Ver. 17. The whole section wv. 17- 28 is referred by Hilgenfeld to the ‘author to Theophilus”. In ver. 20 the Paul bound for the hope of Israel belongs only to the “author to Theophilus,” cf. xxiii. 6, xxvi. 6; it is only the same auther who still supposes him to bear
16—19.
547
18. οἵτινες ἀνακρίναντές µε ἐβούλοντο ἀπολῦσαι, διὰ τὸ µηδεµίαν
5 , αἰτίαν θανάτου ὑπάρχειν ἐν ἐμοί.
19. ἀντιλεγόντων δὲ τῶν Ιουδαίων,
1
ἠναγκάσθην ἐπικαλέσασθαι Καίσαρα, οὐχ ὡς τοῦ ἔθνους µου ἔχων τι
After Ίουδαιων 137, Syr. Ἡ. ο”, add και επικραζοντων" ape τον εχθρον ηµων (cf. xxi. 36, xxii. 22, xxv. 24), 5ο Blass in β, Hilg., Zéckler; and after κατηγορειν (8948) the same authorities with Gig., Par., Prov. add αλλ) wa λντρωσωμαι τ.
ψνχην µου ex θανατονυ.
the chain, xxvi. 29, which according to xxii. 29, 30, had been long removed. A reference to the passages in question is sufficient to show the unreasonable- ness of this criticism. In this same section Clemen can only see his two redactors, Judaicus and Antijudaicus, at work again, the latter in vv. 25-28, and the former in vv. 16-24. But it will be noticed that Wendt (1899) still allows that an historical kernel lies at the foun- dation of the narrative, and although he does not speak so unhesitatingly as in 1888, he still allows that it is not incon- ceivable that Paul soon after his arrival in Rome should seek to enter into rela- tions with the Jews there, to convince them if possible of his innocence, and to prevent any unfavourable influences on their part upon his trial_—pera ἡμεράς τρεῖς: an intimation of Paul’s continuous energy; the previous days may well have been employed in receiving his own friends, and in making his summons known.—rév ’lov.: the edict of Claudius, cf. xviii. 2, had evidently been very tran- sient in its effects, and the Jews soon returned; possibly they may only have emigrated to the neighbourhood, ¢.g., to Aricia (Schiirer).—mpoértovs, cf. xill. 50, xxv. 2, Luke xix. 47, here including the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, the γερονσιάρχαι, the ἄρχοντες and others, Sanday and Head- lam, Romans, p. xxiii., or the word may perhaps be used of social distinction, including the officers named. The Jews in Rome were divided into no less than seven synagogues. It does not of course follow that all came in answer to the Apostle’s characteristic summons, as he always turned to his countrymen first. Rendall renders ‘those that were of the Jews first,” as if Paul invited first the members of the synagogues who were Jews, intending to reserve the devout Gentiles for*the second place; see R.V. renderings in loco.—ovveh@.: it was natural that Paul should thus assemble them, and that he should then endeavour to show that although a prisoner he was guiltless of any offence against the Jewish nation; otherwise he could not
expect the representatives of his people to listen to his message; so far it would be difficult to find an intimation of anything unhistorical (see Blass, in loco).—éy® : the word probably occurring first, W.H., R.V. Weiss, seems to indi- cate from its emphatic position that the Apostle’s chief concern on this occa- sion was to vindicate himself.—éXeye : imperfect, ‘‘ quia expectatur responsum,”’ Blass, see note on iii. 3.---ἀδελφοὶ .. . λαῷ .. . πατρῴοις: all indicate the same conciliatory spirit: ‘mira certe Pauli mansuetudo”’ (Calvin).—o.jeas : “though I had done,” R.V., ἐ.ε., at the time he was taken prisoner there had been nothing done by him to merit such treatment.—t@ λαῷ, cf. xxi. 28. The man who could write Rom. ix. 1 ff. and 1 Cor. vii. 18 (cf. ix. 21) might justly use such words. —rapeSd6nv, cf. xxi. 11. The words ascribe rrimarily to the Jews a share in the imprisonment of which they appear as only the indirect cause, cf. xxi. 33, but Paul summarises the chief points and does not enter into minute details; moreover his words were strictly true, for he would have been freed by the Romans in Jerusalem had not the outcry of the Jews stamped him as a malefactor. For similar instances of a main summary ¢f. ii. 23, xiii. 29, σπα τα, καπ. 27.