Ver. 12. τότε: frequent in Acts and in St. Luke’s Gospel, but most frequent in St. Matthew; on its use see Grimm- Thayer, and Blass, Gramm. des N. G., p. 27ο.-- ὑπέστρεψαν: a word charac- teristic of Luke both in his Gospel and in Acts, occurring in the former over twenty times, in the latter ten or eleven times. Only in three places elsewhere, not at all in the Gospels, but see Mark xiv. 40 (Moulton and Geden, sub v.); Friedrich, wbi supra, p. 8. On the Ascension see additional note at end of οΠαρίετ.-- τοῦ kak. Ἐλαιῶνος: “bi captus et vinctus fuerat. Wetstein.. Although
11-14.
59
ἀπὸ Spous τοῦ καλουμένου ᾿Ελαιῶνος, ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς “Ἱερουσαλή ρ p yyis “Ἱερουσαλήμ,
σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν.
13. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθον, ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὕπερῷον οὗ ἦσαν καταµέ-
νοντες, 6 τε Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ Ιωάννης ' καὶ Ανδρέας, Φίλιππος
1 Ίακωβος και Ιωαννης, so E, Syr. Harcl., Arm. Zoh., Chrys., Theodrt.; but in inverse order in ABCD 61, Vulg. and good versions, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt,
Weiss.
St. Matthew and St. Mark both speak of the Mount of Olives they do not say τοῦ καλ. (neither is the formula found in John viii. 1). It is therefore probable that St. Luke speaks as he does as one who was a stranger to Jerusalem, or, as writing to one who was 5ο. Blass, ubi supra, pp. 32, 84, contends that Ἐλαιῶνος ought to give place to ἐλαιῶν, which he also reads in Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37 (W.H. Ἐλαιῶν, and in Luke xix. 37, xxii. 39, τῶν ᾿Ελαιῶν, in each case as genitive of ἐλαία), the former word being found only here and in Josephus, Azt., vii.,9,2. But it is found in all the MSS. in this passage, although falso D. cum c@t., says Blass. Blass would thus get rid of the difficulty of regarding Ἐλαιών as if used in Luke xix. 20, xxi. 37 as an indeclinable noun, whilst here he would exchange its genitive for ἐλαιῶν. Deiss- mann, however, is not inclined to set aside the consensus of authoritities for Ἐλαιῶνος, and he regards ἐλαιών in the two passages above as a lax use of the nominative case. As the genitive of ἐλαιών it would correspond to the Latin Olivetum (so Vulgate), an olive-orchard ; cf. ἄμπελος and ἀμπελών in N.T., the termination ών in derivative nouns in- dicating a place set with trees of the kind designated by the primitive. For instances cf. Grimm-Thayer, szb Ἐλαιών, but see on the other hand Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 36 ff. With regard to the parallel between our verse and Jose- phus, A7t., vii., 9, 2, it is evident that even if St. Luke had read Josephus he was not dependent upon him, for he says here τοῦ καλ. just as in his Gospel he had written τὸ καλ., probably giving one or more popular names by which the place was known; Gloél, Galaterbrief, p. 65 (see also on the word W.H.., ii., Appendix, p. 165; Plummer, St. Luke, p. 445; and Winer-Schmiedel, Ρ. 93).—oaBBarov ἔχον ὁδόν, not ἀπέχον: the distance is repre- sented as something which the mountain has, Meyer-Wendt; cf. Luke xxiv. 13. There is no real discrepancy between this and the statement of St. Luke’s Gospel
that our Lord led His disciples ἕως πρὸς Βηθανίαν, xxiv. 50, a village which was more than double a sabbath day’s journey, fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem. But if the words in St. Luke, J. ο., mean ‘‘ over against Bethany,” ἕως πρός (so Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lucas, p. 79, and Nésgen, Afostel- geschichte, p. 80; see also Rendall, Acts, p- 171—Blass omits ἕως and reads only πρός and remarks neque vero πρός est eis; cf. also Belser, Theologische Quar- talschrift, i., 79 (1895)), the difficulty is surmounted, for St. Luke does not fix the exact spot of the Ascension, and he else- where uses the Mount of Olives, Luke xxi. 37, as the equivalent of the Bethany of Matthew (xxi. 17) and Mark (xi. 1). Nor is it likely that our Lord would lead His disciples into a village for the event of His Ascension. It should be remem- bered that Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., says that ‘‘the Ascension was from the place where that tract of the Mount of Olives ceased to be called Bethphage and began to be called Bethany”. The recent attempt of Rud. Hoffmann to refer the Ascension to a ‘‘ Galilee” in the Mount of Olives rests upon a tradition which cannot be regarded as reliable (see Galilea auf dem Oelberg, Leipzig, 1896), although he can quote Resch as in agree- ment with him, p. 14. On Hoffmann’s pamphlet see also Expositor (5th series), p. 119 (1897), and Theologisches Litera- turblatt, No. 27 (1897). This mention of the distance is quite characteristic of St. Luke; it may also have been intro- duced here for the benefit of his Gentile readers; Page, Acts, in loco, and cf. Ramsay’s remarks, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? pp. 55, 56.