Acts 22:30

τὸ τί κατηγ. παρὰ τῶν Ἰ.: epexegetical of τὸ ἀσφαλὲς, cf. Acts 4:21 for the article, and Luke 1:62; Luke 9:46; Luke 19:48; Luke 22:2; Luke 22:4; Luke 22:23-24; Luke 22:37, also 1 Thessalonians 4:1; Romans 8:26; Matthew 19:18; Mark 9:10; Mark 9:23. The usage therefore is more characteristic of St. Luke than of the other Evangelists, Viteau, Le Grec du N.T., p. 67 (1893), Hawkins, Horæ Synopticæ, p. 38. παρὰ, if retained, cf. Winer-Moulton, xlvii., 5 b, who takes it to mean “on the part of the Jews,” i.e., they had not as yet presented any accusation. ἔλυσεν αὐτὸν : according to Acts 22:29 it looks as if the chiliarch immediately he knew of St. Paul's Roman citizenship released him from his severe bondage. Overbeck, Weiss, Holtzmann therefore refer τῇ ἐπαύριον only to βουλ. γνῶναι, and not to ἔλυσεν and ἐκέλευσεν, but the order of the words cannot be said to favour this, and Wendt (1899) rejects this interpretation. The words may possibly mean that he was released from the custodia militaris in which he had been placed as a Roman citizen, although he had been at once released from tine chains, cf. Acts 21:33. In Acts 22:10 of the next chapter he apparently stands before the Council not in any way as a prisoner, but as one who stood on common ground with his accusers. καταγ., i.e., from Antonia. συν (ελθεῖν) … τὸ συν. Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. i., p. 190, E.T., contends that the Council probably met upon the Temple Mount itself; it could not have been within the Temple, or we could not account for the presence of Lysias and his soldiers (see also Schürer, u. s., p. 191, note), but cf. on the other hand for the place of meeting, O. Holtzman, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 176, and also the remarks of Edersheim, Hist. of the Jewish Nation, p. 131. Hilgenfeld, Zw, Th., p. 517 ff. (1896), so Wendt, Clemen, Jüngst, J. Weiss and Spitta regard the whole scene before the Sanhedrim as an interpolation extending from Acts 20:30 to Acts 23:10. But most of the objections to the passage may be classed as somewhat captious, e.g., objection is taken to the fact that on the second night of his imprisonment St. Paul is assured by Christ that he should testify at Rome, Acts 23:11; why should such a communication be delayed to the second night of the imprisonment? it belongs to the first night, just as we reckon dreams significant which occur in the first night of a new dwelling-place! So again it is urged that the vision of the Lord would have had a meaning after the tumult of the people in 22, but not after the sitting of the Sanhedrim in 23. But if Acts 22:10 is retained there was every reason for Paul to receive a fresh assurance of safety. In Acts 23:12-35 we have again Hilgenfeld's source, and in this too Hilgenfeld finds a denial of the preceding narrative before the Sanhedrim, on the ground that Paul's trial is not represented as having taken place, but as only now in prospect. But Acts 22:15; Acts 22:20 may fairly be interpreted as presupposing a previous inquiry, unless we are to believe, as is actually suggested, that ἀκριβέστερον may have prompted the author of Acts to introduce the account of a preceding hearing.