Excursus: The Speech of St. Paul at Miletus

The Third Missionary Journey (Acts 19:21–21:39)

Vs. 21 Vs. 21sq. recapitulation. St. Paul’s first intention had been to take Asia first (2 Cor 1:15), but this had been thwarted. Once he got there, not surprisingly the great feature of the third missionary journey is the long residence at Ephesus (τριετίαν Acts 20:31), whereas the great feature of the second had been the long residence at Corinth (two years). These three years [encompassed] the summer of A.D. 54 to the summer of A.D. 57, roughly speaking. At this point, the greater part of that period was already past. There is: 1) the earliest instances—Acts 19:1-7; 2) the three months preceding in the synagogue—Acts 19:8; and 3) the two years preceding in the school of Tyrannus—Acts 19:10, and possibly after the lapse of these two years we are well into the third year, perhaps this last episode comes from the end of 56 and the beginning of 57. At all events the two points to especially note about the sojourn in Ephesus are: 1) the encounter with the disciples of John; and 2) the encounters with the strolling exorcists, and the dabblers in magic, charms etc. Both these illustrate the type of religious feeling at Ephesus and throw light on later history e.g. the henobaptists, the Sibylline oracles, and St. John’s Gospel and secondly Essene Judaism (Colossians). See on γόητες, 2 Tim 3:13.

During this period Paul wrote his four great epistles: 1) 1 Corinthians, at Ephesus, Easter 57; 2) 2 Corinthians, Macedonia, later 57; 3) Galatians, Macedonia or Achaia end of 57 or beginning of 58. The date of Galatians is uncertain but this is most probably correct; 4) Romans, Achaia, spring 58.

The date of the missionary journey may be gathered from two considerations: 1) the sequence of his journey. Paul’s first intention had been to take Achaia first, so as to pay the Corinthians a double visit. See 1 Cor 16:5; 2 Cor 1:16. He had informed the Corinthians of this intention, probably in the lost letter of 1 Cor 5:9. This intention had already been abandoned when he wrote 1 Corinthians (apparently about Easter A.D. 57). The point of time here may be taken therefore as about the very beginning of 57, hardly later. The force of the expression διελθὼν τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ Ἀχαΐαν would suit either the one grand intention or the subsequent fact. But it seems framed with a view to the latter, and perhaps the original intention may have been mapped out to St. Luke. It is quite clear from many indications that St. Luke was not acquainted with any of St. Paul’s Epistles. 2) The collection of alms and the journey to Jerusalem. εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα—the object. Acts 24:17. Compare this with the Epistles, 1 Cor 16:3; Rom 15:25sq., 31. When 1 Corinthians was written, he was not yet quite sure. When Romans was written his decision was made and on the point of being carried out.

The collection of alms may have begun some time before 1 Cor 16:1-4, διέταξα, 2 Cor 8:1-4, 10; 9:2sq. It would date from the end of 56 or the beginning of 57. St. Paul’s general purpose would take its sense coincidentally with these collections, but it would not take the shape of a definitive decision until later.

ἔθετο ὁ Παῦλος ἐν τῷ πνεύματι Ambiguity of the A.V. decided in different editions by the printing of ‘spirit’ or ‘Spirit.’ Comp. Acts 5:4 ἔθου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (comp. Luke 1:66; 21:14), comp. Rom 1:9 ἐν τῷ πνεύματι μου, and Rom 1:8. The former rendering (‘spirit’) seems necessary because τίθεσθαι above could not signify ‘to determine.’

καὶ ‘Ρώμην ἰδεῖν Rom 1:15; 15:24 comp. Acts 23:11. Hence his appeal to Caesar which was his purpose. It is kept consistently in view by St. Luke, Acts 25:10-12, 21; 26:32; 27:24. The trip to Rome and the establishment of the Gospel there is the goal of St. Luke’s history. The Acts is not abruptly terminated, but this then [Acts 19:21] is the beginning of the end. In other words, this incidental allusion to Rome here points to the close of the book.

Vs. 22 δύο τῶν διακονούντων αὐτῷ Comp. Acts 13:5 ὑπηρέτην. Mark in the first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), the others in the second missionary journey (Acts 16:3). For baptizing etc. 1 Cor 1:14.

Excursus: Timothy and Erastus

Timothy had been dispatched before the writing of 1 Corinthians was sent—1 Cor 4:17; 16:10. He was dispatched with the intention that he go as far as Corinth. Here St. Luke says Macedonia, in 1 Cor 4:17 St. Paul says Corinth (but with some apprehension that he might not get that far—1 Cor 16:10. This apprehension seems to have been justified if we may judge from a) the account here, and b) from the circumstance of St. Paul. He does not mention Timothy’s visit to Corinth in 2 Cor 12:10, 17).

How are the statements to be reconciled? Timothy seems to have been detained in Macedonia where he was ultimately found by the Apostle. 1) In the latter passage (Acts 16:10) a doubt is expressed whether he would reach Corinth; 2) When St. Paul crosses over to Macedonia, we find him in the company of Timothy (2 Cor 1:1) who goes with him to Corinth (Rom 16:21); 3) In 2 Cor 12:17-18 he is not mentioned, as he almost certainly would be if he had visited Corinth at this time. Neither is there any mention of relations between Timothy and the Corinthians; 4) On the contrary, we find St. Paul at Troas and Macedonia anxiously expecting tidings of his first letter, and awaiting the return of Titus for that purpose.

Erastus. No mention of him in 1 Cor or 2 Cor but in Rom 16:23 a person of this name is mentioned. They must be identified. He would go on to Corinth, and remained there, as his native place. Comp. on a later occasion where he is mentioned in 2 Tim 4:20. Why Alford refuses to identify this Erastus with the one in Rom 16 is difficult to say. Alford objects on the basis of the office mentioned in Rom 16 but this appointment could have been made after he returned to Corinth. It was probably an annual office. Cf. 2 Tim 4:20.

Geographical sense: 1) local—Asia, meaning the continent of Asia. This got to be identified, more or less, with the first Asiatic power, the Persian Kingdom. See Aeschylus, Pers. 12; Herodotus i.4, and thus with the Persian monarchy. 2) After the subjugation of Persia, and the division of Alexander’s possession, the part of his Kingdom which lay on this continent became 3) the Selucid (Antiochene) monarchy—1 Macc 8:6, Antiochus, King of Asia, 2 Macc 3:3, Seleucus, King of Asia. 4) The Romans conquer Antiochus and Magnesia. ? ii.38—L Scipio Africanus expels Antiochus. Tacitus xxxvi.4. It was given over to the Pergamon kings (the Pergamene monarchy). See Suetonius iv.19. The name not disturbed afterwards. On all this see Becker and Marquardt, iii. p. 130 and C+H I. Cicero, Pro Flacc. 27. Asia included Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia. This is only a rough inscription, and moreover we doubt if the province varied from that time. 5) The last king of Pergamon, Attalus, left his possessions to the Romans, who created a province in 129 B.C. The phrase ‘Asia Minor’ was quite a later expression.

ἐπέσχεν χρόνον First Epistle to Corinthians written, probably about Easter, 1 Cor 5:7, certainly before Pentecost 1 Cor 16:8. Sent by Titus and another brother (cf. 1 Cor 16:11-12 with 2 Cor 12:8), or nearly at the same time as their mission. Ιn it is expressed Paul’s intent to come quickly (14:19).

Vs. 23 οὐκ ὀλίγος Comp. Acts 12:18; 14:28sq.; 17:4, B*, etc. Sent by the hands of two brothers. Acts 16:11-12. These were Titus and another (2 Cor 12:18). Apollos was with St. Paul at this time. His previous communications with the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:12) were: 1) the lost letter, 1 Cor 5:9; 2) his second visit, 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1. The sending of the letter would seem to be before the tumult. If so he had suffered previous humiliations (ἐθηριομάχησα 1 Cor 15:32).

περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ cf. Acts 9:2. See C+H ii. p. 89.

Vs. 24 Δημήτριος Another of the name [appears in] 3 John 12. Perhaps this could be the full name of Demetrius (see above).

