A L L E N P . W I K G R E N
I w E L c OM E the opportunity to join in this tribute to Bruce Metzger, contributor of so much of value to our common enter- prise, as well as a long-time colleague on two committees which involved a steady diet of text problems. Whether more of the same is an appropriate dessert or not, it does represent an area in which Professor Metzger has been and still is significantly and helpfully involved.
We have chosen, as an ingredient in the pot-pourri, to discuss the description of Philippi as a ~pt.2~~ m&s (‘first city’) in Acts 16 : 12. This text-for so it is ordinarily printed-has invited various interpretations to avoid what appear to be in- superable difficulties in the meaning here. Resort also has been taken to conjectural emendations to solve the problem, chief of which has been the familiar and widely commended proposal to read ~p&qs for ~p&y, which would exactly describe the status of Philippi as ‘a city of the first part [or district] of Macedonia, and a colony’. We would assume the best text in support of this rendering to be nphys ~cpl80s r+js MamAovlas T& as compared with the usually accepted ‘Alexandrian’ form, npdq rjjs p~pl80s Mad3ovlas &AK. The latter reading, when ~pdq is taken in its normal meaning of ‘first’ or ‘foremost’, contradicts the fact that Amphipolis was the capital of the first pcpls of Macedonia and that Thessalonica was the capital of the entire province. Both also were more important than Philippi. We are assuming here that the reader has access to an apparatus criticus show- ing the variant readings in the passage and their supporting witnesses. However, the more significant ones will be discussed below.
After the defeat of Perseus of Macedonia by the Romans and the Peace of Pydna in 168 B C, Macedonia was divided into four administrative and autonomous units. A decade later the right of coinage was restored, and a huge number of coins, especially tetradrachms, survive from the first, second, and
172 A L L E N P . W I K G R E N
fourth geopolitical divisions (&&s). The amount of this coinage, particularly from the first ~E$S,I suggested to some scholars that it could hardly have been produced in the short interval between 158 and 150 BC, when a revolt was instituted by Andronicus, a supposed son of Perseus, and after which Mace- donia in 148 BC was made a Roman province. It was long assumed, though not proved, that the fourfold division ceased to exist, an assumption which naturally threw some doubt upon the proposed emendation in Acts. Roman policy, how- ever, generally was not to alter local administrative machinery unless it was deemed necessary ; and evidence does exist to indicate that the fourfold division continued, although the autonomy of each p~plg was modified by the introduction of a supreme administrative body (KOLV~V) for Macedonia as a whole.2
The fact that the coins bore the insignia rp&~, &&pa, or
T&~TT without expression of a nominal form was misleading.
H. Gaebler suggested, however, that pep& was to be understood, and this was confirmed by the discovery of a didrachm which bore the full legend: MAKEdONQN on the obverse and npQT_KZ MEPIA 022 on the reverse side. It was first published by
W.
Schwabacher in r 937,s and was also discussed in relation to the Macedonian divisions by Charles Edson in 1946.4But long before this an inscription from Beroea was known which definitely mentions ou&pra for the first and fourth
p~p&s as well as a KOLV& for Macedonia as a whole.5 From its reference to the governor, L. Baebius Honoratus, it can be dated in the first century AD (after 73), and Gaebler placed it in the Flavian period, i.e. shortly before the usual dating of Acts.6
I H. Gaebier described the tetradrachms of the first meris as belonging ‘zu den haufigsten Miinzen des Altertums’ in Die antiken M&en von Makedonia und Paionia (Berlin: Georg Reinken, rgo6), 1.3.
z J. A. 0. Larsen refers to direct evidence that the laws of Aemilius Paulus, who had supervised the reorganization of 167 BC, remained in force at the time of Augustus, citing Livy Hist. 45.32.7 and Justin Hist. Philip. 33.2.7 for his opinion.
See his ‘An Additional Note on Acts I 6. I 2’, CTM I 7 ( r g46), I 24.
