19. ἐπιλαβόμενοί τε αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸν “Aperov! πάγον ἤγαγον λέγοντες,
Δυνάμεθα γνῶναι, τίς ἡ Kawh αὕτη ἡ
ὑπὸ σοῦ λαλουμένη διδαχή,
1 Τη SADE, Sah., Boh. we have Αριον, but Αρειον in BHP, Weiss, W.H.., Blass, Hilg. η after αντη omitted in BD, Lach. [W.H.], Blass, Hilg., but retained in
R.V. and by Weiss.
deities, Jesus and Resurrection (the latter as a female deity ᾿Ανάστασις), just as they had their own altars erected to Pity, Piety, Modesty, a view which gains support not only from the collocation of the words, but from the use of the article \vith both, and from the supposition that Paul was held to be a preacher of more than one strange God; so Chrys., Oecum., Selden, and list given by Wendt (7888), in loco. Wendt also (1899) inclines to this view, which is adopted by Renan, Overbeck, Holtzmann, Felten, McGiffert, Knabenbauer, cf. also the punctuation in R.V., which may imply this view (see Humphry on R.V., in loco). As against this view see Hackett’s note, p. 213, who thinks it hardly conceivable that the Apostle could express himself so obscurely on the subject as to afford any occasion for this gross mistake (so also Farrar). The article before ἀνάσ. is taken by Noésgen as referring simply to the general resurrection, a view which he regards as agreeing with the prominence given to the doctrine in ver. 31. It is argued that if ἀνάσ. referred to the resurrection of Jesus we should have αὐτοῦ which has crept into some copies, but the ad- dress itself shows that the Apostle spoke of the resurrection of Jesus as affording a pledge of a general resurrection. Ver. 19. ἐπιλαβ.: as to whether we regard this as done with hostile intent, or not, will depend upon the view taken of the meaning of the Areopagus. If the latter means “the Hill of Mars,” to which the Apostle was taken for a quiet hearing and for unimportant discussion, then the former is clearly inadmissible ; if, however, the Areopagus meant the Council of Areopagus, then that action would seem to have been indicative at least of malice and dislike. The verb in the N.T. is used only in the middle, with accusative or genitive, and most fre- quently by St. Luke, five times in his Gospel, seven times in Acts, twice by St. Paul, only once by St. Matthew and by St. Mark. In each case it can be deter- mined by the context whether it is used in a favourable or unfavourable sense. So too in LXX (always with genitive), where it is frequently used, the context
alone decides. Certainly ix. 27 presents. a close verbal parallel in language, as the participle ἐπιλ. is followed as here by ἤγαγον (Weiss), but the context there ex- presses beyond all doubt a friendly action. Grotius (so Weiss, Wendt, Felten, Zéck- ler, Bethge) attributes friendliness to the action here, and renders ‘‘ manu leniter prehensum,” so too F. C. Conybeare, ‘** Areopagus,’’ Hastings’ B.D., renders it ‘took Paul by the hand,”’ but in three of the four parallels to which he refers χείρ is expressed, and for the fourth see above. But the view taken ofthe following words will help us to decide, Ramsay, δέ. Paul, p- 245, and Expositor, September, 1895, pp- 216, 217.---ἐπὶ τὸν” Α. πάγον, Curtius, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ii., p. 528, note, and Ramsay, Expositor, u. s., p. 217, point out that ἐπί with accusative would be the correct expression for taking any one before an official court, cf. ix. 21, XVi. 19, xvii. 6, xviii. 12—a regular Lucan preposition in this sense—cf. also Herod., iii., 46, 156: vili., 79. But it does not therefore follow that a regular trial was instituted, as Chrys., Theophylact and others have held, since there is nothing in the context to indicate this. But the form of expression certainly does seem to indicate that Paul was taken not fo the Hill of Mars, as is generally held, but be- fore a court or council. And there is substantial evidence for believing that the term Areopagus (as Blass admits) was not mierely local, but that it was sometimes used as=the Council or Court of Areopagus, cf. Cicero, Ad Atzt:- cum, i., 14,5; De Nat. Deorum, ii., 29 ; Rep., Ἱ., 27. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that the council, al- though’ deriving its name from the hill, did not always meet on the hill, and also that it had the power of taking official action in questions bearing upon public teaching in the city (cf. Renan, Saint Paul; pp. 193, 194, and authorities cited). It is therefore not an improbable inference that Paul would be brought before such a court for inquiry into his teaching; be- yond this inference perhaps we cannot go; even to call the inquiry a προδι- κασία (so Curtius) may be to apply a technical term unwarranted by the con-