In the attempts to understand the meaning of Agrippa's comment, the importance of the implied friendship between Festus and Agrippa has not been sufficiently recognised. Although the question of friendship between a Roman official and the representative of the Herod's has already been investigated in the chapter on superstition,150 some further points are nevertheless relevant.151
At the trial of Jesus, Luke specifically refers to the friendship that was cemented between Herod and Pilate (Lk.23:12). What is all the more significant is that prior to Luke‟s reference to the friendship, Herod ridiculed and mocked Jesus (ξoσζεvήζα ς δ αηv Ηρδες ζv ηoς ζηραηεύκαζηv αηo θα κπαίξας, Lk.23:11). From the way Luke describes the friendship, it appears that the ridiculing and mocking of Jesus by Herod was the catalyst for it. Johnson's comments on this verse is illuminating for he states that Luke appears to be particularly conversant with the conventions of friendship in the Hellenistic world.152 He refers to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 9.4.5; to indicate that one of the axioms of friendship in the Hellenistic world was that it be between equals.153 He explains that this equality was implicit in the relationship between Pilate and Herod because Pilate recognises Herod's authority by sending Jesus to him (Lk.23:7). Johnson explains that in the Hellenistic mind, recognising a person's authority: “signifies a recognition of him as an „equal‟ and therefore capable of being a „friend‟.”154
149 Cf. The Writings of Irenaeus, trans. A.Roberts, W.Rambaut, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), 260.
Irenaeus, 3.2.3. Malherbe also adds that the notion of sudden conversion finds its counterpart in Christian literature in the conversion account of Augustine. (August., Conf. 6.7.11-2.) Malherbe, Not in a Corner, 17 note 80.
150 See chap. 2 section 4.1.
151 That parallels and the repeating of themes that exist within and between the Gospel of Luke and Acts is a
well documented literary technique of Luke's. One aspect of the parallel between the two Herods has already been investigated in the section 3.2 in the previous chapter, when Herod Antipas had been hoping to see Jesus (Luke 23:8) helps to explain that Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:22) had been waiting to see Paul.
152 Johnson, 366.
153 Ibid., 366.
Luke's use of parallels between situations and personalities makes it possible for the model of Pilate's friendship with Herod to guide the interpretation of the relationship and the friendship between Festus and Agrippa. Johnson, basing himself on Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics, explains some further implications of friendship which are relevant to the understanding
of Festus and Agrippa. He writes: “For those powerfully placed in Hellenistic society, „friends‟ were often political allies or associates.”155 A further relevant aspect concerning the friendship between Festus and Agrippa is that in the “ancient world friendship meant spiritual sharing of the most profound kind.”156 Festus‟ call on Agrippa to help him formulate a written report, which he needed to send to the Emperor, indicates that Festus recognised and respected Agrippa's opinion. The recognition of Agrippa's opinion by Festus implies friendship between them. Festus call on Agrippa to assist him in assessing religious issues, is a further indication that their friendship also included the sharing of spiritual values. Therefore a picture of friendship between Festus and Agrippa emerges, in which political and spiritual values are shared.
The issue of the friendship between Festus and Agrippa also sheds light on their portrayal as sharing their atheistic tendencies. The aspect of friendship is also referred to by Plutarch in the passage cited earlier, where he notes that sardonic exclamations are typical of atheists when they hear expositions on true worship. The aspect that also needs to be taken into consideration is Plutarch's added comment that such outbursts against true religion are made by a person when in the company of friends and for the benefit of the ears of his friends. Plutarch explains the circumstances under which such remarks are made: θα πoσ παραθζ εγγόκεvov ρέκα πρς ηoς ζσvήζεης.157 As Bailly explains, the word ζσvήζες used by Plutarch, indicates an intimate friendship.158 Thus Plutarch portrays the atheist as making these kinds of comments
while in the company of his friends.159
Thus the parallel between Pilate and Herod‟s friendship and that of Festus and Agrippa acts as a backdrop against which the retort of Agrippa can be evaluated. According to Plutarch‟s explanations, the reactions and comments of both Festus and Agrippa, are those that are typical of atheistic friends in which they share political and spiritual values.
