(cf. xxviii. 14, Α.), so the Heb. QD followed by 2. A.V. following Tyn-
dall renders ‘by transgression fell,” which lays too much stress upon ‘ fell,” which is not the prominent notion of the Greek verb, elsewhere “transgressed” (Humphry on Revised Version, p. 188). —eis τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον: on τόπος in the sense of social position, dignity, see Ecclesiasticus, xii., 12, and also Deiss- mann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 95, of suc- ceeding to the vacant place caused by death in a religious community. Here the phrase is usually explained as the place of punishment, Gehenna, cf. Baal- Turim on Numb. xxiv. 25 (and Gen. xxxi. 55) ‘‘ Balaam ivit in locum suum,” i.¢e., Gehenna, Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., while:
24---26.
69
κλῆρον ! τῆς διακονίας ταύτης καὶ ἀποστολῆς, ἐξ ἧς παρέβη Ιούδας,
~ > A fa ‘ ” πορευθῆναι εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον.
26. καὶ ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτῶν,
3
1 κληρον WCE, Syrr., Arm., Eus., Bas., Chrys. τοπον ABC*D, Vulg., Sah., Boh.; so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg. (κληρον probably gloss ver. 17).
Hilg
3 avtwv D*E, Syr. Harcl., Arm. ; so Blass in β with Gig. and Par.!, so Hilg.
2 €; but αφ’ in $ABCD 61, Bas., Aug., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt,
αντοις
NABCD?%, Vulg., and good versions; so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt (pro- bably the dative was misunderstood, see comment.).
on the other hand Schéttgen sees no need to explain the expression in this way. In each of the passages in the Ο.Τ. the word ἴδιος does not occur in the LXX, although in the still more fanci- ful comment of the Rabbis on Job ii. 11, we have ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας χώρας. That the phrase ἴδιος τόπος may be used in a good or bad sense is plain from Ignat., Magn., ν., ina passage which is naturally referred to the verse before us, where a man’s “own place’? denotes the place of reward, or that of punishment, cf, ¢.g., eis τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον, Polycarp, Phil., ix., where the words refer to the martyrs who were with the Lord, and εἰς τὸν ὀφειλ. τόπον τῆς δόξης said of St. Peter, Clem. Rom., 6οΥ.ν. Nésgen argues, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 88, 89, that we are not justified in concluding from a few Rabbinical passages which contain such fanciful interpretations of simple words (cf. the comment on Job ii. 11, quoted by Wetstein) that St. Peter must have meant “Gehenna”’. In his wilful fall from the place chosen for him by God, Judas had chosen in self-will ἴδιος τόπος, and this wilful and deliberate choice St. Peter would emphasise in contrast to the τόπος ἀποστολῆς about to be bestowed, ver. 25 (see also Rendall, Acts, p. 174). But however this may be, the words may well indicate a reserve on the part of St. Peter in speaking of the fate and destiny of Judas, characteristic of his reference to him cf. note on ver. 16. None of the other explanations offered can be deemed satisfactory, as, ¢.g., that the word πορευθῆναι κ.τ.λ. refers to the successor of Judas; that Matthias should undertake the Apostolic circuit assigned to Judas (so Oecumenius, and amongst English commentators, Hammond); or, that the words refer to the house or home of Judas, or to his association with the Pharisees, or to his suicide and dis- honoured burial, or to the χωρίον men- tioned above. Spitta, amongst recent commentators, stands almost alone in weferring the words back to ver. 16, and
holds that they refer to the position of Judas as the guide to those who took Jesus. The sense of the passage is ex- pressed in the reading of A δίκαιον instead of ἴδιον.
Ver. 26. καὶ ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτῶν, ‘they gave forth their Ιοΐς,’ A.V. But R.V. reads αὐτοῖς, ‘‘they gave lots for them’’. R.V. margin, ‘“‘untothem”. It is difficult to decide whether the ex- pression means that they gave lots unto the candidates themselves or whether they cast lots for them—.e., on their behalf, or to see which of the two would be selected. How the lot was decided we cannot positively say. According to Hamburger (Real-Encyclopddie des Fudentums, i., 5, p. 723) the Bible does not tell us, as the expressions used point sometimes to a casting, sometimes to a drawing out, of the lots; cf. Proverbs xvi, 33: ‘“‘Quo modo et ratione uti sunt Apostoli incertum est. Certum est Deum per eam declarasse Mathiam tum diri- gendo sortem ut caderet in Mathiam juxta illud Prov. xvi. 33” (Corn. a