423
λονικέων δὲ ᾿Αρίσταρχος καὶ Léxouvdos,) καὶ Γάϊος Δερβαῖος καὶ Τιμόθεος 2+ ᾿Ασιανοὶ δέ, Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος. 5.° οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν Τρωάδι: 6. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐξεπλεύσαμεν μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἀζύμων ἀπὸ Φιλίππων, καὶ ἤλθομεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς cis τὴν Τρωάδα
1 και Γαιος Δ., Blass reads Δερβαιος δε Tipofeos, but against this we have the “insurmountable” statement in xvi. I, So Ramsay, p. 280, so too Wendt (1899), Ρ. 323-
2 Aovavor, D, Syr. H. mg. read Ἐφεσιοι, so Blass; Wendt approves; see Ram- say, C. R. E., p. 154.
3 ovrot, add δε SABE, Boh., Syr. H., Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt; omit Blass, with DHLP, Vulg., Gig. προελθοντες, this reading of Τ.Ε. is retained by Lach., Tisch., Weiss, R.V., W.H. mg. ; Blass in text following B®D ; and it corresponds with the omission of αχρι της A. in ver. 4 and the view that Paul was included in the ηµας of νετ. 5. If, however, the words αχρι της A. are retained, Wendt argues that προσελθοντες is quite intelligible, and that this verb, which he regards as best sup- ported, S$AB*EHLP [so W.H.], becomes thus an indirect confirmation of the former disputed words in ver. 4. According to Wendt’s view Paul is not included in the npas of ver. 5, but the ηµας refers to the writer of the ‘‘ We” sections with one or two companions who had not journeyed: with Paul through Macedonia to Asia, but only met him in Troas. But a difficulty connected with Wendt’s solution would seem to lie in the fact that he is obliged to refer the nets in νετ. 6 only to the writer of the ““ We” sections and those with him, whilst the first person in διετριψαµεν includes Paul and his party who have been hitherto excluded from the ypers and
ημας, the ουτοι.
at Jerusalem; it would be a splendid fulfilment by their own generous and loyal effort of the truth that if one mem- ber of the body suffered all the members suffered with it. We know how this vision which St. Paul had before his eyes of a universal brotherhood through- out the Christian world seemed to tarry ; and we may understand something of the joy which filled his heart, even amidst his farewell to the elders at Miletus, as he anticipated without misgiving the accomplishment of this διακονία to the saints, a ‘ministry’? which he had re- ceived from the Lord Jesus, Acts xx. 24. On the coincidence between the narrative of the Acts cf. xx. 2, 3, xxiv. 17-19, and the notices in St. Paul’s Epistles given above, see especially Paley, Hore Paulina, chap. ii., 1.—Zé7atpos Πύρρου B., see critical note; whether he is the same as the Sopater of Rom. xvi. 21 who was with St. Paul at Corinth we cannot say—possibly the name of his father may be introduced to distinguish him, but perhaps, as Blass says, added in this one case ‘‘quod domi nobilis erat”.—Iatos A. καὶ T., see above on p. 414, and Knabenbauer’s note as against Blass.— Τυχικὸς: Ephes. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7 show that Timothy was in Rome at the time of St. Paul’s first imprisonment. He is spoken of as a beloved and faithful
After εµενον D reads αντον, so Blass in β, thus plainly separating Paul from
minister, and it would appear that as St. Paul was about to send him to Ephesus, he was presumably the bearer of the Epistle which at all events included the Ephesian Church. In Tit. iii. 12 we have another reference which shows the high place Timothy occupied amongst St. Paul’s trusted confidential friends, and from 2 Tim. iv. 12 we learn that he had been a sharer in the Apostle’s second and heavier captivity, and had only left him to fulfil another mission to Ephesus. —Tpédipos: probably like Tychicus an Ephesian. In xxi. 29 he was with St. Paul at Jerusalem, and from 2 Tim. iv. 20 we learn that he was at a later stage the companion of the Apostle after his release from his first imprisonment, and that he had been left by him at Miletus sick. On the absurd attempt to connect this notice of Miletus in the Pastoral Epistles with Acts xx. 4 see Weiss, Die Briefe Pauli an Timotheus und Titus, Ρ. 354; Salmon, Introd., fifth edition, p. 401.