27.
489
djotov!- θέλων τε xdpitas καταθέσθαι τοῖς “loudalorg 6 Φῆλιξ,
κατέλιπε τὸν Παῦλον δεδεµένον.
1 Instead of θελων τε χαρ. Blass in β text with 137, Syr. H. mg. reads τον δε Παυλον ειασεν ev τηβησει δια Δρουσιλλαν, so Zéckler, Belser, Hilg., and J. Weiss, who thinks that T.R. is simply conformed to xxv. 9; but see on the other hand
Schmiedel, Enc. Bibl., i., 53.
long after his fall from court favour; but if the intervention of Pallas was subse- quent to his fall, what becomes of the synchronism between his disgrace and the recall of Felix? But further, Pallas, according to the statement of Tacitus, Ann., xiii., 14, was disgraced before the fourteenth birthday of Britannicus, in Feb. 55, but, if so, how could Felix have reached Rome at such an early period of that year? Nero came to the throne on 13th Oct., 54, and we have to sup- ‘pose that the order for recall was sent and the return journey of Felix to the ‘capital accomplished in spite of the winter season which made a sea voyage impossible (Ramsay, Zahn, Bacon) ; ‘one can therefore no longer base the chro- nology of an Apostle’s life upon the dis- missal of a court favourite”. But are there no chronological data available ? Albinus, the successor of Festus, was already procurator in 62. How long he ‘had been in office we cannot say, but he was certainly procurator in the summer of that year (Schirer, fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 188, E.T.; Biblical World, P- 357, 1897). From Jos., Ant., xx., 9, ας we learn that there was an interval of some few months full of disturbance and anarchy between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus in Jerusalem, so that we seem justified in inferring that Festus died probably in the winter of 61-62; and whilst the events of his pro- curatorship can scarcely have extended over five years (as would be demanded by the earlier chronology)—for in this case Josephus would surely have given us more information about them—it seems equally difficult to suppose that the events which Josephus does record could have been crowded into less than a year, or portions of two (Schirer). The entrance of Festus upon his office might thus be carried back to 59-60, and St. Paul’s de- parture for Rome would fall probably in 60. But a further contribution to the subject has been made by Mr. Turner, “Chronology of the N.T.,’” Hastings’ B.D., pp. 418, 419, and he argues for the exclusion of a date as late as 60 for the accession of Festus, and for placing the recall of Felix in 57-59, 1.6., between
the earlier and later dates mentioned above ; or, more definitely still, in 58, cf. Ρ. 420. With this date Dr. Gilbert agrees, Student’s Life of Paul, p. 252, 1899. See further Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 634 ; Wendt (1899), p. 56; Expositor, March, 1897, Feb., 1898; ‘‘ Festus” (A. Robertson), Hastings’ B.D. and Β.Γ.".---ἔλαβε διά- δοχον, Ecclus. xlvi. 1, xlviii. 8. In 2 Macc. iv. 29, xiv. 26, the meaning of suc- cessor is doubtful, and it would seem that the title rather denoted a high office about the court of the Ptolemies, cf. Deiss- mann, Bibelstudien, p. 111. In classical Greek it is used as here for successor, ¢f. Jos., Ant., xx., 8, 9, sO successorem accepit, Plin., Epist., ix., 13.---Φῆστον: we know nothing of him except from the N.T. and Josephus. The latter, however, contrasts him favourably with his successor Albinus: “et Albinum cum ei dissimillimum fuisse tradit, scelestum hominem, simul illum laudat ” (Blass). So far as our information goes, Festus also contrasts favourably with his predecessor ; he acted with promptness to rid the country of robbers and sicarii, and amongst them of one impostor whose promises were specially seductive, Ant., κκ. ο, ο, το, ang. BD. 7.) Ἡ τα αχ. UE although, as Schiirer says, he was dis- posed to act righteously, he found him- self unable to undo the mischief wrought by his predecessor, and after a short administration death prevented him from coping further with the evils which in- fested the province. For his attitude towards St. Paul as his prisoner see notes below. Two other events marked his procuratorship: (1) the quarrel be- tween the priests and Agrippa, because the latter built on to his palace so as to overlook the Temple, and the priests retaliated by building so as to shut off his view. Festus sided with Agrippa, but allowed the priests to appeal -to Rome. (2) The decision of the emperor in favour of the Syrian against the Jewish inhabitants of Czsarea, which caused a bitterness provoking in Α.Ρ. 66 the dis- turbances in which Josephus marked the beginnings of the great War, Ant., xx., 8, 9.—Oé€Awv τε χάριτας καταθέσθαι τοῖς Ἰ.: “' ἀεδίτῖπρ to gain favour with