Ver. 19. ζητήματα . .. τινα: pluralcon- temptuously (Weiss). — δεισιδαιµονίας͵. see on xvii. 22, “religion,” R.V.: in ac
15-21.
3 A ~ - Ιησοῦ τεθνηκότος, ὃν ἔφασκεν ὁ Παῦλος Liv.
497
20. ἀπορούμενος δὲ
ἐγὼ ] εἰς τὴν περὶ τούτου ζήτησιν, ἔλεγον, εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι
3 ς , a , 4 , εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, κἀκεῖ κρίνεσθαι περὶ τούτων.
21. τοῦ δὲ Παύλου
ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν eis τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτόν, ἕως οὗ πέµψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα.
lets om. ΝΑΒΗΡ, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, but retained by Blass, Hilgenfeld. Although απορ. not elsewhere in N.T. with simple acc., but as this is good Greek no need to read the prep. For τουτου SABCEL read τοντων, so Tisch. and authorities above, so Blass, but brackets περι tovrwy at end of verse.
2For πεµψω ΝΑΒΟΕ 13, 31, 40, 61, 137, read αναπεµψω, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, Blass, Hilg., R.V. After διαγνωσιν Blass in B with Gig. adds
επειδη τε αντον ουκ εδυναµην κριναι.
dressing a Jewish king Felix would not have used the term offensively, especially when we consider the official relation of Agrippa to the Jewish religion (see above, ver. 13), but he may well have chosen the word because it was a neutral word (verbum μέσον, Bengel) and did not commit him to anything definite.— περί τινος ἸΙ.: we note again the almost contemptuous, or at least indifferent, tone of Festus. At the same time this and the similar passage xviii. 15 are proofs of the candour of St. Luke in quoting testimonies of this kind from men of rank: in this ‘‘ aristocratic igno- trance of the Roman” Zeller sees a trait taken from life, so in Agrippa’s answer to Paul’s urgency, xxvi. 28. Festus does not even deign to mention the kind of death (but he accepts the fact of the death as certain); ‘“‘crucem aut nescivit, aut non curavit,” Bengel; see further Luckock, Footsteps of the Apostles as traced by St. Luke, ii., p. 269.—épac- key: with the notion of groundless affirmation, “alleging”; see Page, in loco, and Meyer on Rom, i. 22 (Rev. ii.
2). Blassand Knabenbauer take it as = dictitabat. Ver. 20. ἀπορούμενος δὲ: ‘being
perplexed how to inquire concerning,” R.V., omitting εἰς, the verb Gop. talk- ing a direct accusative. See above on ii.12. Festus might have truly said that he was perplexed, as he still was, con- cerning Paul, and it is possible that the positive motive assigned for his action in ver. 9 was an honest attempt on his part to get more definite information at Jeru- salem than he would obtain in Cesarea— but we know how St. Paul viewed his question. On the other hand he may have wished to conceal his real motive (Weiss).
Ver. 21. ἐπικ. τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν: on the construction after words of request