07-CHAPTER 7. ST. PAUL AT EPHESUS.

CHAPTER 7. ST. PAUL AT EPHESUS.

EXPLANATORY NOTE. THE following chapter was originally written in reply to a paper entitled "Demetrius the Silversmith: an Ephesian Study," which was contributed by the Rev. Canon Hicks to the Expositor for June 1890, pp. 401-422. My reply was composed on the spur of the moment, immediately on reading the paper. [Note: It was published in the Expositor, July 1890.] Still it appears better to republish it substantially as it was written, merely adding some new evidence. A paper which fully corresponded to the title "St. Paul at Ephesus," would be very long, and would have to repeat much that has been well said by others, and particularly by Bishop Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, May 1878.

Mr. Hicks’ paper was suggested by an inscription found at Ephesus by Mr. Wood. It was published as a fragment by the latter; but Mr. Hicks was able to render it nearly complete by the acute observation that a small scrap of marble with a few letters on it, which had not been noticed by Mr. Wood, fitted on to the larger piece which the latter had published. I regret to have found myself obliged to differ toto cælo from the theory which Mr. Hicks based on the inscription. Considering how much we are agreed on in regard to Ephesus, and how much I have since learned from his scholarly publication of the Ephesian inscriptions (in the Ancient Greek lnscriptions of the British Museum, vol. iii.), it is almost unfortunate that we should present in this point (the only one that comes before the public) the appearance of disagreement. Before reprinting this paper, I wrote to Canon Hicks, asking whether he had any further evidence to confirm any points in his case. I hoped that we might settle some of our differences out of court. I understand from his kind and scholarly reply that his view is, like mine, that the arguments on the two sides should be fully and frankly stated, and that nothing but good will come of active discussion and criticism.

1. DEMETRIUS THE NEOPOIOS. The inscription of Ephesus that suggested Canon Hicks’ paper and the following reply is translated [Note: I modify very slightly the words and arrangements of the translation given by H. To save space, and to avoid the personal reference as far as possible, I shall in the rest of the paper use the letter H. to denote Canon Hicks’ paper. The inscription is now published as number DLXXVIII in his volume of Ephesian inscriptions.] as follows:-

"The Senate and the People do public honour] to them that served as N [eopoioi, i.e., Temple-wardens] during the prytany of -----, in the year of Demetrius: viz.,

"Of the Ephesine Tribe: Demetrius, son of Menophilos, the son of Tryphon, of the thousand Boreis: Thoas, son of Drakontomenes, of the thousand Oinopes.

"Of the Augustan Tribe: Alexander, etc; Pythion, etc.

"Of the Teian Tribe: [Herm]as [Note: I omit the description of this and the following officials.]; Pythodorus.

"Of the Karenaean Tribe: Eusebes: Tryphon.

"Of the Tribe Euonymoi: Heraklitus; Apellas.

"Of the Bembinaean Tribe: [Pr]esbon; [another name lost]." [Note: A second inscription, unconnected with this one, was engraved at a later time on another side of the same stone.] The words or letters enclosed in square brackets are restored in places where the inscription is mutilated. It is to be observed that the crucial word is a restoration; only the first letter of it remains. It must be admitted that the restoration given by H. is in the highest degree probable, but it cannot be pronounced certain. There were other officials whose name began with N.: e.g., Nomothetæ, Nomophylakes. I attach, however, no importance to these possibilities; the reasons excellently stated by H. show that his restoration approximates towards certainty. But, in the dearth of knowledge about the officials of the Asian cities, nothing can be pronounced certain about them, unless it is expressly guaranteed by exact evidence. It is as nearly certain as any inference on the subject can be that we do not know the names of all the various boards of magistrates at Ephesus. Hence, even though the inferences drawn by H. were more probable than they are, the doubt always remains whether the Neopoioi were really mentioned in the inscription. But in this chapter His restoration is accepted, and the theory which he founds on it is tested on its own merits. [Note: The paper originally began with the following paragraph. Additions are here made to it, and some slight modifications are introduced. It seems unnecessary to indicate the changes, which merely make more emphatic the views originally stated.] 2. ACTS 19:23-41.

It is impossible for any one to invent a tale whose scene lies in a foreign land without betraying in slight details his ignorance of the scenery and circumstances amid which the event is described as taking place. Unless the writer studiously avoids details, and confines himself to names and generalities, he is certain to commit numerous errors. Even the most laborious and minute study of the circumstances of the country in which he is to lay his scene, will not preserve him from such errors. He must live long and observe carefully in the country, if he wishes to invent a tale which will not betray his ignorance in numberless details. Allusions of French or German authors to English life supply the readiest illustration of this principle. Even after all the study that has been expended on classical writers, I will engage to prove it in detail from almost any commentary on a Greek or Roman author, where the commentator ventures beyond mere linguistic exposition of his text.

Even to relate with propriety and accuracy in the details an incident that has occurred in a foreign land, is no easy task, unless the narrator has actually witnessed it and confines himself strictly to describing what he saw. In such a case the one chance of safety for a writer that has not seen the facts, lies in faithfully reproducing the narrative of an eyewitness. As soon as he ventures to write from an independent standpoint, and to modify the account of his authority, he is certain to import into his version some of those errors that betray the foreigner.

