Acts 24:6

Acts 24:6. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple. More literally, ‘who even tried to profane.' It is noticeable that here the error of the tumultuous Jews, who, when they saw Paul in the temple, at once accused Him of having profaned the holy building by the introduction of a Gentile into the sacred enclosure, is corrected. Here the careful lawyer modifies the original accusation, and merely states the prisoner had attempted to profane the Jerusalem temple an offence which the Jews might punish with death, even in the event of the transgressor being a Roman citizen. There were thus three distinct grave charges brought against the accused Paul by the Sanhedrim: (1) that he was one that excited seditions in different parts of the Empire; (2) that, as a leader of the Nazarene sect, he was an introducer of strange gods, a teacher of an unlawful religion; (3) that he had attempted to profane the Jerusalem temple an offence which, by the direct permission of the Roman government, was punishable by the Jews with death.

And would have judged. ... Acts 24:8. Commanding his accusers to come unto thee. This whole passage, parts of Acts 24:6-8, according to the strict rules of criticism, must be expunged from our New Testament. The critical evidence for and against the words is as follows: The passage is omitted in five out of the six of the great Greek (uncial) MSS., upon which we rely here for our text of the Acts, the exception being Codex E of the sixth or seventh century, and in most of the versions, the Syriac being the exception. Still, the fact that Codex E, the famous MS. of the Acts of Archbishop Laud (belonging to the sixth century), now in the Bodleian library, Oxford, contains it, as do also those more ancient Syriac versions, and that Chrysostom quotes it, inclines us to the opinion it was very likely a later and comparatively speaking little-heeded addition of the author (St. Luke) to his original writings. Perhaps Dean Alford's compromise, by which he prints the disputed words, but encloses them in a bracket [... J thus, is the fairest and best solution of an acknowledged difficulty. There is no doctrinal gain or loss by the omission or retention of the passage: a better sense certainly is gained by retaining the words as we find them in our English Version; so that, as Meyer justly observes, if they are genuine, it is difficult to see why any one should have left them out.

‘ We would have judged,' or better, ‘we wished to judge.' This hardly agrees with the statement of chap. Acts 21:31, ‘and as they went about to kill him;' or with chap. Acts 26:21, ‘the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.' Still, the unfair, untruthful gloss with which the advocate covers the transaction, well agrees with the general false tone of his whole speech.