ποιῶν ναοὺς [ἀργυροῦς] Ἀρτέμιδος See the explanation in Aristotle, Rhet. i.14. Dionysius Hal. ii.22 on the name Artemidoros. Dion Cassius, xxxix.20. These were portable shrines containing inscriptions (on the inscriptions Dura. Cap. xxxix, London-Atla. c. xvi p. 108; Boeckh, C.I. iii, p. 437 on shrines of Isis). Ammon. Macel.(?) xxi.13 on the Asclepiades. See Diod. Sicculus xx.14 of Heracles of Tyre.

Staley, Canterbury, p. 234—‘As manner and custom is, shrines there were bright, for men of culture to know charms they had sought. Each man set his silver in such things, and the like.’ See Boeckh 3858e. Comp. Plutarch Brutus 51. So an ἔπαρχοι τέχν. is mentioned again 4340f, 4340g.

On these shrines see Dionysius of Hal. ii.22. 1) their nature (parallels with other deities); 2) their material—silver (here), wood (see Aristotle), copper (see 2 Tim 4:14? ὁ χαλκεύς, the smith); 3) their purpose—twofold—a) as memorials. Amm. (?) Marc. xxi.13; b) as votive offerings. See Royal Academy, Augst. 1871, p. 371. Parallels, St. Thomas of Canterbury, the virgin of Loretto.

Vs. 25 περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐργάτας

Vs. 26 σχεδὸν πάσης τῆς Ἀσίας No example cited, see vs. 10. Epaphras and Philemon at Colossae. The evangelization of the Lycus Valley. Other of the seven churches?

Vs. 27 ἣν ὅλη [ἡ] Ἀσία See Boeckh, C.I. no. 2954. This inscription contains a decree of the Ephesians, relative to Artemis (it’s a eulogy of Artemis), set up in the reign of Tiberius. Also Strabo iv.1, p. 179 mentions that she was worshipped at Marseilles. Apuleius ii. She dates from the primeval age. Before the settlement of Greeks in Asia Minor (Pausanias, vii.2. no 4). Destroyed and rebuilt many times.

The temple which St. Paul saw was reputed to have been the eighth (Falkener, p. 217). See Guhl, Ephes. p. 160sq. Falkener, Ephesus etc. p. 220. Built with the offerings of all of Greece and Asia Minor, C+H, ii p. 85. Built by Hierostratos in 357 B.C. coincident with the rule of Alexander. Rebuilt and adorned from time to time, see Pliny N.H. xxxvii.21. It was in all its splendor when St. Paul wrote. Renovated to greatness by Gallerius Galba in about 260 A.D. Philo, Byz. de Spectacl. Mud. vii. It was 425 feet long and 225 wide—Ionic architecture. Its site a matter of dispute? C+H ii. p. 86. Falkener. It has recently been discovered, see Royal Academy, 1871 p. 371.

Παρείχετο Was the means of bringing. Comp. Acts 16:16 where it is παρεῖχεν.

τεχνίταις artisans, craftsmen, see Smith’s Diction. of the Bible s.v. Ephesus.

Vs. 27 τοῦτο κινδυνεύει ἡμῖν τὸ μέρος This department, this hand of fate.

ἀπελεγμὸν blatant reproaches and so ‘contempt.’ I do not find any other examples of the substantive in the lexicons (another form in Sophocles).

τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς Ἀρτέμιδος See Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. 2963 for the very same phrase. Also Xenephon, Ephes. I p. 15 (quoted by Wettstein). Achilles Tat. viii, p. 501.

καθαιρεῖσθαι τῆς μεγαλειότητος ‘deposed from her magnificence.’ Not as Grimm takes it ‘aligned.’ Circ. Nic. Can. 17, Circ. Ant. Can. 3 (?).

Vs. 28 Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων The addition of the place name necessary, for she was not the ordinary Artemis of Greek mythology but a special deity of Ephesus. See Jerome, prof. Epistl. and at Ephes. viii, p. 539. She was publicly seen as a quite independent local deity, not originally identified with the Greek Artemis, but some resemblance in her attributes. Her distinctiveness from the common Artemis is recognized and she was adopted by other cities e.g. Marseilles where her temple is called Ἐφεσίων. See Aristides quote in Wettstein. The city took its name from the goddess, not from colonization accord to Grabe (?) Ephesus, pp. 98sq.

Vs. 29 ἡ πόλις τῆς συγχύσεως the confusion spread through the city.

εἰς τὸ θέατρον The local place of assembly for such popular meetings. See the passages in Wettstein. More especially Diodorus Sicc. xvi.84. See Philo, Flacc. nos. 10, 11, 20. See Hermann, Grech. Ant. III, no. 128, p. 288. Thucydides x. 128; Cicero pro Flacc. The theatre on Mt. Pison is 660 feet in diameter and able to hold 56,700 spectators, the largest known of its kind. See the picture in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v. Ephesus. See C+H, II p. 83. It was not far from the agora where the tumult would probably arise. Was the temple of Artemis in sight? See Falkener, p. 101, Grabe, Ephesus, p. 182.

Γάϊον Not mentioned elsewhere. Two companions of St. Paul have the same name: 1) of Derbe (Acts 20:4); 2) of Corinth (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23). For an interesting inscription about a Gaius see Boeckh no. 1987, and Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 61.

Ἀρίσταρχος a Thessalonian, Acts 27:2. He accompanies St. Paul: 1) later in this missionary journey (Acts 20:4, A.D. 58); 2) he is with him in Caesarea and departs with him on the sea voyage (Acts 27:2, A.D. 60); 3) he is with him at Rome (Col 4:10; Philem 24, A.D. 62–63). St. Paul in Col 4:10 may refer to this event, but more probably he refers to the sharing of his captivity at Rome.

Vs. 30 δῆμον the popular assembly see Acts 12:22; 17:5. It is not ὄχλος nor λαός.

Vs. 31 Ἀσιαρχῶν President of Asia, rather than the chief of Asia. See Babington (?) on an imperial coin of Laodicea in Phrygia (London, 1866). Magistrates who represented τό κόινον of Asia. Their functions: 1) superintendents of games. Thus the games were celebrated on behalf of τό κόινον of Asia; 2) board of works, either erecting monuments or permitting their erection, and lay out gardens; 3) sacerdotal functions; see Tertullian, de Spect. 11, who refers to their presiding at sacerdotal functions. Their imperial and judicial functions seem to have been well documented. Were the offices of Asiarch and high priest the same? See Babington, p. 105sq. It is with the first of these roles we are concerned. See Martyrd. of Polycarp 22, and in Ch. 21 the mention of the Ἀσιαρχῶν. There is a parallel in a reference to a ‘Syriarch’ in Libanius Epistl. 1217. See Babington p. 10 and references there to the word ‘munerarius.’ The title is common in inscriptions from Ephesus, e.g. 2990, one Dionysios. See Babington, p. 25. See 2464 at Thera, and also 2994. There could be several Asiarchs at a time (Babington, p. 11sq.). It was a highly honorable office.

Vs. 33 συνεβίβασαν must mean persuaded, prevailed upon, convinced (1 Cor 2:16). I do not find any parallel instance of the sense ‘constrained.’ Is he to be identified with the Alexandros of 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 4:14? Hardly with the first, but possibly with the second. The name occurs (as naturally it would) in an Ephesian inscription.

τῶν Ἰουδαίων Alexander (see Boeckh inscriptions nos. 2961b, 3008) seems to have been thrust forward by the Jews to show that they were not at all implicated in these doings of Christians. Note the use of ἀπολογεῖσθαι. This seems to be the natural account of the matter and if so he may have been and probably was the Alexander of 1 Tim 4:14. For another narrative about the persecution of Christians see Acts 6:27sq.

Vs. 34 ἐπιγνόντες See Winer, lxiii p. 710 (Moulton). Comp. Acts 15:22; 20:3; 24:5.

Vs. 35 καταστείλας. τίς γάρ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων ‘why what mortal man is there?’ The mildness (?) of the expression.

ἀνθρώπων, stronger than the common reading, ἀνθρώπως. What’s this tumult for—Mt 27:23; John 7:41.