I propose to examine, from this point of view, some details in the account given in Acts of the riot fomented in Ephesus against St. Paul by Demetrius the silversmith. The writer does not profess to be an eyewitness of the scene, but he had abundant opportunity of learning from eyewitnesses all the incidents which he relates in Acts xix. with a multitude of minute details and local touches. If the story was invented, only a person intimately familiar with Ephesus could avoid errors that would provoke a smile from any native. The most careful and accurate modern students of the antiquities of that country, even after close observation of the ruins, would be the first to profess their inability to attain local verisimilitude, if they had to invent such a tale. The nearest approach they could make to verisimilitude would be to collect in their narrative the details that they could actually trace from ancient remains and records, and studiously to avoid or slur over all others. But, while it would be impossible for any of us to attain verisimilitude in relating such a story, it is much easier for us to criticize such a story when told by another, and, by comparison with other sources of information, to detect discrepancies between the details that occur in it and facts that can be otherwise ascertained. Such criticism finds plenty of scope in the tale of Paul and Demetrius. While, on the one hand, it must be confessed that our information has hitherto been too scanty to justify us in asserting the perfect verisimilitude of the story, yet it is equally certain that no error has yet been proved to exist, and that a number of accurate touches have been detected. The most serious difficulty hitherto started has been the reference to the Asiarchs; but this touches an exceedingly obscure and difficult subject, and no recent writer has ventured to maintain that the reference betrays ignorance. It certainly is difficult to harmonize the reference with other known facts; but it is equally difficult to harmonize these facts with each other. For my own part, I accept the reference as entirely accurate and as a valuable piece of evidence. The chief purpose of my remarks is to show the difficulty in which even the highest authority on the antiquities of Ephesus was involved, when he suggested that the natural and straightforward interpretation of the narrative was incorrect, and ought to be rejected in favour of a rather artificial and far-fetched explanation. The theory which he elaborated only brings out more clearly the coherence and the direct simplicity of the narrative. There is only one way of interpreting it, and that is as embodying almost, if not absolutely, verbatim the words of an eyewitness. The recent edition of the inscriptions of Ephesus gives a vast amount of new information about the city, and adds greatly to our power of criticizing the nineteenth chapter of Acts; and it is noteworthy that the first fruits of that great work should be the editor’s own attempt to prove that there occurs in Acts xix. precisely such an error in detail as a writer ignorant of the country is sure to commit in inventing a tale about it. This view is fatal to the whole theory which I have advanced as to the character and composition of the "Travel-Document." If the proof is conclusive, I should feel constrained to follow; but the view at least requires rigorous examination, and I hope to show that it is not correct. H., indeed, infers only that the writer misunderstood the words of an eyewitness; but this inference does not exhaust the consequences that follow from his theory. In opposition to it I shall try to prove, in the first place, that the view held on this detail by the author of Acts xix. is involved in the essence of the story, and must have been got by him from the account of the supposed eyewitness that he used as his authority; and secondly, that it is no error, but a true and accurate idea, which adds to the general verisimilitude of the narrative.

While I am unable to agree with the theory stated by H., I should like to acknowledge the high interest and value of his paper in the Expositor. The importance of closely scrutinizing the details of such a document is great, and the results, whether we actually agree with them or not, are sure to be highly suggestive. There are cases where a book or paper, whose actual results cannot be accepted, is far more valuable and suggestive than many statements of certain and indisputable facts are. His paper is one of these cases; its value in method is quite distinct from its value in results.

3. DEMETRIUS THE NEOPOIOS AND DEMETRIUS THE SILVERSMITH.

I should be very ready to acknowledge that, with regard to the identification which he proposes between the Demetrius of the inscription and the silversmith of Acts xix., He has made out at least the probability of his case. It would be, of course, almost as difficult to prove an identity between two persons named John Smith in our own country as between two persons named Demetrius on the west coast of Asia Minor. But if he is right in dating his inscription about 50-60 A.D., then the case may be thus stated. Two independent documents mention a Demetrius in Ephesus about 50-460 A.D. In each case the Demetrius is a man of a certain standing in the city, influential and presumably wealthy. In the one case Demetrius is specified as a "silversmith," and as evidently a leader in the trade; in the other case the Demetrius in question is designated in the ordinary way by his father’s and grandfather’s name, and by his "thousand." Such was the regular designation of a citizen-the addition of the father’s name being almost universal, while the grandfather was less frequently mentioned, chiefly when the citizen bore one of the commoner names. In addition to this, the official position of the second Demetrius, as member and chairman of a board of city magistrates, [Note: The neopoioi were civil magistrates, not religious officials. H. correctly apprehends this. They were, as he says, elected by the people annually.] is recorded. The variety of style in the references is quite natural, and the fact that nothing in the one case agrees with anything recorded in the other is due to the different character of the documents, and affords no presumption that the two persons are different. The identity of the two is therefore quite possible; and a natural inclination leads us to hope that it may even be called probable. The whole of the following remarks are written on the assumption that H. is right in dating the inscription about Demetrius in the reign of Nero. [Note: But on the date of the inscription see the note at the end of this chapter. I have here cut out a paragraph, and have elsewhere done the same where any passage does not contribute much to the effect. No change in my opinions is indicated thereby.] But I cannot agree with a statement which he made in his reply, that "the identification of the Demetrius of the inscription with the silversmith of Acts xix. stands or falls with the date to be assigned to the inscription." The identification certainly falls if H.’s date is wrong; but it does not necessarily stand if his date is right. It merely begins in that case to be a possibility. There were certainly many Ephesians under Nero who were called Demetrius; and it would be an arbitrary assumption that the two references to Demetrius indicate the same person, without assigning some other reasons for the identification. But I have gone so far as to admit H.’s identification as probable. It is interesting, and I hope it is true. I say not a word against it. The one reason why the paper is written lies in the theory which H. has founded on it, and which may be false, even though the identification be true.

4. ACTION OF THE PRIESTS OF ARTEMIS.

H.’s next point is, that the inscription belongs to the very year in which occurred the famous scene in the theatre, and that "the honour therein voted to him and his colleagues was in recognition of the services rendered by him and them on behalf of the national goddess"-i.e., as H. proceeds to show, in recognition of the demonstration against the Apostle which Demetrius (and his colleagues, as H. would add, expanding the narrative in Acts) organised in the Great Theatre.

