Ver. 5. προελθόντες, see critical note. If we read προσελ. render as in R.V. (margin), ‘‘ these came, and were waiting for us at Troas,” cf. Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 287, and Rendall, in Ιοεο.--- ἡμᾶς: the introduction of the word is fatal to the idea that Timothy could have been the author of this ‘‘ We” section.
424
ἄχρις 1 ἡμερῶν πέντε, οὗ διετρίψαµεν ἡμέρας ἑπτά.
7. Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ
τῶν σαββάτων, συνηγµένων 3 τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον, 6 Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς, µέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον, παρέτεινέ τε τὸν λόγον
s 4 3 3 Ἡ > s- } ~ ς 4 a µέχρι µεσονυκτίου" 8. ἦσαν d€% λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ οὗ
1D has πεµπταιοι instead of αχ. η. π., 50 Blass in B. It may be simply ex- planatory of the difficult αχ. η. π. (Weiss).
2 rwv µαθητων, according to $ABDE, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Blass
3 λαμπαδες, D (not Blass in B) reads υπολαµπαδες. According to Phylarch. ap.
Ath. υπολ. seems to be a sort of window or look-out (L. and S., edit. 7).
This
reading is suggestive, but Blass is of opinion that vmod. “ nusquam exstat”’.
Ver. 6. μετὰ τὰς ἡμ. τῶν ἀ., cf. xii. 3, i.e., the Passover. 1 Cor. ν. 7 shows us how they would “keep the Feast”. Ramsay’s “fixed date in the life of St. Paul,” Expositor, May, 1896, depends partly on the assumption that Paul left Philippi the very first day after the close of the Paschal week, but we cannot be sure of this, see Wendt’s criticism on Ramsay’s view, Ρ. 326, edition 1899, and also Dr. Robertson ‘I, Corinthians ” Hastings’ B.D., 485.—Gxpts ἡμ. πέντε: ‘in five days,” z.e., the journey lasted until the fifth day, so D wepr- ταῖοι, cf. δευτεραῖοι, xxviii. 13. In xvi. 11 the journey only lasted two (three ?) days, but here probably adverse winds must be taken into account; or the five days may include a delay at Neapolis, the port of Philippi, or the land journey to the port; on ἄχρις see above i, 2.
µέρας ἑπτά, so as to include a whole week, and so the first day of the week, cf. 2 Cor. ii, 12, 13, which shows how reluctantly Paul left Troas on his former visit, but see on the other hand, Ramsay, St, Paul, p. 295, who thinks that St. Paul would not have voluntarily stayed seven days at Troas.
Ver. 7. τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σ., “on the first day of the week,” μιᾷ being used, the cardinal for the ordinal πρῶτος, like
Hebrew THN, in enumerating the days Bi)»,
of the month, see Plummer’s note on Luke xxiv. 1 and cf. xviii. 12 (so Blass). We must remember that 1 Cor. had been previously written, and that the reference in 1 Cor. xvi. 2 to ‘the first day of the week” for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for ‘“‘the breaking of the bread”. On the significance of this selection of the “first day,” see Milligan, Resurrection,
2
pp. 67-69; Maclear, Evidential Value of the Lord’s Day, ‘‘ Present Day Tracts” 54; and for other references, Witness of the Epistles, pp. 368, 369 ; Wendt (1899), Ρ. 326.--µέλλων: Burton, Moods and Tenses, p. ΤΙ. --παρέτεινε, see μῦθον, Arist., Poet., xvii., 5, λόγους, and ix. 4, μῦθον.--μεσονυκτίου, cf. xvi. 25.
Ver. 8. λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ, see critical note and reading in D. The words have been taken to indicate clearly that the accident was not due to darkness coming on through Paul’s lengthy discourse (so Weiss and Wendt), whilst Meyer regards them as introduced to show that the fall of the young man was not perceived at once. Others (so Felten) hold that the words mark the joy at the Sacramental Presence of the Lord and Bridegroom of the Church (Matt. xxv. 1), and Nésgen sees in them a note of joy in the celebra- tion of the Christian Sunday (see also Kuinoel). But it is also allowable to see in this notice the graphic and minute touch of one who was an eye-witness of the scene, and who described it, as he remembered it, in all its vividness (Hac- kett, Blass). We can scarcely see in the words with Ewald an intention on the part of the narrative to guard against any suspicion attaching to the. night meetings of the Christians (so Calvin, Bengel, Lechler); the date, as Nésgen says, is too early (so too Overbeck). Lewin also takes Ewald’s view, but with the alternative that the lights may have been mentioned to exclude any suspicion in the reader’s mind of any deception with regard to the miracle.