Ver. 25. tod . . . εἰσὶν: on the characteristic use of the verb εἶναι after ἰδοὺ or ἴδε in St. Luke’s writings as compared with other N.T. writers and the LXX, see Viteau, Le Grec du N.T.., Pp. 200, 205 (1896); cf. ii. 7, xvi. 1, and Luke ti. 25, vii. 25, ΧΙ. 41, εἴς.---παραγεν., see on ver. 22.- ἑστῶτες, cf. ver. 20. antitheton: posuistis (Bengel).
Ver. 26. ἤγαγεν: but imperfect with W.H. and Weiss, so Blass ‘‘ quia modus quo res gesta est describitur; perfecta res indicatur, ver. 27, a@yaydévres”’.—ow
152
ιαόν. 26. Τότε ἀπελθὼν 6
αὐτούς, οὐ μετὰ βίας, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ τὸν λαόν, ἵνα μὴ λιθασθῶσιν.
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ν
στρατηγὸς σὺν τοῖς ὑπηρέταις, ἤγαγεν
1
3 / 9 > ὃν 4 > a LA A ‘ > ’ 27. ἀγαγόντες δὲ αὐτοὺς έστησαν ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ: καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν
αὐτοὺς 6 ἀρχιερεύς,” λέγων, 28. OF? παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαµεν ὑμῖν
μὴ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ; καὶ ἰδού, πεπληρώκατε” τὴν
“ἱερουσαλὴμ, τῆς διδαχῆς ὑμῶν, καὶ βούλεσθε ἐπαγαγεῖν ep ἡμᾶς τὸ
1ηγαγεν AEP, Vulg., Chrys., Lucif.; D* ηγαγον; ηγεν NBD?, so Tisch., W.H.,
Weiss. vtro του Aaov; D φοβουμµενος yap.
εφοβονντο ... λιθασθωσιν, Flor. om., represents φοβουμενος µηποτελιθασθῃ ινα ΟΤΙ. NBDE 5, 13, 40, 96, so Tisch., W.H.,
R.V., Wendt, Weiss, Hilg.; but ins. AP, Chr., Theophyl., T.R., Meyer.
2 apxvepeus; D, Gig., Par., Lucif. have tepevs, Flor. praetor =arparnyos, instead ; other additions in Flor., but no difference in sense.
3 ov
$°DEP, Flor., Par., Sah., Syrr. P. and H., Arm., Aeth., Ath., Bas.; but om.
Β 13, Gig., Vulg., Boh., Ath., Cyr., Lucif., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt (who thinks with Alford that it was suggested by επηρωτησεν); Blass retains the
negative, so Hilg.
4 remAnpwxate BDEP, Bas., Tisch., Weiss, W.H., Hilg.; επληρωσατε SA 15,
Chrys., Cyr.
In Western text Flor., Pesh. insert vpets δε instead of και before ov,
and D*, Flor., Gig., Sah. read εκεινου for ταντου, emphasis.
μετὰ Blas, ‘but without violence,” R.V. Weiss compares with the whole phrase ἦγεν . « «βίας (Exod. xiv. 25); βία three or four times in Acts only, xxi. 35, xxiv. 7 (omit W.H., R.V.), xxvii. 41; used in the LXX in the same sense as here and with the genitive, cf. Exod. xiv. 25 (cf. i. 14), 3 Mace. iv. 7; classical usage more frequently has Blq, ἐκ βίας, εἰο.---ἐφοβοῦντο yap: the favour of the people which the Apostles so fully en- joyed at this time might well have caused an outbreak of fanaticism as later in the case of Stephen. The subjects to ἐφοβ. and to ἔστησαν (27) are 6 στρατ. and of ὑπηρέται. St. Chrysostom well com- ments on those who would thus fear — not God, but the people. On the Greek of the verse, see Viteau, Le Grec du N.T.., p- 116 (1896).—tva μὴ λιθασθῶσιν: the reading μὴ undoubtedly correct, so W.H., Wendt, Weiss, Blass.—rév λαόν: de- noting the persons feared, and μὴ λιθασ., the thing feared, so that the meaning is as in R.V., ‘‘for they were afraid that they should be stoned by the people,” or ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ τὸν Aadv may be taken as parenthetical (so Weiss), and μὴ λιθασ. as limiting ἦγεν . . . Blas. In the N.T. after verbs of fearing the subjunctive only is used where after secondary tenses we should have expected the optative, or sometimes the subjunctive is explained as implying more certainty of a result. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, pp. 95, 06.---λιθασ.: very seldom in Attic Greek,
where we should expect καταλεύειν; only twice in LXX, 2 Sam. xvi. 6, 13, where usually λιθοβολέω (not used in classical writers, but six or seven times in N.T.) ; but λιθάζειν is found eight or nine times in N.T.
Ver. 27. ἔστησαν, cf. iv. 7, during the investigation the judges would sit, vi. 15, xxiii. 3, the accused, the witnesses, and those speaking, stood, Mark xiv. 57, 60, Acts iv. 7, ν. 27, 34, Vi. 13, xxiii. 9, O. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitges- chichte, p. 177.