γραμματεὺς Frequent in Ephesian inscriptions. See Grabe, Ephes. p. 73. The term notary or clerk. Scribes called τὴς πόλεως in the inscriptions. Boeckh, nos. 2953, 2961b, 2964, 2965, 2966, 2968, 2990, 3001, 3015b. He is a very important functionary and takes the initiative in decrees. See also Royal Academy, Augst. 1rst 1871, p. 370.

νεωκόρος the temple warden (see Boeckh inscription nos. 2965, 2977, 2972, 2988, 2990, 2991, 2993), not as menial, as the Jews come to suggest: 1) of the individual priest see Xenephon, Anab. v.3.6; 2) of the people see Josephus, Bell. Jud. v.9.4. On the influence of the Emperors, the inscriptions and coins only go so far to indicate the case here, as they show that the term is applied to the whole people, and not exclusively to the priests.

τοῦ διοπετοῦς Important. The Temple existed for it, and not it for the temple. Its material doubtful, whether ebony or something else. It had survived the destruction of seven temples. Around this the service centered. All the later and more prominent statues did not inculcate the same awe. See Falkener, p. 287. It is a βρἐξας.

Vs. 37 οὔτε ἱεροσύλας E.V.

τὴν θεὸν The force of the form of θεὸς—the goddess regnant, goddess in her own right as the Attic writers speak of. She is ἡ θεὸς on the inscriptions—2953b, 2954. The ‘great god’ in 2963.

ἀγοραῖοι ἄγονται καὶ ἀνθύπατοι Note plurals. See e.g. Euripides, Iph. 1359. Mt 2:20—general plural. See Winer no. 27, p. 218, and no. 4, p. 67 (Moulton). See Kühner, II pp. 14, 17. Josephus, Ant. xiv.10.21; Strabo, xiii, p. 629. See references in Becker and Marquardt, iii.1, p. 136sq.

ἀνθύπατοι εἰσιν Asia is a proconsular province.

Vs. 38 ἀγοραῖοι (courts), ἀνθύπατοι (proconsuls) cf. Iph. Taur. 1359.

Vs. 39 περαιτέρω B, 13 and other good witnesses; περ᾽ ἕτερον E, περὶ ἑτέρων—Aleph, A, D, H, L, P, Philox. (which I have verified), Arm (likewise verified). The first of these is to be adopted as the reading which on the whole best explains the others, and as more likely to be altered, than the converse. This is beyond the reach of scribes, and the common expression περὶ ἑτέρων would come more naturally.

ἐννόμῳ ordinary, regular. ἔννομος is not ‘lawful’ as opposed to ‘unlawful’ but rather ‘ordered by law’ as opposed to ‘extraordinary.’ On the use of these sort of terms at Athens, see Hermann, Griech. Ant. III no. 128, p. 285g with references. Comp. Boeckh, C.I. 1567.

In other words, the matter can afford to wait until one of the stated days for the ἐκκλησία comes. The present meeting was an ἐκκλησία, it would be seen as a lawful gathering, but it was a special gathering and therefore not ἔννομος.

ἐπιλυθήσεται ‘It will be solved.’ Comp. Mark 4:34; 2 Pet 1:20. He obviously contemplates some question of public interest, which would be discussed in a public assembly, as opposed to a legal trial between Demetrius and the defendants which would go before a law court.

στάσεως περὶ so the preposition ought to be accented (see Chandler, p. 250) though all the versions omit it. It must be neuter comp. Luke 23:4, 14, 22. The Memphis has the negative here. There are two ways of taking it: 1) though no real blame attached, we shall not be able to clear ourselves; 2) seeing that we have no excuse, then we shall not be able to clear ourselves concerning etc. putting a stop after ὑπάρχοντος. The latter is better.

Acts 20: The Tumult, the Trip, the Farewell

Vs. 1 Μετὰ δὲ It does not appear clear whether the tumult hastened St. Paul’s departure from Ephesus or not. It could not have done so materially since he intended to leave at Pentecost anyway (see 1 Cor 16:8).

ἐξῆλθεν πορεύεσθαι Sometime in the summer of A.D. 57. He had intended to leave about Pentecost 1 Cor 16:8. Supposing that the letter was written before this tumult (in which case the ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί [1 Cor 16:9] must refer to something previous) this tumult might have hastened his departure, but, if so, it cannot have been very much hastened. In regard to St. Paul’s own feelings and his movements at this time, see 2 Cor 2:12-13 (Troas), and then in Macedonia he meets Titus (2 Cor 7:5-6).

There is another indication of the time of the year. The great festival of Artemis was held in May (see Grabe (?), Ephesus, p. 116sq.). The incident of this tumult seems to be part of this time—the excitement of the people, the heightening of the traffic, the presence of the Asiarchs. This is quite in accord with the notices in the Corinthian Epistles.

Vss. 2-5 From about Pentecost 57 to about Easter 58, some ten months told by the historian in a few verses with a meager itinerary. Yet when we turn to the Epistles, we find that it was one of the most momentous in the Apostle’s life for:

1) The infusion of his energy and the intensity of his feelings, and the severity of his sufferings. See 2 Corinthians espec. 2 Cor 1:5, 8-10; 11:23sq.; 2) his literary activity—three epistles, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Letters fill in the details: 1) He leaves Ephesus and goes to Troas. His anxiety there (2 Cor 2:12); 2) he comes over to Macedonia (2 Cor 2:13), and finds Timothy there (2 Cor 1:1). His continued anxiety (2 Cor 7:5). Arrival of Titus (2 Cor 7:6sq., 13sq.). Then he writes the second Epistle to the Corinthians. He dispatches it with Titus and two brothers (2 Cor 8:16sq.). Then is engaged with the collection of alms—2 Cor 9:1sq. The suffering of the Macedonian churches (ἐν πολλῇ δοκιμῇ θλίψεως—2 Cor 9:2). Then writes the Epistle to the Galatians, here or in Achaia, or while on the journey.

2) He goes to Corinth, writes the letter to the Romans. His intention at this time—Rom 15:23sq. His circumstances, companions etc. Rom 16:21sq.

Vs. 2 Ἑλλάδα The only example of this form in the New Testament. The term of the Roman province is generally used ‘Achaia.’ St. Paul’s third visit to Corinth (the second mentioned in the Acts).

Vs. 3 ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων The Jews at Corinth had been his great opponents on the occasion of his first visit. Acts 18:12-17. Writing to the Corinthians first before the visit, he had spoken of κινδύνοις ἐκ γένους (2 Cor 11:26).

ἐγένετο γνώμης 2 Pet 1:20; 1 Cor 14:33 and other references in Winer, no. 30 p. 244 (Moulton). This phrase implies a change of purpose. This accords with the notices in the Epistles. He there incidently considers the possibility of sailing straight through to Palestine. Rom 15:25. 2 Cor 1:16 will stand equally well, independent of the change of purpose indicated in the previous part of the verse.

Vs. 4 ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας See on vs. 15. It certainly falls short of the truth with regard to Trophimus. The case of Aristarchus is not so clear.

Σώπατρος A Σώπατρος is mentioned in Rom 16:21, as being: 1) a kinsman of St. Paul, i.e. a Jew by birth; 2) as with St. Paul in Corinth on this occasion. Are we to identify the two? In favor of the identification: 1) the contemporaneousness of the notices; 2) he is there mentioned in connection with Jason, perhaps the Jason of Thessalonians of Acts 17:5sq. and so a Macedonian. In this case he would be one of those Berean Jews who were εὐγενέστεροι among their countryman (Acts 17:11). Against the identification: 1) the slight difference in the form of the name; 2) the addition of the word Πύρρου may be intended to distinguish him from another Sopater or Sosipater. In Josephus Ant. xiv.20 is a mention of a Σώπατρος, a Jew and two sentences later a Sosipater, apparently the same person. Another Jew bearing the name is mentioned in 2 Macc 12:19sq. But it represents what Hebrew name? Apparently an uncommon heathen name. See Steph. Tres. s.v.

Ἀρίσταρχος See above Acts 19:29. He accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2) and is mentioned in Col 4:10, Philem 24.

