Omit. BD, W.H. (see Blass,
πρότερος by St. Luke.—Aédyov: frequently used by classical writers in the sense of a narrative or history contained in a book ; see instances in Wetstein. The passage in Plato, Phedo, p. 61, B., is valuable not only for the marked contrast between λόγος and pO0s, ποιεῖν μύθους ἀλλ᾽ οὐ λόγους, but also for the use of ποιεῖν (Wendt). Amongst other instances of the phrase ποιεῖν λόγον cf. Galen, De Usu Part., Π., περὶ πρώτων τῶν δακτύλων ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον. St. Chrysostom sees in the phrase a proof of the unassum- ing character of the author: St. Luke does not say ‘‘ The former Gospel which I preached”. For the anomalous peév, ‘‘solitarium,” without the following δέ, frequent in Luke, see Blass, Grammatik des N.G., p. 261, cf. Luke vili. 5, Acts ili, 21, xxviii. 22, etc., and several times in St. Paul. μέν occurs thus six times in the Acts without ojv—on μὲν οὖν see νετ. 6.—® Θεόφιλε: the interjection used here simply in address, as common in Attic Greek, cf. xviii. 14, Xxvil. 21, 1 Tim. vi. 11; without the epithet κράτιστε, as in Luke i, 3, and without ὦ, Θεόφ. alone would have seemed too bold, Winer- Schmiedel, p. 258. It has been suggested that the omission of the epithet κράτιστε, Luke i. 3, denotes that St. Luke’s friend- ship had become less ceremonious, just as a similar change has been noted
το
ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ Πνεύματος “Aylou, οὓς ἐξελέξατο,
ἀνελήφθη.ϊ! 3. οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν
1 ανεληφθη B* and probably all cursives, but -λημφθη SAB*CDE, so Tisch.,W.H., Weiss (see Blass, Gram., pp. 24, 55). αχρι ης . . . ανεληφ. Aug., Vig. read “in die quo Apostolos elegit per Spiritum Sanctum,” omitting ανεληφ. altogether, and continuing with D, Lux., Syr. Harcl. mg., Sah. και εκελευσεν κηρνυσσειν το ευαγγελιον (ct precepit predicare evangelium). This reading of Aug. Blass adopts (so Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apost., p. 18, and Graefe, Stud. und Krit., p. 136 (1898)) and therefore refers the day mentioned to Luke vi. 12, the day of the choice of the Apostles. But Belser well points out that St. Luke’s Gospel (quite apart from chaps. i. and ii.) does not begin with the choice of the Twelve, but with the public appearance of the Baptist and that of Jesus Himself, and with His public teaching. Nor is there anything said, as Blass himself admits, in St. Luke’s account of the choice of the Twelve, vi. 12, as to any commission given to them at that time to preach the Gospel (although in his edition of St. Luke’s Gospel Blass compares Mark iii. 14, but even then the expression used, κηρυσσειν το ευαγγελιον, cannot be called Lucan, see Weiss on Codex D, p. 53). Further, D contains ανεληφθη, after nuepas, apparently to simplify the structure ; there is no Greek authority for its omission, and it is contained in Codex Parisinus (which in many respects approaches so closely to D), where we find it at the end of the verse: assumptus est. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 132 ff., contends for the reading which he had previously adopted in B, and sees in it the original draft of Luke who in a ‘‘has encumbered the clause in order to bring in the Ascension without leaving
out the choice of the Apostles ”’ (p. 136).
in the dedication of Shakespeare’s two poems to the Earl of Southampton; cf. also Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 360. The way in which the epithet κράτιστε is employed elsewhere in the book in ad- dressing Roman officials, xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, Xxvi. 25, has been thought to indicate that Theophilus held some high official post, or that he was at least of equestrian tank (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 388, 389, and his inferences as to the date of Acts). Ramsay is of opinion that the name was given at baptism, and that it was used or known only among Christians, and he infers that this baptismal name is used in Acts because the book was pro- bably written at a time when it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recognised as a Christian. But Theo- philus was by no means uncommon as a Jewish name; cf. B. D.?,i., p. 25, and also article ‘‘ Theophilus,” B. D.1 (see also Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19). The epithet κράτιστος was peculiarly appro- priated to Romans holding high office, and actually became during the second century a technical title to denote eques- trian rank; and from its use here Zahn maintains not only that Theophilus was a man of some social position, but that he was, when Luke wrote his gospel, not a nember of the Christian Church, since there is no instance in the first two centuries of a Christian addressing his fellow-Christians in a title corresponding