617 . Lucian Peregr . 14.

617 . Lucian Peregr . 14.

601. Challenging one’s opponents to refute one’s position was what some would call epitrope (Rowe, “Style,” 147) as well as displaying rhetorical παρρησία (see comment on Acts 4:13); cf. hypophora in Rhet. Her. 4.23.33–4.24.33; for examples, see Cic. Verr. 2.3.30.71; Rev 22:11; cf. Dion. Hal. Lysias 20; Cic. Verr. 2.2.31.76; Epict. Diatr. 1.12.21–22. Had Paul feigned not, in fact, knowing what other charge they might raise, pretending to ask for advice, that could be aporia (Rowe, “Style,” 140–41); but in this context it would be highly sarcastic, and a challenge fits much better. For language such as “Let someone show,” cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.4.13; 1.11.8; 4.13.23–24; Jas 2:18.

602. Since one could gesture toward those present (Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62), ancient auditors would probably imagine such a gesture here. A gesture of insistence or emphasis (on which see 74–76, noting pointing toward the ground with one’s index finger) is additionally possible here, though more difficult to infer; or perhaps indignation (on which see 63).

603. Nor would they wish to emphasize the truncation of their debate by Lysias’s intervention, since the Sanhedrin’s behavior on the occasion, as reported by Luke, would hardly appear praiseworthy.

604. They might well feel certain that they knew the truth from reports that they had, but lacked firsthand evidence; they were certain that he should be executed under their law, and perhaps thinking Felix corrupt, they may have seen no other recourse except for a “lynching,” as in Acts 25:3. But Paul’s legal argument, as presented in Acts, is clearly stronger.

605. Classical Athens even provided to a defendant who requested it a preliminary hearing to prove whether the charge against him was contrary to the law (MacDowell, “Paragraphē”), though the present Roman hearing is quite different in form from Athenian practice. Paul also knows that it is Felix rather than the Sanhedrin whose “judgment” counts (Acts 24:10, 21).

606. E.g., Libanius Declam. 36.1–2, 10; 44.70. Plaintiffs had to head off this accusation (Hermog. Inv. 1.1.95–96). On the frequency of Roman cases stemming from personal enmity, see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 65.

607. DeSilva, Credentials, 73, notes that Arist. Rhet. 2.23.24; 3.15.10; 3.16.6 advises one to show not only the falseness of an opponent’s accusation but also the motives for such false accusation.

608. It was also standard procedure, as Cicero notes, for prosecutors to try to explain a credible motive (Rosc. Amer. 22.61–62).

609. Plut. Alc. 3.1; cf. Mal. Hdt. passim.

610. Dion. Hal. Lysias 24 (trans. Usher, LCL, 1:69). I use the masculine pronoun in the quotation because the source does, but in any case the vast majority of litigants (though not all) in the above cases were male.

611. Though to my knowledge no one portrays Paul as inciting sedition against Rome. Paul’s letters are not compatible with the portrait painted by his accusers, and so it is historically implausible for us to concede this case against him. But this is more easily said today, when his letters weigh more heavily for his supporters than does the shadow of his execution by a powerful state.

612. Josephus apparently regarded Jesus as innocent and as a wonder-worker in Ant. 18.63 but, as in this speech, says little about him. Confronted with claims of miracles in his “name,” some other members of the elite may have chosen not to make an issue out of Jesus himself.

613. Witherington, Acts, 713, suggests that Felix had a more accurate view than Paul’s accusers held, because Felix recognized “that the Nazarenes were not rabble-rousers.” It was helpful whenever a judge was already acquainted with the issues surrounding both sides of a case (Phaedrus 3.13.4). For ἀκριβῶς and its cognates, see, with regard to the law, Acts 22:3; 26:5; the message of Jesus, Luke 1:3; Acts 18:25–26; and legal inquiries, Acts 23:15, 20.

614. There being few, if any, Nazarenes in her class, she might know of it through family associations (her father had sought to execute Peter, Acts 12:2–4; but she might not have been exposed to such affairs directly). Still, her brother, Agrippa II, is presumed well informed; as Paul suggests, the movement was not hidden (26:26), a point that Luke exploits apologetically. In contrast to Luke’s portrayal, the Western text, known for its antifeminist and anti-Judaic tendencies, blames her for Felix’s refusal to release Paul (treated as clearly secondary in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 492; Pervo, Acts, 602, astonishingly, “might suspect” that the later addition reflects Luke’s intention).

615. Its massive numbers had produced no signs of sedition (in contrast to the many resistance movements during Felix’s tenure); here, moreover, was an articulate, educated Diaspora Jew, a (freeborn) Roman citizen who in a different setting might have conversed with Felix (a freedman) as a peer and was academically his superior (cf. Acts 24:24–26).

616. Ramsay, Pictures, 291; cf. also others, e.g., Nunnally, “Acts,” 386. Readers in late antiquity could infer the same: John Chrysostom (Hom. Acts 51; NPNF 11:304) points out that the governors seek pretexts to defer justice so that they can avoid offending the Jewish leaders; Felix defers the case “not from ignorance . . . but knowing it.” Some thought Claudius an incompetent judge because he was too good-natured (Suet. Claud. 15.3).

617. Lucian Peregr. 14.

618. Narratives could recount good deeds as exemplary even if their doers were primarily negative characters (e.g., Val. Max. 4.2.7; 4.7.1). Rapske, Custody, 111–12, suggests that the status tension between Paul’s high status as an educated citizen and low status as a manual laborer helps explain why he is treated neither better nor worse than he is in some judicial situations. In the current setting, however, it is not his laborer status (which he would not volunteer) but his opponents’ high status that balances the dispute.

619. See, e.g., Jos. Ant. 14.177; P.Tebt. 22.9 (from BDAG); Conzelmann, Acts, 200. Its few LXX uses are not forensic.

620. Such a threat of punishment, which would not likely be carried out, would have had to have been communicated more specifically to make that point. Language such as “judging between you” or “judging concerning you” (e.g., 2 Sam 14:8) indicates deciding that one side is correct, but as best as I can ascertain need not always imply a penalty for one side. The expression καθ’ ὑμᾶς is especially Lukan in earliest Christian literature (Acts 17:18; 18:15; 24:22; also Eph 1:15; in the LXX, only Job 12:3; 16:4; in Philo, only Names 119).

621. Sherwin-White, Society, 53. Cestius Gallus later weighed the corrupt Florus’s testimony more heavily than that of Judeans’ complaints (Jos. War 2.333–35).

622. Rapske, Custody, 166; cf. Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 262.

623. With Rapske, Custody, 164. Keeping Paul in custody would leave his innocence in question, which would help Paul’s enemies if he remained in custody when the next governor arrived (Le Cornu, Acts, 1345).

624. Cf. Derow, “Imperium.”

625. See Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50–51; Treves and Lintott, “Coercitio.”

626. Laws regulated postponements in Roman private lawsuits (see Metzger, Outline, 10–13, on lex Irnitana tablet 10, col. A, chs. 90–91), with notice given to the judge and adversary (Outline, 56); part of the point may be to prevent judges from delaying (pp. 60, 91). This would not restrict provincial governors from judging matters of public order, however.

627. Historians and biographers of the early second century viewed her much less favorably than did Josephus. They emphasized her own immorality; see Suet. Otho 3.1–2; Tac. Hist. 1.13 (cf. Ann. 13.46); Plut. Galba 19.4–5.

628. Pervo, Profit, 38 (comparing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15; 4.8; 6.38).

629. I observed similar situations in northern Nigeria during particular administrations, where sufficient documentation could establish particular casualty or atrocity claims to a significant degree, but the government moved deliberately to avoid antagonizing a militant segment of a religious community (cf., e.g., “Ethno Religion Violence”; Keener, “Mayhem,” 63; and a variety of reports in my possession). International diplomacy today likewise takes into account political sensitivities.

630. Obvious by way of contrast to the many prisoners detained in Caesarea under harsher conditions (see Jos. War 2.273; Ant. 20.215; Rapske, Custody, 166).

631. See Burrell, Gleason, and Netzer, “Seaside Palace”; fuller discussion at Acts 23:35. The nature of surviving evidence may bias us in this direction (there were likely many places of detention in Caesarea; Jos. War 2.273); nevertheless, it seems most plausible. Nearby secure accommodations are possible, though more dangerous for Paul’s periodic summons to Felix.

632. Holum, “Caesarea,” 400. Herod situated his palace between the hippodrome (to its north) and the theater (to its south); see Weiss, “Buildings,” 105 (also noting possible Roman and other models).

633. Rapske, Custody, 170.

634. See ibid., 9.

635. Ibid., 34.

636. See comment on Acts 10:1; also Le Cornu, Acts, 1329.

637. The assignment of a centurion to arrange Paul’s custody probably simply delegates a single assignment (centurions were sometimes delegated to special assignments, along with a small attachment of soldiers; Campbell, “Centurio,” 127), but if centurions remained involved (cf. Acts 27:1), this reflects Paul’s high status and probable favor with the governor (as in 24:24–25), perhaps as well as the security risk encountered in holding and protecting him. “The” centurion might suggest one of the centurions already with him (23:17, 23) but presumably simply refers to a centurion to whom Felix delegated the responsibility (just as he gave orders to someone in 23:35).

638. Rapske, Custody, 169.

639. Ibid.

640. Ibid., 169–70.

641. Coastal and inland cultures in Judea diverged significantly; see, rightly, Rosenfeld, “Culture.”

642. Pervo, Profit, 155n163; the lighter custody in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.40 follows the fettered prison. Not all imprisonments in this novel were so comfortable (cf. Musonius in 4.35); Apollonius dared not visit Musonius, for the sake of the safety of both of them, but they corresponded (4.46). But lighter custody without bonds allowed for relaxed conversation (7.22).

643. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.28. Paul depends not on the jailer here but on his friends (Acts 24:23).

644. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:332–33. Novels existed in the first century but flourished especially in the late second and early third centuries (Bowie, “Readership,” 443; Stephens, “Who Read Novels?,” 414).

645. Cf. also Antipas’s reluctance to punish John more harshly in Mark 6:17–20.

646. As Conzelmann notes (Acts, 200), we should not overestimate Paul’s freedom as “idyllic” (comparing Constantine, Cod. theod. 11.7.3, on “free” military custody); Rapske, Custody, 171, points out that Paul’s chains show that he did not have custodia libera (“free or open custody”) but had merely custodia liberior (lightened custody); cf. G. Diodati in Chung-Kim and Hains, Acts, 329.

647. Referring to his clients, especially slaves and freedpersons (Beare, Philippians, 158; Craddock, Philippians, 81–82; Judge, Pattern, 34). Nevertheless, imperial slaves often wielded great power (deSilva, Honor, 192), and to outsiders, anyone of “Caesar’s house” was important (Epict. Diatr. 4.6.31). By Domitian’s time the gospel may have touched even Caesar’s literal relatives (cf. Reicke, Era, 280).

648. Lightfoot, Philippians, 99–104; Knox, Gentiles, 179; Michael, Philippians, 30; Johnston, Ephesians, 37; Beare, Philippians, 57; Reicke, Era, 247–48; idem, “Caesarea,” 285; Krentz, “Games,” 360; cf. Jones, “Army,” 198; Meeks, Urban Christians, 63. For their prominence to outsiders, see O’Rourke, “Law,” 168–69; Epict. Diatr. 3.24.117. (By contrast, Duncan, Ephesian Ministry, 108–11, seeks to explain how these passages could fit an Ephesian imprisonment.)

649. For guards requiring bribes for admission, see Lucian Peregr. 12; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36 (though the alleged briber was actually an informant); on bribery more generally, see comment on Acts 24:26. Apost. Const. 5.1.1 figures bribery into the cost assumed for helping prisoners (Rapske, Custody, 383; on limited access, see in general 381–83); eventually Christians pragmatically called these “wages” so that they could help the prisoners (p. 261). For inquiries into prisoners’ affairs, see Ulp. Dig. 4.6.10 (Conzelmann, Acts, 224). Among the free, of course, visitors (especially unexpected ones) held a much greater role than in modern Western urban society (see Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 260, 265).

650. Lysias Or. 13.39–40, §133; in a later novel, Anthia visited her husband in prison whenever she could persuade the guards to allow it (Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.7).

651. Rapske, Custody, 388. On harsher jail conditions, see comment on Acts 16:23–24.

652. Lucian Tox. 30.

653. Lucian Tox. 31.

654. Lucian Tox. 32 (the friend circumvented this by having himself imprisoned; both were finally released in Tox. 33 after coming to the prefect’s attention and demanding trial).

655. Jos. Ant. 18.196; Rapske, Custody, 31.

656. Rapske, “Prison,” 829. At least the early fifth-century C.E. Codex theodosianus provided for prisoners with no other means (Cod. theod. 9.3.7; Rapske, Custody, 209).

657. Rapske, “Prison,” 829, cites Dio Cass. 58.3.5–6; Tert. Fasting 12; Heliod. Eth. 8.6.2; Cyprian Ep. 21.2; 33.2. See further Rapske, Custody, 212.

658. See Rapske, Custody, 209 (on obtaining food and drink in prison, see most fully 209–16).

659. Rapske, “Prison,” 828–29, cites Jos. Ant. 18.204; Life 13–14; Lucian Peregr. 12; Tert. Fasting 12; b. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:1–2; ʿErub. 21b. Paul would also need clothing, especially if some of what he had been wearing since the riot was torn (Le Cornu, Acts, 1331).

660. Rapske, Custody, 171.

661. Fitzmyer, Acts, 739. Providing for an imprisoned relative would be considered a pious duty and should not have run the same risk of retaliation as having betrayed the assassination plot (cf. Acts 23:22 and comment there).

662. Rapske, Custody, 370–72.

663. Lucian later claims that Christians tried to have one of their prominent teachers released, and failing that, served him in prison, bringing fancy foods and reading Scripture, visiting him or waiting nearby from morning through night (Peregr. 12).

664. Normal hospitality was not expected to last for more than a week, much less for two years; see Hock, Social Context, 29–31; discussion at Acts 16:15; 18:2. On the view that Luke the physician (Col 4:14) was Paul’s companion at this point (as well as in Col 4), we may note that physicians would be able to find ready employment almost anywhere (cf. Suet. Jul. 42.1; Aug. 42.3).

