Ver. 36. τροφῆς: with a partitive meaning; cf. γεύσασθαι, xxiii. 14, µεταλα- βεῖν, νετ. 33, κορέννυσθαι, ver. 38. Cf. Herod., viii.. go. Luckock points out that St. Luke distinguishes between the bread of which the Apostle partook and
34—38.
προσελάβοντο τροφῆς' 37. ἦμεν δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ ai πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ διακόσιαι ] ἑβδομηκονταέξ. 38. κορεσθέντες δὲ τροφῆς, ἐκούφιζον τὸ
‘For διακοσιαι W.H. read in text ως (so R.V. marg.) (in marg. Stax.) with B, Sah. Epiph., so Hilgenfeld; Weiss however declines here to follow B, and speaks of “the impossible” ws before 76 which is no round number, Afostelgeschichte, p- 34 (so Blass) ; the mistake seems best explained by supposing that the last letter of πλοιῳ was read as if Σ = 200, and thus = ΩΣ. Or, to explain it more fully, by supposing that the sign for 200, Σ, was misunderstood, and with the double reading of the w in πλοιω easily became ws; this is of course if we read with W.H. αι πασαι
. εν Tw πλοιῳ, a different order from Τ.Ε. (see also Hilgenfeld’s note, where ex-
planation of the reading διακ. from ως is certainly not so obvious).
the food, τροφῆς, taken by the rest, and certainly the expression κλάσας is re- markable, cf. Luke xxii. 19, 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24; but it is perhaps noteworthy that the Romanist Felten (see above) sees no reference to the Eucharist, although he fully admits that this act of Paul in thus giving thanks must have made a great impression at such a moment.—evOupor, νετ. 22, cf. 2 Macc. xi. 26.--καὶ αὐτοί: ‘also themselves,” following his example. For the second time Paul had restored their courage by his faith and prudence; the event had already shown that he de- served confidence, and it is evident that he inspired it; see the testimony of Breusing, pp. 198, 199.
Wendt, so too Jiingst, and Clemen see no reason to regard vv. 33-36 as an in- terpolation in the ‘‘ We” source, as vv. 21-26 above. Overbeck regards both sections as standing or falling together, and treats them both as interpolations, but Ramsay, whilst regarding the two sec- tions as inseparably connected, treats them both as belonging to the original “We” source, and he rightly expresses surprise at those who accept ver. 33 ff., and refuse to accept vv. 21-26 (Saint Paul, p. 337); much more intelligible is the judgment of Weizsacker than that of the other German critics in question when he describes the narrative as an mdivisible whole, and considers it im- possible to disentangle the mere history of travel from it, or to strip away the miraculous additions.
Ver. 37. The number was large, but nothing is told us of the size and manning of the Alexandrian ship, and Josephus, Vita, 3, mentions that there were about 600 in the ship which took him to Italy. On the large size of the ships engaged in a traffic similar to that of the corn ship in this chapter see Breusing, p. 157 ; Vars, Ρ. 191; Hackett and Blass, in loco, and ver. 6; Lucian, Πλοῖον 4 Evyxat.,5. The
For e A has
number may be mentioned at this point that they might know afterwards that all had been saved. But Breusing thinks that it would have come perhaps more naturally at the end of the narrative, and that it is given here because the rations were distributed to each on board at this juncture. For the phrase cf, αχ, 7
Ver. 38. κορεσθ., 1 Cor. iv. 8, no- where else in N.T., with genitive of the thing with which one is filled, as in classical Greek. Alford refers to LXX, Deut. xxxi. 20, but see Hatch and Red- path, sub v.éxovdilov : de nave, Polyb., 1, 60, 8; LXX, Jonah i. 5.—rdv σῖτον : “the wheat,” A. and R.V., Vulgate, triticum ; so Ramsay, Breusing, Vars, J. Smith, Page, and so too Erasmus, Bengel, etc., t.e., the cargo, cf. ver. 6. Blass thinks that the word used is de- cisive in favour of this interpretation; otherwise we should have had σιτία or ἄρτοι if merely food had been meant; not only was the cargo of sufficient weight really to lighten the ship, but there was need for the ship being as clear as possible for the operations in ver. 40. Wendt 1899 appears also to favour this view, cf. his comments with those in 1888 edition, where he adopts the view of Meyer and Weiss, that the word means provisions of food, as at first sight the context seems to indicate. But the latter would not have made much appreciable difference in weight, nor would those on board have been likely to throw them away, since they could not tell on what shore they might be cast, whether hospitable or not, or how: long they would be dependent on the food which they had in the ship. In ver. 18 the reference may be to the cargo on deck, or at all events only to a part of the cargo (Holtzmann). Naber con- jectured ἱστόν, but no such emendation is required (Wendt).