3 Numismatic Chronicle 19 (I g37), 2-3 and pl. I, no. I.
4 ‘A Note on the Macedonian Merides’, Classical Philology 41 (x946), 107.
5 The earliest notice of it apparently was by M. Rostovtzeff in Revue Archkologique 37 (rgoo), 480. Its significance seems not to have been realized at this time,
6 &tschrzftftir JVumismatik 23 (x902), x41 n. 2 .
The Problem in Acts 16: 12 173 These lines of evidence would seem to have dispelled doubts about the continuation of the fourfold division of Macedonia in our period, and to have made the suggested reading in Acts
16 : I a quite feasible.
We should perhaps also note, apropos scepticism concerning the
‘emendation’, that for some time the term PEP& was questioned as a designation for a geographical division. The papyri, how- ever, soon revealed such use of the term in Egypt, and enough examples are found in late Greek writers to settle any doubts about the matter. In fact W. M. Ramsay long ago called attention to passages in Strabo in which the word is used of geographical subdivisions in Syria, Asia Minor, and Gaul. We may add another passage (Geog. 2. I .23-4) in which Strabo refers to ‘the third section’ (T+ ~pl~qv ,wp&x) of Macedonia ! The LXX also affords several instances of the use of ,xpLs for allotments or divisions of land. Good examples are found in Josh. 18 : 5-g and Ezek. 45 : 7 ; 48 : 8.
Although, as we have noted, there has been a wide approval of the ‘emendation’ in Acts among NT commentators, apparently the evidence we have cited has not, with few exceptions, been sufficient to cause an abandonment of the traditional text in the face of the documentary witnesses to it. The feeling also still pre- vails that among the many witnesses to the NT text the original reading must both be preserved and well attested. But in the text of Acts, largely because of the problem of the ‘Western’ form, such an assumption may well be challenged. Martin Dibelius suggested therefore some years ago that ‘the exegetes of Acts, instead of aiming at an explanation of many impossible readings, should rather attempt conjectural improvements of such read- ings. . . ‘.* Even before the discovery of the Beroea inscription, several NT scholars, including F. Field,9 F. Blass,Io and C. H.
Turner” advocated the ‘emendation’ in our passage. Likewise, among those who have given special attention to the problem,
7 ‘Note on Acts XVI. IZ’, T/u Expositor 6 (18g8), 320. Cf. also Strabo 2.x.33;
7 frag. 47; Diod. Sic. Hist. 15.63, 64; 16.47; Dionys. of Halic. Rom. Antiq. 8.73.4.
Hellenistic Greek authors are cited from the text of LCL.
8 Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Scribner’s, 1g56), 92.
9 Votes on the Translation of the Jvew Testament (London: Cambridge University,
18x9, 124. I
10 Philology of th Gos&eZs (London: Macmillan, 18g8), 67-g.
II ‘Philippi’ in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 3.838.
I74 ALLEN P. WIKGREN
may be mentioned A. C. Clark,12 Hans Conzelmann,Q and Gunther Zuntz.14 To these one can add eminent historians of the period such as Paul Collart,Is Paul Lemerle,Ib and J. A. 0.
Larsen.17 Earlier editions of the Nestle Greek text marked the
‘conjecture’ with a special symbol to indicate that it was a widely accepted reading.
Actually the ‘conjecture’ goes back at least as far as Clericus (Jean Leclerc), who cautiously proposed it but did not adopt it in a second edition of his Latin NT published at Frankfort in
I
7 14.
If the Crell referred to in the margin of the Nestle- Aland Greek text is Johannis Crell (I 590-r 633), the proposal would be much earlier; yet Lemerle, who made a special in- vestigation of the matter, was unable to find anything in the published works of this Crell available to him.18 But there is little point in further pursuing such data, for this simple emendation might easily occur to anyone acquainted with the fourfold division of Macedonia, and who also at least may have suspected that it could have continued into the first century AD.It is customary to refer to npd9.s as a ‘conjectural emendation’, although it does have some documentary support, viz. at least three Vulgate MSS (0, c, Par. lat. I 1505~, which read primae partis ; Provensal [Old French], and Old High German). F. F.
