Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Parthians ... In this and the two following verses we have probably the historian's own filling up of the question of the astonished multitude. For it will be observed that the different nationalities, whose tongues were spoken by those rude Galileans, are enumerated in a certain winding geographical order. Beginning with the Parthians, furthest to the northeast, once the most powerful nation of the East, the list passes to the
Medes - westward of them; from them it goes to the
Elamites - here meaning the Persians; after them we have the
Dwellers in Mesopotamia - lying (as its name imports) between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The next class has occasioned some difficulty: and in Judea. Since none could be "amazed" at the language of Judea being spoken in Judea itself, and the geographical connection between Judea and the countries mentioned immediately before and after it is not very close, some would read 'in Idumaea, or 'Lydia,' or 'India.' But as "Judea" is the reading of all the manuscripts and versions, conjecture must not be allowed to disturb it. Bengel's and Meyer's idea, that the Jewish dialect is here referred to as something foreign to these Galileans, is evidently a poor explanation. Olshausen's is at least better-that the historian writing from Rome, had in view the position of his Roman readers, to whom the omission of the tongue of Judea itself would have been unaccountable, since it was his object to show how many different languages were spoken by these unlearned Galileans.
And Cappadocia, in Pontus. Having in his way south come to Judea, the historian in his list now rises to "Cappadocia," in Asia Minor, and further north to "Pontus," though southeast of the Black Sea.
And Asia - meaning Proconsular or Roman Asia, that small strip of Asia Minor whose western shore is washed by the AEgean Sea, and nearly corresponding to Ionia, whose capital was Ephesus.