hadv. ὁ δὲ Κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σωζοµένους καθ) ἡμέραν τῇ
ἐκκλησία.3
1 τον λαον; D has τον κοσµον. Nestle and Chase point out Syriac as probable source; the former, with Blass, thinking that St. Luke first of all translated the word wrongly, κοσµον, and corrected it in later edition to Aaov, whilst Chase gives the variation a much later origin. Harris supposes that the translator first intro- duced ‘‘ mundum” (¢f. ‘tout le monde”) and thence it crept into the Greek. Belser finds no need for Syriac influence, as St. Luke in revising might easily substitute “people” for the more general term “world”. Some Syriac influence may have been at work, or possibly a corruption of the Greek may be suggested. Hilg. also has κοσµον. See further Dalman, Die Worte Fesu, p. 54.
2 an εκκλησιᾳφ. emt το αυτο (iii.) EP, Syrr. (P. and H.) ; but for omitting ry εκκλ. and concluding ii. with επι το avto ΝΑΒΟΑ 61, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Arm., Aeth., so Bengel, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt. The T.R. was followed by Meyer, De Wette, Nésgen, on account of the extreme difficulty of the proposed correction,.
but the latter is too well attested. Hilg. has επι το αυτο εν ty εκκλησιᾳ, so D.
with tongues in Acts ii. and in other passages of the N.T. may be classed as identical in so far as each was the effect of the divine Πνεῦμα, each a miraculous spiritual gift, marking a new epoch of spiritual life. But in Acts we have what we have not elsewhere—the speaking in foreign tongues—this was not the case in Corinth; there the speaking with tongues was absolutely unintelligible, it could not be understood without an in- terpreter, ἐ.6., without another gift of the divine Spirit, viz., interpretation, 1 Cor. xii. 10, 30 (the word unknown inserted in A.V. in 1 Cor. xiv. is unfortunate), and the fact that the Apostle compares the speaking with tongues to a speaking in foreign languages shows that the former was itself no speaking in foreign tongues, since two identical things do not admit of comparison (Schmid, 1. s., pp. 288, 289).
Peter might well express his belief that Cornelius and those who spoke with tongues had also received the Holy Ghost, cf. x. 44, Xi. 17, 24, in loco ; but it does not follow that the gift bestowed upon them was identical with that be- stowed at Pentecost—there were diver- sities of gifts from the bounty of the One Spirit. Felten, Apostelgeschichte, p. 78; Evansin Speaker’s Commentary on 1 Cor., Ρ. 334; Plumptre, Β.Π.“ Tongues, Gift of”; Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, ii., pp. 272, 273, E.T., and Feine, Eine Vorkano- nische Ueberlieferung des Lukas, n., p. 167; Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 1773 Page, Acts of the Apostles, note on chap. ii., 4; and A. Wright, Some N. T. Pro- blems, p. 277 ff.
The objection urged at length by Wendt and Spitta that foreign lan- guages could not have been spoken, since in that case there was no occasion to
accuse the Apostles of drunkenness, but that ecstatic incoherent utterances of devotion and praise might well have seemed to the hearers sounds produced by revelry or madness (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 23), is easily met by noting that the utter- ances were not received with mockery by all but only by some, the word ἕτεροι apparently denoting quite a different. class of hearers, who may have been un- acquainted with the language spoken,. and hence regarded the words as an un- intelligible jargon.
Spitta attempts to break up Acts ii. 1-13 into two sources, 1.8, 4, 12, 13, belonging to A, and simply referring to a Glossolalia like that at Corinth, whilst the other verses are assigned to B and the Redactor, and contain a narrative which could only have been: derived from the Jewish tradition men- tioned above, and introducing the notion of foreign tongues at a date when the Glossolalia had ceased to exist, and so to be understood. Spitta refers συμπληροῦσθαι ii. 1 to the filling up of the number of the Apostles in chap. i., so that his source A begins καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπλ. . « . ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες π. ἁγ., Apostelgeschichte, p. 52. It is not sur- prising that Hilgenfeld should speak of the narrative as one which cannot be thus divided, upon which as he says Spitta has in vain essayed his artificial analysis.