Chronology Of The New Testament

VIEW:36 DATA:01-04-2020

CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—In this article it is proposed first to examine the books of the NT, so as to determine as far as possible their relative chronology,—that is, the length of time between the principal events narrated; and then to investigate the points of contact between the NT and secular history, and thus to arrive at the probable dates of the incidents in the former. It must, however, he remembered that the Gospels and Acts are not biographies or histories in the modern sense of the terms. The writers had a religious object; they wished to teach contemporary Christians to believe (Joh_20:31), and were not careful to chronicle dates for the benefit of posterity. Sir W. Ramsay points out (St. Paul the Traveller6, p. 18) that a want of the chronological sense was a fault of the age, and that Tacitus in his Agricola is no better (until the last paragraph) than the sacred writers. It must also be noted that reckoning in old times was inclusive. Thus ‘three years after’ (Gal_1:18) means ‘in the third year after’ (cf. Act_19:8; Act_19:10 with Act_20:31); ‘three days and three nights’ (Mat_12:40) means ‘from to-day to the day after to-morrow’ (Mat_17:23). Cf. also Gen_42:17 f.
I. Relative Chronology
1. Interval between our Lord’s birth and baptism.—This is determined by Luk_3:23 to have been about 30 years, but the exact interval is uncertain. The RV [Note: Revised Version.] translates: ‘Jesus himself, when he began (lit. beginning) [to teach (cf. Mar_4:1)], was about thirty years of age,’ and so most moderns, though the word ‘beginning,’ standing by itself, is awkward; it perhaps denotes the real commencement of the Gospel, the chapters on the Birth and Childhood being introductory (Plummer). The difficulty of the phrase was early felt, for the Old Syriac and the Peshitta Syriac omit the participle altogether, and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) has merely ‘Jesus was coming to his baptism, being about,’ etc. The AV [Note: Authorized Version.] , following Irenæus and also the Valentinians whom he was opposing, renders: ‘began to be about 30 years of age,’ which can mean only that Jesus was 29 years old. Irenæus (Haer. II. xxii. 4 f.) says that Jesus was baptized ‘being 30 years old,’ having ‘not yet completed his 30th year,’ He ‘then possessing the full age of a teacher.’ The translation of AV [Note: Authorized Version.] is judged to be grammatically impossible, though it is odd that the Greek-speaking Irenæus did not discover the fact, unless we are to suppose that his Latin translator misrepresents him. Let us, then, take the RV [Note: Revised Version.] translation; but what is the meaning of ‘about 30 years’? Turner (art. ‘Chronology of NT’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] —the most complete modern work on the subject in English) and Plummer (St. Luke, in loc.) think that any age from 28 to 32 would suit; but Ramsay, who remarks that St. Luke’s authority for his early chapters was clearly a very good one, and that he could not have been ignorant of the real age, thinks that the phrase must mean 30 plus or minus a few months. There seems to be some doubt as to the age when a Levite began his ministry at this time, as the age had varied; but we may follow Irenæus in thinking that 30 was the full age when a public teacher began his work. On this point, then, internal evidence by itself leaves us a latitude of some little time, whether of a few months or even of a few years.
2. Duration of the ministry.—Very divergent views have been held on this subject. (a) Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit.), and other 2nd and 3rd cent. Fathers, the Clementine Homilies (xvii. 19, ‘a whole year’), and the Valentinians (quoted by Irenæus, ii, xxii. 1), applying ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ (Isa_61:2; cf. Luk_4:18 f.) literally to the ministry, made it last for one year only. The Valentinians believed that Jesus was baptized at the beginning, and died at the end, of His 30th year. A one-year ministry has also been advocated by von Soden (EBi [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] , art. ‘Chronology’) and by Hort (see below). The latter excises ‘the passover’ from Joh_6:4. This view is said to be that of the Synoptists, who, however, give hardly any indications of the passing of time. (b) The other extreme is found in Irenæus (loc. cit.), who held, as against the Valentinians, that the ministry lasted for more than ten years. He takes the feast of Joh_5:1 to be a Passover, but does not mention that of Joh_6:4. He considers, however, that the Passovers mentioned in Jn. are not exclusive; that Jesus was a little less than 30 years old at His baptism, and over 40 when He died. This appears (he says) from Joh_8:56 f., which indicates one who had passed the age of 40; and moreover, Jesus, who came to save all ages, must have ‘passed through every age,’ and in the decade from 40 to 50 ‘a man begins to decline towards old age.’ He declares that this tradition came from ‘John the disciple of the Lord’ through ‘those who were conversant in Asia with’ him—i.e. probably Papias; and that the same account had been received from other disciples. But here Irenæus almost certainly makes a blunder. For a 3rd cent. tradition that Jesus was born a.d. 9, was baptized a.d. 46, and died a.d. 58 at the age of 49, see Chapman in JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] viii. 590 (July, 1907). (c) Eusebius (HE i. 10), followed as to his results provisionally by Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?3, p. 212f.), makes the ministry last over three years (‘not quite four full years’), and this till lately was the common view. Melito (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 160) speaks of Jesus working miracles for three years after His baptism (Ante-Nic. Chr. Lib. xxii. p. 135). (d) Origen and others, followed by Turner (op. cit. p. 409 f.), Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , p. 610 ff.), and Hitchcock (art. ‘Dates’ in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] , p. 415 f.), allow a little more than two years for the ministry (‘Judas did not remain so much as three years with Jesus,’ c. Cels. ii. 12).
Indications of a ministry of more than a single year are found in the Synoptics; e.g. Mar_2:23 (harvest) Mar_6:39 (spring; ‘green grass’), for the length of the journeys of Mar_6:56 to Mar_10:32 shows that the spring of Mar_6:39 could not be that of the Crucifixion. Thus Mk. implies at least a two years’ ministry. In Lk. also we see traces of three periods in the ministry: (1) Mar_3:21 to Mar_4:30, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa and in Nazareth and Galilee, briefly recorded; (2) Mar_4:31 to Mar_9:50, preaching in Galilee and the North, related at length; (3) 9:51-end, preaching in Central Palestine as far as Jerusalem. Ramsay (op. cit. p. 212) takes each of these periods as corresponding roughly to one year. In Jn. we have several indications of time: Mar_2:13; Mar_2:23 (Passover), Mar_4:35 (four months before harvest; harvest near), Mar_5:1 (‘a feast’ or ‘the feast’), Mar_6:4 (Passover, but see below), Mar_7:2 (Tabernacles, autumn), Mar_10:22 (Dedication, winter). In two cases (Mar_5:1, Mar_6:4) there is a question of text; in Mar_5:1 the reading ‘a feast’ is somewhat better attested, and is preferable on internal grounds, for ‘the feast’ might mean either Passover or Tabernacles, and since there would be this doubt, the phrase ‘the feast’ is an unlikely one. If so, we cannot use Mar_5:1 as an indication of time, as any minor feast would suit it. In Mar_6:4 Hort excises ‘the passover’ (Westcott-Hort, NT in Greek, App. p. 77 ff.). But this is against all MSS and VSS [Note: SS Versions.] , and rests only on the omission by Irenæus (who, however, merely enumerates the Passovers when Jesus went up to Jerusalem; yet the mention of Mar_6:4 would have added to his argument), and probably on Origen (for him and for others adduced, see Turner op. cit. p. 408); on internal grounds the omission is very improbable, and does not in reality reconcile Jn. and the Synoptics, for the latter when closely examined do, as we have seen, imply more than a single year’s ministry. The note of time in Joh_4:35 seems to point to (say) January (‘there are yet four months and then cometh the harvest’), while the spiritual harvest was already ripe (‘the fields … are white already unto harvest’), though Origen and others less probably take the former clause to refer to the spiritual, the latter to the material, harvest, which lasted from 15th April to 31st May (see Westcott, Com. in loc.). We may probably conclude then that in the ministry, as related in Jn., there were not fewer than three Passovers, and that it therefore lasted (at least) rather more than two years. But did the Fourth Evangelist mention all the Passovers of the ministry? Irenæus thought that he mentioned only some of them; and though his chronology is clearly wrong, and based (as was that of his opponents) on a fanciful exegesis, Lightfoot (Sup. Rel. p. 131) and Westcott (Com. p. lxxxi.) are inclined to think that in this respect he may to a very limited extent be right. Turner, on the other hand, considers that the enumeration in Jn. is exclusive, and that the notes of time there are intended to correct a false chronology deduced from the Synoptics. On the whole we can only say that the choice apparently lies between a ministry of rather over two years, and one of rather over three years; and that the probability of the former appears to be slightly the greater.
3. Interval between the Ascension and the conversion of St. Paul.—We have no certain internal evidence as to the length of this interval. Act_2:46 f. may imply a long or a short time. We have to include in this period the spread of the Church among the Hellenists, the election of the Seven, and the death of Stephen, followed closely by St. Paul’s conversion. For this period Ramsay allows 21/2 to 4 years, Harnack less than one year; but these conclusions come rather from external chronology (see II.) than from internal considerations. It is quite probable that in the early chapters of Acts St. Luke had not the same exact authority that he had for St. Paul’s travels, or even for his Gospel (see Luk_1:2 f.).
4. St. Paul’s missionary career.—The relative chronology of St. Paul’s Christian life may be determined by a study of Acts combined with Gal_1:18; Gal_2:1. Indications of time are found in Act_11:26; Act_18:11; Act_19:8; Act_19:10; Act_20:6; Act_20:16; Act_20:31; Act_21:1-5; Act_21:27; Act_24:1; Act_24:11; Act_24:27; Act_25:1; Act_25:6; Act_27:9; Act_27:27; Act_28:7; Act_28:11-14; Act_28:17; Act_28:30. With these data we may reconstruct the chronology; but there is room for uncertainty (1) as to whether the visit to Jerusalem in Gal_2:1 was that of Act_11:30 or that of Act_15:4, and whether the ‘three years’ and ‘fourteen years’ of Gal_1:18; Gal_2:1 are consecutive (so Lightfoot, Rackham), or concurrent (so Ramsay, Turner, Harnack); (2) as to the length of the First Missionary Journey; and (3) as to the later journeys after the Roman imprisonment. If the ‘three years’ and ‘fourteen years’ are consecutive, a total of about 16 years (see above) is required for the interval between the conversion and the visit of Gal_2:1. But as the interval at Tarsus is indeterminate, and the First Journey may have been anything from one to three years, all systems of relative chronology can be made to agree, except in small details, by shortening or lengthening these periods. For a discussion of some of the doubtful points named see art. Galatians [Ep. to the], § 3, and for the details of the events see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 5ff.