If this be so, we must gain much new light on the events related in Acts xix. According to H.’s interpretation, an entirely new aspect is put on the whole scene, and an aspect which is absolutely at variance with the character ascribed to it in Acts xix. It is represented to us in Acts as a spontaneous demonstration by a trade against the new influence that threatened to undermine its prosperity. H. makes it out as due to the action of the priests, [Note: In order to represent H. quite accurately, I preserve his own words as far as possible.] whose "jealousy only waited for an opportunity of attacking the Apostle." "The plan they adopted" was to get the board of Neopoioi "to organise a demonstration against the Apostle." Demetrius called together the silversmiths and "those engaged in kindred trades. He appeals first to their trade interests, and soon proceeds to work upon their fanaticism." The narrative in Acts xix. in its opening words states the connection between the silversmiths and Artemis: Demetrius "made silver shrines of Diana," and his trade would therefore disappear if her worship decayed. H., however, argues that this phrase is inexplicable and unintelligible, and that it is a bad inference from the words of an earlier narrator and eyewitness, who had described Demetrius as a silversmith by trade, holding the office of Neopoios of Artemis. The title was misunderstood by the author, who, in recasting his authority, altered νεοποιὸς Αρτέμιδος into ποιω + ̂ν ναοὺς ἀργυροὐς ’Αρτέμιδος.Let us, for the moment, grant this assumption, and substitute the new version for the old. The first thing that then strikes us is, that in this version the narrative does not explain how the trade interests were threatened. Demetrius says to the silversmiths, "By this business we have our wealth": he then tells them that the worship of Diana is threatened, and the inference is that their trade is in danger. This speech has no meaning unless Demetrius is addressing tradesmen who work for the temple; and no person who conceived the circumstances vividly, from personal knowledge, could relate the story without putting in the forefront an explanation of the close relation between the trade and the worship of Artemis. Silversmiths were common in all Greek cities; the silver work of Athens was famous and lucrative, yet it had no relation to the worship of Artemis. There must have been some reason why the silversmiths of Ephesus were peculiarly connected with the temple, and this reason must have been stated at the outset of the tale, for it is assumed throughout as the explanation of the whole proceedings.

We must then suppose that the original authority began his tale with a statement showing the connection between the trade, whose champion Demetrius makes himself, and the religion with which Demetrius assumes that the interests of that trade are identified. This connection must either be the same as that which is assigned in Acts, or a different one. H. evidently considers that it was a different one, both because he states that the author "misapprehended the document before him," and because he considers that Demetrius drove "a brisk trade in metal statuettes" of the goddess Artemis. This, then, was the connection stated in the original authority. We have to suppose that the author of Acts not merely misapprehended the meaning of Neopoios, but also omitted the explanation of the connection of the trade with Artemis-worship, and substituted a different explanation. The term Neopoios was a very common one, and the office existed not merely in Ephesus, but in many others of the Greek cities of Asia. It would be quite as strong a proof of ignorance to interpret Neopoios as equivalent to maker of temples, as it would now be to confuse between Major-General and Lord Mayor. That the writer of Acts should not understand the meaning of Neopoios is hardly probable; but that he should so arbitrarily and violently alter the account of the eyewitness whom he follows is in the highest degree improbable.

Another objection occurs to me, which in view of H.’s high authority on the antiquities of Ephesus, I hardly venture to state. I have never seen the phrase νεοποιὸς Αρτέμιδος, which he assumes to have been used in the original authority. The officials in question are, in all the inscriptions which I remember to have seen, called νεπποιοί simply. I may assume that H. would not have used the other title unless he could justify it from the inscriptions; but I wish he had quoted an example. Neopoioi of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias [Note: Corpus Inscr. Grœ6c., No. 2811. Cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge, 6. In his reply H. concedes this point. There is not any authority extant which would justify us in supposing that a well-informed person, about A.D. 57, would have used the phrase νεοποιὸς ’Αρτέμιδοσ in speaking about these city officials.] do not, in view of the diversity of usage in different cities, seem to me a sufficient justification for a Neopoios of Artemis at Ephesus. But considering H.’s accuracy and knowledge of Ephesus, I simply appeal to him for information on this point. I maintain, however, that, if he cannot justify the phrase by the authority of inscriptions, in which these officials occur very frequently, the use of a wrong title would constitute precisely one of those errors in detail, which might be used as a proof that his supposed eyewitness was no eyewitness, but an inventor.

5. SHRINES OF ARTEMIS. Is the phrase, "which made silver shrines of Diana," so inexplicable as H. supposes? He says that none of the commentators have explained it; and certainly all the references which he quotes from them justify his statement. The explanation has always seemed so obvious that I never thought of looking into a commentator. I have been familiar for years with terra-cotta shrines of Artemis, and had always understood that the richer classes bought silver shrines of a similar character. I claim no originality for the suggestion, which I have always understood to be accepted among archeologists. I think I have read it as stated by Professor Ernst Curtius; and if I remember rightly he actually quoted the allusion in Acts xix. when publishing a monument of the class in question. I speak,
however, from distant recollection, and as I write in Scotland, where no scholar’s library exists, I cannot verify the statement. [Note: Mr. Cecil Smith, when I mentioned the point to him, soon found the reference--viz., Athenische Mittheilungen, ii., p. 49. The illustration there will convince every one; it shows exactly the kind of naos which Demetrius made, except that the material is terracotta]

