Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 13:20
And after that he gave [unto them] judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
He gave unto them judges – Men who were raised up in an extraordinary manner to administer the affairs of the nation, to defend it from enemies, etc. See Jdg 2:16.
About the space of four hundred and fifty years – This is a most difficult passage, and has exercised all the ingenuity of chronologists. The ancient versions agree with the present Greek text. The difficulty has been to reconcile it with what is said in 1Ki 6:1, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomons reign over Israel …he began to build the house of the Lord. Now if to the 40 years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness there be added the 450 said in Acts to have been passed under the administration of the judges, and about 17 years of the time of Joshua, 40 years for Samuel and the reign of Saul together, and 40 years for the reign of David, and three years of Solomon before he began to build the temple, the sum will be 590 years, a period greater by 110 years than that mentioned in 1Ki 6:1. Various ways have been proposed to meet the difficulty. Doddridge renders it, After these transactions, (which lasted) 450 years, he gave them a series of judges, etc., reckoning from the birth of Isaac, and supposing that Paul meant to refer to this whole time. But to this there are serious objections:
(1) It is a forced and constrained interpretation, and one manifestly made to meet a difficulty.
(2) There is no propriety in commencing this period at the birth of Isaac. That was in no manner remarkable, so far as Pauls narrative was concerned; and Paul had not even referred to it. This same solution is offered also by Calovius, Mill, and DeDieu. Luther and Beza think it should be read 300 instead of 400. But this is a mere conjecture, without any authority from mss. Vitringa and some others suppose that the text has been corrupted by some transcriber, who has inserted this without authority. But there is no evidence of this; and the mss. and ancient versions are uniform. None of these explanations are satisfactory. In the solution of the difficulty we may remark:
(1) That nothing is more perplexing than the chronology of ancient facts. The difficulty is found in all writings; in profane as well as sacred. Mistakes are so easily made in transcribing numbers, where letters are used instead of writing the words at length, that we are not to wonder at such errors.
(2) Paul would naturally use the chronology which was in current, common use among the Jews. It was not his business to settle such points; but he would speak of them as they were usually spoken of, and refer to them as others did.
(3) There is reason to believe that what is mentioned here was the common chronology of his time. It accords remarkably with that which is used by Josephus. Thus, (Antiq., book 7, chapter 3, section 1), Josephus says expressly that Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, 592 years after the exodus out of Egypt, etc. This would allow 40 years for their being in the wilderness, 17 years for Joshua, 40 for Samuel and Saul, 40 for the reign of David, and 452 years for the time of the judges and the times of anarchy that intervened. This remarkable coincidence shows that this was the chronology which was then used, and which Paul had in view.
(4) This chronology has the authority, also, of many eminent names. See Lightfoot and Boyles Lectures, Acts 20. In what way this computation of Josephus and the Jews originated it is not necessary here to inquire. It is a sufficient solution of the difficulty that Paul spake in their usual manner, without departing from his regular object by settling a point of chronology.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 20. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years] This is a most difficult passage, and has been termed by Scaliger, Crux Chronologorum. The apostle seems here to contradict the account in 1Kg 6:1: And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, he began to build the house of the Lord.
Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his annotations upon difficult texts, has considered the various solutions proposed by learned men of the difficulty before us; and concludes that the words of the apostle should not be understood as meaning how long God gave them judges, but when he gave them; and therefore proposes that the first words of this verse, , , should be referred to the words going before, Ac 13:17, that is, to the time WHEN the God of the children of Israel chose their fathers.
“Now this time wherein God may properly be said to have chosen their fathers, about 450 years before he gave them judges, is to be computed from the birth of Isaac, in whom God may properly be said to have chosen their fathers; for God, who had chosen Abraham out of all the people of the earth, chose Isaac at this time out of the children of Abraham, in whose family the covenant was to rest. To make this computation evident, let us observe that from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob are 60 years; from thence to their going into Egypt, 130; from thence to the exodus, 210; from thence to their entrance into Canaan, 40; from that to the division of the land (about which time it is probable they began to settle their government by judges) 7 years; which sums make 447: viz. 60 + 130 + 210 + 40 + 7 = 447. And should this be reckoned from the year before the birth of Isaac, when God established his covenant between himself and Abraham, and all his seed after him, Ge 17:19, at which time God properly chose their fathers, then there will be 448 years, which brings it to within two years of the 450, which is sufficiently exact to bring it within the apostle’s , about, or nearly.