Σέκουνδος Not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Not a common name at Thessalonike, but one of the politarchs, Inscrip. 1967, 1969, 1988, and 1988b.

Γάϊος Δερβαῖος Not mentioned elsewhere.

Τιμόθεος Mentioned here because he came from the neighboring town of Lystra, Acts 16:1. The Peshito here adds ‘of Lystra.’ He had been taken by St. Paul to Macedonia on his journey out, and had been with him at Corinth (Rom 16) and had returned with him.

Ἀσιανοὶ The geographical limits, it does not include Lystra and Derbe.

Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος Some mss. add ‘Ephesoi.’ This is probably because it was a fact, though a false reading. Trophimus can certainly be an Ephesian (Acts 21:29), Tychicus was probably so (Eph 6:21; 2 Tim 4:12). They are perhaps the two brethren of 2 Cor 8:18sq.; 9:3 but see below. They were with St. Paul in Greece. Trophimus is with Paul in Jerusalem (e.g. Acts 21:29), and is with St. Paul after his release (2 Tim 4:20). Tychicus appears with St. Paul 1) at Rome (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7); 2) after his release and Paul seems to have left him at Miletus (Tit 3:12; 2 Tim 4:12, 20). He possibly accompanied Paul to Rome. 2 Cor 8–9 sheds great light on these companions of St. Paul. They are apparently bearers of the alms of different churches to Jerusalem.

ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας has disappeared from the text (cf. vs. 4).

Vs. 5-6 οὗτοι δὲ How many of those previously named? Tychicus and Trophimus only, or all? The latter only . . . comp. Mt 26:39? The whole number accompanied the Apostle, but how far, St. Luke does not say. If they were bearers of contributions, probably as far as Jerusalem. This was certainly the case with Trophimus. But δέ serves as a sort of corrective, so ‘I am anticipating by mentioning these latter, but they only joined us at Troas.’ But these two Asiatics could and would be at Troas. Thus προσελθόντες gets its force right and this incident proceeds naturally—‘having traveled with us i.e. from Asia.’

προελθόντες the right reading. Whether the intended word or not it must be regarded as of earlier authority so far as regards what was written.

ἔμενον ἡμᾶς Observe that 1) the writer is not Timothy or one of the others mentioned by name; 2) the first person plural is resumed at Philippi where it was dropped some years before (see Acts 16:40).

ἡμᾶς, ἡμεῖς Remark: 1) the ‘we’ is distinguished from Timothy; 2) the ‘we’ returns at the same place where it was dropped; Acts 16:11, 16. The two places with which the ‘we’ was connected before were Troas and Philippi. This was six years earlier.

Vs. 6 μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἀζύμων ἀπὸ Φιλίππων He spent this festival season with his beloved Philippian converts. The other instance of St. Paul observing a season is at Acts 20:16. Another example which occurs in the Received Text (Acts 18:21) has disappeared.

ἄχρι ἡμερῶν πέντε On ἄχρι see Heb 3:13. Contrast the character of this journey with Acts 17:11. ἄχρις refers to the end of a period not as in Acts 16:11 εὐθυδρομήσαμεν.

διετρίψαμεν ἡμέρας ἑπτά With the aim of remaining on the Lord’s Day. There would be some disciples here. On his first visit he had apparently done nothing (Acts 16:1-11), but on his later visit ‘a door was open’ (2 Cor 2:12). Thus the notices in the two recent Epistles supplements and explains the notices in the Acts. The Acts does not hint at preaching or making disciples in Troas.

Vs. 7 Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Was it the Sabbath or the Sunday evening? John 20:19; 1 Cor 16:2. See Justin Martyr Apol. i.67 (pp. 158, 160). Rev 1:10 is more doubtful.

κλάσαι ἄρτον Comp. 1 Cor 10:16 with Acts 2:42 and Justin, Apol. I 98E (p. 160, Otto). It was generally accompanied by the ἀγάπη as in its original constitution, which makes the expression more intelligible, but the heart of the festival was the breaking of the Eucharistic bread.

ἡμῶν . . . αὐτοῖς the disciples of Troas.

Vs. 8 ἦσαν δὲ λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ a touch of an eyewitness. It accounts for the dramatic description of Eutychus. It has no further motive. It may serve us now, that there is no mistake about the facts, but this evidential value clearly had no place in the narrator’s mind.

ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ Apparently, this was an abrupt choice, though they would be less likely to be molested there than in the courtyard of the house comp. Acts 1:13. So he passes over a chamber Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12.

Vs. 9 Εὔτυχος a common name.

ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδος not by the window, but upon the window-sill. Comp. Acts of Paul and Thecla, 7.8.4

τριστέγου As we should say, ‘from the second floor.’ διστέγον [the floor below it].

Literally ‘the chamber with the third roofing’ = ‘the chamber on the second floor.’ Even this was unusual in ancient houses, which did not go beyond two stories. Some houses in Rome however had four stories, see Juvenal, Sat. iii. 199.

Vs. 10 ἐπέπεσεν, like Elijah and Elisha. Probably with prayer. Different from our Lord.

Vs. 11 τὸν ἄρτον, the bread, as he had intended, comp. vs. 7.

ὁμιλήσας homiletical sense of the word. Comp. Ignatius, Polyc. 5.

ἐξῆλθεν From the chamber or from Troas? Probably the latter, see vs. 7.

The miracle [and] attempts to dispose of it: 1) By interpretation. νεκρός = ὡς νεκρός. He was at least a corpse so far as any external indications appeared to the bystanders; 2) by analysis of the document. But obviously this miracle cannot be separated from the ‘we’ narrative, the account of the happenings in which it occurred. It is closely interwoven.

γευσάμενος May simply mean ‘tastes’ cf. Mt 27:34.

Vss. 13-15 On St. Luke’s knowledge of seamanship, see Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 36sq. See Josephus, Ant. xviii.6.4; Herodotus, vii.179; Thucydides iii.32 and references in Cassius Dio i.12.

Vs. 13 προσελθόντες v.l. προελθόντες.

ἐκεῖθεν μέλλοντες The distance travelled from Troas to Assos, judging from Kiepsart’s (?) map must be about twenty miles, not more. The sea voyage around Cape Lectum must be nearly twice the distance. Anton (?) Ths. pp. 334-35 makes 36 miles between Troas and Antardus (?). See C+H, II p. 258. The Assos of 27:13 is a variant of some texts.

Vs. 15 καὶ μείναντες ἐν Tρωγυλλίῳ [Byzantine Majority Text]. The preponderance of ancient authorities against it. Trogylium or Trogilium. The Western variation of the New Testament. There was an island of the same name—see Strabo, xiv.1.13, p. 636 in no. 14. C+H, II p. 264 says (e.g. of Trycale) that not more than a mile from Samos is the anchorage of Trogylium. The words however are no part of the original text. This is only one example of several we find in the Acts of the Apostles. Either there was a second recension by St. Luke himself, or later annotations by someone well acquainted with the facts. Some of these appear in the Textus Receptus, e.g. Acts 28:16. Others which are not there we find in D and other authorities e.g. Acts 12:10. Under any circumstances it does not affect the reckoning of time. The ἐχομένῃ starts from τῇ . . . ἑτέρᾳ.

Παρεβάλομεν See below.

Vs. 16 τὴν ἡμέραν To arrive at Jerusalem and spend the [Pentecost] day there. Did he succeed? He leaves Philippi immediately after Easter, Acts 20:6. From Easter to Pentecost are 50 days, but one must make allowance for the days of Unleavened Bread themselves, six days. So we have: 1) from Philippi to Troas, 5 days (Acts 20:6); 2) sojourn at Troas, 7 days (Acts 20:6); 3) Troas to Assos, 1 day; 4) Assos to Mitylene and on to Chios, 1 day (Acts 20:15); 5) Chios to Samos, 1 day (Acts 20:16); 6) Samos to Miletus, 1 day (Acts 20:16); 7) sojourn at Miletus, 2 days? The distance from Trogylium to Miletus is about 17.5 nautical miles. If the vessel sailed at 6 in the morning it would arrive in the harbor at 9. All this = 19 days.