Such small shrines in marble abound, and they were especially used as dedicatory offerings in the cultus of that Asiatic goddess who was worshipped under the name of Artemis at Ephesus, and under other names, but with essential identity of character, in many other cities of Greek or semi-Greek character. Scores of examples are enumerated in the Archdologische Zeitung for 1880, [Note: See Conze article on Hermes-Cadmilos.] and the number might easily be raised to hundreds. Terracotta shrines are not so numerous, partly on account of their more perishable character, and partly from the fact that in many cases part of the shrine was suppressed and left to the imagination, as was sometimes the case even in marble; so that the shrines thus become little more than statuettes of Artemis. But the proper dedicatory offering to this goddess was not a simple statuette, but a shrine. I have elsewhere traced the history of this style of representation from the remotest period through its later developments [Note: In Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1882, p. 45: "The figure at Magnesia, beside Mount Sipylos, commonly called ’Niobe,’ is the earliest known example of a hieratic representation of Cybele common among the Greeks. The goddess sits in a niche or naiskos, sometimes alone, sometimes accompanied by one or more figures, among whom is Hermes-Cadmilos, the Grecised form of her favourite and companion Atys. In ruder examples she sits in stiff fashion, holding in one hand the tympanon, in the other the phiale. Beside her are generally one or two lions. In more artistic examples she has laid aside the symbols, which give such unnatural stiffness to the ruder figures, and often caresses with one hand the lion, which climbs up to her knee or lies in her lap. In some cases the lion serves her as a footstool; in other cases two sit in stiff symmetry, one on each side of her throne. Curtius has published an example of the most developed type, which he attributes, probably with justice, to the worship of the Ephesian Artemis."] in the cult of the goddess who was worshipped in Lydia and Phrygia under various names, such as Artemis, Cybele, Leto, Anaitis, [Note: She was called Anaitis by the Persian colonists who were settled by Cyrus in the Hermus valley, and who identified the native goddess with the Anaitis of their own land ( Hist. Geogr., p. 124). On the identity of Artemis and Leto in the Lydo-Phrygian cults, see my papers "Artemis-Leto and Apollo- Lairbenos" in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1890, pp. 216 ff.] but who was really the same under all these names. The temples built by Greek architects in Ephesus, Sardis, etc., were beautiful, but did not rival in actual sanctity the simple and primitive shrines which alone were known in the early ages of the cultus; and similarly the beautiful statues in which Greek art idealized their conception of Artemis did not serve the purposes of actual ritual so well as the primitive xoana of the nursing-mother ( Artemis at Ephesus), or the mother of all nature ( Cybele at Sardis), or the other slightly varying types of this goddess. The innumerable worshippers of the goddess required innumerable dedicatory offerings of the style which was most likely to please her. A great city erected a great shrine with a colossal statue of the goddess; private individuals propitiated her with miniature shrines, containing embodiments of her living presence. The vast temple near Ephesus and the tiny terra-cotta shrine were equally acceptable to Artemis; she accepted from her votaries offerings according to their means. She dwelt neither in the vast temple nor in the tiny terra-cotta: she was implicit in the life of nature; she was the reproductive power that kept the great world ever the same amid the constant flux of things. Mother of all and nurse of all, she was most really present wherever the unrestrained life of nature was most freely manifested, in the woods, on the mountains, among the wild beasts. Her worshippers expressed their devotion and their belief in her omnipresence by offering shrines to her, and doubtless by keeping shrines of the same kind in their own homes, certainly also by placing such shrines in graves beside the corpse, as a sign that the dead had once more gone back to the mother who bore them. [Note: The commentators on Acts, and even Lightfoot in his note on Ignatius, Ephes. 9, omit these uses of the shrines, which are really the most important, especially the employment in graves.] The phrase in Acts 19 informs us that the term naoi, literally "dwellings," [Note: Strictly ναός denotes that part of the temple in which the image of the god was placed, and the whole temple as the dwelling of the god.] was appropriated to the tiny shrines equally with the great temple; the phrase is almost unique, for we are reduced to gather all our information about this religion from scattered hints and passing allusions. Ancient literature, as a rule, says least about those phases of ancient life which were so fundamental and so familiar to all as to be naturally assumed as present in the minds of all readers.

Precisely in regard to these phases archaeology comes to our aid, and interprets the wealth of meaning that underlies the literary references. [Note: According to Professor Mommsen’s interpretation of a passage of Horace ( Epist. 1, 6, 51), it contains the only occurrence of the word pondera as the name for the stepping-stones across streets, which are one of the first details that strike the modern visitor to Pompeii.] But I hope that I have shown how entirely consistent the phrase in Acts is with all that we know about the worship and nature of Artemis: it is one of those vivid touches which reveal the eye-witness, one of the incidental expressions which only a person who speaks with familiar knowledge can use, and which are full of instruction about popular ideas and popular language. A passage in a document of a slightly later period, the letter of Ignatius to the church of Ephesus, § 9, seems to prove that this use of the term naos was widespread. [Note: σύνοδοι πάντες, θεΦφόροιU καὶναοΦόροι.] The light thrown by these words of Ignatius on the phrase used in Acts 19 has not escaped Lightfoot’s notice; but in his commentary there seems to be one slight misconception. He treats the remarkable picture drawn by Ignatius of a religious procession as if it were an intentional picture of the great procession of the goddess at Ephesus. But Ignatius probably had never been at Ephesus, and his picture is no doubt painted after processions which he had seen at Antioch in Syria. It may, however, be safely used in illustration of all such processions, for its traits are generic and not confined to Antioch or to Ephesus. A picture found at Pompeii [Note: See Helbig, Wandgemalde Campaniens, 1476; Schreiber, Kultur-historischer Bilderatlas, XVII. 10.] in a rather mutilated state represents a procession in honour of Hercules and Hebe; and in it we see what Ignatius calls naophoroi, persons carrying a miniature temple on a salver or board. When we consider the immense and widespread influence of the Ephesian Artemis, we must acknowledge that vast numbers of pilgrims coming even from considerable distances continually visited her shrine, and that vast numbers of "naoi" (I accept the word on the authority of Acts xix. as the technical term used in the trade and by the pilgrims) were needed to supply the unceasing demand. Workers in marble and workers in terra-cotta drove a thriving trade through their connection with the temple, and this connection was directed and organized by Demetrius, evidently as guild-master [Note: H. has some excellent remarks on these guilds in the cities of Asia Minor. The institution still flourishes; and each guild is directed by a master. I have briefly described the guild of street-porters in Smyrna under the Roman Empire in the Amer. Journ. Arch., vol. i. A study of these ancient guilds is much needed. Maue in his treatise Prcefectus Fabrum, and Liebenam in his Römisches Vereinswesen, have done a great deal on this subject.] (παρεíχετο τοι + ̃ς τεχνίταὶς ἐργαίαν οὺκ όλίγην). [Note: The reading of Codex Bezœ in this verse is in some respects superior in vividness to the accepted text:ου + ̑τος συναθροίσας τοὺAς πυρίτἀ τοιαυ + ̓τα τεχνίτας, ἔἔΦη πρòς αύτούς, ’′Ανδρες συντεχνἰ + ̑ταίκ.Τ.λ. The form of address is moreindividualized; but the distinction between τεχννἰ + ̑ται and ἐργάται is lost.] The author sums up these tradesmen in the phrase, the workmen of like occupation" (τοὺς τερί τà τοκαυ + ̑τα ἐργττας). We can, however, well imagine that rich pilgrims dedicated shrines of precious metals; and, even without any other evidence, the mere statement in Acts 19 is so natural and so consistent with the facts just stated, as to constitute sufficient proof that this was so. The silversmiths were of course a craft of higher standing, greater skill in delicate work, larger profits, and therefore greater wealth and influence, than the potters and marble-workers. How natural then it is that it should be a silversmith who gathered together a meeting of the associated trades and organized a disturbance! The less educated workmen follow the lead of the great artisan. On this view every detail confirms the general effect. We are taken direct into the heart of artisan life in Ephesus; and all is so characteristic, so true to common life, and so unlike what would occur to any person writing at a distance, that the conclusion is inevitable: we have here a picture drawn from nature, and copied literally by the author of Acts from the narrative of an eyewitness.

