Ver. 24. ἐπιβουλὴ: “plot”; N.T. only used in Acts; in three other passages, xX, 3, IQ, xxiii. 3ο. It is used in the same sense in LXX, Esth. ii. 22 (for other instances of the word see H. and R.), and frequently in classical Greek.— παρετήρουν: if we follow R.V., see critical notes, we have the middle for the active, cf. Luke xiv. 1, vi. 7, Gal. iv. to. There is no contradiction in- volved with 2 Cor. xi. 32. The ethnarch acted as the instrument of the Jews, at their instigation, or they acted by his permission, or possibly as the Jews were the actual originators of the persecution of Saul, St. Luke for brevity speaks of them as carrying it out, cf. il. 23, xxviii. 27. See to this effect, Blass, Zéckler, Felten, Wendt.—re: if we add καὶ R.V., see critical notes, the two words τε καὶ’ signify that they not only laid wait for him, but also watched the city gates day and night, to secure the success of their design; ‘‘and they watched the gates also,” R.V. In 2 Cor. xi. 32, according to Paul’s own statement, the ethnarch under Aretas the king guarded the walls to prevent his escape. But this seems
τήρουν 1 τε τὰς πύλας ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτός, ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀνέλωσιν- 25. λαβόντες δὲ αὐτὸν ot μαθηταὶ ” νυκτός, καθῆκαν διὰ τοῦ τείχους,
1 παρετηρουν HLP, Chrys.; παρετηρονντο SABCEFa 61, Vulg., Or., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Wendt, Hilg. Instead of re, ΝΑΒΟΕΕα 61, Vulg., Or., Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Hilg. read δε xat—Alford supposes that το in παρετηρουντο became mistaken for τε, and then δε και was struck out, no other copula being wanted.
2 or µαθηται, after these words RABCFa 61, Vulg. (am. fu. demid. tol.), Or. read αντου, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Zéckler, Holtzmann; perhaps- omitted because in vv. 19 and 26 µαθηται is used absolutely. σπυριδι--Όυί in NYC σφυρ., so W.H. (but not Weiss, who follows AB, etc.), although with om. as alternative, App., pp. 155, 156, and Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 5ο, 6ο; see also Deissmann,
Bibelstudien, p. 157, and Neue Bibelstudien, p. 13.
strange, as Damascus was part of the Roman province of Syria. The difficulty is met by a large number of modern writers by the assumption that Caligula, whose reign began in 37 A.D., gave Damascus to Aretas, to whose prede- cessors it had belonged (Jos., Ant., xiii., 5, 2). On the accession of Caligula a great change of policy occurred—Antipas, the old foe of Aretas, who was indignant with him for the divorce of his daughter, was shortly after deposed, and his king- dom was added to that of Herod Agrippa, who had already received from the em- peror the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias (Jos., Ant., xviii., 6, το). But this latter grant was one ofthe first acts of Caligula’s reign, and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the new ruler should also bestow some gift of territory on the great foe of the Herodian house, who apparently reigned until 4o a.p. Added to this there is the fact that we have no coins of Damascus with the imperial superscription from 34-62 A.D. In 62-63 the image of Nero begins, but there are no coins marked with that of Caligula or Claudius. The latter emperor died in 54 A.D., and in a few years Damascus must have passed again into Roman hands, if the above theory is correct. Certainly this theory is more feasible than that which supposes that Aretas had actually seized Damascus himself in 37 A.D., when upon the death of Tiberius (who had supported Antipas), Vitellius, the governor of Syria, had withdrawn his troops and the expedition which the emperor had despatched against Aretas. But whether this forcible taking posses- sion of the city is placed before, during, or after the expedition of Vitellius, we should expect that it would have met with energetic punishment at the hands of the governor of Syria, but of this there is no m ntion or trace (P. Ewald). McGiffert,