CHAPTER 22

Acts 22:1. νυνί] is decided by its attestation. Elz. has νῦν.

Acts 22:2. προσεφώνει] Tisch. Born. read προσφωνεῖ, following D E min. Theoph. Oec. Rightly; the Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with Acts 21:40, from which πρωσεφώνησεν is inserted in G, min.

Acts 22:3. μέν] is wanting in important witnesses; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non-logical position occasioned the omission.

Acts 22:9. καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο] is wanting in A B H א, min. and several vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeoteleuton. Had there been interpolation, ἐννεοί from Acts 9:7 would have been used.

Acts 22:12. εὐσεβής] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other hand, B G H א, and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have εὐλαβής, which Lachm. and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere transcriber’s error; and εὐλαβής is to be preferred, on account of the preponderance of evidence.

Acts 22:16. αὐτοῦ] Elz. has τοῦ Κυρίου, against decisive attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have Ἰησοῦ.

Acts 22:20. Στεφάνον] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission is to be explained by an error in copying (ΣτεφανΟΥ τΟΥ).

After συνευδοχῶν Elz. has τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, which, however, is wanting in A B D E א, 40, and some vss., and has come in from Acts 8:1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript. Codd. N.T. p. 28).

Acts 22:22. καθῆκεν] Elz. has καθῆκον, supported by Rinck, in opposition to decisive testimony.

Acts 22:23. ἀέρα] D, Syr. Cassiod. have οὐρανόν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is too weak, and οὐρ. bears the character of a more precise definition of ἀέρα.

Acts 22:24. εἰσάγεσθαι] Elz. has ἄγεσθαι, against greatly preponderating evidence. ΕΙΣ was absorbed by the preceding ΟΣ. εἴπας is to be read instead of εἰπών, according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm.

Acts 22:25. προέτειναν] has, among the many variations,

προέτεινεν (Elz.), προετείναντο, προσέτειναν, προσέτεινον, προσέτεινεν,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore ὁ χιλίαρχος was still regarded as the subject.

Acts 22:26. Before τί Elz. has ὅρα, against A B C E א, min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D G H, min. vss. Chrys. Certainly “vox innocentissima” (Born.), but an addition by way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses.

Acts 22:30. παρά] Lachm. and Born. read ὑπό, according to A B C E א, min. Theophyl. Oec. The weight of evidence decides for ὑπό.

After ἔλυσεν αὐτ. Elz. has ἀπὸ τ. δεσμῶν. An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony.

Instead of συνελθεῖν Elz. has ἐλθεῖν, against equally preponderant evidence. How easily might ΣΥΝ be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ΣΕΝ!

πᾶν τὸ συνέδριον] Elz. has ὅλον τὸ συνέδρ. αὐτῶν, against decisive evidence, although defended by Reiche, l.c. p. 28.

Acts 22:1-3. Ἀδελφοὶ κ. πατέρες] quite a national address; comp. on Acts 7:2. Even Sanhedrists were not wanting in the hostile crowd; at least the speaker presupposes their presence.

ἀκούσατε κ.τ.λ.] hear from me my present defence to you. As to the double genitive with ἀκούειν, comp. on John 12:46.

After Acts 22:1, a pause.

ἐγὼ μέν] Luke has not at the very outset settled the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct position of the μέν, which was appropriate only after γεγενν. Similar examples of the deranged position of μέν and δέ often occur in the classics. See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 168; Winer, p. 520 [E. T. 700].

ἀνατεθραμμένος … νόμου] Whether the comma is to be placed after ταύτῃ (Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette) or after Γαμαλιήλ (Calvin, Beza, Castalio, and most of the older commentators, Bornemann), is—seeing that the meaning and the progression of the speech are the same with either construction—to be decided simply by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new element is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle: γεγεννημένος, ἀνατεθραμμένος, πεπαιδευμένος: born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel (see on Acts 5:34), instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral law. The latter after the general ἀνατεθραμμ. κ.τ.λ. brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not to he affirmed that παρὰ τ. πόδ. Γαμ. suits only πεπαιδ. (de Wette).