6. ATTITUDE OF THE EPHESIAN OFFICIALS TOWARDS PAUL. On the other hand, look at the picture drawn by H. The riot is got up by the priests through the agency of a leading official and his board of colleagues. That is precisely the idea that would occur to any person inventing such an incident. Paul goes to Ephesus; he preaches at first with effect; the priests are alarmed, and raise a dangerous riot against him. Such is the picture that every inventor of the biography of a saint [Note: Though the early saints of Asia Minor are, as a rule, real persons, yet their biographies are, in general, deficient in historical value, being invented, or at least profoundly modified, in later centuries. Only the discovery of early evidence can enable us to learn anything definite about their real history.] is sure to draw: the priests at once occur to his mind as the natural enemies of his hero. There is nothing characteristic and individual about such an account; all is commonplace, and coloured by the religious ideas of a later time. The first way in which Christianity excited the popular enmity, outside the Jewish community, was by disturbing the existing state of society and trade, and not by making innovations in religion. The rise of a new god and a new worship was a matter of perfect indifference to almost everybody in the cities of the Roman provinces. In the Gaeco-Roman world every one was quite accustomed to the introduction of new deities from other countries. The process had been going on with extraordinary frequency, and had produced a sort of eclectic religion in all Graeco - Roman cities. The priests of Artemis looked on it with indifference. They had not found it injurious to their interests; rather, the growth of each new superstition added to the influence of Artemis and her priests. Isis was no enemy to Artemis. The narrative of the New Testament has led to a general misapprehension on this point. We are so accustomed to the strong religious feeling of the Jews and the intolerant fanaticism with which they persecuted all dissentient opinion, that we are apt to forget that this feeling was peculiar to them, and beyond any other of their characteristics excited the wonder of the tolerant, easy-going indifferentism of the ordinary pagans, who did not care two straws whether their neighbour worshipped twenty gods or twenty-one. A new deity preached in Ephesus, a new inmate of their eclectic pantheon: it was all a matter of indifference.

Gradually people began to realize that Christianity meant a social revolution, that it did not mean to take its place alongside of the other religions, but to destroy them. The discovery was made in a homely way, familiar to us all-- viz., through the pocket. Certain trades began, with all the sensitiveness of the money-market, to find themselves affected. The gradual progress of opposition to Christianity is well marked in the Acts, and is precisely in accordance with the above exposition. When Paul began to preach in Asia Minor, he at first experienced no opposition except from the Jews. In Antioch of Pisidia, in Iconium, in Lystra, in Thessalonica, his experience was always the same. The Gentiles were indifferent or even friendly, the Jews bitterly hostile. But in Philippi occurred the incident of the "maid having a spirit of divination”; and "when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone," they accused Paul as a Jew of inciting to illegal conduct and violation of the Roman law, and turned to their own account the general dislike felt by both Romans and Greeks towards the Jews.

Similarly in Ephesus the first opposition against Paul was roused when the trades connected with Artemis-worship felt their pockets touched, and then the riot arose. It was not a religious persecution, but a social and mercenary one. So far am I from thinking with H., that "the hierarchy would be sensible of the Apostle’s influence before any others suspected it," that I should not be surprised if priests or leading supporters of the worship of Artemis were among the Asiarchs, who were "the only influential friends of Paul at Ephesus." Probably the priests of Artemis would act like the priests at Lystra; they would encourage the "revival," and try to turn it to their own account, as in so many cases previously such "revivals" of religious feeling had ultimately only enriched Artemis and her priesthood.

Another contradiction between the account given in Acts 19 and H.’s theory must be noticed. According to the latter, the officials who organized the riot were rewarded for this action with a special vote of distinction by the senate and the popular assembly. But according to the account in Acts, it was a thoroughly disorderly riot, discouraged by the Asiarchs, and rebuked by the city clerk as a groundless disturbance, which involved the magistrates and the city in danger at the instance of the Roman law (see ver. 40). This contradiction alone would be fatal to the theory against which I am arguing; or rather, if the theory be true, it convicts the author of Acts 19 as guilty of a most inaccurate and prejudiced account, and as an altogether useless authority for history.

I prefer then to follow the version of the incident given in Acts. Far from finding that "the action of Demetrius appears in a new and far more significant light if he really was the Demetrius of the inscription, and if the honour therein voted to him and his colleagues by the senate and people of Ephesus was in recognition of the services rendered by him and them on behalf of the national goddess," I think that this theory both involves us in contradiction to the general situation recorded in Acts, and reduces the incident from a marvelously vivid and true picture of society in Ephesus to a commonplace and uninstructive tale.

If I were to trust my own inference from Acts, I should picture the riot as entirely that of an ignorant mob, fomented by an artisan more far-seeing than his neighbours. It was a riot disapproved of alike by priests and by magistrates: the former saw nothing in Paul to characterize him as dangerous to the goddess (see Acts 19:37); the latter felt that the riot was contrary to the Roman regulations. The distinction which H. makes between the attitude of the Asiarchs and that of the priests of Artemis towards Paul is entirely groundless, and forms an unfortunate conclusion to a paragraph, great part of which is excellently expressed and thoroughly true. The cultus of the emperors did indeed prepare the way for the Christian Church; but this preparation was quite involuntary. It co-coordinated the various religions of the province into something approximating to a single hierarchy. But to maintain that the officials of the imperial cultus, i.e., the Asiarchs, naturally represented a different point of view from the priests of Artemis is to go against all evidence. These officials were simply provincials, selected chiefly on account of their wealth and sometimes against their will; they did not represent the point of view of the Roman governors, but the average view of the upper classes of the province Many of them no doubt had held priesthoods of the native deities before they became officials of the imperial cultus; in fact, it is probable that the native priesthoods were a sort of stepping- stone to the Asiarchate. The attitude of the Asiarchs towards Paul may then be taken as a fair indication of the tone of the educated classes, among whom I include the higher priests. The attitude of Demetrius and the mob was that of tradesmen whose trade was threatened, and who got up a demonstration on its behalf.