665. Rapske, Custody, 388–90. Those who sided with a prisoner could become suspects themselves if the case went against him (Winter, Welfare, 95).

666. Rapske, Custody, 388; cf. the temptation for dissociation in Quint. Decl. 307.6. Talbert, Acts, 211, cites the loyalty of one friend of the accused in the face of danger in Lucian Tox. 18.

667. Rapske, Custody, 298; cf. Phil 1:20.

668. Corn. Nep. 18 (Eumenes), 11.2; cf. Phil 1:16–17.

669. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Sen. Y. Tranq. 14.6–7).

670. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Plato Phaedo 61B; Suet. Tib. 61.4; Epict. Diatr. 2.6.27; Lucian Peregr. 12). For corresponding with letters, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46.

671. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Plato Phaedo 60DE; 61AB; 117BC; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.31, 38; Tibullus 2.6.25–26).

672. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Plato Phaedo 60DE; Cic. Verr. 2.5.112; Tac. Ann. 6.39; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46; Poly. Phil. 13.2; Ign. passim).

673. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Plato Crito; Phaedo; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26–42; m. Giṭ. 6:7).

674. Rapske, Custody, 357.

675. Ibid., 358.

676. Skinner, Locating Paul, 137–38, emphasizes how Paul’s custody in Caesarea allows him to speak with the highest authorities in Judea. Judicial delays narrated in literary works (such as novels) normally served a narrative purpose; Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 130, argues that the purpose here is talking with the governor. Within the narrative world, of course, up to two years must have seemed difficult for such a fruitless endeavor (but cf. Ezek 2:4–7; 3:7).

677. See, e.g., discussion of the morning salutation in Chow, Patronage, 75.

678. On Paul’s high status in Acts, see esp. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, although he is less convinced that Luke’s portrait is accurate.

679. Cf. the hypothetical case in Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.intro., where a proconsul had a criminal beheaded at a banquet to entertain a prostitute (cf. Mark 6:25–28; for analogous beheadings for entertainment, see Val. Max. 2.9.3; Livy 39.42; Plut. M. Cato 17.2–3; cf. Suet. Calig. 32.1; Jos. Ant. 13.380). The private interview in Jer 37:17–21 at least benefits Jeremiah; cf. 38:14–16.

680. Cf. also Jewish law in Cohn, Trial, 98 (citing b. ʿAbod. Zar. 8b; Sanh. 41b; Šabb. 15a).

681. E.g., Slater, “Introduction,” 2–3. Lower-quality entertainment included actors, fools, and jesters (see Schäfer, “Entertainers,” 998–99).

682. Some intellectuals preferred listening to a philosopher to busy public life judging cases (Pliny Ep. 1.10.9–11; cf. 1.9.2–4).

683. See Dunn, Acts, 315.

684. Many scholars think that Luke presumes his audience’s knowledge of it here (Rapske, Custody, 356; Johnson, Acts, 418–19; Fitzmyer, Acts, 740). In the historical information behind Luke’s narrative, certainly Paul, Felix, and Drusilla knew of it, and it is therefore likely that Luke would as well. Luke might suppose that his audience knows of Felix’s dishonorable recall, since he does not trouble himself to narrate it in Acts 24:27 and could not but have known of it himself (cf. 27:1; but Romans could have considered such a narration indecorous, especially if Felix or Pallas retained supporters). Paul presupposes that Corinthian believers knew of Damascus, and he mentions Aretas as king (2 Cor 11:32), but perhaps he had told them this story before. After Augustus (cf. Suet. Aug. 24), Roman governors and generals could take wives with them (cf. Tac. Ann. 1.40; 2.55; 3.33–35; 15.10; Matt 27:19; contrast Severus in Hdn. 3.2.5).

685. For unfortunate slanders about Berenice, see, e.g., Juv. Sat. 6.156–60; Jos. Ant. 20.145; cf., on the household, Pers. Sat. 5.180.

686. Perhaps a partial compensation for his limited birth rank as a freedman? Meanwhile, Drusilla might view marriage to a governor sent by Rome as improved status or simply have believed his promise to make her happy (Jos. Ant. 20.142).

687. He counts her, however, the granddaughter of Cleopatra and Marc Antony; unless this was through a different mother, there seems to be some confusion. Harmonizing, Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 304, suggest that two of them (!) were named Drusilla (so also Bennett, “Drusilla regina”), but it is much likelier that Tacitus confuses two wives; or perhaps he confuses his source regarding Cleopatra and Herod (Jos. Ant. 15.97–98) or, more likely, Herod’s wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Ant. 17.21; War 1.562). If any of Felix’s wives descended from Cleopatra VII (which is uncertain), she would need to be a great-granddaughter, not granddaughter (Brenk and Canali De Rossi, “Felix”).

688. See Williams, Homosexuality, 117–18.

689. Surely, from many points of view, it was a scandalous union (“Skandalheirat,” Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 575).

690. Cf. Bruce, Acts1, 427, on Luke’s fairly positive view of Felix. I do not consider Luke’s view, in fact, positive, but it may be more positive than some of Felix’s behavior (Acts 24:26) would lead us to anticipate.

691. Yet Josephus, usually positive (and politically prudent) toward the surviving family of Agrippa II, is not reticent in his description of the failings of this couple.

692. See Jos. Ant. 19.354 (she was six in 44 C.E.). The same passage suggests that Berenice was born ca. 28 C.E. and Agrippa I ca. 27 C.E., and hence were close to the age of thirty when Paul appeared before them.

693. She apparently married Felix at about sixteen years of age; Hemer, Acts in History, 173, suggests that if Luke’s narrative occurs in 57, she is about nineteen at this time. She had been traumatized at her father’s death; soldiers in Caesarea and Sebaste who hated her father seized images of herself and her sisters and placed them in a brothel (Jos. Ant. 19.356–57), as was widely known (19.363).

694. Williams, “Names,” 100; she is the only Jewess we know to be so named (ibid.).

695. The estimate in Schürer, Time of Jesus, 229.

696. See Jos. Ant. 20.139 for the marriage, 20.138 for the date.

697. O’Rourke, “Law,” 181; Schiemann, “Concubinatus,” 682 (noting that concubinage was different; but no princess—whose status was higher than Felix’s—would accede to such a role); cf. Williams, Homosexuality, 117–18.

698. Most attributed Vesuvius’s eruption to deities (Statius Silvae 5.3.205–8); some Jews may have viewed it as divine judgment for Jerusalem’s destruction (cf. Shanks, “Destruction”). Apparently Agrippa II, who appears in Acts 25–26, did not give official sanction to the union (Stern, “Province,” 365).

699. Mart. Epig. 2.56; Pliny Ep. 3.9.19; cf. perhaps Tac. Ann. 3.33.

700. See also Dunn, Acts, 311; cf. Pervo, Acts, 603–4.

701. Luke pairs both genders where possible (see the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:599).

702. At best they might be amused, understanding how Paul had generated much antipathy and considering the ancient stereotype of Jewish proselytism. In Rome, however, where proselytism was often successful, it also often elicited a backlash; see Keener, Acts, 3:2475–76.

703. On the dates for Poppaea Sabina, see, e.g., Cadoux and Griffin, “Poppaea Sabina”; for her pro-Jewishness, see Jos. Ant. 20.195; Life 16 (though cf. Ant. 20.252). Seneca the Younger, who was hardly pro-Jewish (Ep. Lucil. 95.47), exercised more influence at this time (Riesner, Early Period, 105).

704. A governor in Caesarea had access to considerable public entertainment, given Herod’s hippodrome (cf. Patrich, “Carceres”), the theater, etc.

705. Such as lectures (Max. Tyre 22; Slater, “Introduction,” 2–3; Pogoloff, Logos, 264–71) or recitations and readings (Corn. Nep. 25 [Atticus], 14.1; Val. Max. 2.1.10; Mart. Epig. 3.45; Iambl. V.P. 21.98; Stambaugh, City, 207).

706. Though Luke neglects this parallel; nevertheless, in keeping with Antipas’s interest in being entertained by prophets, Luke does report that Antipas wanted to see Jesus (Luke 9:9; 23:8).

707. On sages being sometimes annoying but nearly always politically innocuous, see Keener, John, 1114; idem, “Truth.”

708. Responses to moral preaching are sometimes similar in Bible Belt areas where harsh moral challenges appear culturally acceptable and taken for granted even to churchgoers who find them personally difficult.

709. Nevertheless, not how often but how well one spoke developed rhetorical fluency (Pliny Ep. 6.29.5–6).

710. Although Rome provided most of Felix’s education, he may have proved interested in some other local sages in Caesarea; at least some Caesareans had interest in philosophers (cf. Gersht, “Statues”). But Paul offered the most ready access in Felix’s leisure time, with no appointments needed.

711. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.17–19; 35, 1441b.4–5; Dion. Hal. Isoc. 15; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.8–9; 14, p. 92.32; 17, p. 108.10; Arius Did. 2.7.5a, p. 10.8; 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.18–20; 2.7.5b5, pp. 18–19.34–35; 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.17–18; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 361.14–15, 17–22; 2.5, 397.22; Iambl. V.P. 30.167–86; cf. Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.28, 36–37; 6, 1427b.39–1428a.2; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.25; 4, p. 44.12–16; p. 48.13; 6, p. 52.17; 7, p. 58.25; 8, p. 66.8; 9, p. 74.25; 14, p. 92.25; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.37. A governor’s “justice” could be praised (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 379.19–20; 2.10, 415.25; for kings, Dio Chrys. Or. 3.7; 4.24; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.35; cf. Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.1–9).

712. The term could be listed among virtues alongside justice, δικαιοσύνη, as above (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.20). Self-control appears in a eulogy of Alexander (Arrian Alex. 7.28.2)—for whom the claim is incredible. For this emphasis in Greco-Roman and Diaspora Jewish literature (and, in Stowers’s view, Paul’s letters), see Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 42–82 (mentioning this passage, 79–80).

713. Sexual self-control could be a basis for praise of a person’s character in later epideictic, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.5, 398.18–21.

714. Trans. G. Norlin, LCL, 1:17.

715. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 29.14 (demanding the same of the bereaved, 29.22).

716. For Aristotle, undivided virtue was better than needing self-control for passions, but the latter was better than being uncontrolled (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 52, citing N.E. 1.13.17, 1102b26–28; 7.8.4, 1151a11–20). Cf. also discussion in Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 525–34 passim.

717. See also the emphasis on self-control in Epict. Diatr. 2.10.18; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.13; cf. Galen Grief 79b; see also Jewish works influenced by Stoicism (4 Macc 5:34; Let. Aris. 278; the more common equivalent in 4 Maccabees is σωφροσύνη). It is equivalent to wisdom in Epict. Diatr. 2.21.9; Wis 8:21; and (via the law) 4 Macc 5:34–35.

718. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 16–17.1–3 (Pomeroy).

719. For the relationship, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 5, p. 50.22–26; 18A, p. 112.6–7; Iambl. V.P. 31.195; Letter 3, frg. 5 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.48; see esp. comments of Dillon and Polleichtner on Iamblichus’s adaptation of Xen. Mem. 1.5.4); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.20; in moral rhetoric, Dio Chrys. Or. 1.56; 23.11; 29.14 (cf. 3.58, where ἐγκράτεια substitutes for σωφροσύνη in the normal formulation); Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.22–23; 2.10, 416.18–23; cf. also Titus 1:8. See esp. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.15–16, where ἐγκράτεια is a category of the virtue σωφροσύνη.

720. Johnson, Acts, 419 (citing Test. Naph. 8:8; Paul Thec. 4–6), but recognizing that the narrator does not supply this information. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 80, is understandably skeptical about reading Tacitus and Josephus into Luke here; but if some members of Luke’s audience know of Felix at all, they might well know features widely known and assumed about him (at least that he was a corrupt imperial freedman).

721. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.85.

722. Dio Chrys. Or. 62.7. This statement belongs to Dio’s larger discussion (Or. 62) of the virtuous versus the pleasure-seeking ruler. Philosophers often lectured on the philosopher as a king; for Stoics, see, e.g., Cic. Fin. 3.22.75; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.13; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.1–6, 13–26; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11g, p. 74.1; 2.7.11m, p. 88.26–29; p. 92.18 (see also Grant, Paul, 30, citing SVF 3.597, 588, 600, 603, 617–22); for Cynics, see, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.22.49; Max. Tyre 36.5; for Pythagoreans, cf. Iambl. V.P. 27.129. Many others ridiculed such notions (e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.3.125).

723. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.5 does make such a connection explicit: when Domitian acquitted Apollonius but sought to detain him to discuss matters irrelevant to the case, Apollonius then denounced him.

724. Cf. Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 130: “Paul discusses an alternate form of justice with the judge (Acts 24:25).” For Paul confronting unjust power here, see also Walton, “Mission,” 555. Luke’s ideal audience already understands that God may be compared with an unjust judge (Luke 18:2, 4, 6) only qal vahomer—God is greater and just.

725. Cf. Luke 20:47. This relativizes the value of human examples of κρίμα, “condemnation,” such as Luke 23:40; 24:20. Robinson and Wall, Called, 258–59, argue that the apostles speak as prophets, relativizing earthly authority in light of God’s. Judgment is a Pauline theme both in Acts (17:31) and the letters (e.g., Rom 2:2–5; 14:10; 1 Cor 11:29–32, 34; Gal 5:10).

726. The usual use of μέλλω in Acts (Mattill, Last Things, 43–44).

727. Luke elsewhere employs ἔμφοβος for terror at suprahuman apparitions (Luke 24:5, 37; Acts 10:4). Cf. Pilate’s fear of dealing with divine factors in John 19:7–8.

728. E.g., Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 139; see comment on Acts 10:42.

729. Cf. Max. Tyre 22.7; for other reasons, the Epicureans (see at Acts 17:18; Keener, “Epicureans”).

730. Judgment appears in many other texts, especially in the Gospel, e.g., Luke 13:3, 5, 9; 17:29–30, 37. Fiery or wrathful eschatological judgment also appears in Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 2:5, 8; 9:22; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Thess 1:7–8).

731. Probably also in Rom 13:2; 1 Cor 11:29, 34; perhaps Rom 11:33.

732. Trans. C. H. Moore, LCL, 2:191, 193. E.g., after promising a brigand safe conduct, he betrayed him (Jos. Ant. 20.161); he allegedly paid for an assassination by brigands, then failed to punish the brigands, encouraging more brigandage (20.162–65).

733. Jos. Ant. 20.142–43; such a report would not have gone over well in Rome (see Williams, Homosexuality, 117; comment on the punishment of governors at Acts 24:27).

734. E.g., Rapske, Custody, 356; Johnson, Acts, 418–19; Fitzmyer, Acts, 740.

735. For some Roman perceptions of “harmless” and impractical philosophers, see Keener, John, 1114; idem, “Truth.”

736. Emphasized by Wall, “Acts,” 322. Flessen, Man, 155–56, contrasts Felix with a more positive Lukan model in Caesarea, Cornelius.

737. Cf. also Peterson, Acts, 641: “He puts off making a personal decision about Christ, even as he puts off making a decision about Paul the prisoner.” This is not, of course, the only time in Luke’s narrative that Paul’s hearers put him off (e.g., Acts 17:32; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 575).

738. In Acts Paul 3.17 (Paul Thec. 17), Paul is led off to prison until a governor has more time to hear him.

739. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 21.

740. Apoll. K. Tyre 21. Cf. Caesar’s difficult schedule, which reduces time for correspondence, in Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 2.3, 4. In Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.22, the emperor says that he will send for Apollonius when he has leisure; such delays underline not only a ruler’s schedule but also his superior status (which Philostratus inverts, as here).

741. Apoll. K. Tyre 21.

742. Tac. Ann. 13.33.

743. Although Luke employs ἐλπίζω in a purely “secular” sense here (as in Acts 16:19), in the context it might contrast with the resurrection hope (24:15) that Felix compromises partly for the sake of this one (24:25).

744. With Bruce, Acts1, 427. In view of Paul’s remaining prisoner despite Felix’s apparent intellectual interest (24:24), it would be natural and probably accurate for Paul and his allies to infer typical pecuniary (24:26) and political (24:27) motives, but Luke may have also known cases of people freed via bribes, and Felix may have also dropped hints. For other examples of Luke’s knowledge of corruption, including 23:27, see observations in Muñoz-Larrondo, Postcolonial Reading, 154.

745. Lewis, Life, 187–88.

746. For the protective element of custody, see, e.g., Rapske, “Prison,” 827; discussion at Acts 23:16.

747. Constructing a person’s ēthos negatively was a means for rhetorical assault (Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.13–14). That Luke’s portrait is so much like Josephus’s indicates that it rests on fact, but this does not reduce the negativity of the portrait. (Josephus’s portrait is quite negative, but Rinaldi, “Note prosopografiche,” thinks his portrayal “indulgent” compared with those by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Luke.)

748. Hornblower, “Bribery,” 259.

749. Ibid., 260.

750. E.g., Hesiod W.D. 221; Sall. Philip. 6; Speech of Macer 5; Max. Tyre 5.7 (among evil professions); Tac. Ann. 2.34; 16.18 (a slave bribed to accuse his holder), 32 (a client bribed to accuse his patron); cf. Pliny the Younger’s teasing in Ep. 1.7.5; massive corruption in Quint. Curt. 6.2.10; the importance of officials’ freedom from corruption in Iambl. Letter 1, frg. 2 (Stob. Anth. 4.5.77). Earlier, see, e.g., Hamm. 5 (ANET 166); “The Instruction of Amen-em-opet” 20 (ANET 424); Exod 23:8; Mic 3:11; for a positive example of resisting corruption, see Dan 6:4; for biblical ethics against corruption, see, e.g., Arnold, Vivre l’éthique, 297–300.

751. Plato Alcib. 2.150A. Likewise, God (and Moses) could not be bribed (Jos. Ant. 4.46).

752. Accepting bribes from neighboring kingdoms was horrendous (Plut. Sulla 5.6).

753. Suet. Jul. 13 (pontifex maximus); Cic. Verr. 2.2.49.122 (admitting underage officials); Sest. 49.105 (“Friends of the People”); cf. also other shifts of political allegiance due to bribes (Vell. Paterc. 2.48.4). Bribery was condemned but often happened (e.g., Cic. Sest. 66.139). Cf. also Wilson, “Bribery,” 221.

754. Cf., e.g., Cic. Sest. 25.55; 30.66.

755. Cic. Att. 4.17 in another enumeration; trans. E. O. Winstedt, LCL, 22:333.

756. Lintott, “Ambitus” (despite the disdain attached where traditional lines of patronage were adversely affected); cf. idem, “Cliens,” 451; Eder, “Elections,” 897; the political implications of benefaction in Spawforth, “Euergetism.” Cicero viewed as bribery excessive funds spent on public entertainments while the spender was a candidate (Mur. 2.3; 3.5; 23.46; 32.67–68; 36.77), but the same texts show that others interpreted these instead as public benefits. Though a crime particularly of the republic, election corruption continued in imperial times (Robinson, Criminal Law, 84).

757. “Buying” victories (Dion. Hal. Epid. 7.291); as noted above, guards demanded bribes (Rapske, Custody, 259–61, 383; Lucian Tox. 31); Phrygians wanted to bribe Philoctetes to desert to the Trojans (Dio Chrys. Or. 59.4); even a failed attempt to bribe the Delphic oracle (Corn. Nep. 6 [Lysander], 3.2). Demosthenes also took bribes (Aeschines Embassy 3; Ctes. 69, 113, 156, 259; Plut. Demosth. 14.2; 25.4), angering his people (Plut. Demosth. 25.5), though he was remembered for not taking them from Philip (Libanius Maxim 3.1; Encomium 5.12; cf. Invect. 3.5; 4.13). One person killed another because of a bribe (Cic. Fam. 8.15.2).

758. E.g., Lucian Fisherman 9; Tac. Ann. 4.31 (extortion); Quint. Decl. 313.15 (a prosecutor expressly not charged with accepting bribes); for governors, cf. Tac. Ann. 13.32; for the collusion of prosecutors, e.g., 14.41 (here punished with exile). For bribes, abuse of power for intimidation, and related forms of corruption, see at length Rapske, Custody, 62–67; briefly, see idem, “Prison,” 827 (regarding corruption and detention arrangements).

759. Suet. Jul. 12; 20.5; a false charge of such bribery in Cic. Verr. 2.1.6.17 (circulated by the defendant); the charge in Apul. Apol. 58–59, 74 (“the buyer of witnesses,” trans. V. Hunink, p. 95).

760. Val. Max. 9.1.7 (the bribes here were sexual favors); Suet. Dom. 8.1 (leading to the jurors being degraded).

761. E.g., Longin. Subl. 44.9.

762. Lysias Or. 12.9–11, §120–21; Cic. Verr. 2.3.28.69. These examples may reflect hostile prosecutorial rhetoric.

763. Clodius in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 97.2 (Seneca considered this atrocious); 2 Macc 4:45.

764. Verres, thwarted by Cicero, in Cic. Verr. 1.6.16; 1.8.23–1.9.25; 1.12.36; 1.13.38.

765. Polyb. 38.18.4–5; Cic. Verr. 2.1.4.9 (pirate chiefs); Jos. War 2.273.

766. Caesar then expedited matters by crucifying all the prisoners (Plut. Caes. 2.4). Buying survival also occurred in military situations (e.g., Jer 41:8).

767. Fitzmyer, Acts, 740; Witherington, Acts, 716 (following Tajra, Trial, 131–32). For Roman laws against bribery, see, e.g., Livy 40.19.11; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 20, 82; Wilson, “Bribery,” 221 (reportedly a capital offense in Rome’s Twelve Tables, but not so enforced later). Against corruption, Rapske, “Prison,” 827, cites Dig. 48.11.7.prol.; see also extortion in Robinson, Criminal Law, 81.

768. Cic. Sest. 8.18; Fam. 3.11.2. Greeks felt that betraying one’s nation for a bribe (Corn. Nep. 1 [Miltiades], 7.5) warranted severe punishment (7.6).

769. E.g., Cic. Cael. 32.78.

770. Leaders accepting bribes hurt all the people (Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; Aeschines Tim. 107), and those who received bribes were the sort of people who would betray the state (Lysias Or. 28.11, §180).

771. Lysias Or. 28.17, §181; 29.11, §182; Aeschines Tim. 87.

772. See, e.g., Crawford, “Debt,” 143. Whatever improvements may have occurred, the claim that under Tiberius magistrates no longer oppressed provinces (Vell. Paterc. 2.126.4) is propaganda; for one example of corruption not long before, note the governor of Syria in Vell. Paterc. 2.117.2.

773. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 152 (noting that one who discouraged a prosecution of the governor received many gifts in CIL 13.3162).

774. Pliny Ep. 4.9.6, 17–18 (based on the lex Iulia repetundarum, 59 B.C.E.). Given the cultural offensiveness of refusing gifts (e.g., Cicero Fam. 14.3.1), this standard was difficult.

775. Kelly, “Corruption,” 402. Themistocles avoided personal corruption (Plut. Themist. 5.4), but for the state’s good, he bribed a corrupt man to stay out of office (6.1).

776. E.g., Pliny Ep. 2.11.2 (a particularly serious case); 4.9.6–7; cf. 6.5.2.

777. Not only provincial administrators but agents of the imperial court received bribes (Suet. Tit. 7.1; Jos. Ant. 20.183–84).

778. See fuller discussion at Acts 10:34 (Keener, Acts, 2:1796–97).

779. It was important for governors to avoid bribery (Cic. Fam. 3.11.2). When defending a governor rather than indicting one, Cicero claims that provincial governorships are a thankless task (Flacc. 35.87).

780. Cf. also much earlier magistrates who refused to grant inappropriate favors (Plut. Themist. 5.4), and officials who resisted bribery (Corn. Nep. 15 [Epaminondas], 4.1–3); cf. also Dan 6:4–5.

781. Tacitus also praises other earlier efficient governors (Ann. 16.23).

782. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.5–12, esp. 8–10, 15 (bribes, 15). Other earlier leaders were also praiseworthy for resisting corruption; Cato was so incorruptible that sums of money could be deposited with him (Pliny E. N.H. pref. 9). While auditing army accounts, Pliny the Younger was shocked with the abuses, but he praised Pollio’s accounts (Ep. 7.31.2).

783. Rapske, Custody, 69; so also idem, “Prison,” 827. One example may be the waste of resources in Nicomedia (Pliny Ep. 10.37.1–2), which Trajan wanted investigated to make certain no one profited from it (10.38).

784. Although this may well be rumor based on inference from Cumanus’s inaction, it is not an implausible guess.

785. See further Scullard, “Gessius Florus.”

786. Allegedly, he nearly even killed Queen Berenice during his slaughters (Jos. War 2.312)! But he was a poor military leader (cf. Life 23–24).

787. Pace the reticence of Pervo, Acts, 605. At the very least the expectation of bribes, in Paul’s case as otherwise, is consistent with Felix’s known character (Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 142). More generally, were it not impolitic, I could name some locations in the world where I have encountered severe corruption that was almost outright thievery; encountering such practices first in ancient sources at least diminished my surprise; scholars dare not read these texts naively from the mere standpoint of our own limited cultural experience.

788. Cf., e.g., Job 6:22; Ps 26:10; Prov 17:23; 29:4; Eccl 7:7; Isa 1:23; 5:23; Ezek 22:12; Amos 5:12; Mic 3:11; 7:3; condemnation of judges corrupted by bribes also in Tg. Isa. 5:23; Tg. Jon. on 2 Sam 14:14.

789. Deut 10:17; Sir 35:14; Jos. Ant. 4.46.

790. Exod 23:8; Deut 16:19; 2 Chr 19:7; Jos. Ant. 4.216. Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 23:8 expands the reasons for prohibiting bribes.

791. Judges who take bribes bring judgment on the world (b. B. Bat. 9b). Giving bribes when necessary (for purposes that are not unjust) seems less objectionable than receiving them (Prov 17:8; 21:14). Whereas the decisions of judges who accepted bribes are nullified, it is acceptable to pay a judge or witness for his time (t. Bek. 3:8).

792. Laws against bribes need not eradicate them; Samuel’s sons took bribes (1 Sam 8:3; Jos. Ant. 6.34).

793. ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A (on judges who judge in their own towns; presumably this means that they are not impartial).

794. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:9.

795. It is perhaps assumed as befits a citizen of Tarsus (Pervo, Story, 83–84) or at least an educated traveler from there (not all Tarsians shared in the city’s prosperity). At one time Paul apparently had substantial income (Acts 20:34). Given other hints of Paul’s resources in this period, when he lived in rent quarters yet perhaps could not as readily support himself (cf. Acts 28:30), some argue that he had some means. Aside from possible contributions from Christians, Paul presumably did come from a wealthy family (cf. 9:1–2; 22:3) that was not wholly alienated from him (23:16); perhaps he had even come into a substantial inheritance, perhaps as the eldest male son. These are merely speculations. Our strongest evidence for why Felix might expect him to have means, however, appears in 24:5, 17 (treated below).

796. See Rapske, Custody, 106, 167; Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 24. If the Jerusalem church rejected the offering, Paul’s associates still retained it (Dunn, Acts, 316), but this assumption is both unlikely and unnecessary; Felix would assume that Paul could raise more funds from his original source. Assumptions about rich friends can drive up prices; one may observe this dynamic today in poorer nations’ marketplaces: local friends who accompany a foreigner from a wealthier nation may well have to pay more than usual because of their foreign guest.

797. By some means, Paul still has funds to rent a dwelling in Acts 28:30 (Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 24); after the shipwreck, however, it is possible that the initial funds were raised by Roman Christians.

798. Although this may have been the sort of situation for which the OT might not have forbidden giving (as opposed to receiving) payment (Prov 17:8; 21:14). Perhaps it would have simply whetted Felix’s greed. In view of Paul’s austere piety in Acts 24:25, John Chrysostom may be right that Felix should have known better (in Cat. Act. 24.25–26 [Martin, Acts, 287]).

799. The audience for which, some scholars think, Luke may have first compiled the abundant evidence of this section as a sort of legal dossier.