παρὰ τοὺς πόδας] a respectful expression (τὴν πολλὴν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αἰδῶ δεικνύς, Chrysostom), to be explained from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair (Schoettg. in loc.; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 179). The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a standing posture to their teachers (Vitringa, Synag. p. 166 f. Wagenseil, ad Sota, p. 993), even if it were the case (but see on Luke 2:46), cannot be urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra (Matthew 23:2; Vitringa, l.c. p. 165 f).

κατὰ ἀκρίβ. τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου] i.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in (living and ruling in) the ancestral law. The genitive depends on ἀκρίβ. Erasmus, Castalio, and others connect it with πεπαιδ., held to be used substantively (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 777): carefully instructed in the ancestral law. Much too tame, as careful legal instruction is after ἀνατεθρ.… παρὰ τ. πόδ. Γαμαλ. understood of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic force.

The πατρῷος νόμος is the law received from the fathers[134] (comp. Acts 24:14, Acts 28:17), i.e. the Mosaic law, but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel supposes—which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to bring into prominence the Mosaically orthodox strictness of his training; the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the mention of Gamaliel, but not by τ. πατρ. νόμου. Paul expresses himself otherwise in Php 3:5 and Galatians 1:14.

ΖΗΛΩΤῊς ὙΠΆΡΧ. ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ] so that I was a zealot for God (for the cause and glory of God), contains a special characteristic definition to πεπαιδευμένος … νόμου. Comp. Romans 10:2. “Uterque locus quiddam ex mimesi habet; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo, quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,” Bengel.

[134] Πατρῷα μὲν τὰ ἐχ πατέρων εἰς υἱοὺς χωροῦντα, Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the difference of χατρῷος, πάτριος, and χατριχός, not always preserved, however, and often obscured by interchange in the codd., see Schoemann, ad Is. p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 127; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 531 f. On πατρῷος νόμος, comp. 2Ma 6:1; Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2; Thuc viii. 76. 6 : χάτριοι νόμοι

Acts 22:4-5. Ταύτ. τ. ὁδόν] for Christianity was in his case the evident cause of the enmity. Comp. on ὁδός, Acts 9:2, Acts 18:25, Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23.

ἄχρι θανάτου] Grotius appropriately remarks: “quantum scil in me erat.” It indicates how far the intention in the ἐδίωξα went, namely, even to the bringing about of their execution.

ὁ ἀρχιερ.] The high priest at the time (still living). See on Acts 9:2.

μαρτυρεῖ] not futurum Atticum, but: he is (as the course of the matter necessarily involves) my witness.

καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτ.] and the whole body of the elders. Comp. on Luke 22:66, and the γερουσία, Acts 5:21.

πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελΦούς] i.e. to the Jews. See Acts 9:2. Bornemann: against the Christians. Paul would in that case have entirely forgotten his pre-Christian standpoint, in the sense of which he speaks; and the hostile reference of πρός must have been suggested by the context, which, however, with the simple ἐπιστ. δεξάμ. πρός is not at all here the case.

καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε (i.e. εἰς Δαμασκόν) ὄντας] also those who were thither. Paul conceives them as having come thither (since the persecution about Stephen) and so being found there; hence ἐκεῖσε does not stand for ἐκεῖ (so still de Wette), but is to be explained from a pregnant construction common especially with later writers (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44; comp. Acts 2:39, Acts 21:3).

Acts 22:6-11. See on Acts 9:3-8. Comp. Acts 26:13 ff. ἱκανόν] i.e. of considerable strength. It was a light of glory (Acts 22:11) dazzling him; more precisely described in Acts 26:13.

Acts 22:10 ὧν τέτακταί σοι ποιῆσαι] what is appointed to thee to do; by whom, is left entirely undetermined. Jesus, who appeared to him, does not yet express Himself more precisely, but means: by God, Acts 22:14.

