《Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》(Henry Alford) Commentator

23.] ἀναθ., looking over, ‘reconnoitring.’

σεβάσμ.] not, as E. V., ‘devotions:’ but objects of religious worship, temples, altars, statues, &c.: see reff.

καί] over and above the many altars to your own and foreign deities. πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν ξενικῶν ἱερῶν παρεδέξαντο, … καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ θρᾲκια καὶ τὰ φρύγια, Strabo, x. p. 472.

ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ] To an (not, the) unknown God.

That this was the veritable inscription on the altars (not as Jerome on Titus 1:12, vol. vii. p. 707, ‘Inscriptio aræ non ita erat ut Paulus asseruit: ignoto Deo: sed ita: Diis Asiæ et Europæ et Africæ, Diis ignotis et peregrinis. Verum quia Paulus non pluribus Diis ignotis indigebat sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est’), the words ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο, on which had been inscribed, are decisive. Meyer well remarks, that the historical fact would be abundantly established from this passage, being Paul’s testimony of what he himself had seen,—and spoken to the Athenian people. But we have our narrative confirmed by the following: Paus. i. 1. 4, ἐνταῦθαι καὶ βωμοὶ θεῶν τε ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων, καὶ ἡρώων καὶ παίδων τῶν θήσεως καὶ φαλήρου:—Philostratus, Vita Apollon. vi. 3, σωφρονέστερον τὸ περὶ πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν, καὶ ταῦτα ἀθήνῃσιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων δαιμόνων βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται. On which Winer well says, that it by no means follows that each altar had the inscription in the plural, θεοῖς ἀγνώστοις, but more naturally that the plural has been used to suit βωμοί, and that the inscription on each was as here. The commonly cited passage of (Pseudo-) Lucian, Philopatr. 9, and 29, νὴ τὸν ἄγνωστον ἐν ἀθήναις, is no testimony, the dialogue being spurious, and the reference to our text evident. The origin of such altars has been variously explained: Diog. Laert. (vita Epimenid.) says, that Epimenides, on occasion of a plague, advised the Athenians to let go white and black sheep from the Areiopagus, and on the spots where they lay down to erect altars τῷ προσήκοντι θεῷ: ὅθεν, he adds, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν κατὰ τοὺς δήμους τῶν ἀθηναίων βωμοὺς ἀνωνύμους. Eichhorn conjectures that they may have been ancient altars erected before the use of writing, and thus inscribed in after-times. But I should rather suppose that the above anecdote furnishes the key to the practice: that on the occurrence of any remarkable calamity or deliverance not assignable to the conventionally-received agency of any of the recognized deities, an unknown God was reverenced as their author. That the God of the Jews was meant (as supposed by Calov., Wolf, al.) is very improbable.

‘Quod ignotis Diis altare erexerant, signum erat nihil ipsos tenere certi: habebant quidem ingentem Deorum turbam … sed dum illis permiscent ignotos Deos, hoc ipso fatentur nihil de vera Divinitate se habere compertum … Inde apparet inquietudo, quod se nondum defunctos fatentur, ubi popularibus Diis litarunt,’ &c. Calvin.

ὃ … τοῦτο] The ὅν and τοῦτον of the rec. have probably been alterations from reverential motives. The neuters give surely the deeper, and the more appropriate sense. For Paul does not identify the true God with the dedication of, or worship at, the altar mentioned: but speaks of the Divinity ( τὸ θεῖον) of whom they, by this inscription, confessed themselves ignorant. (It may however be a warning of the uncertainty of à priori internal evidence for readings, that De Wette and Meyer suppose the masculines to have been altered to produce this very sense, and to avoid the inference that Paul identified the unknown God with the Creator.) But even a more serious objection lies against the masculines. The sentiment would thus be in direct contradiction to the assertion of Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 10:20, ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ θύουσιν. Compare also our Lord’s words, John 4:22, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε.

In εὐσεβεῖτε, we have another confirmation of the sense above insisted on for δεισιδαιμονεστέρους. He wishes to commend their reverential spirit, while he shews its misdirection. An important lesson for all who have controversies with Paganism and Romanism.

