sometimes without the article, here as in the Heb, without: ¢f. the parallel in Assumption of Moses, iii., 11 (ed. Charles), and see below on ver. 38.
84-35.
193
37. Οὗτός ἐστιν 6 Μωῦσῆς 6 εἰπὼν τοῖς υἱοῖς “lopayd, “ Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει Κύριος 6 Θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐμέ-
3 a > , 229 αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε.
α ρ 3 ς / > ALS 4 > 38. οὗτός ἐστιν 6 γενόμενος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν
τῇ ἐρήμῳ μετὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ ὃ λαλοῦντος αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ καὶ
1 Κυριος CEHP, Boh., Syr. Harcl., Aeth., Chrys., so LXX, Deut. xviii. 15; om. ABD 61, Vulg., Sah., Aeth., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg. υΌμων (1) om. ΝΑΒΟΝ) 61, Vulg. verss., Chrys.; so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss.
2 autov ακουσεσθε CDE, Gig., Par., Wern., Vulg., Syrr. (P. and H.), Boh., Arm., Aeth.; om. SABHP 61, Sah., Chrys., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Wendt
(cf. Deut. xviii. 15, and Acts ili. 22).
SayyeXou του om. Gig., ‘‘recte ut videtur,” according to Blass, of. νετ. 44—
Blass brackets in B.
Ver. 57. οὗτός, cf. ver. 35, cf. Deut. xviii. 15, and iii. 22, above. The introduc- tion of the prophecy may mean that St. Stephen wished in this as in the pre- ceding and following verse to emphasise the position and the work of Moses, and to mark more strongly the disobedience of the people. Blass regards οὗτός ἐστιν 6 Μ. κ.τ.λ. as intended to show that Moses, whom the Jews accused Stephen of injuring, was himself by his own words a supporter of the claims of Christ : “hic est ille Μ. qui dixit’’.
Ver. 38. οὗτός: again emphatic use. ---ἐκκλησία: ‘in the congregation,’ R.V. margin: held in the wilderness for the giving of the law, although the word does not occur in Exod. xix., but cf. Deut. xxxi. 30, Josh. viii. 35 (ix. 2). By Wycliffe the word was translated “Church”? here, but afterwards ‘“con- gregation,” so in Tynd., Cranm., Gen., until A.V. again rendered ‘“ Church,” cf. Heb. ii. 12, and on the word see above on v. 11, Hort, Ecclesia, p. 3 ff., and Boo. “Church”. tn Ἠες i) 12.) ΕΥ. treads ‘congregation’? in text (but “Church” in margin), following Tynd. and Cranm., and Ps. xxii. 22 from which the quotation is made (where both A. and R.V. have ‘‘ congregation”). Schmie- del would dismiss the word as a later gloss, which has been inserted here in a wrong place, see Wendt (edit. 1899), Ῥ. 160, note.—yevop. . . . μετὰ, cf. ix. 10, xx. 18 (Mark xvi. 10); no Hebra- ism, cf. σύν in Luke ii. 13.---τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ λαλ., but in Exodus Moses is said to speak with God, cf. ver. 30 above, and see also ver. 53, ‘‘who was with the angel. . . and with our fathers,” 1.6., who acted as the mediator between the two parties, who had relations with them both, cf. Gal. iti. 19, and Philo, Vit. Moys., iii., 19, where Mosesis called peotrys καὶ διαλλακ-
νου IT.
τής, cf. also Heb. ii. 2, and Jos., Ant., xv., 5, 3; the latter passage represents Herod as saying that the Jews learned all that was most holy in their law δι’ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (see Westcott Hebrews, and Wetstein on Gal. iii. 19). On the title peoirns as given to Moses, see further Assumption of Moses, i., 14, and Charles’ note and introd. Ixiii., but it does not follow that the inference is justified that the Apocryphal Book in -question was known to the writer of St. Stephen’s speech. Dr. Charles maintains this on the ground of three passages, but of (1) it may be said that the term μεσίτης evidently could have been known from other sources than Acts, (2) the parallel between ver. 36 and Assumption of Moses, iti., 11, is, as Dr. Charles admits, an agreement verbally ‘for the most part,” but the words “Egypt, the Red Sea, and the wilderness for forty years’ might often be used as a summary of the history of Israel at a particular period, whilst the context with which the words are here associated is quite different from that in Assumption of Moses, ].ο., and (3) there is no close resemblance between the prophecy from Amos quoted in ver. 43 beiow and the prophecy in Assumption of Moses, Π., 13 ; in both the phraseology is quite general. Perhaps the omission of the word pera before τῶν πατέρων gives emphasis to the privilege of ‘our fathers,” when one can speak of being with the angel and with them, Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 159. Thus Moses prefigures the Mediator of the new coventant, cf. Heb. viii. 15, ix. 15, xii. 24, and the mention of this honour bestowed upon Moses emphasises still more fully the indignity which he re- ceived from his countrymen, cf. St. Chrysostom on the force of οὗτος in this verse.—Adyra, cf. Rom. iii. 2, as in LXX.