Ver. 13. τὸ ὑπερῷον: “the upper chanr- ber,” R.V., as of some well-known place, but there is no positive evidence to identify it with the room of the Last Supper, al- though here and in Mark xiv. 15, as also in Luke xxii. 12, the Vulgate has cenaculum. Amongst recent writers Hilgenfeld and Feine see in this definite mention ofaroom well known to the readers a reference to
καὶ Θωμᾶς, Βαρθολομαῖος καὶ Ματθαῖος,! Ῥ]άκωβος ᾽Αλφαίου Σ καὶ Σίμων ὁ Ζηλωτής, καὶ ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου. 14. οὗτοι πάντες ἦσαν
1 Ματθαιος ΑΒΡΟΕ, Boh. Μαθθαιος ὃν 5 Ὦ, Sah.; so Tisch., W.H., Weiss; see Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 60, 61. For lax. Άλφαιου D, Sah. read lax. ο του Αλφ., may
be assimilation to Matt. x. 3 and Μο, iii. 18 (not Le.); Chase explains by Syriac idiom ; retained by Blass in B.
2 kat τῃ δεησει C3, Chrys. Omitted by SRABC*DE 61, and others, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Arm., Aeth., Chrys. ; so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt, Weiss, Hilgenfeld. συν γυναιξιν, D adds και τεκνοις, so Hilgenfeld, but rejected by Blass (‘male D”’), for which see criticism of Weiss, Codex D, p. 54; probably occasioned by mention of
the women, cf, xxi. 5.
the author’s first book, Luke xxii. 11, 12. But the word used in St. Mark andin St. Luke’s Gospel is different from that in the passage before us—avaya.ov, but here ὑπερῷον. If we identify the former with the κατάλυμα, Luke xxii. 11, it would denote rather the guest-chamber used for meals than the upper room or loft set apart for retirement or prayer, although sometimes used for supper or for assemblies (ὑπερῷον). Both words are found in classical Greek, but only the latter in the LXX, where it is frequent. In the N.T. it is used by St. Luke alone, and only in Acts. Holtzmann, follow- ing Lightfoot and Schdéttgen, considers that an upper room in the Temple is meant, but this would be scarcely pro- bable under the circumstances, and a meeting in a private house, ii. 46, iv. 23, ν. 42, is far more likely.—6 τε Π.: ina series of nouns embraced under one cate- gory only the first may have the article, Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 154-157. In com- paring this list of the Apostles with that given by the Synoptists we notice that whilst St. Peter stands at the head in the four lists, those three are placed in the first group who out of the whole band are prominent in the Acts as also in the Gospels, viz., Peter, John, and James; all the Synoptists, however, place St. James as the elder brother before St. John. In St. Luke’s first list, as in St. Matthew’s list, the brothers Peter and Andrew stand first, followed by another pair of brothers James and John; but in -Acts Andrew gives place, as we might expect, to the three Apostles who had been admitted to the closest intimacy with Jesus during His earthly life, and St. John as St. Peter’s constant com- panion in the Gospel narrative makes a pair with him. The list in Acts agrees with that given by St. Luke in his Gospel in two particulars (see Friedrich, ubi supra, p. 50, and so too Zeller): (1) Simon the Zealot is called not 6 Καναν-
ουτοι παντες Omit. Aug., Cypr.
Μαριᾳ SACD, Boh., Chrys.
αἴος, as in Matthew and Mark, but 6 Ζηλωτής, cf. Luke vi. 15; (2) instead of Thaddeus (or Lebbzeus) we have “' Judas of James,” cf. Luke vi, 16.-- Ιούδας Ιακώβου, “the son of James,” R.V. (so too above ᾿Ιάκωβος ᾽Αλφαίου, ‘ James the son of Alphzus”’), placing the words “or, brother, see Jude 1.,” in the margin, so too in Luke vi. 16. The rendering of the words as Jude the brother of James was probably caused by Jude i., and it is difficult to believe, as Nésgen argues (see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 262), that in the same list and in such close prox- imity these two meanings ‘‘the son of” and ‘the brother of” should occur for the genitive, although no doubt it is possible grammatically; see Nosgen and Wendt, zz loco. On the other hand, see Felten, note, p. 66. But Winer, to whom the latter refers, is by no means positive, and only expresses the opinion that ἀδελφός is perhaps to be supplied here and in Luke vi. 16 if the same Apostle is referred to in Jude i. (Winer-Moulton, Ρ. 238). But the identification with the latter is very improbable, as he was most likely the brother of James, known as ‘‘the Lord’s brother” (see Plummer on Luke, vi., 16, and Salmon, Introduction to N. T., pp- 473, 474, fifth edit.). It is also noteworthy that St. Luke uses ἀδελφός where he means “brother,” cf. Luke iii. I, vi. 14; Acts xii.2. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., gives the same reference to Alciphr., ii., 2, as Winer, Τυµοκράτης ὁ Μητροδώρου, sc. ἀδελφός, but at the same time he declines to commit himself as to the passage in Acts and Luke vi. The list, it has been thought, is given here again by St. Luke to show the re- covery of the Apostolic band from their denial and flight—so St. Chrysostom remarks that Luke did well to mention the disciples, for since one had betrayed Christ and another had been unbelieving, he hereby shows that, except the first, all were preserved (so to the same effect