The following table, in which the year of St. Paul’s conversion is taken as 1, gives the various events. Ramsay’s calculation is taken as a basis, and the differences of opinion are noted.
1, 2. Conversion near Damascus, Act_9:3; Act_22:5; Act_26:12; retirement to Arabia, Gal_1:17; preaching in Damascus, Act_9:20-22 (?), Gal_1:17.
3. First visit to Jerusalem, Act_9:26, Gal_1:18, ‘three years after’ his conversion.
4–11. At Tarsus and in Syria-Cilicia, Act_9:30, Gal_1:21 [so HR, but T gives two years less, L three years less].
12. To Antioch with Barnabas, Act_11:26.
13. Second visit to Jerusalem, with alms Act_11:30 [= Gal_2:1, R?]
14–16. First Missionary Journey, to Cyprus, Act_13:4; Pamphylia, and Southern Galatia (Pisidian Antioch, Act_13:14; Iconium, Act_13:51; Lystra, Act_14:6; Derbe, Act_14:20), and back by Attalia to Antioch, Act_14:26 [so HR; TL give one year less].
17. Apostolic Council and third visit to Jerusalem, Act_15:4 [= Gal_2:1, TL?; so Sanday and most commentators].
18–20. Second Missionary Journey, from Antioch through Syria-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, Act_15:41; Act_16:1; through the ‘Phrygo-Galatic’ region of the province Galatia to Troas, Act_16:6-8; to Macedonia, Act_16:11; Athens, Act_17:15; and Corinth, Act_18:1, where 18 months are spent; thence by sea to Ephesus, Act_18:19; Jerusalem (fourth visit), Act_18:22; and Antioch, where ‘some time’ is spent, Act_18:23.
21–24. Third Missionary Journey, from Antioch by the ‘Galatic region’ and the ‘Phrygian region,’ Act_18:23, to Ephesus, Act_19:1, where two years and three months are spent, Act_19:8; Act_19:10; by Troas 2Co_2:12, to Macedonia, Act_20:1; and Corinth, Act_20:2 (see 2Co_13:1), where three months are spent; thence back by Macedonia to Troas, Miletus, and Cæsarea, Act_20:4 f., Act_20:15, Act_21:8; fifth visit to Jerusalem, Act_21:17; and arrest, Act_21:33; imprisonment at Cæsarea, Act_23:33.
25. In Cæsarea, Act_24:27.
26. Departure for Rome, autumn, Act_27:1; shipwreck off Malta, Act_28:1.
27. Arrival at Rome, Act_28:10.
28. (end) or 29 (early). Acquittal.
29–34. Later journeys and death [so R; L gives one year less, T two years less].
II. Points of Contact with General History.—It will he useful to give the dates of the earlier emperors, and those of the procurators of Judæa. Some of the latter dates are approximate only; information as to them is derived from Josephus’ Antiquities, and to some extent from his Jewish Wars (BJ).
Roman Emperors.
Augustus
[b.c. 31 (a)]–a.d. 14 (Aug. 19)
Tiberius
14–37 (Mar_16:1-20)
Caligula (Gaius)
37–41 (Jan. 24)
Claudius
41–54 (Oct. 13)
Nero
54–68
Galha
68–69
Otho
69
Vitellius
69
Vespasian
69–79
Titus
79–81
Domitian
81–96
(a) i.e. the battle of Actium; Julius Cæsar died b.c. 44, and Eusebius dates Augustus’ reign from that year (HE i. 5, 9), as does also Irenæus (Haer. III. xxi. 3).
Rulers of Judæa.
Herod the Great, king (a)
b.c. 37–4
Archelaus, ethnarch (b)
b.c. 4–a.d. 6
Procurators. Coponius (c)
a.d. 6–9?
Marcus Ambivius (d)
9–12?
Annius Rufus (e)
12–15?
Valerius Gratus (f)
15–26
Pontius Pilate (g)
26–36
Marcellus (h)
36–37?
Marullus (i)
37–41?
Herod Agrippa, king (j)
41–44
Procurators. Cuspius Fadus (k)
44–46?
Tiberius Alexander (l)
46?–48
Cumanus (m)
48–52
Antonius Felix (n)
52–58 or 59?
Porcius Festus (o)
59?–61
Albinus (p)
61–65
Gessius Florus (q)
65–66
(a) He had been king de jure since b.c. 40. (b) Josephus, Ant. XVII. xi. 4, xiii. 2; he reigned over nine years. (c) ib. XVIII. i. 1; he arrived with Quirinius at the time of the taxing, Act_5:37. (d) ib. ii. 2. (e) ib.; in his time ‘the second emperor of the Romans [Augustus] died.’ (f) ib.; sent by Tiberius; he ruled eleven years. (g) ib. and iv. 2; he ruled ten years and was deposed and sent to Rome, arriving there just after Tiberius’ death; Turner makes his accession to office a.d. 27. (h) ib. iv. 2; sent temporarily by Vitellius, governor of Syria, (i) ib. vi. 10; sent by Caligula on his accession, (j) ib. and XIX. v. 1; made king by Claudius on his accession, having been previously given the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias by Caligula. (k) ib. XIX. ix. 2; sent by Claudius on Agrippa’s death. (l) ib. XX. v. 2. (m) ib. (n) ib. vii. 1, viii. 9; brother of Pallas; sent by Claudius; in his time was the rebellion of one Theudas; recalled by Nero, see below, § 12. (o) ib. viii. 9 ff. (p) ib. ix. 1; sent by Nero on Festus’ death; while he was on his way to Judæa, ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James,’ was stoned by the Jews. (q) ib. xi. 1; the last procurator; he was appointed through the influence of Poppæa; his had government precipitated the Jewish War.—For the procurators see also BJ II. viii. 1, ix. 4, xi. 6, xii. 1 f, 8, xiii. 7, xiv. 1 f., etc.
1. Date of the nativity.—Early chronology is in such confusion that it is very difficult to assign exact dates to the various events, and the early Fathers give us little or no guidance. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) says that our Lord was born 194 years 1 month 13 days before the death of Commodus [a.d. 192], in the 28th year of Augustus; but his dating of Commodus is wrong (see 4 below). The calculation of our Christian era, due to Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th cent., is obviously wrong by several years. Even the dating by the regnal years of emperors is open to considerable doubt, as it is not always certain from what epoch calculation is made; e.g. whether from the death of the predecessor, or from the association with the predecessor as colleague. For the birth of Christ indications have been found in the death of Herod, the Lukan census, and the Star of the Magi.
(a) Death of Herod.—This probably took place b.c. 4, possibly b.c. 3. His son Archelaus (Mat_2:22), who succeeded him in part of his dominions with the title of ethnarch, was deposed (Dion Cassius, Lev_27:1-34) in the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (a.d. 6), either in his ninth (so Joseph. BJ II. vii. 3) or in his tenth year (so Ant. XVII. xiii. 2; and the Life, § 1, speaks of his tenth year). This would give the above dates for Herod’s death; for various considerations which make b.c. 4 the preferable date see Turner, op. cit. p. 404. We must then place our Lord’s birth one or two years before at least, for Herod slew the male children of two years old and under (Mat_2:18), and we have to allow for the sojourn in Egypt.
(b) The Lukan census (Luk_2:1 ff.) would suit the result just reached; see art. Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 7
(c) The Magi. Kepler calculated the date of the Nativity from a conjunction of planets, which he believed the ‘star in the east’ to be (Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem?3, p. 215 ff.). But it is impossible to build chronological results on such an uncertain basis.
The date arrived at by Ramsay from these considerations is b.c. 6 (summer), by Turner, b.c. 6 (spring) or b.c. 7. We must remain in ignorance of the day and month. The calculations which give Dec. 25 and Jan. 6 are both based on a fanciful exposition and a wrong date for the Crucifixion; see the present writer’s art. ‘Calendar’ in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] i. 261 f.
2. The Baptism of our Lord.—According to St. Luke (Luk_3:1), the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Pilate being procurator. Eusebius (HE i. 10) says that Christ was baptized in the fourth year of Pilate’s governorship, and (HE i. 9) that Pilate was appointed ‘about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius’; the latter statement is quoted from Josephus (Ant. XVIII. ii. 2), but the former seems to be Eusebius’ own deduction from St. Luke. But Pilate cannot have reached Palestine before a.d. 26 or 27, as his ten years ended shortly before Tiberius’ death in a.d. 37, and no date later than a.d. 27 is possible for our Lord’s baptism, if we take into account the date of the Nativity and St. Luke’s statement of our Lord’s age. It is probable, therefore, that Pilate’s accession to office and John’s appearance as a preacher both belong to the same year, say a.d. 26. Does this, however, suit St. Luke’s phrase, ‘the 15th year of the rule (or hegemony) of Tiberius,’ for that is the exact phrase? The 15th year from the death of Augustus would be Aug. a.d. 28 to Aug. a.d. 29. Ramsay supposes (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?, p. 202) that ‘the rule of Tiberius’ is dated from the grant by Augustus of a share in the government of the provinces just before he celebrated his triumph over the people of Pannonia and Dalmatia, Jan. 16, a.d. 12; and this would bring us to c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 25–26. This system of counting years is not found elsewhere, but it is quite a possible one. Turner inclines to the same supposition.
3. The rebuilding of the Temple.—In Joh_2:20, at a Passover not long after the Baptism, the Jews say that the Temple was 46 years in building, which, since the Temple was hardly completed at the outbreak of the War (Joseph. Ant. XX. ix. 7), can only mean that the rebuilding had begun 46 years before the Passover in question. But this rebuilding began in Herod’s 18th year de facto (ib. XV. xi. 1; for the computation of BJ I. xxi. i., see Turner, p. 405); i.e. the Passover of b.c. 19 would be that of the first year of the rebuilding, and therefore the Passover of a.d. 27 that of the 46th year. This would agree with the result already reached.