Acts 22:11. ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον] but when I beheld not, when sight failed me; he could not open his eyes, Acts 22:13. Comp. on the absolute ἐμβλέπειν, Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 10; 2 Chronicles 20:24.

Acts 22:12-15. But Ananias, a religious man according to the law, attested (praised, comp. Acts 10:22, Acts 6:3) by all the Jews resident (in Damascus), thus a mediator, neither hostile to the law nor unknown!

ἀνάβλεψον … ἀνέβλεψα εἰς αὐτόν] ἀναβλέπειν, which may signify as well to look up, as also visum recuperare (see on John 9:11, and Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 328), has here (it is otherwise in Acts 9:17-18) the former meaning, which is evident from εἰς αὐτόν: look up! and at the same hour I looked up to him. We are to conceive the apostle as sitting there blind with closed eyelids, and Ananias standing before him.

προεχειρ.] has appointed thee thereto. See on Acts 3:20; comp. Acts 26:16.

τὸν δίκαιον] Jesus, on whom, as the righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21), the divine will to save (τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ) was based. Comp. Acts 3:14, Acts 7:52.

πρὸς πάντ. ἀνθρ.] Direction of the ἔσῃ μάρτ., as in Acts 13:31 : to all men[135]

[135] That is, according to the popular expression: before all the world. Frequently so in Isocrates. See Bremi, ad Panegyr. 23, p. 28. But the universal destination of the apostle is implied therein. Comp. ver. 21.

Acts 22:16. Τί μέλλεις;] Why tarriest thou? μέλλειν so used only here in the N.T.; frequent in the classics. The question is not one of reproach, but of excitement and encouragement.

ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτ. σου] let thyself be baptized and (thereby) wash away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by means of which the forgiveness of the sins committed in the pre-Christian life takes place.[136] Comp. Acts 2:38; Ephesians 5:26; and see on 1 Corinthians 6:11. Calvin inserts saving clauses, in order not to allow the grace to be bound to the sacrament. As to the purposely-chosen middle forms, comp. on 1 Corinthians 10:2.

ἐπικαλ. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ] Wolf appropriately explains: “postquam invocaveris atque ita professus fueris nomen Domini (as the Messiah). Id scilicet antecedere olim debebat initiationem per baptismum faciendam.”

[136] Comp. the Homeric ἀπολυμαίνεσθαι, Il. i. 113 f., and Nägelsbach in loc.

Acts 22:17-18. With this the history in Acts 9:26 is to be completed.

καὶ προσευχομένου μου] a transition to the genitive absolute, independent of the case of the substantive. See Bernhardy, p. 474; Kühner, § 681; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 A.

ἐκστάσει] see on Acts 10:10. The opposite: γίνεσθαι ἐν ἑαυτῷ, Acts 12:11. Regarding the non-identity of this ecstasy with 2 Corinthians 13:2 ff., see in loc.

οὐ παραδεξ. σ. τ. μαρτ. περὶ ἐμοῦ] περὶ ἐμοῦ is most naturally to be attached to τ. μαρτυρ., as μαρτυρεῖν περί is quite usual (very often in John). Winer, p. 130 [E. T. 172], connects it with παραδ. Observe the order: thy witness of me.

Acts 22:19-21. “I interposed by way of objection[137] the contrast, in which my working for Christianity (my μαρτυρία) would appear toward my former hostile working[138] (which contrast could not but prove the truth and power of my conversion and promote the acceptance of my testimony), and (Acts 22:21)

Christ repeated His injunction to depart, which He further specially confirmed by ὍΤΙ ἘΓῺ ΕἸς ἜΘΝΗ ΜΑΚΡᾺΝ ἘΞΑΠΟΣΤ. ΣΕ.” “Commemorat hoc Judaeis Paulus, ut eis declararet summum amorem, quo apud eos cupivit manere iisque praedicare; quod ergo iis relictis ad gentes iverit, non ex suo voto, sed Dei jussu compulsum fuisse,” Calovius.

