Lapide). For the expression cf. Lev. xvi. 8. Hebraismus (Wetstein), so Blass. καὶ ἔπεσεν, {.ε., through shak-
ing the vessel, Jonah i. 7; cf. Livy, xxlil., 3; so in Homer and Sophocles πάλλειν, cf. Josephus, Ant., vi., 5.— συγκατεψηφίσθη: only here in N.T. «πε was numbered with the eleven Apostles,” i.e., as the twelfth. The verb is used in the middle voice for condemn- ing with others, Plut., Them., 21, but as it occurs nowhere else we have no parallels to its use here. Grimm ex- plains it “«ἀεροπεπάο (κατά) in urnam calculo, i.¢., suffragando assigno (alicui) locum inter (ovv)”. But here it is used rather as an equivalent of συγκαταριθ- μεῖσθαι; cf. ver. 17 (and also xix. 1ο), (Blass and Wendt, i loco) = ἐναρίθμιος, συµψηφισθείς, καταριθµηθεί, Hesy- chius. Wendt as against Meyer maintains that it is not proved that recourse was never again had to lots, because no other instance of such an appeal is recorded in
7ο
~ , A καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Ματθίαν, καὶ συγκατεψηφίσθη } μετὰ τῶν
ένδεκα ἀποστόλων.
1 συγκατεψηφισθη; but συν--ΑΒΟΕ 61, so W.H., Weiss; Ν” has κατεψηφ. (cf. Const. Apost., vi., 12, 1); D has συ(νε)ψηφ.; probably variants caused by the unusual
word.
των evSexa, D reads ιβ’ = δωδεκα, δωδεκατος Aug., so Blass in B (see p. xx.,.
Pref.) ; both readings are probably due to taking pera των ενδεκα in an inclusive sense..
Acts. But it is most significant that this one instance should be recorded between the departure of the Lord and the out- pouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and that after Pentecost no further reference is made to such a mode of decision. Cf, e.g., x. 109, xvi. 6. With regard to the historical character of the election of Matthias, Wendt sees no ground to doubt it in the main, although he is not prepared to vouch for all the details, but he finds no reason to place such an event at a later date of the Church’s history, as Zeller proposed. To question the validity of the appoint- ment is quite unreasonable, as not only is it presupposed in ii. 14, vi. 2, but even the way in which both St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5) and the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) employ the number twelve in a technical sense of the Twelve Apostles, makes the after choice of Matthias as here described very prob- able (so Overbeck, in loco). Nomention is made of the laying on of hands, but “non dicuntur manus novo Apostolo imposite; erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus,” Bengel. See also on ver. 25, and xiii. 3.
Ascension of our Lord.—Friedrich in his Das Lucasevangelium, p. 47 ff., discusses not only similarity of words and phrases, but similarity of contents in St. Luke’s writings. With reference to the latter, he examines the two accounts of the Ascension as given in St. Luke’s Gospel and in the Acts. There are, he notes, four points of difference (the same four in fact as are mentioned by Zeller, Acts of the Apostles, i., 166, E. T.): (1) Beth- any as the place of the Ascension, Luke xxiv. 30; Acts i. 12, the Mount of Olives; (2) the time of the Ascension; according to Acts the event falls on the fortieth day after the Resurrection, i. 3; according to the Gospel on the Resurrection day itself; (3) the words of Jesus before the Ascen- sion are not quite the same in the two narratives; (4) in the Gospel the words appear to be spoken in Jerusalem, in the Acts at the place of the Ascension. Friedrich points out what Zeller fully admitted, that (1) has no importance, for Bethany lay on the Mount of Olives, and the neighbourhood of Bethany might be
described quite correctly as ὄρος ἐλαιῶνος; (3) is not of any great importance (as. Zeller also admitted), since Luke xxiv. 47-49 and Acts i. 4-8 agree in the main. With regard to (4), Friedrich is again in agreement with Zeller in holding that the difficulty might easily be solved by supposing some slight inaccuracy, or that the words in question were uttered on the way from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives; but he agrees also with Zeller in maintaining that the time of the Ascen- sion as given in Luke’s Gospel and im Acts constitutes the only definite contra- diction between the two writings. But even this difficulty presents itself to Frie- drich as by no means insuperable, since the author has not attempted to avoid apparent contradictions in other places in the Acts, and therefore he need not have felt himself called upon to do so in the passage before us, where the book seems at variance with his Gospel (see pp- 48, 49).