Ver. 6. ἡμέρας πλ., see critical note, ‘‘not Όποτε than eight or ten days,” R.V., 1.6.) the whole period of Festus’
493
βήματος ἐκέλευσε τὸν Παῦλον ἀχθῆναι.
αὐτοῦ, περιέστησαν 1 οἱ ἀπὸ
7. παραγενοµένου δὲ
Ἱεροσολύμων καταβεβηκότες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι,
πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα2 αἰτιάματα φέροντες κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου, ἃ οὐκ
ἴσχυον ἀποδεῖδαι" 8, ἀπολογουμένου αὐτοῦ, Ὅτι οὔτε eis τὸν νόµον
»Ν , 9) τῶν Ιουδαίων, οὔτε ες τὸ ἱερόν, οὔτε εἲς Καίσαρά τι ἤμαρτον. 9.
ὁ Φῆστος δέ, τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις θέλων χάριν καταθέσθαι, ἀποκριθεὶς τῷ
= a Παύλῳ εἶπε, Θέλεις, eis ‘lepooddupa ἀναβάς, ἐκεῖ περὶ τούτων
1ΝΑΒΟΙ,, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Blass, Hilg. read αυτον after περι- εστησαν; E has avtw; Meyer follows Τ.Ε.
2 For αιτιαµατα SRABCEHLP, so Tisch. and authorities above read αιτιωµατα, a word which does not occur elsewhere, although Eustath. has αιτιωσις for
αιτιασις. instead of Φεροντες κατα τον Π.
stay ἐν αὐτοῖς. Blass sees in the words an indication of the vigour of action characterising Festus. The expression may, however, be used from the stand- point of Paul and his friends at Czsarea, who did not know how much of his absence Festus had spent in Jerusalem, or how much on the journey (so Weiss and Wendt).—rq ἐπαύριον: ten times in Acts, but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel, cf., however, ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον, Luke x. 35 and Acts iv. 5 only (Hawkins). This evi- dently implies that the accusers had come down with Festus, and it may again in- dicate his promptness, cf. ver.17. There does not seem any indication that this immediate action shows that he had been prejudiced against Paul in Jerusalem (Chrys.).—éart τοῦ βήματος, xii. 21, xviii. 12, and ver. 10 below: seven times in Acts in this sense (Matt. xxvii. 19, John xix. 13), but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel ; twice by St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 1ο, 2 Cor. v. 10.-- καθ. ἐπὶ τοῦ B.: a necessary for- mality, otherwise no legal effect would be given to the decision, cf. Schiirer, Few- ish* People.) ανα, νο 11.5 Po. τσ, ss. Ls, for this and other instances.—ayO@fvat, cf. προσάγεσθαι, Polyc., Mart., ix., 1 and 2.
Ver. 7. περιέστησαν: if we add αὐτόν, see critical note, ‘‘ stood gound about Πα, τε, Εαυ Ἐν. ; sper culum intentantes,” Bengel. (Cf. John xi. 42, Judith ν. 22, omit 91.)-- πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα: “ many and (indeed) heavy,” etc., Winer-Moulton, lix., 3, perhaps as in Matt. xxili. 23, weighty, of great moment,—aitidpata Φέρ., see critical note. ἀιτίαμ. in A’schylus and Thucy- dides. For καταφέροντες, xxvi. 10, cf. Dent. xxi) τα.
Ver. 8. Evidently the charges classed as before under three heads, (1) the Law,
SABC 13, 40, 61, so Tisch. and authorities above read καταφεροντες
(2) the Temple, (3) the Empire. In this verse Hilgenfeld ascribes ὅτι ... ἥμαρτον to his “author to Theophilus ” (Jungst, too, omits the words). But, not content with this, he concludes that the whole narrative which follows about Agrippa is to ratify the innocence of Paul before a crowned head of Judaism, cf. ix. 15, where viev τε “lo. is also ascribed to the ‘author to Theophilus,” and perhaps also τε καὶ βασιλέων; we are therefore to refer to this unknown writer the whole section xxv. 13-xxvi. 32.--ἤμαρτον with eis only here in Acts, three times in Luke’s Gospel, three times in 1 Cor., only once elsewhere in N.T., Matt. xvili. 21.
Ver.g. χάριν καταθέσθαι, xxiv. 27.— τοῖς Ἰ., best placed emphatically before χάριν κατ. (W.H.), so as to show that it was the compliance of Festus to the Jews which caused the turn which things took (Weiss).—@éAets els Ἱ.: “ injustum videbatur condemnare, incommodum absolvere,” Blass.—ékxet: he makes him- self the same proposal to the prisoner which had previously been suggested by the accusers, ver. 3.—ém ἐμοῦ: ‘me presente,” for the Sanhedrists would be the judges ; otherwise, where would be the favour to the Jews? Felix may have added the words sfectose, so as to τε- assure Paul and to obtain his acqui- escence to the proposal; in ver. 20 omitted, but evidently from their close connection with περὶ τούτ. κρίν. they indicate that Festus would play some judicial part in the matter; cf. xxiv. 21 and 1 Cor. vi. 1. But Paul’s answer plainly shows that he thought from the words of Felix that a Jewish and not a Roman tribunal awaited him: ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ would therefore seem to mean that, the