αὐτοὶ ἐπιστ.] is necessarily to be referred to the subject of ΠΑΡΑΔΈΞΟΝΤΑΙ, Acts 22:18, to the Jews in Jerusalem, not to the foreign Jews (Heinrichs).

ἐγὼ ἤμην κ.τ.λ.] I was there, etc.

καὶ αὐτός] et ipse, as well as other hostile persons. On συνενδοκ., comp. Acts 8:1.

Acts 22:21. ἘΓΏ] with strong emphasis. Paul has to confide in and obey this I.

ἐξαποστελῶ] This promised future sending forth ensued at Acts 13:2, and how effectively! see Romans 15:19.

ΕἸς ἜΘΝΗ] among Gentiles.

[137] Ewald, p. 438, understands ver. 19 f. not as an objection, but as assenting: “however humanly intelligible it might strictly be, that the Jews would not hear him.” But the extraordinary revelation in itself most naturally presupposes in Paul a human conception deviating from the intimation contained in it, to which the heavenly call runs counter, as often also with the prophets (Moses, Jeremiah, etc.), the divine intimation encounters human scruples. If, moreover, the words here were meant as assenting, we should necessarily expect a hint of it in the expression (such as: ναί, χύριε).

[138] In which I was engaged in bringing believers to prison (φυλακίζ., Wis 18:4), and in scourging them (Matthew 10:17), now in this synagogue, and now in that (κατὰ τὰς συναγ.). Comp. Acts 26:11.

Acts 22:22. Ἄχρι τούτου τοῦ λόγου] namely, Acts 22:21, εἶπε πρός με· πορεύου, ὅτι εἰς ἔθνη μακρ. ἐξαποστ. σε. This expression inflamed the jealousy of the children of Abraham in their pride and contempt of the Gentiles, all the more that it appeared only to confirm the accusation in Acts 21:28. It cannot therefore surprise us that the continuation of the speech was here rendered impossible, just as the speech of Stephen and that of Paul at the Areopagus was broken off on analogous occasions of offence (which Baur makes use of against its historical character).

οὐ γὰρ καθῆκεν κ.τ.λ.] for it was not fit that he should remain in life; he ought not to have been protected in his life, when we designed to put him to death (Acts 21:31). Comp. Winer, p. 265 [E. T. 352]

Acts 22:23. They cast off their clothes, and hurled dust in the air (as a symbol of throwing stones),—both as the signal of a rage ready and eager personally to execute the αἶρε ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τὸν τοιοῦτον! The objection of de Wette, that in fact Paul was in the power of the tribune, counts for nothing, as the gesture of the people was only a demonstration of their own vehement desire. Chrysostom took it, unsuitably as regards the sense and the words, of shaking out their garments (τὰ ἱμάτια ἐκτινάσσοντες κονιορτὸν ἔβαλον· ὥστε χαλεπωτέραν γενέσθαι τὴν στάσιν τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν, ἢ καὶ φοβῆσαι βουλόμενοι τὸν ἄρχοντα). Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hackett, and others explain it of waving their garments, by which means those at a distance signified their assent to the murderous exclamations of those standing near; and the throwing of the dust at all was only signum tumultus. But the text contains nothing of a distinction between those standing near and those at a distance, and hence this view arbitrarily mutilates and weakens the unity and life of the scene. The ῥίπτ. τ. ἱμάτ. is not to be explained from the waving of garments in Lucian, de saltat. 83 (but see the emendation of the passage in Bast, ad Aristaenet. epp. p. 580, ed. Boisson.); Ovid, Amor. iii. 2. 74 (when it is a token of approbation, see Wetstein); but—in connection with the cry of extermination that had just gone before—from the laying aside of their garments with a view to the stoning (Acts 22:20; Acts 7:58), to which, as was well known, the Jews were much inclined (Acts 5:26, Acts 14:19; John 10:31 ff.). On ῥίπτειν τὰ ἱμάτ., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 473 E; Xen. Anab. i. 5. 8.

