Where, then, was the money procured ? Was it fmm new contributions collected in the Churches? That seems most improbable, both from their general poverty, from Paul's personal character, and from the silence of Luke on the point. Luke himself was probably a man dependent on his profession for his livelihood. His name is not that of a man of high position. There seems no alternative except that Paul's hereditary property was used in those four years. As to the exact facts, we must remain in ignorance. If Paul hitherto voluntarily abstained from using his fortune, he now found himself justified by the importance of the case in acting differently. If, on the other hand, he had for the time been disowned by his family, then either a reconciliation had been brought about during his danger (perhaps originating in the bold kindness of his young nephew), or through death property had come to him as legal heir (whose right could not be interfered with by any will). But, whatever be the precise facts, we must regard Paul as a man of some wealth during these years.
He appeared to Felix and to Festus, then, as a Roman of Jewish origin of high rank and great learning, engaged in a rather foolish controversy against the whole united power of his nation (which showed his high
Sec. 8. Finances of the Trial. 313
standing, as well as his want of good judgment). That is the spirit of Festus's words, " Paul ! Paul ! you are a great philosopher, but you have no common sense ".
On the details given of the incidents in Jerusalem and Caesareia, I shall not enter. I am not at home on the soil of Palestine ; and it seems better not to mix up second-hand studies with a discussion of incidents where I stand on familiar ground.
Note. Procuratorship of Felix. The remarkable con- tradiction between Josephus (who makes Cumanus governor of Palestine 48-52, Felix being his successor in 52), and Tacitus (who makes Felix governor of Samaria [and probably of Judaea], contemporary with Cumanus as governor of Galilee, the latter being disgraced in 52, and the former acquitted and honoured at the same trial), is resolved by Mommsen in favour of Tacitus as the better authority on such a point ; and most students of Roman history will agree with him.