100 Reasons to Believe New Testament History
40. Legal System Depicted in the New Testament
A. The Legal System in the Gospels – All of the details involving Christ’s trial before Pilate are in accord with what we know of first century Roman jurisprudence A. This includes Pilate’s attempt to rid himself of Jesus by sending him to Herod B, his willingness to adopt the sentence of the Jewish religious authorities regarding Jesus C, and even the gambling for Christ’s garments at the foot of his cross D.
B. Paul Charged Before Felix – The Jews in Acts 24:5 condemn Paul to Felix the governor with these words: “For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”
History records that Claudius, addressing the Alexandrines in a letter expressed his objection to the political actions of the Jews as “stirring up a universal plague throughout the world.” The language of the Jews in Acts 24:5 takes on greater significance in this light, as white notes:
“The narrative of Acts is using contemporary language. The charge was precisely the one to bring against a Jew during the principate of Claudius or the early years of Nero.” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament”, Baker Books, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed., p. 51
C. Felix’ Desire to Appease the Jews - In Acts 24:27 we read, “But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix’ room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.”
This statement fits the historical period very well. Under Nero, there was a great uproar in Rome regarding the large influence that provincial politicians had been exerting on governors by threat of prosecution for extortion (See Tactitus, Annals XV.20-22). Pilate and Cumanus, the predecessors of Felix, both had charges made against them. Felix on the other hand had no general charge laid against him, despite whatever troubles his administration experienced. Therefore as White concludes:
“The collocation in Acts of the departure of Felix and this attempt to secure favour with the Jews is thus in historical perspective.” .” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament”, Baker Books, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed., p. 53
D. Paul’s Objection Appropriate – In Acts 24:18-19, Paul’s charge against his accusers before Felix is very appropriate. Paul states, “Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.” Roman law at that time was very intolerant of accusers who did not show up to substantiate their charges. The emperor Claudius had created a legislation which prevented accusers from abandoning their charges. His senate speeches where later completed by the SC. Turpilianum of A.D. 61 under the emperor Nero. Here the penalties for this offence, known as “destitutio” were laid down. E
E. Felix Questions Paul About His Province –In Acts 23:34-35 Paul appears in custody before Felix, who inquires of Paul what province he was from. Paul’s reply of Cilicia makes us wonder why he then agreed to hear the case against Paul instead of sending him to his own province for trial. The answer shows Acts remarkably accurate in matters of jurisprudence and geopolitical divisions.
During the first century, Cilicia was not a separate province, but was controlled by the Legate of Syria. After this time, its own Legate governed Cilicia. Paul stood before Felix when Cilicia was still controlled by the Legate of Syria, who was to intervene in Judaea’s affairs only in times of great crisis. Since the status of Cilicia at that time did not require its natives be sent back for trial, Felix’s decision to hear Paul’s case is understandable. FF. Paul’s Appeal to Rome – In Acts 25:9-10 we read of the exchange between Festus and Paul:
“But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, ‘Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?’ Then said Paul, ‘I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.”
The governors in Paul’s time were free to deal with the formulation of charges and penalties as they saw fit. In matters which fell outside the statutory criminal laws, he would have followed the examples of his predecessors, or use his own intervention with the help of his consilium. This is what Paul feared. The consilium was a body of assessors made up an advisory cabinet of friends and officials. Paul’s fear was that a trial in Jerusalem would mean that Festus would use members of the Jewish Sanhedrin as his consilium. This explains Paul’s appeal to Caesar, consistent with what is known of first century jurisprudence.
It is important to note that third century lawyers wrote of a system where everyone except slaves where Roman citizens, who could appeal to Caesar after the sentence was reached. In the earlier phase, the judge either did not try the case at all or at most made a preliminary investigation and left the issue to be decided by the emperor. The legal system depicted here belongs unmistakably to the first century G.
G. Paul In Philippi – In Acts 16, we read of Paul’s Philippian captors growing fearful once they discovered his status as a Roman citizen. Paul states in verse 37, “They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Roman, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay verily, let them come themselves and fetch us out.”
In the second century, the governor’s tribunal looked after even quite minor matters, as White notes, “[It is] difficult to believe that any real power of correction was left to local courts in the later period.” .” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament”, Baker Books, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed. White p. 76
In earlier times however, the original Roman system of “Lex Iulia” stated that Roman citizens were not to be beaten or bound by a magistrate or any other person under any circumstances. (see white p. 71). As time went on, exceptions to the rule were made and by the later first century, certain circumstances made the chaining or beating of Roman citizens at the orders of a Roman magistrate quite legal.
Somewhere in the middle of this transfer of authority, magistrates were permitted to order the chaining or beating of Roman citizens, provided there was first a trial. White states,
“…the Roman magistrates of Philippi [were alarmed] because they had summarily chastised a Roman citizen involved in some kind of civil disturbance. [This was] quite out of order in the original system, with or without a trial, but…permissive under the middle system, on the condition given in Acts – that there had been a trial.” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament”, Baker Books, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed., p.73-74
Thus, the episode at Philippi and Paul’s protest to it is very accurate to a specific point in Roman history. Such precision in details can only strengthen the case for the general historicity Acts H.
