’
393
18. Ὁ δὲ Παῦλος ἔτι προσµείνας ἡμέρας ἵἱκανάς, τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἀποταξάμενος ἐξέπλει εἰς τὴν Συρίαν, καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Πρίσκιλλα καὶ
second as it were the supercilious treat- ment dealt out to them by Gallio, and they would naturally fix upon Sosthenes as the leading spirit in the Jewish com- munity. .So far as he cared at all, Gallio may have been pleased rather than other- wise at the rough and ready approval of his decision by the populace, see Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 250, and ‘‘ Corinth,” Hast- ings’ B.D.1, p. 482; Plumptre, in loco, and Wendt (1809). The whole of the section, vv. 12-17, is regarded by Clemen, p. 126, Jungst, p. 165, as an interpolation, but Hilgenfeld puts aside their varying grounds of rejection as unconvincing, and finds it very conceivable that the Jews attempted to hinder the preaching of Paul as is here described (1 Thess. ii. 16). With regard to the whole narrative of Paul at Corinth, vv. 1-17, Spitta, p. 244, concludes, as against Weizsdcker’s attack on its historical character, that we may regard it as scanty or even one- sided, but that there is no valid reason to regard it as unhistorical.—érurov : Hackett interprets the imperfect as showing how thorough a beating Sos- thenes received; but “exitus rei que depingitur (imperf.) non indicatur, quia nihil gravius secutum est,” Blass; the imperfect may simply mean ‘began to strike ’,—ovSev . . . ἔμελεν, cf. Luke x. 40, a Gallio has become a proverbial name for one indifferent to religion, but there is nothing in St. Luke’s statement to support such a view. All the words show is that Gallio was so little influenced by the accusations of the Jews against Paul that he took no notice of the conduct of the Greeks (?) in beating Sosthenes. And if the beating was administered by the Jews, Gallio might well overlook it, as he would regard it as the outcome of some question which only concerned their religion (Weiss).
Ver. 18. ἔτι προσµείνας: this may be an addition to the year and a half, or may be included in it; on ἔτι see critical note.—tkavas, Lucan, see on viii. 11, etc. the expression shows how little the attack upon the Apostle had injured his prospects of evangelising the city and neighbourhood.—amoraé., Vulgate, vale- facio, used by Luke and Paul only, except Mark vi. 46, Luke ix. 61, xiv. 33, Acts, in loco, and ver. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 13; in this sense only in middle voice in N.T., in classical Greek not used in this sense, but ἀσπάζεσθαί τινα (Grimm, sub v.);
cf. also its use in Jos., Ant., xi., 6, 8 (so too in Philo), like Latin, renuntio, to forsake (cf. Luke xiv. 33), and in Eccl. writers, Ignatius, Ad Philadelph., xi., 1; Euseb., Η.Ε., ii., 17, 5 (2 Clem., vi., 4, 5). --ἐξέπλει: “he set about the voyage,” in xx. 6, aorist, not imperfect as here; ‘“‘recte impf., nam de perfecta navigatione, ver. 22, demum agitur,’”’ Blass.—keup.... εὐχήν: in the interpretation of this passage it is undoubtedly best to refer the vow to Paul; grammatically it would refer to Aquila, but it is difficult to see what point there would then be in the statement. If it is urged that Aquila’s name placed after Priscilla’s indicates that he is the subject of the following verb, we have clearly seen that this is not the only occasion on which Priscilla’s name preceded her husband’s, see above, and ver. 26, and Rom. xvi. 3. The argument that the notice is intended by St. Luke to show that Paul counselled observance of the law, and did not tempt him to break it, as he was afterwards accused of doing, xxi, 21, is still more irrelevant, for so far nothing has been definitely said as to Aquila’s conversion. And if the vow involved any obligation to appear at Jerusalem, it is quite evident that Paul and not Aquila went up to the Holy City. A list of the names on either side is given by Alford, Felten, Wendt. Amongst recent writers we may add Wendt, Zoéckler, Blass, Jiingst, Matthias as favouring the view that Aquila is the subject, whilst Weiss, Felton, Rami- say, Hort, Rendall, Page, Knabenbauer, Luckock take the opposite view. What then was the nature and occasion of the vow? Those who connect this vow with the journey to Jerusalem, as if the latter was obligatory in the fulfilment of the former, are justified in regarding the vow as a modified form of the Nazirite vow, Num. vi. 1-21. The man under the Nazirite vow was to drink no wine or strong drink, and to let no razor pass over his head or face. At the end of the time during which the vow lasted, his hair was shaven at the door of the Tabernacle (the Temple), and burnt in the fire of the altar as an offering. But it is to be observed that in this passage the word is κειράµενος, whilst of thus completing the Nazirite vow, xxi. 24, the word ξυρήσωνται is used (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 6), and there is evidence (Wordsworth, in loco) that a man who had taken a