CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 19:23. The way.—See on Acts 9:2.
Acts 19:24. Demetrius.—The name has been found in an inscription, exhumed in Ephesus and supposed (Hicks) to belong to A.D. 50–60, recording a public honour decreed to the Neopoioi or temple wardens of Ephesus in the year of Demetrius. Silver shrines for (rather of) Diana.—Not silver coins stamped with the picture of the temple (Beza, Scaliger, Piscator), but miniature representations in silver of the temple, which strangers visiting the city were accustomed to purchase. No small gain should be either no little business (R.V.), or no small wages (Hackett) to the craftsmen.
Acts 19:27. The temple of the great goddess Diana.—Reckoned one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. This was in 1869, after having for centuries been buried, rediscovered by the late Mr. J. T. Wood, F.S.A., who found remains of three separate buildings about a mile from the nearest (or N.E.) city gate. The earliest of the three temples had been commenced B.C. 480, by Ctesiphon and his son Metagenes, completed by Demetrius, a priest of Diana, and Pæonius, an Ephesian, and destroyed soon after. The second was erected on the same site by an unknown architect, and burnt down by Erostratus on the day Alexander was born, B.C. 356. The third, of which Dinocrates, a Macedonian, was the designer, was in course of erection when Alexander, having visited Ephesus, offered to complete it at his own expense if the people would allow him (which they would not) to dedicate it, when finished, to Artemis in his own name. This building, which was octostyle, having eight columns in front, and dipteral, having two ranks of fluted columns in the peristyle, was 163 feet 9½ inches in width from face to face of columns, and 342 feet 6½ inches in length. The cella or naos of the temple was 70 feet wide, and was doubtless hypæthral, or open to the sky. (See Modern Discoveries on the Site of Ancient Ephesus: Bypaths of Bible Knowledge, pp. 73, 77, 81.)
Acts 19:29. The theatre.—Explored in 1866, this was found to have been built against the steep western side of Mount Coressus, to have been 495 feet in diameter, to have had a palpitum or stage 22 feet deep and 110 feet in diameter, and to have been capable of containing 24,500 persons (Ibid., p. 33).
Acts 19:31. Certain of the chief of Asia.—οἱ Ἁσιαρχαί. These were the ten presidents of the Sacred Rites and public games, “officials of the imperial cultus” (Ramsay), in pro-consular Asia (Enseb, H. E., iv. 15). In the same way other districts were provided with similar officers; as, e.g., Galatia with Galatiarchs, Bithynia with Bithyniarchs, Syria with Syriarchs. These were commonly “selected chiefly on account of their wealth, and sometimes against their will” (Ramsay).
Acts 19:33. Alexander.—His identification with the individual named in 2 Timothy 4:14 is at least doubtful. (See “Homiletical Analysis.”)
Acts 19:34. Great is Diana (or Artemis) of the Ephesians.—Μεγάλη ἡ Αρτεμις Ἑφεσίων. Codex D reads, Μεγάλη Ἄρτεμις, Great Diana (Antemis), which, says Professor Ramsay, formed “a stock phrase of Artemis-worship,” in which it was usual to insist upon the great power of the goddess. He adduces “the invocations ‘Great Apollo’ at Dionysopolis, ‘Great Anaitis’ in the Katakekaumene, ‘Great Artemis’ in Lesbos,” as affording “complete corroboration of the title ‘Great Artemis’ mentioned in Acts” (The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 135–139). He further cites as parallels an inscription in which the Cappadocian god, Zeus of Venasa, is addressed as “Great Zeus in heaven”; and several coins found at Laodicea, on the Lycus, which bear the legend Ζευς Αϲειϲ, signifying, with probable accuracy, as M. Waddington has suggested, “Mighty Zeus.” Prof. Ramsay even thinks that the Baal worshippers on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26) may have used the epithet “great” (Ibid., p. 142).