καταγγ.] (See above, καταγγελεύς, Acts 17:18.) I am declaring,—making manifest, to you. ὑμεῖς με προελάβετε, φησίν · ἔφθασε ὑμῶν ἡ θεραπεία τὸ ἐμὸν κήρυγμα. Chrys.

Verse 24

24.] ‘No wonder, that the devil, in order to diffuse idolatry, has blotted out among all heathen nations the recognition of Creation. The true doctrine of Creation is the proper refutation of all idolatry.’ Roos. Einl. in die bibl. Geschicht., cited by Stier, Red. der Apost. ii. 140, who remarks, ‘Only on the firm foundation of the Old Testament doctrine of Creation can we rightly build the New Testament doctrine of redemption: and only he, who scripturally believes and apprehends by faith the earliest words of Revelation, concerning a Creator of all things, can also apprehend, know, and scripturally worship, THE MAN, in whom God’s word, down to its latest canonical Revelation, gathers together all things.’

οὐκ ἐν χειρ.] A remarkable reminiscence of the dying speech of Stephen: see ch. Acts 7:48.

Mr. Humphry notices the similarity, but difference in its conclusion, of the argument attributed to Xerxes in Cicero, Leg. ii. 10: ‘Xerxes inflammasse templa Græciæ dicitur, quod parietibus includerent deos, quibus omnia deberent esse patentia et libera, quorumque hic mundus omnis templum esset et domus.’

Where Paul stood, he might see the celebrated colossal statue of Athena Polias, known by the Athenians as ἡ θεά, standing and keeping guard with spear and shield in the enclosure of the Acropolis.

Verse 25

25.] θεραπεύεται, is (really and truly) served.

So θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται, Galatians 6:7.

προσδ.] ἐνδεῖσθαι μέν ἐστι τὸ παντελῶς μὴ ἔχειν · προσδεῖσθαι δὲ τὸ ἔχειν μὲν μέρος, ἔτι δὲ δεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ τέλειον. Ulpian (in Wetst.).

As the assertion of Creation contradicted the Epicurean error, so this laid hold of that portion of truth, which, however disguised, that school had apprehended: ‘Omnis enim per se divûm natura necesse est | Immortali ævo summa cum pace fruatur. |.… | Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri,’ Lucret. i. 57. There is a verse in 2 Maccabees 14:35, remarkable, as compared with the thoughts and words of Paul here: σύ, κύριε, τῶν ὅλων ἀπροσδεὴς ὑπάρχων, εὐδοκήσας ναὸν τῆς σῆς κατασκηνώσεως ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι.

τινός] neuter, as referring to the temples and statues offered by the Athenians.

ζωὴν κ. πνοήν] He is the Preserver, as well as the Creator, of all; and all things come to us from Him. Compare, on τὰ πάντα, David’s words, 1 Chronicles 29:14, σὰ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἐκ τῶν σῶν δεδώκαμέν σοι.

Verse 26

26.] ἐξ ἑνὸς [ αἵμ.] was said, be it remembered, to a people who gave themselves out for αὐτόχθονες: but we must not imagine that to refute this was the object of the words: they aim far higher than this, and controvert the whole genius of polytheism, which attributed to the various nations differing mythical origins, and separate guardian gods. It is remarkable, that though of all people the Jews were the most distinguished in their covenant state from other nations of the earth, yet to them only was given the revelation of the true history of mankind, as all created of one blood: a doctrine kept as it were in store for the gospel to proclaim.

Not, ‘hath made of one blood,’ &c., as E. V., but caused every nation of men (sprung) of one [blood] to dwell, &c. See Matthew 5:32; Mark 7:37.

παντὸς προσώπου] The omission of the art. may be accounted for by the words following ἐπί (see Middleton, vi. 1): or, perhaps, by the parallelism of πᾶν ἔθνος, παντὸς προσώπου: or perhaps, as πὰς οἶκος ἰσραήλ, ch. Acts 2:36, because πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς is regarded as one appellative. See note on πᾶσα οἰκοδομή, Ephesians 2:21.

καιρ.… ὁροθ.] He who was before (Acts 17:24) the Creator, then (Acts 17:25) the Preserver, is now the Governor of all men: prescribing to each nation its space to dwell in, and its time of endurance.

προστετ., not προτ., appointed, ‘ordered by Him.’

