Could the dialog between Paul, Festus, and Agrippa in Acts 25:23–27 be a later literary construction designed to enhance Paul’s standing, rather than a factual historical record?

Historical Context and Purpose of the Passage

Acts 25:23–27 places Paul before Festus and King Agrippa, just after Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Festus, newly appointed as governor, consults Agrippa to understand the charges against Paul. The text reads:

“On the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience hall, along with the commanders and leading men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Then Festus said: ‘King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man. The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him both in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. But I found he had done nothing worthy of death. And since he has now appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him. I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after this inquiry I may have something to write. For it seems unreasonable to me to send on a prisoner without specifying the charges against him.’” (Acts 25:23–27)

The overarching purpose of this section is to demonstrate that Paul’s imprisonment and subsequent appeal to Caesar occurred without any legitimate criminal charge against him. Luke, the author of Acts (cf. Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1–4), portrays these events in precise historical detail.

Stylistic Observations and Narrative Flow

Luke’s writing style in Acts is consistent: he employs careful detail, vivid narrative elements, and mentions historical figures who can be verified through external sources. Prior to Acts 25, Luke depicts Paul’s trials before other Roman officials (Acts 23:23–24:27). In each instance, the record shows that the authorities found no significant wrongdoing in Paul.

This recurring motif––that Paul’s message is not criminal in nature––culminates in this section before Festus and Agrippa. The narrative flow remains coherent and continuous; there are no clear textual features suggesting a later insertion or artificial construction to merely exalt Paul.

Comparison with Verified Historical Figures

King Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I (Acts 12:1), governed Chalcis and territories in the region by appointment of Emperor Claudius. Festus is likewise attested in external documents (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.197–214). These individuals and their roles align with Luke’s references:

1. Agrippa II is consistently identified by Roman and Jewish historians as a political figure exercising authority in Judea during the mid-first century.

2. Festus is recorded by Josephus as having succeeded Felix as procurator around AD 59–60.

Since Luke’s portrayal of these figures matches known historic testimony, it reinforces that Acts 25:23–27 deals with genuine Roman leadership of that era rather than fictional personalities.

Literary and Archaeological Support for Luke’s Accuracy

Numerous archaeological finds corroborate Luke’s attention to detail. Discoveries such as inscriptions related to officials named in Acts demonstrate an author well-informed about local politics and geography. Notable examples include:

• The “Gallio Inscription” in Delphi, confirming the proconsul Gallio’s time frame, which helps date Paul’s ministry (Acts 18:12).

• Additional inscriptions mentioning city officials and titles, aligning with terms used in Acts (e.g., politarch in Acts 17:6).

Such accuracy throughout Luke’s accounts of historical figures and titles make it unlikely that the dialogue between Paul, Festus, and Agrippa would be an unhistorical addition aimed purely at enhancing Paul’s stature.

Manuscript Evidence

Early manuscripts of the Book of Acts, such as p45 (Papyrus 45, from the 3rd century), codices Sinaiticus (4th century) and Vaticanus (4th century), contain the passage in Acts 25. There is no textual variant that indicates a later insertion of these verses to glorify Paul. The consistent presence of Acts 25:23–27 across diverse manuscript families argues for the authenticity of the account as part of the original composition.

Internal Consistency with Acts and Pauline Epistles

Internally, the trials and defenses of Paul in Acts match references made in portions of his letters in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:16–17 suggests defense at a formal proceeding). The repeated theme of Paul’s innocence according to Roman law, balanced against the Jewish leadership’s accusations, aligns well with:

• Paul’s continual acknowledgment that his appointment and message come from God (Acts 26:15–18).

• The Roman officials’ confusion and frustration with the nature of these religious disputes.

No contradictions in style or context arise within these accounts, and the consistent narrative arc undermines the suggestion of a later literary patch or second-century development.

Historical Method and the Nature of Luke’s Writings

Luke claims in his prologue to the Gospel of Luke that he has undertaken careful investigation by drawing on eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1–4). The same methodological commitment runs throughout Acts. Ancient historians like the rhetorician Lucian of Samosata outlined the importance of firsthand reports and scrutiny of sources—a principle evident in Luke’s work.

If the dialogue in Acts 25:23–27 had been concocted solely to magnify Paul, one might expect an exaggerated portrayal of Paul’s heroism or rhetorical skill. Instead, the text emphasizes Festus’s and Agrippa’s real puzzlement over the charges, presenting Paul’s calm defense rather than contrived exaltation.

Broader Consistency with Early Christian Testimony

Early Christian writers, including those who likely knew of Acts, never questioned the authenticity of the trial narratives. When Acts is cited or referenced in early Christian documents (e.g., the writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Irenaeus), it is consistently treated as reliable historical testimony. There is no recorded issue or debate about a forged legal hearing inserted to bolster Paul’s reputation.

Conclusion

All available evidence, whether literary, historical, archaeological, or manuscript-based, supports the integrity of Acts 25:23–27 as a genuine account of Paul’s hearing before Festus and Agrippa. The presence of historically verifiable figures, Luke’s known attention to administrative and geographical details, the coherence of the narrative within the broader context of Acts, and the lack of textual variants in early manuscripts all refute claims that this dialogue is a later construction.

Rather than an embellishment to raise Paul’s standing, this passage continues Luke’s consistent portrayal of impartial Roman officials unable to find legal fault in Paul. The historical backing for each official mentioned, as well as the acknowledgment of the precise political environment of the day, serve as strong indicators that this portion of Scripture accurately describes an authentic occasion in Paul’s ministry and life.