22—27. 499 24. καί φησιν 6 Φῆστος, ᾽Αγρίππα βασιλεῦ, καὶ πάντες of συµπαρόντες ἡμῖν ἄνδρες, θεωρεῖτε τοῦτον, περὶ οὗ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Ιουδαίων 1 ἐνέτυχόν µοι ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ ἐνθάδε, ἐπιβοῶντες μὴ δεῖν Livy αὐτὸν µηκέτι. 25. ἐγὼ δὲ” καταλαβόμενος μηδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου αὐτὸν πεπραχέναι, καὶὃ αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τὸν Σεβαστόν, ἔκρινα πέµπειν 26. περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές ά τι γράψαι τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ exw: διὰ προήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν, καὶ µάλιστα ἐπὶ cod, βασιλεῦ ᾽Αγρίππα, ὅπως τῆς ἀνακρίσεως γενομένης σχῶ τι Ὑράψαι. 27. ἄλογον γάρ pot δοκεῖ, πέµποντα δέσµιον, μὴ καὶ τὰς Kat αὐτοῦ αἰτίας σημᾶναι.
καὶ κελεύσαντος τοῦ Φήστου, ἤχθη ὁ Παῦλος.
αὐτόν.
1 evervxov NCAEHLP, Tisch., W.H. marg., Weiss, but in text W.H. read ενετυχεν (so Blass in B text), with B.H. 40, 105. For επιβοωντες NAB 61, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt read βοωντες. After ενετυχον pou Blass in β text omits τε and και ενθαδε (retained by Hilgenfeld) with Cod. Dublin, Berger, and proceeds with the same Codex, and Vers. Bohem. (Tisch.), and especially with Syr. H. mg. to reconstruct the text in B (see also Hilgenfeld’s reconstruction). οπως παραδω αντον εις θανατον. (εν) ακατηγορητον Se ove ηδυναµην παραδουναι αντον δια τας εγτολας ας εχοµεν παρα του Σεβαστον. εανδετις αντου κατηγορειν θελῃ, ελεγον ακολουθειν μοι εις Καισαρειαν, ου φυλασσεται. ελθοντες δε εβοησαν αιρεισθαι αυτον. ακουσας δε αµφοτερων κατελαβοµην εν µηδενι αυτον ενοχον θανατον ειναι. λεγοντος δε µου" θελεις κρινεσθαι pet’ αυτων εν Ἱεροσολυμοις; Καισαρα επεκαλεσατο. Belser sees in this, as compared with the shortened form in a, a weighty confirmation of Blass’s
theory, p. 140, and cf. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 150. ? For καταλαβ. ScABCE 4ο, 61, 68, Vulg., Boh., Syr. P., read κατελαβοµην; so
Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, R.V., Hilg.
3 και before avrov om. ΝΑΒΟΕ 13, 49, 68, Vulg., Boh., and other authorities as
above.
4 For τι γραψαι SABC 5, Syr. H., Tisch., and other authorities above; so Blass,
τι γραψω, but Hilg., γραψαι.
Rom. viii. 27, 34, xi. 2, in each place of making supplication to God. For its use cf. ἕντευξις and ἐντυχία, of making request to one in authority, cf. Deiss- mann, Bibelstudien, i., pp. 117, 118, 143, 144, e.g., the frequent formula on the papyri, ἕντευξις εἰς τὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ὄνομα. Clemen regards the whole speech of Festus to Agrippa, vv. 24-27, as an interpolation on account of the repetition of νετ. 21 in ver. 25, and of the contra- diction supposed to exist between vv. 27 and 19. But Jiingst differs from him with regard to the latter point, and although admitting the hand of a reviser freely in the first speech, and also in vv. 14-21, he hesitates to define the revision too exactly in the latter speech.
Ver. 25. καταλαβόμενος, cf. iv. 13 and x. 34; Ephes. iii. 18.—rév Σ.: ‘¢sanctius hoc nomen erat quam Cesar,” Blass.—atrot δὲ τούτου, cf. xxiv. 15, Thuc., vi., 33 (Wetstein).
Ver. 26. ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι, Dig., xlix., 6. ‘Post appellationem interpo-
sitam litter dandze sunt ab eo, a quo appellatum est, ad eum qui de appella- tione cogniturus est, sive principem, sive quem alium, quas litt. dimissorias sive Apostolos appellant” (Wetstein and Blass).—r@ κυρίῳ: title refused by Augustus and Tiberius because it savoured too much of the relationship between a master and a slave, and per- haps because it seemed a title more fitting to God (as Wetstein explains it), cf. Suet., Aug., 53, Tiber.,27,and Tacitus, Ann., ii., 87. It was accepted by Cali- gula and succeeding emperors (ef. Pliny’s Letter to Trajan with the frequent Dominus), although Alexander Severus forbade it to be applied to him; for other instances, and ‘in- stances on inscriptions, see Wetstein, in loco, Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 44, and Bibelstudien, 77, 78, and Tert., Afpol., 34, Polyc., Martyr., viii., 2, ix. 2, who refused to utter it with reference to Czesar. For the due significance of the word in St. Luke, who uses it more fre-