Verse 27

27.] ζητεῖν does not depend on ἐποίησεν, but gives the intent of the above-mentioned providential arrangement: that they might seek God. τὸν κύριον (as rec. and two uncial MSS. have) has probably been a careless mistake of a transcriber: τὶ τὸ θεῖόμ ἐστιν, which appears to have been the reading of ⁽⁸⁷⁾, is one of its own strange glosses.

εἰ ἄρα] if by any chance, denoting a contingency apparently not very likely to happen, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440.

ψηλαφήσειαν] Originally an Æolic form, but frequent in Attic Greek, for ψηλαφήσαιεν, sec Luke 6:11. On the word itself, compare Aristoph. (Pax, 691): προτοῦ μὲν οὖν | ἐψηλαφῶμεν ἐν σκότῳ τὰ πράγματα, | νυνὶ δʼ ἅπαντα πρὸς λύχνον βουλεύσομεν. These lines, as Mr. Humphry observes, ‘seem at once to illustrate the figurative use of the verb, and to express the condition of man prior and subsequent to revelation.’

καί γε.…] ‘Not that HE is distant from us, but that we are ignorant of Him.’ See Romans 10:6; Romans 10:8; Jeremiah 23:23-24. καί γε, ‘et quidem:’ see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 398 f.

Verse 28

28.] There is no justification for the pantheist in this.

It is properly said only of the race of men, as being His offspring, bound to Him: proceeding from, and upheld by, and therefore living, moving, and being in Him:—but even in a wider sense His Being, though a separate objective Personality, involves and contains that of His creatures. See Ephesians 1:10, where the same is said of Christ. ἐν αὐτῷ must not be taken for ‘by Him;’ the subsequent citation would in that case be irrelevant.

ζῶμ. κιν. ἐσμ.] ‘A climax: out of God we should have no Life, nor even movement (which some things without life have, plants, water, &c.), nay, not any existence at all (we should not have been).’ Meyer. Storr’s explanation of ζῶμεν by ‘vivimus beate ac hilare,’ and Kuinoel and Olshausen’s of ἐσμέν by ‘real being,’ i.e. ‘the spiritual life,’ are evidently beside the purpose; the intent being to shew the absolute dependence for every thing of man on God,—and thence the absurdity of supposing the Godhead like to the works of his (man’s) hands.

τοῦ γὰρ κ. γ. ἐσμ.] Aratus, in the opening lines of the Phænomena.… πάντη δὲ διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες · τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Kleanthes also, Hymn. in Jov. 5, has ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν. Aratus was a native of Tarsus, about 270 B.C., and wrote astronomical poems, of which two, the φαινόμενα and διοσημεία, remain. Kleanthes was born at Assos, in Troas, about 300 B.C. The Apostle, by the plural, seems to have both poets in his mind.

The τοῦ refers to Zeus in both cases, the admission being taken as a portion of truth regarding the Supreme God, which even heathen poets confessed. The καί has no connexion here, but is (see above) part of the verse in Aratus.

Verse 30

30. ὑπεριδών] In this word lie treasures of mercy for those who lived in the times of ignorance. God overlooked them [the rendering of the E. V. bears the same meaning, but is to our ears in these days objectionable]: i.e. corrected not this ignorance itself as a sin, but the abuses even of this, by which the heathen sunk into deeper degradation. The same argument is treated more at length in Romans 12. The πᾶσι of the rec. and ἵνα πάντες of D¹ have both been corrections occasioned by the apparent difficulty of τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάντας. The genuine reading gives the emphatic πάντας πανταχοῦ, following on the foregoing assertion of Acts 17:25-26, its proper place.

Verse 31

31. καθότι] See var. read. and reff.:—used by Luke and him only: ‘seeing that,’ inasmuch as.

ἐν δικαιος.] δικαιος. is the character of the judgment,—the element, of which it shall consist.

ἐν ἀνδρί] Not, ‘in (by) a man,’ but by (i.e. in the person of) the man: the art. is omitted after the preposition: see Midd. vi. 1. The ἐν is not instrumental, properly speaking, here or any where else. Its judicial use is only a particular case of its usage of investiture or elementary condition: in the judge the judgment consists, is constituted; he is its vehicle and expression. See ref. 1 Cor. and note for examples of this use.

