CHAPTER XI.—Ver. 1. For Western readings see critical ποτῖοςβ.- κατὰ τὴν
ΧΙ. ἐ--» ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 263
ΧΙ. 1. ἨΚΟΥΣΑΝ δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ot ὄντες κατὰ
τὴν Ιουδαία», ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 2.! καὶ
ὅτε ἀνέβη Πέτρος eis Ἱεροσόλυμα, διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, λέγοντες, 3. Ὅτι πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας εἰσῆλθες,: καὶ συνέφαγες αὐτοῖς. 4. ᾿Αρξάμενος δὲ ὁ Πέτρος ἐξετίθετο
1The Western text is here considerably expanded. Blass, following D, Syr. Harcl., Par., Wern. (with differences in particulars), reads in β: ο pev ουν Π. δια ikavov χρονου ηθελησεν πορευθηναι εις |. και προσφωνησας τους αδελφους και επισ- τηριξας (αυτους) εξηλθεν, πολυν τε χρονον ποιουµενος (επορευετο) δια των χωρων διδασκων αυτους. οτε δε κατηντησεν εις |. και απηγγειλεν ανυτοις την χαριν του Θεου οι εκ περιτοµης αδελφοι διεκρινοντο προς αυτον, λεγοντες: This, according to Belser, is an irrefutable proof that β gives us the original text of Luke, p. 63, and see also Blass, Phil. of the Gospels, p. 129, and cf. xxi. 16. It is true that in the first part of the addition all the words and clauses are Lucan (although if we read with D ος και κατηντησεν αντοις instead of οτε δε κατην. εις |. we have no instance in Luke of καταντάω in construction with a dative). But Weiss, Codex D, takes a very opposite view from Belser (see also Wendt (1899)), p. 206, and it is, of course, quite possible that the additions were made on account of the apparent abrupt ending of the passage about Cornelius, and to show that Peter, too, did not break off his
missionary work hurriedly, etc.
Σεισηλθες και συνεφαγες; W.H., following BL, Syrr., Arm., has the 3rd person sing., but Weiss has the 2nd person sing., as in TR (so Tisch.).
Τε: not simply zm but throughout Judea, ‘Call about Judza,” Hort, Ecclesia, p. 57, ef. viii. I.
Ver. 2. διεκρίνοντο, cf. Jude, νετ. g, with dative of the person (Polyb., ii., 22, 11). For similar construction as here see LXX, Ezek. xx. 35, 36, see Grimm- Thayer, sub v. Otherwise in x. 20.—ot ἐκ περιτομῆς, cf. Gal. ii. 12; we can scarcely confine the term here to those mentioned in x. 45 (although Dr. Hort takes this view as most probable), but how far there was a section of the Church at Jerusalem who could thus be described at this time it is difficult to say, see Ramsay, Sé. Paul, p. 44.
Ver. 3. ἀκροβνστίαν ἔχοντας: the ex- pression intimates the bitterness of the opposition. Bengel curiously comments “benigne loquuntur”. On ἀκροβ. see especially Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 111.—Kai συνέφαγες αὐτοῖς : this was the real charge, the violation of the ceremonial law, cf. x. 28; see on the intolerant division between Pharisaical Jews and Gentiles, Weber, ¥iidische Theol., pp. 59, 60; Edersheim, Fewish Social Life, pp. 26-28. There is there- fore nothing in the statement to justify the objection raised by Zeller and others against the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius (so Wendt, edition 1888 and 1899). But if the complaint against Peter was based not upon the fact that he had baptised Cornelius but
had eaten with him, then we can see a great difference between the narrative here and that of the Ethiopian eunuch in chap. viii. In the latter case there was no question of the obligations of the ceremonial law—the baptism was ad- ministered and Philip and the eunuch separated, but here the whole stress of the narrative lies in the fact referred to in ver. 3, so that if the eunuch and Cornelius both belonged to the class of ‘“‘ half-proselytes ” their cases are not parallel. But even if they were, in other respects there would still remain a dis- tinction between them. It was one thing for the Ethiopian to be received into the Church of Christ by the Hellenist Philip, but it was another thing—and a marked advance—when the principle asserted by Philip was ratified by the Apostles of the circumcision in the case of Cornelius. Wendt, edition 1899, pp. 181, 198, and Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 300.