Ver. 6. ἠτιμάσατε: Cf., though in an entirely different connection, Sir. X. 23, οὐ δίκαιον ἀτιμάσαι πτωχὸν συνε- τόν (δίκαιον is absent in the Hebrew);
6—7.
a [ο 3 t , . ee
τ καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν,ὶ καὶ αὐτοὶ" "ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς “κριτήρια ; τ Wisd. ii.
7. οὐκ 3. αὐτοὶ "βλασφημοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν “ ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν * ἐφ᾽ 5 Acts xvi. το
3, Xili. 50, xvii. 6, xviii. 11. cf. Jer. vii. 10; Mal. i, 11.
1 ypas ΝΑ, το, 20, 65, Ti. 3 καὶ A, ο, 13, Syrhk, Aeth.
the R.V. “ dishonoured” accurately repre- sents the Greek, but the equivalent Hebrew word would be better rendered ‘“‘despised” which is what the A.V. has. ‘“‘Dishonouring ” would imply the with- holding of a right, ‘“despising” would be rather the contempt accorded to the man because he was poor. There can be little doubt that it is the former which is intended here, but the idea of the latter must also have been present.—ov x ot πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν : {πε rich here probably refer to wealthy Jews, though it does not follow that ‘there could have been no question of rich ¥ews if the city and the temple had fallen” (Knowling), for the Epistle was addressed to Jews of the Dispersion, the bulk of whom were not affected, as far as their worldly belongings were con- cerned, by the Fall of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the possibility of the reference being to rich Jewish-Christians, or Gentile-Christians, cannot be dis- missed off-hand, for on the assumption of a late date for the Epistle it is more likely that these would be meant. The writer is taxing his hearers both with bad treatment accorded to the poor, as well as pusillanimity with regard to the rich. The word καταδυν. only occurs once elsewhere in the N.T., Acts x. 38, ... πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου; but fairly frequently in the Septuagint, e.g., Am. vill, 4; Wisd. ii, πο, xv. 14. The accusative ὑμᾶς, which is the reading of §Q1A, etc., is in accordance with the frequent usage of the Septuagint, where καταδυν. often takes an accusative instead of the geni- tive.-—avrot: '' The pronoun αὐτὸς is used in the nominative, not only with the meaning ‘self’? when attached to a sub- ject, as in classical Greek, but also when itself standing for the subject, with a less amount of emphasis, which we might render ‘he for his part,’ or ‘it was he who,’ as in the next clause ; it is disputed whether it does not in some cases lose its emphatic force altogether, as in Luke xix. 2, xxiv. 31” (Mayor). ἕλκουσιν: See Matt. x. 7, 18. Cf. Acts xvi. 1ο,
ui Tim. vi. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 14; cf. Acts xiii. 45.
t Acts viii. v Acts XV. 17.
Άαντοι και 5.
4 επικεκληθεν Ο].
.. . ἐπιλαβόμενοι τὸν Παῦλον καὶ τὸν Σίλαν εἵλκυσαν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας.- κριτήρια: ΟΥ̓ τ Cor. vi.2, 4, either Jewish (cf. the Peshitta rendering
δ ΟἽ FWD) tribunals or Gentile ones.
Ver. 7. βλασφημοῦσιν: for the force of the word cf. Sir. iii. 16, ὡς βλάσφημος ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν (the Greek is certainly wrong here, the Hebrew has ΓΙ “he that despiseth”) πατέρα. Cf. Rom. ii. 24, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Isa. lil. 5) ; the word in the N.T. is sometimes general in its application, of evil speaking with regard to men (in the Afoc. of Peter the phrase, ot βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης occurs twice, 7, 13); at other times, specifically with reference to God or our Lord.—tr6 καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς: the name here (especially in view οἵ καλόν) must be “Jesus” (Saviour), for the Jews would not be likely to have blasphemed the name of “Christ” (Messiah) ; in Acts iv. 10-12 it is alsothenameof ‘Jesus,’ concerning which St. Peter says: Neither 15 there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφ. tp. is a Hebraism, in Am. ix. 12 we