Bruce’9 also cites two other Vulgate MSS, A and Par. lat. 342, the latter of which was known to Blass. They read respectively prima parte and in prima parte. These texts generally, and perhaps too arbitrarily, have been dismissed as late and insignificant or as owing to scribal blunders. But it is curious that in making or copying a mistake a late scribe should arrive at a reading which exactly describes the status of Philippi at the time when Acts was written. A Vulgate reading may well derive of course from
‘2 T?u Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selectid Passages (Oxford: Clarendon, rg33), 362-5.
13 Die Apostelgeschichte (2nd edn.; Tubingen: Mohr, rg72), 98.
14 ‘A Textual Criticism of Some Passages of the Acts of the Apostles’, Classica et Mediaevalia 3 (x940), 20-46, esp. pp. 33-7.
1s Philippes ville de Mact?doine depuk ses originesjusqu’d la fin de l’kfioque romaine (Paris: E. de Boccard, rg37), 457 n. 3.
16 Philippes et la Macedoine orikntale d l’kpoque chrktienne et Byzantine: Recherches d’histoire et archkologie, Bibliothkque des kcoles franraises d’Ath&es et de Rome (2 ~01s.;
Paris: E. de Boccard, 1945).
17 ‘Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism’, Classical Philology 40 (1945), esp. P P. 67-8. 1s Philip&s, 2 I n. I.
IQ The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, x951), 3 13 n. I.
The Problem in Acts 16: 12 =75
the OL and so rest upon very primitive evidence. A few witnesses read ~~pC;rq pep/s or equivalent, but this is grammatically difficult and would make Philippi itself the ,wpl.s of Macedonia.
Most commentators, editors, and translators have been persuaded, with varying degrees of dissatisfaction, to adopt the
‘Alexandrian’ reading. 20 The majority text adds the article before Macedonia, as does Codex Vaticanus. But the latter also omits the article before p~pli30s. This is not without sig- nificance, for its text can then be translated ‘the foremost city of a district of Macedonia’, and may be regarded as in partial support of the ‘emendation’ since it implies more than one district or division. It seems likely, also, that ~jjs MUKEGOV~US,
as a chorographic genitive, which usually has the article, was the original reading.
Except for the text of Codex Bezae (D), the other variants in the passage need not seriously be considered. D reads KE&LA<
for vp&q, and simply omits (+s) ,wptSo~ with a dozen or so other witnesses which retain the 7cpch~. A. C. Clark,21 in a careful consideration of the problem, attempted to defend the K+&< by showing with good reason that it could mean a
‘frontier’ town. But he also posited a text in which 7~pc.h~~
pepl60s was originally present, and supposedly omitted by haplography. Such a conflate reading would seem more difficult to explain than the proposed ‘emendation’ involving one sigma.
The KEqkd?j is therefore usually regarded as a Latinism, per- haps derived from the OL column of Codex Bezae, which reads caput. The citation of the Peshitta Syriac for this reading is inconclusive, for the word here (r-f&Z) can also mean ‘foremost’, and Gunther Zuntz has shown that it was sometimes used to render the Greek vpLkos.22
Those who would retain the ‘Alexandrian’ text have proposed other possible interpretations. Probably the most popular of these would render ~pch-q . . . PALS as ‘a leading city’. But the evidence for such a meaning is rather meagre. In over forty 20 An exception also is found in E. Haenchen’s commentary on Acts, where he favoured and translated the ‘emendation’. See 2% Acts of the Apostles (tr. by R.
Noble and G. Shinn; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). Cf. Today’s English Version, which was based on the UBSGNT 1st edn., and reads ‘a city of the first district of Macedonia’. In the 3rd edn. of the UBSGNT text the sigma of srpckqs is bracketed.
