Vv.
νοµοδιδάσκαλος τίµιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς
ἀποστόλους ! ποιῆσαι, 35. εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς,” "Ανδρες Ισραηλῖται,
, ς ον Φιν ~ 2 6 , , ιά , , προσέχετε εαυτοις επι τοις αν Pwo TOUTOLS TL μέλλετε πρασσειν.
πι HP (put by many before ποιησαι); om. SABDE, vers., Chrys., so Tisch.,
W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.
τους αποστολους DEHP, Par., Flor., Gig.
(Vulg. απι.εοστ. tol.), Sah., Syrr. P. and H., Aeth., Chrys.; τους ανθρωπους NAB (Vulg.), Boh., Arm., Chrys., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt, Weiss, so also Blass in B; cf. vv. 35, 38, but here in narrative ανθρωπ. seemed undignified word.
2 avrovs; D (Flor.), Sah. has τους αρχοντας και τους ouvedpous (-ιους), d has
“‘concilium,” Flor. ‘‘ad totum concilium’”’.
this seems to indicate that in ver. 21 the Sanhedrim is meant, and no additional οουπςῖ].---Γαμαλιήλ: it has sometimes been urged that Saul, the persecutor, could not have been the pupil of such a man as is here described—a man who was so liberal in his religious opinions, and so adverse to political agitation. But whatever may have been the extent of his liberality, Gamaliel remained firmly attached to the traditions of the fathers, and whilst we may see in his recorded principle his abhorrence of wrangling and over-scrupulosity, we may also see in it a proof of his adherence to traditionalism: “Procure thyself a teacher, avoid being in doubt; and do not accustom thyself to give tithes by guess” (Edersheim, History of the Fewish Nation, p. 128). But in itself there is nothing strange in the fact that Saul should surpass the zeal of Gamaliel, for not only does his- tory often show us how one side of the teaching of a master may be exaggerated to excess by a pupil, but also the specific charge against Stephen of destroying the Temple and of changing the customs of Moses had not been formulated against St. Peter and his brother-Apostles, who still attended the Temple worship, and whose piety gained them the regard of the people. That charge against the first martyr was nothing less than the charge brought against Jesus of Naza- reth: the burning words and scathing denunciations of Stephen could only be answered, as those of Jesus had been answered, by the counter charge of blas- phemy, and the punishment of death (see Sabatier’s L’Apétre Paul, 21 ff.). Gamaliel appears as an ordinary mem- ber, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the high priest was always the Pre- sident during the Roman-Herodian period. Not until after the destruction of Jeru- salem, when the priesthood had lost its importance, was a Rabbi chosen as President of a reconstituted Sanhedrim.
Ισραηλιται, see above.
For a summary of the views for and against the Rabbinic tradition that this Gamaliel was the President of the San- hedrim, see Appendix iii., “‘ The President of the Sanhedrim,” by the late Rev. H. A. White, in Dr. Edersheim’s History of the F$ewish Nation, p. 522 ff. The influence of Gamaliel may easily be understood (1) when we remember that whilst the ἀρχιερεῖς belonged chiefly if not exclusively to the Sadducees, the Pharisees who also had seats in the Sanhedrim (cf. Acts xxiii. 6, and Jos., B. F., ii., 17, 3, Vita, 38, 39, C. Apion, ii., 22) possessed practically a predominating influence in the Council. The remark of Jos., Ant., xviii., I, 4, gives us, as Schiirer says, ‘‘a deep insight into the actual position of matters,’ Schiirer, Fewish People, div. ii., νο]. 1., p. 178 ff., E.T., and O. Holtzmann Neutest. Zeit- geschichte, p. 175. (2) But we have also to take into account the personal influ- ence of the man, which was no doubt at its height about the time described in Acts v.—he died Α.Ρ. 57-58. Not only was he the first teacher of the seven to whom the title Rabban was given (higher than that of Rab or Rabbi), but Jewish tradition respecting him shows the dignity and influence which attached to his name, Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie des Fudentums, ii., 2, 236, and see on the titles given to Gamaliel, Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 239-246, and Schirer, u. s., p. 364. We may see a further proof of his influence in the fact that a certain proviso with regard to the determining leap year, which was passed in the Sanhedrim in his absence, was only to come into force if it received the confirmation of Gamaliel (Edajoth, vii., 7). So far then St. Luke’s account of the weight which would be carried by Ga- maliel in the assembly is amply justified, and Schirer’s description of the constitu- tion of the Sanhedrim, 1. s., p. 174 ff., is sufficient reply to the strictures of Jiingst