Acts 20:17

Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μ. π.: Apparently the Apostle could reckon on a stay of some days at Miletus. If we take into account the landing, the despatching a messenger to Ephesus, and the summoning and journeying of the elders to Miletus, probably, as Ramsay thinks, the third day of the stay at Miletus would be devoted to the presbyters. μετεκαλέσατο : “called to him,” R.V., cf. Acts 2:39 (and see on Acts 7:14, only in Acts), indicating authority or earnestness in the invitation. τοὺς πρεσβ., see on Acts 12:25, and also below on Acts 20:28. For Pauline words and phraseology characterising the addresses, see following notes.

When Spitta remarks (Apostelgeschichte, p. 252 ff.) that the speech at Miletus is inferior to no part of Acts, not even to the description of the voyage in chap. 27, in vividness of expression and intensity of feeling, he expresses the opinion of every unbiassed reader. He justly too lays stress upon the fact that while criticism admits the forcible and direct impression derived from the speech, it fails to account for it in the most natural way, viz., by the fact that whilst for the addresses delivered in the Pisidian Antioch and in Athens we are dependent upon a report derived from hearsay, we are here in possession of the testimony of an eyewitness, and of a hearer of the speech (p. 252). Spitta (p. 254) defends the speech against the usual objections. It is disappointing to find that Hilgenfeld is content to regard the whole speech as interpolated by his “author to Theophilus”. Clemen refers the whole speech to his R. or to R.A.; thus whilst Acts 20:19 a is referred to R., 19 b with its reference to the plots of the Jews is ascribed to R.A. (Redactor Antijudaicus); Jüngst ascribes Acts 20:19 b from the words καὶ δακρύων … Ἰουδ. to the Redactor, but the previous part of the chap. 21 to ταπεινοφροσύνης, Acts 20:19, to his source A. So Acts 20:38 with its reference to Acts 20:25 is referred to the Redactor; whilst Clemen refers Acts 20:38 a to his R.A., 38 b to R.