντησεν. St. Luke disposes of the movement of Priscilla and Aquila so he may give his whole attention to St. Paul. The visit to the synagogue was probably immediately before his departure.
Vs. 21 δεῖ με πάντως is an interpolation and must be omitted with Lachmann and Tischendorf so any discussion about the intended Festival is out of place here. If the words were genuine the Feast would be the Feast of Pentecost A.D. 54, the year of Nero’s accession.
‘One of a numerous class.’ Perhaps this preserves a true tradition? Compare however Acts 20:16 from which it may have been derived.
Vss. 22, 23 ἀναβὰς . . . κατέβη—Topographical terms
ἀχηθη . . . κατῆλθον—Nautical terms
ἀναβὰς with εἰς i.e. to Jerusalem. This construction regular in Acts. The absence of any mention of Jerusalem would be an additional motive for the interpolation in verse 21.
His fourth visit to Jerusalem A.D. 54, the year of Nero’s accession.
Vs. 23 τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν See Acts 16:6. On the visit to Galatia, see Gal 4:13, 16. Contrast the expression here with that of Acts 16:6. Here St. Paul is traveling from East to West and takes Galatia first and then Phrygia.
Vs. 24 Ἀπολλῶς = Ἀπολλῶνιος (which D has here, though it might be Apollodorus, Apollonides). He falls in with Aquila and Priscilla here, departs to Corinth where he preaches (1 Cor 3:6, Ἀπολλὼς ἐπότισεν) and assumes (Acts 19:1) a very influential position (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-6; 3:22; 4:6). He returns to Ephesus. That is where he is when St. Paul writes 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 16:12—St. Paul had exhorted him to undertake the journey to Corinth). When St. Paul wrote to Titus (after his release), when he was making his way westward to Nicopolis, he asked him to bring Apollos on his way (Tit 3:12). So Apollos may have been journeying from the East to Rome. There is thus no historical objection to his having written the Epistle to the Hebrews from Rome after St. Paul’s martyrdom, and while Timothy was still in prison. Probably some confusion of, or some speculation founded on an earlier notice about, the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius H.E. vi.14 mentions Paul. The argument is pressed in Eusebius H.E. vi.25 saying some circles ascribed it to Clement (of Rome) and some to St. Luke. Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas, hence the summary of Plotius.
λόγιος has two senses: 1) ‘learned,’ more specifically ‘well-informed in history’; 2) eloquent. The former is the cultic and earlier sense, the latter the popular and later sense. See references in Wettstein, especially Phocylides (Lubbeck, p. 198). It will evidently be in the former sense here. Perhaps a reference to the Apollos party in 1 Cor 1:17sq.; 2:1sq; comp. 2 Cor 10:10. St. Paul’s oratory was despised in comparison.
ἀνὴρ λόγιος i.e. a rhetorician in a good sense of the term. This would include a vast knowledge acquired by way of training (see Meride, Vol. v, p. 227). For the distinction between the earlier and the later sense of the term see the passage in Wordsworth, of which however, he has not made proper use combining the two senses. Westcott, Gospel Harm. p. 33 contends the expression with Herodotus ii.3, but then does not recognize the distinction between the earlier and later sense of the word. Perhaps we may see some traces of ἀνὴρ λόγιος in St. Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:17-26; 2:1-6).
The two points which are noticed then, with respect to Apollos: 1) his eloquence; 2) his handling of Scripture, not improbably pertained to allegorical interpretation such as prevailed at Alexandria. He was to Christianity in fact what Philo was to Judaism. This entirely accords with the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Vs. 25 κατηχημένος Used especially of Christian teaching, cf. Gal 6:6. In the New Testament it is found only in St. Luke (Gospel 1 time, Acts 3) and St. Paul—Rom 2:18; 1 Cor 14:19; Gal 6:6.
ζέων τῷ πνεύματι ‘fervent in or by the Spirit.’ The article seems to point to the external agency. Comp. Rom 12:11.
ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Apparently there is a contradiction of statement here, but obviously the writer did not seem ambivalent (?). He knew accurately certain facts about the life and teaching, and possibly too the passion of Jesus, but in the nature of baptism, he had not gotten beyond the baptism of John. He had not been taught that baptism in Christ was the passport to the Kingdom of heaven.
Vs. 26 Πρίσκιλλα καὶ Ἀκύλας Doubtless the right order: 1) the preponderance of authorities; 2) the temptation to change the order was twofold: a) to put the man’s name first; b) to adopt the order to the masculine ἀκούσαντες.
Vs. 27 προτρεψάμενοι Having encouraged, stimulated him. Consider a) the order, and b) the terms. A.V. is wrong here ‘exhorting the disciples to receive him.’ Compare St. Paul’s language of Apollos 1 Cor 16:12. The term seems to refer to Apollos, judging from the order of the words.
διὰ τῆς χάριτος to be attached to συνεβάλετο πολὺ. Comp. Acts 6:8; 7:10. Rom 12:3 ‘through the grace which was given to me.’ Comp. Rom 12:6; 15:15. It adds little or nothing if attached to τοῖς πεπιστευκόσιν.
Vs. 28 εὐτόνως with nervous energy. Here and in Luke 23:10 only. ‘Die Schilderung das Trikens des Apollos vs. 27f. stimmt ganz mit 1 Kor.iii.6.’
διακατηλέγχετο He held constant, and convincingly disputed with the Jews.