“Some have made the period 452 years; which, though two years more than the apostle’s round number, is still sufficiently reconcilable with his qualifying particle , about. And it may be added that the most correct writers often express a sum totally, but not exactly: so, with Demosthenes and Plautus, we find that called a talent where some drachms were either wanting or abounding.”
The sacred writers often express themselves in the same way: e.g. He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. Now we know that the circumference of any circle is only in round numbers to its diameter as three to one; but, correctly, is considerably more, nearly as 22 to 7. But even the Spirit of God does not see it necessary to enter into such niceties, which would only puzzle, and not instruct the common reader.
Calmet has paraphrased these passages nearly to the same sense: the text may be thus connected; Ac 13:19. And having destroyed; seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot, about one hundred and fifty years after. And afterwards he gave them judges, to the time of Samuel the prophet. The paraphrase of Calmet is the following: “The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers in the person of Abraham; he promised him the land of Canaan; and four hundred and fifty years after this promise, and the birth of Isaac, who was the son and heir of the promise, he put them in possession of that land which he had promised so long before.” As this view of the subject removes all the principal difficulties, I shall not trouble my reader with other modes of interpretation.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These judges were persons deputed by God to govern and deliver that people; their commission was attested usually by some extraordinary thing done by them, and their power (as being mediately from God) was absolute. The computation of years here mentioned hath been very much controverted. That which hath the greatest probability with it, is, either, first, to have recourse to Act 13:17, and begin this era there, with Gods choosing of their fathers; and ending it at the time of the decision of the land by lot, as Act 13:19; for from the birth of Isaac, to this distribution of the land, are reckoned four hundred and forty-seven years; which may well be said here,
about four hundred and fifty years: but then the sense is,
after that such things mentioned in Act 13:17-19 were done; which were in the compass of four hundred and fifty years, God then gave them judges. Or, as others do refer these words to what follows, and begin the era or computation from the going of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and ending it at the expulsion of the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, which may make up this account. But then this passage of St. Paul is not intended to show how long the judges ruled, but when it was, or about what time that they ruled; as also to show what a long time it took up to gain that people a quiet possession of that promised inheritance, their sins still keeping good things from them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
20. after that he gave . . . judges. . . about the space of four hundred and fifty yearsAs thisappears to contradict 1Ki 6:1,various solutions have been proposed. Taking the words as they standin the Greek, thus, “after that, by the space of fourhundred fifty years, He gave judges,” the meaning may be, thatabout four hundred fifty years elapsed from the time of the covenantwith Abraham until the period of the judges; which ishistorically correct, the word “about” showing thatchronological exactness was not aimed at. But taking the sense to beas in our version, that it was the period of the judges itself whichlasted about four hundred fifty years, this statement also willappear historically correct, if we include in it the interval ofsubjection to foreign powers which occurred during the period of thejudges, and understand it to describe the whole period from thesettlement of the tribes in Canaan to the establishment of royalty.Thus, from the Exodus to the building of the temple were five hundredninety-two years [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 8.3.1]; deduct forty years in the wilderness;twenty-five years of Joshua’s rule [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 5.1.29]; forty years of Saul’s reign (Ac13:2); forty of David’s and the first four years of Solomon’sreign (1Ki 6:1), and thereremain, just four hundred forty-three years; or, in round numbers,”about four hundred fifty years.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And after that he gave unto them judges,…. As Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson, and Eli:
about the space of four hundred and fifty years; not that from the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes, to Samuel the prophet, was such a space of years; for from the coming of the children of Israel out of Egypt, to the year that Solomon began to build the temple, were but four hundred and fourscore years, 1Ki 6:1 and out of these must be taken the forty years the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and seven years in subduing the land of Canaan, before the division of it, which reduce this number to four hundred and thirty and three; and from hence must be deducted the time of Samuel’s judging Israel, the reigns of Saul and David, and three years of Solomon’s, which reduced the years of the judges to less than four hundred years; and according to some, the years of the judges were three hundred and fifty seven; and according to others, three hundred and thirty nine, and both fall short of the space of years here assigned. The Alexandrian copy and the Vulgate Latin version read this clause in connection with the preceding words, “he divided their land unto them, about the space of four hundred years, and after that he gave unto them judges”; agreeably hereunto the Ethiopic version renders it, “and after four hundred and fifty years, he set over them governors, c”. So that this account respects not the time of the judges, or how long they were, but refers to all that goes before, and measures out the space of time from God’s choice of the Jewish fathers, to the division of the land of Canaan: and reckoning from the birth of Isaac, when the choice took place, and in whom Abraham’s seed was called, there was much about such a number of years for from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, were sixty years; from thence to his going down into Egypt, an hundred and thirty years; and from thence to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, two hundred and ten years; and from thence to their entrance into the land of Canaan, forty years; and from that time to the division of the land, seven years, which in all make four hundred and forty seven years: so that, according to this account, there were three years wanting of the sum in the text; hence the apostle might with great propriety say, that it was about the space of so many years. It follows,
until Samuel the prophet; the meaning of which, is not that there was such a space of time as before mentioned, from the distribution of the land of Canaan until the times of Samuel the prophet, during which space judges were given; but that after that term of time was expired, God gave them judges, or raised up one after another, until Samuel the prophet, who was the last of them: of his character as a prophet, [See comments on Ac 3:24] and which is a title frequently given him by Jewish writers u.
u Maimon. Cele Hamikdash, c. 4. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And after these things ( ). That is, the time of the Judges then began. Cf. Jud 2:16.
Until Samuel the prophet ( ). The terminus ad quem. He was the last of the judges and the first of the prophets who selected the first king (Saul) under God’s guidance. Note the absence of the Greek article with .
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And after that,” (kai meta tauta) “And after these things occurred,” “He gave unto them judges,” (edoken kritas) “He gave (to them) judges,” gave over to Israel judges, after the division of the land grant estate, Jdg 2:16; Jdg 3:9-11; Jdg 3:15.
2) “About the space of four hundred and fifty years,” (hos etesin tetrakosiois kai pentekonta) “For about a four hundred and fifty year period;” to be compared with 1) Four hundred years the promised seed was in Egypt, Gen 15:13; Genesis 2) Forty years they wandered in the wilderness, Act 13:18; Acts , 3) There was a conquest of about ten years in the driving our of the heathen nations, surveying and dividing the land when the first judge, Othniel was appointed or given, Jdg 3:8-9.
3) “Until Samuel the prophet,” (heos Samuel prophetou) “Until the time of Samuel, a prophet,” 1Sa 12:11; This is the termination of the period of judges in Israel when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” when they had no judge, Jdg 21:25. Samuel, last of God’s judges in Israel, anointed both Saul and later David to be kings of Israel, 1Sa 9:27; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 16:13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. He gave them judges. Under this name the Scripture comprehendeth rulers and governors; and here is another testimony of the infinite goodness of God toward the Jews, in that he pardoned so many backslidings in them. For it is likely that Paul handled those things more at large, which Luke gathereth briefly. And we know what was the estate of the people during all that time, seeing that through untamed wantonness they did ever now and then shake off the yoke. They were often punished with most grievous plagues, yet so soon as they were once humbled, God delivered them from the tyranny of their enemies. So that he saved the body thereof alive, amidst many deaths, four whole ages and one-half. And hereby it appeareth how unworthy they were of the favor of God, which they did despise and reject so often, unless the constancy of the election had gotten the victory. For how is it that God is never wearied, but that he keepeth promise with those who are truce-breakers an hundred times, save only because turning his eyes toward his Christ, he hath not suffered his covenant, grounded in him, to decay or perish?
