Acts 24:6

ἐπείρασε : the charge could not be proved, cf. Acts 21:28, but the verb here used is an aggravation not a modification of the surmise (ἐνόμιζον, Acts 21:29) of the Jews. βεβ., cf. Matthew 12:5 (βαίνω, βηλός, threshold), Jdt 9:8, Malachi 2:12; Malachi 2:12; 1Ma 4:38; 1Ma 4:44; 1Ma 4:54, 2Ma 10:5, etc., and frequent in LXX, cf. Psalms of Solomon Acts 1:8, and βέβηλος four, βεβήλωσις three times. Probably Tertullus wanted to insinuate that the prisoner was punishable even according to Roman law, see above on Acts 21:29; but Trophimus as a Greek and not Paul would have been exposed to the death penalty, to say nothing of the fact that the charge was only one of suspicion. Schürer, Jewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 74, note, and references in chap. 21, Acts 21:29. ἐκρατήσαμεν : the word could be used “de conatu vel mero vel efficaci,” and so Bengel adds “aptum igitur ad calumniam”. The orator identifies himself with his clients, and ascribes to the hierarchy the seizing of Paul, as if it was a legal act, whereas it was primarily the action of the mob violence of the people, Acts 21:30; frequently used in same sense as here by Matthew and Mark, but not at all by St. John, and only in this passage by Luke, cf. Revelation 20:2, LXX, Psalms 55, tit., Judges 8:12; Judges 16:21 (A al [379]). καὶ κατὰ … ἐπὶ σέ, Acts 24:8, see critical note, omitted by R.V. in text, retained by Blass and Knabenbauer, so in Vulgate. Zöckler amongst others has recently supported Blass, and for the same reason, viz., because if the words are retained the judge is asked to inquire of Paul, and thus the Apostle becomes a witness as well as a prisoner. But, on the other hand, Paul though still a prisoner is allowed to speak for himself before both Felix and Festus. If the words are retained, παρʼ οὗ would refer to Lysias, and this would be in agreement with the remarks of Felix in Acts 24:22. Certainly ἐκρατήσαμεν seems very bald without any sequel, and this may have caused the insertion of the words; but the insertion was a bold one, although we can understand that the Jews would have been incensed against Lysias, who had twice protected Paul from their violence. The omission of the words if they formed part of the original text is no doubt difficult to explain. ἠθελ. κρίνειν, cf. Acts 21:31; Acts 21:36; Acts 22:22; Acts 23:12, passages which give us a very different idea of the wishes of the Jews.

[379] Alford's Greek Testament.