Ver. 12. ἐκεῖθέν τε εἰς Φ.: on or near the site of Krenides (Wells or Fountains), so called from its founder Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. Near Philippi, Octavius and Anthony had decisively defeated Brutus and Cassius,
344
émovon εἰς] Νεάπολιν, 12. ἐκεῖθέν τε εἲς Φιλίήπους, ἥτις ἐστὶ πρώτη ” τῆς µερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις κολωνία.
μεν δὲ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πόλει διατρίβοντες ἡμέρας τινάς, 13. TH τε ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων ἐξήλθομεν ew τῆς ὃ πόλεως παρὰ ποταµόν, οὗ ἐνομίζετο προσευχὴ εἶναι, καὶ καθίσαντες ἐλαλοῦμεν ταῖς συνελθούσαις
1 Νεαπολιν, but Νεαν Πολιν ΑΒΓΑ, so Tisch., W.H., Blass, R.V., Weiss; see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 37; D 137, Syr. Harcl. mg. prefix ry δε επανριον, so Blass and Hilg. If this is a revision, it is a further proof of the oft-recurring fact that the Western reviser takes nothing for granted.
ἔπρωτη THS µεριδος της M. πολις κολωνια; OM. της before M. HACE 31, 40, 61, 180, Tisch., W.H., R.V., but retained in BDHLP, so by Weiss; B has the article before M. instead of before µεριδος. ΝΑΟ read πρωτη της µεριδος Μακεδονιας π. κ.; B has πρωτη µεριδος της Μακ.; D has κεφαλη της Μακ. (so Hilg.). Blass in B (so Prov.) (see p. xx.) inserts πρωτης µεριδος της Mak. and rejects κεφαλη, which is read in D and Syr.-Pesh., Lat. caput, while µεριδος is omitted by D 137, Syr. Pesh. and Harcl.; see W.H., ΑΡΡ., for Hort’s conjecture, Πιεριδος; Lightfoot, Phil., p. 50; Wendt, 1888 and 1899; and Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 10ο, and C. R. E., p. 156; see additional note at end of chapter.
3 qrodkews, but πνλης SNABCD 13, 40, 61, Vulg., Sah., Boh., W.H., R.V., Weiss, so Blass and Hilg.; πολ. may have been a marginal expl. of πυλης (see Alford and Wendt). evopilero προσευχη ειναι, 5ο EHLP, Amm., Chrys., Theophyl., but Ramsay and Wendt both follow T.R.—Tisch., W.H., Weiss, R.V. prefer ενομιζοµεν προσευχην, following ΝΟ 13, 40, 61, Boh., Aethro. (δὴ ενοµιζεν)---ΑΒ have evo-
μιζομεν προσενχη, but this may testify to the originality of the nom., so D εδοκει
προσευχη (Blass in B, so Hilg.); cf. Vulg., ‘‘videbatur oratio”’. conjectures ov ενοµιζον ev mpomevyn ειναι.
; In α text Blass Weiss maintains that in AB tbe vy
in προσευχην has dropped out, and regards XC as unquestionably correct.
and to that event it owed the honour of being made a Roman colony with the jus Italicum (R.V., ‘‘a Roman colony”’), or in other words, ‘‘a miniature likeness of the great Roman people,” cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 51. Hence both in St. Luke’s account of the place, and in St. Paul’s Epistle we are constantly face to face with the political life of Rome, with the power and pride of Roman citizen- ship. But its geographical position really invested Philippi with its chief import- ance, thoroughfare as it was on the great Egnatian Way for the two continents of Europe and Asia. At Philippi we are standing at the confluence of the stream of Europe and Asiatic life; we see re- flected in the evangelisation of Philippi as in a mirror the history of the passage’ of Christianity from the East to the West, Lightfoot, Phil., p. 49; Renan, St. Paul, p. 140; McGiffert, Apostolic Christianity, p. 239; Speaker’s Com- mentary, vol. iii., 580; C. and H., p. 202 Π.-- πρώτη τῆςμερίδος, see Additional note. — κολωνία: ““α Roman colony,” R.V., there were many Greek colonies, ἀποικία or ἐποικία, but κολ. denoted a Roman colony, i.e., a colony enjoying
the jus Italicum like Philippi at this time, governed by Roman law, and on the model of Rome; see ‘‘Colony”’ in B.D.? and Hastings’ Β.Ὀ.--ἦμεν . .. διατρ., see above on i. 10; characteristic Lucan construction.
Ver. 13. πόλεως, see critical notes, and C. and H., p. 226, note.—apa ποταµόν: “by a river side,” A. and R.V., see critical notes; here Ramsay sees in the omission of the article a touch of local familiarity and renders “by the river side”. On the other hand Weiss holds that the absence of the article merely denotes that they supposed they should find a place of prayer, since a river provided the means for the neces- sary purifications.—ot ἐνομ. προσευχὴ εἶναι, see critical notes: “‘where there was wont to be held a meeting for prayer’? (Ramsay); on the nominative see above. A further difficulty lies in the word ἐνομίζετο. Can it bear the above rendering? Rendall, p. 103, thinks that it hardly admits of it; on the other hand Wendt and Grimm compare 2 Macc. xiv. 4, and see instances of the use of the passive voice in L. and S., Herod., vi., 138 Thuc., iv., 32. Wendt renders