800. Lucian Tox. 33.

801. A governor who refused to hand over his province when his successor arrived would be charged with treason (Robinson, Criminal Law, 76).

802. Provincials normally could not appeal a governor’s decisions, but they could accuse him, in Rome, of extortion (O’Rourke, “Law,” 175), and Jews were known for charging unjust governors (cf. Jos. War 2.240–46; Ant. 20.127–36; even outside the land, Philo Flacc. 103; Samaritans in Jos. Ant. 18.88–89).

803. The usual prayer for a good governor’s long tenure (Men. Rhet. 2.10, 417.29–30) may have been offered early in Felix’s office (cf. Acts 24:10), but he had engendered more enmity than support.

804. Gomme and Rhodes, “Euthyna”; cf. MacDowell, “Stratēgoi,” 1448.

805. See Badian and Lintott, “Repetundae”; as a more general legal principle, cf. Zimmermann, “Restitution.”

806. Felix’s rank as a freedman could count against him; the tribune under Cumanus was gruesomely executed (Ant. 20.136; War 2.246). Blaming subordinates was politically expedient even for emperors (Wardle, “Blame Game”).

807. Josephus, of course, is as ready to criticize Florus as Suetonius or Tacitus is eager to reproduce any negative reports about Nero and Domitian.

808. E.g., Africa in Pliny Ep. 2.11.2; 10.3A.2. The Baeticans (3.4.2, 8; 3.9.5, 17; 7.37.4–9) and Bithynians (4.9.2–3; 5.20.1–2; 6.13.1–2; but cf. their retraction in 7.6.1–6; 7.10.2) proved especially litigious. Of course, some governed well and won respect (3.7.3). The Pompeian law stipulated reasons for senators’ being removed from office (10.114.1). Later a governor of Bithynia who employed his capital-jurisdiction right too freely was removed (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.24.607). Earlier governors were also at times accused and condemned (Tac. Ann. 3.38, 66–69, 70; 4.15; 13.30, 33, 43; 14.18, 28, 46; 16.21; cf. 16.30), and sometimes acquitted (4.36; 13.52), and some accused of misadministration could be driven to suicide (6.29).

809. As commentators regularly observe (Tajra, Trial, 133; Hemer, Acts in History, 130; Johnson, Acts, 419; Witherington, Acts, 714; Fitzmyer, Acts, 741). Of course, even Herod Agrippa I, who did not need to curry such favor, did so in Acts 12:3.

810. See, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 109–10; for gratitude, see comment on Acts 23:17–18. For reciprocity expectations, see, e.g., Xen. Cyr. 5.5.33; 6.1.47; Publ. Syr. 71; Cic. Fam. 1.1.4; 1.9.9; 12.30.3; 13.3.1; Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 2.13.1; 4.1.5; 4.9.7; 5.2.1–2; 6.6.3; 7.19.10; 7.31.7; Statius Silv. 4.9; Alciph. Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7; Fronto Ep. graec. 4.3; 5.8; Jos. Ant. 19.184; Harrison, Grace, 15 (on the Greek East).

811. As Chow, Patronage, 78–79, notes, Gallio could be fairer to Paul than Felix and Festus were because Corinth had a smaller and less influential Jewish community than Judea.

812. E.g., Mucianus orders the execution of Vitellius’s son to reduce discord (Tac. Hist. 4.80). Likewise, Cumanus had a soldier (admittedly guilty) beheaded to quiet the crowds that were agitating against him (Jos. Ant. 20.115–17; cf. 20.108–11).

813. E.g., Bruce, Documents, 88; idem, Acts1, 428–29; Riesner, Early Period, 221–27; Rapske, Custody, 315. Some allow for either 59 or 60, while preferring the former (Jewett, Chronology, 43; idem, Romans, 20; Witherington, Acts, 78) or the latter (Stern, “Chronology,” 74–76). Ananias’s tenure ended by 59, but he does not appear in Acts after 24:1, i.e., up to two years before Felix’s recall on this chronology.

814. Thompson, Archaeology, 290; Reicke, Era, 208; Yoo, “Paul et Festus” (on the date of Paul’s trial before Festus).

815. E.g., Lake, “Chronology,” 466; cf. Bunine, “Félix.” Jerome’s Latin rendering of Eusebius’s Chronicle favors 56 C.E., but some argue that it contradicts earlier evidence (Green, “Festus,” 795).

816. Lake, “Chronology,” 466 (though allowing that Festus may not have arrived until 56; this delay would not, however, suit a smooth transition in a time of national unrest, a problem that Josephus almost surely would have added to his list of grievances). Bruce, Commentary, 474, notes the chronological difficulty.

817. With Jewett, Chronology, 42; Robinson, Redating, 45; Riesner, Early Period, 221–22; Green, “Festus,” 795.

818. Riesner, Early Period, 226. (Earlier, Lightfoot, Acts, 189, 323, suggested 60 C.E.) But others (Reicke, Era, 208) date the release to 62 C.E. (the earliest possible date, since Josephus calls Poppaea Nero’s “wife,” although this could be a retrospective honor to his benefactress). The captives Ismael and Helcias, however, were taken during Festus’s tenure (Jos. Ant. 20.194–95).

819. See Riesner, Early Period, 226–27.

820. As Haenchen, Acts, 661, points out, Josephus’s report may be brief simply because Festus presented few targets for scandal. See Jos. Ant. 20.182–97; War 2.271–72; clearly Festus died in office (Ant. 20.197, 200).

821. The false prophet of Jos. Ant. 20.169–72; War 2.261–63 also must be dated before Acts 21:38, itself up to two years before 24:27 (Green, “Festus,” 795), if we take 21:38 as an exact report (see comment there).

822. Bruce, Documents, 88; Riesner, Early Period, 223; Green, “Festus,” 795.

823. See McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 98, citing Vardaman as his source but not noting a publication; idem, Archaeology, 227, noted that Vardaman’s work was as yet unpublished. Finegan, Apostles, 14, also cites Vardaman, again as an unpublished source (citing [in endnotes at 237n27] Vardaman, “Solution,” 13; and personal correspondence).

824. If Paul was arrested shortly after Pentecost, the time of year for the accession of a new governor would be only a little more than a year after.

825. Not surprisingly, some thus express skepticism about Vardaman’s “micro-graphic letters” (most harshly, yet understandably in this case, Carrier, “Pseudohistory”). Because Vardaman’s claimed evidence is not available for public examination (e.g., legible photographs with clear markings), it so far remains difficult to take it into account in scholarly work (Riesner, e.g., ignores it), not unlike Morton Smith’s alleged “Secret Mark” (against its authenticity, see, e.g., Carlson, Hoax; Jeffery, Secret Gospel; in favor of its authenticity, e.g., Hedrick, “Stalemate”; idem, “Secret Mark”; Stroumsa, “Testimony” [noting that he also saw the manuscript]; neutral but skeptical, Ehrman, “Response to Stalemate”; however scholars conclude these debates, the source is not first-century and is too tenuous for reconstructing the Jesus tradition). I admit my skepticism regarding the microletters, and because Vardaman passed away over a decade ago, publication appears unlikely.

826. E.g., Vardaman, “Life,” 70–71, citing “REX JESUS” on a Damascus coin of 15 C.E. (cf. also Smith, “Chronology,” 133–34, following him); aside from the date, Latin used “I,” not the later “J.” This is again the case on p. 74 (a coin of Agrippa I, from 43/44 C.E.). Likewise shockingly (though at least somewhat less implausibly), Vardaman must also shift the date of Pilate significantly earlier (pp. 78–79) to fit his redating of Jesus’s chronology to 12 B.C.E. to 21 C.E. (e.g., pp. 56–57, 81; cf. Vardaman, “Chronology,” 315–16); but Pilate’s coins appear especially in 29 to 32 C.E. (Evans, “Excavating,” 333). (It is the 21 C.E. part of this dating that is most problematic; for Jesus’s birth in 12 B.C.E., only a few years earlier than many other scholars, see in more detail the careful work in Vardaman, “Lectures,” 1:4–22.)

827. See, e.g., the drawings on Vardaman, “Life,” 60, 70–71, 74; his drawings also appear in Smith, “Chronology,” 134–36.

828. His assisting quaestor would take over for him if he did (Kierdorf, “Propraetor”; cf. idem, “Proquaestor”). For how judges were chosen and when delays before their appointment were appropriate, see Metzger, Outline, 61–76.

829. Dig. 1.16, citing Ulp. 10 (in Jones, Empire, 183).

830. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 703.

831. Rapske, Custody, 326–28.

832. Fitzmyer, Acts, 740 (following Dupont); see discussion at Acts 28:30.

833. Rapske, Custody, 12, cites Dio Cass. 58.27.5; Sen. Y. Tranq. 14.6–7.

834. Rapske, Custody, 12, cites Gaius in Dig. 48.19.29 (kept alive for torture to secure evidence against others).

835. Rapske, Custody, 316.

836. Rapske, “Prison,” 828.

837. Rapske, Custody, 317–18. A plaintiff whose case could not be heard during a magistrate’s visit might have to wait for the next year’s visit (317).

838. Ibid., 318 (in this instance, it works in Paul’s favor).

839. Ibid., 319. One operative principle was to avoid responsibility for a bad decision for which one could later be called to account (on avoiding responsibility, see Malina, Windows, 137; note also how Pliny defers all uncertain matters to Trajan, e.g., Ep. 10.74.3).

840. Rapske, Custody, 319–20.

841. Ibid., 320–21.

842. Jos. War 2.273; Ant. 20.215.

843. Sherwin-White, Society, 53; Jeffers, World, 168.

844. Governors apparently released many prisoners (Pliny Ep. 10.31.4), but when documentation proved inadequate, the release could be viewed as corruption (10.32.1–2).

845. Rapske, Custody, 328.

846. For the transfer of governors’ records to their successors, see Vössing, “Archive,” 1026.

847. Berger, Nicholas, and Lintott, “Law and Procedure,” 833.

848. This was true of all peers or superiors (see Lewis, “Intercessio”).

849. See Pliny Ep. 4.9; 10.56.4.

850. Rapske, Custody, 321.

851. Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:257.

852. How brief is currently impossible to determine, since we do not know when his successor began and the debate about when Felix was recalled continues. But Festus died in office (Jos. Ant. 20.197, 200).

853. It appears to be at least long enough to allow a delegation to travel to Rome (Jos. Ant. 20.193–94) and return (20.195–97; though the appointment in 20.196 could occur after Festus’s death but before Caesar learns of it).

854. A creative allusion to two of Joseph’s years in prison (Gen 41:1) is unlikely not only because Joseph was in prison before that period began (40:1) but because “two years” is only one of several lengths of detention in Scripture. Luke elsewhere rounds time periods to two years (Acts 19:10; 28:30) except when other estimates are closer (e.g., 11:26; 18:11; 19:8; 20:3; 28:11; cf. 20:31).

855. See esp. O’Toole, “Notion of ‘Imitators.’” Cf. Gwalther 844–45 in Chung-Kim and Hains, Acts, 338.

856. See esp. O’Toole, Acts 26, 22–23; cf. also his suggested parallel outline (p. 24), although it does not add much to the pattern (introduction in Luke 23:1; Acts 25:1; hearing before the governor, Luke 23:2–3; Acts 25:2–12; introduction to the appearance before the Herodian prince, Luke 23:6–7; Acts 25:13–17; hearing before the Herodian prince, Luke 23:8–11[12]; Acts 26:1–23; dialogue, Luke 23:13–23; Acts 26:24–29; conclusion, Luke 23:24–25; Acts 26:30–32). Some points (e.g., the Suffering Servant motif) are less obvious.

857. By the time the appeal is made, Festus has already found no serious guilt (Acts 25:25) and merely needs to formulate his letter for Caesar’s tribunal (25:26), though not inviting the accusers to contribute to the formulation of the charges (25:27) seems a reflection of Festus’s bias toward Paul.

858. Dunn, Acts, 317–18.

859. See further Keener, Acts, 1:223–24, 441–57; idem, “Apologetic.”

860. With Witherington, Acts, 719–20. Granted that Luke shapes the material for his work, the extreme skepticism of Pervo, Acts, 609, toward Luke’s material seems unwarranted.

861. An efficient administrator might set immediately to investigating anomalies and correcting corruption (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.3; 10.18.3); one who judged swiftly was considered praiseworthy (Jos. Ant. 18.107). Stoics also emphasized acting immediately and avoiding delay (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, pp. 100–101.24–35).

862. Witherington, Acts, 718, following Goodman, Ruling Class, ch. 6.

863. As commentators regularly point out (Conzelmann, Acts, 202; Johnson, Acts, 420). In Jos. Ant. 18.34 Ishmael son of Phabi precedes Caiaphas; is Josephus confused, or did the same high priest hold office twice (not unheard of in itself) some thirty-five to forty years apart? (The latter seems much harder to imagine, though it is not impossible that Agrippa might have reckoned an aged former high priest a logical choice for the office.) The high priests of this time were seizing the tithes belonging to the poorer priests, causing some of the latter even to starve (20.181). Agrippa later (after Festus’s death) deposes Ananus, after three months in office, for acting illegally against the leader of the Jerusalem church and others (20.203).

864. Ehrhardt, Acts, 117, suggests that the strained relations between Felix and these leaders toward the end of his tenure (Jos. Ant. 20.182) made it impossible for them to approach him even with a bribe. This is possible, though he seems to have been more cooperative toward the very end (Acts 24:27; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.178).

865. Most Jerusalemites would oppose only the uncircumcised Gentile Christian movement, but the high priest’s martyrdom of James (Jos. Ant. 20.200) suggests that even the Judean Nazarenes faced Sadducean hostility.

866. Apathy, “Domicilium.”

867. One could have multiple domiciles (Dig. 50.1.6.2; Apathy, “Domicilium,” 630), but Paul does not appear to have had more than one at a time.

868. Schiemann, “Abolitio.”

869. Tannehill, Acts, 306. Favor (χάρις) could distort justice (Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.40); it was understood that it might justifiably mitigate punishment on some occasions (Lucian Men. 13).

870. Others in this period used “accidents” as a cover for assassination (see, e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.3, 8, 11).

