16. “OTE δὲ] ἤλθομεν eis? Ῥώμην, 6 ἑκατόνταρχος παρέδωκε τοὺς
, ~ δεσµίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχη * c / 4 - , , 3 ἑαυτόν, σὺν τῷ φυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν στρατιώτη.
~ 9 , 3 ΄ J τῷ δὲ Παύλῳ ἐπετράπη µένειν καθ 17. ᾿Εγένετο δὲ μετὰ
” , ~ A ἡμέρας τρεῖς συγκαλέσασθαι τὸν Παῦλον τοὺς ὄντας τῶν Ιουδαίων
πρώτους ' συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν, ἔλεγε πρὸς αὐτούς, Άνδρες ἀδελφοί,
9 2g 8 3 , / n nA a ” a , ἐγὼ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ποιήσας τῷ had ἢ τοῖς ἔθεσι τοῖς TaTpwots,
δέσµιος ἐδ Ἱεροσολύμων παρεδόθην εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τῶν Ῥωμαίων:
1For ηλθ. (so Hilg.) NBI, Tisch., R.V., Blass, Weiss have εισηλθοµεν; A so
W.H. ειςηλθαμεν.
Before Ῥ. &*L, Tisch., Hilg. read την.
2 After Ῥ. Τ.Ε. adds ο εκατονταρχος παρεδωκε τους δεσµιους Tw στρατοπεδαρχῃ. R.V. om. in text, not marg. The words are supported by HLP 137, Syr. H. ςἨ, Gig., Par. Prov., Blass in β, Hilg., Zockler. They are om. by NABI 133, 40, 61, Vulg., Syr. P., Syr. H. text, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt (read simply επετραπη tw Π., if words are omitted); see further below.
3 Before συν tw φυλασσ. κ.τ.λ. 137 Gig., Par., Prov read εξω της παρεµβολης; Blass in B, Hilg. (see Wendt’s note, p. 420, 1899).
either of the Gospel of Christ, or of Paul the prisoner, even in Rome, may well have endued his soul with much strength. Bishop Lightfoot, Phil., pp. 16, 17 (So too Hort, $udaistic Christianity, Ῥ. 113), thinks that the words may intimate that it was a relief to St. Paul to find that some members at least of the Roman Church were favourably disposed towards him ; but, as Zéckler points out, there is certainly no proof here, at least, that the Church was composed preponderat- ingly of Jewish Christians, or that Paul was glad that he received a welcome in a Church so composed, and we have no direct evidence of the existence of an anti-Pauline Jewish party among the Roman Christians; but in the presence of the brethren St. Paul would see a proof that this love was not merely in word or in letter, but in deed and in truth: ‘“‘videbat Christum etiam Rome esse,” Bengel.
Ver. τ6.---ἤλθομεν, see critical note. They would enter by the Porta Capena. On the words which follow see critical note. They are retained by Blass and Ramsay, although these writers differ as to their interpretation, while Lightfoot, Phii., pp. 7, 8, admitting that the balance of existing authorities is against them, inclines to see in the words a genuine tradition, even if no part of the original text. For Ramsay’s view see above on xxvii. 1. Blass takes the expression τῷ στρατ. to refer to Afranius Burrus (and to this identification Lightfoot attaches much probability). It is striking that both before and after Burrus there were two “ prefects,”’ Tac., Ann., xii., 42, Xiv.,
51, whereas Luke writes τῷ στρατ., ‘‘ the captain of the guard’’; but on the other hand we can scarcely draw any decisive argument from this, because the writer may refer merely to the ‘“‘ prefect” in charge of this particular case, whether he had a colleague or ποῖ.---καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν, see critical note for addition in B text. Not only the goodwill of the centurion, and the services which St. Paul had rendered, but also the terms in which Festus had reported the case in the elogium, would combine to secure this favour. The words do not imply that Paul was kept in prison in the camp apart from the other prisoners, but, as in vv. 23, 30, that he was allowed to have a house or lodging in the city (Ramsay) ; he could scarcely have summoned the Jews to the camp, ver. 17 (Bethge), see also Lightfoot, Phil., p. 103.—1@ φυλάσ- σοντι αὐτὸν στρατ.: custodia militaris, he was still bound to a soldier by a light chain, so that he could not go in and out as he pleased, but the form which his custody took has been well compared to that which Herod Agrippa underwent, who was confined at one time in Rome, Jos., Ant., xviii., 6, 5, at first in the camp, and afterwards on the accession of Gaius in a house of his own, although still under military custody, cf. χχῖν. 27.