π 4—16.
αὐτῶν.
147
16. συνήρχετο δὲ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πέριξ πόλεων eis
Ἱερουσαλήμ, Φέροντες ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ὀχλουμένους ὑπὸ πνευμάτων
> , J 20 , a 1 ἀκαθάρτων, OLTLVES ε εραπευοντο απαντες.
1εις DEP demid., Arm., Chrys., so Meyer; om. ΑΒ vers., so Tisch., W.H.,
R.V., Weiss, Wendt.
twyto παντες; both verbs almost equally common.
οιτινες εθεραπευοντο απαντες, D, Par. (Gig., Lucif.) read και
At end of verse ‘‘ duo codices
Bergeri” add et magnificabant Dominum F. C., added by Blass in B (Greek) ; cf.
Language, etc., pp. 116, 117. Dr. Kennedy sees in κλινίδιον an instance of rare words used by the comic poets, especi- ally Aristophanes, found also in the N.T., and almost nowhere else, and hence a proof of the ‘ colloquial” lan- guage of the N.T. writers (Sources of Ν. Τ. Greek, pp. 76-79). But the fact re- mains that the word in question is found only in St. Luke, and that both it and κλινάριον were employed for the couch of a sick person.—épyopévov Πέτρου, genitive absolute, ‘‘as Peter came by,’ R.V. (very frequent in Luke), it does not mean, as Felten admits, that none of the other Apostles possessed such powers.—kav = καὶ éadv—even if it were only his shadow, ‘‘ at the least his shadow,” R.V., cf. Mark v. 28, vi. 56, 2 Cor. xi. 16; the usage is not unclassical, Soph., Elect., 1483 ; Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 170; Viteau, Le Grec du N. T., p. 118 (1803).---ἐπισκιάσῃ with dative, Luke i. 35, Markix.7; Bso W.H., future indicative oe, a construction com- mon with ὅπως in classical Greek (Page) ; for other examples of the future indicative with ἵνα see Viteau, Le Grec du Ν. Τ., p. 81 (1893), of which several are found in the N.T., although not in classical Greek; cf. Luke xiv. το, xx. 10, 1 Cor. ix. 13, τ΄ Ῥδε 11.1, Acts σα, ο Ν.Π John vii. 3, Gal. ii. 4, etc.; Burton, u. s., p. 86. Undoubtedly this action of the people showed the lively power of their faith (Chrys., Theod., Aug.), but the further question arises in spite of the severe strictures ot Zeller, Overbeck, Holtzmann, as to how far the narrative indicates that the shadow of Peter actu- ally produced the healing effects. Ver. 16 shows that the sick folk were all healed, but Zéckler maintains that there is nothing to show that St. Luke endorses the enthusiastic superstition of the people (so J. Lightfoot, Nosgen, Lechler, Ren- dall}. Onthe other hand we may com- pare Matt. ix. 20, Mark vi. 56, John ix. 5, Acts xix. 12; and Baumgarten’s comment should be considered that, although it is not actually said that a miraculous
power went forth from Peter’s shadow, it is a question why, if no such power is implied, the words should be introduced at all into a narrative which evidently purports to note the extraordinary powers of the Apostles. The parallels just instanced from the Gospels could, of course, have no weight with critics who can only see in such comparisons a proof that the Acts cannot rise above the superstitious level of the Gospels, or who start like Renan with ‘‘ an absolute rule of criticism,” viz., the denial of a place in history to all miraculous narratives. B adds ἀπηλλάσσοντο yap κ.τ.λ.: but even here, as Blass says, Luke does not distinctly assert that cures were wrought by the shadow of Peter, although there is no reason to deny that the Evangelist had this in mind, since he does not hesi- tate to refer the same miraculous powers to St. Paul. Hilgenfeld refers vv. 14-16 to his ‘author to Theophilus,” and sees in the expressions used in ver. 16 a re- miniscence of Luke vi. 17.
Ver. 16. δὲ καὶ: very common in St. Luke, Luke ii. 4, ili. 9, ν. το, ix. 61, xiv. 12, etc., and also nine times in Acts. St. John uses it frequently, but seldom in Matt. and Mark; used for the sake of giving επιρΏαδίς.-- πέριξ only here, strengthened for περί, not in LXX, but see Hatch and Redpath, found in Acta Andr. et Matth, Apocr., 26 (see Lumby’s note), in classics from ®schylus.— τῶν π. πόλεων, ‘‘ the cities round about Jerusalem,” omitting εἰς before Ἱερουσ. ---ὀχλουμένους: only here in Ν.Τ., ef. Luke vi. 18, οἱ ἐνοχλούμενοι (W.H., R.V.) ὑπὸ amv. ἀκαθ. Both verbs are peculiar to St. Luke in the N.T. in con- nection with disease (ἐνοχλεῖν is used in Heb. xii. 15 in a different sense), and both were often used by medical writers. In Tobit vi. 8, ὀχλῇ the simple verb is used of the vexing and disturbing of an evil spirit, and ἐνοχλεῖν is used several times in the LXX, of being troubled with sicknesses, Gen. xlviii. 1, 1 Sam. xix. 14, ΧΧΧ. 13, Mal. i. 13. So J. Weiss, who is by no means inclined to overrate Dr.