4. Date of the Crucifixion.—The Fathers seem to have known nothing certainly as to the exact year of our Lord’s death. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit.), who believed in a one-year ministry, gives the 16th year of Tiberius, 421/4 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem (this would be a.d. 28), which was 128 years 10 months 3 days before the death of Commodus (this would make the latter 7 years too late). A common tradition (Tertullian [?], adv. Jud_1:8 [Patr. Lat. ii. 656]; Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV. 10, de Mort. Pers. 2 [Patr. Lat. vi. 474, vii. 194]) assigns the Crucifixion to the consulship of L. Rubellius Geminus and C. Fifius (?) Geminus—Hippolytus (in Dan. iv.) and the Acts of Pilate give the names as Rufus and Rubellio,—i.e. a.d. 29, or possibly a.d. 28. The latest possible year is a.d. 33 (so Eusebius, HE i. 10), for Josephus (Ant. XVIII. iv. 3, 6) relates that Caiaphas was deposed just before he tells us of the death of Herod Philip, which occurred in the 20th year of Tiberius, i.e. a.d. 33–34, reckoning from Augustus’ death; Josephus’ order has every appearance of being chronological.
Now, it is not certain on which day of the month Nisan the Friday of the Passion fell. We must put aside Westcott’s suggestion that our Lord died on a Thursday, as contradicting entirely the Eastern idea of ‘the third day’ and ‘after three days’ (see above). But the Synoptics would suggest that our Lord ate the Passover with the disciples on 14th Nisan, and died on the 15th, while Jn. would lead us to suppose that He died on 14th Nisan at the time of the killing of the lambs. The determination of this difficult question will only affect the chronological investigation if in a possible year of the Passion only Nisan 15 or only Nisan 14 can positively be said to have fallen on a Friday. But there is some uncertainty in the reckoning of Nisan. The Jewish months were lunar, and (in early times at least) the first day of the month was not that of the true new moon, but that on which it was first visible. This would be some 30 hours later than the true new moon. But it seems certain that the Jews at the time of the Gospel narrative had some sort of calendrical rules or some rough cycle to determine the first day of a lunar month; otherwise the Jews of the Dispersion would never have been sure of observing the Passover all on the same day, and the difference of a cloudy or of a bright sky on a particular day would introduce confusion. Thus we have to exercise great caution. A table of the true new moons, and of the days when the moon may be presumed to have been first visible, from a.d. 27 to 36 inclusive, is given by Dr. Salmon (Introd., lect. XV.). His result is that in a.d. 27, 30, 33, 34, one or other of the two days Nisan 14 and 15 might have fallen on a Friday. We may omit the first and last of these years, and we have left a.d. 30 and 33. But a.d. 29, which has the best traditional support, is also calendrically possible. Taking the equinox as March 21, Nisan 14 that year would be Sunday, April 18; the moon would have been first visible on Monday, April 4. But the equinox was not then, as now, accurately determined, and Turner (op. cit. p. 411 f.) gives an argument for believing that Nisan in a.d. 29 was really the month before that supposed by Salmon. In that case Nisan 14 would fall on one of the three days March 17–19, of which March 18 was a Friday. Thus a.d. 29 is admissible, and the choice almost certainly lies between it and a.d. 30; for a.d. 33 is hard to fit in with the calculation as to the Nativity, and no doubt that year was selected because of the dating of the ‘fifteenth year’ of Luk_3:1 from the death of Augustus. Of the two years, then, a.d. 30 is chosen by Lightfoot, Salmon, and Wieseler; a.d. 29 by Turner, and in this conclusion Ramsay now acquiesces (Was Christ born, etc.?3, p. 202), as does also Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , p. 610). Of the days of the month, Nisan 14 is upheld by Claudius Apollinaris (c [Note: circa, about.] . 150), Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian (?), Africanus; and by many moderns, e.g. Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ) and Westcott. Nisan 15 is supported by Origen, pseudo-Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom; and in modern times by Edersheim (LT), Lewin (Fasti sacri), and McClellan (Com. on NT). But the choice between these days should be determined by internal evidence of the Gospels rather than by the chronological investigations, which are too uncertain to be trustworthy.
5. Aretas and the occupation of Damascus.—Turner deduces the earliest possible date for the conversion of St. Paul from the incident of 2Co_11:32 f., and accordingly gives a.d. 38 for the first visit to Jerusalem, a.d. 35 or 36 for the Conversion. But, in the opinion of the present writer, for reasons stated in art. Aretas, the incident cannot be used in determining the chronology at all. If it is so used, the date is consistent with the view that the second visit synchronizes with the Apostolic Council (above, i. 4). Ramsay, however (St. Paul6, p. xiv), adduces as an external support for his date (a.d. 33) for St. Paul’s conversion, a 4th cent. oration found in St. Chrysostom’s works, which says that Paul served God 35 years and died at the age of 68. If he died in a.d. 67, this would give a.d. 33 for the Conversion. But Patristic chronology is very erratic.
6. Herod Agrippa the Elder received Herod Philip’s tetrarchy and the title of king early in a.d. 37 from Caligula, and somewhat later Antipas’ tetrarchy (Josephus, BJ II. ix. 6); and Claudius gave him the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom, which he held for three years till his death, ‘as he had governed his tetrarchies three other years’ (ib. xi. 6). We see from his coins, which were issued up to his ninth year, that he died in a.d. 44 or 45; probably his ‘second year’ began with the Nisan next after his accession in a.d. 37. Of these two dates, then, Josephus enables us to choose a.d. 44. This fixes Act_12:20 ff., though the events of Act_12:1 ff. need not have been immediately before Agrippa’s death; and gives a.d. 41 for his accession to Herod the Great’s dominions. It is therefore probable, but not certain, that the Cornelius episode (Act_10:1-48) must be dated before a.d. 41, as it is not likely that a centurion of the Italic cohort would be stationed at Cæsarea during Agrippa’s semi-independent rule (see art. Cornelius).
7. The Famine.—This was predicted by Agabus, and happened in the reign of Claudius (Act_11:27 ff.). If we can date the famine, it will help us to fix St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, as this was occasioned by the sending of alms through him to the famine-stricken Christians there. In Claudius’ reign there were many famines, and not in every country at the same time. We read of Helena, queen of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism, arriving at Jerusalem in the middle of the famine, apparently in the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, probably therefore after the summer of a.d. 46 (Joseph. Ant. XX. ii. 5, v. 2). Orosius, a Spanish writer who visited Palestine a.d. 415, puts the famine in Claudius’ fourth year, i.e. in a.d. 44 (Hist. vii. 6), but Ramsay (St. Paul6, p. 68) shows that his dates at this period are a year too early; thus we arrive at a.d. 45. It is probable that a bad harvest in a.d. 45 resulted in a famine in a.d. 46, and St. Paul’s visit might then be either in the middle of the famine, or at any rate during the preceding winter, when the bad harvest showed that the famine was imminent.
8. Sergius Paulus.—The term of office of this proconsul cannot be dated (for the inscription referring to it, see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 12); but, as the proconsuls in a.d. 51, 52 are known, St. Paul’s visit to Cyprus must have been before that.
9. Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews.—The edict (Act_18:2) is mentioned by Suetonius. Tacitus, whose Annals are defective for the early years of Claudius, speaks only of the expulsion of astrologers in a.d. 52 (Ann. xii. 52). Suetonius (Claudius, § 25) says that the edict was due to Jewish tumults ‘at the instigation of one Chrestus,’ a confusion not unnatural in a heathen writer. Orosius (Hist. vii, 6) quotes Josephus as saying that the decree was made in the ninth year of Claudius, i.e. a.d. 49, but this should probably be (as above, 7) a.d. 50. Josephus, as a matter of fact, does not refer to the matter at all, so that Orosius’ authority must have been some other writer. The arrival of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, if we accept Orosius’ statement, must have been later than this, perhaps in a.d. 51 (so Ramsay; Turner puts it one year, Harnack three years earlier).
10. Gallio.—Achaia had been made a senatorial province by Claudius in a.d. 44, and the proconsulship of Gallio, who seems to have arrived at the end of St. Paul’s stay at Corinth (Act_18:12), was no doubt several years later than this. Gallio was brother to Seneca, who was in disgrace a.d. 41–49, but was recalled and made prætor in a.d. 50. Pliny (HN xxxi. 33) says that Gallio became consul; this was probably after his proconsulship in Achaia. He is said by Seneca (Ep. 104) to have caught fever in Achaia, and this is the only indication outside Acts of his proconsulship. The probability is that he did not bold this office while Seneca was out of favour at Court, and therefore a.d. 50 would be the earliest year for the incident of Act_18:12. It may have happened some few years later.
11. The Passover at Philippi.—Ramsay (St. Paul6, p. 289 f.) considers that St. Paul left Philippi on a Friday (Act_20:8). He traces back the journey from the departure from Troas (v. 7), on the assumption that the sermon and Eucharistic celebration at Troas were on what we call Sunday night. But would any Eastern call this ‘the first day of the week’ (see art. ‘Calendar,’ I. 1 in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] )? If Ramsay’s calculation be accepted, the further assumption is that St. Paul, who was in baste to reach Jerusalem, left Philippi on the morrow of the Passover, which therefore fell on Thursday. But in a.d. 57 it is calculated that it did so fall (April 7), and this therefore is Ramsay’s date for St. Paul’s fifth visit to Jerusalem and his arrest there. There is a triple element of doubt in this calculation—(a) as to the day on which Troas was left, (b) whether St. Paul started from Philippi on the day after the Passover, (c) as to the calculation of the Passover. We must therefore probably dismiss this element in calculating the years, though Ramsay’s date is for other reasons quite probable.
12. Felix and Festus.—Felix married Drusilla, sister of Agrippa II., not long after the latter’s accession to the tetrarchies of Herod Philip and Lysanias (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 52–53); for she had married Azizus of Emesa on Agrippa’s accession, and ‘no long time afterward’ deserted him for Felix (Joseph. Ant. XX. vii. 1, 2). Thus St. Paul’s arrest could not have been before the summer of a.d. 54. Felix seems to have become procurator in a.d. 52, but previously be had held some office in Samaria (and possibly in Judæa) under, or concurrently with, Cumanus; and this accounts for the ‘many years’ of Act_24:10 (see art. Felix). An apparent contradiction between Tacitus, Josephus, and Eusebius is resolved by Turner (op. cit. p. 418) as against Harnack (Chronologie, p. 233 f.), who interprets Eusebius as meaning that Felix came into office in a.d. 51.
