Ver. 41. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: the word may imply, as Ramsay thinks, that the secretary thus recognised the meeting as an ἐκκλησία to shield it, as far as he could, from Roman censure. The atti- tude of the secretary is that of a man
420
XX. 1. ΜΕΤΑ δὲ τὸ παύσασθαι τὸν OdpuBov,! προσκαλεσάµενος &
Παῦλος τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος ἐξῆλθε πορευθῆναι εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν. 2. διελθὼν δὲ τὰ µέρη ἐκεῖνα, Kai? παρακαλέσας αὐτοὺς
1 For προσκαλ. SBE, Sah., Boh., Aethro., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Wendt, Weiss, Blass read µετακαλ.; Lach. follows Τ.Ε. according to ADHLP, Chrys. After και AB 13, 33, Boh. add παρακαλεσας (kat παρακ. και ασπασ. NE), Tisch., W.H.,
R.V., Wendt, Weiss; T.R., so Meyer, om. παρακαλ.
Μακεδ., so Blass in β.
D, Gig. read εξηλθεν εις
2 παρακαλ. χρησαµενος A. π., so D (and Blass in B) om. αντους.
altogether superior to, and almost con- temptuous of, the vulgar mob (cf. οὗτος in D, ver. 38), and there is no apparent desire on his part to deny Paul’s right to preach, provided that the Apostle re- spected the laws and institutions of the city.
On the historical character of the in- cidents narrated at Ephesus, the graphic description and the intimate knowledge of the life of the city, see Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 143, and the same writer ‘‘ Ephesus,” Hast- ings’ B.D. Every detail tends to confirm the faithfulness of the picture drawn of Ephesian society A.D. 57 (¢f. Knaben- bauer, p. 340). Wendt also is so im- pressed with the vividness of the scene as it is narrated, that he considers that we are justified in referring the narrative to a source which we owe to an actual companion of St. Paul, and in regarding it as an historical episode, and he refers in justification to Lightfoot, Cont. Rev., p. 292 ff., 1878; see Wendt’s edition, 1888, pp. 429, 430, and also edition 1899, p. 316, note. Whilst Baur and Overbeck give an unfavourable verdict as to the historical truthfulness of the Ephesian tumult, a verdict which Wendt condemns, Zeller is constrained to ac- knowledge the very minute details which tell in favour of the narrative, and for the invention of which there is no apparent reason. Amongst more recent critics, Weizsacker can only see in the story the historian’s defence of Paul and the same tendency to make events issue in the success of his missionary propa- ganda: 1 Cor. xv. 32 he takes literally, and the tumult recorded in Acts gives us only a faint and shadowy outline of actual reminiscences: nothing is left of the wild beasts except a tumult in the theatre, and the Apostle against whom the violence is mainly directed is himself absent. But as Wendt rightly maintains, 1 Cor. xv. 32 is much rather to be taken as referring figuratively to a struggle with men raging against the Apostle’s
life; nor are we shut up of necessity to the conclusion that 1 Cor. xv. 32 and Acts xix. 23 ff. refer to one and the same event (so Hilgenfeld, Zockler), see note on p. 414. McGiffert, whilst taking 1 Cor. xv. 32 literally (although he inclines to identify Acts xix. with 2 Cor. i. 8, so too Hilgenfeld), admits as against Weizsacker the general trustworthiness of St. Luke’s account, since it is too true to life, and is related too vividly to admit any doubt as to its historic reality (p. 282). Hilgenfeld too, Zw. Th., p. 363, 1896, agrees that the whole narrative is related in a way true to life, and refers it with the possible exception of ὡς ἐπὶ Spas δύο in ver. 34 to his good source.C: it could not pos- sibly have been invented by the ‘‘ author to Theophilus’. Even here Clemen and Jiingst can only see an interpolation, referred by the former to Redactor, 7.¢., vv. 15-41 with the possible exception of ver. 33 to Redactor Antijudaicus; and by the latter also to his Redactor, t.e¢., vv. 23-41.