αΙ---15.
τοῦ ἡλίου περιλάμψαν µε GOs καὶ τοὺς σὺν ἐμοὶ πορευοµένους.
1.
14.
πάντων S€) καταπεσόντων ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἤκουσα φωνὴν λαλοῦσαν
πρός µε, καὶ λέγουσαν τῇ Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Σαούλ, Σαούλ, τί µε
διώκεις; σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν.
15. ἐγὼ δὲ εἶπον,
1For δε $ABEI, Syrr. H.P., Vulg. read τε, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Wendt, Hilgenfeld. For T.R. dwvnv λ. . . . και Aey. NBCI, Vulg., Syrr. Ρ.Η., Boh., read φ. λεγονσαν προς µε, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, R.V. After γην Blass in B adds δια τον φοβον εγω povos, 137 Syr. H. mg. (Gig.), so Hilg.
Josephus. The fact that the light shone round about Paul and his companions is at any rate not excluded by ix. 7 or xxii. g, as Weiss notes. It is quite in accor- dance with the truth of the facts that the more vivid expression should occur in Paul’s own recital.
Ver. 14. See notes on ix. 7 and xxii. 7, and reading above in B.—rq ‘EBpat& διαλ.: this is intimated in ix. 4 and xxii. 7 by the form Σαούλ, but here the words are inserted because Paul was speaking in Greek, or perhaps he spoke the solemn words, indelible in his memory, as they were uttered, in Hebrew, for Agrippa (Alford). — σκληρόν σοι «.7.4.: a proverb which finds expression both in Greek and in Latin literature (see instances in Wetstein): cf. Scholiast on Pind., Pyth., ιν 173: ἡ δὲ τροπὴ ἀπὸ τῶν βοῶν' τῶν γὰρ οἱ ἄτακτοι κατὰ τὴν γεωργίανκεντριζόµενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀροῦντος, λακτίζονσι τὸ κέντρον καὶ μᾶλλον πλήτ- τονται. Cf. also Aesch., Agam., 1633 (cf. Prom., 323), Eur., Bacch., 791, and in Latin, Terence, Phorm., i., 2, 27; Plau- tus, Truc., iv., 2, 59; and there may have been a similar proverb current among the Hebrews. Blass, Gram., pp. 5, 6, thinks that the introduction of the pro- ‘verb on this occasion before Festus and Agrippa points to the culture which Paul possessed, and which he called into requisition in addressing an educated assembly. It is not wise to press too closely a proverbial saying with regard to Saul’s state of mind before his con- version ; the words may simply mean to intimate to him that it was a foolish and inefficacious effort to try to persecute Jesus in His followers, an effort which would only inflict deeper wounds upon himself, an effort as idle as that described by the Psalmist, Ps. ii. 3, 4. At all events Paul’s statement here must be compared with his statements elsewhere, 1 Tim. i. 13; see Witness of the Epistles, B 389 ff., and Bethge, Die Paulinischen
eden, p. 275.
Ver. Evidently the following
15.
verses contain a summary of what in the other two accounts of the Conversion is spoken to Paul by Ananias, and revealed by the Lord in a vision, cf. ix. 15, xxii. 14 (so Alford, Felten, Zéckler). This is far more satisfactory than to suppose that the two narratives in ix. and xxii. are really dependent upon xxvi., the author having employed in them an oral tradition relating to Ananias, without being at all aware that by introducing such an account he was really contradict- ing a point upon which Paul lays special stress, viz., the fact that he had received his apostleship neither from man nor through man, Gal. i. 1 (so Wendt (1899), p- 189, and McGiffert, pp. 120 and 355). But in the first place nothing is said as to the Apostle receiving his Apostleship from Ananias; he receives recovery of sight from him, but his call to his Apostle- ship commences with his call before Damascus: ‘‘epocha apostolatus Paulini cum hoc ipso conversionis articulo inci- pit,” Bengel ; and see specially Beyschlag, Studien und Kritiken, p. 220, 1864, on Gal. i. 15 (Witness of the Epistles, P- 379, 1892); and, further, the introduc- tion and omission of Ananias are in themselves strong corroborations of the naturalness of the three accounts of the Conversion. Thus in chap. xxii., ver. 12, cf. ix. ΙΟ, ‘non conveniebat in hunc locum uberior de An. narratio, ix. 1ο ff., sed conveniebat preconium ejus, quod non est illic’’ (Blass); so too it was natural and important to emphasise be- fore a Jewish audience the description of Ananias (in ix. ro he is simply tts μαθητής) as εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόµον, well reported of by all the ews, whereas in xxvi. “tota persona Ananiz sublata est, quippe que non esset apta apud hos auditores’’ (Blass). The three nar- ratives agree in the main facts (see notes in comment., and Zéockler, Apostelge- schichte, 2nd edit., p. 216), and “the slight variations in the three accounts do not seem to be of any consequence,” Ramsay, Saint Paul, p. 379, cf. also