21 Acts, 363-4. 22 ‘A Textual Criticism . . .‘,‘367*
176
ALLEN P. WIKGRENinstances of7+ToE in the NT only one, in I 7 : 4, has been taken in this sense. But this too is somewhat questionable, since the phrase here, yttva~&~ TE T&V 7~p&ov might well be translated-with apo- logies to ‘women’s lib’ - ‘the wives of the leaders’ (cf. Acts 13 : 50 and I 7 : 7). It is so understood in D, which reads KCL~ ywaiicds
TGV ?T~c&w, perhaps to resolve the slight ambiguity.23 It appears that Lucan usage here would have accorded with the usual attributive positions of the adjective, i.e. either T&V TE T~&UV
~VCWC& (cf. 17: 4 and 12), or TGV TE ~~CUK& T& TT~&UV (cf. 1 7 : 2 ; 19: 12 ; and the adjectival equivalent in 27 : 5).
The ambiguity may result from the possibility that the article is to be supplied from the preceding part of the sentence. But to cite the phrase as ~VCZLK~V 7rp&wv, as is often done, is rather inaccurate and misleading. It is true that certain phrases such as
T&J ~ph~v +b~v occur, in which ‘leading’ may be regarded as the equivalent of ‘first’ or ‘foremost’ in the loose sense of
‘important’ ; and one may therefore concede this as a possibility in the Acts passage. But among the many and distinguished cities mentioned in Acts only one, Tarsus, is singled out for a laudatory remark, and that by the litotes, ‘a not undistinguished city’. This would seem to militate against such special treatment for Philippi. On the other hand, the incidental reference pro- vided by the suggested ‘emendation may well have been prompted by the significance of Philippi as the place where the gospel was first proclaimed in Europe. Similar items are found in Acts I I : 26, where Antioch is named as the place ‘where the disciples were first called Christians’, and in Luke 4 :
16,
where Nazareth is described as the place ‘where he [Jesus] had been brought up’. Otherwise only a few chorographic genitives or equivalents occur for the purpose of exact identification of towns and cities (e.g. Acts13: 13,
14; 14: 6).Even, also, if the meaning ‘leading city’ be conceded in the passage, the problem of its geographical reference still remains.
Since it can scarcely be posited of Macedonia as a whole, trans- lators have often avoided this sense by rendering the phrase as
‘a leading city of that district of Macedonia’. But such a demon- strative use of the article is very dubious in this period ; and even 23 Or does this reflect an alleged anti-feminism in D? The Vulgate, generally cited in support of D here, actually reads et mulieres nobiles. Perhaps the other ver- sions cited also need rechecking in terms of the whole phrase.
The Problem in Acts 16: 12 177 in Attic Greek it is mainly confined to constructions with ,X&J . . . 64 and similar particles.
Suggestions also have been made which assume the primary meaning of VP&T. One such is that Philippi or the immediate region was Luke’s home or second home, and the description simply a matter of local pride. There is, however, no corro- borative evidence for this assumption, A more likely proposal rests on the fact that certain prominent cities described them- selves as 7rpcjq ?T&s, although they were not so in the sense of
‘first’. But there is apparently no evidence from coins or in- scriptions that Philippi so designated itself; and the few cities that did so are all in Asia Minor, except Thessalonica. Probably the best interpretation here takes ~pcjq to mean the first city which Paul and company reached after disembarking at Neapolis and proceeding westward on the Egnatian way. A related possi- bility is that it was the first city reached in Macedonia, since Neapolis actually was in Thrace.
This kind of geographical identification perhaps merits more attention than has been given to it.24 The usage can easily be illustrated from Strabo and other writers. The former often enumerates and describes a number of cities, towns, rivers, and other geographical items seriatim, using np&q for the first mentioned. So in Geog. 6. I .5: Ad yhp Ados q&q &AK 2ad
~3s Bp~rdus Tqdq (‘After Laus the first city is Temesa of Brettium’).25 In Polybius &fist. 2.16.2, in a mixture of geo- graphical items, Pisa is mentioned and described as ‘the first city of western Etruria’ (. . . 4 npcjq K&TUL r+-s Tvppsvlas &s VP& &q&). In a succession of items, those following the first are usually introduced by some resumptive expression or, occasionally, by the succeeding numerals. This is so even after a long interruption of the account, which is common in Strabo.