The date of Festus’ arrival is greatly disputed. Lightfoot, Wieseler, and Schürer conclude that it could not have been before a.d. 60 or 61, because of Act_24:10, and because Josephus’ description of the events which happened under Felix implies the lapse of many years. But for these events five or six years are amply sufficient; and for the ‘many years’ see above. Eusebius (Chronicle), followed by Harnack, says that Festus arrived in the second year of Nero, i.e. Oct. a.d. 55 to Oct. a.d. 56. But Eusebius probably makes the first year of an emperor begin in the September after his accession (Turner, p. 418), and this would make the second year to be Sept. a.d. 56 to Sept. a.d. 57; accordingly Rackham (Acts, p. 454) gives a.d. 57 for Festus’ arrival. Another argument for an early date for Festus’ arrival is that Felix was acquitted, after his recall, through the influence of his brother Pallas (Joseph. Ant. XX. viii. 9), and this could only have been (it is said) while Pallas was still in office (Josephus says that Pallas ‘was at that time held in the greatest honour by’ Nero). But he was dismissed just before Britannicus’ 14th birthday, in the spring of a.d. 55 (Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 14 f.). This, however, would make Festus’ arrival in any case too early; it would be in the summer of a.d. 54, before Claudius’ death, which contradicts Eusebius (Chron., and HE ii. 22). Harnack supposes that Tacitus wrote ‘fourteenth birthday’ in error for ‘fifteenth.’ It is, however, preferable to suppose that Pallas still retained influence even after he had left office. Turner suggests that at any rate the acquittal of Felix, when accused by the Jews, shows that Poppæa had not yet acquired her influence over Nero. This began in a.d. 58, though he did not marry her till a.d. 62, the year of Pallas’ murder by him. This consideration, then, militates against Lightfoot’s date (a.d. 60 or 61). Harnack’s date (a.d. 56) comes from following Eusebius; and accordingly be dates the events of Acts two or three years at least before Ramsay and Turner. Even that early date, if Pallas was still in office when Felix was acquitted, is not easy to reconcile with Tacitus’ statement. It does not seem safe to rely on Eusebius’ chronology in this case, considering that in other cases it is so inaccurate.
13. Persecutions of Nero and Domitian
(1) Death of St. Peter and of St. Paul.—There is no good reason for supposing that the two Apostles died on the same day or even in the same year, though we may probably conclude that they both were martyred under Nero. Their joint commemoration is due to their bodies having been transferred to the Catacombs together on June 29, a.d. 258 (so the Philocalian calendar, a.d. 354). Clement of Rome (Cor. 5) mentions them in the same connexion as examples of patience; Ignatius, writing to the Romans (§ 4), says: ‘I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did’; Tertullian says that they were both martyred at Rome under Nero (Scarp. 15, de Prœscr. 36 [Patr. Lat. ii. 174 f., 59]), and so Origen (Euseb. HE iii. 1); Dionysius of Corinth says ‘about the same time’ (Euseb. HE ii. 25); Caius (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 200) describes their graves near Rome (Euseb. ib.). Prudentius (Peristeph. xii. 5), in the 4th cent., is the first to say that they died on the same day. Eusebius puts their death at the very end of Nero’s reign, i.e. not long before a.d. 68. The determining considerations are: (a) the connexion of their deaths with the fire at Rome in July a.d. 64; (b) the necessary interval after St. Paul’s acquittal for his later travels, which would take some three years; and this, if we took Lightfoot’s chronology (Clement, i. 75 n. [Note: . note.] ), would probably prevent us from fixing on a.d. 64 as the year of St. Paul’s death; (c) the date of St. Peter’s First Epistle, if a genuine work; and (d) the fact that St. Mark attended both Apostles, the suggestion being that he served St. Peter after St. Paul’s death. The last consideration, if true, would make St. Peter’s martyrdom the later of the two. The date of 1Peter is a difficulty. It makes Christianity a crime (1Pe_4:14, so in Rev.), and it is said by Pfleiderer not to have been so before the reign of Trajan. At first Christians were accused of ill doing; at a later period they were put to death as Christians. Ramsay gives reasons for believing that the change was made by Nero, and developed in the interval a.d. 68–96 under the Flavian emperors (Ch. in Rom. Emp. pp. 245, 252 ff., 280). The fact of persecutions being mentioned makes it unlikely that 1Peter was written before a.d. 64 (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 498 f.), and its indebtedness to some of St. Paul’s Epistles implies some interval after they were written. Dr. Bigg, however (Internal. Crit. Com.), pleads for a much earlier date, in an argument that will not bear abbreviation: he thinks that the persecutions mentioned were not from the State at all, but from the Jews. Ramsay, on the other hand, thinks that the provinces of Asia Minor cannot have been so fully evangelized as 1Peter implies before a.d. 65, and that the Epistle was written c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 80, soon after which date St. Peter died. But this is against all the Patristic testimony, which there is little reason to reject. Probably, then, we must date the death of both Apostles in Nero’s reign. Two of the arguments mentioned above—on the one hand that the two martyrdoms must have been in close connexion with the Roman fire; and, on the other hand, that St. Mark can only have attended on the one Apostle after the other’s death—appear to have little weight. If, as seems likely from what has already been said, the general scheme of chronology adopted by Lightfoot and Wieseler places the events of Acts a year or two too late all through, the argument for postponing the date of St. Paul’s death, to allow for his travels, falls, although the later date for the death is in itself quite probable. On the whole, the conclusion seems to be that the martyrdoms may have taken place at any time between a.d. 64 and a.d. 68, more probably towards the end than towards the beginning of that period, though not necessarily in the same year.
(2) The Apocalypse.—This work gives us our last chronological indications in NT. Like 1Peter , it implies persecution for the Name; but, unlike 1Peter , it implies emperor-worship. The tone of antagonism to the Empire is entirely different from that of St. Paul’s Epistles and the Acts. Rome-worship was greatly developed by Domitian, and was scarcely at all prominent in Nero’s time. This feature in Rev., then, points to the scene being laid in the Domitianic persecution; and that date is argued for by Swete (Apocalypse, p. xcv. ff.—the most complete English commentary on the work) and Ramsay (Ch. in Rom. Emp. p. 295 ff.). It is accepted by Sanday (JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] viii. 481 ff., July 1907). Lightfoot, however (Bibl. Ess. p. 51, Sup. Rel. p. 132), and Westcott (St. John, Introd. p. lxxxiv.) argue for a date during Nero’s persecution, mainly because of the difference of style between Rev. and Jn., the latter being dated late in the century; this argument assumes identity of authorship, and makes little allowance for a possible difference of scribes. Other arguments for the Neronic date have been taken from the number of the Beast, which is supposed to spell, in Hebrew letters, the names Nero Cæsar, and from the indication as to the ‘kings’ (emperors) in 17:10. The earlier date was in fashion a generation ago, but a reaction has lately set in, and the opinion of Irenæus is now largely supported, namely, that the book was written towards the end of the reign of Domitian, who died a.d. 96 (Iren. Haer. v. 30. 3; Euseb. HE iii. 18). The evidence seems to preponderate largely in favour of the supposition that the last decade of the 1st cent. is that illustrated by the last book of the NT Canon.
III. Results.—The following table gives the dates arrived at by Harnack, Turner, Ramsay, and Lightfoot, respectively. The results of Lightfoot are in the main also those of Wieseler, Lewin, and Schürer. To the present writer the intermediate dates seem to be the only ones which fulfil all the necessary conditions; but Turner’s year for St. Paul’s conversion appears less probable than Ramsay’s. In view, however, of the confusion in reckoning Imperial years, lunar months, and the like, it would be vain to expect anything like certainty in determining NT dates.

H
[Note: Harnack]
T
[Note: Turner]
R
[Note: Ramsay]
L
[Note: Lightfoot]
Nativity of Christ, b.c.

7w [Note: winter] or 6sp [Note: p spring]
6s [Note: summer]

Baptism of Christ, a.d.

27sp [Note: p spring]
25w [Note: winter] or 26sp [Note: p spring]

Crucifixion
29 or 30
29
29
30
Conversion of St. Paul
30
35 or 36
33
34
First Visit to Jerusalem
33
38
35
37
Second Visit
44
46
45a [Note: autumn] and 46sp [Note: p spring]
45
First Miss. Journey
45–46?
47–48
47–49
48–49
Council (Third Visit)
47
49
49w [Note: winter] and 50sp [Note: p spring]
51
Second M. J. and Fourth Visit
47–50
49–52
50–53
51–54
Third Miss. Journey
50–54
52–56
53–57
54–58
Fifth Visit and arrest
54
56
57
58
Festus succeeds
56
58s [Note: summer]
59s [Note: summer]
60 or 61
St. Paul’s arrival in Rome
57sp [Note: p spring]
59sp [Note: p spring]
60sp [Note: p spring]
61sp [Note: p spring]
Acquittal

61sp [Note: p spring]
61w [Note: winter] or 62sp [Note: p spring]
63sp [Note: p spring]
Death of St. Paul
64
64 or 65
67
67
Death of St. Peter
64
64 or 65
80
64
A. J. Maclean.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

I. Chronology of the Life of Jesus
1. Birth of Jesus
(1) Death of Herod
(2) Census of Quirinius
(3) Star of the Magi
(4) Course of Abijah
(5) Day and Month
(6) Summary
2. Baptism of Jesus
3. First Passover
4. Death of John the Baptist
5. Length of Jesus' Ministry
6. Death of Jesus
7. Summary of Dates
Literature
II. Chronology of the Apostolic Age
1. Paul's Conversion
2. Death of Herod Agrippa I
3. Famine under Claudius
4. Sergius Paulus
5. Edict of Claudius
6. Gallio
7. Festus
8. Relative Chronology of Acts
9. Pauline Epistles
10. Release and Death of Paul
11. Death of Peter
12. Death of James the Just
13. The Synoptic Gospels, etc.
14. Death of John
15. Summary of Dates
Literature
The current Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and is based upon the calculations of Dionysius (6th century). Subsequent investigation has shown that the Dionysian date is at least four years too late. Several eras were in use in the time of Jesus; but of these only the Varronian will be used co?rdinately with the Dionysian in the discussion of the chronology of the life of Jesus, 753 A.U.C. being synchronous with 1 bc and 754 A.U.C. with 1 ad.
