46.
‘so often as,” “according as”. Spitta refers vv. 45-47 to the Apostles only, but to justify this he is obliged to refer ver. 44 tohisreviser. Hilgenfeld brackets the whole verse, referring it to his “' author to Theophilus,” retaining ver. 44, whilst Weiss also refers the whole verse to a reviser, who introduced it in imitation of St. Luke’s love of poverty as indicated in his Gospel. But by such expedients the picture of the whole. body of the believers sharing in the Apostles’ life and liberality is completely marred.
Ver. 46. ὁμοθυμαδόν, see note on i. 14.---προσκαρτεροῦντες, Cf. i. 14.---ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ: we are not told how far this parti- cipation in the Temple extended, and mention is only made in one place, in xxi. 26, of any kind of connection between the Apostles or any other Christians and any kind of sacrificial act. But that one peculiar incident may imply that similar acts were not uncommon, and their omission by the Christians at Jeru- salem might well have led to an open breach between them and their Jewish countrymen (Hort, $¥udaistic Christi- anity, pp. 44, 45). Nodoubtthe Apostles would recommend their teaching to the people by devout attendance at the Temple, cf. iii. 1, v. 20, 42, like other Jews.—xar’ οἶκον, R.V. “at home’’ (so in A.V. margin). But all other English versions except Genevan render the words “from house to house” (Vulgate, circa domos), and this latter rendering is quite possible, cf. Luke viii. 1, Acts xv. 21, xx. 20. If we interpret the words of the meeting of the believers in a private house (frivatim in contrast to the ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, palam), cf. Rom. xvi. 3, 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Col. iv. 15, Philemon 2, it does not follow that only one house is here meant, as Wendt and Weiss suppose by referring to i. 13 (see on the other hand Blass, Holtzmann, Zéckler, Spitta, Hort) —there may well have been private houses open to the disciples, e.g., the house of John Mark, cf. Dr. Edersheim, Sketches of Fewish Social Life, pp. 259, 260. Hil- genfeld, with Overbeck, rejects the explanation given on the ground that for this kat’ οἴκους, or κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους, would be required—an argument which does not however get over the fact that κατά may be used distributively with the singular—according to him all is in order if ii. 42 follows immediately upon 418, z.e., hedrops 41baltogether, and proceeds to omit also the whole of vv. 43 and 45.--κλῶντες ἄρτον: the question has been raised as to whether this ex- pression has the same meaning here as