το. ᾽Απεκρίθη δὲ ὁ Παῦλος, νεύσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος λέγει»,
Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ὄντα σε κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ ἐπιστάμενος,! εὐθυμό-
‘ ενθυµοτερον HLP, Chrys. (Meyer); ευθυµως SABE, Vulg., Ath., Tisch., W.H.,
R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Blass, Hilg.
joined in the charge,” ο. xviii. 10, so in classical Greek; in LXX (Deut. xxxii. 27), Ps. iii. 6 AS, Zach. i. 15, here only in Ν.Τ.---φάσκοντες, cf. xxv. 19, Rom. i. 22, dictitantes, but sometimes with the notion of alleging what is untrue, to pretend, cf. LXX, Bel and the Dragon, ver. The verb is found elsewhere, Gen. xxvi. 20, 2 Macc. xiv. 27, 32, 3 Macc. ili. 7.
Ver. 1ο. On the language of the speech see Bethge, p. 229.—This short apology before Felix is not without its traces of Paul’s phraseology, ¢.g., ἐλπίδα ἔχων, ver. 15, with which we may com- pare Rom. xv. 4, 2 Cor. iii. 12, x. 15, Ephes. ii. 12, 1 Thess. iv. 13, in all of which we have the phrase ἐλπ. ἔχειν (only once elsewhere in N.T., 1 John iii. 3); προσδέχονται in ver. 15, with which we may compare Tit. ii. 13; προσφοράς, ver. 17, cf. Rom. xv. 16; δι ἐτῶν, ver. 17, with Gal. ii. 1 (διά with genitive of time, only once elsewhere in N.T., Mark ii. 1), and more especially ἀπρόσκοπον συνειδ., cf. 1 Cor. x. 32, Phil. i. ro, and for συνείδησις, see xxiii. 1 (cf. Nésgen, Apostelgeschichte, p. 54, and Alford, Acts, Introd., p. 14). Wendt regards the whole speech as a free com- position of the author of Acts, and even this view contrasts favourably with what Wendt himself calls the wilful attempts to refer different words and phrases in the speech to various Re- dactors, see for illustrations of this arbitrariness his note on p. 369 (1899). —vetoavros: in N.T., elsewhere only John xiii. 24. Friedrich draws atten- tion to the frequent mention of beckon- ing, or making signs, as characteristic of Luke’s writings, p. 29, cf.) κο i. 22 and 62 (Stavevw, ἐννεύω), ν. 7 (κατα- vevw); Acts xiii, 16, xxvi. I, xxiv. 1Ο, etc.— Ek πολλῶν ἐτῶν: in view of the constant change of procurators a period of five to seven years would quite justify St. Paul’s words. Ewald argued for ten years from the statement, Tac., Ann., xii, 54, that Felix had been joint procurator with Cumanus before he had been appointed sole procurator of Judza, Samaria, Galilee, Perea. But no mention is made of this by Jos., Ant., xx., 7, 1. If, however, so it is
argued, Felix had occupied a position of importance in Samaria in the time of the rule of Cumanus without being himself actually joint procurator, this would perhaps account for Jonathan the high priest asking that he might be appointed procurator after the de- parture of Cumanus (Jos., Ant., xx., 8, 5, B.F}., ii., 12, 6); such a request is difficult to understand unless Jonathan had some ground for supposing that Felix would be acceptable to the Jews. But the description of Tacitus, 1.ο., is also difficult to understand, since we naturally ask what was the relative rank of Felix and Cumanus? or were there two procuratorial districts? and the statement of Josephus seems clearly to intimate that Felix was first ap- pointed to the province after the de- position of Cumanus, and that he went to Palestine as his successor, B.f., ii., 12, 6, cf. Ant., xx., 8, 5, Schirer, fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 ff., and ‘‘ Felix,’’ Hastings’ B.D.—Both Tacitus and Josephus are taken to imply that Felix succeeded Cumanus in 52 A.D. as procurator, Ann., xii., 54, Jos., Ant., xx., 7,1. ButifO. Holtzmannand McGiffert are right in placing St. Paul’s imprison- ment in Czesarea in 53-55 A.D., it seems scarcely intelligible that St. Paul should speak of the ‘‘many years”’ of the rule of Felix, unless on the supposition that Tacitus is right and that Felix had ruled in Samaria and Judea whilst Cumanus had ruled in Galilee. Harnack, Chron., i., 236, following Eusebius, assigns the eleventh year of Claudius, 51 Α.Ρ., as the year in which Felix entered upon office, and thinks that a procuratorship lasting from 51-54 might be described in St. Paul’s words, but, as Wendt justly points out (1899), the expression πολλὰ ἔτη is much more fitting if spoken some years later. Schirer follows Josephus, Fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 Π., and so more recently Dr. A. Robertson, ‘‘ Felix,’ Hastings’ B.D., and Dr. Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 635 (so also article, Biblical World, Nov., 1897), whilst Wendt, p. 58 (1899), would appear to incline to the same view.—But it is to be noted that St. Paul speaks of Felix as κριτής, and in this expres-