Acts 19:35. The town-clerk.—Often mentioned in Ephesian inscriptions. A worshipper.—Lit., temple keeper. νεωκόρος, a term founded on Ephesian coins struck about Paul’s time, originally signified a temple servant whose business it was to sweep out and decorate the temple, and ultimately grew to be an epitheton ornans, or honorary title of towns in Asia Minor which were specially devoted to the service of any divinity, and possessed a temple consecrated to that divinity. The image which fell down from Jupiter was the celebrated statue of the many-breasted Artemis (Diana multimammia, Jerome), made, according to Vitruvius, of cedar wood, according to Pliny, of vine wood, according to Xenophon, of gold, and covered with mystical inscriptions on brow, girdle, and feet. The tradition of its origin—similar to that which prevailed concerning a statue of Artemis in Tauris (Eurip., Iph. in T., 977), and one of Pallas at Athens (Iph. in I., xxvi. 6)—suggests that it was probably “a large aerolite, such as are found in Norway, and which, shaped by a sculptor of the day, might have been pieced out and made to assume a form similar to the well-known statues of Diana in the Museo Reale at Naples, and in the museum at Monreale, near Palermo” (Modern Discoveries on the Site of Ancient Ephesus, pp. 77, 78).
Acts 19:37. These men were Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29). Robbers of churches, or temples (R.V.). “The temples among the heathen contained votive offerings and other gifts, and were often plundered” (Hackett). Compare Jos., Ant., XVIII. iii. 5.
Acts 19:38. The law is open.—Better, the courts are open, or court days are being held. Deputies should be pro-consuls (see on Acts 13:7). “The coins of Ephesus show that the proconsular authority was fully established there in the reign of Nero” (Hackett).
Acts 19:39. A lawful, or, the regular assembly.—The ordinary civil tribunal, or popular gathering, called and presided over by the chief magistrate of the city. This assembly is mentioned in the Ephesian inscriptions (Wood, p. 38).
Acts 19:40. To be called in question for this day’s uproar; or, to be accused of riot concerning this day.—The town clerk frightened them with the prospect of a Roman “execution” or investigation into the tumult, for which he said “there was no cause,” rather than “for which no one was the cause” (Vulgate).
NOTE ON THE HISTORIC CREDIBILITY OF Acts 19:23-41.
I. Against.—“It is certainly possible, and even probable, that zeal for the great Artemis, the boast of the city, and the interests attached to her cultus, occasioned Paul’s distress in Ephesus; it is possible that the name of Demetrius, the leader of the movement against him, is historical, that some such episode as that associated with Alexander took place, and that Gaius and Aristarchus were menaced with Paul. But the description of events cannot be correct—i.e., according to the facts—and its separate points possess merely the value of a faint and shadowy outline of actual reminiscences” (Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age [E. T.], i. 391).
II. For.—“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 …” But “the more closely we are able to test the story in Acts (Acts 19:23-41), 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” (Prof. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 141).
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 19:23-41
A Popular Tumult in Ephesus; or, The Temple of Diana Endangered
I. The speech of Demetrius, the silversmith.—
1. Its hearers. The masters and workmen of the guild of silversmiths, with others, employers and employed, of a like occupation; Demetrius, himself one of those master silversmiths, employed a large number of craftsmen, or skilled artisans with high wages, and carried on an extensive trade in manufacturing and selling silver shrines of Diana (or Artemis). These were portable miniature temples containing a statue of the goddess, which were purchased by the inhabitants of the city as well as by strangers visiting it, and either dedicated to the goddess at the temple, or set up on returning home as objects of worship, and sometimes even carried about on the person as amulets or charms. Having collected his brother-tradesmen in some convenient building, if not upon the street, Demetrius, perhaps the chairman of the guild, directed their attention to a danger to which their business was growingly exposed.
2. Its object. To stir up hostility against Paul, or as Demetrius contemptuously said, “this (fellow) Paul,” who, according to Demetrius’s admission, had been carrying on a successful work of evangelisation in the city, not only preaching such abominable (!) doctrine as that “they be no gods which are made with hands”—a doctrine of which the Hebrew Scriptures are full (Psalms 115:4-8; Isaiah 44:19; Isaiah 46:6-7; Jeremiah 10:5; Jeremiah 16:19; Hosea 8:6)—but doing this with such persuasive eloquence as “not alone at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia” to turn away much people from the worship of Diana. A splendid testimony to the success of the gospel in Ephesus!
