208
Will.
Χώρας τῆς Ιουδαίας καὶ Σαµαρείας, πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων.! 2. συνεκόµισαν δὲ τὸν Στέφανον ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, καὶ ἐποιήσαντο
1 Σαμαρειας ABCHP, so W.H. alt. App., Ρ. 160, Blass, Weiss, Hilg. ; Zapapias. NDE, so Tisch., W.H., see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 45. After διωγµος D, Flor., Sah. και θλιψις, assim. to Matt. xili. 21, 2 Thess. i. 4, so Hilg. The same addition occurs in Western text in xiii. 50. ΑΠεταποστολων D!, Flor., Gig., Prov., Sah., Aug. add οι εµειναν ev lep., retained by Blass in B, so Belser, Beitrage, p. 49, and Hilg.
It is found frequently in LXX and in I, 2, 3 Μαςο.- τῆς ᾿Ιουθαίας καὶ Σα- µαρείας: thus the historian makes another step in the fulfilment of the Lord’s com- mand, i. 8, and see also Ramsay, St. Paul, etc., p. 41. St. Chrysostom remarks ὅτι οἰκονομίας 6 διωγμὸς fv, since the per- secution became the means of spreading the Gospel, and thus early the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church.—rAjv τῶν ἀποστόλων- πλήν: characteristic of St. Luke, sometimes as an adverb, sometimes as a preposition with genitive as here and in xv. 28, xxvii, 22: elsewhere it is only found once as a preposition with genitive, in Mark xii. 32, although very frequent in LXX. The word occurs at least thirteen times in the Gospel, four times in Acts, in St. Matthew five times, in St. Mark once, and in John viii. 10; see Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, pp. 16, 91. This men- tion of the Apostles seems unlikely to Schneckenburger. Schleiermacher, and others, but, as Wendt points out, it is quite consistent with the greater stead- fastness of men who felt themselves to be πρωταγωνισταί, as Gicumenius calls them, in that which concerned their Lord. Their position too may well have been more secure than that of the Hel- lenists, who were identified with Stephen, as they were held in favour by the people, v. 13, and as regular attendants at the temple services would not have been exposed to the same charges as those directed against the proto-martyr. There was, too, a tradition (very old and well attested according to Harnack, Chron- ologie, i., 243) to the effect that the Apostles were commanded by Christ not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years, so®*that none should say that he had not heard the message, Euseb., H. E., v., 18, 14; nor is there anything inconsistent with this tradition in the visit of St. Peter and St. John to Samaria, since this and other journeys are simply missionary excursions, from which the Apostles always returned to Jerusalem (Harnack). The passage in Clem. Alex., Strom., vi., 5, 43, limited the Apostles’
preaching for the time specified not to Jerusalem, but to Israel._—Zapapetas : our Lord had recognised the barrier between the Samaritan and the Jew, Matt. x. 5: but now in obedience to His command (i. 8) both Samaritan and Jew were ad- mitted to the Church, for although the Apostles had not originated this preach- ing they very plainly endorsed it, ver. 14 ff. (cf. Hort, $udaistic Christianity, Ρ. 54). Possibly the very fact that Philip and others were flying from the perse- cution of the Jewish hierarchy would have secured their welcome in the Samaritan towns. t
Ver. 2. Spitta connects ver. 2 with ΧΙ. 10-21. and all the intermediate sec- tion, viii. 5-xi. το; forms part of his source B (so also Sorof, Clemen, who joins his. H.H., viii. 1 to xi. το; but on the other hand see Hiigenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft. Theol., p. 501 (1895), and Jiingst, Apostelgeschichte, p. 79). Ac- cording to Spitta the whole narrative of Philip’s ministry in viii. ought not to be connected so closely with the death ot Stephen, but should fall after ix. 31. The only reason for its earlier insertion is the desire to connect the second deacon with the first (but Hilgenfeld, 1. s., pp. 413, 414 (1895), as against both Spitta and Clemen, regards the account of Philip and that of Stephen as insepar- able). Spitta strongly maintains that Philip the Apostle, and not the deacon, is meant; and if this be so, he would no doubt help us to answer the objection that in viii. 14-17, and indeed in the whole section 9-24 we have an addition of the sub-Apostolic age inserted to show that the Apostles alone could bestow the Holy Spirit. But it cannot be said that Spitta’s attempt at the identification of Philip in viii. with the Apostle is in any way convincing, see, e.g., Zockler, A postel- geschichte, p. 212; Hilgenfeld, u.s., p. 416 (note), and Jiingst, 1. s., p. δι. Feine’s objection to viii. 14-17 leads him, whilst he admits that the meeting with Simon Magus is historical, to regard the con- version of the sorcerer as doubtful, be- cause the whole passage presupposes.