Ver. 2. ἀπειθοῦντες, see critical notes. If we read ἀπειθήσαντες, “that were dis- obedient,” R.V., but cf. John iii. 36, and Page’s note in loco. Lumby quotes
Ιουδαίων τε καὶ Ελλήνων πολὺ πλήθος. 2. of δὲ ἀπειθοῦντες 1
A ΔΝ ~ cal ~ ἸΙουδαῖοι ἐπήγειραν καὶ ἐκάκωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τῶν
ἀδελφῶν. 3. ἱκανὸν μὲν οὖν χρόνον διέτριψαν παῤῥησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ
1 απειθονντες, but aor. απειθησαντες ΝΑΒΟ 13, 61, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt. D, Syr. Harcl. mg., cf. Blass in B, and Hilg., read οι δε αρχισνναγωγοι των Ιονδαιων και ob αρχοντες της Guvaywyys (τ. σ. om. by Syr. H.), and for επηγειραν DE, Gig., Wern., Syr. H. read επηγαγον (αντοις om. by Syr. H.) Siwypov κατα των δικαιων. These readings may have arisen from the seeming inconsequence of vv. 1-3 as they stand in the ordinary text. We read of the opposition of the Jews, and yet the Apostles abode a long time, etc. Ramsay therefore maintains that there is some corruption, and is prepared to follow Spitta in omitting ver. 3 (although for a different reason). But as the text stands it is quite possible to suppose that the effect of the preaching in the synagogue would be twofold, ver. 2 thus answering to the last clause of ver. 1, and that the disciples continued to speak boldly, encouraged by success on the one hand and undeterred by opposition on the other, the consequence being that the division in the city was still further intensified. Ramsay sees in the reading at the commencement of the verse which marks the distinction between αρχοντες and αρχισυναγωγοι a proof that the Bezan reading here cannot be an original first century one, although in its carefulness to enumerate the different classes of Jews it may embody an actual popular tradition (see his article on “The Rulers of the Synagogue,” Expositor, April, 1895, and compare C. Κ. E., p. 46). On κατα των δικαιων see also Ramsay, C. R. E., p. 46; δικαιοι is not used by Luke of Christians, rather αγιοι or αδελφοι. At the end of the verse D(E), Gig., Par., Wern., Syr. H. mg. add 6 δε κυριος eSwxey ταχυ ειρηνην, which seem introduced to make an easy transition from ver. 2 to ver. 3, a second tumult being referred to in ver. 5; see crit. notes. Cf. ex Sevrepov, Blass in B. See further Weiss, Codex D, p. 77; Wendt (1899), pp. 247, 248; Harris, Four Lectures, εἴο., pp. 23, 69; and for decided support of β, Belser, p. 70 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fir wissenschaft. Theol., i., pp. 52, 53, 1896, and Acta Apost., p. 245, 1899; and especially Blass, Philology of the Gospels, pp. 121, 127; Zockler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 135; see also Salmon, Introd., p. 598; but on the other hand Schmiedel, Encycl. Bibl, i., p. 53.
Baruch i. 19, and regards the expression here as stronger than “unbelieving,” rather unbelief breaking forth into re- bellion, as in the case of these Jews at Iconium and elsewhere. Ramsay renders “ the disaffected '’.—éxaxworav: ‘‘ exasper- ated,” Ramsay; only here in N.T. in this sense, five times in Acts, once in quotation; only once elsewhere in N.T., 1 Pet. iii. 13, cf. for its use here Jos., Ant., XVi., 1, 23 Vii., 3; viii.,6. Itis used several times in LXX, but not in this sense, the nearest approach to it is Ps. cv..(LXX) 32. The same phrase occurs twice, Num. xxix. 7, xxx. 14, but with a different meaning or reading in D. See critical notes.
Ver. 3. ἵἱκανὸν μὲν οὖν x. οὖν: asa result from the two previous verses, the accession to their numbers and the dis- affection. Blass sees in the aorists ἐπήγ. and ἐκάκ. a proof that the dis- afiected Jews succeeded in their attempts, and he asks if this was so, how were the Apostles able to remain? The answer is to be found, he thinks, in D, see