appears to be the true one. The Jews, it seems, waited for the arrival of a new Proconsul to make their request, as thinking that they should then be less likely to meet with a refusal." (Bloomfield's Annot. Vol. IV. p. 600.)
"Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogues. v. 17. In the 8th verse we read that Crispus was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. And from this we may suppose that there were more than one synagogue in that city, or that there might be more than one ruler in the same synagogue; or that Crispus, after his conversion to Christianity, might have been succeeded by Sosthenes; but then we are at a loss to know who the people are that thus beat and misused him; the Greek printed copies tell us that they were the Gentiles; and those that read the text imagine, that when they perceived the neglect and disregard wherewith the proconsul received the Jews, they, to insult them more, fell upon the ruler of their synagogue, whether out of hatred to them, or friendship to St. Paul, it makes no matter. But others think, that Sosthenes, however head of the synagogue, was nevertheless the friend of St. Paul, and that the other Jews, seeing themselves slighted by Gallio, might vent their malice upon him; for they suppose that this was the same Sosthenes, whose name St. Paul, in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written about three years after this time, joins with his own. This opinion, however, was not universally received, since, in the time of Eusebius, it was thought the Sosthenes mentioned in the epistle was one of the seventy disciples, and, consequently, could not be the chief of the synagogue at Corinth, twenty years after the death of Jesus Christ." (Beausobre's Annot. Calmet's Comment. and Dict.)
"xviii. 17. [Greek: epilabomenoi de pantes hoi Hellênes.] There is here some variation of reading, and no little question raised as to the true one; which consequently leaves the interpretation unsettled. Two ancient MSS. and versions omit [Greek: hoi Hellênes], and others read [Greek: hoi Ioudaioi]. As to the latter reading, it cannot be tolerated; for why should the Jews have beaten him? Neither is it likely that they would have taken such a liberty before so solemn a tribunal. The words [Greek: hoi Hellênes] are thought by many critics, as Grotius, Mill, Pierce, Bengel, and Kuinoel, to be derived from the margin, like the last. Now those were Gentiles (say they) who beat Sosthenes; and hence some one wrote [Greek: hoi Hellênes]. As to the reason for the beating, it was to make the Jews go away the faster; and to this they were actuated partly by their hatred towards the Jews, and partly by a desire to please the Procurator.' But this appears to be pressing too much on the word [Greek: apêlasen], which has by no means any such meaning. Besides, it is strange that the words [Greek: Hellênes] should have crept into nearly all the MSS; even into so many early ones. And, supposing [Greek: Hellênes] to be removed, what sense is to be given to [Greek: pantes]? None (I think) satisfactory, or agreeable to the style of the New Testament. It must therefore be retained: and then the sense of [Greek: pantes] will be as follows: 'all the Greeks, both Gentiles and Christians:' which is so evident, that I am surprised the commentators should not have seen it. Some explain it of the Gentiles, and others of the Gentile Christians. Both indeed had reason to take umbrage at the intolerance and bitter animosity of the Jews. It is not likely that any should have joined in the beating, merely to please the Proconsul, who was not a man to be gratified by such a procedure. So that the gnomes brought forward by Grotius on the base assentatio of courtiers, are not here applicable.
"By [Greek: etypton] is merely to be understood beating, or thumping him with their fists, as he passed along. Anything more than that, we cannot suppose they would have ventured upon, or the Proconsul have tolerated."
"By [Greek: toutôn], (verse 17,) we may, I think, understand both the accusation brought forward, and the cuffs which followed; to neither of which the Proconsul paid much attention; and this from disgust at the litigious conduct of the Jews; as also from the custom, mentioned by Pricaeus, of the Roman governors, to pass by any conduct which did not directly tend to degrade the dignity of the Roman name, or weaken its influence, in order that the yoke might be as easy as possible to the provincials." (Bloomfield's Annot. Vol. IV. pp. 603-605.)
His character having been thus vindicated, and his safety thus
assured him by the supreme civil authority, Paul resided for a
long time in Corinth, steadily pursuing his apostolic work, without
any direct hindrance or molestation from the Jews. There