We find, then, that the attitude of the officials and of the educated part of the Ephesian people was that of curiosity and intelligent interest in the new doctrines. This curiosity was in the air at the time throughout the Eastern world; and it is one of the signs of a very early date in the narrative, that it shows no trace of the feeling of dislike to the new religion which soon began to spread abroad. Here and always we find that the spread of Christianity at first was favored by a measure of intelligence and freedom of mind in those among whom it was preached.

7. FATE OF THE SILVER SHRINES

One objection made by H. must be met. "If these silver shrines were common articles of merchandise, such as pilgrims to the famous temple purchased to take back to their homes, then we might fairly expect to find some specimens still extant among the treasures of our museums." Probably the chief use made of silver shrines was, not to take home, but to dedicate in the temple. They were sold by the priest to the worshippers, and dedicated by the latter to the goddess: similar examples of trade carried on by priests are too familiar to need quotation. Why then have these silver shrines all disappeared? Simply on account of their value. They have all gone into the melting-pot, many of them being placed there by the priests themselves. Dedicatory offerings were so numerous, that they had to be cleared out from time to time to make room for new anathemata. The terra-cotta shrines, being worthless, would be thrown away quietly, the silver would be melted down. Those which remained to a later period met the same fate at other hands, less pious, but equally greedy. H. indeed speaks apparently of silver statuettes of Artemis as common. [Note: His words are (p. 417): "Statuettes" (sharply distinguished by H. from shrines) "of the Ephesian Diana were to be found everywhere in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, these statuettes of the goddess, reproducing all her hideous Oriental features, may be found in bronze, in silver, or in terra-cotta, in every European museum. The type was exceedingly common, and witnessed to the wide extent of the worship. If the writer of the Acts had spoken of Demetrius as driving a brisk trade in these metal statuettes, the narrative would have corresponded with the facts. As it is, the statement that Demetrius was the maker of ’silver shrines’ is either to be set down as a loose mode of expression, or else it awaits explanation."
In these sentences H. does not explicitly say that statuettes in silver may be found in every museum. But he proceeds to reason as if this were stated, and assumes throughout the rest of his remarks that he has proved silver statuettes to be quite common. In his reply to the article which is here reprinted, he says, "I should like to see and handle some specimens of metal shrines of Artemis discovered at Ephesus. In default of such metal shrines or of any mention of them elsewhere than in this passage, I made bold to suggest metal statuettes. Such metal statuettes are well known in modern museums." In this last sentence H. must either mean that silver statuettes are common in museums, or he has abandoned his case. He insists on seeing silver shrines, and till they are shown he declines to believe in their existence. In my criticism I plainly put the case to him that silver statuettes of the Ephesian Artemis were unknown to me, and quoted in a footnote Mr. Cecil Smith’s statement (made in answer to a question which I addressed to him on the point), that in the British Museum there is no silver statuette of the Ephesian Artemis, and only one supposed doubtfully to represent the Greek Artemis. Metal statuettes of the Ephesian Artemis do not prove H.’s case, for he himself explicitly demands proof of silverwork. But even metal statuettes of the Ephesian Artemis are unknown to me; and I ask for proof of H.’s reiterated statement, that they are common in museums. A single example, or even two, will not prove his words to be accurate. Even marble and terra-cotta statuettes of the type which is commonly called the Ephesian Artemis (and which is clearly intended by H.) are, so far as my own experience goes, rare. I know of only four examples in terra-cotta, and Wood ( Ephes., p. 270) gives an illustration of a marble statuette which he had seen in private possession at Mylasa. Baumeister Denkmäler and Roscher Lexicon der Mythologie, s. v. Artemis, do not mention any statuettes, but only statues, of the Ephesian Artemis. I believe that H. has unintentionally exaggerated the importance of this type. Representations of the other type in niches are common in marble and terra-cotta; and the value of the metal is a sufficient explanation why none in silver are known. The silver figures quoted in H.’s reply were not of the Ephesian Artemis.] The expression, however, is only a careless and probably unintentional one; for existing examples of them are so rare as to be unknown to me.

8. GREAT ARTEMIS.

After Demetrius’ speech the excited mob began to shout "Great is Artemis!" and at a later stage they spent about two hours in clamour to the same effect. The phrase is noteworthy. In such circumstances there can be no doubt that some familiar formula would rise to their lips; it would not be mere chance words that suggested themselves to a whole crowd, but words which were well known to all. We are therefore justified in inferring from this passage that the phrase, "Great is Artemis!" was a stock expression in the religion, just as we might argue from a single loyal demonstration that "Long live the Queen!" was a stock phrase in our own country, or Xριστιανŵν Bασιλŵων πολλà τà U+1GF14τη a current phrase in Constantinople under the Byzantine emperors. Conversely, if we can prove that "Great is Artemis!" was a stock phrase of Artemis-worship, we shall add one more to the list of vivid, natural, and individualized traits in this scene.

