聖書注解書

CHAPTER 25

Acts 25:2. ὁ ἀρχιερεύς] οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς is decidedly attested. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The singular arose from Acts 24:1.

Acts 25:4. εἰς Καισάρ.] so Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testimony. Elz. Scholz have ἐν Καισαρείᾳ. An interpretation.

Acts 25:5. τούτῳ] A B C E א, min. Arm. Vulg. Lucifer, have ἄτοπον. So Lachm. and Born. But how easily, with the indefiniteness of the expression εἴ τι ἐστὶν ἐν κ.τ.λ., was ἄτοπον suggested as a gloss, perhaps from a recollection of Luke 23:41! This then supplanted the superfluous τούτῳ. Other codd. have τούτῳ ἄτοπον. And ἄτοπον is found variously inserted.

Acts 25:6. οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα] so Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, Born. But Elz. has πλείους ἢ δέχα, in opposition to A B C א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. As the oldest codd., in which the numbers are written as words, likewise all the oldest vss. (of which, however, several omit οὐ, and several οὐ πλείους), have ὀκτώ, it is very probable that in later witnesses the number written by the numeral sign η was absorbed by the following ἤ. Finally, the omission of οὐ was suggested by ἐν τάχει, Acts 25:4, as it was thought that διατρίψας δὲ … δέκα must be taken as a contrast to ἐν τάχει (he promised to depart speedily, yet he tarried, etc.).

Acts 25:7. αἰτιάματα] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. read αἰτιω̇ματα, which is so decidedly attested that, notwithstanding that this form does not occur elsewhere, it must be adopted.

φέροντες κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read καταφέροντες, following A B C א, loti. 40, Vulg. Lucifer. The Recepta is one interpretation of this; another is ἐπιφέρ. τῷ Π. in E.

Acts 25:11. γάρ] A B C E א, min. Copt. Slav. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, have οὖν, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. Rightly; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀδικῶ seemed entirely at variance with the preceding οὐδὲν ἠδίκησα.

Acts 25:15. δίκην] A B א, min. Bas. have καταδίκην. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. An interpretation.

Acts 25:16. After ἄνθρωπον Elz. Scholz have εἰς ἀπώλειαν. It is wanting in preponderating witnesses, and is an addition of the nature of a gloss.

Acts 25:18. ἐπέφερον] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἔφερον, according to decisive testimony.

After ὑπν. ἐγώ A C* have πονηράν (so Lachm.), and B E א** πονηρῶν (so Born.). Two different exegetical additions.

Acts 25:20. τούτων] has decisive attestation. But Elz. Scholz have τούτου, which (not to be taken with Grotius and others as the neuter) was occasioned by the preceding ὁ Παῦλος and the following εἰ βούλοιτο.

Acts 25:21. ἀναπέμψω is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testimony, instead of πέμψω. The reference of the compound was overlooked.

Acts 25:22. ἔφη, and afterwards ὁ δέ, are deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to A B א; and rightly. They were added by way of completion.

Acts 25:25. καταλαβόμενος] Lachm. and Born. read κατελαβόμην, following A B C E א** loti. Vulg. Copt. Syr., which witnesses also omit καί before αὐτοῦ. A logical emendation.

Acts 25:26. σχῶ, τι γράψαι] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read σχῶ, τί γράψω, according to A B C, min. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the preceding.

Acts 25:1. Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed.

ἐπιβαίνειν, with the dative. See Thuc. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. 1. 19; Diod. xvi. 66; Pind. Nem. iii. 19.

τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ (Acts 23:34); for the procurators were also called ἔπαρχοι. See Krebs in loc.

Acts 25:2-3. Ἐνεφάνισαν κ.τ.λ.] See on Acts 24:1.

οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς] see the critical remarks, as in Acts 22:30; consequently not merely the acting high priest (as in Acts 24:1), who at that time was Ishmael, son of Phabi, and successor of Ananias. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11.

καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων] thus not merely the πρεσβύτεροι, Acts 24:1. The opposition now came forward in a larger spiritual and secular representation of the nation against the enemy of the national religion. It is true that most of these πρῶτοι were without doubt Sanhedrists, and therefore also Festus, Acts 25:15, names them directly a potiori πρεσβύτεροι, Acts 25:15; but this does not justify the assertion of Grotius, that Luke here uses πρῶτοι as equivalent to πρεσβ. So also de Wette and Ewald. Acts 25:5 is opposed to this view.