3. Its motive. Fear of losing his trade. “The most sensitive part of ‘civilised’ man is his pocket” (Ramsay). Hence one may fairly be doubtful whether Demetrius would have been concerned about Diana’s honour, if his business had not been injured and his profits reduced by her decline in popular estimation. It may even be questioned whether Demetrius would have been distressed about the “turn over” of his brother-silversmiths going down, if his own had increased, or even kept up. But in any case it is significant that Demetrius’s opposition to this fellow Paul had its origin in this, that Paul’s preaching was interfering with his (Demetrius’s) pocket. The like phenomenon is not unknown to-day. Men frequently oppose the gospel because the gospel goes against their trade. Yet the converse phenomenon is not unknown. Men profess to believe the gospel so long as the gospel, or their profession of it, favours their financial prosperity. NOTE.—The account here given of the origin of Demetrius’s assault has been challenged as incorrect by Canon Hicks (Expositor, June 1890, pp. 401–422), who on the strength of the inscription already referred to (“Critical Remarks”) holds the hostile action against Paul to have been due to the priests of Artemis, whose “jealousy only waited for an opportunity of attacking the apostle;” but Prof. Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 130, 200) convincingly shows that “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.”
4. Its arguments.
(1) From self-interest. This the most persuasive argument that can be addressed to the ordinary human mind. The wealth of Demetrius and his guild, in fact, their living depended on the making and selling of these Diana shrines, and the selling, at least, of them was absolutely incompatible with Paul’s further preaching in the city. Already their trade receipts had gone down. The market for their wares was declining. Unless in some way they asserted themselves they would be ruined. If this contemptible little Jew were allowed to continue denouncing Diana and her temple nobody would want their silver shrines and such like articles as they traded in, and then what would become of themselves, their wives and families? A modern trades unionist could hardly have spoken better.
(2) From religious zeal. “Not only,” said Demetrius, “will our trade be endangered, but what is of vaster moment (one wonders if he believed this!), the temple of the great goddess Diana will be made of no account, and she whom all Asia and the world worshippeth will be deposed from her magnificence.” The language, though extravagant, contained an element of truth. The temple at Ephesus had been built at the common expense of all the Greek cities of Asia Minor, and was visited by pilgrims from all nations and countries (see “Critical Remarks”).
5. Its results.
(1) The populace were filled with indignation, not at the loss of Demetrius’s profits, but at the dishonour done to Diana. Even false religions exercise a wondrous fascination over men’s hearts, and are capable of exciting strong enthusiasm in their behalf (see 1 Kings 18:26).
(2) The air was rent with shouts in praise of their patron goddess—“Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” This cry, which may have been “the usual chorus of the festivals of Artemis” (Plumptre), was kept up for some time—in all perhaps “about the space of two hours” (Acts 19:34)—and was designed to vindicate the insulted majesty of the goddess, to whom the epithet “great” was considered to rightfully belong (Xenophon, Ephes., 1:15). One would say her honour had not been much hurt if the hurt was repaired by three hours of hurrahing, shouting, and yelling.
(3) The whole city was plunged in to confusion. The loud shouts of Demetrius and his workmen attracted towards them the mob, who, catching up the idea that some one had been attempting to overturn their accepted worship, naturally broke out into wild and fanatical excitement—all the wilder and more fanatical because they properly had no idea what it was all about.
(4) Two of Paul’s companions were arrested. Having learnt that the daring assailants of Diana were the Jewish strangers who had for some time past been residing in the town, and in particular that fellow Paul, with one accord they rushed to the apostle’s lodging, or to the school of Tyrannus where he taught, in the hope of apprehending him; but not finding him, he having been absent, as had been the case at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), they seized on Gaius (see 1 Corinthians 1:14), and Aristarchus (Acts 20:4, Acts 27:2), two of his companions, men of Macedonia, and dragged them off to the theatre, an immense building capable of holding twenty thousand persons, where it was the custom to hold public meetings and transact public business, as well as celebrate public sports (see “Critical Remarks”). What object they had in view in making these arrests and crowding to the theatre with their prisoners, they most likely could not state and did not know. The whole movement was a tumultuous proceeding for which they could offer no explanation except this, that somebody had been meddling with their goddess, and they had apprehended the two Macedonians on suspicion.
