Festival (Hastings' Dictionary)

See Feasts aitd Fasts. FESTUS, Porcius, succeeded Felix as procurator of Judiea. On his arrival he visited Jerusalem, whither the priests endeavoured unsuccessfully to induce him to send for Paul. His reply (Ac 25"), that to hand over a man unheard was ' not custom- ary with Romans' (whatever it might be for Jews), has a touch of disdainful dignity. Endeavouring to induce Paul to consent to a trial at Jerusalem, he provokes and allows the appeal to C^sar.

Then follows the hearing before Festus and Agrippa, the latter of whom is there as an expert assessor. The attitude of Festus is throughout (25'" 26=^- ^'j one of official impartiality, touched with good- natured indifference to the technicalities of Je^vish controversies. The gens Porcia is not otherwise known to have comprised a family of Festi, nor is this Festus known to us apart from the NT and Josephus.

According to the latter, the first important event of Festus' governorship was the decision of the emperor in favour of the Syrians at Cssarea (Felix, sub fin.) This was effected by Beiyllus (so all MSS in Jos. A nt. XX. viii. 9 ; vulgo ' Burrus '), Greek secretary to the emperor, whom the Syrians had won by corruption. This decision provoked the Jews to riots, in which Josephus sees the first simmerings of the war of 66. This point must not be forgotten when we come to the question of dates.

The other principal occurrences of Festus' tenure of office mentioned by Josephus ^-ere, firstly, the putting down of the Sicarii, and especially of one dangerous rebel, similar to the one of Ac 21^* (Ant. XX. viii. 10 ; cf . BJ II. xiv. 1 ) ; secondly, the disturbances at Jerusalem in consequence of the wall erected at the temple to intercept the view from the new ■wing of Agrippa's palace. Fcstdh took the side of Agrip^, but allowed the priests to appeal to Rome.

Before the result of this appeal was known Festus died. The important question connected with the name of Festus is that of chronology (see art. ClIRONO- LOQY of NT, p. 417 ff.) According to Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. Chron., Schdne ii. 148 f.; Hier. de vir. illustr.), Felix became procurator in the eleventh year of Claudius (51), Festus in the second year of Nero (56), Albinus succeeded Festus in the sixth or seventh year of Nero (60 or 61), and the Acts bring us (so Euthal. Praefi. in epp.

Pauli) to the fourth year of Nero (58). There has been a tendency lately, e.g. on the part of Blass and Har- nack, to revert to this chronology. But apart from the fact that had Festus governed Judaea for four or five years, Josephus would surely have had more to tell us in connexion with his procurator- ship, the authority of Eusebius in this matter is more than precarious.

Eusebius, doubtless, made use of Julius Africanus, who in turn used Justus of Tiberias, who stated the death-year of Agrippa II. But that Justus stated the years of the pro- curatorships there is not a word of evidence to prove. Eusebius may be as far from the truth here as when he places the outbreak of the Neronian persecution in 67-68. At the same time the question is worth reconsidering, and the recent discussion of Harnack (Chronol. d. altchr. Lit. p. 233 ff.

) deserves more minute discussion than the limits of this article allow. The chronology of Eusebius has the merit, be it what it may, of fitting in with Clemen's date for St. Paul's arrest, namely, A.D. 54 (1 CORINTHIANS, § 6). But that the rule of Festus was a short one, everything goes to prove ; and, as we saw above, the disturb- ances which then began were viewed by Josephus as the first mutterings of the great storm of the year 66.

But it would help us much if we could fix the date of the arrival of Albinus, which was separated by only a few stormy months from the death of Festus. Unfortunately, we have only the terminus ad quern firmly fixed, namely, the summer of 62 (Schiirer, HJP I. ii. 183, note 47). That his successor Gessius Florus was procurator only from 64-66 may be taken as proved (ib. note 58). But we have only inferential evidence, though it amounts to high probability, that the nue of Albinus was short.

Perhaps the date furnished by Aretas, with which Harnack fails to deal satisfactorily, coupled with the general data of St. Paul's life (1 CORINTHIANS, § 6, small print), may suffice to make us pause before putting the arrival of Festus anything like as early as 56.

On the other hand, as Albinus cannot have arrived later than 62, and the events of Festus' procuratorship, together with those which follow his death and precede the arrival of Albinns, though insufficient to fill five years, are yet too many for one year, it is hardly possible to place the arrival of Festus later than 60. The s,\ stem adopted s.v. Chrono- logy may be right in going back two years further (60 to 58).

On the whole this variation may be taken, upon a full re^dew of all our materials, as the most probable limit of doubt as regards this important date. It may be remarked that if Festun FETCH FIGS arrived in 60, the 8<«Tia SXt) of Ac 28** ends about February 63 ; between this and the Neroniau perse- cution of midsummer 64, to which Harnack would again bring back St. Paul's death, there is sufii- cient though hardly ample time for the events presupposed in the Epp.

to Timothy and Titus (see Schiirer, as quoted above, esp. note 38 ; Harnack, as quoted above ; Blass, Acta Apost. Ed. Philnl. p. 23, and the authorities for CHRONOLOGY OF NT). A. Robertson.