ee) οι οο
οὗτός ἐστιν 1 6 Χριστός, ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. 4. καί
> 2A 2 , - lA ~ , ‘ τινες ἐδ αὐτῶν ἐπείσθησαν, καὶ προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Σίλα, τῶν τε” σεβομένων Ἑλλήνων πολὺ πλῆθος, γυναικῶν τε τῶν
1ο Χρ. |., so HLP and most mins., Theophyl., but B has ο Χρ. ο t., so W.H. text, Weiss, Wendt, R.V., Blass in a; SQ, so Vulgclem., Syr. Pesh., Boh., Armcodd. have I. Xp.; AD Xp. Ι., so Tisch., W.H. marg., so Hilg. with comma after X.; Xp. ο 1., so E 32,177, 180. Probably the many changes arose from the unusual descrip- tion in B with the double article.
ὧσεβ. Ελλ., AD 13, 40, 61, Vulg., Boh., Gig. have σεβ. και EAX., so Lach. This reading is defended by Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 235, and Hilgenfeld, Zw. Th., 1896, p. 198, so in 1899, Acta Afost. (but not by Blass in B text); see notes in comment. Wendt (1899) finds a solution of the reading in the wish to express that Paul won converts amongst other Gentiles than the proselytes. Ύυναικων τε, but D, Gig. και Ύνναικες των πρ. ουκ ολιγ. Probably the reviser took πρωτων as referring only to the men, and thought that the expression meant “wives of the chief men”’ (so too Weiss explains the words), and then altered above to bring out this sense more clearly. πρωτων of course could be taken as masc., but better to refer it to γυν. = ευσχ., xiii. 50, xvii. 12 (Wendt, 1899). Belser, however, pp. 81, 82, strongly sup- ports the originality of D; he points out that in Acts we never have the expression των mp. used of women, and that the reading in D harmonises with the thought that the influence of these women as wives of the leading citizens may account
for the mild treatment of the Apostles.
to argue, and thus in Xen., Mem.,i., 6, 1, ii., το, 1, we have the construction διαλ. π. τινι Or πρός τινα to discuss a ques- tion with another, so that the word might easily have the meaning of arguing or reasoning about a question, but not of necessity with any hostile intent; even in Heb. xii. 5 it is the fatherly wapa- κλησις which reasoneth with sons. Blass supports the imperfect as in T.R., Gram., p. 186.---ἀπὸ γραφῶν, {.6., draw- ing his proofs from them, or if a discus- sion is meant, starting from them; Winer- Moulton, xlvii., Grotius, so Overbeck, Kuinoel, Weiss, Wendt take the word with διανοίγων.
Ver. 3. διανοίγων, sc., αὐτάς, a favou- rite word with St. Luke, cf. xvi. 14; here, as in Luke xxiv. 32, 45, he alone uses it of making plain to the understanding the meaning of the Scrip- tures, ‘‘opening their meaning ”’.—xat παρατιθ. ‘‘ and quoting to prove” (Ram- say), i.¢., bringing forward in proof passages of Scripture; so often amongst profane writers in a similar way, in- stances in Wetstein; lit., the word means “to set forth,” and this was the older English meaning of allege; in middle voice, to set forth from oneself, to explain; to quote in one’s own favour, as evidence, or as authority, ‘‘ Non other auctour allegge I,’’ Chaucer, Hours of Fame, 314.---τὸν X. ἔδει παθεῖν: ‘that it behoved the Christ to suffer,’ R.V., cf. Luke xxiv. 25, 46; now as ever ‘‘to
the Jews a stumbling-block,’’ see above on p. 113, and cf. xxvi. 23; so also in writing to the Thessalonian Church the Apostle insists on the same fundamental facts of Christian belief, 1 Thess. iv. 14.— καὶ ὅτι οὗτος κ.τελ.. “and that this Jesus whom, said he, I proclaim unto you is the Christ,” R.V. adds o before . The words said he are inserted because of the change of construction, cf. i. 4, xxiii. 22, Luke v. 14, specially frequent in Luke. On St. Paul’s preach- ing that ‘‘ Jesus was the Christ,” and what it involved, see Witness of the Epistles, p. 307 ff.