Ver. 4. apg δὲ ὁ M. ‘But Peter began, and expounded the matter”: ἀρξ. may be pleonastic, i. 4, cf. καθεξῆς, or may be used graphically, or because the reproaches of οἱ ἐκ περιτ. gave the first incentive to St. Peter’s τεοῖῖα].---καθ. only in Luke, Gospel and Acts, see iii. 24.---ἐξετίθετο, xviil. 26, xxviii. 23, Jos., Ant., i., 12, 2, so also in Polyb., x., 9, 3. Perhaps used here by St. Luke from its use by Dioscorides ; familiar word to him also as a physician, see Vogel, p. 17.
~
264
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΧΙ αὐτοῖς καθεξῆς λέγων, 5. ᾿Εγὼ ἥμην ἐν πόλει “Idan προσευχόµενος, καὶ εἶδον ἐν ἐκστάσει ὅραμα, καταβαῖνον σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην μεγάλην} τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιεµένην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν ἄχρις ἐμοῦ - 6. eis ἣν ἀτενίσας κατενόουν, καὶ εἶδον τὰ τετράποδα τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ θηρία καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 7. ἤκουσα δὲ φωνῆς λεγούσης µοι, ᾿Αναστάς, Πέτρε, θῦσον καὶ φάγε. 8. εἶπον δέ, Μηδαμῶς, Κύριε}: ὅτι wav κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον οὐδέποτε εἰσῆλθεν
εἰς τὸ στόµα µου.
ἐπὶ τρίς, καὶ πάλιν ἀνεσπάσθη ἅπαντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. ἰδού, ἐξαυτῆς τρεῖς ἄνδρες ἐπέστησαν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐν ἀπεσταλμένοι ἀπὸ Καισαρείας πρός µε.
ϱ. ἀπεκρίθη δέ por φωνὴ ἐκ δευτέρου ὃ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “A ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε, σὺ μὴ κοίνου.
10. τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο
11. καὶ = »” 4 i ἤμην, 12. εἶπε δέ por τὸ Πνεῦμα
συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς, μηδὲν διακρινόµενον 5: ἦλθον δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ καὶ οἱ ἓξ
1 µεγαλην, but λαμπραν in Syr. Harcl., Ρᾷτ.} has µεγαλην λαμπραν. Blass τε-
jects (cf. x. 11).
2 Orig. has κυριε ov οισθα οτι, Blass rejects. 3 εκ δεντερου D omits, as also some Western authorities in x. 15, and Blass in β.
άημην EHLP, Vulg., Syrr. (P. and H.), Boh., Sah., Aeth., Chrys., so Blass, W.H. marg.—assim. apparently to ver. 5. Ίημεν SSABD 40, Tisch., W.H. text, R.V.,
Wendt, Weiss, Hilg.
5 διακρινοµενον HLP, Chrys. (cf. x. 20, Meyer, who suspects it here). διακριναντα NcAB 13, 40, 61, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, R.V.; διακρινοντα $Q*E 15, 18”, 36. Blass rejects altogether, so Hilg., with D, Syr. H. (text and margin), Par.?. But cf. Acts xv. 9, where act. occurs in similar context.
Evidently St. Luke by the two accounts attaches great significance to this first reception, exceptional case as it was, of a Gentile proselyte like Cornelius into the Christian Church, but it was an isolated case, and moreover a case within Palestine, not beyond its borders, so that the great questions of a mission to the Gentiles of the heathen world, and of the conditions for their reception as Christians, were not matter for consideration as after- wards in chap. xv., see Wendt, edition 1899, p. 211; Hort, Ecclesia, pp. 58, 59 ; and see below on ver. 12.
Ver. 6. κατενόουν, cf. vil. 31, 32, Matt. vii. 3, Luke vi. 41, R.V., etc., the seeing is the result of the considering—“ con- templabar singula, effectus compre- henditur aoristo” εἶδον.- θηρία: not specially mentioned in x. 12 (see criti- cal notes), but there πάντα precedes τετράποδα.
Ver. δ. εἰσῆλθεν, cf. Matt. xv. 11, 17. Blass sees in the phrase “ locutio hebraismum redolens,” cf. viii. 35: on the other hand the Hebraistic wav of x. 14 is omitted (Weiss).
Ver. 10. ἀνεσπάσθη: only found in
Luke xiv. 5 in N.T., another touch of vividness as in vv. 5,6. In LXX three times, and possibly once in Bel and the Dragon, ver. 42, of drawing up Daniel from the den (but reading may be the simple verb, see H. and R.).
Ver. 12. μηδὲν διακρινόµενον, cf. x. 20, but if we read (see critical notes) p. διακρίναντα, ‘making no distinction,”’ R.V.—oi ἓξ ἀδελφοὶ οὗτοι: who had been with Peter at Cesarea, and had returned with him to Jerusalem, see x. 45. Hil- genfeld would regard them as constant companions of St. Peter on his Apostolic journeys. Differences such as these between the narrative here and that in x. 23 where the brethren are mentioned without their number constrain Feine to regard xi. 1-18 as derived like the earlier narrative in x. from one and the same source, not as added by a reviser (al- though he excludes vv. 1 and 18 in xi. from the original narrative). Spitta agrees with Feine in this view of xi. 2- 17; a forger writing with a “ tendency” would have smoothed away any apparent discrepancies, as Zéckler well points out. With regard to the whole Cornelius