Then, 1) Miletus to Cos, 1? day; 2) Cos to Rhodes, 1 day (Acts 21:1); 3) Rhodes to Patara, 1 day; 4) Patara to Tyre, 5? Days; 5) sojurn at Tyre, 7 days (Acts 21:4); 6) Tyre to Ptolemais, 1 day; 7) sojourn at Ptolemais, 1 day; 8) journey to Caesarea, 1 day (Acts 21:8). Total = 18 days. This reckoning is ample. In Acts 27:2 the voyage from Caesarea to Sidon only occupies one day. The reckoning of five days from Patara to Tyre is taken from Chrysostom Hom. on Acts, 45 (Op. ix, p. 340). Chrysostom reckons 34 days from Philippi to Ptolemais. Also, this reckoning is quite in accord with the notices of ancient sea voyages (e.g. arrival on the fourth day from Rhodes to Alexandria). See Diodorus iii. 34. With a favorable wind, a vessel from 1,000 to 1,200 stades in 24 hours. See Friedlander, Se. II pp. 14-15. We have thus 43 days. Now when St. Paul arrives in Caesarea he stays ἡμέρας πλείους (Acts 21:10). As it had been his object to arrive at Jerusalem at Pentecost ‘if it be possible,’ this sojourn at Caesarea might be due to either of two causes: 1) either he found out he would not arrive in Jerusalem in time, and so there was no object in proceeding forward, or 2) there was plenty of time still to spare. The reckoning (above) shows that the latter was the case. According to Jerome, the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem is sixty-eight miles, but there was a shorter route (see Acts 28 and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v. Antipater). At Miletus, he could not finesse the contingencies of the voyage. Therefore, he did not venture χρονοτριβῆσαι ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ (vs. 16). At Tyre he stayed 7 days. There however he might have been delayed owing to the inability to get another vessel (though this is hardly probable). But at Caesarea, he was his own master, and could have proceeded to Jerusalem as soon as he liked. The delay therefore must be explained by the fact that time was no longer an object to him. He had a sufficient number of days to spare. The journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem would take two days at least.

Vs. 17 Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου Miletum E.V. of 2 Tim 4:20. Miletus has four harbors. Now a second rate town, see C+H, ii, p. 267. St. Paul probably found out that the vessel would stay a sufficient time in the harbor. According to one reckoning, it took practically three days for summoning the Ephesian elders, for their journey to Miletus, and St. Paul’s discourse. The distance from Miletus to Ephesus—some 30 miles?

τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας To be noted: 1) πρεσβυτέροι = ἐπισκόποι (see vs. 28 and Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 94sq.; 2) the statement of Irenaeus iii.14.2 (see Ibid, p. 96) is inconsistent with the direct language here: a) τῆς ἐκκλησίας; b) There would be no time.

Vs. 18 ἀπὸ πρώτης Without the definite article, e.g Mark 15:25; Acts 13:10.

ἐπέβην εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν Asia in its limited sense. It is thus consistent with: 1) the narrative of the Acts, which only narrates Ephesus as the scene of St. Paul’s persona, ministry; 2) the notices in the Epistles, e.g. Colossians, yet this is especially the church which we would have expected to have had his personal invitation.

Vs. 19 δακρύων Gionardi’s (?) St. Paul.

πειρασμῶν τῶν συμβάντων μοι Acts 19:9, 13sq., 33. The notices in 1, 2 Corinthians do not mention Jews by name, but the references to persecution suggest this, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1.

Vs. 20 ὑπεστειλάμην practiced no evasion, kept nothing in the background, did not withdraw or withhold. References in Steph., s.v. p. 431sq.; Demosthenes, Panton. p. 980; Plato, Apol. 24A. It might mean either: 1) shrink from nothing, or 2) kept back nothing. Probably the latter. Comp. Josephus, Bell. Jud. i.20.

δημοσίᾳ In the school of Tyrannus.

Vs. 21 chiasm

Vs. 22 τῷ πνεύματι, in my spirit. Apparently distinguished from ‘the Holy Spirit,’ as is occasionally interpreted of Acts 19:21.

Vs. 23 λέγον or λέγων. If the latter, compare the ἐκεῖνος of St. John. λέγον however would seem to be correct. This apparently the reading of B. Either by the mouth of the prophets (e.g. Acts 21:11) or directly to St. Paul (e.g. Acts 16:6-7).

Vs. 24 οὐδενὸς λόγου a conferring of instructions publicly, during the course of the report. The common reading can only be regarded as a correct for the sake of the diction. New references on λόγος in Steph. H. s.v. p. 372.

τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ The Pauline teaching, comp. Acts 15:9, 11.

Vs. 25 ἐγὼ οἶδα Phil 2:24, Philem 22, Clement of Rome. But did he visit Ephesus? Not absolutely certain. See 1 Tim 1:3, but οἶδα need not be pressed.

Vs. 28 1 Pet 5:2.

ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου A.V. Similarly in Latin. ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ E.V.

1) κυρίου A, C, D, 13 Philx. marg., Ital., Sahid., Memph., Peshit., Apostl. Const. ii.61, though the original reading had been Θεοῦ.

2) Θεοῦ א, B, Philx. text, Pesch v.l., Cyril, Epiph. et al.

3) Combining ‘Lord and God’ H, L, P (the majority of cases). There are other minor readings and variants.

The question is between 1) and 2 ). All the others are secondary readings. Now on external evidence we should decide for 2). But the other reasons perhaps support the reverse decision. Θεοῦ more likely to have been altered than conversely, to meet Patripassionism, Nestorianism, Apollonarianism etc. The latter, more distant reasons in this discussion. On the one hand, it is agreed that ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ is the common phrase in St. Paul, whereas he does not use ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου. This is true, but such a fact was not very likely to influence similar use, especially as St. Paul does use the phrase ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 16:16) so that there would be nothing unusual in the expression, although this motive is much less potent than the other. But with regard to the probability of the reading in itself, it is to be observed: 1) that it is a different thing from saying τοῦ αἵματος Θεοῦ; 2) that the Christian writers of the earliest age (before Patripassianism) did not shrink from expressions which later would be considered Patripassianist. See e.g. Clement of Rome ii ‘the suffering of God’; Ignatius, Ephes. i; Rom. vi; Test. 12 Patriarch, Lev. iv.

Vs. 29 ἐγὼ οἶδα Indications in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. The evil has already broken out in the Pastoral Epistles. 1 Tim 1:6-7, 20; 4:1-3; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:5; 2:16-18; 3:1sq., 13; Tit 2:10-16; 3:9sq. The messages to the seven churches Rev 2:6, 9, 14-15, 20; 3:9.

Vs. 33 ἀργυρίου ἢ χρυσίου Comp. 1 Sam 12:3.

Vs. 34 The punctuation. πάντα in vs. 35 to be attached to what precedes it? 1 Cor 10:25, 33; 11:2 so τὰ πάντα Eph 4:15.

Vs. 35 ὑπέδειξα ‘I set up an example.’

Μακάριόν ἐστιν See Clement of Rome ii; Apostl. Constit. iv.3. Relation to St. Luke’s Gospel—there are facts related in the Acts which are not narrated in the Gospel, e.g. the promise of the Comforter.

Excursus: The Speech of St. Paul at Miletus

1) It has the appearance of being a short report of the speech. In the Received Text, the abruptnesses are smoothed out, connecting particles added (e.g. προσέχετε οὖν, vs. 28; αὐτοὶ δὲ, vs. 34; ἐγὼ γὰρ οἶδα, vs. 29), contracts are explained (e.g. ἀλλ᾽οὐδενὸς λόγον ποιοῦμαι οὐδὲ . . . vs. 24), and curtness of expression amplified (e.g. βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, vs. 25; ἐποἰκοδομῆσαι, vs. 32).

