Commentaires bibliques

We left Paul a prisoner at Cæsarea, in Herod's judgment-hall, expecting his trial to come on quickly; for in the beginning of his imprisonment his affairs moved very quickly, but afterwards very slowly. In this chapter we have his arraignment and trial before Felix the governor at Cæsarea; here is, I. The appearing of the prosecutors against him, and the setting of the prisoner to the bar, Ac 24:1,2. II. The opening of the indictment against him by Tertullus, who was of counsel for the prosecutors, and the aggravating of the charge, with abundance of compliments to the judge, and malice to the prisoner, Ac 24:2-8. III. The corroborating of the charge by the testimony of the witnesses, or rather the prosecutors themselves, Ac 24:9. IV. The prisoner's defence, in which, with all due deference to the governor (Ac 24:10), he denies the charge, and challenges them to prove it (Ac 24:11-13), owns the truth, and makes an unexceptionable profession of his faith, which he declares was it that they hated him for (Ac 24:14-16), and gives a more particular account of what had passed from their first seizing him, challenging them to specify any ill they had found in him, Ac 24:17-21. V. The adjourning of the cause, and the continuing of the prisoner in custody, Ac 24:22,23. VI. The private conversation that was between the prisoner and the judge, by which the prisoner hoped to do good to the judge and the judge thought to get money by the prisoner, but both in vain, Ac 24:24-26. VII. The lengthening out of Paul's imprisonment for two years, till another governor came (Ac 24:27), where he seems as much neglected as there had been ado about him.

After five days, Ananias the high priest, the elders, and one Tertullus, an orator, come to Caesarea to accuse Paul, Acts 24:1. The oration of Tertullus, Acts 24:2-9. Paul's defense, Acts 24:10-21. Felix, having heard his defense, proposes to leave the final determination of it till Claudius Lysias should come down; and, in the mean time, orders Paul to be treated with humanity and respect, Acts 24:22, Acts 24:23. Felix, and Drusilla his wife, hear Paul concerning the faith of Christ; and Felix it greatly affected, Acts 24:24, Acts 24:25. On the expectation of obtaining money for his liberation, Felix keeps Paul in prison, Acts 24:26, and being superseded in the government of Judea by Porcius Festus, in order to please the Jews, he leaves Paul bound, Acts 24:27.

CHAPTER 24

Acts 24:1. τῶν πρεσβ.] Lachm. and Born. read πρεσβ. τινῶν, according to A B E א, min. Sahid. Arm. Syr. p. Vulg. Theophyl. τινῶν was written on the margin as a gloss (see the exegetical remarks).

Acts 24:3. κατορθωμάτων] Lachm. and Born. (following A B E א) read διορθωμάτων, which already Griesb. recommended. Neither occurs elsewhere in the N.T. The decision is given by the preponderance of evidence in favour of διορθ., which, besides, is the less usual word.

Acts 24:5. στάσιν] A B E א, min. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have στάσεις. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm and Born. And rightly; στάσιν was easily enough occasioned by the writing of στάσις instead of σιάσεις (comp. א).

Acts 24:6-8. From καὶ κατά to ἐπὶ σέ is wanting in A B G H א, min. vss. Beda. And there are many variations in detail. Condemned by Mill, Beng., Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; it is a completion of the narrative of the orator. Had the words been original (Matth. and Born. defend them), no reason can be assigned for their omission. For κατὰ τ. ἡμετ. νόμ. ἠθελ. κρίνειν in the mouth of the advocate who speaks in the name of his clients could be as little offensive as the preceding ἐκρατήσαμεν; and the indirect complaint against Lysias, Acts 24:7, was very natural in the relation of the Jews to this tribune, who had twice protected Paul against them. But even assuming that this complaint had really caused offence to the transcribers, it would nave occasioned the omission of the passage merely from παρελθών, not from καὶ κατά.

Acts 24:9. συνεπέθεντο] is decidedly attested, in opposition to the Recepta συνέθεντο.

Acts 24:10. εὐθυμότερον] A B E א, min. Vulg. Ath. have εὐθύμως. Approved by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But how much easier it is to assume that the reference of the comparative remained unrecognised, than that it should have been added by a reflection of the transcribers!

Acts 24:11. ἐν Ἱερουσ.] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have, and also Griesb. approved, εἰς Ἱερουσ., according to A E H א, min. This weight of evidence is decisive, as according to the difference in the relation either preposition might be used.

Acts 24:12. ἐπισύστασιν] Lachm. reads, ἐπίστασιν according to A B E א, min. A transcriber’s error.

