Ver. 7. Χρόνους ἢ καιρούς: Blass re- gards the two as synonymous, and no doubt it is difficult always to maintain a distinction. But here χρόνους may well be taken to mean space of time as such, the duration of the Church’s history, and καιρούς the critical periods in that history. 6 μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα χρόνον, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα (AMmonius). A good instance of the distinction may be found in LXX Neh. x. 34: εἰς καιροὺς ἀπὸ χρόνων, ‘at times appointed”’; cf. τ Thes. v. 1. So here Weiss renders: ,, zu kennen Zeiten und geeignete Zeitpunkte“. In modern Greek, whilst καιρός means weather, χρόνος means year, so that “in both words the kernel of meaning has remained unaltered; this in the case of καιρούς is changeableness, of χρόνων duration” (Curtius, Etym., p. 110 sq.) ; cf. also Trench, N. T. Synonyms, ii., p. 27 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of N. Té Greek, p. 153; and Grimm-Thayer, sub*v. καιρός. --ἐξουσία, authority, R.V.—either as delegated or unrestrained, the liberty of doing as one pleases (ἔξεστι); δύναμις, power, natural ability, inherent power, residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or, which a person or thing exerts or puts forth—so δύναµις is ascribed to Christ, now in one sense, now in another, so also
-‘g—I0.
57
Βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη, καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν
ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.ὶ
10. καὶ ὡς ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν,
1 For Τ.Ε. και ταντα ... οφθ. αντων D, Sah., Aug., with var. και ταντα ειποντος
αντου ved. υπελ. αυτον και απηρθη am αυτων. -απηρ. κ.τ.λ. may be an assimilation to Matt. ix. 15.
Chase explains from Syriac, but και Omission of βλεπ. avtwv and
απο των οφθαλ. in Western texts curious; may to some extent support Blass’s view
or may have been intentional omissions.
Vulg. and Flor. retain both omissions.
Weiss regards the whole in D as secondary ; Hilgenfeld follows D.
to the Holy Spirit as in ver. 8; cf. x. 38, Luke iv. 14, Rom. xv. 13; Bengel, Luke iv. 36, and Grimm-Thayer, Synonyms. Sub v. Stvapts.
Ver. 8. ἔσεσθέ pov paptupes, ‘my witnesses,” R.V., reading pov instead of pot, not only witnesses to the facts of their Lord’s life, cf. i. 22, x. 39, but also His witnesses, His by a direct personal relationship; Luke xxiv. 48 simply speaks of a testimony to the facts.—év τε Ἱερου- σαλὴμ «.T.A.: St. Luke on other occa- sions, as here, distinguishes Jerusalem asa district separate from all the rest of Judza (cf. Luke v. 17, Acts x. 39), a proof of in- timate acquaintance with the Rabbinical phraseology of the time, according to Eder- sheim, Sketches of fewish Social Life, pp. 17,73. In this verse, see Introduction, the keynote is struck of the contents of the whole book, and the great divisions of the Acts are marked, see, e.g., Blass, p. 12 in Prologue to Acts—Jerusalem, i.-vii. ; Judea, ix., 32; xii., 19; Samaria, viil.; and if it appears somewhat strained to see in St. Paul’s preaching in Rome a witness to “the utmost parts of the earth,” it is noteworthy that in Psalms of Solomon, viii., 16, we read.of Pompey that he came ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, 2.¢., Rome—the same phrase as in Actsi. 8, This verse affords a good illustration of the subjective element which characterises the partition theories of Spitta, Jiingst, Clemen and others. Spitta would omit the whole verse from his sources A and B, and .considers it as an interpolation by the author of Acts; but, as Hilgenfeld points out, the verse is entirely in its place, and it forms the best answer to the “‘ particu- larism”’ of the disciples, from which their question in ver. 6 shows that they were not yet free. Feine would omit the ~words ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς because ‘nothing in the conduct of the early Church, as it is described to us in the _Jewish-Christian source, Actsi.-xii., points to any knowledge of such a commission from the Risen Christ. Jingst disagrees with both Spitta and Feine, and thinks that the hand of the redactor is visible in (prominence given to the little Samaria.