Ver. 32. οἱ μὲν ἐχλ. . . . οἱ δὲ: verb only here in N.T., implies outward ges- ture as well as words of scorn (χλεύη, χεῖλος, cf. µυκτηρίζω, μυκτήρ). We usually think of the οἱ pev as the Stoics, and the οἱ δέ as the Epicureans; ¢.g., Wetstein after describing the Epicureans adds οἱ 84=Stoici : cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii., 17, and Plutarch, De Or. Def., 32. But if the Epicureans ridiculed a resurrection and judgment to come, the Stoics also were separated by a wide gulf from the teaching of St. Paul. Even if it may be said that in general they approximated towards the doctrine of personal existence after death, some of their most famous representatives de- parted from it; Capes, Stoicism, p. 173; Wallace, Epicureanism, p. 121; Ueber- weg, Htst.iof, ΡΜ Τρι το. Ε.Τ.
380
~ c 7 σαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον : οἱ δὲ εἶπον, ᾿Ακουσό-
µεθά σου πάλιν περὶ τούτου.
Rendall, Marcus Antoninus, Introd., pp. 107, 108. ‘‘On one point alone were the professors of this school [Stoic] agreed ; an external existence of the human soul was out of the question,” Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 333. The idea of retri- bution beyond the grave would have been equally alien to the Stoic as to the Epicurean, and both Stoic and Epi- curean alike would have ridiculed the idea of a resurrection of the body. Zéckler, in loco, while referring the οἱ μέν without hesitation to the Epicureans, thinks that possibly Platonists rather than Stoics may be represented by the οἱ δέ. If St. Paul was addressing not only a philosophical but a popular audience, as we have seen reason to believe, it is quite possible that while the majority would laugh at his closing words, Juvenal, Sat., ii., 149, there may have been others who clung to the popular mythology and its crude concep- tions, and the Apostle’s prediction of a judgment to come may have sufficiently interested them to prompt a desire for further disclosures. —dxovodpe8a σου πάλιν (περὶ τούτον, R.V., neuter, we can hardly refer it to the αὐτόν of ver. 31). The words are often taken to imply a polite rejection of the Apostle’s appeal, a courteous refusal to hear anything further; or at all events to express a very cold interest in his announcement. But if we adopt the reading καὶ πάλιν (see critical note) ‘ yet again,” R.V., the words rather indicate that a real interest had been excited in some of the hearers (so Calvin, Grotius, Weiss, Alford) and that the marked and defined division of opinion was not merely a dramatic device of the author.
Ver. 33. οὕτως: may mean, with this scanty result, or simply, after these events, in this state of the popular mind, with an expectation of being heard again (Alford) ; ‘“‘ancipiti auditorum obsequio; nullo edito miraculo’ : Bengel. —é« µέσον αὐτῶν: at the opening Paul stood ἐν péow, ver. 22, τοῦ “A. π.: “the two expressions correspond to and explain each other, ... he that ‘went forth from the midst of them’ must have been standing ‘in the midst ot them’’’; cf. Ramsay, Exposttor, September, 1895, and for the bearing of the words see above on ver. 23. For similar phrase with µέσου as frequent in St. Luke’s writings, Fried- tich, p. 22. Ramsay thinks that some
33. καὶ οὕτως 6 Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ
danger is indicated, but nothing is said of this ; the words apparently refer to no trial, although, perhaps, to some kind of preliminary inquiry, see above, ver. 22. Ver. 34. τινὲς δὲ: may contrast the favourable with the unfavourable, or per- haps merely continuous.—xoAAnOévtes, see above on vy. 13, implies close com- panionship upon which their conversion followed, see additional note.—Atovic.os 6°A.: ‘quam doctrinam scurre rejece- runt, Areopagita vir gravis accipit”’. Dionysius was a member of the Council, the words can mean nothing less—it is evident, therefore, that this convert must have been a man of some distinction, as an Areopagite would previously have filled the office of Archon. On the honour attached to the term cf. Cicero, Pro Balbo, xii., and instances cited by Renan, Saint Paul, p. 209, note. It is not improbable that St. Luke may have received from him the draft of St. Paul’s address. On the other hand the con- version of a man occupying such a posi- tion has excited suspicion, and Baur, Paulus, i., 195, considers that the whole scene on the Areopagus is unhistorical, and owes its origin to the tradition that an Areopagite named Dionysius was converted. So Holtzmann holds that the whole scene was placed on the ος because, according to report, a member of the Areopagus was con- verted, Apostelgeschichte, p. 393, similarly Weizsacker. See further, ‘‘ Dionysius,” B.D.?, Hastings’ B.D., Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, i., p. 846; Felten, Apostelgeschichte, p. 337 and notes below.— Δάμαρις: perhaps Δάμαλις, a heifer, a name popular amongst the Greeks, so Grotius, Wet- stein, and Renan, Saint Paul, p. 209, note; seecritical note above. We know nothing certain about her, but Ramsay makes the interesting conjecture that as the woman is not described as εὐσχήμων (cf. the description of the women at Thessalonica, Bercea, and Pisidian Antioch, xiii. 50, xvii. 4, 12), she may have been a foreign woman (pethaps one of the educated Hetairai), as at Athens no woman of respectable position would have been present amongst St. Paul’s audience. St. Chrysostom (so St. Ambrose and Asterius) thought that she was the wife of Dionysius, but St. Luke calls her γυνή, not ἡ γυνή αὐτοῦ. No mention is made of her in D (but see above