7.1 Agrippa’s judgement
A final point from the text is the relevance of Agrippa‟s other comment that Paul could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. O‟Toole has argued that Agrippa‟s final positive judgement concerning Paul is an indication by Luke that Agrippa seriously contemplated a commitment when he asked if Paul thought that he could make him a Christian in such a short time. O‟Toole writes: “His statement is infinitely important for Luke's apology of Paul and is the supposition on which „This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment (26:31)‟ and „This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar (26:32)‟ are based.”160
155 Ibid., 117.
156 Johnson refers to Aristotle Nic. Eth., 9: Ibid., 124.
157 Plutarch On Superstition 169D.
158 “lié avec, qui a des relations d'amitié” Bailly, s.v., ζσvήζες, DGF.
159 This is understandable as such derogatory remarks, when they are made about the official state religions,
are not to be uttered in public but must remain within the circle of intimate friends. The fact the Festus is able to make his outburst and derogatory remarks while in the audience hall with many city officials present is because his remarks are not directed against the official religions of the empire but against Paul's presentation of Christianity.
By this O'Toole means that Agrippa had found Paul to be free of the accusations and worthy of being set free, and had accordingly been impressed by him.
However, Luke‟s parallel description of the events at the trial of Jesus proves the exact opposite to be true. At the trial of Jesus (Lk.23:11), Luke specifically states that Herod and his soldiers “ridiculed” (ξoσζεvήζα ς) and “mocked” (κπαίξας) Jesus. However, despite having been mocked by Herod, Pilate states that both he and Herod could not find any basis for the charges against Jesus (Lk.23:14f). The following similarity in the choice of words between Pilate's pronouncement concerning Jesus and Agrippa's pronouncement concerning Paul, indicates Luke's intended parallel. Luke 23:15b: θα δo oδv ξηov ζαvάηoσ ζηv πεπραγκέvov αη and Acts 26:31b: ηη oδv ζαvάηoσ δεζκv ξηov πράζζ εη vζρφ πoς oηoς.
Some scholars have pointed out Luke's intended parallel between these two pronouncements. Johnson describes it in the following way, “Like Jesus, who was declared innocent three times by the Roman authority Pontius Pilate (Lk.23:4, 14, 22) with the agreement of the Tetrarch Herod (23:5), so is Paul three times declared innocent of the charges against him by Roman authorities with the agreement of a representative of the Herodian family.”161 Likewise L'Éplattenier comments on Acts 26:31, “Il y a là un parallèle évident avec les trois déclarations de Pilate à propos de Jésus, que les juifs voulaient voir condamner à mort (cf. Lc 23, 4.14.15.22).”162 He shows the intended close literary relationship between Herod and Agrippa by stating: “L'avis d'Agrippa fait pendant à celui d'Hérode.”163 In this way, the attitude of Herod at the trial of Jesus, of mocking and ridiculing Jesus, together with the friendship between Pilate and Herod, acts as a pointer to how Luke intended Agrippa's comment to be understood. Spencer, in his brief assessment of Agrippa's statement, draws on the relationship it has with Festus' comment in order to interpret Agrippa's statement. “The famous „almost persuaded‟ comment of King Agrippa (26:28) may just as easily be interpreted as a derisive dismissal of Paul's audacious rhetoric („Do you really dare so quickly - and naively - to persuade me to become a Christian?‟) as a sympathetic confession of sincere interest in Paul's gospel. The former reading pairs more readily with Festus' judgement that Paul had pushed his newfangled ideas to the brink of good sense, even sanity (26:24)!”164
That Luke intends the reader to interpret Agrippa‟s retort to Paul as sarcasm, is confirmed in two ways. Firstly through the internal evidence of the Lukan text, which depicts Paul's trial as a parallel to that of Jesus. Secondly, through external evidence such as Plutarch, who indicates that these types of derogatory comments and retorts takes place between atheistic friends. The picture that Luke creates concerning Agrippa‟s retort, is that it consistently points to Agrippa sharing the same atheistic disposition as Festus.