Ver. 26. ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἐλπ.: connected by some with ἀπεκ. (cf. xxiii. 25), so Weiss, Wendt, Hackett; others punctu- ate as W.H., R.V., and render it as a finite verb.—6rt: on the construction with ἐλπίζειν see Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 121, and Blass, 1m loco: Luke xxiv. 31, 2 Cora. τα 6, Philem. νετ. 22 (not in Attic Greek).— On ἅμα cf. Blass, Gram., p. 247, Col. iv. 3, Philem. ver. 22, 1 Tim.v. 13. ἅμα καί: only in Luke and Paul; on its use
458
λύσῃ αὐτόν: διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν µεταπεμπόμενος ὠμίλει αὐτῷ,
27. Διετίας δὲ πληρωθείσης ἔλαβε διάδοχον ὁ Φῆλιξ Πόρκιον
by them see further Viteau, Le Grec du N.T., p. 187 (1893).—xpypata: the mention of ‘‘alms,” ver. 17, had perhaps suggested the thought that Paul was in a position to purchase his freedom with money, and it was also evident to Felix that the prisoner was not without personal friends, ver. 23. Spitta, Apostelgeschichte, p. 280, points to ver. 17, and to the fact that Felix could not be unaware that Paul was a man of wide influence and supported by many friends, as a sufficient answer to the supposed improbability urged by Pfleiderer that Felix could hope for money from a poor tent-maker and missionary. Spitta thinks that Philip- pians may have been written from Ce- sarea, and that therefore (Phil. iv. 10) Felix had double cause to suppose that the poor missionary had command of money; but without endorsing this view as to the place of writing of Philippians, it may be suggested that St. Paul’s friends at Philippi might have helped to provide financial help for the expenses of his trial: Lydia, ¢.g., was not only ready with large-hearted hospitality, but her trade in itself required a considerable capital: see on the other hand the view of Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 312. It is urged, moreover, that a poor man would never have received such attention or aroused such interest. But St. Luke himself has told us how Herod desired to see the Son of Man, Who had not where to lay His head, and the same feeling which prompted Herod, the feeling of curiosity, the hope perhaps of seeing some new thing, may have prompted the desire of an Agrippa or a Drusilla to see and to hear Ῥαπ].- -ἐλπιζ. ... δοθ.: ‘sic thesaurum evangelii omisit infelix Felix,” Bengel. When Overbeck expresses surprise that Felix did not deliver Paul to the Jews for money, he forgets that Paul’s Roman citizenship would make such an action much more dangerous than his detention. —8.6 καὶ: characteristic of Luke and Paul, and common to Luke’s Gospel and Acts, cf. Luke i. 35, Acts x. 29, Rom. iv. 22, XV. 22, 2 Cor. 1. 20, 1v. 13, ν. 9, Phil. Π, 9, only twice elsewhere in N.T., Heb. xi. 12, xiii. 12; ‘ut illiceret eum ad se pecunia temptandum,’”’ Blass, Knaben- bauer.—ruxvétepov, cf. Luke v. 33, I Tim. v. 23; and LXX, Esther viii. 13, 2 Macc. viii. 8, 3 Macc. iv. 12. The comparative here is ‘‘verus compara- tivus”: quo s@epius, Blass. Nothing
could more plainly show the corruption of the Roman government than the conduct of Felix in face of the law: ‘Lex Julia de repetundis precepit, ne quis ob hominem in vincula_publice conjiciendum, vinciendum, vincirive ju- bendum, exve vinculis dimittendum ; neve quis ob hominem condemnandum, absolvenduum . . . aliquid acceperit,” Digest., xl., 11, 3 (Wetstein) ; see further on ver. 3.—@ptAer: only in Luke, see above xx. 11; imperfect denoting fre- quent occurrence.
Ver. 27. διετίας δὲ πληρ.: on the question of chronology see below, ¢f. xx. 30, and for τριετία, xx. 31; on διετία in inscriptions see two instances in Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 86. πληρ.: perhaps indicating that two full years are meant. Weizsacker throws doubt upon the historical character of this imprisonment, and thinks that the episode is merely introduced by the writer of Acts, who in his ignorance of the name of the procurator doubles the incident before Felix and Festus; but Wendt declines to value so lightly the definite notices and accounts in Acts, and adds that the delay of the trial under a procurator devoid of a sense of duty was no improbable event. The recall of Felix has been assigned to very varying dates, Lightfoot naming 60, Wendt (1899) 61, Schiirer, at the earliest 58, at the latest 61, probably 60, Ram- say 59, whilst McGiffert, following the Chronology recently advocated by O. Holtzmann (with a few earlier writers), places it as early as 55 (Harnack 55-56, following Eusebius, whilst Blass has also defended the Eusebian date). Both McGiffert and Holtzmann fix upon 55 because before the end of this year Pallas, the brother of Felix, was in dis- grace; and yet, according to Josephus, Felix escaped the accusations brought against him by shielding himself behind his brother Pallas, whom Nero was then holding in special honour, Jos., Ant., Xx., 8,.9, Lac., Ann., xXi., 14509 Εππες Josephus is in error,’’ says O. Holtz- mann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 128, “or Festus went to Palestine in 55”. But there is good reason for thinking that Josephus was in error in stating that Felix escaped by his brother’s in- fluence, then at its height, ]ος., µ. 5. It is no doubt true that the influence of Pallas may have been very substantial