{2---14.
495
13. Ἡμερῶν δὲ διαγενοµένων τινῶν, “Aypimmas ὁ βασιλεὺς
Βερνίκη κατήντησαν εἰς Καισάρειαν,' ἀσπασόμενοι τὸν Φῆστον.
14.
ὡς δὲ πλείους ἡμέρας διέτριβον Exel, 6 Φῆστος τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀνέθετο
9 lol ” 6 τὰ κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον, λέγων, ᾽Ανήρ τίς ἐστι ” καταλελειμµένος ὑπὸ
1 For ασπασαµενοι (instead of -ομενοι) $ABEer-HLP 13, 31, 68, τος, Boh., Aeth., so Tisch., Weiss, Wendt, R.V. Hort (not Westcott) says the authority for -αμενοι is absolutely overwhelming, and as a matter of transmission -ομενοι can be only a correction. But he adds that it is difficult to remain satisfied that there is no prior corruption of some kind. Blass, Gram., p. 193, rejects -αμενοι as impossible, and
reads, -ομενοι, so Hilg.
Wendt (1899), p. 386 strongly supports -αμενοι, and
explains the aor. part. after the anal. of i. 24, x. 13, xiii. 27. Ζκαταλελειμμ., W.H. have -λιμμ.; cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 45.
announced were not meant to frighten Paul, as Bengel supposed, but at the same time they may have been uttered, if not with a sneer, yet with the implica- tion ‘thou little knowest what an appeal to Czsar means’’. Moreover, Festus must have seen that the appeal was based upon the prisoner’s mistrust of his character, for only if the accused could not trust»the impartiality of the governor had he any interest in claiming the transference of his trial to Rome. Ver. 13. “Ayp. 6 βασιλεὺς: this was Herod Agrippa II., son of Agrippa I., whose tragic end is recorded in chap. xii. At the time of his father’s death he was only seventeen, and for a time he lived in retirement, as Claudius was persuaded not to entrust him with the kingdom of Judea. But on the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Α.Ρ. 48, Claudius not only gave the young Agrippa the vacant throne, A.D. 50, but transferred to him the government of the Temple, and the right of appointing the high priest. His opinion on religious questions would therefore be much desired by Festus. Subsequently he obtained the old te- trarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and the title of king was bestowed upon him. We have thus a proof of St. Luke’s accuracy in that he calls him βασιλεύς, cf. xxvi. 27, but not king of Judza, al- though he was the last Jewish king in Palestine. Bernice and Drusilla were his sisters. He offended the Jews not only by building his palace so as to overlook the Temple, but also by his constant changes in the priesthood. In the Jewish war he took part with the Romans, by whom at its close he was confirmed in the govern- ment of his kingdom, and received con- siderable additions to it. When Titus, _after the fall of Jerusalem, celebrated his visit to Cesarea Philippi—Herod’s capi- tal, called by him Neronias in honour
of Nero—by magnificent games and shows, it would seem that Agrippa must have been present; and if so, he doubt- less joined as a Roman in the rejoicings over the fate of his people, Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie des Fudentums, ii., t, 30, “Agrippa II.”; Schirer, fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 191 ff., «« Herod’ (6), Hastings’ B.D., Farrar, The Herods, Ρ. 193 ff. (1808).---Βερνίκη (Bepev. = Mace- donian form of Φερενίκη, see Blass, in laco, and. C.I.G.,. 36%,; ο. Att... Wis i., 556, Headlam in Hastings’ B.D.): the eldest of the three daughters of Agrippa I. She was betrothed, but apparently never married, to Marcus, son of Alex- ander, the Alabarch of Alexandria (see Schirer for correct reading of Jos., Ant., ΧἰΧ., 5, 1, Fewish People, div. 1., vol. ii., Ρ. 342, note). On his death at the age of thirteen she was married to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis, Jos., 1. 5., but after a few years she was left a widow, and lived in the house of her brother Agrippa II. In order to allay the worst suspicions which were current as to this intimacy, she married Polemon, king of Cilicia, Ant., xx., 7, 3 (Juv., Sat., vi., 156 ff.), but she soon left him and resumed the intimacy with her brother. Like Agrippa she showed openly at least a certain deference for the Jewish religion, and on one occasion, says Schirer, w.s., p- 197, we find even her, a bigot as well as a wanton, a Nazirite in Jerusalem, B.F., ii., 15,1. This was in Α.Ρ. 66, and she endeavoured while in the capital to stay the terrible massacre of Florus— the one redeeming feature of her career,” B.D.?._ But later on, exasperated by the Jewish populace who burnt her palace, she became, like her brother, a partisan of the Romans, and in turn the mistress of Vespasian and of Titus, Tac., Hist., ii., 81 ; Suet., Tit.,7 ; Jos., B.F.,ii., 17,6. O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 83,