104 ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ Ill.
3. ὃς
iSav* Métpov καὶ Ιωάννην µέλλοντας εἰσιέναι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἠρώτα 3
3 =» ἐλ , 1 ‘ αλ 3 έ 3 ὸ ε ό αἴτειν ἐλεημοσύνην ' παρὰ τῶν εἰσπορευομένων εἰς τὸ ἱερόν.
ἐλεημοσύνην λαβεῖν. 4.4 ἀτενίσας δὲ Πέτρος eis αὐτὸν σὺν τῷ
Ἰωάννη, εἶπει» Βλέψον εἰς ἡμᾶς. 5.6 ὁ δὲ ἐπεῖχεν αὐτοῖς, προσδοκῶν 1 For παρα των εισπ. εις το ιερον D has wrap’ αυτων εισπορ. αυτων εις το νερ., but
not received by Blass in B (Chase sees in first part exact reproduction of Syriac αντων being carelessly repeated).
2 For ος ιδων D, Flor. read ουτος (so Gig., Par.) ατενισας τοις οφθαλμοις αυτου και LSwy (Chase: interpolation arose in Syriac). Belser again sees the longer form which Luke abbreviated in a.
’ After ηρωτα D, Flor., Par.! insert avrovs. λαβειν (ΝΑΒΟΕ, b, 13, 61, Vulg., Boh., Arm., Chrys.) om. by DP, h, ΕΙ., Gig., Par.1, Syr. Harcl., Lucif.—Blass ‘“‘recte ut vid.”.—added by T.R., W.H.. Weiss.
4 For ατενισας D, Flor., Par.? read εµβλεψας (εµβλεπειν not uncommon in the Gospels) ; (συν lwavynv in D is attributed by Chase to Syriac influence, cf. Aquila, συν τον ουρανον και συν την γην); Hilg. follows D.
5 For ειπε Flor. has ‘‘(ad)stans dixit ei” ; so in B επιστας ειπεν avt@, in which Belser sees the simpler form of Luké’s own revision. For βλεψ. εις ηµας D, Flor. ατενισεν εις εµε (ηµας D); epe is curious, but may be earlier edition, or introduced later because John here says nothing. Throughout the passage D, as compared with T.R. or with W.H., introduces different synonyms for ‘‘see”. Thus T.R. ov... ατενισας . . . βλεψον, D ατενισας (τους οφθ. και ιδων) . . . εµβλεψας . » ατενισον, or from Belser’s point of view, we must see in the T.R. three words
for ‘‘see”’ which may be introduced by Luke in revising his rough draft.
But it is
difficult to account even in a rough draft for ατενισας in ver. 5 instead of ητενισεν, and for the και introduced before ειπεν without any construction in ver. 4.
δεπειχεν αντοις; D reads ατενισας; Flor. represents ητενισεν εις αυτον (so β),
see above.
But in the fact that D reads αυτοις instead of εις αυτους (ον), as we
might expect after ατεν., Weiss sees a further proof of the secondary character of
the reading.
and Churches for alms. St. Chrysostom notes the custom as common as it is to- day in continental cathedrals or modern mosques. —éAenpoovvnv: common in the LXX but not classical, some- times used for the feeling of mercy (ἔλεος), Prov. iii. 3, xix. 22, and con- stantly through the book; and then for mercy showing itself in acts of pity, almsgiving, Tobit i. 3, xii. 8, cf. Acts ix. 36, x. 2, where it is used in the plural, as often in the LXX. Our word alms sis derived from it and the German Almosen, both being corruptions of the Greek word.
Ver. 3. ἠρώτα λαβεῖν: “asked to receive,” R.V., as other English versions except A.V. The expression is quite classical, αἰτῶν λαβεῖν, Aristoph., Plut., 240, cf. Mark i. 17, and LXX, Exodus Xxili. 15, for similar instances of a re- dundant infinitive. The verb is in the imperfect, because the action of asking is imperfect until what is asked for is granted by another, Blass, im loco, and Grammatik des N. G., pp. 187, 236, and Salmon, Hermathena, xxi. p. 228.
Ver. 4. atevioas, cf. i. 10. βλέψον els ἡμᾶς: it has sometimes been thought that the command was given to see whether the man was a worthless beggar or not (Ndsgen), or whether he was spiritually disposed for the reception of the benefit, and would show his faith (as in our Lord’s miracles of healing), or it might mean that the man’s whole at- tention was to be directed towards the Apostles, as he evidently only expects an alms, ver. 5. At the same time, as Feine remarks, the fact that the narra- tive does not mention that faith was demanded of the man, forms an essential contrast to the narrative often compared with it in xiv. 9.