516
ὀνόματι ἸΙουλίῳ, σπείρης Σεβαστῆς.
2. ἐπιβάντες δὲ πλοίῳ “Adpa-
μυττηνῶ, μέλλοντες πλεῖν ' τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν τόπους, ἀνήχθημεν,
1 After πλειν SAB add εις, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt. Instead of µελ- λοντες NAB, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt read µελλοντι; perhaps changed into plural after επιβαντες, Blass reconstructs with Flor., Gig., Syr. Ῥ. µελλοντες δε πλειν επεβηµεν πλοιῳ Αδραµνττηνῳ, Omitting µελλοντι πλειν . . . Tomovs with Flor., retained, however, by Hilgenfeld, 1899, with Gig. and Syr. P. Blass con- tinues in β text, so Hilgenfeld, επεβη δε συν ημιν Αρισταρχος Μακεδων Θεσσαλον-
ικευς with the same authority, except that Flor. omits Θεσσ.
AB*, so Weiss,
W.H. read Αδραµυντηνῳφ; see further Winer-Schmiedel, p. 58, and W.H., p. 313 (for aspirate ΄Αδρα.), and App., p. 167.
314.—€tépovs: Meyer and Zockler take the word to indicate prisoners of a character different from Paul,7.e., heathen, not Christians; but Wendt (so Hackett) points out that Luke in Acts uses ἕτερος in singular and plural α5 simply = another, or other, additional; vii. 18, viii. 34, Xv. 35, xvii. 34. As against this Zoéckler quotes Luke xxiii. 32, Gal. i. 7. —lovAiw: name far too common for any identification ; Tacitus speaks of a Julius Priscus, Hist., ii., 92, iv., 11, a centurion of the preetorians, but see below on xxviii. Τ6.--σπείρης Σ.: “of the Augustan band,” R.V. It is suggested that the term is here used is a popular colloquial way by St. Luke, and that it is not a translation of a correct Roman name, but rather “the troops of the emperor,” denoting a body of legionary centurions who were employed by the emperor on confidential business between the pro- vinces and the imperial city, the title Augustan being conferred on them asa mark of favour and distinction. If this is so we gather from this notice in Acts a fact which is quite in accordance with what is known from other sources, al- though nowhere precisely attested. But can any connection be established between such a body and any branch of the imperial service which is actually known to us? There were certain legionary centurions who went by the name of frumentarii, who were employed not only, as their name implied, on duties connected with the commissariat, but also with the custody of prisoners and for purposes of police. In xxviii. 16, A.V. and R.V. margin, we have the remarkable reading: ‘and the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the [pretorian] guard’’ (see on l.c.). But it is urged that we cannot understand by this expression the Prefect of the Pretorian Guard, who would not be concerned with the comparatively humble duty of receiving and guarding prisoners. But in the Old L.V. called
Gigas (unfortunately the only represen- tative of the Old Latin for this passage) we have for a translation of the Greek στρατοπεδάρχης, in itself a very rare word, princeps peregrinorum. Now the legionary centurions who formed the frumentarii were regarded in Rome as being on detached duty, and were known as peregrini; on the Celian Hill they occupied the camp known as the castra peregrinorum, and their commander bore the name of princeps peregrinorum. If therefore we may identify the Strato- pedarch in Acts xxviii. 16 with this commanding officer, we may also infer that Julius was one of the Peregrini, and that he hands over his prisoners to his superior officer, Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 315, 347, Mommsen, Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad., 1895, p. 495 ff., Rendall, Acts, p. 340. But see on the other hand Zahn, EHinleitung, i., p. 389 (1897), Knabenbauer, Actus Apostolorum, p. 448, Belser, Βεἰἐγᾶσε, p. 147 ff., who point out amongst other reasons (1) that there is no clear evidence of the title princeps peregrinorum before the reor- ganisation of Sept. Severus, (2) that we have evidence that prisoners were sent from the provinces and committed to the care of the prefectus pretorio, cf. Traj., Ad Plin., 57, with reference to one who had appealed: ‘‘vinctus mitti ad preefec- tos pretorii mei debet,’’ and other instances in Zahn, 1. s., and Knaben- bauer. See further for the value of the Old Latin reading in Gigas “Julius” (Headlam), Hastings’ B.D., and below on xxviii. 16. But whether we adopt the explanation suggested by Prof. Ramsay or not, it is still open to us to maintain that the title “‘ Augustan” was a title of honour and not a local title; not con- nected with Sebaste the chief town of Samaria, or with Czsarea Sebaste. Schirer in answer to Mr. Headlam’s criticism (“ Julius,” Hastings’ B.D.) ts still of opinion, Theol. Literaturseitung,