38-33:
ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον.
415
32. ἄλλοι μὲν οὖν ἄλλο τι ἔκραζον: ἦν γὰρ
ε, / , ΔΝ c , > 34 / a ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυµένη, καὶ οἱ πλείους οὐκ ἤδεισαν Tivos ἕνεκεν
συνεληλύθεισαν.
33. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὄχλου 1 προεβίβασαν ᾿Αλέξανδρον,
προβαλόντων αὐτὸν τῶν Ιουδαίων: 6 δὲ ᾿Αλέξανδρος, κατασείσας
‘Instead of προεβιβασαν ΝΜΑΕΒΕ, Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, R.V. read συνεβιβασαν, whilst D?HLP, Chrys. have προεβ. (so T.R.). προεβ. adds nothing
to προβαλλοντων and the difficulty of συνεβ. might easily lead to change.
D * reads
κατεβιβασαν, so Blass in both texts, cf. Hilgenfeld, Zw. Th., pp. 364, 366, 1896,
and note in comment.
Ver. 31. ᾿Ασιαρχῶν: ‘‘ thechief officers of Asia,” R.V., cf. Γαλατάρχης, Βιθυ- νιάρχης, Συριάρχης, etc.; Mommsen, Rom. Gesch., ν., 318 (Knabenbauer), officers, {.6., of the province of Asia, and so provincial, not merely municipal officers. Each province united in an association for the worship of Rome and the Empire, hence Κοινὸν Ασίας, of which the Asiarchs would probably be the high priests. But in addition to their religious office the Asiarchs were called upon to provide games, partly if not solely at their own expense, and to preside overthem. These festivals were called Kowa “Actas ἐν Σμύρνῃ, Λαοδικείᾳ, κ.τ.λ. It is doubtful whether the office was annual, or whether it was held for four years; but as an Asiarch still retained his title after his term of office had expired, there may evidently have been in Ephesus several Asiarchs, although only one was actually performing his duties (cf. the title ap- χιερεῖς amongst the Jews, iv. 6, 23). If there were a sort of Council of Asiarchs, this Council may well have assembled when the Kowa ᾿Ασίας were being held, and this might have been the case at Ephesus in the narrative before us; such a festival would have brought together a vast crowd of pilgrims and worshippers actuated with zeal for the goddess, and teady to side with Demetrius and his followers. The title was one of great dignity and repute, as is evident from inscriptions which commemorate in various cities the names of those who had held the office. Whether the Asiarchs were in any sense high priests has been disputed, but see Polycarp, Mart., ef. xii. 2 and xxi.; on the whole subject “ Asiarch ” (Ramsay), Hastings’ B.D. and B.D.?; St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, ii., p. 987, Lightfoot ; Renan, Saint Paul, Ρ, 353; Wendt, p. 318; O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 102.—didor: not only does the notice show that St. Paul had gained at least the toleration of some of the leading men of the province,
Gig., Vulg., ‘‘ detraxerunt”’.
but that the attitude of the imperial authorities was not unfriendly. We cannot of course suppose with Zimmer- mann that the Asiarchs were friendly because the Apostle had been less op- posed to the imperial culius than to that of Diana, and that so far the Asiarchs stood with him on common ground, See Ramsay, Church in the Roman Em- pire, on the probable attitude of the priests, and cf. chap, xiv.—8otvat ἑαυτὸν: only here in N.T., cf. Polyb., v., 14, 9, the expression involves the thought of danger, so in A. and Κ.Υ. f
Ver. 32. ἄλλοι μὲν οὖν: μὲν οὖν pro- bably as often in Acts without any op- position expressed, but see Rendall, Afp., p. 162; the antithesis may be in δέ of νετ. 33.—éxpafov: ‘kept on crying,” imperfect.—éx«Anota, see below on νετ. 39; here of an unlawful tumultuous as- sembly.—ovyxex., see above ver. 29.— οἱ πλείους: “‘sensu vere comparativo” Blass = major pars.
Ver. 33. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ 6., sc., τινές, cf. xxi. 16. If we read συνεβίβασαν (see critical note), and render “ instructed Alexander,” R.V., margin; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 16, and often in LXX, it seems to mean that the Jews instructed Alexander, a fellow-Jew, to come forward and dis- sociate himself and them from any coali- tion with Paul and his companions against the Diana worship (ἀπολογεῖσ- θαι). Erasmus takes the word to mean that the Jews had instructed him before- hand as their advocate. συμβιβάζω in Col. ii. 19, Ephes. iv. 16 = to join to- gether, to knit together, in Acts xvi. 10, to consider, to conclude, so Weiss thinks here that it = concluded that Alexander was the reason why they had come to- gether ; but the sentence and the context does not seem to bear out this rendering. Meyer retains T.R., and holds that Alex- ander was a Jewish Christian who was put forward by the Jews maliciously, hoping that he might be sacrificed to the popular tumult — hence ἀπολογεῖσθαι.