II. The proposal of Paul the Apostle.—
1. Brave. Having come to know what had happened, the apostle, with that courageous chivalry for which he was distinguished, wished to force his way into the theatre
(1) to intercede for his two companions who had been arrested without causue;
(2) to take upon himself the full responsibility for any dishonour that had been done to the goodess; and
(3) to explain the nature of his gospel to the multitude there and then assembled, in the hope, doubtless, that in this way the uproar would be stilled and the tumult allayed.
2. Imprudent. At least, so it seemed to certain of the chief officers of Asia, literally, Asiarchs. These were public functionaries, ten in number, who were chosen annually from the chief towns of proconsular Asia, and from the wealthier citizens in those towns, whose business it was to provide at their own expense and superintend in their own persons the games and festivals held every year in honour of the gods and Roman emperor. Being friendly disposed to the apostle, and knowing their countrymen better than the apostle, they entreated him not to venture into the theatre. That they succeeded, though not without a struggle, in preventing him from carrying out his expressed intention may be inferred; and the recollection of this passage in his history when, had his friends permitted him he would have plunged into the heart of the frantic mob, was probably the inspiration of the well-known phrase about his fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15:32).
III. The interposition of Alexander the Jew.—
1. The personality of this individual. That he was a Christian Jew or an adherent of the new faith has been supposed by not a few expositors (Calvin, Baumgarten, Meyer, Alford, and others), but the greater likelihood is that the name belonged to an unconverted Jew (Kuinoel, Neander, Olshausen, Lechler, Hackett, and others) who formed one of Demetrius’s guild. Whether he and the coppersmith of that name, whom Paul afterward mentioned to Timothy
(2. Acts 4:14) as one who had done him much evil (Zöckler), were one and the same person, must remain undetermined,—though the supposition is by no means impossible. If he was, and if the Alexander who made shipwreck of his faith (1 Timothy 1:20) was the same person—both of which points, however, are doubtful—then he appeals to have at a later time become a Christian, though only in name and of pronounced Judaistic proclivities.
2. The reason of his coming forward. His countrymen, having detected him among the crowd and laid hold of him, thrust him forward—if a Christian Jew, that he might serve as a victim for the popular fury, or if an unbelieving Jew, that he might shift the guilt of vilifying Diana from their shoulders to those of the Christians. In either case the Jews were apprehensive lest at any moment the senseless rage of the mob might swing round and direct itself against them, both because the heathen multitude did not as yet with sufficient clearness distinguish between Jews and Christians, and because even from them at that time literary assaults upon the worship of the gods, and especially of the Ephesian Artemis, were not unknown (Zimmerman, quoted by Holtzmann). (Compare Hausrath’s Der Apostel Paulus, p. 347; see “Hints” on Acts 19:34).
3. The failure of his attempt. No sooner had he opened his mouth in defence of his countrymen, having first beckoned to the multitude with his hand for a hearing, than “with a divine irony of fate similar to that which was manifested before Gallio’s tribunal” (Zöckler), they, the multitude, recognising him for a Jew, drowned his words in a volley of frenzied exclamations, shouting, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” as Demetrius and his workmen had done, and keeping up the outcry for a space of two hours. (Compare 1 Kings 18:26; and see Matthew 6:7.) “The Mahommedan monks in India at the present time often practise such repetitions for entire days together” (Hackett).
IV. The address of the town-clerk.—
1. His official designation. The state-scribe, or recorder; a public functionary whose business it was to register the various laws and preserve the legal documents of the city; who was authorised to preside over public assemblies, and who is mentioned on the marbles as acting in that capacity. Unlike the Asiarchs who were appointed annually, the town-clerk was probably a permanent official.
2. His influential character. The instant he appeared upon the rostrum the cries of the multitude were hushed. Different from their dealing with Alexander, they made no attempt to howl him down, but listened to him in respectful silence; and at the close of his harangue allowed themselves to be quietly dispersed. “He was, if we may so speak, the Gamaliel of Ephesus, not without parallels among the princes and statesmen and prelates who have lived in the critical times of political and religious changes, and have endeavoured to hold the balance between contending parties” (Plumptre).
