ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ: 12. καὶ οὔτε.ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ εὗρόν µε πρός τινα διαλεγό- µενον ἢ } ἐπισύστασιν ποιοῦντα ὄχλου, οὔτε ἐν ταῖς συναγὠγαῖς, οὔτε
κατὰ τὴν πόλιν: 13.7 οὔτε παραστῆσαί µε δύνανται περὶ ὧν νῦν
κατηγοροῦσί µου.
14. ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν
fv λέγουσιν αἴρεσιν, οὕτω λατρεύω TO πατρωω Θεῶ ύ a ἣν dey αἴρεσιν, ρ D πατρώω Θεῷ, πιστεύων πᾶσι
λρ ηθλΊ]
ια ' 1 For επισυστασιν HLP, Chrys. (Meyer), SABE 13, 40, and other authorities as
above read επιστασιν.
2 For ουτε $B 61 read ουδε; R.V. with other authorities as above, but not Hil- genfeld. For νυν AB read νννι, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Blass, Hilgenfeld.
five days of xxiv. 1, but we cannot by any means be sure that xxi. 27 implies a space of full seven days: ‘‘ varie nume- rum computant; sed simplicissimum est sine dubio, e septem diebus, xxi. 27, et quinque, xxiv. 1, eum colligere,” so Blass, but see his note on the passage.— προσκυνήσων, cf. xx. 16, the purpose was in itself an answer to each accusa- tion—reverence not insurrection; confor- mity not heresy, worship not profanity. ‘To worship I came, so far was I from raising sedition,” Chrys. There were other reasons no doubt for St. Paul’s journey, as he himself states, ver. 17, cf. Rom. xv. 25, but he naturally places first the reason which would be a de- fence in the procurator’s eyes. Overbeck and Wendt contend that the statement is not genuine, and that it is placed by the author of Acts in St. Paul’s mouth, but see on the other hand Weiss, zn loco. It seems quite captious to demand that Paul should explain to the procurator all the reasons for his journey, or that the fact that he came to worship should exclude the fact that Ἡε also came to offer alms.
' Ver. 12. οὔτε ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ . . . οὔτε .. » οὔτε: step by step he refutes the «πατρε.-- οὔτε εὗρον, cf. ver. 5, εὗρόν- τες, a flat denial to the allegation of Ter- tullus; R.V. reads more plainly : both acts, the disputing and the exciting a tumult, are denied with reference to the Temple, the synagogue, the city. In διαλ. there would have been nothing censurable, but even from this the Apostle had refrained. --ᾗ ἐπισύστασιν ποι. ὄχ.: R.V. reads ἐπίστασιν; the Apostle had been ac- cused as κινοῦντα στάσεις, ver. 5; here is his answer to the charge, they had not found him “stirring up a crowd,” R.V. This rendering however seems to make ἐπίστασις Ἅαἶπιοδί -- ἐπισύστασις, a stronger word, cf. Numb. xxvi. g, 1 Es- dras v. 73, conjuratio. In 2 Macc. vi. 3 we have ἐπίστασις τῆς κακίας, incursio
malorum, Vulgate, but its meaning here would seem to be rather concursus, in the sense of a concourse, an assembly, not an onset or attack; and the phrase ex- presses that the Apostle had not been guilty of even the least disturbance, not even of causing the assembling of a crowd (see Wendt and Weiss, in loco), ‘aut concursum facientem turbe,’’ Vul- gate.—In 2 Cor. xi. 28 it is possible that ἐπισύστασις may be used of the pre- sence of a multitude, almost like ἐπί- στασις, see Grimm-Thayer.—ovvayo- γαῖς: plural, because so many in Jeru- salem, cf. vi. 9.—xKata τὴν πόλιν: Alford renders ‘‘up and down the streets,” cf. Luke viii. 39, xv. 14.
Ver. 13. οὔτε: οὐδὲ, R.V. (so Blass, Gram., p. 260, Simcox, Z. N. T., p. 165) ; the Apostle after denying the specific charges made against him in Jeru- salem, now proceeds further to a general denial of the charge that he had been an agitator amongst the Jews throughout the επιρίτε.--παραστῆσαι: argumentis probare, only here in N.T. in this sense, but in classical Greek, Philo, Jos., Epictet.—vty, see critical note.
Ver. 14. ὅμολ.: ‘“verbum forense idemque sacrum,” Bengel. ‘Unum crimen confitetur,” viz., that of belonging to the sect of the Nazarenes, ‘sed crimen non esse docet”’.—kata τὴν ὁδὸν 2 , © RP a Ee . ἣν λέγ. αἴρεσιν: ‘according to the way which they call a θεοί,’ R.V. For ὁδὸν see ix. 2, and for the reading in B text critical note. αἴρεσιν: a word of neutral significance, which Tertullus had used in a bad sense. For St. Paul Christianity was not αἴρεσις, a separation from the Jewish religion, but was rather πλήρωσις, cf. xiii. 32.---τῷ πατρ. Θεῷ, cf. xxii. 3. The Apostle may have used the expression here as a classical one which the Roman might appreciate, cf. θεοὶ πατρῷοι, Thuc., ii., 71; An., ix., 247, and instances in Wetstein. (On the distinctions between πατρῷῶος and πατρι-