πίστ. κ. τ. λ. ‘Quia res erat vix credibilis, argumentum adfert eximium.’ Grotius.

Verse 32

32. ἀνάστ. νεκρ.] Perhaps here, ‘when they heard of a resurrection of dead men,’ viz. of that of Christ, νεκρῶν being generic. But the same words are used in ref. 1 Cor. πῶς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν; so that I would rather take them here to mean that they inferred the general possibility of the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of Paul’s, from the one case which he mentioned.

οἱ.… οἱ δέ] We must not allot these two parties as some have done, the former to the Epicureans, the latter to the Stoics: the description is general.

The words ἀκουσόμεθα.… need not be taken as ironical. The hearing not having taken place is no proof that it was not intended at the time: and the distinction between these and the mockers seems to imply that they were in earnest.

Verse 33

33. οὕτως] ‘In this state of the popular mind:’ (with an expectation of being heard again?) [The “so” of the E. V. does not give this forcibly enough, but looks like a mere particle of transition.]

Verse 34

34. διονύσιος ὁ ἀρ.] Nothing more is known of him. Euseb. H. E. iii. 4; iv. 23, relates that he was bishop of Athens, and Niceph. iii. 11, that he died a martyr. The writings which go by his name are undoubtedly spurious.

γυνή] Not, as Chrys., de Sacerd. iv. 7, vol. i. p. 412, seems to infer from the form of the expression,— ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, the wife of Dionysius: this would have been ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ.

18 Chapter 18
Verse 1

1.] Corinth was at this time a colony (see note, ch. Acts 16:12), the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, and the residence of the proconsul. For further particulars, see Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § ii.

Verse 2

2. ἰουδαῖον] It appears that Aquila and Priscilla were not Christians at this time: it is the similarity of employment only which draws them to Paul, and their conversion is left to be inferred as taking place in consequence: see Acts 18:26.

ποντικὸν τ. γ.] It is remarkable, that Pontius Aquila is a name found in the Pontian gens at Rome more than once in the days of the Republic (see Cicero, ad Fam. x. 33; Suet., Jul. Cæs 78; Smith’s Dict. of Biogr., art. Aquila, Pontius); whence some have supposed that this may have been a freedman of a Pontius Aquila, and that ποντ. τῷ γένει may have been an inference from his name. But besides that Luke’s acquaintance with the real origin of Aquila could hardly but have been accurate,—Aquila, the translator of the O. T. into Greek, was also a native of Pontus.

From the notices of Aquila and Priscilla in the Epistles, they appear to have travelled, fixing their abode by turns in different principal cities, for the sake of their business. In Acts 18:19, we have them left at Ephesus (see also Acts 18:26); in 1 Corinthians 16:19, still there; in Romans 16:3 ff., again at Rome; in 2 Timothy 4:19, again at Ephesus.

διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι …] Suet. Claud. 25, says, ‘Judæos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit:’ but as he gives this without any fixed note of time,—as the words ‘impulsore Chresto’ may be taken in three ways (as indicative either (1) of an actual leader of that name, or (2) of some tumult connected with the expectations of a Messiah, or (3) of some dispute about Christianity),—Neander well observes, that after all which has been said on it, no secure historical inference respecting the date of the event, or its connexion with any Christian church at Rome, can be drawn. It was as a Jew that Aquila was driven from Rome: and there is not a word of Christians here. If one could identify this expulsion of the Jews with that of the ‘mathematici’ in Tacitus (Ann. xii. 52), which took place Fausto Sulla, Salv⁽⁸⁸⁾ Othone Coss. (A.D. 52), we might be on surer ground,—but this is very uncertain, and even improbable. The two could hardly have been united. The circumstance related by Dio Cassius, lx. 6, which seems to contradict Suetonius and our text,— τοὺς ἰουδαίους πλεονάσαντας αὖθις, ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἂν ἄνευ ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μέν, τῷ δὲ πατρίῳ νόμῳ βίῳ χρωμένους ἐκέλευσε μὴ συναθροίζεσθαι,—probably describes a step taken by Claudius previously to this expulsion, which not improbably occasioned the tumults which made the expulsion necessary.