2) It has quite the character of a speech of St. Paul (after allowance is made for the editing (?) etc. of reporting). Vs. 18 Ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε, the opening appeal to his missionary work among them. 1 Thess 1:10; 2:5 the very expression ἐγενήθημεν. ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας see Phil 1:5. Vs. 19 δουλεύων τῷ κυρίῳ Comp. Rom 12:11, and so ‘servant of Christ,’ ‘servant of God’ elsewhere in St. Paul. ταπεινοφροσύνης a favorite word of St. Paul. Elsewhere in the New Testament it occurs only once, 1 Pet 5:5. The very expression μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης occurs at Eph 4:2. Vs. 20 (and vs. 27) ὑπεστειλάμην [Gal 2:12], not elsewhere in the New Testament except Heb 10:38 where it is from the LXX. Vs. 20 διαμαρτυρόμενος Confined to St. Luke and St. Paul in the New Testament (with one passage in Hebrews). Vs. 22 ἐν πνεύματι Pauline parallels in Alford, reference to 17:16. Vs. 23 δεσμά St Paul’s frequent allusion to his bonds. The plural in St. Paul is δεσμοί, in St. Luke δεσμά. This is just where the reporter would come in. Phil 1:13; Luke 8:29; Acts 16:26. The passages where we searched as sufficient for an indication. Comp. the dramatic allusions to his bonds in the speeches of St. Paul, Acts 26:29. It was the sense of indignity in a Roman citizen. Vs. 24 τελειώσαι τὸν δρόμον The common metaphor in St. Paul. Esp. 1 Cor 9:24sq.; 2 Tim 4:7. In the latter passage τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα. τὴν διακονίαν—a very frequent and indeed characteristic expression of St. Paul in speaking of the office (e.g. Rom 11:13; 2 Cor 4:2; 6:3; Eph 4:12 etc. and especially Col 4:17). διαμαρτύρασθαι a common usage in St. Luke, in the correct text of 2 Tim 4:1 we seem to have the construction but not elsewhere, τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ, the Pauline doctrine. Vs. 25 εγὼ οἶδα St. Paul anticipating the future with οἶδα (Rom 16:29; Phil 1:19). In other connections οἶδα common in St. Paul. ὄψεσθε τὸ πρόσωπόν μου Col 2:1; 1 Thess 2:17; 3:10 in all places used of personal relations between St. Paul and his correspondents. The expression only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament at Acts 6:15; Rev 22:4, and there in different senses. Vs. 26 μαρτύρομαι Gal 5:3; Eph 4:17 (not elsewhere in the New Testament). τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ 2 Cor 3:14 (the right reading). Rom 11:8 St. Paul is quoting the LXX, but in place of the diction of the LXX he has ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας. The expression τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Vs. 28 ἔθετο 1 Cor 12:28, chiefly Pauline, the verb only in St. Paul (1 Tim 3:13; comp. Eph 1:14). διὰ τοῦ αἵματος Comp. Eph 1:7; Col 1:14, 20; comp. Heb 13:12. Vs. 29 φειδόμενοι seven times in St. Paul, elsewhere only 2 Pet 2:4-5. Vs. 31 μνημονεύοντες ὅτι Eph 2:11; 2 Thess 2:5. Only St. Paul in the New Testament. νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν. Very frequent in St. Paul and only in this order. Elsewhere frequently in Revelation and see Mark 4:27; 5:5; Luke 2:37. Alford is wrong that the accusative does not occur outside of St. Paul. See Luke references. οὐκ ἐπαυσάμην Comp. Eph 1:16; Col 1:9. The expression however occurs in St. Luke. μετὰ δακρύων (as also in vs. 19). Comp. 2 Cor 2:4. On this it may be observed that: 1) the two notices refer to the same crisis in his life; 2) he alludes to his tears in both passages by way of appeal to his concern. νουθετῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον Comp. Col 1:28. The word νουθετεῖν is peculiar to St. Paul in the New Testament. 1 Thess 2:11. Vs. 32 δοῦναι τὴν κληρονομίαν See Eph 1:18; Col 1:12. Vs. 33 ἀργυρίου ἢ χρυσίου The appeal to his disinterestedness 1 Cor 9:15sq.; 2 Cor 7:2; 11:9sq.; 12:13sq.; Comp. 1 Thess 2:5. Vs. 34 αὐτοὶ γινώσκετε St. Paul’s mode of appeal. See especially 1 Thess 2:1; 3:3; 2 Thess 3:7 and elsewhere. ταῖς χρείαις μου Comp. especially Phil 2:25; 4:16. On the phrase μετ’ ἐμοῦ . . . αἱ χεῖρες, 1 Cor 4:12 (comp. 1 Thess 4:11). ὑπηρέτησαν his own example of manual labor urged upon his converts 2 Thess 3:7. The affection (?) of the example, see 1 Cor 10:31–11:2. ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, only in Luke 1:54; 1 Tim 6:2 but see especially 1 Thess 5:14 and for the general idea and expressions see Eph 4:28.

SUMMARY: We have thus shown that: 1) the Pauline doctrine appears; 2) that the practical applications and mode of appeal of St. Paul are strikingly reproduced; 3) that there are very few expressions for which parallels cannot be produced in St. Paul’s Epistles and some are singularly characteristic of him. Contrast the speeches at the beginnings of Acts. Evidence of growth.

Vs. 37 ἱκανὸς A very favorite word with St. Luke. This a crucial instance of the sense ‘very great,’ Acts 5:37; 9:23.

Vs. 38 εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, whether the same vessel or not, we cannot determine. Probably so, as the sojourn had been brief. Comp. prior to Acts 21:6.

Acts 21: Once More to Jerusalem

Vs. 1 εὐθυδρομήσαντες On the prevailing north-westerly and northern winds, see C+H, ii, p. 274. ‘With the wind the vessel would make the passage from Miletus to Cos in six hours’ (p. 272). As St. Luke does not say ἑξῆς or the equivalent here, they probably arrived on the same day as they started. On the ‘etesia flabra Aquilorum’ see Luc. v.742, vi. 715, 730; Drod. i.38.2; Arist. De Mund. 4 (p. 395). The whole voyage seems to have been safe and prosperous, as indeed with the prevailing winds it would probably be.

εἰς τὴν Κῶ The connection of words which gives the modern name to the island ‘Stanko.’ Κῶ is the right reading here. The connection with Judaea—privileges conferred on this island by Herod. Josephus, Bell. Jud. i.21.11, as shown in the inscription in Boeckh, no. 2502 i.e. Herod the Great’s son, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, contrast Mt 2:1 with Acts 14:1. From Cos, the main coast began to bend off in an easterly direction. The travel from Cos to Patara was from NW to SE, from Patara onward from W to E. The south coast, rightly speaking would be said to begin opposite Rhodes. Patara a sort of port town of Xanthus. See Appian, Bell. iv. 81. See references in Wettstein. Obviously an important shipping station. Comp. Strabo, xiv.3 (p. 666). The bay now is choked with sand.

Vs. 2 διαπερῶν ‘a through passage.’ See Winer xlv, p. 429 (Moulton). It would appear that this was not the starting point, however this is not certain. The present only signifies that it may be the point of starting.

Vs. 3 ἀναφάναντες, ‘have sighted.’ See Winer no. 39 p. 326. A nautical phrase, illustrative of St. Luke’s seamanship. See C+H, II p. 282, comp. ἀποκρύπτειν.

εἰς Τύρον They did not coast, but sailed across the open sea leaving Cyprus on their north and obviously at some distance, so that they only sighted it. The distance between Patara and Tyre, 340 geographical miles (C+H ii. p. 281). The rig of a (?) peculiarly favored, a quick run? The voyage is said to be accomplished in 48 hours. I have allowed five days, following Chrysostom.

ἐκεῖσε γὰρ Whether the vessel was already full of cargo, i.e. whether the vessel was bound on the errand of unloading her cargo. See Winer no. 45, pp. 439, 592. Two points to be observed: 1) the abridgement of the sentence—whither it was bound and there it would unload; 2) the use of the present for the future, as if to say ‘And there I unload my cargo’ because it is a part of the present intention. The process had in some sense begun.

Vs. 4 ἀνευρόντες ‘Having found out the disciples.’ The natural language of one who was present. The A.V. obliterates this sense, ‘having found disciples’ as if ευρόντες μαθητὰς τινὰς. The fact of there being disciples is assumed. How came there to be disciples at Tyre? 1) Our Lord’s personal ministry. He visited these parts, Mt 15:21; Mark 7:24. 2) Persons from these parts seek this ministry, Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17, see the Συροφοινίκισσα; 3) the Apostles, Phoenica—Acts 11:19; 15:3 in connection with St. Paul himself; 4) the Clementine Hom. vii.5 and elsewhere.

