Once again evidence from the rest of Acts suggests that Luke‟s portrayal of Festus and Felix, especially as representatives of those in high places, have typical features and displays stereotypical characteristics. The issue of indifference by the educated elite is not confined to Felix and Festus. In Acts 18 there is a report of a trial of Paul before Gallio in Corinth. There are some striking parallels between this trial and the later ones before Felix and Festus. It is obvious that Gallio is someone in a high place, a figure of authority within the Roman legal system. He occupies an office comparable to those of Festus and Felix. The importance of Gallio is explained by Jackson and Lake who indicate that Gallio was proconsul in Achaia in A.D. 51 and his brother was the famous philosopher and dramatist Seneca, who was also for a time Nero‟s tutor.121 It appears that Gallio was also consul at some unknown date, for Pliny says that he took a sea voyage after his consulate because he was threatened with consumption.122
Here also Paul is persecuted by his Jewish opponents, brought to trial, and accused before a pagan official on matters of religion. Once again the pagan official finds that no serious crimes are involved and explicitly says so. Gallio, like Festus in Acts 26:19, regards the matter as a dispute about Jewish beliefs (18:15). He then refuses explicitly to be a judge on those issues and chases them from the court room (18:15-16). More telling, though, is his response to the violent incident after the case is ended. According to Acts 18:17, Gallio is described as remaining indifferent (θα δv ηoύηφv η Γαι ι ίφvη κει εv) while Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue who was sympathetic to the Christian cause was being attacked by the people of Corinth.123
121 Pliny Nat. Hist. 31.33. Cit. ap. Jackson and Lake, Beginnings, 4.226.
122 Ibid.
123 Jervell assumes in his commentary (462) that the Jewish accusers, with their leader Sosthenes, are being
attacked by the people. According to him the purpose of Luke with this episode is not clear. Jervell‟s reading illustrates the openness of the narrative. For an explanation of the grammar of this verse with the alternative readings it allows, cf. Jackson Lake, Beginnings, 4.228.
The tantalizing remark about Gallio‟s indifference has attracted attention of early readers of the text quite often. The difficulty of interpreting it has resulted in the appearance of variant readings. Some texts have o Ioσδαoη added to πάvηες124 making the Jews responsible for beating Sosthenes, while the Western Texts supply o Δι ι εvες125 which makes the Greeks responsible. Johnson describes this variant reading as an “inspired guess,” for it makes Gallio appear to support anti-semitic behaviour. The question Johnson asks of this verse reveals his unease with this suggestion: “But why would Gallio not care about such a flagrant flouting of his authority before his bma?”126 The difficulty that scholars have in understanding Gallio's indifference is illustrated by Johnson's conclusion to this whole scene that “it remains obscure” except for the fact that in accordance with his vision (18:10) Paul comes to no harm.127 The spectrum of varying interpretations of this verse is also illustrated by Thomas' comment on it: “Attitude may appear to have been one of contempt, but Ramsay regards decision of Gallio as „charter of Christian freedom.‟”128 O‟Toole, in his article on Luke‟s treatment of the Jews, focusses briefly on the Gallio incident where he notes his indifference: “This brief story of the appearance before Gallio allows Luke to establish the principle that the Romans are not interested in settling Jewish disputes about terminology, titles or „the law.‟”129 Haenchen emphasises Gallio‟s indifference even more strongly: “Luke gives no indication that he condemns the beating, since this feature reveals especially clearly the disinterestedness of the Roman authorities.”130 Conzelmann is also emphatic about Gallio‟s indifference: “This verse demonstrates the disinterest of the authorities in Christianity, an attitude which, in Luke's opinion, is appropriate for them.”131
Jackson and Lake (Beginnings 4.228-229), remarked that this episode illustrated the neutrality of Gallio. He refused to become “an agent of Jewish animosity against Paul.” They add that he “allowed an anti-Semitic reaction take its own course.” They stress that Luke was not condemning Gallio here.
124 Manuscripts 307 and 431.
125 D, E, P, Φ etc.
126 Johnson, 329.
127 Ibid.
128 W.H.G.Thomas, Outline Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 368.
Scholars are notably divided over the interpretation of this scene. L'Éplattenier sees reason to compliment Gallio for his aloofness. “Si pareille sagesse avait plus souvent eu cours dans l'histoire, on eût évité bien des conflits sanglants.” C.L'Éplattenier, Le Livre des Actes, (Paris: Éditions du Centurion, 1994), 195. In a similar vein, Jackson and Lake, Beginnings, 228f., reject any implication that Luke may be condemning Gallio. They state: “He is, on the contrary, showing how Gallio - a learned judge - was so neutral in the controversy that he refused to become an agent of Jewish animosity against Paul.” In his assessment of Gallio, Bruce (348), writes, “(H)e is being commended for his impartiality, not blamed for his indifference to spiritual matters.”
129 O‟Toole, Luke's Treatment of Jews, 543.
130 Haenchen, 537.
Whatever the various explanations of Acts 18:17, fact is that Luke here explicitly notes the indifference of a character in high places to Paul, and, by implication, to the Christian proclamation. The explanation that Sosthenes, as someone sympathetic to the Christians, is attacked by “all” the accusers of Paul, and that Gallio was indifferent to this episode, would indeed portray him in the same negative light as the later characters of Festus and Felix. There can be little doubt that Luke‟s portrayal of Gallio‟s indifference towards issues of faith, forms the background to and is consistent with the attitude with which Luke portrays Felix and Festus later on in Acts.132 They reflect stereotypical behaviour.
The understanding of Festus' outburst as indicative of the atheist‟s cynical indifference is therefore corroborated by Luke in portraying other members of the intellectual elite in a similar way.