3. His dexterous oration.
(1) He humoured their vanity by reminding them of their religious loyalty to the great goddess Diana, whose magnificent temple adorned their city; of which temple also and of the image it contained—an image which had fallen from heaven or from Jupiter—their city was known throughout the world as the keeper (see “Critical Remarks”). To suppose then that anything said or done by these poor infatuated Jews could either dim the majesty of their world-renowned goddess or tarnish their loyalty was surely the height of folly and, in fact, wholly ridiculous.
(2) He set before them the legal bearing of the then situation. The men they had arrested had been guilty of no crime against either Diana or her temple—they were neither “robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess”—and accordingly should not be treated as criminals. If the cause of this indignation against Paul and his companions was some private grievance, as, for instance, about some trade law or civic regulation which had been infringed, then Demetrius and his brother craftsmen should proceed against them before the proconsuls in the ordinary law courts which were at that moment open, Ephesus being an Assize town and the proconsul on circuit having arrived thither (Acts 19:37-38); if the cause was any matter that concerned the public, then it should be dealt with in a lawful, i.e., a regularly called and constituted assembly (Acts 19:39), and not before a disorderly rabble like that then collected in the theatre.
(3) He played upon their fears by suggesting that they might be brought to book by their Roman masters and asked to explain the cause of such a riotous proceeding as that of which they had been guilty—an explanation they would not find it easy to give.
Note.—As has often been remarked, this speech of the town-clerk was a complete vindication of Christianity and Christians in apostolic times, with regard to the groundless charges of lawlessness and violence which were so frequently preferred against them by their enemies. “This address is so entirely an apologia of the Christians,” says Ramsay (St. Paul, etc., p. 282), “that we might almost take it as an example of the Thucydidean type of speech, put into the mouth of one of the actors, not as being precisely his words, but as embodying a statesmanlike conception of the real situation. At any rate it is included by Luke in his work, not for its mere Ephesian connection, but as bearing on the universal question of the relations in which the Church stood to the empire.”
Learn.—
1. The world-disturbing character of the religion of Christ.
2. The power of self-interest to hinder a reception of the truth.
3. The supremely foolish behaviour of idol worshippers.
4. The virtue of flattery in appeasing a mob.
5. The unconscious testimony sometimes given by the world to Christianity and Christians.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 19:23. No small Stir about that Way; or, Reasons why Men oppose Themselves to Christianity.—Because it
I. Interferes with their (sinful) gains.
II. Explodes their foolish delusions.
III. Disturbs their cherished ease.
IV. Subverts their accustomed practices.
Acts 19:24. Demetrius of Ephesus.
I. A wealthy tradesman.
II. An influential citizen.
III. A blind idolater.
IV. A dexterous orator.
Acts 19:24-27. Demetrius and his Brother Craftsmen; or, Ancient Types of Modern Men.
I. Of the abject slaves of business who in the pursuit of temporal gain have lost all regard for eternity.
II. Of the blind adherents of established customs, who, from every fresh movement of the Spirit fear the disturbance of their ease, indeed, the destruction of the world.
III. Of the self-satisfied priests of the beautiful who in idolatrous veneration for nature and art acknowledge no consciousness of sin and no need of grace.—Gerok.
Acts 19:26. Hand-made Gods.
I. Widely worshipped.—All nations outside of revelation have drifted into idolatry.
II. Strongly condemned.—
1. By Scripture, which proclaims them to be vanities.
2. By reason, since the less cannot make the greater or the creature its creator.
3. By experience, which has shown them to be useless, gods that neither hear nor help, neither see nor save.
III. Certainly doomed.—
1. To exposure. Of their worthlessness.
2. To desertion. By their followers. This process Demetrius observed had begun.
3. To destruction. “The idols He will utterly abolish.”
Acts 19:28. Diana and Jesus.
I. Great was Diana of the Ephesians in her (supposed) divinity; but greater is Jesus of the Christians in His (real) Godhead.—Diana was an idol; Jesus is the true God. Diana was a manufactured goddess; Jesus is the Almighty Maker of the universe. Diana was a creation of the degraded and benighted human intellect; Jesus is the “Word of the Father, in our flesh appearing.”
