Ver. 49. τίς τόπος for ποῖος, and οὐχὶ introducing the conclusion instead of yap- Although Solomon had expressed this
pis. 199
καταπαύσεώς µου; 50. οὐχὶ ἡ Χείρ µου ἐποίησε ταῦτα πάντα]; , was , a , 9 - iis ig c a 51. Σκληροτράχηλοι καὶ ἀπερίτμητοι τῇ καρδίᾳ” καὶ τοῖς doiv, ὑμεῖς dei τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ “Ayiw ἀντιπίπτετε, ὡς ot πατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ ὑμεῖς.δ 52. τίνα τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἐδίωξαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν {; καὶ ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς προκαταγγείλαντας περὶ τῆς ἐλεύσεως τοῦ δικαίου.
1 Flor. omits whole verse, but Blass and Hilg. retain it. Variation from LXX
decisive for retention.
2 (tp) καρδιᾳ EHP 61, Flor., Gig., Syr. Pesh., Sah., Boh., Eus., Lucif., so Blass, Meyer, Alford; καρδιαις (9)ΑΟΤ 7, 14 (Chrys.), Cyr. (Vulg., Syr. Harcl., Arm., Aeth.), so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.; καρδιας B, W.H. marg. Meyer and Alford retain καρδιᾳ because (they think) καρδιαις was introduced to suit plural subject, but cf. Ezek. xliv. 7. καρδιας in LXX, Jer. ix. 26, but the reading can scarcely be original here on account of the following dat. τοις wow (Wendt). But
on the whole W.H.’s decision is best.
3 και υμεις om. D*, Flor., Gig., but Blass retains; Hilg. omits.
+o. πατερες υμων; D, Flor. read εκεινοι.
same truth in the dedicatory prayer of his temple, St. Stephen appeals to the great Messianic prophet. It is not, as some have thought, the worthlessness of the temple, but rather its relative value upon which Stephen insists. Those who take the former view of the words must suppose that St. Stephen had forgotten that Solomon had given utterance to the same thought at the moment when he was consecrating the temple (so Wendt, Felten, McGiffert, ix loco). Weiss sees in the question another proof of the thought running through the whole ad- dress, that God’s presence, with the bless- ings which He confers and the revelations which He imparts, is not confined to the temple: cf. the use of the same quotation as here against the Jews, Epist. Barn., xvi., 2, after the destruction of the temple.
Ver. 51. σκληροτράχηλοι καὶ ἀπερίτ- µητοι τῇ καρδία, cf. Exod. xxxiii. 3, 5, xxxiv. 9, Deut. ix. 6, Baruch ii. 30, etc., Ecclus. xvi. ττ (ef. Cicero, Verr., ΠΠ., 95, ‘“‘tantis cervicibus est’’). Both adjectives had been used to describe the sins of Israel in former days. On this reading see above and Wendt, critical note, p. 190, cf. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, Ῥ. 116. For the expression ἄπερ., cf. Deut. x. 16, Jer. iv. 4, and ἄπερ. τὰ dra, Jer. νι. το. ‘In the N.T. cf: Rom! Ἡ. ος, 29 (which sounds like another echo of St. Stephen’s teaching), cf. also Efist. Baru., ix. (Jer. iv. 4). Similar expres- sions occur in Philo and the Rabbis, and also 1 Macc. i. 48, ii. 46, and see further Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 150, 151. Many writers have maintained that St. Stephen’s sharp and abrupt declaration
marks the increasing impatience of his hearers at this point, as if the speaker felt that the murmurs of his audience would not allow him much more speech. But on the other hand St. Stephen’s whole speech led up to this point, and his words were not so much an inter- ruption, but a continuance and a sum- mary of what had gone before. No doubt the speech was left unfinished: ‘ cujus cursus ad lesum tendebat”’ (Blass) ; since in His rejection the obstinacy of the people which had marked and marred their history had reached its climax ; and the indignant words of St. Stephen bring to mind the indignation of a greater than he against the hyprocrisy and wilfulness of the nation—‘ the wrath of the Lamb” against the Pharisees and the oppressors (Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, p. 68). —del: “‘summa tractationis — semper quotiescumque vocamini”’ Bengel.—ayv- τιπίπτετε, cf. Num. xxvii. 14, of Israel striving against God, and also in Polyb. and Plut.