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20) After that he gave unto them judges . . .The statement in the text, assigning 450 years to the period of the judges, and apparently reckoning that period from the distribution of the conquered territory, is at variance with that in 1Ki. 6:1, which gives 480 years as the period intervening between the Exodus and the building of the temple. The better MSS., however, give a different readingHe gave their land to them as an inheritance, about 450 years, and after these things he gave unto them judges, the 450 years in this case being referred to the interval between the choice of our fathers, which may be reckoned from the birth of Isaac (B.C. 1897 according to the received chronology) to the distribution of the conquered country in B.C. 1444. So far as any great discrepancy is concerned, this is a sufficient explanation, but what has been said before as to the general tendency in a discourse of this kind to rest in round numbers, has also to be remembered. (See Note on Act. 7:6.) Josephus (Ant. viii. 3, 1) gives 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomons Temple. Of this period sixty-five years were occupied by the wanderings in the wilderness and the conquest under Joshua, eighty-four by the reigns of Saul and David and the first four years of Solomon, leaving 443 years for the period of the Judges. This agrees, it will be seen, sufficiently with the Received text in this passage, but leaves the discrepancy with 1Ki. 6:1 unexplained. There would of course, be nothing strange in St. Pauls following the same traditional chronology as Josephus, even where it differed from that of the present Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. After that The true reading of this passage, as adopted by Bornemann, Lachmann, and Wordsworth, would be: “He assigned their land to them by inheritance for about four hundred and fifty years; after that he gave them judges.” The about four hundred and fifty years would measure the period of covenanting the inheritance, namely, from the birth of Isaac to the commencement of the judges. There is, then, no discrepancy between this passage and 1Ki 6:1. But see Alford, who, after his method, denies that the two passages can be reconciled.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And after these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they asked for a king, and God gave to them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years. And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, to whom also he bore witness and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will.’ ”
Having laid the foundation in God’s oneness of purpose, goodness, compassion and longstanding generosity, Paul now moves on to the continuation of it in His provision for them of judges and saviours. He had never failed them. He had given them just and benevolent war leaders and rulers (‘judges’), leading up to the great prophet Samuel. Then when they had asked for a king He had given them the mighty Saul who had been over them for forty years (another indication of His longstanding goodness). And when He had had to remove him (a reminder that not all had been sweet and light) He had ‘raised up David’ to be their king, to whom He had borne witness that He had found a man after His own heart, who would do all His will. Thus as all present would know David was the climax, the ultimate, of these earthly rulers and kings, yet, as they also knew, there was a greater to come. He pointed ahead to a greater David Who was to be expected, another to Whom God would bear witness, another Who would be after God’s own heart and would do all His will. His purpose in the end was provide for them an everlasting King (2Sa 7:13; 2Sa 7:16; Isa 9:6-7; Isa 11:1-11; Isa 32:1-3; Isa 55:3-5; Eze 37:24-28; Zec 9:9).
‘For the space of forty years.’ This period is not mentioned with respect to Saul in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, but it is found in Josephus and was therefore clearly a part of the Jewish tradition with respect to him. We must remember that ‘forty years, was to them a round number indicating a fairly lengthy period, a mature period, a satisfactorily complete period. (The patriarchs had tended to marry at ‘forty’, that is, at maturity – Gen 25:20; Gen 26:34). In Judges it was the regular period of ‘freedom’ (‘the land had rest forty years’ – Jdg 3:11; Jdg 5:31; Jdg 8:28, contrast Act 13:1). In seeming contrast the Hebrew text of the Old testament says of Saul that he reigned for ‘two years’. But that also was an example of the ancient use of numbers and is probably actually to be seen as agreeing with the significance of the ‘forty years’ here, indicating a reign which went beyond youth into middle age. ‘Three years’ at that stage would have indicated that he reigned into old age.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul’s Message – Part 2. Through A Series of Rulers God Has Raised Up Great David’s Greater Son Who Died and Was Raised Again (13:20-37).