II. Great was Diana of the Ephesians in the magnificence of her temple; but greater is Jesus of the Christians in the shrines which He inhabits.—The temple of Diana was a structure decorated by the highest art of the day, but at the best was only a limited and mean habitation; the temples of Jesus are first the boundless universe, next the Christian Church, and lastly the soul of the believer—the first of which has lavished on it all the wisdom and power of an infinite mind, and the second and third of which are being beautified by all the glory that divine grace can impart to them.
III. Great was Diana of the Ephesians in the number of her worshippers; but greater is Jesus of the Christians in the multitude of His disciples.—All Asia and the world worshipped Diana, said Demetrius; but to day the name of Jesus is adored by more millions than at that time inhabited the globe.
IV. Great was Diana of the Ephesians in the enthusiasm of her devotees; but greater is Jesus of the Christians in the love of His people.—Diana’s admirers spent much time and physical energy in their insane orgies, and if howling and shouting could do her honour she was a Lighly exalted divinity; but the homage paid to Jesus is of a more spiritual, rational and beneficent sort, consisting of the consecration to His service of loving hearts and holy lives.
V. Great was Diana of the Ephesians in the duration of her reign; but greater is Jesus of the Christians in the permanence of His.—For long centuries the superstition of Diana worship sat like a nightmare upon the souls of men, though it is now for ever perished and gone; but the name of Jesus shall endure for ever. “Jesus shall reign where’er the sun,” etc.
Acts 19:35. The Town-clerk of Ephesus.
I. His fearless courage.—In facing the frenzied mob.
II. His admirable tact.—In humouring the crowd by endorsing their estimate of Diana.
III. His prudent advice.—In exhorting the people to do nothing rashly.
IV. His impartial justice.—I admitting the innocence of Gaius and Aristarchus.
V. His great influence.—In calming and dismissing the assembly.
Acts 19:40. The Uproar at Ephesus.—A picture of rebellion against the gospel.
I. In the dark heathen world; on the part of brutal, yea, Satanic heathen nature.—Pictures of persecution from the missionary field.
II. In unconverted Christendom; on the part of the carnal mind, which will not suffer itself to be rebuked by God’s word, and of the materialistic spirit of the age which will know nothing of heavenly things.
III. In the hearts of true Christians; on the part of proud reason, of the self-righteous heart, and of the flesh which shuns the cross.—Gerok.
Acts 19:24-41. A Group of Typical Characters.
