聖書注解書

我々はパウロをカイザリヤの、ヘロデの裁判所で囚人として残した。彼の裁判がすぐに始まることを期待して。というのも、彼の投獄の初めには事が非常に速く進んだが、その後は非常に遅かったから。この章には、カイザリヤでの総督フェリックスの前での彼の召喚と裁判が記されている。ここには次の事柄がある。一、彼に対する訴追者の現れと、囚人が法廷に引き出されたこと（使徒24:1,2）。二、訴追者の顧問であったテルトロスによる起訴内容の開示と、裁判官への豊かなおべっかと囚人への悪意をもってする告訴の激化（使徒24:2-8）。三、証人たち、またはむしろ訴追者自身の証言による告訴の補強（使徒24:9）。四、囚人の弁明。その中で、総督へのすべての敬意をもって（使徒24:10）、彼は告訴を否認し、それを証明するよう彼らに挑み（使徒24:11-13）、真理を認め、非の打ち所のない信仰の告白をなし、それが彼らが彼を憎んだものであると宣言し（使徒24:14-16）、彼らが最初に彼を捕らえてから過ぎたことについてのより詳しい説明を与え、彼らが彼に見いだした悪を具体的に示すよう挑む（使徒24:17-21）。五、訴えの延期と、囚人の身柄拘置の継続（使徒24:22,23）。六、囚人と裁判官の間の私的な対話。これによって囚人は裁判官に善を行うことを望み、裁判官は囚人によって金を得ようとしたが、両方とも無駄であった（使徒24:24-26）。七、別の総督が来るまでの二年間のパウロの投獄の延長（使徒24:27）。そこで彼は、彼について騒がれたほどに怠られているように見える。

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 On the expectation of obtaining money for his liberation, Felix keeps Paul in prison, Acts 24:26, and being superseded in the government of Judea by Porcius Festus, in order to please the Jews, he leaves Paul bound, Acts 24:27.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.

パウロはフェリクスの前で専門の弁護士によって訴えられ、自己弁明を行い、さらなる審理のために還押される。個人的面接においてフェリクスはパウロの説教の下に震えるが、彼を二年間囚人のままにし、その後フェストスが後任となる。

1. 五日後――すなわち、彼らがエルサレムを発ってから五日目に。

アナニヤ……長老たちと――サンヘドリンの使節団。

ある弁論家――ローマの法廷で用いられるラテン語が不完全にしか理解されず、ローマの法形式にも馴染みがない諸州で、首都でのより高度な実務の訓練を積んだローマの弁護士たちの一人。

パウロに対して訴えた――すなわち、告発を提出した。

「五日後」――この期間は、疑いなく、彼らがカイザリヤへ行けという命令を受け、必要な準備をすることに費やされた。これはパウロがエルサレムに到着してから十二日目であった。Acts 24:11を参照せよ。

「大祭司アナニヤ」――Acts 23:2の注解を参照せよ。

「下って来た」――エルサレムから下って来たことである。エルサレムからの出発が語られるとき、これが通常の言い回しであった。Acts 15:1の注解を参照せよ。

「テルトロという弁護士」――パウロを訴えるために任じられた者である。これはローマ人の名前であり、この人物は疑いなくローマ人であった。ユダヤ人たちは、ローマの法律やその司法運営の方式について大部分が無知であったので、自分たちの訴訟を弁護させるためにローマの弁護士を雇う習慣にあった可能性は十分にある。

「総督にパウロを訴えた」――告発者の役割を果たした者、すなわち総督の前で彼らの訴訟を取り仕切った者のことである。

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.