871. Pace Winter, Trial, 85.

872. Although councils of subject territories could pronounce a death sentence, they had to bring their sentence before the governor for ratification (Blinzler, Trial, 164–68; Ramsay, Church, 293); most scholars thus currently recognize that the Sanhedrin lacked the legal authority to execute prisoners in this period (Jos. Ant. 20.200; Sherwin-White, Society, 32–43; Benoit, Jesus, 1:135; Stewart, “Procedure”; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 17; Bruce, “Trial,” 12–13; Keener, John, 1107–9).

873. Cf. Morris, Luke, 319.

874. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 219.

875. “Eight days” appears in Luke 2:21; 9:28; but no allusion is evident, and this text says “eight or ten.”

876. The consilium would consist of both his higher officials and young men who had accompanied him from Rome to learn provincial administration (see Bruce, Commentary, 479).

877. Cf. Cic. Verr. 2.2.38.94; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51.

878. For the expression, see also Acts 25:17; 12:21; John 19:13; for a discussion of the tribunal platform (cf. Neh 8:4; 1 Esd 9:42; 2 Macc 13:26), see comments on Acts 18:12, 16–17.

879. In a capital case, a governor could issue a formal condemnation only pro tribunali, from the judgment seat (Blinzler, Trial, 240; Sherwin-White, Society, 47).

880. Sherwin-White, Society, 48–49; followed, e.g., by Fitzmyer, Acts, 731.

881. Rapske, Custody, 184.

882. See Hemer, Acts in History, 129.

883. Rapske, Custody, 184. For a petition reopening the same case, see Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 327.

884. This is in principle; in practice, the new governor could afford opportunity to start the case afresh (cf. Lewis, “Intercessio”; see comment at Acts 24:27). Prosecutors charged that those seeking to avoid trial had something to conceal (Quint. Decl. 250.8–9).

885. Cf. the use of affidavits, e.g., in Aeschines Tim. 45; Apul. Apol. 59–60.

886. Most would visit the temple without formally announcing the cities from which they hailed, but given Paul’s notoriety in some cities and the number of servants available to some members of the priestly aristocracy, some witnesses might have been found.

887. They could be summoned (Apul. Apol. 46), but it was more difficult when witnesses were further away (44). That the first witnesses had disappeared (cf. Acts 24:18–19) did not speak well for the case dependent on witnesses; Paul probably had influential patrons and allies in Ephesus that his Ephesian Jewish accusers would not wish to challenge.

888. Dion. Hal. Lysias 26; Apul. Apol. 27–28 (with elaboration in 29–65), 61, 67. Soards, Speeches, 119, sees judicial rhetoric in Acts 25:8 and a combination of judicial and deliberative rhetoric in 25:10–11, but this may divide genres in the latter verses too finely, since the context is that of judicial speech (though cf. 26:28, regarding a theoretically judicial speech).

889. Perhaps something like Acts 25:8 served as a propositio for Paul’s refutation of claims concerning his violation of both Jewish and Roman law. Rhetoricians sometimes offered and then refuted alternatives (Anderson, Glossary, 36, on διλήμματον; Hermog. Inv. 4.6.192).

890. Felix’s records would have been left for him (see Vössing, “Archive,” 1026).

891. Besides, participation in cults, including local imperial cults, was normally voluntary; Pliny required it of Christians, but these were people accused to him, not people he was hunting down. On abuse of the imperial cult in some NT scholarship, see recently, e.g., Galinsky, “Cult” (originally brought to my attention by Jason Myers); for various views, cf. Keener, Acts, 3:2553n2559.

892. As generally observed (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 308; Haenchen, Acts, 666; Johnson, Acts, 421; Dunn, Acts, 320).

893. See Harland, Associations, 213–37; cf. 1 Pet 2:13.

894. E.g., Philo Embassy 232; Jos. War 2.197, 409; Ant. 18.257–59; Ag. Ap. 2.77; cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:115; Rabello, “Condition,” 703–4; for earlier models, see, e.g., 1 Esd 6:31; 1 Macc 7:33; Let. Aris. 45; less relevant, 2 Macc 3:32. Others sacrificed to the emperor (Sen. Y. Dial. 9.14.9; Jos. Ant. 18.258) in addition to offering sacrifices and prayers on his behalf (Res gest. 9.1; Pliny Ep. 10.35–36, 52, 100; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.10; 5.25 [40]; Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.1; Apul. Metam. 11.17; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.20–22); for prayers for the governor, cf. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 417.29–30.

895. Cf. Bar 1:11; 1 Tim 2:2; Poly. Phil. 12.3; Abrahams, Studies (1), 64.

896. Lysias Or. 7.2, §108.

897. Cf. Dunn, Acts, 320: an “attempt to bring home . . . the fundamentally subversive character of Paul’s work as seen by the plaintiffs (cf. 16.21; 17.7).” One could expand a charge by dividing its components (Hermog. Inv. 1.2.101, though not referring to subsequent hearings).

898. Haenchen, Acts, 668.

899. Ibid., 669. For further skepticism here, see Pervo, Acts, 611–12.

900. Tannehill, Acts, 307. Pervo, Acts, 612, concurs with this negative assessment of Tannehill, Cassidy (Society, 107–9), and Witherington but still regards Luke’s narrative as implausible.

901. As today, politics entails compromises, sometimes at the expense of moral conviction, and many debate about where to draw the lines. He would also naturally trust the elite more than one of a different class and has not yet heard Paul’s articulate speech.

902. Sometimes Jewish people used the phrase “the Jews” negatively against other Jews; see comment on Acts 28:19; cf. Saldarini, Community, 34–36; Keener, John, 218.

903. On Festus as imperfect but significantly better than Felix, see, e.g., Walton, “Trying Paul,” 138–39.

904. By reporting both sides sympathetically, a writer could increase suspense and praise for the victor, while augmenting tragic pathos in the impending defeat of noble characters on the other side (e.g., the Albans in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3; plebeians and patricians in 9.39.1–6; Romans and Carthaginians in Livy 21.1.3; cf. Homer’s even greater evenhandedness with Greek and Trojan heroes). Lucian critiques historians who praise only their own leaders and slander the other side (Hist. 7); Plutarch critiques one for malice (Mal. Hdt. 3, Mor. 855C). Cf. the greatest general of one era, nevertheless portrayed with fatal character flaws (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.60.1–2; 8.61.1–3). For biographies including both “flat” and “round” characters, see Burridge, Gospels, 182–84. Even one of Penelope’s suitors, destined for death (Hom. Od. 18.155–56), was not wholly bad (18.119–56, 412–21). Aristotle advises portraying characters consistently, but this consistency could include portraying the characters’ known inconsistencies (Poet. 15.6, 1454a).

905. This fits his character in Jos. Ant. 20.193–94.

906. Who seem to have worked peacefully with Festus (Jos. Ant. 20.193–94).

907. Suggested also by Witherington, Acts, 717–18.

908. Dunn, Acts, 320; cf. Spangenberg 226v–227r in Chung-Kim and Hains, Acts, 333.

909. Josephus’s sequence of events suggests that whatever else Festus may have learned of in his eight to ten days in Jerusalem (Acts 25:6; and whatever else he may have known before sailing from Rome), he certainly would have been informed by local leaders of how much they hated his predecessor.

910. See comment on Acts 23:17–18.

911. Barrett, Acts, 1121.

912. This necessity is reinforced not least by the charge of speaking against Caesar (Acts 25:8), which is not a purely Jewish religious affair (Haenchen, Acts, 669).

913. Jeffers, World, 169. They would not replace his own consilium; grounds for selecting a consilium remained flexible in this period (Balsdon and Levick, “Consilium principis”), but a governor typically constituted a consilium from “citizens and senators” (Voss, “Consilium,” 702).

914. Witherington, Acts, 721.

915. The governor would have these documents available, likely including Lysias’s letter, as well as a précis of prosecution and defense speeches (with Le Cornu, Acts, 1359, who adds also possible reports of Felix from his conversations with Paul; but these were extralegal and would not have been recorded, at least not in the official records).

916. This was true of all peers or superiors (see Lewis, “Intercessio”).

917. It was not impossible that some of the original Ephesian accusers retained sufficient hostility against Paul to collect written reports from other synagogues where Paul was associated with trouble (e.g., Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth). It still remained unlikely that any accusers visiting for festivals would wish to remain for hearings (especially if, as Luke’s own account suggests, no local convictions resulted and the blame for unrest at least sometimes appeared to lie with the accusers), but the details of riots may well have become part of the official accusations against Paul at some point, since Luke must refute them (see comment on Acts 24:5).

918. Bruce, Commentary, 477.

919. Hence perhaps not Spirit-led (cf. criticism of Paul’s failure to keep to an original plan in 2 Cor 1:17, answered in 1:18–2:4). Although rhetoricians recommended that political leaders emphasize their inability to prophetically foresee the outcome of an action (cf., e.g., Demosth. Pant. 23; Hermog. Issues 68.10–69.21, esp. 69.15–17; Libanius Declam. 36.42; 44.50–52, 61), some may have proved skeptical of this argument from an apostle (hence perhaps Luke’s apologetic; but Scripture nowhere attributed to prophets complete knowledge, e.g., 2 Kgs 4:27; 1 Cor 13:9; Matt 11:3//Luke 7:19). Cf. fuller comment on Acts 19:21.

920. Tannehill, Acts, 307, who therefore concludes that Festus is an unreliable judge, like Felix. But as suggested above, he is of more mixed character than Felix (though, from Verres onward, Romans were well aware of the character type of abusive provincial governors, and provincials had experience with it, albeit more so now in minor provinces such as Judea [treated as part of the larger province of Syria] than in major ones such as Macedonia, Asia, or Achaia).

921. Men. Rhet. 2.4, 389.6–7.

922. Rhetors were trained how to deal with prejudiced juries (e.g., Hermog. Issues 34.10–14).

923. Trapp, 142.

924. For warnings about opponents’ superior oratory, see, e.g., Isaeus Astyph. 35; Aristarch. 1; Cic. Quinct. 1.1–4.

925. E.g., Lysias Or. 15.1, §144; comment on Acts 24:10.

926. Roman administrations kept good records (see Rapske, Custody, 250). When in Caesarea, Luke likely had access to such documents himself (see Winter, “Official Proceedings”; comment on Acts 24:2–8).

927. Rhet. Alex. 19, 1433b.19–23.

928. “As you know” was also a rhetorical move to recruit judges or jury as witnesses (see, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 55–56, 65, 80, 89; further comment on Acts 26:5).

929. Hermog. Issues 42.15–19 (cf. the principle of double jeopardy).

930. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 67.3–4. For the philosophically disposed, however, doing wrong was worse than suffering it (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.30).

931. E.g., Xen. Hell. 2.3.37, 49; cf. Aeschines Embassy 5; Tim. 122; Vit. Aes. 128; the idea is not limited to Greek rhetoric (cf. Ps 7:3–5). Socrates counts it his appropriate time to die in Xen. Mem. 4.8.6; cf. Plato Apol. 37, which others cite. A first-century audience might suppose a gesture of indignation, such as pointing one’s fingers together toward the mouth (as described in Shiell, Reading Acts, 63).

932. Noticed also by others (Conzelmann, Acts, 203; Fitzmyer, Acts, 745).

933. Libanius Declam. 44.42 (trans. Heath, Hermogenes, 168).

934. It also helped distinguish hearers’ natural moral outrage against the charges from the person who may not have committed them (cf. Cic. Cael. 12.29).

935. Commentators cite Ulp. Dig. 1.19.1: “Whatever Caesar’s procurator performs and accomplishes is approved by Caesar as if he himself carried them out” (Conzelmann, Acts, 203; Fitzmyer, Acts, 745; cf. comments on agents in Keener, John, 310–15). The emperor (or his aides) approved appointments even in senatorial provinces (see Badian, “Provincia,” 1267).

936. Some also point out that Paul’s release in Judea might expose him to assassination (Chance, Acts, 464, citing Barrett, Shorter Commentary, 375); although this may be true, if Festus released him publicly (as he probably would; or if privately, without public announcement of the timing), he would probably be safe initially in Caesarea (and perhaps helped on his way by Philip’s circle).

937. Luke elsewhere employs the verb ἐπικαλέω for “calling on” the Lord (e.g., Acts 2:21; 22:16), and it also answers nicely to ἐγκαλέω, “accuse,” in these chapters (23:28–29; 26:2, 7). But ἐπικαλέω is also standard judicial terminology (see BDAG, citing Plut. Marc. 2.7; Tib. Gracc. 16.1), so that Luke’s lexical options were limited and the apparent connections might be coincidental.

938. E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.2; 6.4.12; Pliny Ep. 4.9.18; 9.13.18; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 1 Cor 14:30; cf. Pliny Ep. 2.19.3; see further comment at Acts 1:15. This allowed better visual contact for the court and the speaker’s voice projection.

939. With Bruce, Commentary, 479; Witherington, Acts, 726.

940. See, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.134; 21.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.19–20; 1.25.22; 4.5.17; Plut. Div. V. 32, Mor. 567F; Pliny Ep. 1.5.1; 3.5.5; 5.5.3; 6.31.9; Juv. Sat. 4.136–39; 8.211–30; 10.15–18; 12.129; Suet. Nero passim (e.g., 38); Tac. Hist. 1.72; Lucian Nero 10; Paus. 10.7.1; Marc. Aur. 3.16; Dio Cass. 62.16.2; 62.18.1; though, for mixed views persisting outside the Roman elite, see, e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.4; Jos. Ant. 20.154. Later emperors also used Nero for negative propaganda (Kragelund, “Nero’s luxuria”). Further on Nero, see Momigliano, “Nero”; Griffin, Nero.

941. Paul may have expected a turn for the worse in Roman imperial claims (cf. 2 Thess 2:3–12; I take this as authentic because no pseudepigrapher after 70 C.E. would invent 2 Thess 2:4) but would not necessarily anticipate it in Nero.

942. Certainly those who doubt Paul’s Roman citizenship (but see discussion at Acts 16:37) must doubt his appeal (e.g., Alvarez Cineira, “Pablo,” doubting even his transfer in custody to Rome); provincials who were not Roman citizens could not appeal a corrupt governor’s decision to Rome except to charge him for extortion or if the emperor granted an exception (O’Rourke, “Law,” 175).

