428
kat} µείναντες ἐν Τρωγυλλίῳ, τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἤλθομεν εἰς Μίλητον. 16. ἔκρινε” γὰρ 6 Παῦλος παραπλεῦσαι τὴν Ἔφεσον, ὅπως μὴ γένηται αὐτῷ χρονοτριβῆσαι ἐν τῇ “Agia: ἔσπευδε γάρ, εἰ δυνατὸν ὃ ἦν αὐτῷ, τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς γενέσθαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.
1 και µειναντες εν Τ., 5ο DHLP, Syr. P. H., Sah., Chrys., so Meyer, Alford, Blass in B, and even by Weiss (not by Wendt), Introd., p. 57, and Codex D, p. 109; cf. xxi. 1. Corssen, too, regards favourably, G. G. A., p. 441, 1896, supported by Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 294, Belser and Zéckler. Weiss cannot see any reason for its omission, and therefore retains it. The words may, however, have been omitted because in the text Trogyllium seems to be placed in Samos, but see also Wendt, note, p. 328 (1899). For the omission, ABCE, Vulg., Boh., Arm., Aethpp., Tisch., R.V. only in marg., W.H. describe as Western and Syrian; these authorities read in text Ty Se exon. Ramsay’s interesting note, C. Κ. Ε., p. 155, should also be con- sulted in favour of the retention of the words. Τρωγιλιᾳ, so Blass in B, see note in loco; Τρωγυλιῳ W.H. and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 47.
Σκεκρικει is read for εκρινε in SAB*DE, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt, Weiss, Blass. Instead of οπως µη γενηται a. χρονοτριβ. D (Gig.) has µηποτε γενηθη avtw κατα- σχεσις tus—Weiss considers this as a mere explanation of the rare ypovorp.B. κατασχεσις is used twice in N.T., Acts vii. 5, 45, but not in the sense required here ; ‘mora’? in Gig. Blass accepts in B text, and there is much better authority for
χρονοτριβ. in classical Greek than for κατασχεσις in the sense of this passage. 3 ην, but ειη is supported by SABCE 13, 15, 18, 36, 180, Tisch., W.H., Ε.Υ.,
Weiss, Wendt. (Wendt).
the passage quoted also in Wetstein, and L. and S.). On the frequency of this and other nautical terms in Acts cf. Kloster- mann, 1. S., Ῥ. 49.—Kal pelv. ἐν Τρω., see critical note.—Midyrov: practically the port of Ephesus. The latter city had long gained the pre-eminence once enjoyed by Miletus, the former capital of Ionia, Pliny, N. H., v., 31; ¢f. Herod., v., 28-36, for the revolt of Miletus against Persia and its disastrous consequences. Miletus had been the mother of some eighty colonies. Here Thales and Anaxi- mander were born. The silting up of the Menander had altered its position even in St. Paul’s day, and now it is several miles from the sea; Lewin, δέ, Paul, Π., g0; Renan, Saint Paul, p. 501; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, Ρ. 480.
Ver. 16. ἔκρινε (see critical note)... παραπλεῦσαι τὴν “E.: “(ο sail past Ephesus,” R.V., {.ε., without stopping there. The words have sometimes been interpreted as if St. Paul had control over a ship which he had hired himself, and could stop where he pleased, so Alford, Hackett, Rendall. But if so, there seems no definite reason for his going to Miletus at all, as it would have been shorter for him to have stopped at Ephesus, or to have made his farewell address there. According to Ramsay the probabilities are that Paul experienced
-
Meyer and Alford regard as gram. corr., but too well supported
at Troas some delay in continuing his journey. In starting from Troas he had therefore to choose a vessel making no break in its voyage except at Miletus, or a vessel intending to stop at Ephesus, perhaps as its destination, perhaps with a previous delay elsewhere. He deter- mined for the former by the shortness of the,time, and his desire to reach Jerusa- lem, He may no doubt have been also influenced to some extent by the thought that it would be difficult to tear himself away from a Church which had so many claims upon him, and by the reflection that hostilities might be aroused against him and his progress further impeded (cf. McGiffert, p. 339, who thinks that the author’s reason for St. Paul’s desire not to visit Ephesus “is entirely satisfac- tory”). — xpovorpiB.: nowhere else in N.T. or in LXX, but in Arist., Plut.— γένηται αὐτῷ, cf. xi. 26 for construction. —tomevde γὰρ: if the verb expresses as the imperfect intimates the whole char- acter of the journey (Blass, Gram., p. 216), the repeated long delays at first sight seem inexplicable, but we know nothing definitely of the special circum- stances which may have occasioned each delay, and we must not lose sight of the fact that the Apostle would have to guard against the constant uncertainty which would be always involved in a coasting voyage. Whether St. Paul reached