OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Romaios:

rwp@Acts:22:27 @{Art thou a Roman?} (\Su Romaios ei?\). {Thou} (emphatic position) a Roman? It was unbelievable.

rwp@Acts:22:29 @{Departed from him} (\apestsan ap' autou\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of \aphistmi\, stood off from him at once. {Was afraid} (\ephobth\). Ingressive aorist passive indicative of \phobeomai\, became afraid. He had reason to be. {That he was a Roman} (\hoti Romaios estin\). Indirect assertion with tense of \estin\ retained. {Because he had bound him} (\hoti auton n dedeks\). Causal \hoti\ here after declarative \hoti\ just before. Periphrastic past perfect active of \de\, to bind.

rwp@Acts:23:27 @{Was seized} (\sullmphthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \sullamban\. {Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman} (\exeilamen mathn hoti Romaios estin\). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle (\mathn\ from \manthan\) after the principal verb \exeilamen\ (second aorist middle of \exaire\, to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.