943. Radice, LCL, 2:286n2, hypothesizes that perhaps all citizens were forwarded to Rome whether they appealed or not; but of course, in a capital case, it might be assumed that citizens with the option of appeal would nearly always exercise it.

944. Cf. also Winter, Trial, 84. Talbert, Acts, 204, cites also Lucian Tox. 17 (where Asia’s governor forwards a prisoner to the emperor on a capital charge) and notes, nearer Paul’s day, a Roman citizen who was imprisoned by Asia’s proconsul but released by Nero (Tac. Ann. 16.10). Another person needing retrial was sent to Rome in Pliny Ep. 10.57.2, presumably because he was a Roman citizen (Radice, LCL, 2:236n1, comparing Paul’s case). In some uncertain cases, Pliny sent a prisoner on (Ep. 10.74.3), but in others, he avoided the expense of sending the accused and sent merely the petitions (10.59). One operative principle was to avoid responsibility for a bad decision for which one could later be called to account.

945. The historicity of the earlier supposedly relevant Valerian laws, reportedly 509 and 449 B.C.E., is seriously disputed (Crawford, “Lex,” 852).

946. Although the leges Porciae clearly addressed provocatio, their exact content is known only indirectly (cf. Crawford, “Lex,” 851).

947. Derow, “Imperium,” 752; cf. Staveley and Lintott, “Provocatio”; Lintott, Romans, 18; see (for different interpretations of this provocatio ad populum) esp. Berger, Nicholas, and Lintott, “Law and Procedure,” 833.

948. Derow, “Imperium,” 752; cf. Stambaugh, City, 93–94; Robinson, Criminal Law, 49.

949. Bruce, Commentary, 478. On provocatio, see further Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 313–15. The three titles regularly used of Nero were “Caesar,” “Augustus,” and “Lord” (cf. Acts 25:26).

950. Bruce, Acts1, 432 (emphasizing the emperor’s adoption of tribunes’ authority); Hemer, Acts in History, 130. On appellatio, see further Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 315–16.

951. Rapske, Custody, 186–88. Witherington, Acts, 723, views Acts 25:11 as provocatio and not appellatio.

952. Against boundaries between these terms at all, Rowe, World, 82, following Garnsey, “Criminal Jurisdiction,” makes a strong case that the two terms could be roughly interchangeable (see Tac. Ann. 14.28); see also Schnabel, Acts, 992.

953. Fitzmyer, Acts, 746. Although our evidence concerns especially citizens, cf. the foreigner in CIL 12.583 (cited in Libero, “Provocatio”).

954. Fitzmyer, Acts, 746.

955. Sherwin-White, Society, 58. This would not de facto exclude trial by the Roman governor, who, though outside Italy, functioned as Caesar’s representative (“Caesar’s tribunal,” Acts 25:10).

956. Sherwin-White, Society, 60. For a full discussion of laws and historic precedents informing the practice of appeals, see Rapske, Custody, 48–56 (including probably an appeal against imprisonment, 50–51).

957. Hansen, “Galatia,” 388, following Macro, “Cities,” 670–71. For appeals of local decisions to higher courts, even to the emperor, Meeks, Moral World, 32, cites Ael. Arist. Or. 26.38–39; also Diaspora Jewish communities’ appeal of local decisions to Roman authorities (Jos. Ant. 14.223–27, 234, 235, 241–46).

958. See further Garnsey, “Lex Iulia and Appeal.” Whether governors generally could execute Roman citizens is debated, though it appears that, by Nero’s time, some governors could do so (O’Rourke, “Law,” 174).

959. O’Rourke, “Law,” 177; Paulus, “Appellatio,” 894 (citing Suet. Aug. 33.3; Nero 17). Many exceptions we cite are later, from Trajan’s reign.

960. Conzelmann, Acts, 204; cf. likewise Bruce, Commentary, 478.

961. Schnabel, Acts, 993, citing (in n. 27) Dio Cass. 59.8.5; Suet. Nero 17; Tac. Ann. 14.28.1; 16.8.3; I.Cos 26; and noting Horsley, New Documents 1:51.

962. Schnabel, Acts, 993, citing (in n. 28) a case from 69 C.E. in Dio Cass. 64.2.3. He notes (on 993) that “available evidence suggests that the appellatio was not fully regulated” in the first century (citing esp. Omerzu, Prozess, 107–8, 489–91).

963. Hemer, Acts in History, 130 (following Schürer, Age of Jesus Christ, 1:369; against Haenchen).

964. Trans. B. Radice, LCL, 1:473. Their request was granted.

965. See Jones, Empire, 289. Jones’s approach has, however, been challenged by Peter Garnsey and Fergus Millar; our information from the period remains too scanty for evaluating Luke’s narrative on this point (Wallace and Williams, Acts, 122–23).

966. Paulus, “Appellatio,” 894.

967. In that case, however, even Trajan, who seems to have heard many cases, asked that such matters (here adultery) not be referred to him (Pliny Ep. 6.31.6).

968. Paulus, “Appellatio,” 894; see Rowe, World, 82 (following the critique of pre-sentence appeals and mandatory granting of appeals in Garnsey, “Criminal Jurisdiction,” 53–55).

969. Schiemann, “Indulgentia,” 793.

970. Cf., e.g., the brief discussion in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 31; Fitzmyer, Acts, 746.

971. See Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 219–20; Sherwin-White, Society, 63–64; Barrett, Acts, 1131. For the relevant part of the lex Iulia, scholars cite Ulp. Dig. 48.6.7, noting also additions in Pauli sententiae 5.26.1.

972. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 204. Tajra, Trial, 151, argues that the governor could reject some sorts of appeal, but not this kind.

973. Sherwin-White, Society, 62. Black, “Law,” 216–17 (following A. H. M. Jones), suggests that governors could ignore appeals for crimes within the ordo but accepted appeals for crimes extra ordinem.

974. Sherwin-White, Society, 63–64. See also Jones, Roman Government, 53–65, cited in Witherington, Acts, 723.

975. Rapske, Custody, 56.

976. Witherington, Acts, 723.

977. Schnabel, Acts, 993n30, noting lack of concrete evidence for this claim (citing Litewski, “Appellation,” 86–87; Omerzu, Prozess, 89, 100, 494).

978. See Rapske, Custody, 56–62; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 139–70, esp. 168–70; on the importance of status in Roman courts (though written into law only in the second century), see further Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 110–11, 115–17. Lentz argues (124–30) that governors possessed considerable latitude in making decisions, allowing exceptions to the rights of Roman citizens, and that (125) laws protecting citizens were more useful to those of high status.

979. In Pliny Ep. 6.31, the emperor hears a case of adultery but (6.31.6) wishes not to have such cases referred to him.

980. Jeffers, World, 199.

981. Johnson, Acts, 422.

982. Rapske, Custody, 188; idem, “Citizenship,” 217; cf., e.g., Garnsey, “Lex Iulia,” 184–85.

983. Rapske, Custody, 188; idem, “Citizenship,” 217.

984. Some think that it could also appear to circumvent the emperor’s authority (Jeffers, World, 169); this might prove less relevant in the case of strong grounds for an acquittal, but it is reasonable that Festus would not take the risk.

985. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 31–32; Johnson, Acts, 423; Rowe, World, 83.

986. Only a severe situation demanding the restoration of public order (as in Jos. War 2.229–31; and this soldier was undoubtedly an auxiliary, in any case) would override this right. Garnsey thinks that Paul simply rejects Festus’s proposal (Acts 25:9) as unjust (using the ancient principle of reiectio; “Criminal Jurisdiction,” 56–57); but while this principle may play a part, by itself it does not explain the need to appeal to Caesar (see Rapske, Custody, 187, with Lintott, “Provocatio,” 264–65).

987. Fitzmyer, Acts, 745. Certainly Paul has reason to distrust the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:16–22).

988. Trans. B. Perrin, Lives, LCL, 7:449.

989. Honoré, “Law and Procedure,” 829.

990. Hence the governor or emperor (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 31). The bipartite system of local Egyptian courts and Greek-speaking circuit judges that was used in Egypt was abandoned in the mid-first century C.E. (Lewis, Life, 186–87).

991. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 150. For the Jewish community’s frustration over such appeals (even by those who were not Roman citizens), see, e.g., Safrai, “Self-Government,” 408.

992. According to convention, although he inverts some of the substance of boasting (see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 221–22).

993. Cf. Tajra, “Appel à César.”

994. Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 278, following Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 139–53.

995. If Luke contrasts the status of Jesus as a Galilean artisan-sage with that of Paul as a rhetorically trained Roman citizen artisan-sage (while praising both), he could have found OT precedent in the inversion of Joseph (from slave to prince of Egypt) in Moses (from prince of Egypt to identifying with slaves).

996. With Riesner, Early Period, 155–56.

997. Such precedents are useful for Luke’s apologetic, and Luke certainly does not amplify Paul’s public punishments (2 Cor 11:23, 25).

998. See further discussion of this apologetic in, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic.”

999. E.g., Sherwin-White, Society, 48–49; Haenchen, Acts, 668; Bruce, Commentary, 479; Fitzmyer, Acts, 731. On the consilium, see, e.g., Crook, Advocacy, 66–67, 99; Buckland, Roman Law, 635. In later centuries a consilium would include even a genuine jurist, but this resource was probably not available in this period (Crook, Advocacy, 193).

1000. Elsewhere in the NT, only for the Sanhedrin (Mark 3:6; 15:1; Matt 12:14; 22:15; 27:1, 7; 28:12), but nowhere in Luke-Acts and certainly not here.

1001. E.g., 4 Macc 17:17; Jos. Ant. 16.163; Philo Spec. Laws 4.175; Embassy 203–4, 206; cf. Migr. 136.

1002. E.g., Livy 44.34.2 (consilium). For the consilium more generally, including the use of family councils, see Lacey, “Patria potestas,” 137–40; Voss, “Consilium.”

1003. E.g., Philo Embassy 254; cf. Flacc. 18. See O’Rourke, “Law,” 175.

1004. Bruce, Commentary, 479.

1005. Pliny Ep. 6.31.13–14 (on Trajan’s generosity; but the relationships might grow even closer in a foreign province).

1006. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51. Roman laws were not standardized or even collected in this period, making sufficient mastery of them difficult.

1007. See, e.g., O’Rourke, “Law,” 174; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32.

1008. Fernando, Acts, 593. Fernando’s image of washing hands could remind modern readers of Pilate in Matt 27:24, though it functioned more widely as a repudiation of responsibility for innocent blood in Jewish tradition (see Deut 21:6–7; Ps 26:6; Isa 1:15–16; Let. Aris. 306; cf. G. Pet. frg. 1.1; for pagan usage, see Hom. Il. 6.266–68; Virg. Aen. 2.719; Soph. Ajax 654; Hdt. 1.35; in Blinzler, Trial, 217–18; Brown, Death, 834).

1009. The repetition of opening words is anaphora (albeit incomplete here because of the ἐπί; yet even this ἐπί serves a rhetorical function by balancing the beginning of ἐπικαλέω). End rhyme is homoeoteleuton (or, if the case had been the same here, homoeoptoton); see Rowe, “Style,” 138; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 779; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85–86; Anderson, Glossary, 78; cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 54.12–13). These two verbs appear together in Hos 7:11 LXX, but in synthetic parallelism; given the application to sin there, an allusion here is extremely unlikely.

1010. Various discussions of these issues appear, including (besides sources cited below) Yoo, “Entretien.” That ancients sometimes considered sources for “inside information” is suggested by occasions where they supply it, including in fiction (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.27).

1011. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.37 believes that biblical prophets wrote accounts wholly from inspiration. Greeks also believed that the Muses could provide information to an omniscient narrator whose information was otherwise lacking (e.g., Hom. Il. 2.484–92; 11.218; Od. 1.1; sources in Gordon, Civilizations, 224–25); in another culture, Nagy, “Prologue,” xxxiii–xxxiv, cites a ninth-century Irish epic supposedly recounted to the poet by the deceased hero Fergus. When Odysseus recounts part of his own story, conversations of the gods and anything else he could not know naturally depend on superhuman beings such as Calypso, who heard the information from Hermes (Hom. Od. 12.389–90). I myself sometimes dream parts of biblical narrative in my sleep; in principle, someone prone to believe their dreams or even (in poetically engaged states) daydreams as revelatory might appeal to such experiences to reconstruct events. Normally, however, they would state this sort of source (since it would be considered authoritative for relevant genres), which does not normally appear to be employed in composing historical narratives.

1012. Many scholars contend that Josephus viewed himself as a prophetic historian (Hill, Prophecy, 27; Braun, “Prophet”; Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 20–21). On Josephus, Jubilees, and inspired history, see Hall, “History,” 13–46; idem, Histories.

1013. Cf., e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.57; 15.59; Quint. Curt. 3.2.11–16 (the speaker dies in 3.2.17, and Darius, whom he addressed, soon after); cf. also speeches for opposing armies, e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.35. Polybius is more rigorous than most, insisting on accurate sources rather than mere plausibility (Polyb. 3.33.17–18, esp. 17) or imagining probable utterances (2.56.10). Omniscient narrators in their fullest form were better reserved for epic poetry (e.g., Sil. It. 9.66–177, 340–45; Judg 5:28–30), though they also appear in fiction (Char. Chaer. 1.12.2–4; Ach. Tat. 6.17) and elsewhere; in Jewish texts, see, e.g., Judg 3:24–25; Tob 5:16; Jdt 12:16; 1 Macc 6:10–13; 2 Macc 3:37–39. Sheeley finds Luke’s asides for general information closest to historical narratives, though he finds disclosures of inside views only in romances (Asides, 179; he concludes that genres overlapped too much for these diverging pointers to tell us Luke’s genre; probably they suggest a more popular, less sophisticated level of historiography). But most historians did construct scenes based on inference; Josephus reports private conversations in direct discourse in Ant. 19.38–45, 53–58, 78–83, even though most of his potential witnesses for the scenes died soon after the scenes that he recounts.

