"The reason why St. Paul chose to speak in the Hebrew tongue, may be accounted for thus. There were at this time two sorts of Jews, some called by Chrysostom [Greek: oi batheis Hebraioi], profound Hebrews, who used no other language but the Hebrew, and would not admit the Greek Bible into their assemblies, but only the Hebrew, with the Jerusalem Targum and Paraphrase. The other sort spoke Greek, and used that translation of the scriptures; these were called Hellenists. This was a cause of great dissension among these two parties, even after they had embraced Christianity, (Acts vi. 1.) Of this latter sort was St. Paul, because he always made use of the Greek translation of the Bible in his writings, so that in this respect he might not be acceptable to the other party. Those of them who were converted to Christianity, were much prejudiced against him, (Acts xxi. 21,) which is given as a reason for his concealing his name in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And as for those who were not converted, they could not so much as endure him: and this is the reason which Chrysostom gives, why he preached to the Hellenists only. Acts ix. 28. Therefore, that he might avert the great displeasure which the Jews had conceived against him, he accosted them in their favorite language, and by his compliance in this respect, they were so far pacified as to give him audience." (Hammond's Annot.) [Williams's Pearson, p. 70.]
"Scourging was a method of examination used by Romans and other nations, to force such as were supposed guilty to confess what they had done, what were their motives, and who were accessory to the fact. Thus Tacitus tells us of Herennius Gallus, that he received several stripes, that it might be known for what price, and with what confederates, he had betrayed the Roman army. It is to be observed, however, that the Romans were punished in this wise, not by whips and scourges, but with rods only; and therefore it is that Cicero, in his oration pro Rabirio, speaking against Labienus, tells his audience that the Porcian law permitted a Roman to be whipped with rods, but he, like a good and merciful man, (speaking ironically,) had done it with scourges; and still further, neither by whips nor rods could a citizen of Rome be punished, until he were first adjudged to lose his privilege, to be uncitizened, and to be declared an enemy to the commonwealth, then he might be scourged or put to death. Cicero Oratio in Verres, says, 'It is a foul fault for any praetor, &c. to bind a citizen of Rome; a piacular offense to scourge him; a kind of parricide to kill him: what shall I call the crucifying of such an one?'" (Williams's notes on Pearson, pp. 70, 71.)
"Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, was high priest at the time that Helena, queen of Adiabene, supplied the Jews with corn from Egypt, (Jos. Ant. lib. xx. c. 5. § 2,) during the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St. Paul, therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, (Acts xv.) could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome, (Jos. Ant. lib. xx. c. 6. § 2,) whence he was afterwards released and returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he could not be called high priest, in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus (Ant. lib. xx. c. 9. § 2, and Bell, Jud. lib. ii. c. 17. § 9,) has sometimes given him the title of [Greek: archiereus], taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest, who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; [Greek: archiereis] in the plural number is frequently used in the New Testament, when allusion is made to the Sanhedrim;) and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had been raised, in the mean time, to the supreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered (Jos. Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 8. § 5,) by order of Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with that office by Agrippa, (Jos. Ant. lib. xx. c. 8. § 3,) elapsed an interval in which this dignity continued vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval, that St. Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem; and, the Sanhedrim being destitute of a president, he undertook of his own authority the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. (Jos. Ant. lib. xx. c. 9. § 2.) It is possible therefore that St. Paul, who had been only a few days at Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust to which he was not entitled. He might therefore very naturally exclaim, 'I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest!' Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority." (Michaelis, Vol. I. pp. 51, 56.)