In this section of his speech the emphasis is on God’ provision of deliverers, leading up eventually to his ideal king, who is the pattern of the One Who has now come. As in the first section in the midst of the progress there is a quiet hint of the people’s failure. They asked for a king, He gave them one. But when he finally proved unsuitable He removed him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 13:20. And after that, &c. And after these things, which lasted about four hundred and fifty years, he gave them judges, until Samuel the prophet. Mill in Loc. Carpzov. Introd. part 1: p. 186, &c. According to this, the apostle begins his computation from the birth of Isaac, when Canaan was promised to Abraham and his seed, and carries it down to their getting possession of that land, and its being divided unto them by lot, which was about four hundred and fifty years; so that, according to this interpretation, the time in which the judges reigned in Israel is not hence determined. There are, however, chronologists who settle the matter satisfactorily enough, according to our version. Sir John Marsham, and others after him, have conjectured, that the judges in Israel did not reign over the whole nation one after another, but sometimes more than one reigned at the same time in different parts of the land. However, the reigns of the several judges, when added together, amount exactly to four hundred and fifty years; and it is likely that was the common computation of the Jews in St. Paul’s days, from which the apostle had no particular occasion to vary. Dr. Whitby also has the authority of many great names, ancient and modern, to justify him in following the chronology of Josephus, who places the building of the temple in the five hundred and ninety-second year after Israel’s going out of Egypt; which would admit of allowing three hundred and thirty-nine years for the administration of the judges, and one hundred and eleven for the years of the several tyrannical oppressions; in all four hundred and fifty years; reserving forty for Samuel and Saul together, forty for David, and four for Solomon, in whose fifth year the temple was begun; and the coincidence of the numbers in the book of Judges is remarkable, as illustrated by Dr. Lightfoot on the place, and Biscoe in his Boyle’s Lectures, p. 666. See Lampe’s Compendium of Eccles. Hist. lib. 1: cap. 5. Benson, L’Enfant, Whitby, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 13:20 . And afterwards after this division of the land among the Israelites
He gave them, during about 450 years, judges ( , theocratic dictators, national heroes administering law and justice; see Ngelsbach in Herzog’s Encykl. XIII. p. 23 ff.; Bertheau, Komment.), until Samuel. The dative . is dative of the time, during which something happens (comp. Act 8:11 ). Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 3. 5 : . Joh 2:20 ; Rom 14:2-5 ; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 274]. As Paul here makes the judges to follow after the division of the land, it is evident that he overleaps the time which Joshua yet lived after the division of the land, or rather includes it in the , which in so summary a statement is the less strange, as Joshua was actually occupied until his death with the consolidation of the new arrangement of the land, Jos 24:1-28 . But the 450 years are in contradiction with 1Ki 6:1 , where the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, the year of the building of the temple, is placed 480 (LXX.: 440) years after the Exodus from Egypt, which leaves only about 300 years for the period of the judges. But, on the other hand, the chronology of Josephus, who in Antt. viii. 3. 1, comp. x. 8. 5, reckons 592 years from the Exodus out of Egypt to the building of the temple, agrees with Paul in our passage. [11] If, namely, we reckon: (1) 40 years as the period of sojourn in the desert; (2) 25 years as the period of Joshua’s rule (Joseph. Antt. v. 1. 29); (3) 450 years as the duration of the judges, to Samuel inclusive (according to our passage); (4) 40 years as the reign of Saul (see on Act 13:21 ); (5) 40 years as the reign of David (1Ki 2:11 ); (6) the first four years of Solomon’s reign, there results from the Exodus out of Egypt to the building of the temple 599 years , with which there remains a difference between Paul and Josephus, which is fully covered by in the text. Accordingly, it appears as the correct view that Paul here follows the chronology entirely different from 1Ki 6:1 , which is also followed by Josephus . [12] This chronology arises from summing up all the numbers mentioned in the Book of Judges (Jdg 3:8 ; Jdg 3:11 ; Jdg 3:14 ; Jdg 3:30 , Jdg 4:3 , Jdg 5:31 , Jdg 6:1 , Jdg 8:28 , Jdg 9:22 , Jdg 10:2-3 ; Act 10:8 , Act 12:7 ; Act 12:9-10 ; Act 12:14 , Act 13:1 , Act 15:20 , 410 years), and adding 40 years for Eli; by which, however, a total much too high results, as synchronistic statements are included in the reckoning. All attempts at reconciling our passage with 1Ki 6:1 bear the impress of arbitrariness and violence namely: (1) that of Perizonius ( Orig. Aeg. p. 321) and others, that in 1Ki 6:1 the years are not reckoned, in which the Israelites in the time of the judges were oppressed by heathen nations, with which view Wolf agrees; comp. also Keil in the Drpt. Beitr. II. p. 311. (2) Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Mill, and others supply after , post haec, quae spatio 450 annorum gesta sunt , so that the terminus a quo is the birth of Isaac, in whom God chose the fathers; from thence to the birth of Jacob are 60 years, from the birth of Jacob to the entrance into Egypt are 130 years, after which the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years, and then from the Exodus to the division of Canaan 47 years elapsed, making in all 447 years, accordingly, about 450 years. With the reading of Lachmann, also, we must count in accordance with this computation. Comp. Beza. (3) Others have had recourse to critical violence. They suppose either (Luther and Beza) that in this passage is to be read ( for ), or (Vitringa and Heinrichs) that . . . is an addition of a marginal annotator, who (Heinrichs) reckoned thus from the birth of Isaac; or , at least (Voss, Michaelis, Kuinoel), that 1Ki 6:1 is corrupt; in which case, however, Kuinoel grants that Paul follows a Jewish chronology of his time.
] i.e. until the end of the series of judges, which had commenced with Othniel and closed with Samuel, after which Saul’s reign began. See Act 13:21 .
[11] In Antt. xx. 10, c. Ap. ii. 2, he reckons 612 years for the same period, this 20 years more, which comes still nearer to the statement of time in our passage; see below.
[12] That, nevertheless, the reckoning of 480 years in 1Ki 6 is not on account of our passage to be wholly rejected; and how far, on the contrary, it is to be considered as correct, may be seen in Bertheau on Judges , Introd. p. xvi. ff.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
20 And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
Ver. 20. About the space, &c. ] It was not all out so long; therefore he saith, “about the space,” ; thereby teaching us in doubtful things to deliver ourselves doubtfully, and not to be overconfident. See Joh 4:6 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
20 .] Treating the reading of [64] [65] [66] [67] (see var. readd.) as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of our verse, and taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them, than that the time of the judges lasted 450 years. The dative (see ch. Act 8:11 ) implies the duration of the period between (the division of the land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive. And we have exactly the same chronological arrangement in Josephus; who reckons (Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s temple, arranging the period thus: (1) forty years in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years under Joshua ( . , Antt. v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty years under Saul, see on Act 13:21 ; (5) forty years under David, 1Ki 2:11 ; (6) four years of Solomon’s own reign. This gives 592 149 = 443 years (about, , 450) for the Judges, including Samuel. That this chronology differs widely from 1Ki 6:1 , is most evident, where we read that Solomon began his temple in the four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four hundred and fortieth) year after the Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the two are arbitrary and forced. I subjoin the principal. (1) Perizonius and others assume that the years during which the Israelites were subject to foreign tyrants in the time of the Judges are not reckoned in 1Ki 6:1 , and attempt, by adding them, to make out the period in direct contradiction to the account there, which is, not that the Judges lasted a certain number of years, but that Solomon began to build his temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &c. supply after , and construe, these things ‘which happened in the space of 450 years,’ viz. from the birth of Isaac to the division of the land. But why the birth of Isaac ? The words too will not bear this construction. (3) Olshausen conceives the 450 years may include all from the Exodus, as far as the building of the temple. But to this the objection which he himself mentions is fatal, viz. that and must beyond dispute give the termini a quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others suppose various corruptions, here or at 1Ki 6:1 , and by arbitrary conjecture emend so as to produce accordance.
[64] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[65] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[66] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments 2 . It seems to have come to France with Catherine de’ Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de’ Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C 3 ) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople 3 . But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text, holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century . Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C 2 , C 3 .
