176
Vi.
βλάσφημα] cis Μωσῆν” καὶ τὸν Θεόν. 12. συνεκίνησάν Te τὸν λαὸν καὶ. τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς, καὶ ἐπιστάντες συνήρπασαν:
βλασφημα SABCEHP, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss; βλασφηµιας ΝΡ, Vulg.,
Flor., Gig., so Blass in B, and Hilg.
2Mwonv; but Μωνσην SABCDH, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Hilg. Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 51, 52, and note 43.)
St. Paul himself, as in this same Jerusa- lem he disputed, possibly in their syna- gogue, with the Hellenists on behalf of the faith which he was now seeking to destroy, Acts ix. 29. In modern Greek the verb has always the meaning {ο dis- cuss, to dispute (Kennedy).
Ver. 10. καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀντιστῆναι: the whole phrase is an exact fulfilment of Luke xxi. 15, cf. 1 Cor. i. 17, ii. 6. πνεῦμα, as Wendt points out, was the Holy Spirit with which Stephen was filled, cf. 3,5. Vulgate renders “ Spiritui Sancto qui loquebatur,” as if it read 6; see critical notes.
Ver. 11. ὑπέβαλον: only found here in N.T., not in LXX in this sense; sub- ornaverunt ; Vulgate, submiserunt (Suet., Ner., 28), cf. Appian, B. C., i., 74, ὑπεβλήθησαν κατήγοροι, and Jos., B. F., ν., 1Ο, 41, µηνντής τις ὑπόβλητος.-- ῥήματα βλασφημίας = βλάσφημα, He- braism, cf. Rev. xiii. 1, xvii. 3, Winer- Schmiedel, p. 266.—els Μωνσῆν καὶ τὸν Θεόν: Rendall draws a distinction be- tween λαλοῦντος . . . eis and λαλῶν ῥήματα κατά in ver. 13, the former denot- ing charges of blasphemy about Moses, and the latter agaist, etc., cf. il. 25, Heb. vii. 14, but it is doubtful whether this distinction can be maintained, cf. Luke xii. 10 and xxii. 65. The R.V. renders both prepositions against: of. Dan., LXX, vii., 25, and iii. 29 (96; LXX and Theod.).
Ver. 12. συνεκίνησαν: not found in LXX or other Greek versions of Ο.Τ., or in the Apocrypha, cf. Polyb., xv., 17, 1, so too in Plutarch. As this word and συνήρπασαν are found only in St. Luke it is perhaps worth noting that they are both frequent in medical writers, see below.—tév λαὸν: a crafty design to gain the people first, not only because they had hitherto favoured the Nazarenes, but because the Sanhedrim would be more inclined to take action if they felt that the people were with them, cf. iv. 26.--ἐπιστάντες, see on iv. Ι.---συνήρ- πασαν, “seized him,” R.V.; “caught,” A.V., signifies rather capture after pur- suit than a sudden seizure (Humphry) ;
(See esp.
only in St. Luke in the N.T., once in his Gospel, viii. 29, and Acts xix. 29, xxvil. 15. Inthe first passage it is used of the demoniac of the country of the Gerasenes ; many times the evil spirit συνηρπάκει. αὐτόν; see 2 Macc. vii. 27, Prov. vi. 25, 2 Mace. iv. 41, 4 Macc. v. 4. The word is also quite classical, see Hobart, Medi- cal Language, pp. 204, 243; on the hostility against Stephen and its causes, see above. At this word συνήρπ. Hil- genfeld would stop, and the rest of the verse, ἤγαγον to vii. 2, is referred by him to his ‘‘ author to Theophilus”. The leading Stephen before the Sanhedrim: is thus excluded by Hilgenfeld, because nothing is said of the previous summon- ing of the Councilias in iv. 5,6! and the introduction of false witnesses. and their accusation is something quite different from the charge of blasphemous words against Moses and God! In somewhat the same manner Spitta refers vi. 1-6, 9-128, to his source A, and sees so far a most trustworthy narrative, no single point in which can fairly be assailed by criticism, Apostelgeschichte, p. 115, whilst vi. 7 f., 12b-15 constitute B, a worthless document on account of its legendary and fictitious character—instituting a parallel between the death of Stephen and that of Christ, and leaving nothing historical except the fact that Stephen was a conspicuous member of the early Church who died as a martyr by stoning. But whilst Hilgenfeld and Spitta thus treat the passage beginning with καὶ ἤγαγον, Jiingst refers these verses and the rest of the chapter as far as ver. 14 to his source A, whilst the-previous part of νετ. 12, συνεκίνησαν- αὐτόν, is in: his view an insertion of the Redactor. Clemen regards the whole incident of the- bringing before the Sanhedrim as a later addition, and as forming part of his Historia Petri, the revolutionary nature of Stephen’s teaching being placed in the mouth of false witnesses, and the fana- ticism of the Jews being lessened by their susceptibility at any rate to the outward: impression made by their opponents (ver.. 15).