H. The Riot at Ephesus – In Acts 19:23-41, we read of a riot breaking loose in the city of Ephesus, where Paul’s preaching threatened the livelihood of the idol makers there. An unofficial meeting of the people is organized in an attempt to put pressure on the missionaries, and shortly after the town clerk takes control of the situation, offering the complainants two courses of action. They could take the matter to the proconsular assizes to pursue a private judicial dispute, or to the regular city assemble if they had more than a private lawsuit.
The clerk’s words are specific and accurate to the first century. Note that the silversmiths’ original complaint was over property – the sale of images of Diana. This could be addressed before the proconsular authorities. The issue of the city’s prestige being attacked would be the “other matters” mentioned in verse 39 to be addressed at the lawful assembly. It is mention of the assembly that really helps to narrow the time period of this event to precisely within the first century.
As time went by, council meetings replaced the regular assemblies. In similar speeches of Dio of Prusa (AD 96-106) we see Roman policy clearly aimed at removing the democratic element in the cities, and in Dio’s time there had already been a suspension of civic assembly in Prusa. Luke’s description of Ephesus portrays a city where civic policy was debated in an open assembly, a situation extremely rare by the mid second century. In the second century, a public vote meant endorsement of the council’s decrees. The incident described in Acts 19 therefore falls within the correct period as White notes:
“The scene belongs unmistakably to an era that did not survive the age of the Antonines.” .” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament”, Baker Books, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed. White p. 85 I40.Legal System Depicted in the New Testament - Notes and References
A. “In the Hearing before Pilate, the synoptic narrative fits the Roman framework remarkably well, considering it was written with an entirely different purpose in mind.” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament”, Baker Book House, 1992 reprint from Oxford University Press Ed., 1963, p. 24
“The descriptions of the trial, sentence, and crucifixion in the four Gospels have been checked with scientific thoroughness by many scholars and have been found to be historically reliable accounts even to the last detail. The chief witnesses for the prosecution against Jesus have been indirectly attested and the place where sentence was pronounced has been accurately ascertained by excavations. The various incidents in the course of the trial can be verified from contemporary sources and modern research.” Werner Keller, “The Bible as History”, New Revised English Translation, Hodder and Stoughton, 1980, p.344
B. A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament”, Baker Book House, 1992 reprint from Oxford University Press Ed., 1963,pp. 28-31
C. “The implication that Pilate adopted, or was willing to adopt the sentence of the Sanhedrin is entirely within the scope of the procurator’s imperium.” Ibid., p. 47
D. “But, as has always been familiar since Mommsen, legal texts conform that it was the accepted right of the executioners’ squad to share out the minor possessions of the victim. The custom, which must derive ultimately from the custom of plunder on the field of battle, became the subject of a legal dispute on which the emperor Hadrian pronounced a solution.” Ibid, p. 46
E. Ibid., p. 52. White notes that on this point, “Once again the author of Acts is well informed.”
F. “From about 25 B.C. Eastern Cilicia (including Tarsus )was united administratively with Syria, which had become a Roman province under Pompey in 64 B.C. Western Cilicia was allotted to a succession of client kings. When the last of these kings abdicated in A.D. 72, Eastern Cilicia was detached from Syria and united with Western Cilicia to form the province of Cilicia. For the whole of Paul’s lifetime, however, the area of Cilicia in which his native city stood was part of the united province of Syria-Cilicia, a situation implied in Paul’s statement that some three years after his conversion, following a brief visit to Jerusalem, he “went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” Galatians 1:21. F.F. Bruce, “Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free”, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977, p. 33
“Felix asked, ‘From what province do you come?; Paul replied, ‘From Cilicia’, which technically was not a province but a part of a province. The narrative in fact shows remarkable familiarity with the provincial and judicial situation in the last years of Claudius. An author unfamiliar with the later situation of Cilicia, and the final form of the judicial custom of forum delicti, would have avoided altogether the question of Paul’s patria, or place of origin.” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament”, Baker Book House, 1992 reprint from Oxford University Press Ed., 1963, p. 57
G. “It is apparent that the author of Acts has no knowledge of the later system, which was establishing itself during the second half of the second century.” Ibid., p. 69
H. “Hence, Acts is certainly not reproducing the system of a later age in implying in several places that the local courts could inflict certain minor personal punishments. The narrative agrees with the evidence of the earlier period that a Roman citizen of and social class was protected against a casual beating (without a trial), where as the humiliores of the late empire had lost this protection.” Ibid. p. 76
I. “The evidence of Acts not only agrees in general with the civic situation in Asia Minor in the first and second centuries A.D., but falls into the place of the earlier rather than the later phase of development…In Acts or in that part of Acts which is concerned with the adventures of Paul in Asia minor and Greece, one is aware all the time of the Hellenistic and Roman setting. The historical framework is exact. In terms of time and place the details are precise and correct…it is similar with the narrative of Paul’s judicial experiences before the tribunals of Gallio, Felix, and Festus. As documents these narratives belong to the same historical series as the record of provincial and imperial trials in epigraphical and literary sources of the first and early second centuries A.D…The trials in Acts belong unmistakably, as has been shown at extreme length above, to a particular phase in the history of Roman provincial jurisdiction.” A.N. Sherwin-White, “Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament”, Baker Book House, 1992, reprint of 1963 Ed., pp. 85, 121