Notes

1. For the following comments, see Omerzu, Prozess, 394, 456–57.

2. Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 529–31; Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 334.

3. The following summary depends on Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 508–14, 526–28; Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 306–14.

4. The term “N”-document is derived either from narratio or, which seems more likely (since the documents contain more than the narratio of the speech), from the term νομικός (“advocate, jurisprudent”). These documents, which have a crossed “N” at the beginning, have wide left-hand margins that often contain notes.

5. Senior officials who were members of the Jewish elite, presumably members of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, cf. 4:5.

6. The translation “spokesman” (RSV, ESV) is too anemic.

7. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 159.

8. Cf. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 312–14.

9. Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 507–8; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.16, 26.

10. Josephus, Ant. 20.160–181; J.W. 2.252–270.

11. Josephus, Ant. 20.169–172; J.W. 2.261–263; see on Acts 21:38.

12. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12.54; Josephus, Ant. 20.162.

13. The verb (ἐγκόπτω) denotes “to make progress slow or difficult, hinder, thwart” (BDAG), i.e., Tertullus might say that he does not want to prevent Felix from attending to other business. Some translate “detain” (RSV, ESV, NRSV), others as “weary” (NASB, NIV, TNIV); NLT has “bore,” NET “delay,” GNB “take up too much of your time.” BDAG, suggests “weary” and regards “impose” or “detain” as possibilities.

14. Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.82; note 4.1.34: “We shall also find it a useful device to create the impression that we shall not keep them long and intend to stick closely to the point.” In cases where the issue involved was complex, requiring a lengthy introduction, Quintilian suggests that the advocate apologize to the jury or judge (4.1.79).

15. Johnson, Acts, 410. The speeches of advocates in courts of law were timed by the use of a water clock; cf. Lucian, Bis acc. 15, 19.

16. Craig S. Keener, “Some Rhetorical Techniques in Acts 24:2–21,” in Paul’s World (ed. S. E. Porter; Pauline Studies 4; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 221–51, 228.

17. The verb translated “we have found” (εὑρόντες) insinuates legal discovery and due diligence (cf. BDAG, s.v. εὑρίσκω 2, “to discover intellectually through reflection, observation, examination, or investigation, find, discover”). The brevity of the narratio is explained by Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 307, 312–14, with the protocols for recording legal proceedings.

18. Cf. BDAG, s.v. II λοιμός. The author of 1 Macc 10:61; 15:21 uses the term for wanted criminals; Demosthenes for people who are dangerous to the welfare of the public (Or. 25.80).

19. Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,” 232, argues that Tertullus accuses Paul of being a leader of the Nazarenes because “the leader of sedition can do little damage without followers,” thereby unwittingly attributing to Paul significant political influence “that complicates the political convenience of simply handing Paul over to his politically influential accusers.”

20. BDAG, s.v. αἵρεσις 1. In 5:17 the term describes the Sadducees, in 15:5 and 26:5 the Pharisees; cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.171; 20.199; Life 10, 12, 191.

21. The designation of the Christians as “Nazarenes” was probably coined by opposing Jews, as a derogatory term reflecting the insignificance of the town/village of Nazareth. For the singular Ναζωραίος see on 2:22; cf. 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9.

22. Note the titulus at the cross, which included the designation Ναζωραῖος: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων), John 19:19; cf. Luke 23:1, 38 (without the term Ναζωραῖος). Notwithstanding parallels between Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:2) and Paul’s trial (Acts 24:5–6), including the transposition of religious charges to political charges, they are outweighed by the differences, particularly the fact that Jesus is accused of claiming to be king (crimen maiestatis) while Paul is accused of fomenting riots (seditio); cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 428–30.

23. Witherington, Acts, 708.

24. Omerzu, Prozess, 437; cf. Bruce, Book of Acts, 441.

25. Tajra, Trial, 123, thinks that Paul is described by Tertullus as “a temple-prisoner snatched away illegally by the tribune”; similarly Witherington, Acts, 708, who thinks that Tertullus wants “to claim jurisdictional rights to judge Paul under Jewish law by Jewish authorities.”

