Eusebius and Jerome both record that Paul was acquitted by Nero in this trial pending at the end of the book of Acts. Eusebius makes it emphatic that Paul was « absolved of all crime. » (Eusebius, Eccl Hist. 325 AD (Ed. Cruse 1905) at page 62 / Bk II, Ch. XII. For more background, see fn. 2
This alone disproves the central claim of the recent attack-piece on Bishop James entitled « A Polite Bribe, » that James supposedly set up Paul to get attacked and killed somehow due to a fracas inevitably at the Temple of Jerusalem.
in my pursuit to debunk A Polite Bribe, I stumbled across the earliest source from pre-70AD — then part of the Christian canon — which likewise also says Paul after defending himself in court, went to the extremity of the kingdom, i.e., Spain, before dying naturally of old age. And a later source agrees Paul was released, went to Spain and says Paul then next went to Jerusalem. Then in a report centuries later, it was claimed after the acquittal that Paul years later supposedly returned to Rome a second time, and offended Nero who suspected Paul of some personal offence who for that reason had Paul executed. Thus multiple sources disprove this movie’s point that James’ alleged inaction foreseeably led to either Paul’s execution or death in prison awaiting trial on this charge raised in Acts 21. Let’s now look at the references, and not ignore that the earliest account has Paul dying an old man, but the martry accounts were all created 200 + years later.
The first proof on this point comes from the earliest contemporaneous account of Paul’s last days. This was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, probably shortly before 70 AD, as he mentions that sacrifices were continuing at the Temple. (1 Clem. Cor. 17:20.) Clement says that after Paul defended himself before rulers, Paul reached the « extremity of the West » of the realm, i.e., Spain, and he then « departed at length out of the world. » (1 Clem. Cor. 5:5-7.) This means that Paul was not sentenced to death by Nero but was released, went to Spain, and died naturally « at length. » Clement’s letter from Rome was part of the earliest Christian accepted canon for centuries, and even is part of the Alexandrinus Bible, but then omitted from approximately 340AD forward. Thus Paul had to have been not only earlier released by Nero, but also Paul was doing missionary trips freely to Spain where he died a natural death. This is what the earliest Christians must have known as the facts because it was in fact in the canon reading materials.
Likewise, the Muratorian Canon scrap from the 2d or 4th century records a trip by Paul to Spain never mentioned in Acts; it says « Paul who from the city (of Rome) proceeded to Spain. » Link. Instead, Luke records once Paul arrived at Rome to stand trial, he was allowed to live in a house for two years « at his own expense » thus far. (Acts 28:30-31.) This was a house arrest obviously to wait for the witnesses to arrive from Jerusalem. Paul was not going to be permitted to leave Rome until the charges were heard. Thus, a trip to Spain implies Paul was acquitted.
Interestingly, this trip to Spain which obviously was after the close of Acts and which only could follow an acquittal remains a strong tradition in Spain. See link. It also is recorded in early non-canonical works including the Acts of Peter, and Acts of Xanthippe. See link.
Next is Eusebius in 325 AD, whom we already quoted saying Paul was « absolved of all crime » in the trial before Nero. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. (ed. Cruse 1905) at 62.)
Further on, Chrysostum in 398 AD says Paul was set at liberty at Rome, then « went into Spain, » (Homily 10), and then « came to Jerusalem, and made a visit to Jewish believers there, and then he came to Rome where he was put to death by Nero. » (Nathaniel Lardner, Andrew Kippis, The Works of Nathaniel Lardner(1815) Vol. 2 at 607.)
Chrysostum explains the various options of stories of why Nero executed Paul on that return visit. None of them involve the charges raised in Acts 21. The first option is Nero did this because Paul converted a « favorite concubine. » Then a different story was that Nero killed Paul because Paul « saluted a butler, or cup-bearer, and a concubine of Nero. » And a third story was that Paul converted a « cup-bearer of Nero. » Finally a fourth story was that Nero killed Paul because Paul found favor with « one of the friends of the emperor. » Id., at 619.
Français 
English