Acts 18:17

ἐπιλαβ. δὲ : of hostile action, Acts 17:19; Acts 16:19. οἱ Ἕλληνες, see critical note. If πάντες alone is read it seems clear from the context that only the Jews could be meant, and Weiss supposes that when they had failed so ignominiously they vented their rage on their own leader, Sosthenes, who as head of the synagogue would naturally have been prominent in presenting the complaint to Gallio. Some of the later MSS. insert οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι after πάντες to make the meaning clearer. Probably confusion arose in the MSS. from identifying Sosthenes either rightly or wrongly with the Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians 1:1, and therefore Ἕλληνες was omitted on the supposition that the Jews were allowed to console themselves by beating a Christian. But not only is it difficult to conceive that Gallio would have allowed them to do this, but there is no occasion to suppose that the Sosthenes here is the same as in 1 Corinthians 1:1 (for the name was common), and even if so, he may have become a Christian at a later date. It is much more conceivable that the Corinthians in their hatred of the Jews proceeded to second as it were the supercilious treatment dealt out to them by Gallio, and they would naturally fix upon Sosthenes as the leading spirit in the Jewish community. So far as he cared at all, Gallio may have been pleased rather than otherwise at the rough and ready approval of his decision by the populace, see Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 250, and “Corinth,” Hastings' B.D. 1, p. 482; Plumptre, in loco, and Wendt (1809). The whole of the section, Acts 18:12-17, is regarded by Clemen, p. 126, Jüngst, p. 165, as an interpolation, but Hilgenfeld puts aside their varying grounds of rejection as unconvincing, and finds it very conceivable that the Jews attempted to hinder the preaching of Paul as is here described (1 Thessalonians 2:16). With regard to the whole narrative of Paul at Corinth, Acts 18:1-17, Spitta, p. 244, concludes, as against Weizsäcker's attack on its historical character, that we may regard it as scanty or even one-sided, but that there is no valid reason to regard it as unhistorical. ἔτυπτον : Hackett interprets the imperfect as showing how thorough a beating Sosthenes received; but “exitus rei quæ depingitur (imperf.) non indicatur, quia nihil gravius secutum est,” Blass; the imperfect may simply mean “began to strike”. οὐδὲν … ἔμελεν, cf. Luke 10:40, a Gallio has become a proverbial name for one indifferent to religion, but there is nothing in St. Luke's statement to support such a view. All the words show is that Gallio was so little influenced by the accusations of the Jews against Paul that he took no notice of the conduct of the Greeks (?) in beating Sosthenes. And if the beating was administered by the Jews, Gallio might well overlook it, as he would regard it as the outcome of some question which only concerned their religion (Weiss).