I. Chronology of the Life of Jesus
1. Birth of Jesus
Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great (Mat_2:1) at the time of a census or enrollment made in the territory of Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus when Quirinius (Revised Version; Cyrenius, the King James Version) was exercising authority in the Roman province of Syria (Luk_2:1 f). At the time of Jesus' birth a star led the Magi of the East to seek in Jerusalem the infant whom they subsequently found in Bethlehem (Mat_2:1). John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus (Luk_1:36) and he was born in the days of Herod (Luk_1:5; compare Luk_2:1) after his father, Zacharias, of the priestly course of Abijah, had been performing the functions of his office in the temple.
(1) Death of Herod
The death of Herod the Great occurred in the spring of 750/4. (NOTE: The alternative numbers are bc or ad, i.e, 750 A.U.C. = 4 bc, etc.) He ruled from his appointment in Rome 714/40 (Ant., XIV, xiv, 4-5, in the consulship of Caius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio) 37 years, and from his accession in Jerusalem after the capture of the city 717/37 (Ant.,. XIV, xvi, 1-3; BJ, I, xvii, 9; I, xviii, 1-3; Dio Cassius xlix.22; compare Sch?rer, GJV3, I, 358, note 11) 34 years (Ant , XVII, xviii, 1; BJ, I, xxxiii, 7-8; compare Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 415, note 167 where it is shown that Josephus reckons a year too much, probably counting from Nisan 1 and including partial years). Just before Herod's death there was an eclipse of the moon (Ant., XVII, vi, 4). According to astronomical calculations an eclipse was visible in Palestine on March 23 and September 15, 749/5, March 12, 750/4 and January 9, 753/1. Of these the most probable is that of March 12, 750/4. Soon after the eclipse Herod put to death his son Antipater and died five days later (Ant., XVII, vii; BJ, I, xxxiii, 7). Shortly after Herod's death the Passover was near at hand. (Ant., XVII, vi, 4 through ix, 3). In this year Passover (Nisan 15) fell on April 11; and as Archelaus had observed seven days of mourning for his father before this, Herod's death would fall between March 17 and April 4. But as the 37th (34th) year of his reign was probably reckoned from Nisan 1 or March 28, his death may be dated between March 28 and April 4, 750/4.
This date for Herod's death is confirmed by the evidence for the duration of the reigns of his three sons. Archelaus was deposed in 759/6 (Dio Cassius lv.27 in the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius) in the 10th year of his reign (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2; compare BJ, II, vii, 3 which gives the year as the 9th). Antipas was deposed most probably in the summer of 792/39 (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1-2; compare XVIII, vi, 11; XIX, viii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6; Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 448, note 46 and 416, note 167). There are coins of Antipas from his 43rd year (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 121ff). The genuineness of a coin from the 44th year is questioned by Sch?rer but accepted by Madden. The coin from the 45th year is most probably spurious (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 417, note 167). Philip died after reigning 37 years, in the 20th year of Tiberius - August 19, 786/33-787/34 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6). There is also a coin of Philip from his 37th year (Madden, op. cit., 126). Thus Archelaus, Antipas and Philip began to reign in 750/4.
(2) Census of Quirinius
The census or enrollment, which, according to Luk_2:1 f, was the occasion of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, is connected with a decree of Augustus embracing the Greek-Roman world. This decree must have been carried out in Palestine by Herod and probably in accordance with the Jewish method - each going to his own city - rather than the Roman (Dig. 15, 4, 2; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 195; Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, III, 124 f; Sch?rer, Theol. Ztg, 1907, 683 f; and on the other hand, Ramsay, Expositor, 1908, I, 19, note). Certainly there is no intimation of an insurrection such as characterized a later census (Act_5:37; Ant, XVIII, i, 1; BJ, II, xvii, 7; compare Tac. Ann. vi.41; Livy Epit. cxxxvi, cxxxvii; Dessau, Inscrip. lat. Sel. number 212, col. ii, 36) and this may have been due in no small measure to a difference in method. Both Josephus and Luke mention the later census which was made by Quirinius on the deposition of Archelaus, together with the insurrection of Judas which accompanied it. But while Josephus does not mention the Herodian census - although there may be some intimation of it in Ant, XVI, ix, 3; XVII, ii, 4; compare Sanclemente, De vulg. aerae emend., 438 f; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Beth.1, 178ff - Luke carefully distinguishes the two, characterizing the census at the time of Jesus' birth as ?first,? i.e. first in a series of enrollments connected either with Quirinius or with the imperial policy inaugurated by the decree of Augustus. The Greek-Roman writers of the time do not mention this decree and later writers (Cassiodor, Isidor and Suidas) cannot be relied upon with certainty as independent witnesses (Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, 148ff). Yet the geographical work of Agrippa and the preparation of a breviarium totius imperii by Augustus (Tac. Ann. i.11; Suet. Aug. 28 and 101; Dio Cassius liii.30; lvi.33; compare Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 1025, note 3), together with the interest of the emperor in the organization and finances of the empire and the attention which he gave to the provinces (Marquardt, R?m. Staatsverwaltung, II, 211 f; compare 217), are indirectly corroborative of Luke's statement. Augustus himself conducted a census in Italy in 726/28, 746/8, 767/14 (Mommsen, Res Ges., 34ff) and in Gaul in 727/27 (Dio Cassius liii.22, 5; Livy Epit. cxxxiv) and had a census taken in other provinces (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyc., under the word ?Census,? 1918 f; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). For Egypt there is evidence of a regular p eriodic census every 14 years extending back to 773/20 (Ramsay, op. cit., 131 if; Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Papyri, II, 207ff; Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka, I, 444ff) and it is not improbable that this procedure was introduced by Augustus (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 515). The inference from Egyptian to similar conditions in other provinces must indeed be made cautiously (Wilcken, op. cit., 449; Marquardt, op. cit., 441); yet in Syria the regular tributum capitis seems to imply some such preliminary work (Dig, 1. 15, 3; Appian, Syriac., 50; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 200, note 2; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., 1921; Ramsay, op. cit., 154). The time of the decree is stated only in general terms by Luke, and it may have been as early as 727/27 (Zumpt, op. cit., 159; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 212) or later in 746-8 (Huschke, Census, 34; Ramsay, op. cit., 158ff), its execution in different provinces and subject kingdoms being carried out at different times. Hence, Luke dates the census in the kingdom of Herod specifically by connecting it with the administrative functions of Quirinius in Syria. But as P. Quintilius Varus was the legate of Syria just before and after the death of Herod from 748/6-750/4 (Ant., XVII, v, 2; XVII, ix., 3; XVII, x, 1 and 9; XVII, xi, 1; Tac. Hist. v.9; and coins in Eckhel, Doctr. num. vet., III, 275) and his predecessor Was C. Sentius Saturninus from 745/9-748/6 (Ant; XVI, ix, 1; x, 8; xi, 3; XVII, i, 1; ii, 1; iii, 2), there seems to be no place for Quirinius during the closing years of Herod's reign. Tertullian indeed speaks of Saturninus as legate at the time of Jesus' birth (Adv. Marc., iv.9). The interpretation of Luke's statement as indicating a date for the census before Quirinius was legate (Wieseler, Chron. Syn., 116; Lagrange, Revue Biblique, 1911, 80ff) is inadmissible. It is possible that the connection of the census with Quirinius may be due to his having brought to completion what was begun by one of his predecessors; or Quirinius may have been commissioned especially by the emperor as legatus ad census accipiendos to conduct a census in Syria and this commission may have been connected temporally with his campaign against the Homonadenses in Cilicia (Tac. Ann. iii.48; compare Noris, Cenotaph. Pis., 320ff; Sanclemente, op. cit., 426 passim; Ramsay, op. cit., 238). It has also been suggested by Bour (L'Inscription de Quirinius, 48ff) that Quirinius may have been an imperial procurator specially charged with authority in the matter of the Herodian census. The titulus Tiburtinus (CIL, XIV, 3613; Dessau, Inscr. Latin Sel., 918) - if rightly assigned to him - and there seems to be no sufficient reason for questioning the conclusiveness of Mommsen's defense of this attribution (compare Liebenam, Verwaltungsgesch., 365) - proves that he was twice legate of Syria, and the titulus Venetus (CIL, III, 6687; Dessau, op. cit., 2683) gives evidence of a census conducted by him in Syria. His administration is dated by Ramsay (op. cit., 243) in 747/7; by Mommsen in the end of 750/4 or the beginning of 751/3 (op. cit., 172ff). Zahn (Neue kirch. Zeitschr., 1893, IV, 633ff), followed by Spitta (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1906, VII, 293ff), rejects the historicity of the later census connected by Josephus with the deposition of Archelaus, basing his view on internal grounds, and assigns the Lucan census to a time shortly after the death of Herod. This view however is rendered improbable by the evidence upon which the birth of Jesus is assigned to a time before the death of Herod (Mat_2:1; Luk_1:5; Luk_2:1 f); by the differentiation of the census in Luk_2:1 f and Act_5:37; by the definite connection of the census in Josephus with Syria and the territory of Archelaus (compare also the tit. Venet.); and by the general imperial policy in the formation of a new province (Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). Moreover there seems to be no adequate ground for identifying the Sabinus of Josephus with Quirinius as urged by Weber, who regards the two accounts (Ant., XVII, viii, 1ff and XVII, iv, 5; XVIII, i, 2; ii, 1ff) as due to the separation by Josephus of parallel accounts of the same events in his sources (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1909, X, 307ff) - the census of Sabinus-Quirinius being assigned to 4 bc, just after the death of Herod the Great. The synchronism of the second census of Quirinius with the periodic year of the Egyptian census is probably only a coincidence, for it was occasioned by the deposition of Archelaus; but its extension to Syria may be indicative of its connection with the imperial policy inaugurated by Augustus (Tac. Ann. vi.41; Ramsay, op. cit., 161 f).
(3) Star of the Magi
The identification of the star of the Magi (Mat_2:2; compare Mat_2:7, Mat_2:9, Mat_2:16; Macrobius, Sat., II, 4; Sanclemente, op. cit., 456; Ramsay, op. cit., 215ff) and the determination of the time of its appearance cannot be made with certainty, although it has been associated with a conjunction in 747/7 and 748/6 of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces - a constellation which was thought to stand in close relation with the Jewish nation (Ideler, Handbuch d. math. u. tech. Chron., II, 400ff). When the Magi came to Jerusalem, however, Herod was present in the city; and this must have been at least several months before his death, for during that time he was sick and absent from Jerusalem (Ant., XVII, vi, 1 ff; BJ, I, xxxiii, 1ff).
(4) Course of Abijah
The chronological calculations of the time of the service of the priestly course of Abijah in the temple, which are made by reckoning back from the time of the course of Jehoiarib which, according to Jewish tradition, was serving at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, are uncertain (Sch?rer, op. cit., II, 337, note 3; compare Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 836).
(5) Day and Month
The day and month of Jesus' birth are also uncertain. December 25 was celebrated by the church in the West as early as the 2nd century - if the date in Hippolytus on Dan., IV, 23, be genuine (compare Ehrhardt, Altchr. Lit., 1880-1900, 383); but January 6 was celebrated in the East as the anniversary both of the birth and of the baptism. The fact that shepherds were feeding their flocks at night when Jesus was born (Luk_2:8) makes it improbable that the season of the year was winte r.
(6) Summary
The birth of Jesus may therefore be assigned to the period 747/7 to 751/5, before the death of Herod, at the time of a census made by Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus and when Quirinius was exercising extraordinary authority in Syria - Varus being the regular legate of the province, i.e. probably in 748/6. See JESUS CHRIST.
2. Baptism of Jesus
The Synoptic Gospels begin their description of the public ministry of Jesus with an account of the ministry of John the Baptist (Mat_3:1; Mar_1:1; Luk_3:1; compare Joh_1:19; Joh_4:24; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 3) and Luke definitely dates the baptism of Jesus by John in the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke also designates this event as the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and by stating Jesus' age approximately brings it into connection with the date of His birth. If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus, August 19, 767/14, the 15th year would extend from August 19, 781/28 to August 18, 782/29; and if Jesus was about thirty years old at this time, His birth would fall in 751/3 to 752/2 - or sometime after the death of Herod, which is inconsistent with Luke's own and Matthew's representation. This indeed was one of the common modes of reckoning the imperial reigns. The mode of reckoning from the assumption of the tribunician power or from the designation as imperator is altogether unlikely in Luke's case and intrinsically improbable, since for Tiberius the one began in 748/6 and the other in 743/11 (Dio Cassius Iv.9; liv.33; Vell. ii.99; Suet. Tib. ix.11). But if, as seems likely, the method of reckoning by imperial years rather than by the yearly consuls was not definitely fixed when Luke wrote, it is possible that he may have counted the years of Tiberius from his appointment in 764/11 or 765/12 to equal authority with Augustus in the provinces (Veil. ii 121; Suet. Tib. xx.21; Tac. Ann. i.3). This method seems not to have been employed elsewhere (Lewin, op. cit., 1143 f; compare Ramsay, op. cit., 202 f). The coins of Antioch in which it is found are regarded as spurious (Eckhel, op. cit., III, 276), the genuine coins reckoning the reign of Tiberins from the death of Augustus (ibid., III, 278). If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberins from 764/11 or 765/12, the 15th year would fall in 778/25 or 779/26, probably the latter, and Jesus' birth about thirty years earlier, i.e. about 748/6 or 749/5.
3. First Passover
At the time of the first Passover in Jesus' ministry the Herodian temple had been building 46 years (Joh_2:20). Herod began the temple in the 18th year of his reign (Ant., XV, xi, 1, which probably corrects the statement in BJ, I, xxi, 1 that it was the 15th year; compare Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 369 f, note 12). As Josephus reckons from the accession of Herod in 717/37, the 18th year would be 734/20 to 735/21 and 46 years later would be 780/27 to 781/28. The interval implied in John between this Passover an d the beginning of Jesus' ministry agrees well with the Lucan dating of the baptism in 779/26.
4. Death of John the Baptist
The imprisonment of John the Baptist, which preceded the beginning of Jesus' Galilean work, was continued for a time (Mt 11:2-19; Lk 7:18-35) but was finally terminated by beheading at the order of Herod Antipas. Announcement of the death was made to Jesus while in the midst of His Galilean ministry (Mat_14:3-12; Mk 6:14-29; Luk_9:7-9). Josephus reports that the defeat of Antipas by Aretas, in the summer of 789/36, was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John (Ant., XVIII, v, 2); But although Josephus mentions the divorce of Aretas daughter by Antipas as one of the causes of hostilities, no inference can be drawn from this or from the popular interpretation of Antipas' defeat, by which the int erval between John s death and this defeat can be fixed (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 443 f).
5. Length of Jesus' Ministry
The Synoptic Gospels mention the Passion Passover at which Jesus' ministry was terminated, but they contain no data by which the interval between the imprisonment of John the Baptist and this Passover can be fixed with certainty. Yet indications are not wanting that the interval consisted of at least two years. The Sabbath controversy broke out in Galilee when the grain was still standing in the fields (Mat_12:1; Mar_2:23; Luk_6:1) and the condition of the grass when the Five Thousand were fed (Mat_14:15; Mar_6:39; Luk_9:12) points to the springtime, the Passion Passover marking the return of still another springtime (compare also Luk_13:7; Mat_23:37). But the Gospel of John mentions explicitly three Passovers (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4; Joh_11:55) and probably implies a fourth (Joh_5:1), Thus necessitating a ministry of at least two years and making probable a ministry of three years after the first Passover. The Passover of Joh_6:4 cannot be eliminated on textual grounds, for the documentary evidence is conclusive in its favor and the argument against it based on the statements of certain patristic writers is unconvincing (compare Turner, HDB, I, 407 f; Zahn, Kom., IV, 708ff). The indications of time from Joh_6:4 - the Passover when the Five Thousand were fed in Galilee - to Joh_11:55 - the Passion Passover - are definite and clear (Joh_7:2; Joh_10:22). But the interval between the first Passover (Joh_2:23) and the Galilean Passover (Joh_6:4) must have been one and may have been two years. The following considerations favor the latter view: Jesus was present in Jerusalem at a feast (Joh_5:1) which is not named but is called simply ?a? or ?the? feast of the Jews. The best authorities for the text are divided, some supporting the insertion, others the omission of the definite article before ?feast.? If the article formed part of the original text, the feast may have been either Tabernacles - from the Jewish point of view - or Passover - from the Christian point of view. If the article was wanting in the original text, the identification of the feast must be made on contextual and other grounds. But the note of time in Joh_4:35 indicates the lapse of about nine months since the Passover of Joh_2:23 and it is not likely that the Galilean ministry which preceded the feeding of the Five Thousand lasted only about three months. In fact this is rendered impossible by the condition of the grain in the fields at the time of the Sabbath controversy. The identification of the feast of Joh_5:1 with Purim, even if the article be not genuine, is extremely improbable; and if so, a Passover must have intervened between Joh_2:23 and Joh_6:4, making the ministry of Jesus extend over a period of three years and the months which preceded the Passover of Joh_2:23. While the identification cannot be made with certainty, if the feast was Passover the subject of the controversy with the Jews in Jerusalem as well as the season of the year would harmonize with the Synoptic account of the Sabbath controversy in Galilee which probably followed this Passover (compare the variant reading in Luk_6:1).
6. Death of Jesus
Jesus was put to death in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea (Mat_27:2; Mar_15:1; Luk_23:1; Joh_18:29; Joh_19:1; Act_3:13; Act_4:27; Act_13:28; 1Ti_6:13; Tac. Ann. xv.44), Caiaphas being the high priest (Mat_26:3, Mat_26:17; Joh_11:49; Joh_18:13) and Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Luk_23:7). Pilate was procurator from 779/26 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; compare Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 487, note 141); Caiaphas was high priest from 771/18 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2; iv, 3; compare Sch?rer, op. cit., II, 271) and Antipas was tetrarch from 750/4 to 792/39. If the first Passover of Jesus' ministry was in 780/27, the fourth would fall in 783/30. The gospels name Friday as the day of the crucifixion (Mat_27:62; Mar_15:42; Luk_23:54; Joh_19:14, Joh_19:31, Joh_19:42) and the Synoptic Gospels represent this Friday as Nisan 15 - the day following (or according to Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset, the same day as) the day on which the paschal supper was eaten (Mat_26:17; Mar_14:12; Luk_22:7). But the Fourth Gospel is thought by many to represent the paschal meal as still uneaten when Jesus suffered (Joh_18:28; compare Joh_13:29); and it is held that the Synoptic Gospels also contain traces of this view (Mat_26:5; Mar_14:2; Mar_15:21; Luk_23:26). Astronomical calculations show that Friday could have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in 783/30 according to different methods of reckoning (von Soden, EB, I, 806; compare Bacon, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVIII, 2, 1910, 130ff; Fotheringham, Jour. of Theol. Studies, October, 1910, 120ff), but the empirical character of the Jewish calendar renders the result of such calculations uncertain (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 749 f). In the year 783/30 Friday, Nı̄ṣān 15, would fall on April 7. There is an early patristic tradition which dates the death of Jesus in the year 782/29, in the consulship of the Gemini (Turner, HDB, I, 413 f), but its origin and trustworthy character are problematical.
7. Summary of Dates
1. Birth of Jesus, 748/6.
2. Death of Herod the Great, 750/4.
3. Baptism of Jesus, 779/26.
4. First Passover of Jesus' ministry, 780/27.
5. Death of Jesus, 783/30.
Literature
Sch?rer, Geschichte des J?dischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3. und 4. Aufl., 1901-9, 3 volumes, English translation of the 2nd edition, in 5 volumes, 1885-94; Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, 1825-26, 2 volumes; Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der Evangelien, 1843, English translation; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865; Turner, article ?Chronology of the NT? in HDB, 1900, I. 403-25; von Soden, article ?Chronology? in Cheyne and Black, EB, 1899, I, 799-819; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1898; F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, article ?Dates? in Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels; Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti2.
II. Chronology of the Apostolic Age
The chronology of the apostolic age must be based on the data in Acts and the epistolary literature of the New Testament which afford contacts with persons or events of the Greek-Roman world. From the fixed points Thus secured a general outline of the relative chronology may be established with reasonable probability.
1. Paul's Conversion
Paul was converted near Damascus (Act_9:3; Act_22:5; Act_26:12; Gal_1:17). After a brief stay in that city (Act_9:19) he went to Arabia and then came again to Damascus (Gal_1:17). When he left Damascus the second time, he returned to Jerusalem after an absence of three years (Gal_1:18). The flight of Paul from Damascus (Act_9:24) probably terminated his second visit to the city. At that time the ethnarch of Aretas, the king of the Nabateans, acting with the resident Jews (Act_9:23 f), guarded t he city to seize him (2Co_11:32). Aretas IV succeeded Obodas about 9 bc, and reigned until about 40 ad Damascus was taken by the Romans in 62 bc and probably continued under their control until the death of Tiberius (March 37 ad). Roman coins of Damascus exist from the time of Augustus, Tiberius and Nero, but there are no such coins from the time of Caligula and Claudius (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 737; II, 153). Moreover the relations of Aretas to Augustus and Tiberius make it extremely improbable that he held Damascus during their reign as part of his kingdom or acquired it by conquest. The statement of Paul however seems to imply Nabatean control of the city, and this is best explained on the supposition that Damascus was given to Aretas by Caligula, the change in the imperial attitude being due perhaps to the influence primarily of Agrippa and possibly also of Vitellius (Steinmann, Aretas IV, 1909, 34ff). But if Paul's escape from Damascus was not earlier than 37 ad, his conversion cannot be placed earlier than 34 or 35 ad, and the journey to Jerusalem 14 years later (Gal_2:1) not earlier than 50 or 51 ad.
2. Death of Herod Agrippa I
Herod Agrippa I died in Caesarea shortly after a Passover season (Act_12:23; compare Act_12:3, Act_12:19). Caligula had given him the tetrarchy of Philip and of Lysanias in 37 ad - the latter either at this time or later - with the title of king (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10; BJ, II, ix, 6) and this was increased in 40 ad by the tetrarchy of Antipas (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1 f; BJ, II, ix, 6). Claudius gave him also Judea and Samaria (Ant., XIX, v, 1; BJ, II, xi, 5) Thus making his territory even more extensive than that of his grandfather, Herod the Great. Agrippa reigned over ?all Judea? for three years under Claudius (Ant., XIX, viii, 2; BJ, II, xi, 6), his death falling in the spring of 44 ad, in the 7th year of his reign. The games mentioned by Josephus in this connection are probably those that were celebrated in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain in 44 ad. There are coins of Agrippa from his 6th year, but the attribution to him of coins from other years is questioned (Sch?rer, op. cit., 560, note 40; Madden, op . cit., 132).
3. Famine Under Claudius
The prophecy of a famine and its fulfillment under Claudius (Act_11:28) are associated in Acts with the death of Herod Agrippa I (Act_11:30; Act_12:23). Famines in Rome during the reign of Claudius are mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. xviii), Dio Cassius (lx.11), Tacitus (Annals xii.43), and Orosius (vii.6). Josephus narrates in the time of Fadus the generosity of Helena during a famine in Palestine (Ant., XX, ii, 5), but subsequently dates the famine generally in the time of Fadus and Alexander. The famine in P alestine would fall therefore at some time between 44 and 48 (Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 567, note 8).
4. Sergius Paulus
When Paul visited Cyprus with Barnabas the island was administered by Sergius Paulus (Act_13:7), a proprietor with the title proconsul (Marquardt, op. cit., I, 391). There is an inscription from Cyprus (Cagnat, Inscr. graec. ad res rom. pertin., III; 930) dating from the 1st century, and probably from the year 53 (Zahn, Neue kirch. Zeitschr., 1904, XV, 194) in which an incident in the career of a certain Apollonius is dated in the proconsulship of Paulus (ἐπὶ Παύλου (ἀνθ)υπάτου, epi Paúlou (anth)upátou). From another inscription (CIG, 2632), dated in the 12th year of Claudius, it appears that L. Annins Bassus was proconsul in 52. If the Julius Cordus mentioned by Bassus was his immediate predecessor, the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus may be dated at some time before 51.
5. Edict of Claudius
When Paul came to Corinth for the first time he met Aquila and Priscilla, who had left Rome because of an edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from the city (Act_18:2). Suetonius mentions an expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius but gives no date (Claud. xxv; compare Dio Cassius lx.6). Orosius however dates the edict in the 9th year of Claudius or 49 ad (Hist. vii.6, 15); and though Josephus, from whom he quotes, does not mention this edict. but records the favor shown by Claudius to the Jews and to Herod Agrippa I (Ant., XIX, v, 1-3; compare Dio Cassius lx.6, 6, 9, 10; 8, 2), it is not improbable that the date is approximately accurate (Sch?rer, op. cit., III, 62, note 92).
6. Gallio
During Paul's first sojourn in Corinth the apostle was brought before the proconsul Gallio (Act_18:12). This could not have been earlier than the year 44 when Claudius gave Achaia back to the Senate and the province was administered by a proprietor with the title of proconsul (Dio Cassius lx.24; Marquardt, op. cit., I, 331 f; Ramsay, The Expositor., 1897, I, 207). Moreover the career of Seneca makes it improbable that his brother would be advanced to this position before 49 or 50 (Harnack, Chron., I, 237; Wieseler, Chron. d. apos. Zeitalters, 119). There is a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a letter from the emperor Claudius in which mention is made of Gallio. The inscription is dated by the title of the emperor which contains the number 26. This is referred naturally to the acclammatio as ?imperator? and dated in the year 52 before August, after which time the number 27 occurs in the title of Claudian inscriptions. Gallio may therefore have been proconsul from the spring or summer of the year 51-52 or 52-53. The latter seems the more probable time (compare Aem. Bourguet, De rebus Delphicis, 1905, 63 f; Ramsay, The Expositor., 1909, I, 467 f; Princeton Theological Review, 1911, 290 f; 1912, 139 f; Deissmann, Paulus, 1911, 159-177; Lietzmann, Zeitschrift f?r wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1911, 345-54).
7. Festus
When Paul had been for two years a prisoner in Caesarea Felix was succeeded by Festus as procurator of Judea (Act_24:27). The accession of Festus, which is placed by Eusebius in the Church History in the reign of Nero (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 22, 1), is dated in the Chronicle in the version of Jerome in the 2nd year of Nero, 56 ad, and in the Armenian version in the 14th year of Claudius, 54 ad. The excerpts from the Chronicle in Syncellus apparently follow the text underlying the version of Jerome, but state simply that Festus was sent as successor of Felix by Nero (ed. Schoene, II, 154). After his removal from office Felix was tried in Rome, but escaped punishment through the influence of his brother Pallas, who, according to Josephus, was in favor with Nero at that time (Ant., XX, viii, 9). Pallas was removed from office before February 13, 55 ad (Tac. Ann. xiii.14, 1; compare 15, 1), but apparently continued to have influence with the emperor; for he fixed the terms of his removal and was permitted to enjoy his fortune for several years (Tac. Ann. xiii.14, 1 f; 23, 1-3). His death occurred in 62 ad (Tac. Ann. xiv.65, 1). The trial of Felix must therefore have occurred before 62; but it is impossible to place it before the removal of Pallas, for this would necessitate the removal of Felix in 54 ad, and this is excluded by the fact that the first summer of Nero's reign fell in 55 ad. But if Eusebius reckoned the imperial years from September 1st after the accession (Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1902, 120 f; HDB, I, 418 f), the summer of the second year of Nero would fall in 57. In any event the removal and trial of Felix must have fallen after the removal of Pallas. The date of the Eusebian Chronicle is thus without support from Tacitus or Josephus, and its value depends on the character of the source from which it was obtained - if there was such a source, for it is at least possible that the definite date owes its origin solely to the necessities imposed on Eusebius by the form of the Chronicle. It is not unlike ly that the error of 5 years made by Eusebius in the reign of Agrippa II may be the source of a similar error in regard to Festus in spite of the fact that the framework of the Chronicle is generally furnished not by the years of the Jewish kings but by the imperial years (Erbes in Gebhardt u. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F., IV, 1, 1899; Die Todestage d. Apos. Paulus u. Petrus; Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1902, III, 120 f; Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 350ff). There is evidence however in Act_21:38 that Paul's arrest could not have been earlier than the spring of 55 ad. For Paul was supposed by the chief captain to be the Egyptian who had led an insurrection that had been suppressed by Felix during the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 6; BJ, II, 13, 5). Thus the accession of Festus, two years later (Act_24:27), could not have been earlier than 57 ad.
But if the summer of 57 ad is the earliest date possible for the accession of Festus, the summer of 60 ad is the latest date that is possible. Albinus, the successor of Festus, was present in Jerusalem in October, 62 ad (Ant., XX, ix, 1ff), and while the administration of Festus was probably shorter than that of Felix (compare Ant, XX, viii, 9-11; BJ, II, xiv, 1 with Ant, XX, vii, 1-3; BJ, II, 12-13), it is not likely that it lasted less than two years. But as between 57 ad and 60 ad, probability favo rs the latter. For greater justice is Thus done to the words of Paul to Felix: ?Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation,? etc. (Act_24:10). Felix was appointed by Claudius in 52 ad (Tac. Ann. xii. 54; Ant, XX, v, 2) and was continued in office by Nero. Most of the events of his administration are narrated by Josephus under Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 5ff); and although Tacitus mentions an administration of Felix in Samaria when Cumanus was administering Galilee (Ann. xii.54) , the omission of any direct reference to Judea, the unusual character of such a double administration and the explicit statement of Josephus that Claudius sent Felix as successor of Cumanus, make it unlikely that Paul's statement is to be understood of an administration beginning earlier than 52 ad. If Festus succeeded in the summer of 60 ad, Paul's arrest would fall in 58 and the ?many years? of Felix' administration would cover a period of 6 years, from 52 ad to 58 ad (compare Sch?rer, op. cit., I, 577 f, note 38). Ramsay argues in favor of 57 ad as the year of Paul's arrest and 59 ad as the year of the accession of Festus (Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 345ff).