1014. Fornara, Nature of History, 167–68; more fully, this commentary’s introductory chapter concerning speeches (Keener, Acts, 1:258–319). The Greek in Festus’s speech (Acts 25:14–20) is fairly polished (with two optatives in 25:16), fitting a conversation between two highly educated Greek-speakers (Witherington, Acts, 729n401).

1015. Similarly, 2 Macc 3:37–39 reports Heliodorus’s conversation with the king of Syria. In pure fiction, cf. the similar reporting of inaccessible speech (Ach. Tat. 6.17) or thoughts (Char. Chaer. 1.12.2–4); in epic, cf. the frequent scenes on Olympus, and even what one Thracian was dreaming before he was slain in his sleep (Hom. Il. 10.496–97)!

1016. Witherington, Acts, 119–20. The vast majority of scholars do believe that Luke constructed the scene (e.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 586; see this commentary’s introductory chapter on speeches [Keener, Acts, 1:258–319]).

1017. Barrett, Acts, 1139.

1018. See Tannehill, Acts, 309–11, emphasizing (pace Haenchen) that Festus speaks as an unreliable character here, contradicting the reliable narrator’s voice. Witherington, Acts, 729, concurs.

1019. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 726.

1020. He could hand Paul over to their judgment for these purely religious matters so long as they would relinquish the capital sentence; but Paul’s appeal to Rome provided an easier alternative, taking matters off his hands.

1021. Johnson, Acts, 427. The imperial court might well dismiss the case with a warning against frivolous appeals!

1022. Cf. Luke 1:5; 3:1, 19; 9:7, 9; 13:31; 23:7–12, 15; Acts 4:27; 12:1–23. By contrast, Matthew includes only two major scenes with Herods, one borrowed from Mark’s only major scene (which Luke strangely omits!). On Luke’s approach to the Herod family, in light of his approach toward Rome, see Horn, “Haltung,” 215–24.

1023. For his sister Drusilla, see discussion at Acts 24:24.

1024. For the date, see Jos. Ant. 20.103–4.

1025. This happened the same year that Claudius installed Felix as governor of Judea (Jos. Ant. 20.137–38).

1026. This was in Nero’s first year (Jos. Ant. 20.158), i.e., in the year starting in 54 C.E.

1027. Bruce, Commentary, 481.

1028. For a suggestion of its discovery, see Wilson and Tzaferis, “Banias Dig.” Caesarea Philippi was famous for its grotto for Pan worship, attested in its earlier name “Paneas” (which has persisted even in its modern Arabic name, “Baniyas,” in various sources styled also Banias or Banyas); cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.71; Jos. War 1.404; b. B. Bat. 74b; Cornfeld, Josephus, 458. Christian tradition claimed that public pagan rites continued there until a later Christian miraculously demonstrated that Jesus was more powerful (Euseb. H.E. 7.17). On pagan worship there, see most fully Tzaferis, “Cults”; Tzaferis and Avner, “Hpyrwt.” Pan was worshiped especially by pastoralists (e.g., Longus 2.26–31; 4.39) and honored at other caves (e.g., Paus. 1.32.7) and wooded areas (e.g., 8.38.5); nevertheless, caves (10.32.6) and wooded areas (5.10.1) could also be sacred to other deities (cf. also the second- and third-century C.E. pagan temple in Upper Galilee in Magness, “Observations”; for caves and deities, see also discussion in Keener, “Cave”).

1029. Her status would also be evident if she was on Vespasian’s imperial consilium temporarily (as in Young-Widmaier, “Representation”).

1030. Manuscript C changes Luke’s abbreviated form to the longer one (matching Jos. Ant. 20.145; Fitzmyer, Acts, 749). Some view Josephus’s portrayals of Berenice as unduly tendentious (Krieger, “Schwester”).

1031. Bruce, Acts1, 434. In the Macedonian royal house and among the Ptolemies, see Ameling, Strothmann, and Pahlitzsch, “Berenice, 1–9.”

1032. This date is based on her being sixteen when her father died in 44 C.E. (Jos. Ant. 19.354).

1033. Smallwood and Griffin, “Berenice,” suggest 46 C.E., but Hemer, Acts in History, 173, rightly dates this earlier. Her father arranged the marriage, and it was in effect when he died (Jos. Ant. 19.277, 354).

1034. For the date, in the eighth year of Claudius’s reign, see Jos. Ant. 20.104. The death of Herod of Chalcis also appears in War 2.221–23; that he was both husband and uncle, in Ant. 20.145; War 2.217 (cf. Lev 18:14).

1035. Events surrounding her father’s death surely also traumatized her, as soldiers in Caesarea and Sebaste who hated her father seized images of her and her sisters and placed them in a brothel (Jos. Ant. 19.356–57), as was widely known (19.363). Photius inferred that the daughters themselves were raped; although it is possible that Josephus euphemizes here, he elsewhere calls her a virgin at marriage (19.277).

1036. Omitted by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius and not credited by Josephus; Juvenal, who supports it, was anti-Jewish and exploited any available rumors for satire. See the several studies by classicists that are adduced by L. H. Feldman in Josephus, LCL, 10:81 n. d; the most important of these are summarized by O’Toole, Acts 26, 17n5. This is not to deny her later affair with Titus (see comment below), a matter raised by some in this connection, but the issues would not likely be deemed comparable; Titus was not her sibling.

1037. On this rumor, see, e.g., Macurdy, “Julia Berenice”; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 33.

1038. Macurdy, “Julia Berenice,” 251.

1039. E.g., Paus. 1.7.1; Diod. Sic. 1.27.1; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.152; see comment on Acts 15:20.

1040. Ach. Tat. 1.3.1–2; Corn. Nep. 5 (Cimon), 1.2; cf. Corn. Nep. pref. 4.

1041. E.g., Plut. Cic. 29.4; Diod. Sic. 10.31.1; Gaius Inst. 1.61. On incest, cf. Keener, “Adultery,” 12–14; idem, Acts, 3:2272–73.

1042. See summary of many of these points also in Smallwood and Griffin, “Berenice.”

1043. Hemer, Acts in History, 173, interprets Jos. War 2.310–12 and Life 48 thus (which texts at least suggest their close cooperation).

1044. Agrippa was in Alexandria at that point (Jos. War 2.335).

1045. Theissen, Gospels, 88, notes as relevant the knowledge that she influenced legal proceedings (or even served as a judge; Quint. Inst. 4.1.19).

1046. Suet. Tit. 7.2; Dio Cass. 65.15.3–5. A later source, intensifying the pathos, claims that she had already publicly called herself Titus’s wife (Dio Cass. 65.15), and still later it was said that Titus punished anyone suspected of intercourse with her (Aur. Vict. Epit. Caes. 10; Schürer, Time of Jesus, 243).

1047. See Dio Cass. 66.18.1; Reicke, Era, 286; Smallwood and Griffin, “Berenice”; Schürer, Time of Jesus, 243.

1048. Cf. Crook, “Titus and Berenice.”

1049. Tac. Hist. frg. 2 disagrees. The Flavian dynasty probably appreciated Josephus’s apologetic on its behalf (the soldiers made an easy scapegoat; cf. Tac. Hist. 3.70–71; 1 Sam 15:21), in view of the offense of destroying shrines and the large number of Jews remaining in the empire. Romans praised Titus’s defeat of Jerusalem as heroic (Val. Flacc. 1.12–14; Suet. Titus 5.2).

1050. E.g., Sipre Deut. 328.1.1–5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; 7, §§20–21 B; b. Giṭ. 56b; Lev. Rab. 20:5; 22:3; Num. Rab. 18:22; Eccl. Rab. 5:8–9, §4. We may compare his supposed intercourse with prostitutes on a law scroll in the holiest place (Lev. Rab. 22:3; Num. Rab. 18:22) with rabbis’ prohibition of intercourse even in a room with a Torah scroll (b. Ber. 25b).

1051. Berenice had her own affairs with Gentiles later (cf. already Jos. Ant. 20.146–47 and her later relationship with Titus), perhaps reflecting her younger sister’s behavior.

1052. Stern, “Province,” 365.

1053. Tannehill, Acts, 315; cf. Witherington, Acts, 738. See esp. here Dicken, Herod, who argues that from a narrative standpoint the three “Herods” in Luke-Acts function as a composite character (e.g., 145–48), whereas Agrippa II fulfills a very different role. Despite Paul’s hearing before Agrippa II in (presumably still) Herod’s praetorium (Acts 23:35; see Dicken, Herod, 153, 156–61, noting also other parallels), the outcome differs (see 155), in that Paul, unlike John the Baptist, Jesus, and James, is not executed here, because the good news cannot be stopped (165).

1054. For discussion of Luke’s “Herods,” see Keener, Acts, 2:1868–69. Josephus sometimes calls Antipas “Herod” (Ant. 18.104–6, 243–55).

1055. E.g., the famous baths of Agrippa in Rome (Mart. Epig. 3.20.15; 3.36.6).

1056. Williams, “Names,” 100. Besides Agrippa I and II, see also Jos. Ant. 18.137; 20.143–44; and an Agrippinus (20.147).

1057. Smallwood and Griffin, “Berenice.”

1058. Agrippa himself had appointed Ishmael near the end of Felix’s tenure (Jos. Ant. 20.179), as he appointed his successor (20.196). On the conflict, see further Goodman, Ruling Class, 141–42; Witherington, Acts, 719; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 749.

1059. Though he also defended the Jews against Cumanus and the Samaritans (Jos. War 2.245; Ant. 20.135). Josephus (and if Josephus, certainly many more conservative Jews) attributes divine judgment in part to Agrippa’s “progressive” stance on Levitical attire (Ant. 20.216–18, with the cooperation of a Sanhedrin, perhaps Jerusalem’s, 20.216).

1060. Meyshan, “Coin Type of Agrippa.” For Agrippa’s loyalty to Rome during the war, some scholars cite also the later summary of Photius Bibl. 33 (Bock, Acts, 709).

1061. He may have been less conservative religiously than Paul, but the point is that neither was a nationalist, Agrippa partly from pragmatic political realism but both out of genuine appreciation for and relationships with some Gentiles.

1062. Trifon, “Qt‘ mmsnh,” thinks that they recognized Agrippa II’s rule as legitimate, on the basis of m. Soṭah 7:8 (a text that at least indicates his father’s, hence likely his own, legitimacy).

1063. Fitzmyer, Acts, 749; Bruce, Commentary, 482n14 (with a slightly later date). Further on Agrippa, see Stern, “Herod,” 1:300–305; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 538–39.

1064. Agrippa also allegedly appreciated Josephus’s account in the Jewish War (so Ag. Ap. 1.51–52); Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 221, suggests his patronage.

1065. Trans. B. Perrin, Lives, LCL, 7:173.

1066. E.g., Statius wrote a congratulatory poem to a friend who had recovered from an illness (Silv. 1.4, to Rutilius Gallicus); another offers congratulations on a new prospective son-in-law (Pliny Ep. 6.26.1). Agrippa I entertained visiting dignitaries (Jos. Ant. 19.338–39) and went out to greet Syria’s governor (19.340).

1067. See, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.13 (to the emperor); Pliny Ep. 4.8.1; 10.43.3; Friedländer, Life, 1:211. See comment on ἀπάντησις at Acts 28:15.

1068. Caesar’s refusal to rise to greet the senators in that passage would have been appropriate, however, if he was of much higher social station (Plut. Caes. 60.5).

1069. E.g., Pliny Ep. 9.37.1–5.

1070. Likewise, the high priests and powerful Jerusalemites met Agrippa II to congratulate him on his safe return before entreating a favor (Jos. War 2.336).

1071. Tiberius Alexander was an apostate from Judaism (Jos. Ant. 20.100), to whom Alexandrian Jews responded ambivalently, though the elite seem to have favored him (War 2.492–93); he immediately pledged his support to Vespasian in the civil war following Nero’s death (4.616–17).

1072. See Jos. War 2.280; cf. Life 214.

1073. Cestius Gallus soon after marched the twelfth legion from Antioch to suppress Judean unrest (Jos. War 2.499–500).

1074. See discussion of each of these passages in O’Toole, Acts 26, 16. Vespasian knew Berenice’s loyalty; later he apparently had Berenice on his imperial consilium, at least temporarily, when she was in Rome (75–79 C.E.; so Young-Widmaier, “Representation,” from Quint. Inst. 4.1.19).

1075. O’Toole, Acts 26, 17.

1076. Possibly they or some other wealthy members of the Herod family had a country villa near Caesarea (on one such villa, see Hirschfeld and Vamosh, “Estate”), but their main residence was in Caesarea Philippi.

1077. Also suggested by O’Toole, Acts 26, 17.

1078. See Keener, “Friendship,” 381.

1079. On the nature of such relationships among political peers (especially in Roman culture), see, e.g., Plut. Ages. 23.6; Pomp. 70.4; Statecraft 13, Mor. 806F–809B; Phil. Power 1, Mor. 776AB; Old Men 6, Mor. 787B; Ach. Tat. 4.6.1–3. Even Aristotle, who notes friendships based on goodness, pleasure, or utility (E.E. 7.2.9–13, 1236a; 7.10.10, 1242b; N.E. 8.13.1, 1162ab), assigns most to utility (E.E. 7.2.14, 1236a).

1080. Agrippa II may have died in 93 C.E.; some even argue for 100 C.E. (Hoehner, “Herod,” 698). Some have advanced arguments that Acts postdates this period (see most influentially and persuasively Tyson, “Date of Acts,” and esp. Pervo, Dating Acts), although, with the majority of scholars at the time of my writing, I believe that a date before 100 and even before 90 is more likely (see the argument in Keener, Acts, 1:383–401).

1081. Entertaining royal guests was an important diplomatic courtesy (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.339). One of the tasks of the provincial governor was diplomacy, given his limited staff; Millar, Empire and Neighbours, 63–64, views Acts 25:13 in this light. Luke’s ambiguous “many days” may seek to avoid needless details distracting from the point (cf. 27:7, 20), but in view of his details elsewhere may simply indicate that he did not know the period’s exact duration (cf. the phrase in 9:23; 18:18). Although only comparison of 9:23 with Galatians shows us that Luke’s “many days” there could include years, such phrases could include such a duration elsewhere (e.g., Exod 2:23; 1 Kgs 2:38–39 [though not LXX]; perhaps Gen 21:34; 37:34; Deut 1:46–2:1).