The edict soon became invalid, or the prohibition was taken off: we find Aquila at Rome, Romans 16:3, and many Jews resident there, ch. Acts 28:17 ff.

Verse 3

3. ἠργάζετο] “The Jewish Rabbis having no state pay, it was their practice to teach their children a trade. ‘What is commanded of a father towards his son?’ asks a Talmudic writer. ‘To circumcise him, to teach him the law, to teach him a trade.’ Rabbi Judah saith, ‘He that teacheth not his son a trade, doth the same as if he taught him to be a thief:’ and Rabban Gamaliel saith, ‘He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? He is like a vineyard that is fenced.’ ” C. and H. i. p. 58.

The places where Paul refers to his supporting himself by his own manual labour are,—ch. Acts 20:34 (Ephesus):—1 Corinthians 9:12 ff.; 2 Corinthians 7:2 (Corinth):—1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8 (Thessalonica).

In 2 Corinthians 11:9, we learn that supplies were also brought to him at Corinth from Macedonia, i.e. Philippi, see Philippians 4:15.

σκηνοποιοί] The general opinion now is, that Paul was a maker of tents from the ‘cilicium,’ or hair-cloth of Cilician goats. Thus Kuinoel, citing from Hug and Eichhorn, says of the former, “Ad hanc sententiam comprobandam monuit, Ciliciam, Pauli patriam, refertam fuisse hircis et capris villosis, eorumque villis Cilices usos esse ad conficiendum pannum, Cilicium inde dictum. Suidas: κίλικος τράγος· ὁ δασύς τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἐν κιλικίᾳ γίνονται τράγοι, ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν τριχῶν συντιθέμενα κιλίκια καλοῦνται.

Hoc panno usos esse milites, nautas, Nomadas, ad tentoria conficienda, v. Vegetius, de Re Mil. Acts 4:6. Plin. N. H. vi. 28, ‘Nomades, infestatoresque Chaldæorum scenitæ … et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati, quæ ciliciis metantur, ubi libuit.’ Solin. 33, ‘Scenitæ caussam nominis inde ducunt, quod tentoriis succedunt, nec alias domos habent, ipsa autem tentoria cilicina sunt; ita nuncupantur velamenta caprarum pilis texta.’ ” If it be objected, that Paul would hardly find the raw material for this work in cities far from Cilicia, it may be answered, that this would not be required in the fabrication of tents from the haircloth, which doubtless itself would be an article of commerce in the markets of Greece.

Chrysost. calls Paul sometimes σκηνοῤῥάφος, sometimes σκυτοτόμος, a leather-cutter, imagining that the tents were made of leather; ἐπὶ σκηνοῤῥαφείου ἑστὼς δέρματα ἔῤῥαπτε (in Catena).

Verse 5

5.] See ch. Acts 17:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:6.

συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ] ‘When Silas and Timotheus arrived [see ch. Acts 17:15 note] from Macedonia, they found Paul anxiously occupied in discoursing to the Jews.’ This I believe to be the meaning: that they found him in a state of more than ordinary anxiety,—more than usually absorbed in the work of testifying to the Jews (see reff.):—a crisis in the work being imminent, which resulted in their rejection of the word of life. (On the whole character of his early preaching at Corinth, see notes, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.) Thus only, the δέ in Acts 18:5 and that in Acts 18:6 will both be satisfied: he discoursed in the synagogue, &c.… but when Silas and Timotheus arrived, he was earnestly occupied in discoursing, &c. But, as they opposed themselves and blasphemed, &c. Wordsworth adopts the view that after the arrival of Silas and Timotheus with supplies from Macedonia, Paul gave up his tent-making and gave himself up ( συνείχετο) to preaching. But surely this is ungrammatical. The aor. ( ὡς κατῆλθον) and imperf. ( συνείχετο) require the rendering ‘when they arrived, they found him συνεχόμενον.’

Verse 6

6.] αἷμα as in ch. Acts 20:26. The image and nearly the words, are from Ezekiel 33:4. De Wette should have known better than to call a citation from the LXX an ‘unpaulinischer Sprachgebrauch.’

ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] Not absolutely, only at Corinth: for Acts 18:19 we find him arguing with the Jews again in the synagogue at Ephesus. I have adopted the punctuation of Lachmann, erasing the colon after ἐγώ: I shall henceforth with a pure conscience go to the Gentiles.

