to say nothing of the fact that the charge was only one of suspicion. Schirer, Fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 74, note, and references in chap. xxi., ver. 29.— ἐκρατήσαμεν: the word could be used ‘“¢de conatu vel mero vel efficaci,’”’ and so Bengel adds ‘‘aptum igitur ad calum- niam”’. The orator identifies himself with his clients, and ascribes to the hierarchy the seizing of Paul, as if it was a legal act, whereas it was primarily the action of the mob violence of the people, xxi. 30; frequently used in same sense as here by Matthew and Mark, but not at all by St. John, and only in this passage by Luke, cf. Rev. xx. 2, LXX, Ps. lv., tit., Judg. viii. 12, xvi. 21 (A al.).—Kal κατὰ . . . ἐπὶ σέ, νετ. 8, see critical note, omitted by R.V. in text, retained by Blass and Knabenbauer, so in Vulgate. Zéckler amongst others has recently supported Blass, and for the same reason, viz., because if the words are retained the judge is asked to inquire of Paul, and thus the Apostle becomes a witness as well as a prisoner. But, on the other hand, Paul though still a prisoner is allowed to speak for himself before both Felix and Festus. If the words are retained, wap’ ot would refer to Lysias, and this would be in agreement with the
remarks of Felix in ver. 22. Certainly ἐκρατήσαμεν seems very bald without any sequel, and this may have caused the insertion of the words ; but the inser- tion was a bold one, although we can understand that the Jews would have been incensed against Lysias, who had twice protected Paul from their violence. The omission of the words if they formed - part of the original text is no doubt diffi- cult to εχρ]αίπ.---ἠθελ. κρίνειν, cf. xxi. 31, 36, xxil. 22, xxili. 12, passages which give us a very different idea of the wishes of the Jews.
Ver.7. μετὰπ. βίας: another statement directly at variance with the facts, xxi. 32.
Ver. 8. ἀνακ.: not an examination by torture, which could not be legally applied either to Paul or to Lysias as Roman citizens, but in the sense of a judicial investigation—in this sense pe- culiar to Luke, cf. iv. 9, and Plummer on Luke xxiii. 14, cf. xxv. 26 below. A.V., ‘“by examining of whom thyself,” εἰς., which is quite misleading whether we retain the words omitted above if Κ.Υ. or not, because this rendering reads as it Felix was to examine the accusers, whereas the relative pronoun is in the singular, wap’ οὗ.
Ver.g. συνέθεντο: in R.V. συνεπεο.,
480