James Strahan.
JAILOR. — The AV translates d€crixo<pv\a.^ in Ac 16-^ ' jailor,' and in vv.^* ^^ ' keeper of the prison.' The RV adheres to the terra 'jailor' in all three verses. The person so designated occupied the position of supreme authority as governor of the prison (cf. a.pxi-SeaiJ.o(j)v\a^, Gn 39^^ LXX), and must be distinguished from persons holding the sub- ordinate position of guard or warder {(pOXa^, Ac 5^ 12*^ ; AV ' keeper'). It was to the custody of this official that the duumviri at Philippi committed St. Paul and Silas, with the strict injunction to ' keep them safely.' The fact that Philippi was a Roman colony lends a certain amount of proba- bility to R. B. Rackhara's suggestion that he was a Roman officer, occupying the rank of centurion (Com. on Acts, 1901). Chrysostom's attempt to identify him with Stephanas (1 Co 16") overlooks the fact that Stephanas was among the ' firstfruits of Achaia,' not Macedonia ; while a later suggestion that he was Epaphroditus, though it is more pro- bable, lacks adequate data to support it.
Modern criticism seriously questions the credi- bility of the portion of the narrative (Ac IG"^"^*) containing the account of the jailor's conversion, on the ground of inherent improbabilities (B. Weiss, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Harnack, Bacon, Cone). Most of the objections have been ade- quately dealt with by W. M. Ramsay in St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, pp. 221-223 ; and a summary of them, with their refutation, is given in an article by Giessekke (described in the ExpT ix. [1898] 274 f.). The legendary character of the VOL. I. — 40
narrative has been maintained for the further reason that it is not guaranteed by the ' we ' section, which ends, it is alleged, with v.^'*. ' Yet these verses betray such unimpeachable tokens of the style of St. Luke as to prevent us from even think- ing of them as interpolated' (A. Harnack, Luke the Physician, Eng. tr., 1907, p. 113). Nor does it follow tliat the ' we ' section ends with v.^'*, because the first person is no longer used. After his separa- tion from St. Paul and Silas, owing to their arrest and imprisonment, the narrator would, of necessity, proceed to describe the subsequent events, when he was no longer in their company, in the third person. The presence of the miraculous element, if the earthquake is to be so regarded, in no way militates against this assumption, for the ' we- sections are full of the supernatural' (Harnack, Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., 1909, p. 144).
Leaving aside the alleged improbabilities, it must be admitted that the description of the night-scene in the prison is most vivid and life-like. Assume the possibility of the earthquake, which in itself is a natural occurrence, treated in this case as a special instance of providential interference, and there is nothing absolutely inexplicable in the course of events which follows. The difficulties are largely due to the brevity of the narrative, which does not allow of entering into minute detail. The author (whether St. Luke or another) is not describing an 'escape' from prison, miracu- lous or otherwise, for the release of the captives takes place next morning. The interest of the narrative centres in the conversion of the jailor and his household, and it is as leading up to this most interesting and happy dinouement that the earlier incidents of the eventful night are depicted. When the main object of the story is borne in mind, the difficulties which it presents will not be regarded as suflicient to justify its wholesale rejection. W. S. Montgomery.
JAMES AND JOHN, THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE. — 1. In Synoptic Gospels. — The sons of Zebedee are mentioned in the following passages in the Synoptic Gospels. The call of the two brothers is related in Mk II8-20 ( = Mt 418-2^ Lk S^^-). After the call of Andrew and Simon and their immediate response, Jesus goes on further and sees the two brothers James and John in their boat, mending their nets. Their response to His call is equally prompt ; they leave their father and the hired servants in the boat and go away after Him. The Matthcean account is practically identical with the Marcan, save for the omission of any reference to the hired servants, a characteristic cutting out of unnecessary detail. In these two accounts the call of the four disciples is the first event recorded after the beginning of the ministry ; it is followed by the account of the entry into Capernaum and the teaching in the Synagogue. St. Luke in his Gospel places the incident later, after his record of events at Nazareth and Capernaum. It is not easy to determine whether his reason for the change is historical, to account for the promptness wuth which the call of an unknown stranger is obeyed, or whether he is following a ditterent tra- dition. The relation of the Lucan account to the Johannine Appendix (ch. 21) is also difficult to determine. Competent scholars are found to main- tain both the view that the Johannine narrative is based on an account (similar to the Lucan) of the call of Peter, and the view that St. Luke, in his record of the call to discipleship, has borrowed details from an account of a post-Resurrection ap- pearance to Peter in Galilee. But the question has no direct bearing on the call of the sons of Zebedee, the Lucan additional matter having to do with Peter alone. The only detail which he