[1141] hosper epathe ti. This is explained in the Recapitulation: "with a loud voice--houto thumou en kai orges."
[1142] Old text: "v. 27-29. Euxaimen an, phesin, egoge ouk en oligo, ti esti; para mikron. Kai ouch haplos euchetai alla kai epitetamenos. From the Recapitulation it appears that Chrys. supposes that Paul, as an idiotes, i.e. not conversant with the elegancies of Greek style, ouk enoesen ti estin 'En oligo all' enomisen hoti ex oligou: did not perceive what Agrippa's phrase meant (viz. as here explained. para mikron), but supposed it to be the same as ex oligou." "With little ado"--i.e. thou makest short work to persuade me, as if this were an easy thing, to be done in brief: therefore Paul answers, Be it in little, or be it in much, I could pray to God, with no brief and hasty prayer, but epitetamenos, much and earnestly.--For kai ouch haplos, we read kai en pollo; ouch ha. and transpose ti estin en oligo; para mikron, to its fitting place. Mod. text ouk en oligo; toutesti, mikron, omitting para, meaning this as the explanation of St. Paul's eux. en oligo. Of the Edd., Commel. Sav. Ben. give para, and so Par. Ben. 2, who however rejects the ouk.
[1143] The correct interpretation of v. 28, 29 depends upon the ff. points: (1) Whether the remark of Agrippa is sincere or ironical. (2) Whether the true text in v. 29 is en pollo or en meralo. (3) What noun, if any, is to be supplied with the adjectives oligo and megalo (or pollo). Regarding the first question, the considerations in favor of the view that Agrippa's remark is ironical are (a) the frivolous character of the man, (b) the current use of Christian among Jews and Romans as a term of reproach and contempt. Touching the second point, we find that megalo is favored by ' A. B. Syr. Copt. Aram. Vulg., as against G. H. for pollo. The former reading is adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, and most modern critics, and the evidence in its favor may be considered decisive. Whether any noun is to be supplied to oligo and megalo (as most) or not (as Meyer) is not important. In any case the sense must be completed. What do "in little" and "in great" mean? The sense may be completed by supplying (a) the idea of time--"in a little time," i.e. almost. In this case, en megalo would have to be rendered "wholly" or "altogether," a meaning which en megalo cannot well convey. Another rendering which might be derived from supplying the idea of time--differing but slightly from the foregoing--would be: "in a little time thou art persuading me!" i.e. dost thou think so soon to persuade me? and Paul replies: "Whether in a little time or in a long time--whether soon or late--I could wish," etc. The first interpretation lays emphasis upon the state of Agrippa's mind--persuaded almost--persuaded altogether; the second upon the element of time required to accomplish the persuasion (ironically spoken of). (b) The idea of labor, trouble or argument may be supplied thus: "Easily--with few words--or with little trouble--thou persuaded me!" and Paul's answer is: Whether with little (labor) or with much, I would to God that," etc. This view we prefer, because, (a) it harmonizes best with the natural meaning of en megalo which (if the true reading) requires taking both phrases in a quantitative sense. (b) It is favored by the evidently ironical character of Agrippa's remark. There is no ground for the opinion of Chrys. (followed by Calvin) that en oligo is used in different senses in the language of Agrippa and Paul, much less for the idea that Paul did not understand what en oligo meant!--G.B.S.
[1144] 'Apestesan loipon hoi 'I. te aphesei chresamenou ekeinou A. B. (C. has lost a leaf here). Mod. text ephesei. Cat. 'Epestesan loipon hoi 'I te ephesei chresamenoi ekeinou. If this be the true reading, it should seem to belong to pan to pl. ton 'Ioud., viz. "concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews besought me:' the Jews thereupon had set upon him, using his, Festus' permission." But apest. and ephesei give a better sense as comment on v. 23, i.e. "No mention now of the Jews--they had left him, when he had made his appeal."--Then, meta polles phant. (mod. text adds ho basileus kai) pan to plethos ton 'I. paresan ouch hoi men hoi de ou. Which is not true, for it could not be said that all the Jews were present at this hearing before Agrippa. We read meta p. ph. paresan. Then from v. 24, "pan to plethos" sc. enetuchon moi.
[1145] Ei gar ouden men eichon deinon eipein. i.e. "As far as the matter of accusation was concerned, he knew that he had nothing to fear: ekeinoi de ememenesan, but the people yonder (at Jerusalem) were mad against him: therefore eikotos ep ekeinon erchetai, no wonder he is for going to Cæsar."
[1146] The apologia is Festus' written report of the hearings before him, which would be sent to Rome, and would at once testify to Paul's innocence, and to the malignity of the Jews.
[1147] Panta toinun apodusamenos, not as Ben. "omnibus ergo relictis, apud quos natus, etc." but in the sense of the phrase apoduesthai (enklemata) which is frequent in Chrys. That is, "the consequence is that Paul makes his first appearance at Rome, not merely as one who has cleared himself of all charges brought against him at home, but, after these repeated examinations, clear from all suspicion."--Below hoiate kurion ouk onton ton katadikazonton auton: the sense intended may be, "seeing they were not his judges, even if they wished to condemn him."
[1148] Mod. text "But not before the tribunal of Lysias alone does he this, but also before Festus, and again here." Ben. cites the old text only to condemn it. Inconsiderately: for it was in the hearing epi Lusiou xxii. 3-5. (Lysias had no "tribunal") and here, that St. Paul thus challenged the testimony of the Jews: not before Felix, which is what is meant by ekei, still less before Festus.
[1149] kai touto meson tithesi. The innovator not understanding the phrase, and its reference to Ei pathetos ho Christos etc., substitutes, "And puts their (words) in the midst."--The meaning is: "He had greater things to say than what the prophets had said:" he could say, "The Christ whom ye slew is risen, for I have seen Him: but instead of this, he put it as a subject for discussion, Did the prophets teach that the Christ was to suffer and to rise again?"
[1150] See above, p. 310, note 1, and *. Yet some modern commentators assert that en oligo cannot mean, as Chrys. says, para mikron: that this sense requires oligou, or oligou dein, or par oligon: so that, in their view, Chrysostom's remark houtos idiotes en would be quite out of place.--In the next sentence ou boulomai, all our mss. and Edd. But Ben. renders it without the negative Et non dixit, Vellem.
[1151] He is commenting upon 2 Tim. ii. 9. "I suffer trouble as an evil-doer even unto bonds." To others, this might seem a twofold aggravation: both that he was treated as a malefactor, and that his destruction was intended. For if indeed he was put in bonds hos ep' agatho, the thing bore its comfort with it, and such was the case to him, but not in their intention; which was, that he should be in chains kai hos kakourgos kai hos epi tois deinois. Of the mss. A. C. have hos epi tois deinois allous; all' oudenos touton ephrontizen. B. halous; and so mod. text. But allous seems to be only the abbreviation of the following all' oudenos.
[1152] Mod. text adds, "To say this, belongs to Paul only: ours it is, who are so far removed from him as the heaven is from the earth, to hide our faces, so that we dare not even to open our mouth."
[1153] meteoroi ton energeion hemin ginontai ai opseis. Unable to discover any meaning in this, (Ben. sublimes nobis sunt: operationum oculi), we conjecture ton epigeion.
[1154] mss. and Edd., tria gar tauta esti psuche (only F. has psuche): "there are for the soul these three subjects."--Below, mss. and Edd. oikodomein for oikonomein.