ς
Ὁρκίζομεν Spas τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν ὁ Παῦλος κηρύσσει. 14. ἦσαν
δέ tives! υἱοὶ Σκευᾶ ᾿Ιουδαίου ἀρχιερέως ἑπτὰ ot τοῦτο ποιοῦντες.
1 πινες SAHLP, Vulg., Syr. H., Chrys., so Alford, but Lach., W.H., Weiss, Blass, Hilg., R.V. after B (D), E 36, 180, Syr. Pesh., Boh., Arm, read τινος (τινες in connection with the following επτα νιοι is very difficult), vo. om. after τινες, but placed by SABE 13, 15, 18, 40, Vulg., Arm., after επτα; Meyer follows T.R. In D, Syr. H. mg. ev οις και νιοι (Syr. H. mg. has νιοι επτα) Σκενα Tivos repews ηθελησαν το αυτο ποιησαι, (οι) εθος ειχαν τους τοιουτους εξορκιζειν. Kar εισελθοντες προς τον δαιμογιζοµενον ηρξαντο επικαλεισθαι το ονοµα Άλεγοντες” παραγγελλομεν σοι εν Incov ον Π. κηρυσσει εξελθειν, so Hilg. and so Blass in B, but with αρχοντος, Gig.?, instead of tepews. Blass considers that this was orig. both in a and β, then tepews was written over αρχοντος, hence tepews D, Syr. H. mg., Gig., and in most αρχιερεως; but why should ἱερεως be inserted at all? No doubt the omission of επτα removes much difficulty. Belser thinks that the omis. is orig., and argues strongly in favour of B text, pp. 103, 104, so also Zockler, and Ramsay, C. R. E., p. 153, speaks of Ὦ as giving a reading here which is intelligent, consistent, and possible. Overbeck conjectured δυο (Gig. has δυο) instead of επτα with reference to ver. 16, on the ground that the numerical signs B and Z might be confused, but as Wendt (1888) points out, it is difficult to explain how a mistake so troublesome for the understanding of the passage could be perpetuated. The greatest difficulty is to explain how επτα came in if not original, and it is easy to understand that it might be omitted because of apdo-
τερων, ver. 16, see Weiss, Codex D, p. 95.
Ver. 14. See critical note. Σκευνᾶ: probably a Latin name adapted to Greek, see Blass, in loco, who gives instances of its occurrence, see also Gram., p. 13, and Winer-Schmeidel, p. 75. Ewald refers
it to the Hebrew TPAD .—apx.: the
description is difficult, as it seems incre- dible if we take it in its strictest sense ; it may have denoted one who had been at the head of one of the twenty-four courses of priests in Jerusalem, or per- haps used loosely to denote one who belonged to the high-priestly families (cf. ἵν. ϐ). Wecannot connect him with any special sacred office of the Jews in Asia Minor, as Nosgen proposes, for the Jews in the Diaspora had no temple, but synagogues; see reading in D, cri- tical note. Nothing further is known of Sceva, but there is no reason to sup- pose that he was an impostor in the sense that he pretended to be a high priest. —fjoav . . . mwovotvres, Lucan, see above on i. 1Ο.
Ver. 15. ywookw... ἐπίσταμαι: ‘““T know,” Κ.Υ, for both verbs, but for the former “I recognise,” margin, as a distinction is drawn between Paul and Jesus in the formula of adjuration, it is natural to expect a distinction in the teply; yw. probably denotes a more personal knowledge, ἐπίστ., I know as ofafact. ‘ JesusI know and about Paul I know,” Rendall; Lightfoot would ren- der “‘ Jesus I acknowledge and Paul I
know”: On a Fresh Revision of Ν. Τ., Ῥ. 60. Wordsworth also, in loco, holds that ἐπίστ. denotes knowledge of a lower degree such as acquaintance with a fact, and compares the distinction be- tween the two verbs in Jude νετ. το. ἐπίστ. is only once used in the Gospels, Mark xiv. 68. But see also Page, in loco, as to the difficulty in making any precise distinction.—tpets placed first here in a depreciatory sense, tives in- dicating contempt.
Ver. 16. ἐφαλλόμενος; only here in NID. ine dex,” ci Sam: x6, xi. 6, xvi. 13---κατακυρ.; only here in Luke; Matt mx. 25 Wark x. 42. 1 Pet. να frequent in LXX.—atréyv, see critical note. There is no real difficulty if we read ἀμφοτέρων after ἑπτά, ver. 14; St. Luke had mentioned that seven of the sons of Sceva made the attempt to imi- tate Paul, but the incident which he describes introduces two of them only. ἀμφ. cannot be taken distributively, or with Ewald, neuter, as if = ἀμφοτέρωθεν. --γυμνοὺς: may mean with torn gar- ments, not literally naked, so Grimm- Thayer, sub v., and Alford.—éxetvov : the pronoun seems to imply that the writer had a definite place before his eyes, although it is not fully described. But itis surely a mark of truthfulness that the nar- rative ends where it does; a forger, we may well believe, would have crowned the story by a picture of the man, after baffling the impostors, healed by the word