We have very scanty information about the ritual of the goddess of Ephesus and of Western Asia Minor in general; but recent discoveries have added greatly to our knowledge. The expressions "the great Artemis, "the queen of Ephesus," [Note: τςς μεγáλης Aρτἐμιςος Corp. INscr. Grœc., 2693 c.: EΦἐναυ Aνασσα Ib., 6797.] were formerly proved to have been actually used of the goddess; but proof was wanting that the epithet "great" was so peculiarly and regularly associated with her as to rise naturally to the lips of her worshippers as a sort of formula in her service. In 1887 Mr. Hogarth, Mr. Brown, and myself found the site of a temple dedicated to a goddess and her son, Artemis-Leto and Apollo-Lairbenos, at the Phrygian city of Dionysopolis. Beside it we found numerous inscriptions of a remarkable type. They were all erected within the sacred precinct by persons bound to the service of the two deities. They agree in representing the authors as having come before the god when polluted with some physical or moral impurity (sometimes of a very gross kind), and when therefore unfit to appear before the god. The offenders are chastised by the god (in some cases at least, perhaps in all cases, with disease); they confess and acknowledge their fault, and thereby appease the god. They are cured of their ailment, or released from their punishment, and finally they relate the facts in an inscription as a pattern and a warning to others not to treat the god lightly. In publishing these inscriptions, [Note: Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1889, p. 216 ff., in completion of a paper by Mr. Hogarth, ib., 1887, p. 376 ff. In my paper I have to make one correction in a detail of the fourth inscription. The phrase Aτθìς Aγαθημἐρου must be translated "Atthis, wife" (not daughter, as I have rendered it) "of Agathemeros." The impurity alluded to is of the same type as in No. 5. Mr. Hogarth’s paper was right on this point, though the inscription was imperfect in some other points.] I have drawn out a number of analogies between the formulae used in them and those hieratic formulae which we can trace at Ephesus; and have argued that the religion of Ephesus and of Dionysopolis was fundamentally the same. Among the formulae common to the two cults is the cry, "Great Apollo!" "Great Artemis!" The former occurs as the heading of one of these confessions at Dionysopolis, and was evidently a regular formula of invocation addressed to the god by a worshipper. In these inscriptions, and in another group found in the Katakekaumene, the great power of the goddess is even oftener insisted on than that of her son: e.g., "I thank mother Leto, because she makes impossibilities possible" is the exclamation of a pious epigraphist [Note: Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1883, p. 385.] at Dionysopolis, and in the Katakekaumene we find the heading "Great Anaitis" [Note: Plehn, Lesbiaca, p. 117; Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén., 1880, p. 430.] over a confession of the type just described. The Oriental colonists of the latter (as has already been remarked) often applied the Oriental name Anaitis to the Lydo-Phrygian goddess. In other seats of Artemis-worship we find that her great power is insisted on in the same way. The Artemis of the lakes is called Great Artemis in an inscription. [Note: Smyrna Mouseion, No. υλς.] The Artemis of Therma in Lesbos is invoked by the single phrase "Great Artemis of Therma" on a stone still standing by the road between Mitylene and Therma. [Note: Hist. Geogr., p. 410.] Pamphylia affords a good parallel to Ephesus. The cult of the Pergæan Artemis closely resembled that of the Ephesian goddess. The former was styled the Queen of Perga, and the tribe at Sillyon (a neighbouring town), which bore the name of the goddess, was called "the tribe of the great one." [Note: As this last fact has never been observed, so far as I know, I shall point out the evidence on which both statements rest. In 1880]

These numerous analogies show that the power of the Ephesian goddess was insisted on in the cultus, and that her greatness was vividly present to the mind of her worshippers, and prompted the cry "Great Artemis." The invocations "Great Apollo" at Dionysopolis, "Great Anaitis" in the Katakekaumene, "Great Artemis "in Lesbos, afford complete corroboration of the title ’Great Artemis mentioned in Acts.

9. TEXT OF ACTS 19:23-41.

Here we find a discrepancy between the inscriptions and the received text of Acts. The customary phrase was an invocation "Great Artemis," but the text of Acts reads "Great is Artemis," as a formal assertion. There can be no doubt that it would be a far more striking trait if the narrative represented the population as using the precise phrase which has just been proved to have been common in their ritual. Also, we cannot fail to observe that popular shouts are not usually expressed in the indicative. The suspicion suggests itself, that the populace used their ordinary phrase, and that their words have been misrepresented by a very slight alteration, viz., the duplication of the letter η, so that μεγáλη "Aρτεμτς became μεγáλη ὴ" Aρτεμτς. We turn, then, to the manuscripts to see whether we can find any confirmation of this suspicion. The best manuscripts are agreed on this point: they read "Great is Artemis"; but Codex Bezœ [Note: Alone inActs 19:34, supported by three cursives inActs 19:28.] preserves the form which, as we see from the inscriptions, was actually used in the cultus. The latter form, moreover, lends more character to the scene. The mob for two hours invoked with loud voice the goddess and queen of Ephesus, but it is much less natural to represent them as shouting in the streets and in the theatre the statement that Artemis is great. The people were praying, not arguing against Paul’s doctrines; and there is a keen sarcasm in the way their praying is described, ἔκραζον λDZ0γοντες 28 and κρáζοντες 34. Consistently with the principle we have hitherto followed, we must give in this case the preference to the invocation, and suppose that Codex Bezœ alone preserves it, while the other manuscripts have suffered; and the change has been due to a misunderstanding of the scene. [Note: Probably the change arose through an accidental duplication of η, and then spread by deliberate preference due to the misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, we suppose that in this case Codex Bezœ does not give the original text, but an alteration of the original text, due to the influence of the popular formula, this supposition will strongly confirm the theory maintained in Chap. viii., that the text of Coder Bezœ is founded on a revision of the text made in Asia Minor.] as if the cry were a controversial assertion in opposition to the doctrine preached by St. Paul. The preservation of the correct form in Codex Bezœ would be facilitated, if that MS. represents a text current in the province Asia, where this cry or prayer must long have been familiar to the Christians.

