11
162
A A » Ψ a? a 4 > > , ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.
41. Οἱ μὲν οὖν }
ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντεδ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ
1 µεν ονν (Flor. δε), D, Par. add αποστολοι, so Hilg.; Flor. adds απολνθεντες,
cf. iv. 23; Blass in B combines both.
tendency to mildness and liberality ; and perhaps a still more remarkable illustra- tion of the same tendency is afforded by the enactment so often referred to him (Hamburger, u. s.) to allow to the poor of the heathen, as well as of Israel, the gleaning and a participation in the corn left standing in the corner of the fields, to inquire after the welfare of the Gentile poor, to maintain them, to visit their sick, to bury their dead (the prayer against heretics belonged not to this Gamaliel, but to Gamaliel II.). But the decision of Gamaliel was not prompted by any sympathy with the Christians ; it was the judgment of toleration and prudence, but certainly nothing more, although it scarcely falls under the head of “cynical”; it was rather, as Ewald called it, that of an ordinary politician. No credence whatever can be attributed to the tradi- tion that Gamaliel became a Christian, or that he was secretly a Christian, al- though we may sympathise with St. Chiysostom’s words, “‘it cannot be that he should have continued in unbelief, to the end”. The Talmud distinctly affirms that he died a Jew, and, if he had betrayed his faith, we cannot understand the honour which Jewish tradition attaches to his name, ‘‘Gamaliel,” B.D.?; Schirer, few- ish People, div. ii., vol. i., p. 364. Wendt, while he refuses to admit the historical character of the speech of Gamaliel, is evidently puzzled to discover any definite grounds for St. Luke’s wilful introduction of the famous Rabban into the scene (so too Feine). He therefore supposes that the decision in ver. 38, in which he sees a wise saying similar to those attributed to other Rabbis, was assigned by tradition to Gamaliel, and that St. Luke, who was in possession of the further tradition that Gamaliel had given a decisive judg- ment in the trial of the Apostles, intro- duces this saying into the speech which he attributes to Gamaliel as fitting to the occasion. But there is no indication in our authorities that the sentiment thus attributed to Gamaliel was in any way different from what might have been ex- pected of him (see Schiirer, fewish People, u.5S.). The chief objection to the speech, viz., the alleged anachronism involved in the mention of Theudas, really begs the
question as to its authenticity, and even on the supposition of an inaccuracy in the point mentioned, we cannot get rid of the fact that the attitude of Gamaliel in itself betrays no inconsistency. It was this alleged anachronism which caused Spitta to refer the incident of Gamaliel in this chapter to his inferior source B., and to refuse to adopt the solution of Weiss and Feine, who solved the difficulty involved in the mention of Theudas by introducing the hand of a reviser.
Ver. 40. ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ: what- ever scruples Gamaliel may have had in pressing matters against the Apostles, or even if the teaching of Christ, as some have conjectured, with much of which he might have sympathised as a follower of Hillel, had influenced his mind, or if, like Joseph of Arimathea, he too had not consented to the counsel and will of his fellow-Sanhedrists, there is no reason to suppose (see above) that he ever ad- vanced beyond the compromise here suggested. It may be that Neander was right in his judgment that Gamaliel was too wise a man to render a fanatical movement more violent still by opposing it. Others however see in his words a mere laisser-aller view of matters, or a timid caution which betokened a mere waiter upon Providence. But at the same time there are occasions when Gamaliel’s advice may not be out of place, see Bengel on ver. 38, and Farrar, St. Paul, i., 110 ff.—8etpavres, Deut. xxv. 3, 2 Cor. xi. 24: the punishment was for minor offences, and it was now inflic- ted upon the Apostles because they had trangressed the command enjoined upon them previously, iv. 18. The Pharisees, probably by their superior number in the Sanhedrim (Jos., Ant., xiii., το, 6), were able to secure the following of Gamaliel’s advice, and to prevent extreme measures against the Apostles, but they were not prepared to disregard the previous in- junction of the Council which bade the Apostles refrain from uttering a word in the name of Jesus. But the Apostles themselves must have seen in the punish- ment a striking fulfilment of their Lord’s words, as in the closing hours of His earthly life He foretold their future sufferings for His Name. The