Acts 22:24. It is unnecessarily assumed by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Wette that the tribune did not understand the Hebrew address. But the tumult, only renewed and increased by it, appeared to him to presuppose some secret crime. He therefore orders the prisoner to be brought into the barracks, with the command εἶπας (see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 236 f. [E. T. 275]), to examine him by the application of scourging (ἀνετάζεσθαι, Susannah 14, Jdg 6:29, not preserved in Greek writers, who have ἐξετάζεσθαι), in order to know on account of what offence (Acts 13:28, Acts 23:28, Acts 25:18, Acts 28:18) they so shouted to him (to Paul, comp. Acts 23:18).

αὐτῷ] for the crying and shouting were a hostile reply to him, Acts 22:22-23. On ἐπιφ. τινι, comp. Plut. Pomp. 4. Bengel well remarks: “acclamare dicuntur auditores verba facienti.” Comp. Acts 12:22; Luke 23:21; 3Ma 7:13.

Moreover, it was contrary to the Roman criminal law for the tribune to begin the investigation with a view to bring out a confession by way of torture (L. 1, D. 48. 18), not to mention that here it was not a slave who was to be questioned (L. 8, ibid.). As in the case of Jesus (John 19:1), it was perhaps here also the contentment of the people that was intended. Comp. Chrysostom: ἁπλῶς τῇ ἐξονσίᾳ χρᾶται (the tribune), καὶ ἐκείνοις πρὸς χάριν ποιεῖ … ὅπως παύσειε τὸν ἐκείνων θυμὸν ἄδικον ὄντα.

Acts 22:25-27. ʼΩς δὲ προέτειναν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσ.] But when they had stretched him before the thongs. Those who were to be scourged were bound and stretched on a stake. Thus they formed the object stretched out before the thongs (the scourge consisting of thongs, comp. bubuli cottabi, Plaut. Trin. iv. 3. 4). Comp. Beza: “quum autem eum distendissent loris (caedendum).” On ἱμάς of the leathern whip, comp. already Hom. Il. xxiii. 363; Anthol vi. 194; Artemidor. ii. 53. The subject of προέτ. is those charged with the execution of the punishment, the Roman soldiers. Following Henry Stephanus, most expositors (among them Grotius, Homberg, Loesner, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen) take προτείνοιν as equivalent to προβάλλειν (Zonaras: προτείνουσιν· ἀντὶ τοῦ προτιθέασι καὶ προβάλλονται): cum loris eum obtulissent s. tradidissent. But προτείνειν never means simply tradere, but always to stretch before, to hold before, sometimes in the literal, sometimes in a figurative[139] sense. But here the context, treating of a scourging, quite demands the entirely literal rendering. Others take τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν instrumentally (comp. Vulg.: “cum adstrinxissent eum loris”), of the thongs with which the delinquent was either merely bound (Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, de Dieu, Hammond, Bengel, Michaelis, also Luther), or, along with that, was placed in a suspended position (Scaliger, Ep. ii. 146, p. 362). But in both cases not only would τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν be a very unnecessary statement, but also the ΠΡΟ in ΠΡΟΈΤ. would be without reference; and scourging in a suspended position was not a usual, but an extraordinary and aggravated, mode of treatment, which would therefore necessarily have been here definitely noted.

εἰ ἄνθρ. Ῥωμ. κ. ἀκατάκρ. κ.τ.λ.] See on Acts 16:37. The problematic form of interrogation: whether, etc. (comp. on Acts 1:6), has here a dash of irony, from the sense of right so roughly wounded. The καί is: in addition thereto. Δύο τὰ ἐγκλήματα· καὶ τὸ ἄνευ λόγου καὶ τὸ Ῥωμαῖον ὄντα, Chrysostom. On the non-use of the right of citizenship at Philippi, see on Acts 16:23.