I need hardly spend more time on the point The Ephesians habitually invoked their goddess as "Great Artemis," and their common formula of prayer rose to their lips on this occasion in the theatre. The reading of Codex Bezœ which alone retains the form actually used by the people, must here be preferred. From whatever point of view we contemplate the narrative, the superior vividness and suitability of this interpretation of the scene becomes apparent; and, at the risk of wearying the reader, I may add one more consideration. The majority of the people in the theatre were ignorant of what was the matter (Acts 19:32). They had heard the shouting in the street, [Note: On this point, which also is preserved only in Codex Bezœ, see below, p. 153.] and had with the usual human instinct joined the crowd and filled the theatre. But they did not know that the riot was directed against Paul, and could not therefore share in the feeling which might have prompted the argumentative statement, "Great is Artemis"; whereas, when they had learned from the shouts that something connected with the goddess was on hand, the customary invocation would naturally suggest itself to them. The use of the nominative form in place of the vocative "Aρτεμι, need not cause any surprise or difficulty. The confusion of forms, and the substitution of the nominative form for the vocative, began early in Asia Minor; and Aρτεμις for Aρτεμι was adopted even in Greece at no very late date. A similar confusion of nominative and vocative forms occurs in a Cappadocian inscription, which may serve to complete the proof that the formula under consideration was a widely spread invocation. The inscription in question is a dedication to the great Cappadocian god, Zeus of Venasa: "Great Zeus in heaven, be propitious to me Demetrius" (μἐγας Ζευς ἐυ ούραν [ῳ + ̑ ἴσθι], εἴY+03BBεẃς μοτ Δημητρíω + ̩). It lies on a hilltop, which was probably sacred to the god. [Note: I published it in Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén., 1883, p.322, doubting the connexion with the worship of Zeus of Venasa. I have since shown that Venasa was the plain round this hill. ( Hist, Geogr., p. 292). The above restoration, not ἔστω or ἐστι, seems certain.] Here we have the same formula, introducing a fully expressed prayer, yet the nominative form is used as in the Ephesian and Lesbian invocations.

One other example of the epithet "great" may be added, as illustrating the prevalence of the idea in Asia Minor. At Laodiceia on the Lycus, some coins which bear the effigy of the local deity, Zeus, have the legend ΖεΥC ΛCεIC. M. Waddington is in all probability right in proposing to understand this word as the Semitic Azīza, "mighty." Syrian colonists in the city which was founded by a Greek king of Syria left this trace of their language in the religion of the city.

One striking parallel to the scene in the theatre must not be omitted. In the scene on Mount Carmel, the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal "called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us . . . and they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives" (1 Kings 18:26). Except for the wounds inflicted on themselves in the vehemence and agony of Oriental prayer, the loud invocation of the prophets is similar to the prayers of the Ephesians in the theatre; and it is highly probable that even the epithet "great" was used by the former as well as by the latter.

10. HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE, ACTS 19:23-41. The more closely we are able to test the story in Acts, the more vivid and true to the situation and surroundings does it prove to be, and the more justified are we in pressing closely every inference from the little details that occur in it. I entertain the strong hope that the demonstration which has now been given of its accuracy in disputed points, will do away with all future doubt as to the faithfulness of the picture that it gives of Ephesian society in A.D. 57. Even though we cannot agree with H.’s conclusions, our best thanks are due to him for directing our close and minute attention to this most interesting historical scene, and to the inscription he has so ingeniously pieced together. In his paper there are many observations and many passages of permanent interest and value; and parts of it which lie beyond the scope of this chapter give much information about the state of Ephesus between 50 and 150 A.D. The finest part of it is his proof that a revival of paganism in Ephesus began probably as early as A.D. 104. In corroboration of this view he might also have referred to the series of imperial coins struck under Hadrian, and bearing the name and image of DIANA EPHESIA. Roman imperial coins cannot bear the name of a non-Roman deity; and we may therefore see in them the proof that the defence of the Ephesian goddess was formally constituted a part of the Imperial policy at or before this time.

One of the most interesting facts in the history of religion under the Empire is the influence that was exerted by the new religion on the old; and the progress of discovery is gathering a store of information on this point, which will, at some future time, make a remarkable picture. In the first century we observe a general tone of indifference and careless ease in the higher classes, the municipal magistrates, and even the priesthood. Afterwards this security is disturbed. New zeal and earnestness arc imparted to paganism; its ceremonial is more carefully studied; and even certain doctrines are adopted from Christianity, and declared to have been always present in the old worship.

H. in his reply considers that I have "overrated the tolerance of the local hierarchies." [Note: Expositor, August 1890, p. 146.] I have, however, on my side at least the record of Acts. The priests of Zeus Propoleos at Lystra were the foremost in paying respect to Paul and Barnabas, and in stimulating and directing the zeal of the populace. They had known of the Apostles’ preaching for some considerable time, for the accepted text implies that the Apostles had been evangelizing for some time previously, and the text of Codex Bezœ asserts that they had already produced much effect on the people. [Note: καὶ ἐκιλDἠθη ὄλον τό πλη + ̑θος ἐπὶτη + ̑ διδαχη + ̑ addition toActs 14:7.] The priests, however, showed no jealousy. They were willing and ready to patronize the Apostles, to give them place and honour, and to use the revival of religious feeling, for their own purposes. I have simply interpreted the attitude of the Ephesian priests according to the statement in Acts 19:37, [Note: Paul had neither been guilty of sacrilege (thus becoming amenable to the ordinary procedure of the proconsul), nor of disrespect to the goddess (thus rousing the anger of the priests).] and the contemporary analogy of the priests at Lystra. H. quotes against my view the opposition offered to the Christians in Bithynia by the priests in A.D. 112. Such opposition is not indeed recorded, but may safely be assumed. But H. leaves out of sight the difference caused by the development of the situation since the period 47-57 A.D. The period of indifference and toleration had been succeeded by that of apprehension and of confirmed hostility. H.’s example tells only against his own argument. [Note: While I have written throughout on the assumption that the date proposed by H. for the inscription of Demetrius is correct, I feel bound to think that it is rather too early. The form of the symbol 2 + ̄ is not known to me before the second century, and the two instances which occur of O substituted for Ω point also to the period of confusion between these two letters. The confusion implies that they had ceased to be distinguished in pronunciation, and it is hardly probable that this had taken placeso early as A.D. 57. H.would explain the substitution of O for Ω as a mere fault of the engraver, and not as the result of confusion in the pronunciation, quoting the occurrence of A for O and of X for Y. This is quite possible; but two cases of O for Ωpoint more naturally to actual confusion in pronunciation. I mentioned these difficulties in a footnote written when I saw the original marble, and added to my article after it was in type. H. has not in his brief reply taken any notice of these difficulties. He rightly insists on the absence of Latin names as a proof of early date; but in regard to this we must remember that, in a thoroughly Hellenized city like Ephesus, Greek names were used at all periods by those who had not actually gained the coveted prize of Roman citizenship. There are no Roman citizens in this official inscription, which may be due to the fact that the Neopoioi were not officials of very high rank.]