9. καὶ ἦν ἡμέρας τρεῖς μὴ βλέπων, καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν 5. 4 AY 3 ϱ ον ρ 3 , 10. Ἡν δέ τις μαθητὴς ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὀνόματι Avavias, καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος ἐν ὁράματι, “Avavia.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν. ᾿Ιδοὺ
and adds that in any case it is suggestive that Paul, Gal. iv. 15, seems, at least in later days, to have had a severe ailment in his eyes (see however on this point νετ. g above). But the weakness, if it existed, might have been caused by the previous blindness at Damascus, and this suggestion, if it is needed, has at all events more probability than the sup- position that the narrative in the text was due to the fact that in after years Saul’s eyes were affected! (so Weiz- sacker, Apostolic Age, Ι., 72). Zeller in- deed admits, Acts, i., 289, E.T., that the connection of Saul with Ananias, “‘ irre- spective of the visions and miracles,” may have been historical, and he falls ‘back upon Schneckenburger’s theory that the author of Acts had a special aim in: view in introducing a man so avowedly pious in the law (xxii. 12) to introduce Paul to Christianity. But Schnecken- burger does not seem to deny the main fact of the meeting between the two men (Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 168, 169), and St. Paul would scarcely have spoken as he did later (xxii. 12) before a Jewish crowd, in a speech delivered when the capital was full of pilgrims from all parts, and at a time when the constant communication between Damascus and Jerusalem would have exposed him to instant refutation, had his statements with regard to Ananias been incorrect. It is evident that the super- natural element in the narrative is what really lay at the root of Zeller’s objections. —6 Κύριος, {.ε., Jesus, as is evident from a comparison of vv. 13, 14, 17.--ἐν ὁρά- att: critical objections have been raised y Baur and others against the double vision narrated here of Saul and Ananias, as against the double vision of Cornelius and St. Peter in x. 3 and xi., but see Lumby’s note, im loco, and reference to Conybeare and Howson, quoted also by Felten. The idea of the older rationalists that Saul and Ananias had previously been friends, and that thus the coinci- dence of their visions may be accounted for, is justly regarded by Wendt as entirely arbitrary. The vision, as nar- rated by Luke, is evidently regarded as something objective, cf. vv. 10, 13. Ver. 11. ἀναστὰς: the word as has- been previously remarked is characteristic of Luke (cf. its use in O.T.), and does.