1082. Still, the delay might be simply a sign of respect; whereas in my culture people tend to “get to the point” directly, some cultures respectfully reserve the request until the proper relational groundwork has been laid.

1083. Cf., e.g., Acts 23:27–30; Gen 3:10–12; Exod 32:22–24; Judg 20:5; and human nature.

1084. Even many educated Jerusalemites interested primarily in Jewish law may have known the basics of Roman law; in their later forms, indeed, much overlap exists (see esp. Cohen, Law, passim). Due process already characterized both Jewish and Roman law (with Pelikan, Acts, 268). Stating that something was “not the custom” locally could imply moral pride in one’s people’s mores (e.g., the Persian in Quint. Curt. 10.2.26). In contrast to the present passage, Luke usually applies the term to Jewish customs (Luke 1:9; 2:42; Acts 15:1; 16:21; 26:3), which Paul claims not to violate (28:17; cf. 6:14; 21:21).

1085. Factors such as Lysias’s report and Festus’s interrogation of Paul would have made Paul’s innocence clear; political factors such as potential Nazarene support or knowledge of Paul’s political connections elsewhere (cf. Acts 19:31) may have made inaction the least risky course.

1086. Ulp. Dig. 48.17.1; Appian Bell. civ. 3.8.54 (3.54.222). Commentators (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 206; Bruce, Commentary, 482; Johnson, Acts, 426; Fitzmyer, Acts, 750; Bock, Acts, 710; Parsons, Acts, 334; also Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51) widely cite these as explicit examples; see also Justin 1 Apol. 3; cf. Athenag. Plea 3; Tert. Apol. 1.3; 2.2. Our passage is itself cited as such an example (Lewis and Reinhold, Empire, 550, noted by Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 309n17). The terms for prosecution and defense in Acts 25:16 are standard (Porph. Ar. Cat. 55.3–4).

1087. On cases deferred until parties are present, see discussion at Acts 24:19.

1088. In Herod’s court, see also Jos. Ant. 16.258.

1089. Viviano, “State” (esp. 238), shows that Festus’s claim here, generally approved by Luke, is consistent with Paul’s general affirmation of Roman government in Rom 13.

1090. Sherwin-White, Society, 50; Hemer, Acts in History, 131.

1091. The related sense of the cognate ζήτησις appears in Acts 25:20 (also 15:2, 7; John 3:25; 1 Tim 6:4; 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9; differing from earlier usage in Eccl 3:15; Sir 33:26).

1092. With Barrett, Acts, 1139. On Paul’s letters and Judaism, see, e.g., Davies, Paul; Sanders, Paul and Judaism; idem, Law and People.

1093. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 206; Horton, Acts, 383n17; Schnabel, Acts, 997.

1094. Witherington, Acts, 730; cf. Villiers and Germiquet, “Religio.” For Judaism as a superstition in Gentile eyes, Rowe, World, 228–29n217 cites Tac. Hist. 5.8; Jos. Ant. 14.228–32; and other sources (there following Stern, Authors), applicable to Christians in Tac. Ann. 15.44; Suet. Nero 16.2; Pliny Ep. 10.96. Roman procurators could negatively view Judaism as a superstition (Jos. War 2.174, on Pilate), but the term could be used positively as well (Ant. 10.42).

1095. This tradition does predate early Christianity (ANET 52–57, 108, 126–42, 149–55; Burkert, Religion, 160); Greeks seem to have been most familiar with Egyptian accounts of dying and rising deities (Max. Tyre 2.5; cf. Plut. Isis passim). Nevertheless, the Christian idea, rooted in the Jewish eschatological bodily resurrection and effected in history, is quite different by the standards of comparative religions (see the full argument in Keener, John, 1169–77, esp. 1172–77; idem, Historical Jesus, 332–37, esp. 335–37; idem, “Parallel Figures”).

1096. See comment on Acts 1:3. But his wording may also reflect educated wit (e.g., with reference to life and death in Quint. Decl. 388.2).

1097. Ancient readers and auditors understood that the speech of unreliable characters did not necessarily reflect the views of an author (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.8–9).

1098. Cf. Gilchrist, “On What Charge?”

1099. See the discussion of “Israel’s Story” in Keener, Acts, 1:459–77.

1100. See Keener, John, 176–79.

1101. Johnson, Acts, 426.

1102. Fitzmyer, Acts, 751.

1103. See Tannehill, Acts, 306. Witherington, Acts, 731, notes that Festus interprets Paul’s appeal for his own political convenience, since acquittal would have served justice better.

1104. That is, probably both Acts 25:9 and 25:20 provide Luke’s perspective on what happened and are best evaluated together on the narrative level.

1105. On aporia, see further Anderson, Glossary, 24; Rowe, “Style,” 140–41; cf., e.g., Isoc. Antid. 140, 310, 320; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; Verr. 2.5.1.2; Pliny Ep. 10.2.1; 10.10.1; Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.9; Apul. Flor. 16.34; perhaps Val. Max. 3.2.2; cf. examples in Cicero’s letters (Fam. 2.4.1; 2.11.1; Att. 3.5), though these are not feigned. For perplexity, e.g., Gen 32:8 LXX (32:7 ET).

1106. The Greek term would have lent itself easily to the imperial cult (cf. the cognates related to piety in Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17, 23; 18:7, 13; 19:27).

1107. See BDAG (citing, e.g., Plato Laws 9.865C; Wis 3:18 [for God’s tribunal]; Jos. Ant. 8.133; 15.358). For “the emperor’s decision,” note a cognitionibus Augusti (Le Cornu, Acts, 1377).

1108. BDAG cites Plut. C. Mar. 17.3; Jos. War 2.571; OGIS 329.51; P.Hib. 1.57; P.Tebt. 7.7; for sending one to the proper person, see Jos. Ant. 4.218; Luke 23:7.

1109. Also noted by others (e.g., Munck, Acts, 238; Witherington, Acts, 731; Le Cornu, Acts, 1377; Gangel, Acts, 420; O’Toole, Acts 26, 22–24). On Luke 23:8, cf. Luke’s use of the Q tradition in 10:24. If Luke based part or all of one scene on the other, it is likelier that he would construct the scene in Luke 23:6–12 on the basis of his knowledge of Paul’s examination (to which he had fuller access) than the reverse (see rightly Omerzu, “Verhältnis”), though we should also keep in mind contrasts between the scenes and that both are culturally plausible.

1110. From the early Christian perspective, Nero’s persecution, even if some treated it as establishing precedent, was an idiosyncratic expression of Nero’s own wickedness whereas previous Roman precedents had favored tolerance for Christians.

1111. For Paul’s captivity as serving purposes for the gospel, see Skinner, Locating Paul, 137–38.

1112. BDAG compares the pomp and pageantry in Polyb. 15.25.22; 16.21.1; Diod. Sic. 12.83.4; Vett. Val. 38.26. It is possible that in addition to this standard usage, Luke’s audience might recall the idea of vanity in Hab 2:18–19 LXX; the common idea in both uses of the phrase is “appearance” (Wis 18:17; Zech 10:1).

1113. Cf. the contrast, implied in Luke 2:1–14, between Caesar’s pomp and the humility of the true king.

1114. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 117 (citing Suet. Aug. 44; cf. Dio Cass. 60.7; Suet. Claud. 21; Tac. Ann. 15.32).

1115. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 117.

1116. Josephus emphasizes Agrippa I’s splendor even more than does Luke; see comment on Acts 12:21.

1117. Some Gentile thinkers also rejected pomp (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.26).

1118. Lysias would not likely belong to the Jerusalem cohort by this point, given the passage of possibly two years, the recall of Felix (Acts 24:27), and, most important, Lysias’s office. The office of tribune was often a political stepping-stone (cf. Franke, “Tribunus militum,” 903), and given conflicts there, Lysias would not likely have requested permanent duty in Jerusalem.

1119. Witherington, Acts, 732, suggests that the tribunes present could perhaps include Lysias. Lysias could well have been rotated to Caesarea by this time, but he could also have been moved elsewhere; senatorial tribunes (which he was not) held the tribune post for only a year, and though other tribunes held it longer, their military career often included at least two different positions (Campbell, “Tribuni militum”).

1120. Thaumastus, one of Agrippa’s most prominent servants, was inherited from Agrippa I; he was steward over both of Agrippa’s estates (Jos. Ant. 18.192–94). But because Luke mentions only local officials and not an entourage of Agrippa and Berenice, Thaumastus is probably not present.

1121. Johnson, Acts, 428.

1122. Jos. Ant. 20.177–78, 182; cf. War 2.270.

1123. Although all are invited to participate in formulating the charge, everyone will understand that this is especially Agrippa’s role (Acts 25:26; 26:30–32); no one would compete with his established and hereditary rank.

1124. Young-Widmaier, “Representation.”

1125. As a person of rank, however, she probably would not be wearing any traditional head covering (cf. Thompson, “Hairstyles”; Keener, “Head Coverings”).

1126. Noted also by Johnson, Acts, 428.

1127. Tribunes could be moved and also take other positions (see Campbell, “Tribuni militum”).

1128. Friedländer, Life, 1:192; Stevenson, “Army,” 227.

1129. E.g., Stevenson, “Army,” 226; Jones, “Army,” 203; Friedländer, Life, 1:194. It could take as many as twenty years for a common soldier to become a centurion (Thompson, “Military,” 993).

1130. So also others; see, e.g., Barrett, Acts, 2:1145–46; Padilla, Speeches, 224–25.

1131. Perhaps Luke uses πλῆθος for the nation’s “legal representatives” (Luke 23:1), as Witherington, Acts, 732, argues, but this is far from his (or others’) usual usage. Festus thus may simply employ hyperbole, hyperbole dramatically useful in Luke’s report given his narrative direction (cf. 28:25–28, although Luke’s direct narration in that context is more nuanced; cf. 28:24).

1132. Alternatively and perhaps more likely, he refers to Paul’s critics at the Caesarea hearing in 25:7; in this case his flourish appears even more hyperbolic.

1133. As often noted (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 207; Witherington, Acts, 733). In Luke’s passion narrative, the threefold pattern of Pilate’s claim to find no guilt, however, may well be traditional, since it appears probably independently in John (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6; Keener, John, 1115; Matson, “Death”).

1134. On judges writing letters, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.10.9–10. Few governors would trouble their emperors with the range of questions (some apparently trivial) about which Pliny (who may have hoped to publish his correspondence) writes Trajan, but Pliny’s letters (e.g., 10.17A.3; 10.23.1–2; 10.70.1–3) nevertheless underline the importance of governors’ correspondence with the imperial court.

1135. For Agrippa representing the emperor’s power and thus using dominant-culture rhetoric here, see Robbins, Beyond, 312.

1136. Although μάλιστα is not an uncommon term, Luke employs it only three times in Luke-Acts, and the uses in Acts 25:26 and 26:3 are in close proximity, both with reference to Agrippa.

1137. Better not to seek the advice if one’s mind was already made up (Pliny Ep. 9.13.6). For the value of Agrippa as advisor, given his Roman credibility, see also Rowe, World, 83.

1138. Cf., e.g., Foerster, “Κύριος,” 1054–55; Conzelmann, Acts, 207; Johnson, Acts, 427; D. Williams, Acts, 423. It appears for Claudius in, e.g., P.Oxy. 37.6; for Nero in, e.g., P.Oxy. 246.30, 34, 37 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 752).

1139. Haenchen, Acts, 677, therefore suggests a Domitianic anachronism; although I date Acts before Domitian’s reign, it is possible that Luke would use the language of his own era (he was not likely present for a hearing in such august company but could have updated the language, in any event). But Neronian uses such as “Nero Kyrios” and “lord of the world” (Deissmann, Light, 354, citing, e.g., SIG2 376.31; SIG3 814.31, 55) seriously weaken the significance of Haenchen’s concern in any case. A more serious objection to Luke’s literary verisimilitude here would be that the title in this period (as opposed to Domitian’s, Suet. Dom. 13.2; cf. Mart. Epig. 9.66.3; 10.72.3) would belong to the Greek East; but though Festus is a Roman, he is speaking Greek in the East, and so even this objection to Luke’s verisimilitude of language is not compelling.

1140. This did not prevent some in the East from applying it to him (P.Oxy. 1143.4).

1141. See Hemer, Acts in History, 180; cf. 131.

1142. Deissmann, Light, 353.

1143. Bruce, Acts1, 438.

1144. The connotations are noted by Bruce, Commentary, 485n24 (though these were not yet relevant in Festus’s Rome). Although Luke uses κύριος about one hundred times in Acts, he does not use it for Jesus in this immediate context (the nearest uses, in fact, are Acts 23:11; 26:15; 28:31), as if to draw an obvious contrast. (“My Lord” applies to Jesus in Luke 1:43; 20:42; Acts 2:34; Festus here speaks literally of “the Lord,” which Luke often applies to Jesus.)

1145. Or, “cults”; so Galinsky, “Cult,” 3, citing Beard, North, and Price, Religions, 348.

1146. Ἄλογος was often applicable to beasts or to people like them (Plato Prot. 324B; Xen. Hiero 7.3; Mus. Ruf. 18A, p. 112.31; Plut. Statecraft 5, Mor. 802E; Wis 11:15; 4 Macc 14:14, 18; Test. Zeb. 5:1; 2 Pet 2:12); such language often appealed to the philosophically minded (cf., e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.3; Diogenes Ep. 28; Porph. Marc. 23.362).

1147. Bruce, Commentary, 438; Conzelmann, Acts, 207; Fitzmyer, Acts, 748, 753; Schnabel, Acts, 1001. The later codification of laws may include regulations not always followed, but they provide our best guide.

1148. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 309. Probably few decisions would generate as much paperwork as Pliny’s later inquiries to Trajan, deferring to imperial discretion wherever firm precedent was lacking (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.65.1–10.66.2; 10.72–73).

1149. With Rapske, Custody, 185.

1150. E.g., Pliny Ep. 6.31.4; 10.74.3; 10.96.3–4. The cover letters could also tacitly illustrate the political and status issues inherent in the case.

↑ Back to top