from Hebrew ΓΠΣ, cf xx. 30, Luke
ix. 23, xxi. 8. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., Ρ. 126.—S8teoxoptichncayr : it is true that the sect revived under the name of Zealots, and played an active part in the Jewish wars, but there is no reason for charging St. Luke’s account with in- accuracy (so Overbeck following De Wette). The fate of the leader and the dispersion of his followers was quite sufficient to point the moral which Gamaliel wished to draw.
Ver. 38. καὶ τὰ vov, cf. also in iv. 29, xvii. 30, xx. 32, XxViil. 22. τὰ neuter accusative absolute —as respects the present, now, cf. 2 Macc. xv. 8; thus in all parts of Acts, Vindicie Lucane,. Klostermann, p. 53, so Zeller, Leke-
39—-40.
~ , a ~ 4 κὐτό,] µήποτε καὶ θεοµάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40. ᾿Επείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ, καὶ
προσκαλεσάµενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν
1 αντο C*HP, Vulg. (clem. and demid.), Sah., Boh., Syr. Pesh., Chrys.; αντους NABC2DE, Vulg. (am. fu.), Syr. Harcl., Arm., Aeth., Bede, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.—avro may have come in from το εργον τοντο. Flor. apparently paraphrases latter part of verse, see BlassB. After avtovs E, Gig., Wern. add ουτε UMELS ουτε OL αρχοντες vw; D, Flor., Syr. Harcl. mg. demid. add ovre υμεις ουτε 8ασιλεις ουτε Tupavvot, so Hilg. Belser lays special stress on these words, whilst Weiss only sees here and in the following words of D unfortunate attempts at emend- ‘ng; cf. Wisd. xii. 14, ovre βασιλευς η τυρανγνος, and see also below on vi. 10. D, 3yr. Harcl. mg., Flor. demid., 33 mg., 180 add απεχεσθε ουν απο των ανθρωπων του- (ων. Weiss sees an empty repetition of ver. 38, but Belser finds in απεχ. that which
i aables the construction of the following µηποτε και κ.τ.λ. to run quite smoothly.
bisch, Friedrich. The expression is quite classical. —édoate: ἐάω charac- teristic of Luke, and is only used once elsewhere in the Gospels, Matt. xxiv. 43 (also in 1 Cor. x. 13), but twice in St. Luke’s Gospel, and seven times in Acts ---ἀφίημι occurs only thrice in Acts; viii. 22, xiv. 17.--καταλυθήσεται, “ will be overhrown,” R.V. evertere, Blass, so Rendiull. This rendering gives the proper force ofthe word; itisnot διαλύομαι as in ver. 36, which might be rendered “will be dissolved,” but κατά indicates subversion, cf. Rom. xiv. 20, Acts vi. 14, Gal. ii. 18; cf. 2 Macc. ii. 22, 4 Macc. iv. 16, and frequently zbid., Vulgate, “' dis- solvetur’”’.
Ver. 39. ἐάν . . « el δὲ: it has some- times been thought that the change of mood from subjunctive to indicative, ‘* but if it is of God,” as if indicating that the second supposition were the more pro- bable (cf. Gal. i. 8, 9), indicates sympathy on the part of Gamaliel. It is of course possible that he may have been rendered favourably disposed towards the Chris- tians by their strict observance of the Law, and by their appeal to a doctrine which widely divided Pharisees and Sadducees. Others have attributed the change in mood, not to Gamaliel at all, but to the author (so Overbeck, Holtz- mann), and have maintained (so Blass, Weiss, cf. Winer-Moulton, xli. 2) that the indicative may be used because the second is the case with which the Council had actually to deal, the assertion, {.ε., of the Apostles. There may also be an underlying contrast between the transi- toriness of all mere human schemes, all of which would be overthrown, and the certainty of that which is ‘‘ of God,” and which has Him for its Author. There cannot be the least ground for supposing that Gamaliel’s counsel was in its tenor @ mere invention, as it bears the impress
VOLE. If,
of a thorough Rabbinical wise saying, cf. Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, ν., 24 (Taylor, p. 93, second edition). See too Herod., ix., 16; Eur., Hifpol., vi., 76; for the construction, cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 96, and Viteau, Le Grec du N.T., pp. 103, 113 (1893), who compares LXX, Gen. xliv. 23, 26.--οὐ δύνασθε: R.V. and W.H., δυνήσεσθε. καταλῦσαι with accusative of person in Xen., Cyr., viii., 5, 24; Plato, Legg., iv., p. 714, C., cf. 4 Macc. iv. 16. But without this addition it is usual to refer back to προσέχετε in ver. 35 (cf. Luke xxi. 34) for the construction of µήποτε; but µήποτε . . . εὑρεθῆτε may © be explained on the principle that a verb of fearing is sometimes unexpressed, the idea of fear being supplied by the context (in clauses where py with the subjunctive is found), Burton, u. s., p. 06.--µήποτε,. ‘lest haply,” its use in later Greek, Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 208. καί sometimes interpreted (so Alford, Wendt, Holtzmann), as if it meant not only against man but also against God. θεοµάχοι: not found elsewhere, but cf. LXX, Job xxvi. 5, Symm., and in Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16, applying the word to the Rephaim (see B.D.? “ Giants”); in 2, Macc. vil. 19 we have θεομαχεῖν érre- χείρησας. In classical Greek the same verb is found, see Grimm and Wendt for instances ; θεοµαχία, Plato, Rep., 375.. D. (as certain books of the Iliad were called, especially the xix.). The toler- ance of the sentiments here attributed to Gamaliel is undoubtedly in perfect ac- cordance with what we know of his character and opinions; the decisions attributed to him, e.g., that relating to the law of the Sabbath (Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie des Fudentums, ii., 2, 237; see also Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 239-246, and cf. also Renan, Apostles, p. 153, E.T.), are marked by a.