[67] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
It seems then that Paul followed a chronology current among the Jews, and agreeing with the book of Judges itself (the spaces of time in which, added together = exactly 450), and that adopted by Josephus, but not with that of our present Hebrew text of 1Ki 6:1 . The objection to this view, that Josephus is not consistent with himself (Olsh.), but in Antt. xx. 10. 1, contra Apion. ii. 2 gives another chronology, has arisen from not observing that in the latter places, where he states 612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus to Solomon’s temple, he reckons in the twenty years occupied in building the temple and the king’s house, 1Ki 6:38 ; 1Ki 7:1 . His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1, , , , . To reckon in the thirteen years during which he was building his own house may be an inaccuracy , but there is no inconsistency .
Wordsworth, contrary to his usual practice, takes refuge in the amended text of [68] [69] [70] , and then characterizes in the severest language those who have had the moral courage to abide by the more difficult reading, charging them with “arbitrary caprice,” “gratifying a sceptical appetite,” &c. I cite this as an example of that elastic criticism, which by any means within reach, and at any price, smooths away every difficulty from the sacred text.
[68] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[69] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[70] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments 2 . It seems to have come to France with Catherine de’ Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de’ Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C 3 ) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople 3 . But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text, holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century . Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C 2 , C 3 .
] mentioned as the terminus of the period of the Judges, also as having been so nearly concerned in the setting up over them of Saul and David.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 13:20 . If we follow the best attested reading, see critical notes, we may connect the dative of time , cf. Act 8:11 , closely with the preceding words as signifying the period within which an event is accomplished. The was already assured to the fathers as God’s chosen, Act 7:5 , and the four hundred years of the people’s sojourn in a strange land, Act 7:6 , Gen 15:13 , forty years in the wilderness, and some ten years for the actual conquest of the land made up the four hundred and fifty years (so Weiss, Felten, see Wendt, in loco ). If reading in T.R. is accepted (strongly defended by Farrar, St. Paul , i., p. 370), although it is at variance with 1Ki 6:1 , according to which Solomon began his Temple in the 480th (LXX 440th) year after the Exodus, we have merely to suppose that the Apostle followed the popular chronology adopted by Josephus, Ant. , viii., 3, 1; x., 8, 5, especially when we remember that speaking in round numbers ( ) that chronology tallies very fairly with that of the Book of Judges. See Meyer-Wendt, Alford, and cf. also the almost similar reckoning in Wetstein, and Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden , pp. 30, 31. Another explanation is given by Rendall, in loco , where is taken as marking not duration of time (which would require the accusative), but the limit of time within which, etc.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
that = these things.
the space of. Omit.
four hundred and fifty years. See App-50and App-86.
until. Greek. heos, i.e. the end of Samuel’s ministry.
Samuel. See note on Act 3:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
20.] Treating the reading of [64] [65] [66] [67] (see var. readd.) as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of our verse, and taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them, than that the time of the judges lasted 450 years. The dative (see ch. Act 8:11) implies the duration of the period between (the division of the land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive. And we have exactly the same chronological arrangement in Josephus; who reckons (Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomons temple,-arranging the period thus: (1) forty years in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years under Joshua ( . , Antt. v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty years under Saul, see on Act 13:21 ; (5) forty years under David, 1Ki 2:11; (6) four years of Solomons own reign. This gives 592-149 = 443 years (about, , 450) for the Judges, including Samuel. That this chronology differs widely from 1Ki 6:1, is most evident,-where we read that Solomon began his temple in the four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four hundred and fortieth) year after the Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the two are arbitrary and forced. I subjoin the principal. (1) Perizonius and others assume that the years during which the Israelites were subject to foreign tyrants in the time of the Judges are not reckoned in 1Ki 6:1, and attempt, by adding them, to make out the period-in direct contradiction to the account there, which is, not that the Judges lasted a certain number of years, but that Solomon began to build his temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &c. supply after , and construe, these things which happened in the space of 450 years, viz. from the birth of Isaac to the division of the land. But why the birth of Isaac? The words too will not bear this construction. (3) Olshausen conceives the 450 years may include all from the Exodus, as far as the building of the temple. But to this the objection which he himself mentions is fatal, viz. that and must beyond dispute give the termini a quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others suppose various corruptions, here or at 1Ki 6:1, and by arbitrary conjecture emend so as to produce accordance.
