Ἑρμῆν, ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ἦν 6 ἡγούμενος τοῦ Adyou.!
397 13. 6 δὲ ἱερεὺς
τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως” αὐτῶν, ταύρους καὶ στέµµατα
1 Flor. om. επειδη αντος ... του λ., and Blass brackets, comparing xvii. 18, xviii. 3,
where some Western authorities omit explanatory clause.
clause, S¢. Paul, p. 117, but Hilg. retains.
Ramsay also rejects It is quite possible that in these cases the
Western reading may be original, and the explanation may have been added later.
3 D reads του οντος Atos προ πολεως (Blass accepts, so Hilg., adding της before πολ.), and D, Gig. read ot tepets, so Hilg. (Blass rejects), so D reads επιθυειν, so
Hilg. (not Blass).
his rendering of επιθνειν.
the Galatians: ‘‘Ye received me as a messenger of God,” Ramsay, St. Paul, p- 127.
Ver. 13. 6 δὲ ἱερεὺς. Plural in D; strongly rejected by Blass, with other details. Ramsay defends D (p. 118),
and points out that at each of the
great temples in Asia Minor a college of priests would be in regular service: see also Church in the Roman Empire, Pp. 52, 53.--τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς π. αὐτῶν, see critical notes. R.V., omitting αὐτῶν, renders ‘whose temple was before the city,” t.e., enshrined in the temple outside the gate as the pro- tecting deity. Zdockler, with Ramsay, compares ‘ Zets Mpodorios” on an in- scription at Claudiopolis, cf. also παρὰ Avi (=ad fanum Jovis), wap’ “Hpy, and modern, the name of a church in Rome, “98, Paolo fuori le mura” (see also Holtz- mann and Wendt). Here again the read- ing of D seems to bring out the technical force of the phrase more accurately, τοῦ ὄντος Δ. πρὸ πόλεως (so Blass in possibly = Προπόλεως (cf. an unpublished inscription of Smyrna with the phrase ἱέρια πρὸ πόλεως or Προπόλεως). In this phrase, as read in D, the force of the participle is retained in a way character- istic of Acts,as almost = Tov ὀνομαζομένου: see on xiii. 1, a characteristic lost by the transposition of ὄντος; see on the whole question Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 51 Π., and also on the possible site ofthe temple. The words cannot refer to the statue of Jupiter (so lately Rendall), to which no priests would be attached. See Blass in Studien u. Kritiken, 1900, p. 27,N. l.—Tavpovs καὶ στέµµατα: brought by the ministri who would be included in the generic term priests. On the sacrifice oi a bull to Jupiter, Ovid, Met., iv., 755, as also to Mercury, Persius, Sat., i1., 44, On the garlands to wreathe and adorn the victims, 4ineid, ν., 366; Eur., Heracl., 529, perhaps also for the priests and the
_
Ramsay, C. R. Ε., Ρ. 51, and St. Paul, p. 118, defends all these readings as indications of local accuracy; see notes.
Perhaps he forces too much
altars, the doors, and the attendants; see instances in Wetstein, and cf. Tertullian, De Corona, x. The words do not refer to the Apostles; the aim seems to be in- dicated in ἤθελε θύειν.---ἐπὶ τοὺς πυλῶ- vas: some see areference to the gates of the city, mainly because of the collocation τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς M. Blass supposes that the priest came from the temple out- side to the city gates, but in that case Ramsay urges that Lucan usage would =mvAn rather than πυλών, cf. ix. 24, xvi. 13, Others take it of the gates of the temple in front of which the altar stood, cf. οἱ μὲν ἱεροὶ τοῦ vem πυλῶνες, Plut., Tim., xii. Ramsaysuggests that the priests probably prepared their sacrifices at the outer gateway of the temple grounds, as something beyond the usual ritual, and so not to be performed at one of the usual places, cf. ἐπιθύειν D; St. Paul, p. 110, Others again refer the words to the gates leading into the atrium or courtyard of the house in which the Apostles were lodging, partly on the ground that the word ἐξεπήδησαν is best referred to the house (cf. Judith xiv. 17, and Susannah, ver. 39). But the verb may mean that they ran hastily out of the city to the temple, and there mingled with the crowd: in 2 Macc. iii. 18 the same verb is used of a general rush of the people to the temple for supplication to heaven.—7Oede θύειν: What was his motive? Was he acting in good faith, or out of complaisant regard to the wishes of the multitude (Ewald), or for the sake of gain? On the attitude of the native priests see Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 144. In the present instance it would appear that they had known of the Apostles’ preaching for some time at all events, and also, it may be, of its success, cf. D., xiv. 7, critical notes, and apparently they were willing to honour the Apostles with divine honours, and to turn the religious revival to their own ends.