Ver. 8. ἀνθίστατο: because he saw that his hope of gain was gone, cf. xvi. 19, xix. 27, and the hope of retaining influence with the proconsul; see reading in D, cf. 2 Tim. iii. 8, where St. Paul
7---τοι,
8. ἀνθίστατο δὲ αὐτοῖς ᾿Ελύμας, 6 μάγος, (οὕτω γὰρ μεθερμηνεύεται
% 22 3 A a 5 / A 3 θύ ντ 4, ο / 1 τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ;) {ητῶν διαστρέψαι τὸν ἀνθύπατον ἀπὸ τῆς πιστεως.
. Σαῦλος δέ, 6 καὶ Παῦλος, πλησθεὶς Πνεύματος ᾽Αγίου, καὶ ἀτενίσας 9 ’ η p ytou,
εἰς αὐτόν, εἶπεν, 10. Ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας,
υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης, οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς
1 After πιστεως D, Syr. Harcl. mg. add επειδη ηδιστα ηκουεν αυτων (cf. E).
We
may compare Mark vi. 20; see also Ramsay, St, Paul, p. 81.
uses the same verb of the magicians with- standing Moses.—EAvpas, see critical notes in answer to Klostermann, who finds in Ἐ. a translation of Bar-Jesus; Wendt points out (1899) that in this case οὕτω γὰρ μεθ. would follow im mediately after ἛἘ., but as οὕτω κ.τ.λ. follows immediately upon 6 pdyos, Ἐ. can only be a translation of that word ; see also MS. authority, so Blass in β, where he adds to βαρϊῖησοῦς the words ὃ μεθ. Ἑτοιμᾶς. In ᾿Ελύμας we have the Greek form either of Aramaic Alima, strong, or more probably of an Arab word ‘alim, wise; we cannot arrive at any derivation closer than this, cf. ‘ Bar- Jesus,” Hastings’ B.D., and for a similar explanation Zéckler, in loco; and Wendt (1899), Grimm-Thayer, sb v., Ramsay, Si. Paul, p. 74, and so Blass, in loco, read "Ἑτοιμᾶς, and render “Son of the Ready ”.—8iacrpépar, Exod. v. 4, same construction with ἀπό; 1 Kings xviii. 17, 18, Matt. xvii. 17, Luke ix. 41, Phil, ii. 15 ; see also critical notes.
Ver. 9. Zatdos δέ, 6 καὶ Παῦλος: since the days of St. Jerome (De Vir. ill., chap. vi., cf. Aug., Confess., viii., 4, etc., cf. amongst moderns Bengel, Ols- hausen, Ewald, Meyer) it has been thought that there is some connection here emphasised by the writer between the name Sergius Paulus and the as- sumption of the name Paul by the Apostle at this juncture. (Wendt (1899) inclines to the view that the name Paul was first used in ver. 1. See in loco and critical notes.) So too Baur, Zeller, Hausrath, Overbeck, Hilgenfeld are of opinion that Luke intended some reference to the name of the proconsul, although they regard the narrative of his conversion as unhistorical. But Wendt rightly main- tains (1899) that the simple 6 καὶ without the addition of ἀπὸ τότε would not denote the accomplishment of a change of name at this juncture, and that if the change or rather addition of name had been now effected, the mention of it would naturally have followed after the mention of the conversion of the pro-
consul in ver. 13. The connection seemed so strained and artificial to many that they abandoned it, and regarded the collocation of the two names as a mere chance incident, whilst Zéckler (whose note should be consulted, Apostelge- schichte, in loco, second edition), who cannot thus get rid of the striking simi- larity in the names of the two men, thinks that the narrative of St. Luke is teo condensed to enable us fully to solve the connection. But since it was custom- ary for many Jews to bear two names, a Hebrew and a Gentile name, cf. Acts 19193, ἀ. 25, pills α, \COlnitv. 11, Joss Ant., xii., 9, 7, and frequent instances in Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 182, 183, cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 149 note, it may well be that Luke wished to intimate that if not at this moment, yet during his first missionary journey, when the Apostle definitely entered upon his Gen- tile missionary labours, he employed not his Jewish but his Gentile name to mark his Apostleship to the Gentile world (,, Seit 13. 1. ist der jiidische Jinger Σαῦλος Weltapostel,“* Deissmann); by a marvellous stroke of historic brevity the author sets before us the past and the present in the formula 6 καὶ M.—a simple change in the order of a recurring pair ofnames: see Ramsay’s striking remarks, St. Paul, p. 83 Π., with which however, mutatis mutandis, his more recent re- marks, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? p- 54, Should be carefully compared. See also Deissmann, u. s., Nésgen, Wendt, Hackett, Felten, and Zéckler, in loco, and McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 176. This preference by St. Luke of the Gen- tile for the Hebrew name has its analogy in St. Paul’s own use in his Epistles (and in his preference for Roman pro- vincial names in his geographical refer- ences, cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1, ix. 2, Rom. xv. 26, Phil. iv. 15).