καὶ] κατὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον νόµον ἠθελήσαμεν κρίνειν, 7. παρελθὼν δὲ Λυσίας ὁ χιλίαρχος μετὰ πολλῆς βίας ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ἡμῶν ἀπήγαγε, δ. κελεύσας τοὺς κατηγόρους αὐτοῦ ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ σέ παρ’ οὗ δυνήσῃ αὐτὸς ἀνακρίνας περὶ πάντων τούτων ἐπιγνῶναι ὧν ἡμεῖς κατηγοροῦμεν
αὐτοῦ. 9.7 συνέθεντο δὲ καὶ οἱ ἸΙουδαῖοι, φάσκοντες ταῦτα οὕτως
» εχει».
1 Τ.Κ. και . . . επι σε (ver. 8) is supported by E, Vulg., Gig., Syr. P. and H.; Blass retains, Κ.Υ. marg. But the whole is omit. by SABHLP 61 (many others), Sah., Boh., so Lach., Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt; Alford places in dark brackets. The words, however, have been recently defended by Zéckler, H. Holtzmann, Hilgen- feld, and Belser, following Blass in his two texts. It is possible that the abruptness of εκρατησαµεν may have prompted a desire for additions and completeness, and it is difficult to understand the omission of the disputed words if they were original. If we retain them, wap’ ov refers to Lysias, but not only is it somewhat strange that a professional orator should throw blame upon the Roman chiliarch, but it is also difficult to see how Lysias could in any way bear testimony against Paul in relation to accusations with regard to which he had professed himself ignorant, and after the hearing of which he had concluded that the prisoner had done nothing worthy of death or bonds. Moreover, the omission of any reference on Paul’s part to Lysias in νετ. 20 raises another difficulty, if Tertullus had appealed to the evidence which the Roman could give (Wendt, 1899). On the other hand the decision of Felix in ver. 22, and the postponement for the arrival of Lysias, have been held to prove the genuineness of the doubtful words. It is possible that there may be some ante- cedent corruption or abridgment in the text. For further variations see W.H., App.,
Ρ. Τοο.
Ἕσννεπεθεντο R.V., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, Blass (instead of συνεθεντο), with