Acts 22:27. Thou art a Roman? A question of surprise, with the emphatic contemptuous σύ.

[139] For example, of the holding forth or offering of conditions, of a gain, of money, of the hand, of friendship, of a hope, of an enjoyment, and the like, also of pretexts. See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 181 f.; Valckenaer, ad Callim. fragm. p. 224.

Acts 22:28-29. Ἐγὼ πολλοῦ κεφαλ. κ.τ.λ.] The tribune, to whom it was known that a native of Tarsus had not, as such, the right of citizenship, thinks that Paul must probably have come to it by purchase, and yet for this the arrested Cilician appears to him too poor. With the sale of citizenship, it was sought at that time (Dio Cass. 60:17)—by an often ridiculed abuse—to fill the imperial chest. Comp. Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p. 177.

See examples of κεφάλαιον, capital, sum of money,—as to the use of which in ancient Greek (Plat. Legg. v. p. 742 C) Beza was mistaken—in Kypke, II. p. 116.

ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγέννημαι] But I am even so (καί) born, namely, as Ῥωμαῖος, so that my πολιτεία, as hereditary, is even γενναιότερα! a bold answer, which did not fail to make its impression.

καὶ ὁ χιλ. δὲ ἐφοβ.] and the tribune also was afraid. On καὶ … δέ, atque etiam, see on John 6:51. “Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum; scelus, verberari; prope parricidium necari,” Cic. Verr. v. 66. Comp. on Acts 16:37. And the binding had taken place with arbitrary violence before any examination.[140] It is otherwise Acts 26:27, Acts 26:29. See on these two passages. Therefore δεδεκώς, which evidently points to Acts 21:33, is not to be referred, with Böttger, Beitr. II. p. 6, to the binding with a view to scourging (on account of Acts 22:30); nor, with de Wette, is the statement of the fear of the tribune to be traced back to an error of the reporter, or at all to be removed by conjectural emendation (Rinck: δεδάρκως). And that Paul was still bound after the hearing (Acts 23:18), was precisely after the hearing and after the occurrences in it in due order. See Böttger, I.c.; Wieseler, p. 377.

καὶ ὅτι dependent on ἘΦΟΒ: and because he was in the position of having bound him.

[140] During imprisonment preparatory to trial binding was legally admissible, so far as it was connected with the custodia militaris.

Acts 22:30. Τὸ τί κατηγ. παρὰ τ. Ἰουδ.] is an epexegetical definition of τὸ ἀσφαλές. The article, as in Acts 4:21. The τί is nominative. Comp. Thuc. i. 95. ii. ἀδικία πολλὴ κατηγορεῖτο αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, Soph. O. R. 529.

ἔλυσεν αὐτόν] Lysias did not immediately, when he learned the citizenship of Paul, order him to be loosed, but only on the following day, when he placed him before the chief priests and in general the whole Sanhedrim (τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ πᾶν τὸ συνέδρ., comp. Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55). This was quite the proceeding of a haughty consistency, according to which the Roman, notwithstanding the ἐφοβήθη, could not prevail upon himself to expose his mistake by an immediate release of the Jew. Enough, that he ordered them to refrain from the scourging not yet begun; the binding had at once taken place, and so he left him bound until the next day, when the publicity of the further proceedings no longer permitted it. Kuinoel’s view, that ἔλυσεν refers to the releasing from the custodia militaris, in which the tribune had commanded the apostle to be placed (bound with a chain to a soldier) after the assurance that he was a Roman citizen, is an arbitrary idea forced on the text, as ἔλυσεν necessarily points back to δεδεκώς, Acts 22:29 (and this to Acts 21:33).

καταγαγών from the castle of Antonia down to the council-room of the Sanhedrim.[141] Comp. Acts 23:10.

[141] See also Wieseler, Beitr. z. Würdig. d. Ev. p. 211.