αἰτούμενοι χάριν κ.τ.λ.] desiring for themselves favour against him. Comp. Acts 25:15.

ὅπως κ.τ.λ.] The design of παρεκάλ. αὐτ.

ἐνέδραν ποιοῦντες κ.τ.λ.] an accompanying definition to παρεκάλουν … Ἱερουσαλήμ, giving a significant explanation of the peculiar nature of this proceeding: inasmuch as they (thereby) formed a snare, in order to put him to death (through assassins), by the way.

Acts 25:4. For the reasons of the decision, see Acts 25:16.

By τηρεῖσθαι … ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the reply of refusal: “Paul remains at Caesarea,” is expressed indirectly indeed, but with imperative decidedness. Observe in this case the τηρεῖσθαι emphatically prefixed in contrast to μεταπέμψ., Acts 25:3.

εἰς Καισάρ.] In Caesarea, whither he was brought in custody, Acts 19:22, Acts 21:13.

Notice the contrast between the Jewish baseness and the strict order of the Roman government.

Acts 25:5. The decidedly attested order of the words is: οἱ οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν φησιν δύνατοι (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann). See on similar intervening insertions of φησι, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 13; Bornemann, ad loc.; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 472 D. οἱ δυνατοὶ ἐν ὑμ. are: the holders of power among you, i.e. those who are invested with the requisite official power (for making a public complaint in the name of the Jewish nation). Thus the usual literal meaning of δυνατός is to be retained, and it is neither to be explained, with Erasmus, as idonei; nor, with Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Homberg: quibus commodum est; nor, with Bengel: those who are strong for the journey; nor, with Er. Schmid and Wolf (comp. Castalio, de Dieu, and others): quibus in promptu sunt accusandi capita. Certainly if οἱ πρῶτοι, Acts 25:2, were the same as οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, then οἱ δυνατοὶ ἐν ὑμῖν would be unsuitable, as those persons in power were just the Sanhedrists; wherefore οἱ πρῶτοι must include also other prominent persons.

συγκαταβ.] having gone down with me. Thuc. vi. 30. 2; Diod. xii. 30; Wis 10:13; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 398.

εἴ τι ἐστίν] namely, an object of accusation.

Acts 25:6-7. Διατρίψας … δέκα] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at that time among the Jews at Jerusalem (ἐν αὐτοῖς), not merely the time that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal.

περιέστησαν] stood round Paul, as is evident from the preceding παραγ. δὲ αὐτοῦ. Comp. Acts 25:18. Grotius and Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to τὸ βῆμα.

πολλὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ.] as in John 20:30.

αἰτιώματα (see the critical remarks), instead of αἰτιάματα, accusations, is not elsewhere preserved. Yet Eust. p. 1422, 21, has αἰτίωσις instead of αἰτίασις.

καταφέροντες (see the critical remarks), they brought against him. Genesis 37:2; Deuteronomy 22:14.

Acts 25:8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated for his vindication, that, etc. On ἀπολογεῖσθαι with ὅτι (more frequently with ὡς), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22.

οὔτε κ.τ.λ.] These were consequently the three principal points to which the πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα of the Jews referred. Comp. Acts 21:28, Acts 24:5 f., to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly against Jesus.

Acts 25:9. Χάριν καταθέσθαι] see on Acts 24:27.

θέλεις … ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ;) Grotius correctly renders: visne a Synedrio judicari me praesente? For that Festus meant a κρίνεσθαι by the Sanhedrim, is evident of itself from εἰς Ἱεροσ. ἀναβ. and ἐκεῖ.

ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ] coram me. Bengel aptly observes: hoc Festus speciose addit.

Paul must be asked the question, θέλεις, because he had already been delivered over to the higher Roman authority, and accordingly as a Roman citizen could not be compelled again to renounce the Roman tribunal.

If Festus had previously (Acts 25:4) without ceremony refused the request of the Jews, which was at variance with the course of Roman law, he now shows, on the other hand, after they had conformed to the ordinary mode of procedure, that he was quite willing to please them. Certainly he could not doubt beforehand that his θέλεις would be answered in the negative by Paul; yet by his question he made the Jews sensible at least that the frustration of their wish did not proceed from any indisposition on his part.