Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue. — The better MSS. omit the word “Greeks,” which was probably inserted as an explanatory interpolation by some one who thought it more likely that a ruler of the synagogue should have been assaulted by the Greek bystanders than by those of his own race. Taking the better reading, and assuming the natural construction of the sentence to be “all of them (sc., the Jews) took Sosthenes and beat him,” we have to ask for an explanation of conduct which seems so strange. This is probably found in the appearance of the same name in 1 Corinthians 1:1, as associated with St. Paul in the Epistle to the Church of Corinth. It is a natural inference that Sosthenes, like his predecessor or partner in office (it does not necessarily follow that he succeeded him) became a convert to the new faith. If so, it is probable that he was already suspected of tendencies in that direction, and when the Jews at Corinth found their plans frustrated, it was natural that they should impute their failure to the lukewarmness or treachery of the man who ought to have carried them to a successful issue. They did not shrink from giving vent to their rage even before the tribunal of the proconsul.
And Gallio cared for none of those things. — More accurately, And Gallio cared nothing for these things. The words have become almost proverbial for the indifference of mere politicians and men of the world to religious truth. We speak of one who is tolerant because he is sceptical, as a Gallio. It may be questioned, however, whether this was the thought prominent in St. Luke’s mind as he thus wrote. What he apparently meant was that the proconsul was clear sighted enough to pay no regard to the clamours of St. Paul’s accusers. If they chose, after failing in their attack on Paul, to quarrel among themselves, what was that to him? “Laissez faire, laissez alter” might well be his motto in dealing with such a people. The general impression, however, as to his character is not without its truth. The easy-going gentleness of his character ill fitted him to resist the temptations of Nero’s court, and after retiring from Achaia in consequence of an attack of fever (Sen. Ep. 104), he returned to Rome, and, to the distress of Burrhus and his own brother, Seneca, he took part in ministering to the emperor’s vices (Dio. lxi. 20). He finally fell under the tyrant’s displeasure, and, according to one tradition, was put to death by him. Another represents him as anticipating his fate by suicide; Tacitus, however (Ann. xv. 73), only speaks of him as terrified by his brother’s death, and supplicating Nero for his own life.