74
διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν.1
Il.
7. ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ ἐθαύμαζον,
λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Οὐκ 2 i808 πάντες οὗτοί εἶσιν ot λαλοῦντες
Γαλιλαῖοι; 8. καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ idia διαλέκτῳ
ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθημεν, 9. Πάρθοι καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Ελαμῖται,» καὶ ot
1 τῃ ιδιᾳ διαλ. λαλουντων; in D λαλουντας ταις γλωσσαις αυτων, Syr. Harcl.,. (Aug. conflate), but not received by, Blass in B although retained by Hilg.; may be retranslation from Syriac (Chase), but see Weiss, Codex D, p. 56.
2 oux AC; ουχ Ν
DE 61, so Tisch., W.H. marg.; ουχι B, so W.H. text, Weiss
(Wendt doubtful) ; see further Winer-Schmiedel, p. 39. 3 Ελαμιται ΕΙΡ, but Ελαμειται A(B)(C)D (Ν omits), so Tisch., W.H., Weiss ;
Blass in B reads Αιλαµμιται, cf. Β.
studien, pp. 59, 60 (1897), and see below on xv. 30.—ovvexv@y—from συνχύνω (συνχέω), only found in Acts, where it occurs five times (cf. also σύγχυσις, Acts xix. 29), see Moulton and Geden, sub v. For its meaning here cf. Gen. xi. 7, 9, I Macc. iv. 27, 2 Macc. xiii. 23, xiv. 28; Vulg., mente confusa est.— διαλέκτῳ: only in the Acts in N.T. The question has been raised as to whether it meant a dialect or a language. Meyer argued in favour of the former, but the latter rendering more probably expresses the author’s meaning, cf. i. 19, and also xxi. 40, xxii. 2, xxvi, 14. The word is apparently used as the equivalent of γλῶσσα, νετ. 11, A. and R.V. ‘lan- guage”. As the historian in his list, vv. 9, 10, apparently is following distinctions of language (see Rendall, Acts, p. 177, and Appendix, p. 359), this would help to fix the meaning of the word διάλεκτος here. Wendt in revising Meyer’s ren- dering contends that the word is pur- posely introduced because γλῶσσα, vv. 3, 4, had just been employed not in the sense of language but tongue, and so might have been misunderstood if re- peated here with λαλεῖν. On the other hand it may be urged that some of the distinctions in the list are those of dialect, and that St. Luke intentionally used a word meaning both language and dialect.
Ver. 7. ἐξίσταντο: frequent in St. Luke, three times in his Gospel, eight in the Acts, elsewhere once in St. Paul, once in St. Matthew, four times in St. Mark. The word is often found in the LXX in various senses; cf. for its meaning here Gen. xliii. 33, Judith xiii. 17, xv. 1, 1 Macc. XV. 32, ΧνΝΙ.22. πάντες- Γαλιλαῖοι: there is no need to suppose with Schottgen (so Grotius, Olshausen) that the term im- plies any reference to the want of culture among the Galileans, as if in this way to emphasise the surprise of the questioners,
or to explain the introduction of the term because the Galileans were “' magis ad arma quam ad litteras et linguas idonei”’ (Corn. a Lapide). But if there is a reference to the peculiar dialect of the Galileans this might help to explain the introduction of ᾿Ιονδαίαν in ver. 9 (Wetstein followed by Weiss, but see below). Weiss sees here, it is true, the hand of a reviser who thinks only of the - Apostles and not of the hundred-and- twenty who could not be supposed to come under the term Γαλιλαῖοι, But whilst no doubt Γαλ. might be considered a fitting description of the Apostolic band (except Judas), Hilgenfeld well asks why the hundred-and-twenty should not have been also Galileans, if they had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Ver. 8. τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλ. . . . ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννή- Onpev—used distributively as ver. 1Ι ταῖς ἡμετ. γλώσσαις shows—and hence- cannot be taken to mean that only one language common to all, viz., Aramaic, . was spoken on the outpouring of the Spirit.
Vv. 9-11. The list which follows has been described as showing the trained hand of the historian, whilst it has also been regarded as a distinctly popular utterance in Greek style (Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 149; but see also Rendall, Acts, Introd., p. 13). But, as Dean Plumptre well remarks, the omission of many countries which one might have expected shows that the list was not a made up list after the event, but that St. Luke had accu- rately mentioned the nations present at the Feast. The reference throughout is of course to Jews of the Dispersion, and Schiirer (see too Schottgen) well parallels the description given here of the extent of the Diaspora with the description in. Agrippa’s letter to the Emperor Caligula. given by Philo (Legat. ad Gaium, 36..