ἐπιβαίνειν Not to set foot in Jerusalem, comp. Acts 20:18. This word much more vivid and forceful than ἀναβαίνειν of the Received Text.

Vs. 5 ἐξαρτίσαι ‘completed.’ See Hippocrates ii.180 and elsewhere, passages quoted in Lubeck, Phyrg. p. 447. The other meaning given to ἐξαρτίσαι here ‘we had spent the days in making our preparations.’

ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν the sandy or pebbly beach. See references in Steph. Ther. s.v. p. 895. This would be reported for the incident, and this is the character of the coast at Tyre.

Vs. 6 ἀπησπασάμεθα Hiner, Phot. Bill. 243 p. 369, instances of the word are given. Different from what is in the Received Text ἀσπασάμενοι.

τὰ ἴδια Luke 18:28 v.l.; John 1:11; 16:32; 19:27.

Vs. 7 τὸν πλοῦν διανύσαντες ἀπὸ Τύρου ‘having accomplished the voyage from Tyre.’ This cannot be forced to mean that they finally left the ship at Ptolemais and performed the rest of the journey by land. In order to make it mean that: 1) the ἀπὸ Τύρου is taken with what follows, but why this emphatic position of this phrase? 2) the order would imply that they had finished the voyage before they went from Tyre to Ptolemais. Ptolemais was one of the best harbors in the whole area. No other mention of Ptolemais in the New Testament. There is an exactly parallel passage from Xenephon, Ephes. showing the force of this expression, see C+H and Gloag—meaning ‘having ended the whole voyage.’ There is a bishop of Ptolemais in the latter half of the second century, see Eusebius, H.E. v.25.

Vs. 8 ἐξελθόντες does not necessarily imply a land journey. In C+H, ii. p. 287—‘ἐξ is far more suitable for a departure by land than by sea.’ See e.g. vs. 5.

Vs. 9 Philip the Evangelist, carefully distinguished by St. Luke from Philip the Apostle. There was confusion in later ages. A certain Philip lived in Hierapolis. Which Philip can it be? See Papias (H.E. iii.39), Polycrates (H.E. iii.29, 31), Clement of Alexandria (H.E. iii.30). Hitherto no trace of confusion. Dialogue of Ca. and Proculus (H.E. iii. 31) followed by Eusebius.

Vs. 10 προφήτης ὀνόματι Ἄγαβος comp. Acts 11:27-28 (and see the reading of D).

Vs. 11 δήσας ἑαυτοῦ the right reading, and indeed he would. Τὸν ἄνδρα οὗ ἐστιν shows that it was not Paul himself who was bound.

τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας The better authenticated reading, preferable in itself because it gives the only possible order. On the symbolical action see 1 Kings 22:11, Zedekiah; Is 20:2, Israel in sackcloth; Jer. 13:1sq., Jeremiah’s girdle; Acts 27:2, the bonds and yoke. Ezek 4:1; 12:3; 24:3; and Amos 8:1.

Vs. 14 Τοῦ Κυρίου τὸ θέλημα The emphatic position important. The Lord’s will, not ours etc.

Vs. 15 ἐπισκευασάμενοι The word is used of packing the luggage, or the wagon, or the beast of burden. Generally used in the active sense, see Xenephon, Cyr. vii.3.1. Sometimes in the middle. Xenephon, Hell. vii.2.8. See more references in Wettstein, and on one who accompanied the wagon or the beast of burden.

Vs. 16 ἄγοντες The A.V. is right: 1) the order favors it; and 2) it supplies the sense and the attraction is more natural. See Rom 6:17. Kühner, II p. 913; Winer, no. 24, p. 205, no. 31, p. 268.

Μνάσωνί For the name see Shep. Herm. s.v. and the recent (?) inscription from Cyprus. It is an adaptation of the Hebrew name Manassah comp. e.g. Jason. He would be a Jewish Christian going up to Jerusalem for the Feast.

ἀρχαίῳ μαθητῇ For ἀρχαίῳ comp. Acts 15:7, for Cyprus Acts 11:19; 13:4.

Vs. 18 πρὸς Ἰάκωβον Acts 12:17—A.D. 44, Acts 15:13—A.D. 51; Gal 1:19, 2:9 sq.

πρεσβύτεροι Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2sq.; 16:4.

Vs. 20 πόσαι μυριάδες not to be interpreted literally, e.g. Plato, Leg. vii (p. 804). It is quite possible at this time however, that the Jewish and even Hebrew Christians associated the terms of (?).

πάντες ‘It is quite certain that,’ comp. 1 Cor 9:10; Luke 4:23. The alarm is vividly expressed in the abruptness of the correct text.

Vs. 23 εὐχὴν ἔχοντες Nazarite vow, Num 6. Its length uncertain, but at this time it possibly lasted 30 days—Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.15, so the Mishnah, Nazir i.3 (Surent., III p. 148). The main act, an offering at the end of the period.

Vs. 24 ἁγνίσθητι, not that St. Paul himself undertook a Nazarite vow. There was no time for this, and obviously the ἁγνίσθητι excludes the supposition that he had one already, for in that case we would have here ἡγίσμένος already. But a temporary abstinence from defilement would serve the necessity of a condition of his taking his part.

δαπάνησον Josephus Ant. xix.6.1 of Agrippa I. So too, Alexander Janneus pays the expenses for 300 Nazarites. See Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. Nazarite, p. 472.

ξυρήσονται seems to be correct (though there would be a tendency to conform to γνώσονται). A future is possible with ἵνα e.g. Rev 3:9 and Winer no. 41, p. 360sq. (Moulton). If ξυρήσονται is correct then γνώσονται is a change to direct construction as in Luke 22:30 (the correct reading), and Eph 6:3.

Relation of the Proceeding to: 1) St. James—See Hegisippus in Eusebius H.E. ii.23; 2) St. Paul 1 Cor 7:17-19; 9:20; 8:13; Rom 14:21. In Acts comp. the circumcision of Timothy and the vow at Cenchreae. St. Paul persistently maintained the freedom of the Gentile Christians. He did not interfere with the observance of the law by Jewish Christians, probably recommended it. Time—the destruction of Jerusalem, ‘the coming of the Lord,’ would complete the work. But what did he do in his own person? We may suppose that he would practice that course which would be ἀπρόσκοποι . . . Ἰουδαίοις (1 Cor 10:32), i.e. he would generally observe the law, for the sake of the Jews, though in very exceptional cases a departure from it might be necessary for the sake of the Gentiles. This view is quite consistent with Gal 2:11sq. where it is the question of eating with the Gentiles.

Vs. 25 See Acts 15:20, 29; 16:4.

Vs. 26 ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη ‘until . . . had been fulfilled.’ Is this connected with declaring the fulfillment of the days or the days of purification? If with the former then it would seem to simply [indicate] that he was not interrupted. With the latter we might expect προσηνέχθειν. But the statement here is made without counting on the contingency that it might be aborted. The instances of the indicative in Alford (following de Wette) are not to the point here. See Kühner, II no. 567, p. 950; Winer no. 41, p. 371.

Vs. 27 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἰουδαῖοι who were there for the Festival. Comp. Acts 2:9.

