Ver. 27. αἱ éwra ἡμέραι: it does not appear that the seven days were enjoined by the law—not even in Num. vi. 9; indeed it would appear from Jos., B.F., Ἡ,, 15, that a period of thirty days was customary before the sacrifice could be offered. The seven days cannot there- fore include the whole period of the vow, although they might well include the period of the Apostle’s partnership with the four men. Wendt and Weiss suppose that a reference is here made to a rule that the interval between the announcement to the priest and the conclusion of the Nazirite vow should include a period of seven days, but as there is admittedly no reference to any such ordinance elsewhere, it is pre- carious to depend too much upon it. ’ It seems impossible to refer the expression to the seven days observed as the Feast of Pentecost; the article before ἑπτὰ ἡμ. refers to the ‘‘ days of purification ” just mentioned, see further critical note and Knabenbauer for summary of different views.—ot ἀπὸ τῆς “A. Ἰ.: ‘the Jews from Asia,” R.V., cf. vi. 9, where we
452
28. κράζοντες, Άνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, βοηθεῖτε: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόµου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας] πανταχοῦ
διδάσκων : ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν eis τὸ ἱερόν, kal? κεκοίνωκε
τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον.
20. (ἦσαν γὰρ προεωρακότες Τρόφιμον τὸν
᾿Ἐφέσιον ἐν τῇ πόλει σὺν αὐτῷ, ὃν ὃ ἐνόμιζον ὅτι Eis τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσήγαγεν
ὁ Παῦλος.) 30. ἐκινήθη τε ἡ πόλις ὅλη, καὶ ἐγένετο συνδρομὴ τοῦ λαοῦ: καὶ ἐπιλαβόμενοι τοῦ Παύλου, εἷλκον αὐτὸν ἔξω τοῦ ἱεροῦ :
1 πανταχη NABCDE (W.H. and pide in β -xy), so Weiss ; var. often in classical.
Greek.
2 For κεκοινωκε D1 has εκοινωνησεν, D? εκοινωσεν, but Blass follows Τ.Ε.
3 ενομιζον, D has ενοµισαµεν, not Blass.
read of the Jews of Cilicia, etc., who disputed with Stephen.—Q@eacdp., cf. xxiv. 18, where St. Paul tells us how these Jews had found him in the Temple purified, z.e., with the Nazirite vow upon him, and in the act of presenting offer- ings—not of creating a disturbance, as his enemies alleged. These Jews, who were of course not believers, may have come from Ephesus, and were full of enmity against the Apostle for escaping them there, cf. xx. 3—they had come up to worship at Ῥεπίεσοςί.-- συνέχεον, see on ix. 22.—éwéB. τὰς χ., cf. xii. I.
Ver. 28. "Άνδρες ’lo.: the title which would remind them of the special dignity and glory of their nation, of its hopes and obligations. —BonSetre: as if against some outrage, or perhaps as if to ap- prehend Paul, or to attack him—zin doing anything to admit the Gentiles, ἔθνη, to God’s fold, St. Paul was exposing himself to the hatred of these unbelievers amongst his countrymen, 1 Thess. ii. 16, Hort, $udaistic Christianity, Ῥ. 107.— οὗτός: contemptuous.—kaTa τοῦ λαοῦ: the name for Israel, see on iv. 25, the same charge in almost the same words had been brought against St. Stephen, vi. 13; ‘‘before the Jewish authorities blasphemy was alleged, before the Roman, sedition ””.—trdavtas πανταχοῦ, πανταχῆ or -q, W.H., cf. xvii. 30, 1 Cor. iv. 17.— wavrTaxq: only here. The three words show the exaggerated nature of the charge; on St. Luke’s characteristic use of πᾶς and kindred words see p. 51.---ἔτι τε καὶ, connecting thus closely the alleged act of introducing Gentiles into the Temple with the foregoing, as an illus- tration that Paul did not confine himself to preaching against the Holy Place, but had proceeded to defile it by his action ; but cf. Simcox, Language of the Ν.Τ., Ῥ. 163, ‘“‘and further hath brought
Greeks also,” cf. xix. 27.--Έλληνας: only one man, Trophimus, had been actually seen with Paul, so that we again note the exaggerated charge, and even with regard to Trophimus, ἐνόμιζον, they only conjectured—they had no posi- tive ῬΡτοοί.--κεκοίνωκε: perfect, ‘sed manet pollutio,” Blass, in loco, see also Gram., p. 194.