SUPERVISION DE CAMINOS DE TERRACERIA

18 _{There are other examples in Luke‟s work, of interruptions after an important statement has been made.}

The speech in Athens comes to an abrupt end after Paul mentions the resurrection, (Ac.17:32). The crowd listens to Paul until he mentions God‟s call to go to the Gentiles. At that point they begin shouting, (Ac.22:22). The proceedings of the Sanhedrin degenerate into violence once Paul has stated that he believes in the resurrection, (Ac.23:7).

19 _{Haenchen, 688.}

The impact of Festus‟ loud exclamation is heightened by its content. In Festus‟ view, Paul “has gone out of his mind” (καίv). The exact translation of the word “καίv” has been extensively investigated but not resolved.21 _{In the previous section the importance of the word} κκαηvόκεvoς was evaluated, especially as it grouped under its umbrella the four words which described Paul's resistance to Christianity. The word seems to echo Paul's self description as κκαηvόκεvoς in Acts 26:11. In this new section Festus who has just heard Paul's account of his radical conversion which involved him turning away from his previous ways, still uses the concept of καίv to categorize Paul. This link is noted and identified by Johnson as pertinent. “Paul's „raging‟ against the Christians is after his conversion changed to „truth and sanity‟ (26:25), but that is now regarded by the outsider Festus as „raving‟ (mainomai) and „madness‟ (mania).”22 _{Luke has therefore created a literary relationship} between Paul‟s self description prior to Damascus (Ac.26:11) and Festus‟ reaction to the proclamation of the gospel by Paul after his Damascus experience (Ac.26:24).

The striking aspect of this exclamation is that Festus describes Paul in the same way that Paul referred to himself as a Jew who persecuted Christians. He sees the “changed” Paul in no different light, despite Paul‟s radical experience on the way to Damascus, and despite Paul‟s conviction, expressed later on, that he speaks in truth and with self-control (Ac.26:25). Through Festus‟ outburst, the reader realizes that Festus acknowledges no change in Paul's basic mind set. Since the reader knows that Paul's conversion is a significant event,23 _Festus' reference to Paul with the similar term that was appropriate for him before his conversion, presents Festus as attentive but unmoved by the whole defence speech.

The lack of a positive response to the proclamation of the gospel by Festus can be better understood in the light of the way in which Luke describes other reactions to the proclamation of the apostles in his narrative. Of these responses, the crowds who listened to Peter on Pentecost day, provides the most illuminating example. They, listening to the speech of Peter and its culmination in the message of the resurrection (2:32-36), were touched in their hearts by it (2:37). This stands in clear contrast to the perplexity and sneering, narrated in the reaction after the tongues (2:5-13). Similarly, after Paul‟s speech in Acts 17, the responses were also positive (17:34), but others were negative in their sneering and lack of commitment (17:32). The similar response of Festus should be read in this context, but as representing that of another institution in the worldwide proclamation of the Gospel. As the conversion of Paul is such an important and dominant theme in Acts, being discussed three times in Acts, Luke‟s portrayal of Festus‟ inability

to grasp its real significance categorises him as belonging to a group of people who remain aloof and for whom issues which are of religious importance for others, are negligible.

21 _{See the analysis of this word in note 13 of the previous section.}

22 _{Johnson, 434.}

23 _{The conversion account is repeated three times: Acts 9; 22; 26. Luke‟s technique of repeating events with}

Festus‟ continuing aloofness also comes into focus when the content of his outburst is compared with his stated views prior to Paul‟s defence. There is an interesting link between Festus‟ remark in Acts 26:24 and 25:19-20 about the disagreements between Paul and his opponents. In Acts 25:19, Festus, having observed the behaviour of the antagonistic Jews and having listened to their arguments, described them as superstitious. The relationship between Acts 25:19 and 26:24 has been noted by some commentators. In his comments on Acts 26:24 Conzelmann states: “(T)he Roman's incomprehension (Acts 25:19) is this time actually demonstrated.”24 Once again, in the light of the proclamation of the resurrection, Festus writes off the significance of Paul‟s proclamation. He is unable and unwilling to appreciate what really is at stake here. According to Luke, Festus finds that Paul is not accused of serious offences (Ac.25:18). Inner-Jewish controversies are being disputed before him. Later on in Acts 26:24, his outburst confirms this view: He ascribes Paul‟s position to fanaticism.25

Through Festus‟ outburst, which is dominated by his reference to Paul as καίv, Luke shows that Festus has maintained the same opinion of the issues before him as he held prior to Paul‟s speech. This presents Festus as a representative of people who remain unmoved by Paul's conversion account.

Festus‟ sudden and loud exclamation, moreover, has been placed by Luke at the point where Paul has just completed the presentation of the soundness of his beliefs. Paul's account of his conversion and how he has followed in the well established and recognised footsteps of the prophets and especially Moses, point to the legitimacy of his beliefs. He has stated that what he believes in, is nothing beyond that which has already been accepted in the ancient and recognised traditions of the Jews. Luke presents this description of Paul as following the events in the temple where he had been observing the prescribed purification rites (Ac.26:21). Paul‟s proclamation, therefore, as was widely accepted in Graeco-Roman rhetoric and argumentation,26 _{rests on a well argued case with the necessary evidence. Festus, in his} exclamation, brushes this aside in an open, challenging way, using in his description of Paul as crazy an emotive expression that in his times indicated derision and rejection. He does so, despite the way in which Paul argued his case in a convincing manner in line with acceptable logic of his time.

It is, though, possible, to move to a deeper level and to see this response of aloofness as characteristic of a deeper attitude and mind set. It will be argued later on that not only the interruption but also its content, reveals an indifference on their part which is characteristic of a typical group of people that Luke wants to contrast with those who are superstitious.