- Acts
- <
- 24
- >

24
Caesarea
Felix
1 Now after five days the high priest Ananias went down with the elders and a certain orator, Tertullus, and they informed the governor against Paul.* This effort represented a considerable inconvenience. They were really determined. 2 So when he had been called in, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “Seeing that by you we enjoy much peace, and your foresight has brought prosperity to this nation, 3 we recognize this, most noble Felix, with full gratitude, always and everywhere. 4 But so as not to detain you unduly, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly. 5 We have found this man to be a plague, a creator of discord among all the Jews throughout the world,† Wow! They are giving Paul a reputation! a ringleader of the Natsorean sect, 6 and he even tried to profane the temple; so we arrested him.‡ We have here a bothersome set of variants, and the only way to do justice to the situation is to give the evidence in Greek. Even those who do not read Greek can get some notion as to the high level of confusion. The translation of the addition (more or less) may be had from AV or NKJV.
1) (without the long addition) f 35 (A,B (58.9%) HF,RP,NU
2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθσν δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ την χειρων ημων αρηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are:
2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants]
8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants]
22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants]
30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants]
34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] [OC is in small print]
37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes:
κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants]
39) completely rewrites the material:
κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants]
(eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].
Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants!
What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke's account.)
The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.] 8 By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” 9 And the Jews also joined in the attack, affirming that these things were so.
10 When the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul answered: “Knowing, as I do, that you have been an equitable§ I follow the best line of transmission in reading “equitable”, albeit with only 25% of the Greek manuscripts here. Almost all versions follow the 75% in omitting the word. judge of this nation for many years, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, 11 because you can ascertain that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 They did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd—not in the temple, not in the synagogues, not around the city. 13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. 14 But I do profess this to you, that according to the Way that they call a sect, that is how I worship the ancestral God, believing all things that stand written throughout the Law and the Prophets, 15 having hope in God, which these themselves also look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead,* Some 6.6% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘of the dead’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, etc.). both the just and unjust.† Everyone will be resurrected, but the two resurrections are very different—which is why Paul applied himself. 16 And this is why I apply myself to always have a clear conscience before both God and men. 17 Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, 18 in the midst of which certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, with neither crowd nor confusion. 19 They are the ones that had to be here before you and make accusation, if they had anything against me.‡ According to Roman law, the accusers had to be there. 20 Or let these themselves say what wrong they found in me, when I stood before the council, 21 unless it be for this one statement that I called out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you today.’ ”
22 Upon hearing these things Felix, having an accurate knowledge of the things concerning the Way, adjourned the proceedings and said, “When Lysias the commander comes down I will decide your case.” 23 And he ordered the centurion that Paul should be kept in custody but have some freedom, and not to forbid any of his friends to provide for or to visit him.§ Both Lysias and Felix knew that Paul was not really guilty; and the Jews had figured out that they were not going to get what they wanted from either of them. Felix should have released Paul, but it was not part of the Plan.
24 Now after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith into Christ Jesus.* Some 45% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘Jesus’, as in AV and NKJV. 25 But as he expounded on righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix became afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have occasion I will summon you.”† To believe into Jesus would require changes that Felix was not prepared to make. 26 At the same time he was also hoping that Paul would give him money, that he might release him; so he frequently summoned and conversed with him.
27 But after two years, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; so Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul in prison.‡ During those two years Paul had been eating at the empire's expense, but apparently this did not represent a problem to Felix. But why did Felix want to do the Jews a favor? Perhaps the Jews could influence the choice of governor.

- Acts
- <
- 24
- >

*24:1 This effort represented a considerable inconvenience. They were really determined.

†24:5 Wow! They are giving Paul a reputation!

‡24:6 We have here a bothersome set of variants, and the only way to do justice to the situation is to give the evidence in Greek. Even those who do not read Greek can get some notion as to the high level of confusion. The translation of the addition (more or less) may be had from AV or NKJV.1) (without the long addition) f35 (A,B (58.9%) HF,RP,NU 2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθσν δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ την χειρων ημων αρηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are: 2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants] 8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants] 22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants] 30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants] 34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] [OC is in small print] 37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes: κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants] 39) completely rewrites the material:κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants](eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants! What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke's account.)The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.]

§24:10 I follow the best line of transmission in reading “equitable”, albeit with only 25% of the Greek manuscripts here. Almost all versions follow the 75% in omitting the word.

*24:15 Some 6.6% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘of the dead’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, etc.).

†24:15 Everyone will be resurrected, but the two resurrections are very different—which is why Paul applied himself.

‡24:19 According to Roman law, the accusers had to be there.

§24:23 Both Lysias and Felix knew that Paul was not really guilty; and the Jews had figured out that they were not going to get what they wanted from either of them. Felix should have released Paul, but it was not part of the Plan.

*24:24 Some 45% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘Jesus’, as in AV and NKJV.

†24:25 To believe into Jesus would require changes that Felix was not prepared to make.

‡24:27 During those two years Paul had been eating at the empire's expense, but apparently this did not represent a problem to Felix. But why did Felix want to do the Jews a favor? Perhaps the Jews could influence the choice of governor.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD