uction into the N.T. with “such a novel force as to be felt like a new word’’. Itis used several times in LXX, and is also found in Psalms of Solomon, xi., 2 (cf. Isa. xl. 9, ΠΠ. 7, and Nah. i. 15). On its construction see Simcox, 4. S., p. 79, and Vogel, p. 24.
Ver. 5. Φίλιππος δὲ: the Evangelist, of. xxi. 8, and note on vi. 5.—eis πόλιν: if we insert the article (see above on critical notes), the expression means ‘“‘the city of Samaria,” i.¢., the capital of the district (so Weiss, Werit,
5. ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ δὲ κατελθὼν εἰς πόλιν τῆς Lapapeias,! ἐκήρυσσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Χβιστόν. 6, προσεϊχόν te? οἱ ὄχλοι τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου ὁμοθυμαδόν, ἐν τῷ ἀκούειν αὐτοὺς καὶ βλέπειν τὰ
σημεῖα ἃ emote. 7.9 πολλῶν γὰρ τῶν ἐχόντων πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα
βοῶντα µεγάλῃ Φωνῇ ἐξήρχετο΄ πολλοὶ δὲ παραλελυµένοι καὶ χωλοὶ
Σεις Σ. την πολιν Ρατ. (‘‘ Samaria in civitate,” again for clearness (Wendt)), so Blass in B; Σαµαρειας ABHP, so Blass; -ιας $4°DE, so Tisch., W.H., see on ver. 1. (See on the reading Winer-Schmiedel, p. 266.)
ἔπροσειχον τε EHP, Chrys. ; but δε NABCD? 61, e, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Syr. Harcl., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Wendt, Weiss. In D this verse begins ως δε ηκουον παν(τες) ot οχλοι προσειχον τοις λεγ. παν (omnis turbe, d), but Blass rejects; Hilg. retains. Weiss, Codex D, p. 68, expresses surprise at this rejection by Blass, as the reading is not more superfluous than countless additions in D; the words already lay in the following ev tw ακονειν αυτους. Chase refers to Syriac with
considerable probability.
* wokAwv HP, Boh., Arm., Chrys. (D! παρα πολλοις, D? απο πολλοι, a multis, d); πολλοι NABCD°E 18, 36, 40, 61, Vulg., Sah. Syr., Aeth., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Wendt, Weiss, Hilg. Blass inserts ἅ after ακαθαρτα, so Hilg., bene” Blass {see below and Wendt, note, p. 172, eighth edition).
Zéckler, see Blass, in loco), or Sebaste, so called by Herod the Great in honour of Augustus, Σεβαστή (Jos., Ant., xv., 7, 3: 8, 5; Strabo, xvi., p. 860), see Schirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. 1, p. 123 ff., E.T., and O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeit- geschichte, p. 93.—éxypvocev: the re- visers distinguish between this verb and εὐαγγελ. in νετ. 4, the latter being rendered “preaching,” or more fully, preaching the glad tidings, and the former ‘‘proclaimed’’ (see also Page’s note on the word, p. 131), but it is doubtful if we can retain this full force of the word always, ε.ρ., Luke iv. 44, where R.V. translates knpvooeyv, “ preach- ing ”’.—atrtots, {.ε., the people in the city mentioned, see Blass, Grammatik, Ρ. 162, and cf. xvi. 10, xx. 2.
Ver. 6. προσεῖχον ... τοῖς λεγ., cf. xvi. 14, 1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. i. 14, 2 Pet. i. 9, see note on v. 35, used in classical Greek sometimes with votv, and some- times without as here; frequent in LXX, cf. with this passage, Wisdom viii. 12, 1 Macc. vii. 12.---ὁμοθυμαδόν, see above on i. 14.
Ver. 7. πολλῶν yap κ.τ.λ.:; if we accept reading in R.V. (see critical notes above), we must suppose that St. Luke passes in thought from the possessed to the unclean spirits by which they were possessed, and so introduces the verb ἐξήρχοντο (as if the unclean spirits were themselves the subject), whereas we should have expected that ἐθεραπεύθησαν would have followed after the first πολ- Aol, as after the second, in the second
clause of the verse. Blass conjectures that @ should be read before βοῶντα, which thus enables him, while retaining | ἐξήρχοντο, to make πολλοί in each clause of the verse the subject of ἔθεραπ. One of the most striking phenomena in the demonised was that they lost at least temporarily their own self-consciousness, and became identified with the demon or demons, and this may account for St. Luke’s way of writing, as if he also identified the two in thought, Eder- sheim, Fesus the Messiah, i., 479, 647, ff. As a physician St. Luke must have often come into contact with those who had unclean spirits, and he would naturally have studied closely the nature of their disease. It is also to be noted that πολλοί with the genitive, τῶν ἐχόντων (not πολλοὶ ἔχοντες), shows that not all the possessed were healed, and if so, it is an indication of the truthfulness of the narrative. Moreover, St. Luke not only shows himself acquainted with the characteristics of demoniacal possession, cf. his description in Luke viii, 27, ix.