αἱ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι This raises the question of the chronology of this visit to Jerusalem:

Table 2. Paul’s Visit to Jerusalem

Days

21:17 arrival in Jerusalem

v. 18

v. 26 he enters into the temple [the seven days—v. 27]

22:30 Paul addresses the Sanhedrin

23:11, 12-31 conspiracy against Paul, he is recognized by sight

v. 32 he is taken to Caesarea

24:1 arrival of Tertullas and others and the speech of St. Paul (it is not absolutely clear from what point these five days are reckoned)

St. Paul says (Acts 24:11) οὐ πλείους εἰσίν μοι ἡμέραι δώδεκα ἀφ’ ἧς ἀνέβην προσκυνήσων εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. There are therefore ten (supposing that the five days are reckoned from his removal from Jerusalem) or nine days after his arrival in Jerusalem. We cannot therefore add to this seven whole days. What then are the seven days?:

1) They refer to the Pentecostal Festival, but according to the law it was only a single day (Lev 23:15; Num 28:26sq.). At this time however, there is good reason for thinking that Pentecost, as indeed all the great Festivals, was preceded by a week of solemn preparation, and so was a seven days’ Festival, the great day being the last of the Festival. Comp. Josephus Ant. xviii.4.3, the discussion about the high priest, and see also Mishnah, Hagg. ii.4; Mo’ed Ka. iii.5 (Sur., II pp. 419,420), with the commentary of Mamonides, hence Acts 2:1 συμπληροῦσθαι. In this case, the period of the days has nothing to do with the reckoning. The twelve days would be made up then by interposing a day or two between Acts 21:26 and Acts 21:27 i.e. between St. Paul’s first appearance in the temple and the tumult, not by reckoning in the two day journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea, because the events of vs. 26 and vs. 27 can hardly have taken place on the same day.

2) The seven days are the days of St. Paul’s purification, i.e. the days of purification of vs. 26 = the seven days of vs. 27. And so far this interpretation is plausible. But, there is no evidence of such seven days of purification, though it might be founded on the analogy of Num 6:9. Also, it leads to a slightly forced interpretation of ἔμελλον αἱ ἑπτὰ for only three of the days could have passed.

Vs. 28 βοηθεῖτε ‘to the rescue!’

ἔτι τε καὶ See Josephus, Bell. Jud. v.5.2; Ant. xv.11.5. On the famous warning inscription in the temple, see M. Ganneau’s discussion Palestinian Exploration Fund. Aug. 1871 p. 132 (see also Oct. 1871, p. 172). M. Ganneau has apparently overlooked the second passage from Josephus. Comp. Philo, Leg. ad Gaius 31 (p. 571).

Vs. 29 Τρόφιμον τὸν Ἐφέσιον

Vs. 30 ἔξω τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not the whole of the enclosure, but the court of the Israelites for: 1) it must be defined by the ἱερόν in vs. 28; Gentiles were admitted within the outer court; 2) the subsequent scene evidently takes place within the enclosure. The θύραι then are the gates that shut off the Court of the Israelites. This in fact is what Josephus, Bell. Jud. v.5.2 calls ‘the second temple.’

Vs. 31 τῷ χιλιάρχῳ, the tribune. His name is Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26). Lysias indicates of Greek extraction, Claudius indicates connection with the imperial household.

τῆς σπείρης ‘cohort.’ Polybius xi.23.1. See Shep. Herm. s.v. p. 669. On the presence of the soldiers at Feasts see Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.12.1, sometimes more than one σπείρα (ii.15.3).

Vs. 32 ἐξαυτῆς they were kept in arms, ready for any consequences.

Χιλίαρχον A tribune and his soldiers.

Vs. 33 ἁλύσεσι δυσί Comp. Acts 13:7. Where the confinement was not so strict, one chain was enough. Acts 28:20; Eph 6:20; 2 Tim 1:16. τίς εἴη (who he was) καὶ τί ἐστιν πεποιηκώς (and what he has done), a change of construction from the oblique to the direct. The correct reading is τίς εἴη not τίς ἂν εἴη (Majority Text). The A.V. however, reading the latter has translated it as if it were the former.

Vs. 34 παρεμβολήν, see vs. 31 ἀνέβη, vs. 32 κατέδραμεν, vs. 35 ἀναβαθμούς (the stairs). On the Antonia Fortress see Josephus Bell. Jud. i.5.4 on its name and position, also v.5.8, vi.2.9, and Ant. xv.11.4. See Robinson, I 292sq. and III p. 230sq. On the παρεμβολήν or barracks Lubbeck, Phryg. p. 377 on Macedonians.

Vs. 37 Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις Xenephon Ap. vii.5.31. See Luke 22:23. It cannot have been St. Paul’s knowledge of Greek, but rather something in the manner of his address [that led to the question].

Vs. 38 ὁ Αἰγύπτιος Josephus gives an account of this imposter in Ant. xx.8.6 and Bell. Jud. ii.13.5. In the former passage he calls him ‘a certain one from Egpyt, claiming to be a prophet,’ in the latter he calls him a pseudo-prophet. He collected a large number of followers, situated himself on the Mt. of Olives, claimed that at his bidding the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, persuaded his followers to advance and attack the city, was anticipated and thwarted by Felix. The point of coincidence between Josephus and St. Luke being the general description of the man, and his proceedings, more or less: 1) the date, St. Luke πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, the words are spoken in 58. The account of Josephus however requires us to place it at the commencement of Nero’s reign i.e. 55; 2) the place, St. Luke says ‘in the desert’; Josephus that he came out of the desert [to Jerusalem]; 3) the pretensions of the man, claimed to be able to do miracles, called by Josephus a false prophet. 4) character of his followers, St. Luke mentions the sicarri, dagger men; 5) attitude of the inhabitants, for once we find them taking the side of the Roman governor, against the rebel; 6) fate of the Egyptian himself, Josephus Bell. Jud. ii.13.5 says he escaped Felix’s army with a few followers, St. Luke’s tribune contemplates his turning up again.

And yet the accounts are plainly independent. This will have appeared in the parallels already noticed. In the account of the numbers of followers it is not quite clear. In Bell. Jud. it is said he gathered around him 30,000, but these are only a part of his whole force. Again Josephus says nothing specific about placing the sicarii in connection with the Egyptian, but it is highly probable that they would take part in the attack on Jerusalem. It was a golden opportunity for them. At this point their ingenuities were at their height. They are mentioned by Josephus for disturbing the peace of Jerusalem and making life insecure, but immediately before and immediately after this attempt by the Egyptian, see Bell. Jud. ii.13.2, 3, 6; Ant. xx.8, 4, 5, 6.

εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Perhaps the wilderness of Judah, Comp. Josephus Bell. Jud. ii.13.5.

τῶν σικαρίων Described in Josephus Bell. Jud. ii.13.3, they carried daggers and secretly assassinated their enemies. So too Ant. xx.8.5. This then was just the time when the Romans were likely to assert their presence.

Vs. 39 ἄνθρωπος μέν This μέν is not answered, I think, by the following δέομαι δέ. We may suppose he was giving ‘and I was brought up in Jerusalem,’ as in vs. 3. He backs off suddenly however. It occurs to him that he had better reserve his fuller explanations for the whole people; and he therefore requests permission to do so.

τῆς Κιλικίας Generally taken with what follows, but there is much to be said for the A.V. reading.

οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως See Dion Chrysos. Oracle xxxviii, p. 399A on the Tarsians.; Comp. Ammuan. iv.8. Wettstein questions where this phrase occurs—see Eury. Ion 8, and later citations.

CONCLUSION

I have here taken some pains to trace the historical character of this scene, and for the following reasons: The Tübingen theory represents the St. Paul of Acts as inconsistent with the St. Paul of his own Epistles. The most signal instance of this inconsistency is in his approach on this occasion. The history therefore is discredited by the notice. I have already shown that his conduct here was the result of his carrying out his principles as enunciated in his Epistles and their natural consequences. But apart from this, let us look at the narrative itself. It possesses in this part the care of an eyewitness. It is preceded by a careful itinerary, which we can follow from place to place, and almost from day to day. When we get to Jerusalem we find: 1) that a thorough knowledge of local customs is exhibited—the Nazarites, the seven days (the very difficulty in defining its meaning is in its favor), the prohibition in the Temple, the relation of the Romans and the Jews, the Festivals, the guard; 2) that it shows an exact knowledge of local topography—the temple, the Antonia Fortress, and yet the relative position of the two is only indicated accidentally [by the verbs predicated of the guard], the mention of the steps; 3) Incidentally too it exhibits a knowledge of contemporary history. The Egyptian, the allusive not forced [description] yet perfectly in accord with facts, and even minute facts. All is artless, natural, and connected, what you feel might have occurred, nay what must have occurred. You cannot separate the Nazarite vow from the rest.

↑ Back to top