26. Conzelmann, Acts, 199.

27. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 980.

28. Cf. Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 523; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 5.21.51.

29. Differently Parsons, Acts, 326–27, who sees a long narratio (vv. 11–18a) composed as a ring structure (vv. 11–12/17–18a, v. 13/16, and a central section in vv. 14–15 interpreted as a concession).

30. This event (and the following) event took place at the earliest on the day indicated. Omerzu, Prozess, 444.

31. Conzelmann, Acts, 199; Fitzmyer, Acts, 735. This is unlikely since it would render Paul’s defense implausible on the narrative level.

32. Haenchen, Acts, 654 with n. 2; Bruce, Acts, 478; Witherington, Acts, 710. Here Paul’s statement becomes imprecise and not logical since “after his arrest Paul could hardly have fomented sedition” (Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986], 438).

33. Lake and Cadbury, Acts, 300; Krodel, Acts, 438; Omerzu, Prozess, 445.

34. Cf. Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 524; Omerzu, Prozess, 443; cf. ibid. for the following comment.

35. Cf. 17:2 (Thessalonica); 17:17 (Athens); 18:4 (Corinth); 18:19; 19:8, 9 (Ephesus); 20:7, 9 (Troas).

36. The demand for proof “rhetorically presupposed one’s innocence by appearing confident that no such proof could be offered” (Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,” 238, with reference to Lysias, Or. 24.24.170; 25.14.172; also John 8:46).

37. Omerzu, Prozess, 445.

38. Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,” 242, suggests that “admitting” one matter, which was not a crime, was a clever rhetorical strategy.

39. Barrett, Acts, 1104.

40. Cf. Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,” 240–41.

41. BDAG, s.v. ἐλπίς 1.

42. Cf. Ps 49:15; Hos 6:1–3; 13:14; Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1–14; Dan 12:1–3; see also Pss 16:8–11; 22:15, 22–31; 73:18–20, 23–27; 104:29–30; Job 33:15–30.

43. In the New Testament see John 5:28–29; Rev 20:12–13.

44. NRSV and TNIV translate “all people,” which goes beyond the formulation of the text but fits the intended meaning.

45. Seven years are indeed “many” years in the life of a person, in antiquity more so than today.

46. The future participle (ποιήσων) expresses purpose.

47. Cf. 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; Rom 15:25–28, 31; cf. Gal 2:10 (the famine relief visit described in Acts 11:27–30, completed in Acts 12:25, is unrelated to v. 17).

48. Bruce, Book of Acts, 445. Pervo, Acts, 599, points to Felix’s expectation to receive money from Paul (v. 26) as an explanation for Luke’s breaking his silence concerning the collection: “people who could afford to make generous contributions to the temple could also give concrete form to their gratitude for the just decisions of local rulers.”

49. Cf. Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (Studies in Biblical Theology 48; London: SCM, 1966), 83–84, who points out that the Romans provided armed escorts for Jewish collections.

50. Cf. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 326. An accuser’s failure to produce witnesses before court could be used by the defense to challenge the veracity of the charges.

51. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 449, who also points out that the Sanhedrin may have had the right to appear as the official body that had the authority to make representations to the Roman governor, in particular in connection with sacrilegious acts against the temple (cf. ibid. 393–94).

52. Cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 164; Omerzu, Prozess, 452.

53. There is no reason to doubt that “the historical Felix” had accurate (ἀκριβῶς) information about the Christian movement; cf. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 982, who argues that “an effective procurator would have agents and spies everywhere.”

54. Josephus, Ant. 20.118–136.

55. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 165; for the following see ibid., 165–66.

56. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 451.

57. For this verb (τηρέω) in sense of “retain in custody” see 12:5–6 (Peter in Jerusalem); 16:23 (Paul and Silas in Philippi), and later in 25:4, 21 (Paul in Caesarea).

58. Cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 168; for the conditions of life in prison see ibid., 195–225, with evidence for “the debilitation, illness, suffering and death which were so often a part of prison life” (221).

59. The basic meaning of ἄνεσις is “loosening, relaxing” (LSJ) and denotes here the “relaxation of custodial control” (BDAG).

60. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 169. Note that in 26:29 Paul appears before Festus and Agrippa in chains.

61. Cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 171–72, 219.

62. William M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (orig. 1893; repr., Boston: Adamant, 2004), 133; Tajra, Trial, 131.

63. Cf. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 982, and Bock, Acts, 695, respectively. Note that Luke omits from his gospel the private hearings between Herod Antipas—who had also “stolen” another man’s wife—and John the Baptist (Mark 6:20), a narrative that also includes women (Herodias and her daughter), albeit with a much more sinister role (Mark 6:19, 20–25).

64. BDAG, s.v. ἐγκράτεια, “restraint of one’s emotions, impulses, or desires, self-control.” Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 7.1145A–1154B; Plato, Resp. 390B, 430C.

65. Cf. Let. Aris. 277–728.

66. Gal 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 7:9; 9:25; Titus 1:8; also 2 Pet 1:6.

67. Cf. Acts 17:31. Note the reference to the coming wrath of God in Paul’s summary of his missionary proclamation in 1 Thess 1:9–10.

68. Pervo, Acts, 604.

69. Cf. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 177: “Paul’s discussion of justice, self-control, and coming judgment seems to have been carefully tailored to the governor’s situation … the narrative of Acts almost assumes knowledge of an account such as Josephus’s” (emphasis Mason).

70. Cf. Olivia F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1995), 81–82. The law forbade all enrichments by senatorial officials (with some exceptions; e.g., governors were allowed to accept money for building temples or monuments).

71. Josephus, Ant. 20.163. Luke’s depiction of Felix expecting a bribe is thus “quite in character” (Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 983).

72. Josephus, J.W. 2.273.

73. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 167; for the next comment cf. ibid., 320.

74. The “two years” do not refer to a statute of limitations called the biennium, which required the termination of the legal case against Paul due to the nonappearance of Paul’s accusers in Caesarea.

75. Cf. BDAG, s.v. χάρις 3, “practical application of goodwill, (a sign of) favor, gracious deed/gift, benefaction.” The present tense of the causal participle “wanted” (θέλων) indicates that Luke refers not to a particular decision of Felix at the end of his tenure but to the entire period of the two years: Felix could have concluded the proceedings against Paul, but continued to delay a final verdict in order to please the Jews.

76. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 463.

77. Josephus, J.W. 2.270; Ant. 20.182.

78. For this and the following comments see Johnson, Acts, 415.

79. Note the brief summary of Paul’s ministry of one and a half years in Corinth in 18:11, and the brief summary of his two-year ministry in Ephesus in 19:10.

80. In particular Wu Yaozong (Y. T. Wu), the head of the publications department of the YMCA in Shanghai. Cf. Thomas Alan Harvey, Acquainted with Grief: Wang Mingdao’s Stand for the Persecuted Church in China (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002), 69–91. Philip L. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church (American Society of Missiology 41; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007), 119–21, describes how Ting Kuang-hsun (K. H. Ting), a former Anglican theologian and head of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), was at the center of the attacks against Wang Mingdao in the 1950s, leading to Wang’s imprisonment for twenty years, and acknowledges that Wang’s life, witness, and imprisonment “cast a shadow over the history of Christianity in that period” (121), but he fails to acknowledge that Ting bears personal responsibility for the suffering of Chinese leaders, in the context of the fact that both the theology and the politics of Ting and other Christians were in lockstep with the political demands of the Chinese Community Party.

81. David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington: Regnery, 2003), 55.

82. Johnson, Acts, 415; see ibid., 415–16, for some of the points in the next paragraph.