[64] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[65] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[66] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments2. It seems to have come to France with Catherine de Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C3) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople3. But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text,-holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century. Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C2, C3.
[67] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
It seems then that Paul followed a chronology current among the Jews, and agreeing with the book of Judges itself (the spaces of time in which, added together = exactly 450), and that adopted by Josephus, but not with that of our present Hebrew text of 1Ki 6:1. The objection to this view, that Josephus is not consistent with himself (Olsh.),-but in Antt. xx. 10. 1, contra Apion. ii. 2 gives another chronology, has arisen from not observing that in the latter places, where he states 612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus to Solomons temple, he reckons in the twenty years occupied in building the temple and the kings house, 1Ki 6:38; 1Ki 7:1. His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1, , , , . To reckon in the thirteen years during which he was building his own house may be an inaccuracy, but there is no inconsistency.
Wordsworth, contrary to his usual practice, takes refuge in the amended text of [68] [69] [70], and then characterizes in the severest language those who have had the moral courage to abide by the more difficult reading, charging them with arbitrary caprice, gratifying a sceptical appetite, &c. I cite this as an example of that elastic criticism, which by any means within reach, and at any price, smooths away every difficulty from the sacred text.
[68] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[69] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[70] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments2. It seems to have come to France with Catherine de Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C3) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople3. But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text,-holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century. Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C2, C3.
] mentioned as the terminus of the period of the Judges, also as having been so nearly concerned in the setting up over them of Saul and David.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 13:20. , after these things) these things mentioned Act 13:17-19.-, He gave) It was an act of kindness to them.-, Judges) The times of the Judges were especially glorious (prosperous), nor did their servitudes occupy a great part of those times: therefore Paul draws his mention of the Judges from that Haphtara (Lesson read on that Sabbath): Isa 1:26, I will restore thy judges as at the first.- , the prophet) Before Samuel, prophets were rare; afterwards, very numerous.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
he gave: Jdg 2:16, Jdg 3:10, Rth 1:1, 1Sa 12:11, 2Sa 7:11, 2Ki 23:22, 1Ch 17:6
until: 1Sa 3:20
Reciprocal: 1Sa 7:15 – judged Act 3:24 – Samuel Heb 4:7 – after Heb 11:32 – Samuel
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Act 13:20. This is the only passage that states the entire period of the judges. Until Samuel is said because he was the last one of the judges (1Sa 7:15).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 13:20. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years. According to the received text, it would seem that the period during which the judges ruled in Israel was four hundred and fifty years; and this seems to agree with the chronology of the Book of Judges and the date given by Josephus, but it varies from the statement given in 1Ki 6:1. These questions of obscure dates, especially in a period so confused as the times of the judges, are of little or no importance. In the present instance, however, the apparent discrepancy is done away with by the discovery of what is evidently the true reading. In the majority of the oldest Greek Mss., the words, about the space of four hundred and fifty years, precede the words, and after that he gave them judges. The passage, then, runs thus: He divided their land to them by lot (or better rendered, He gave them their land for a possession) for about four hundred and fifty years, and after that he gave them judges until Samuel. The only remaining question is, when did the four hundred and fifty years commence? The birth of Isaac, on the whole, seems to be the period when God chose their fathers for the possession of the land.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes one verse 17
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 20
Four hundred and fifty years. This does not agree with the chronological statements of the Old Testament, as the numbers stand in modern copies. (1 Kings 6:1.) Various conjectures have been offered to account for the discrepancy.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
13:20 And after that he gave [unto them] judges about the space of {l} four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
(l) There were from the birth of Isaac until the destruction of the Canaanites under the governance of Joshua four hundred and forty-seven years, and therefore he adds in this place the word “about”, for three years are missing; the apostle, however, uses the whole greater number.