389
ΙΙ. ἐκάθισέ τε ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ µῆνας ἕξ, διδάσκων ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον
τοῦ Θεοῦ.
12. Γαλλίωνος δὲ ἀνθυπατεύοντοςὶ τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας, κατεπέστησαν
ὁμοθυμαδὸν οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι τῷ Παύλῳ, καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα,
1$8ABD 15, 18, 36, 40, Tisch., Alford, W.H., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg. read
av@utratov οντος.
Meyer follows T.R., so Blass.
D and Flor. expand as follows
in 12 and 13, so Blass in B, κατεπ. οι |. συλλαλησαντες μεθ’ εαυτων επι τον Π. και επιθεντες τας χειρας ηγαγον αντον επι το βηµα καταβοωντες και λεγ.
Renan admits, although he regards him as the only adherent won from the upper classes), and the readiness with which the Corinthian Church responded to St. Paul’s appeal for the poor saints indicates that many of its members had some means at their disposal (cf. the striking account of Paul’s work at Corinth by McGiffert, p. 267, and Orr, Some Neglected Factors in Early Christi- anity, p. 108).
Ver, 11. ἐκάθισε, see critical note, ‘the dwelt,” R.V., cf. Luke xxiv. 49, but not elsewhere in N.T. in this sense, but constantly in LXX, τ Mace. ii. 1, 29. Rendall renders “' he took his seat,” 7.e., as a teacher, a Rabbi, and see also the remarks of Ramsay on the way in which St. Paul was evidently regarded at Corinth as one of the travelling lecturers on philosophy and morals so common in the Greek world, ‘‘ Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D.1, p. 482. The word may be pur- posely used here instead of the ordinary µένειν to indicate the quiet and settled work to which the Apostle was directed by the vision which had calmed his troubled spirit, and had taught him that his cherished plan of revisiting Mace- donia must be postponed to preaching the Word in Corinth. During this period 1 and 2 Thess. were probably written. The year and a half is taken to include the whole subsequent residence in Corinth, ver. 18, in which vv. 12-17 form an episode. Men attacked him with a view of injuring him, but without success, and his continuous abode in Corinth was a fulfilment of the promise in ver 1ο (indi- cated perhaps more clearly by τε than by δέ in νετ. 11). On ἡμέρας ἱκανὰς, ver. 18, see below—the words are taken to mark simply a note of the time spent between the incident of vv. 12-17 and the departure of Paul from the city. In this period the Apostle would have founded the Church at Cenchreae, and his labours seem to have extended still further, for in 2 Cor i. 1 we read of the saints in the whole of Achaia (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 10) and
the household of Stephanas is spoken of as the firstfruits not of Corinth but of Achaia.
Ver. 12. ἀνθ., cf. xiii. 7, another proof of St. Luke’s accuracy, Achaia from B.c. 27 (when it had been separated from Macedonia, to which it had been united since B.C. 146, and made into a separ- ate province) had been governed by a proconsul. In Α.Ρ. 15 Tiberius had re- united it with Macedonia and Mysia, and it was therefore under an imperial legatus as an imperial province, Tac., Ann., i., 76. But a further change occurred when Claudius, A.D. 44, made it again a sena- torial province under a proconsul, Suet., Claudius, 25. On subsequent changes in its government see Ramsay, ‘ Achaia,” Hastings’ B.D. Corinth was the chief city of the province Achaia, and so pro- bably chosen for the residence of the Ρονειποίς.---Γαλλίωνος: we have no di- rect statement save that of St. Luke that Gallio governed Achaia. Gallio’s brother Seneca tells us that Gallio caught fever in Achaia, Ep. Mor., 104, and took a voyage for change of air (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 258) (see also the same reference in Zahn, Eznleitung, ii., p. 634, and as against Clemen, Ramsay, S¢. Paul, p. 260), a remark which Ramsay justly re- gards as a corroboration of St. Luke; on the date see Ramsay St. Paul, p. 258, and Expositor March, 1897, p. 206; ‘* Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D.!, p. 481; Turner, ‘‘ Chronology of the New Testa- ment,” ibid. Gallio could not have entered on the proconsulship of Achaia before 44 A.D., and probably not before 49 or 50: Ramsay thinks during the summer of A.D. 52 ‘Renan and Light- foot, A.D. 53), whilst recently Schirer (so Wendt, 1899) places the proconsulship of Gallio between 51-55 A.D., Zw. Th., 1898, p. 41 {. ‘as against O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, who places it before 49 A.D.). The description of Gallio in Acts is quite consistent with what we know of his personal character, and with his attitude as a Roman official.