I. Paul.—A type of
1. Evangelical zeal. Preaching in Ephesus.
2. Christian influence. Persuading much people.
3. Heroic self-sacrifice. Willing to rescue his companions by rushing into the theatre.
II. Demetrius.—A type of
1. The successful merchant, who makes no small gain from his trade.
2. The hypocritical religionist, who worships because it pays.
3. The crafty demagogue, who plays upon the ignorance of his townsmen.
III. Gaius and Aristarchus.—Typical of those who
1. Suffer on account of their religion;
2. Bear the consequences of other people’s Acts, ,
3. Come safely out of their tribulations.
IV. Alexander.—Typical of the man
1. Who is disliked for his religion. The Ephesians refused to hear him because he was a Jew.
2. Who is punished by mistake. The Ephesians confounded him with the Christians who also were regarded as Jews.
3. Who is not allowed to speak in his defence, but is condemned without being heard.
V. The Town-clerk.—Typical of
1. The influential citizen.
2. The prudent counsellor.
3. The just judge.
NOTE.—The Jews and the Temple of Diana. It has been suggested that the opposition shown to Alexander by the Ephesian mob may have been occasioned by the assaults which the Jews were known to have made against the worship of Diana. On this subject the following sentences may be read with interest:—“Long before the days of Paul and Apollos the synagogue of Ephesus had waged war against the prevailing heathenism; and, if Paul and John pitched their tents here, that was only because others before them had hewed a clearance in this primeval forest of superstition. From of old the synagogue at Ephesus had found the better class of citizens actively disaffected towards the existing religion, and by means of this prepared the way for Christianity. For a long time had Jews existed in Ephesus. Already the Diadochi had allowed them, contrary to the opinion of the settled citizens, to call themselves Ephesians, and their speedy transition to Rome (as her subjects) bore for them here also good fruits. They knew how to acquire for themselves, from Dolabella and other Roman authorities, numerous privileges concerning which Josephus communicates information. Their religious worship was placed under the protection of the Archons, whilst their youth were exempted from military service. From their petitions about free intercourse with the temple, as also from the fortunes of the apostle Paul, one may gather in how lively commerce with Jerusalem the Jewish quarter in Ephesus continued. Even the narratives in the Acts give the impression of a very vigorous religious life. So zealous a community must have felt itself doubly called forth to open a propaganda among its heathen fellow-citizens, seeing that all the intelligent among these were weary of the disorder of the Diana worship. The apostolic history itself points to this, that only the material interests of Ephesus as a place of pilgrimage, of the vendors of images, and of those who were entitled to the rich endowments of the Diana temple sufficed to keep up the wild cultus. Accordingly from Jewish circles in Ephesus numerous attempts were made to waken up against this condition of things the moral susceptibilities of their Greek fellow-citizens. Even before the abolition by Domitian of the Eunuch worship (Suet., Dom., 7; Pseudo-Heraclit., Ep. 9), and therefore in the time of the first Cæsar, a Jew undertook a bold assault against the temple of Diana, regardlessly uncovering all the evils of the holy disorder, and, through keen satire generally directed against idolatry, pressing to the recognition of the One God. A pretended letter of the philosopher Heraclitus suggested to this Jewish writer the thought to avail himself for the purpose of his raillery of the solemn mask of the people-deriding philosopher, of whom the story ran that he had declared the entire manhood of Ephesus to be deserving of strangulation. He, as no other, was qualified to castigate the Ephesians, and so, like one well-versed in Scripture and well read in Aristotle’s ethic, this son of the synagogue composed some fictitious letters in which the obscure Heraclitus explained to the Ephesians why he had never in his life laughed. Entirely from an Old Testament standpoint Heraclitus proposes the question why it goes well with the wicked, and why their city flourishes in spite of all its vice, and arrives at the Biblical solution:—That God punishes not by the withdrawal of riches, but rather He gives these to the evil that they, by being in possession of means, might sin on to conviction; adding with a grim glance upon the wealth in the haven of Panormus, ‘so may your good fortune never fail that your wickedness may call forth chastisement.’ Then, proceeding to direct his weapons against the excesses of the Ephesian idolatry, with the complacency of hatred he dissects all its institutions, in order to abandon every one of them to contempt. Because the cell in which the idol image is accustomed to stand receives its light for the most part only from the door, and accordingly is half dark, he makes fun of the god placed in the darkness. Because it is an insult (especially to a god) to say that it ‘is of stone’ (Odyss., xix. 163), he finds every stone god blasphemous. Even the narrow pedestal of the idol is a mockery of Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Next from idolatry generally the author turns himself to the Artemis (Diana) worship in particular, which he finds below the practices of the beasts. Should not the chief priest in the first instance curse the wooden image, since, in order to serve it, he requires to be mutilated? And is it not foolish to charge the goddess herself with unchastity when only eunuchs are allowed to approach her? But the essence of all wickedness to him are the orgies of the worship of Cybele, the nightly torch feasts, and all the ancient rites which exist only for the purpose of covering with their mantle abomination and crime. ‘On this account,’ says the pretended Heraclitus, ‘have I given over laughing. I feel lonely in the town. To a wilderness have you made me through your wickedness. Should I laugh when you go round about as mendicant priests with the kettle-drum, each one filled with a separate vice? Should it move me to laughter when I see men do such like things, or when I consider your clothing and your beards, or when I see what useless labour is expended on your head-gear; when I see how a mother seizes her child for poisoning; how the substance of minors is devoured, how a citizen is robbed of his wife; how a maid, during pious night festivals, is forcibly deprived of her virginity; how a girl not yet arrived at womanhood is the victim of all woman’s troubles; how one who is only a youth is the lover of the whole town; or when I see the squandering of oil or of ointment, or the extravagance of mirth in the social meals got up by the pledging of rings; or the assembled town gatherings at which truly very important judicial decisions in matters of the plays are published? On account of these things have I discontinued laughing.’ This lively representation of the domestic and public life at Ephesus is only the basis from which the author seeks to lead to faith in the true God” (Hausrath: Der Apostel Paulus, pp. 346–349).