Acts 24:13. After δύνανται Lachm. and Born. have σοι, according to A B E א, min., and several vss. Some have it before δύν.; others have, also before δύν., sometimes μοι and sometimes με (so Mill and Matth.). Various supplementary additions.

Acts 24:14. τοῖς ἐν τοῖς] Elz. has merely ἐν τοῖς. But against this the witnesses are decisive, which have either τοῖς ἐν τοῖς (so Griesb., Scholz, and others) or simply τοῖς (so Lachm. Tisch. Born., following Matth.). If τοῖς ἐν τοῖς were original (so א *), then it is easy to explain how the other two readings might have originated through copyists—in the first instance, by oversight, the simple τοῖς (A G H א vss. Theophyl. Oec.), and then by way of explanation ἐν τοῖς (B). If, on the other hand, τοῖς were original, then indeed the resolution of the dative construction of the passive by ἐν might easily come into the text, but there would be no reason for the addition of τοῖς before ἐν.

Acts 24:15. After ἔσεσθαι Elz. Scholz have νεκρῶν, which, in deference to very important evidence, was suspected by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A supplementary addition.

Acts 24:16.καὶ αὐτός] so A B C E G א, min. vss. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have δὲ αὐτός. The reference of καί was not understood, and therefore sometimes δέ, sometimes δέ καί was put.

Acts 24:18. ἐν σἷς] A B C E א, min. have ἐν αἷς, which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. But the fem., in spite of the preponderance of its attestation, betrays its having originated through the preceding προσφοράς.

τινὲς δέ] Elz. has merely τινές, against decisive testimony. The δέ was perplexing.

Acts 24:19. ἔδει] B G H, min. Sahid. Aeth. Slav. Chrys. 1, Oec. have δεῖ. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Beng. and Matth. But ἔδει is preponderantly attested by A C E א, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. 1, Theoph., and is much more delicate and suitable than the demanding δεῑ.

Acts 24:20. τί] Elz. has εἴ τι, against decisive witnesses. From Acts 24:19.

Acts 24:22. ἀνεβάλ. δὲ αὐτ. ὁ Φῆλιξ] Adopted, according to decisive testimony, by Griesb. and all modern critics except Matth. But Elz. has ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Φ. ἀνεβ. αὐτούς, which Rinck defends. An amplifying gloss.

Acts 24:23. αὐτόν] Elz. has τὸν Παῦλον, against decisive attestation.

ἢ προσέρχεσθαι] wanting in A B C E א, min., and several vss.; amplifying addition, perhaps after Acts 10:28.

Acts 24:24. After τῇ γυναικί Elz. has αὐτοῦ, and Lachm.: τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικί. The critical witnesses are much divided between these three readings; indeed several, like A, have even ἰδίᾳ and αὐτοῦ. But in view of this diversity, both ἰδίᾳ and αὐτοῦ appear as additions, in order to fix the meaning conjux on τῇ γυναικί.

After Χριστόν B E G א* min. Chrys. and several vss. have ʼΙησοῦν, which Rinck has approved, and Lachm., Scholz, Born, adopted. A frequent addition, which some vss. have before Χριστόν.

Acts 24:25. τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίματος] τοῦ κρίματος τοῦ μέλλοντος (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested, and therefore to be adopted. So also Elz., which, however, adds ἔσεσθαι (deleted by Scholz); and Tisch. has again inserted it, following G H min. and some Fathers. The word, just as being in itself quite superfluous, would have to be received, if it were more strongly attested.

Acts 24:26. After Παύλου Elz. has ὅπως λύσῃ αὐτόν, against preponderating testimony. A gloss.

Acts 24:27. χάριτας] Lachm. and Born. read χάριτα, according to A B C א* and some min.; E G א** min. have χάριν. Thus for χάριτας there remains only a very weak attestation (H, min. and some Fathers; no vss.). The best attested reading, χάριτα, is the more to be adopted, as this accusative form, not elsewhere used in the N.T. (although to be read also in Judges 1:4), could not but occasion offence.

Ac 24:1-27.

PAUL, ACCUSED BY A PROFESSIONAL PLEADER BEFORE FELIX, MAKES HIS DEFENSE, AND IS REMANDED FOR A FURTHER HEARING. AT A PRIVATE INTERVIEW FELIX TREMBLES UNDER PAUL'S PREACHING, BUT KEEPS HIM PRISONER FOR TWO YEARS, WHEN HE WAS SUCCEEDED BY FESTUS.

1. after five days--or, on the fifth day from their departure from Jerusalem.

