tempts to get rid of the supernatural in St. Luke’s narrative are unsuccessful. This is frankly admitted by Wendt, al- though he also maintains that we cannot discern the actual historical conditions owing to the mingling of legend and history. But he does not deny that St. Peter was liberated, and the same fact is admitted by Weizsacker, see Wendt (1899), p. 219; and Zéckler, Apostelge- schichte, p. 230, and Wendt (1888), pp. 269, 270, for an account of the different attempts to explain the Apostle’s libera- tion. In contrast to all such attempts the minute circumstantiality and the naturalness of the narrative speak for themselves, and we can hardly doubt (as Wendt isinclined to admit in some details) that John Mark has given us an account derived partly from St. Peter himself, cf. vv. 9, 11, and partly from his own know- ledge, cf. the peculiarly artless and graphic touches in vv. 13, 14, which could scarcely have come from any one but an inmate of the house, as also the mention of the name of the servant; cf. Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 385; Blass, Acta Apostolorum, Ρ. 142; Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift, Heft ii. (1895), Ρ. 257; Zahn, Eznleitung, ii., 244.
Ver. 13. τὴν θ. τοῦ πυλῶνος: the door of the gateway, cf. x. 17. πυλών as in Matt. xxvi. 71, of the passage leading from the inner court to the street, so that strictly the door in the gateway opening upon this passage would be meant, cf. εἰσδ., ver. 14 (and προσἢλθε, ver. 13).— κρούσαντος: to knock at a door on the outside, cf. Luke xiii. 25, but elsewhere in Luke without τὴν θύραν, Luke xi. 9, το, xii. 36 (Matt. vil. 7, Rev. iii. 20); so too in classical Greek, Xen., Symp., 1., 11, see Rutherford, New Phrynichus, p. 266 ; in LXX, Judg. xix. 22, Cant. v. 2, Judith χὶν. 14.--παιδίσκη, {.ε., the portress, cf. John xviii. 17, see Rutherford, u. s., p. 312; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek,
12--17.
15. ot δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπον, Μαίνη.
οἱ 8 Edeyov,! ‘O ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. κρούων ' ὃ ἀνοίξαντες δὲ εἶδον αὐτόν, καὶ ἐξέστησαν.