It is true that in Acts, probably because of the long narration of the events in Philippi, there is no explicit resumptive phraseo- logy. Yet in I 7 : I the next cities are then named in geographical sequence.l Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica. But instances are also found where a city is mentioned as ‘first’ in a topo- graphical sense apart from a succession of items. So Polybius 24 I do not know its origin, but Field mentions it (Notes, 124), refers to Alford, and gives three examples: Appian Bellu ciu. 2.35; Herodotus Hid. 1.142; 7.198.
2s Other good examples are found in Strabo Geog. 3.4.2-3; 5.2.1, 3, 7; 6. x.12;
7 frag. 35.
178
ALLEN P. WIKGREN(Htit.
5.80.8), in describing the progress of an army, refers to r:;
Raphia as ‘the first city of Coele-Syria on the Egyptian side’ ,,?I
( . . . ~p6rq r&v Kad Ko&v Z’piav mfhw C&T wpds T+ A?ytmmv) .M
1%:
At all events, there are enough exampltis of this ge@grapl&il
,!cusage to warrant the supposition that the adjective may have this sense in the Acts account. It would seem to be at least as plausible a solution to the problem as the proposed ‘leading’ city. !,::
A related suggestion, that Luke was referring to Philippi as
’”
‘the first colonial city’ has less merit. No other colonial cities in Acts are identified as such
;and if the author were interested in such precise identification here, one might expect him to write
‘first colony’. To make him do so would also require an emenda- tion of the text. It appears therefore that mention of the fact that Philippi was a colony was an incidental historical reference such as one finds elsewhere in Acts.
Much as can be said for certain of the foregoing interpretations of the ‘Alexandrian’ text, we come back to the proposed ‘con- jectural emendation’ as in our judgement the best solution ofthe problem, one which is supported by significant internal evidence and provides an exact description of the status of Philippi at the time when Acts was written.
26
A. C. Clark (Acts, 365) also cites an instance from Procopius Bell. Goth. 88.9.C ‘5 $4;;: Orthography and Theology:
b I*The OAkron-Omega Interchange
;
‘in R&bans 5: 35 and Elsewhere
IAN
A.
MOIRP
RO PISS to ORMetzger has given us a most valuable array of bibliographical and scientific aids to the study of the Greek NT which are listed elsewhere in this volume. Here I would mention his most recent work on The
EarZy Versions of the flew Testam&’ and hisA
Textual Commmtary on the Greek Afew Testa-ment.? Both are most welcome additions to the tools of textual scholars and their pupils alike. In the latter Professor Metzger mentions the problems of the reading at Rom. 5
: I,where the choice is between
2~0pv(customarily translated ‘we have’) and
G'p+.m~(customarily translated ‘let us have’).
Many commentators have discussed this text with or without attempts to weigh the evidence rather than to count it and some- times with the kind of comment made by B. F, Westcott and F.J.A.Hort:‘... the imperative
dp+qv Exqm,standing as it does after a pause in the epistle, yields a probable sense, virtually inclusive of the sense of
&pjyv ZXO~EVwhich has no certain attestation of good quality but that of the “corrector” of NY.3
Professor Metzger, however, takes another view.
Since in this passage it appears that
Paul is not exhorting but stating facts (‘peace’ is the possession of those who have been justified), only the indicative is consonant with the apostle’s argument. Since the difference in pronunciation between o and w in the Hellenistic age was almost non-existent, when Paul dictated ZXO~EV, Tertius, his amanuensis (16 : 22), may have written down 2xq~v.4I B. M. Metzger, 2% Early vkrsionr of the Jvew fistament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).
2 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek .New Testament (London/
New York: United Bible Societies, 197 I).
3 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, 2-7~ .New Testament in the Original Greek [II] Introduction, Appendix (2nd edn.; London/New York: Macmillan, I8g6), 309.
4 Textual Commentary, 5 I I.