Verse 7

7.] In order to shew that he henceforth separated himself from the Jews, he, on leaving the synagogue, went no longer to the house of the Jew Aquila (who appears afterwards to have been converted), but to the house of a Gentile proselyte of the gate, close to the synagogue: q. d. ‘in the sight of all the congregation in the synagogue:’ for this seems to be the object in mentioning the circumstance.

Verse 8

8.] On this, a schism took place among the Jews. The ruler of the synagogue attached himself to Paul, and was, together with Gaius, baptized by the Apostle himself (1 Corinthians 1:14): and with him many of the Corinthians (Jews and Gentiles, it being the house of a proselyte), probably Aquila and Priscilla also, believed and were baptized.

Verse 9

9. λάλ. κ. μὴ σιωπ.] So, for solemnity’s sake, we have an affirmation and negation combined, John 1:3. See also Isaiah 58:1.

Verse 10

10. ἐπιθ. σοι] See ref. and examples of this usage in Wetst.:—shall set on thee, as E. V.

λαός ἐστί μοι πολύς] See John 10:16. As our Lord forewarned Paul in Jerusalem that they would not receive his testimony concerning Him, so here He encourages him, by a promise of much success in Corinth. The word λαός, the express title beforetime of the Jews, is still used now, notwithstanding their secession.

Verse 11

11.] The year and a half may extend either to his departure, or to the incident in Acts 18:12 ff. Meyer would confine it to the latter, taking ἐκάθισεν in the sense of ‘remained in quiet:’ but (see reff.) it will hardly bear such emphasis: and seeing that the incident in Acts 18:12 ff. was a notable fulfilment of the promise,—for though they set on him, they could not hurt him,—I should be disposed to take the other view, and regard Acts 18:12 to ἱκανάς, Acts 18:18, to have happened during this time.

Verse 12

12. γαλλίωνος] His original name was Marcus Annæus Novatus: but, having been adopted into the family of the rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of Junius Annæus Gallio. He was brother of Lucius Annæus Seneca, the philosopher, whose character of him is in exact accordance with that which we may infer from this narrative: ‘Nemo mortalium mihi tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus:’ ‘Gallionem fratrem meum, quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest.’ He is called ‘dulcis Gallio’ by Statius, Silv. ii. 7. 32. He appears to have given up the province of Achaia from ill health: ‘Illud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gallionis qui cum in Achaia febrem habere cœpisset, protinus navem ascendit, clamitans non corporis esse sed loci morbum.’ Senec. Ep. 104. He was spared after the execution of his brother (Tacit. Ann. xv. 73): but Dio Cassius, lxii. 25, adds, οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ὕστερον ἐπαπώλοντο, and Euseb. Chron. ad ann. 818 (A.D. 66), says that he put an end to himself after his brother’s death.

ἀνθυπάτου] See note on ch. Acts 13:7. Achaia was originally a senatorial province (Dio Cass. liii. 12), but was temporarily made an imperial one by Tiberius. Tacit. Ann. i. 76, ‘Achaiam ac Macedoniam, onera deprecantes, levari in præsens proconsulari imperio, tradique Cæsari placuit.’ Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) ‘Provincias Achaiam et Macedoniam quas Tiberius ad curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit.’

τ. ἀχαΐας] The Roman province of Achaia contained Hellas and the Peloponnesus, and, with Macedonia, embraced all their Grecian dominions. It was so called, according to Pausanias (vii. 16. 7), because the Romans ἐχειρώσαντο ἕλληνας διʼ ἀχαιῶν τότε τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ προεστηκότων (the Achaian league).

“The βῆμα is mentioned three times in the course of this narrative (see Acts 18:16-17). It was of two kinds: (1) fixed in some public and open place: (2) moveable, and taken by the Roman magistrates to be placed wherever they might sit in a judicial character. Probably here and in the case of Pilate (John 19:13), the former kind of seat is intended. See Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities, under ‘Sella.’ See also some remarks on the tribunal—‘the indispensable symbol of the Roman judgment-seat,’ in the Edinburgh Review for Jan. 1847, p. 151.” C. and H. vol. i. 494.

Verse 13