΄
~
του
TV. 1. ΛΑΛΟΥΝΤΩΝ δὲ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν λαόν, ἐπέστησαν αὐτοῖς of , ἐπέστη ἱερεῖς 1 καὶ 6 στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι, 2. διαπονού--
1 vepets NADEP 1, 31, 61, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Syrr. (P. and H.), Lucif., Chrys., so- Tisch., W.H. margin, R.V. text, Weiss, Hilg.; αρχιερεις BC 4, Arm., Aeth., so W.H. text, R.V. margin, Wendt; ο στρατ. τον tepov om. by D, but accepted by Blass in β..
Acts iv. rr = 1 Pet.11. 7,)Actsix? 421='1 Pet. iv. 5, the verbal correspondence is very close.
See on the whole subject Noésgen, Apostelgeschichte, Ῥ. 48; Lechler, Das _ Apost. Zeitalter, p. 428 ff.; Scharfe, Die Petrinische Strémung, 2 ο., p. 122 ff.; Lumby, Expositor, iv. (first series), pp. 118, 123; and also Schmid, Biblische Theologie, p. 389 ff. On the striking connection between the Didache, and the language of St. Peter’s sermons, and the phraseology of the early chapters of Acts, see Gore, Church and the Minisiry,
- 416.
Cahora IV.—Ver. 1. λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν: the speech was interrupted, as the present participle indicates, and we cannot treat it as if we had received it in full. It is no doubt possible to infer from αὐτῶν that St. John also addressed the ΡεοΡρ]ε.--ἐπέστησαν αὐτοῖς: com- monly used with the notion of coming upon one suddenly, so of the coming of an angel, xii. 7, xxiii. 11, Luke ii. 9, xxiv. 4, sometimes too as implying a hostile purpose, cf. vi. 12, xvii. 5, and St. Luke (x. 40), xx. I. For its use in the LXX cf. Wisdom vi. 5, 8, xix. τ.---οἵ tepets: “the priests,” so A. and R.V., but the latter, margin, ‘‘the chief priests,” see critical note. ἀρχνερεῖς would comprise probably the members of the privileged high-priestly families in which the high- priesthood was vested (Schiirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. i., pp. 203-206, E.T.), Jos., B. $., vi., 2,2. That the members of these families occupied a distinguished position we know (cf. iv. 6), and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the description ἀρχιερεῖς would in- clude them as well as the ex-high-priests, and the one actually in office; this seems justified from the words of Josephus in the passage referred to above (Deren- bourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 231). —6 στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ: the captain of the Temple (known chiefly in Jewish writings as ‘“‘the man of the Temple Mount”). Hehad the chief superintend- ence of the Levites and priests who were on guard in and around the Temple, and under him were στρατηγοί, who were also captains of the Temple police,
although subordinate to the στρατηγός astheir head. The στρατ. τοῦ ἱεροῦ was not only a priest, but second in dignity to the high-priest himself (Schirer, wu. s., ΡΡ. 258, 259, 267, and Edersheim, 1. s., and History of the F$ewish Nation, p. 139), Acts v. 24, 26, Jos., Ant., xx., 6, 2, B. F., vi., 5, 3- For the use of the term in the LXX, see Schirer, wu. s., p. 258. In 2 Mace, ili. 4 the ‘governor of the Temple” is identified by some with the officer here and in v. 24, but see Rawlin- son’snotein loco in Speaker’s Commentary. —tal ot Σαδδουκαῖοι: at this time, as. Josephus informs us, however strange it may appear, the high-priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party. Not that the Sadducees are to be identified entirely with the party of the priests,. since the Pharisees were by no means hostile to the priests as such, nor the priests to the Pharisees. But the Sad- ducees were the aristocrats, and to the aristocratic priests, who occupied in- fluential civil positions, the Pharisees were bitterly opposed. Jos., Ant., xvii., 10, 6, xviii., I, 4, xx.,9, I. Schiirer, uw. s., div. ii., vol. ii., pp. 29-43, and div. ii., vol. i., p. 178 ff. The words ot Σαδδ. and ἢ οὖσα αἴρεσις τῶν Σ., ver. 17, are re- ferred by Hilgenfeld to his ‘author to Theophilus,” as also the reference to the preaching of the Resurrection as the cause of the sore trouble to the Sad- ducees; but the mention ofthe Sadducees at least shows (as Weizsacker and Holtz- mann admit) that the author of Acts had correct information of the state of parties in Jerusalem: ‘“‘ The Sadducees were at the helm, and the office of the high-priest was in Sadducean hands, and the Sad- ducees predominated in the high-priestly families’? (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age,i., οι Β.Τη.