Acts 28:16

ἤλθομεν, see critical note. They would enter by the Porta Capena. On the words which follow see critical note. They are retained by Blass and Ramsay, although these writers differ as to their interpretation, while Lightfoot, Phil., pp. 7, 8, admitting that the balance of existing authorities is against them, inclines to see in the words a genuine tradition, even if no part of the original text. For Ramsay's view see above on Acts 27:1. Blass takes the expression τῷ στρατ. to refer to Afranius Burrus (and to this identification Lightfoot attaches much probability). It is striking that both before and after Burrus there were two “prefects,” Tac., Ann., xii., 42, xiv., 51, whereas Luke writes τῷ στρατ., “the captain of the guard”; but on the other hand we can scarcely draw any decisive argument from this, because the writer may refer merely to the “prefect” in charge of this particular case, whether he had a colleague or not. καθʼ ἑαυτόν, see critical note for addition in [432] text. Not only the goodwill of the centurion, and the services which St. Paul had rendered, but also the terms in which Festus had reported the case in the elogium, would combine to secure this favour. The words do not imply that Paul was kept in prison in the camp apart from the other prisoners, but, as in Acts 28:23; Acts 28:30, that he was allowed to have a house or lodging in the city (Ramsay); he could scarcely have summoned the Jews to the camp, Acts 28:17 (Bethge), see also Lightfoot, Phil., p. 103. τῷ φυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν στρατ.: custodia militaris, he was still bound to a soldier by a light chain, so that he could not go in and out as he pleased, but the form which his custody took has been well compared to that which Herod Agrippa underwent, who was confined at one time in Rome, Jos., Ant., xviii., 6, 5, at first in the camp, and afterwards on the accession of Gaius in a house of his own, although still under military custody, cf. Acts 24:27.

[432] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.