Ananias . . . with the elders--a deputation of the Sanhedrim.

a certain orator--one of those Roman advocates who trained themselves for the higher practice of the metropolis by practicing in the provinces, where the Latin language, employed in the courts, was but imperfectly understood and Roman forms were not familiar.

informed . . . against Paul--"laid information," that is, put in the charges.

And after five days - This time was occupied, doubtless, in their receiving the command to go to Caesarea, and in making the necessary arrangements. This was the twelfth day after Paul's arrival at Jerusalem. See Acts 24:11.

Ananias, the high priest - See the notes on Acts 23:2.

Descended - Came down from Jerusalem. This was the usual language when a departure from Jerusalem was spoken of. See the notes on Acts 15:1.

With a certain orator named Tertullus - Appointed to accuse Paul. This is a Roman name, and this man was doubtless a Roman. As the Jews were, to a great extent, ignorant of the Roman laws, and of their mode of administering justice, it is not improbable that they were in the habit of employing Roman lawyers to plead their causes.

Who informed the governor against Paul - Who acted as the accuser, or who managed their cause before the governor.

After five days - These days are to be reckoned from the time in which Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem, and twelve days after he had arrived in that city; see Acts 24:11. Calmet reckons the days thus: - St. Luke says that Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem when the seven days of his vow were nearly ended, Acts 21:27; that is, at the end of the fifth day after his arrival. The next day, which was the sixth, he was presented before the Sanhedrin. The night following, he was taken to Antipatris. The next day, the seventh, he arrived at Caesarea. Five days afterwards, that is, the twelfth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, the high priest and the elders, with Tertullus, came down to accuse him before Felix. - But see the note on Acts 23:32.

A certain orator named Tertullus - This was probably a Roman proselyte to Judaism; yet he speaks every where as a Jew. Roman orators, advocates; etc., were found in different provinces of the Roman empire; and they, in general, spoke both the Greek and Latin languages; and, being well acquainted with the Roman laws and customs, were no doubt very useful. Luitprandus supposed that this Tertullus was the same with him who was colleague with Pliny the younger, in the consulate, in the year of Rome, 852; who is mentioned by Pliny, Epist. v. 15. Of this there is no satisfactory proof.

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,.... From Jerusalem to Caesarea: these five days are to be reckoned not from the seizing of Paul in the temple, but from his coming to Caesarea; the Alexandrian copy reads, "after some days", leaving it undetermined how many: the high priest, with the elders, the members of the sanhedrim, with "some" of them, as the same copy and the Vulgate Latin version read, came down hither; not merely as accusers, by the order of the chief captain, but willingly, and of their own accord, to vindicate themselves and their people, lest they should fall under the displeasure of the Roman governor, for encouraging tumults and riots: the high priest must be conscious to himself that he had acted in an illegal manner, in ordering Paul to be smitten on the mouth, in the midst of the council, in the presence of the chief captain; and if it had not been for the soldiers, Paul had been pulled to pieces in the council: and the elders knew what a hand they had in the conspiracy against his life; and they were sensible that this plot was discovered, and Paul was secretly conveyed away; and what the captain had wrote to the governor, they could not tell, and therefore made the more haste down to him, to set themselves right, and get Paul condemned:

and with a certain orator named Tertullus: this man, by his name, seems to have been a Roman; and because he might know the Roman, or the Greek language, or both, which the Jews did not so well understand, and was very well acquainted with all the forms in the Roman courts of judicature, as well as was an eloquent orator; therefore they pitched upon him, and took him down with them to open and plead their cause. The name Tertullus is a diminutive from Tertius, as Marullus from Marius, Lucullus from Lucius, and Catullus from Catius. The father of the wife of Titus, before he was emperor, was of this name (k); and some say her name was Tertulla; and the grandmother of Vespasian, by his father's side, was of this name, under whom he was brought up (l). This man's title, in the Greek text, is "Rhetor", a rhetorician; but though with the Latins an "orator" and a "rhetorician" are distinguished, an orator being one that pleads causes in courts, and a rhetorician a professor of rhetoric; yet, with the Greeks, the "Rhetor" is an orator; so Demosthenes was called; and so Cicero calls himself (m).

Who informed the governor against Paul; brought in a bill of information against him, setting forth his crimes, and declaring themselves his accusers; they appeared in open court against him, and accused him; for this is not to be restrained to Tertullus, but is said of the high priest, and elders with him; for, the word is in the plural number, though the Syriac version reads in the singular, and seems to refer it to the high priest.

(k) Sueton. in Vita Titi, l. 11. c. 4. (l) Ib. Vita Vespasian. c. 2.((m) De Oratore, l. 3. p. 225.