8. Relative Chronology of Acts
If Festus succeeded Felix in the summer of 60 ad, Paul would reach Rome in the spring of 61 ad, and the narrative in Acts would terminate in 63 ad (Act_28:30). Paul's arrest in Jerusalem 2 years before the accession of Festus (Act_24:27) would fall in the spring of 58 ad. Previous to this Paul had spent 3 months in Corinth (Act_20:3) and 3 years in Ephesus (Act_20:31; compare Act_19:10), which would make the beginning of the third missionary journey fall about 54 ad. There was an interval between the second and the third journeys (Act_18:23), and as Paul spent 18 months at Corinth (Act_18:11) the beginning of the second journey would fall about 51 ad. The Apostolic Council preceded the second journey and may be dated about 50 ad - 14 years subsequent to Paul's first visit to Jerusalem (37 ad) in the third year after his conversion in 35 ad. The first missionary journey was made after the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem with the alms from the church at Antioch (Act_11:30; Act_12:25), about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I, and would fall between 44 ad and 50 ad. The growth of the early church in Jerusalem previous to Paul's conversion would Thus extend over a period of about 5 years from 30 ad to 35 ad.
9. Pauline Epistles
Ten of the thirteen Pauline epistles were written during a period of about ten years between Paul's arrival in Corinth and the close of his first Roman imprisonment. These epistles fall into three groups, each possessing certain distinctive characteristics; and although each reflects the difference in time and occasion of its production, they all reveal an essential continuity of thought and a similarity of style which evidences unity of authorship. The earliest group consists of the Thessalonian epistles, both of which were written from Corinth on the second missionary journey about 52 or 53 ad, while Silas (Silvanus) was still in Paul's company and shortly after Paul's visit to Athens (1Th_1:1; 1Th_3:1, 1Th_3:2, 1Th_3:6; 2Th_1:1). The major epistles belong to the third missionary journey. 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus about 55 ad; Galatians probably from Ephesus, either before or after 1 Corinthians, for Paul had been twice in Galatia (Gal_4:13); 2 Corinthians from Macedonia about 57 ad; and Romans from Cor inth about 57 or 58 ad. The imprisonment epistles were written from Rome: Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon about 62 ad, and Philippians about 63 ad.
10. Release and Death of Paul
When Paul wrote to Philemon (Phm_1:22) and to the Philippians (Phi_2:24; compare Phi_1:25), he expected a favorable issue of his trial in Rome and was looking forward to another visit to the East. Before his arrest he had planned a journey to Spain by way of Rome (Rom_15:28), and when he bade farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Act_20:25) he must have had in mind not only the dangers of his journey to Jerusalem, but also his determination to enter another field of labor. 1 Clement 5, the Muratori Canon and the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 444 f) witness to the Spanish journey, and the Pastoral Epistles to a journey to the East and to another imprisonment in Rome. The two lines of evidence for Paul's release are independent and neither can be explained as derived merely from the statement of Paul's intention in Romans and in Philemon and Philippians. The historical situation implied in the Pastoral Epistles can be charged with artificiality only on the hypothesis that Paul was not released from his first Roman imprisonment. The data of these epistles cannot be fitted into any period of Paul's life previous to his imprisonment. But these data are embodied in just those parts of the Pastoral Epistles which are admitted to be Pauline by those who regard the epistles as containing only genuine fragments from Paul but assign the epistles in their present form to a later writer. On any hypothesis of authorship, however, the tradition which these epistles contain cannot be much later than the first quarter of the 2nd century. It is highly probable therefore that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment; that he visited Spain and the East; and that he was imprisoned a second time in Rome where he met his death in the closing years of Nero's reign, i.e. in 67 or 68 ad. According to early tradition Paul suffered martyrdom by beheading with the sword (Tert., De praescr. haer., xxxvi), but there is nothing to connect his death with the persecution of the Christians in Rome by Nero in 64 ad.
Little is known of Peter beside what is recorded of him in the New Testament. The tradition of his bishopric of 20 or 25 years in Rome (compare Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit., II; Die Chronologie, I, 243 f) accords neither with the implications of Acts and Galatians nor with Paul's silence in Rom.
11. Death of Peter
But 1 Pet was probably written from Rome (Rom_5:13; compare Euseb., HE, ii.15, 2) and the testimony to Peter's martyrdom (implied in Joh_21:18 f) under Nero in Rome by crucifixion (Tert., De praes. haer., xxxvi; compare 1 Clem Rom_5:1) is early and probably trustworthy. Tradition also associates Peter and Paul in their Roman labors and martyrdom (Dionysius in Euseb., HE, ii.25, 8; Iren., Adv. haer., iii.1, 2; iii.3, 1). The mention of the Vatican as the place of Peter's interment (Caius in Euseb., HE, ii.25, 6 f) may indicate a connection of his martyrdom with the Neronian persecution in 64 ad; but this is not certain. Peter's death may therefore be dated with some probability in Rome between 64 and 67 ad. His two epistles were written at some time before his death, probably the First about 64 and the Second at some time afterward and subsequent to the Epistle of Jude which it apparently uses. (The arguments against the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter are stated fully by Schmiedel in the Encyclopedia Biblica, u nder the word ?Simon Peter,? especially col. 458ff; on the other hand compare Zahn, Einleitung.3, II, 17ff, English translation, II, 158ff.)
12. Death of James the Just
James the Just, the brother of the Lord, was prominent in the church of Jerusalem at the time of the Apostolic Council (Act_15:13; Gal_2:9; compare Gal_1:19; Gal_2:12) and later when Paul was arrested he seems still to have occupied this position (Act_21:18), laboring with impressive devotion for the Jewish people until his martyrdom about the year 66 ad (Ant., XX, ix, 1; Euseb., HE, ii.23, 3ff; HRE3, VIII, 581; Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 76). The Epistle of Jas contains numerous indications of its early origin a nd equally clear evidence that it was not written during the period when the questions which are discussed in the major epistles of Paul were agitating the church. It is probably the earliest book of the New Testament, written before the Apostolic Council.
13. The Synoptic Gospels, Etc.
In the decade just preceding the fall of Jerusalem, the tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus was committed to writing in the Synoptic Gospels. Early tradition dates the composition of Matthew's Gospel in the lifetime of Peter and Paul (Iren., Adv. haer., ill.l, 1; Eusebius, HE, v.8, 2ff), and that of the Gospel of Mark either just before or after Peter's death (Clement in Euseb., HE, vi.14, 7; compare ii.15; and Irenaeus, Adv. haer., iii.11, 1; Presbyter of Papias in Euseb., HE, iii. 39, 15; compare also 2Pe_1:15). The Lucan writings - both the Gospel and Acts - probably fall also in this period, for the Gospel contains no intimation that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem had been fulfilled (compare Luk_21:21; Act_11:28), and the silence of Acts about the issue of Paul's trial is best explained on the hypothesis of an early date (Jerome, De vir. illustr., vii; Harnack, Neue Untersuch. zur Apostelgesch., 1911; compare also Luk_10:7; 1Ti_5:18). To this period belong also the Epistle of Jude and the Epistle to the He (if addressed to Jewish Christians of Palestine; but later, about 80 ad, if addressed to Jewish Christians of Rome (Zahn, Einltg.3, II, 152)), the former being used in 2 Peter and the latter in 1 Clement.
14. Death of John
Early tradition connects John with Ephesus and mentions his continuing in life until the time of Trajan (Irenaeus, Adv. haer., ii.22, 5 (Eusebius, HE, v.24); iii.l, 1; v.30, 3; v.33, 4; Clement in Eusebius, HE, iii.23, 5-19; Polycrates in Eusebius, HE, iii.31, 3; v.24, 3; Justin, Dialogue, lxxxi; compare Rev_1:1, Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8; Joh_21:22, Joh_21:23, Joh_21:14; Joh_19:35). He died probably about the end of the 1st century. There is another but less well-attested tradition of martyrdom based chiefly on the De Boor fragment of Papias (Texte u. Unters., 1888), a Syriac Martyrology of the 4th century (Wright, Jour. of Sacred Lit., 1865-66, VIII, 56ff, 423ff), the Codex Coislinianus 305 of Georgius Hamartolus. This tradition, it is thought, finds confirmation in Mar_10:35-40; Mat_20:20-23 (compare Bousset, Theologische Rundschau,. 1905, 225ff, 277ff). During the closing years of his life John wrote the Revelation, the Fourth Gospel and the three Epistles.
15. Summary of Dates
Conversion of Paul
35
Death of James, son of Zebedee
44
Death of Herod Agrippa I
44
Famine under Claudius
44-48
Epistle of James ... before
50
First missionary journey
45-49
Edict of Claudius
49-50
Proconsulship of Sergius Paulus ... before
51
Apostolic Council
50
Second missionary journey
50-53
1 and 2 Thess from Corinth
52/53
Proconsulship of Gallio
52/53
Third missionary journey
54-58
Paul in Ephesus
54-57
1 Cor and Gal from Ephesus
55-57
2 Cor from Macedonia
57
Rom from Corinth
57/58
Arrest of Paul in Jerusalem
58
Accession of Festus - not before probably
57
First Roman imprisonment of Paul
61-63/4
Col, Eph, Philem, from Rome
62
Phil from Rome
63
Release of Paul and journeys in West and East
64-67
1 Tim and Tit from Macedonia
65-66
2 Tim from Rome
67
Death of Paul in Rome
67/8
Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Jude and Hebrews, before
67
1 and 2 Peter from Rome
64-67
Death of Peter in Rome
64-67
Death of James the Just . . . . about
66
Fourth Gospel, Revelation, Epistles of John from Ephesus ... before
100
Death of John
98-100


Literature
In addition to the literature mentioned in section 8: Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione. 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apos. Zeitalters, 1848: Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903; Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. bis Euseb., II, 1, Die Chronologie bis Iren., 1897; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 1893; Zahn, Einleitung, II, 1907 (Eng. translation, 1909).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores