(a) _The Roman Governor._--Pontius Pilate was on his way back to Rome,
after ten years of office, when Tiberius died on the 16th March A.D. 37
(Josephus, _Ant._ XVIII. ii. 2, iv. 2). Luke xiii. 1, xxiii. 12, show
that he was not a newcomer at the time of the Crucifixion. For the
Crucifixion "under Pontius Pilate" the Passover of A.D. 28 is therefore
the earliest possible and the Passover of A.D. 36 the latest.
(b) _The Jewish High-Priest._--Caiaphas was appointed before Pilate's
arrival, and was deposed at a Passover apparently not later than that of
the year of Herod Philip's death, A.D. 34 (Josephus, _Ant._ XVIII. ii.
2, iv. 3-v. 3). The Crucifixion at some previous Passover would then
fall not later than A.D. 33.
(c) _The Day of the Week._--The Resurrection on "the first day of the
week" (Sunday) was "on the third day" after the Crucifixion; and that
"the third day" implies an interval of only two days hardly needed to be
shown, but has been shown to demonstration in Field's _Notes on the
Translation of the New Testament_ (on Matt. xvi. 21). The Crucifixion
was therefore on a Friday in some year between A.D. 28 and 33 inclusive.
(d) _The Day of the Jewish Month Nisan._--The Passover was kept at the
full moon of the lunar month Nisan, the first of the Jewish
ecclesiastical year; the Paschal lambs were slain on the afternoon of
the 14th Nisan, and the Passover was eaten after sunset the same
day--which, however, as the Jewish day began at sunset, was by their
reckoning the early hours of the 15th Nisan; the first fruits (of the
barley harvest) were solemnly offered on the 16th. The synoptic Gospels
_appear_ to place the Crucifixion on the 15th, since they speak of the
Last Supper as a Passover;[59] St John's Gospel, on the other hand
(xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28), distinctly implies that the feast had not yet
taken place, and thus makes the Crucifixion fall on the 14th. Early
Christian tradition is unanimous on this side; either the 14th is
mentioned, or the Crucifixion is made the antitype of the slaughter of
the Paschal Lamb (and the Resurrection of the first fruits), in the
following authorities anterior to A.D. 235: St Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7, xv.
20; Quartodecimans of Asia Minor, who observed the Christian Pascha on
the "14th," no matter on what day of the week it fell; Claudius
Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, all three quoted in the
_Paschal Chronicle_; Irenaeus (apparently) iv. x. 1 [xx. 1];
[Tertullian] _adv. Judaeos_, 8; Africanus, in Routh, _Rell. Sacr._ ii.
297. The Crucifixion, then, should be placed rather on the 14th than on
the 15th of Nisan.
These four lines of inquiry have shown that the Crucifixion fell on
Friday, Nisan 14 (rather than 15), in one of the six years 28-33 A.D.;
and therefore, if it is possible to discover (i.) exactly which moon or
month was reckoned each year as the moon or month of Nisan, and (ii.)
exactly on what day that particular moon or month was reckoned as
beginning, it will, of course, be possible to tell in which of these
years Nisan 14 fell on a Friday. To neither question can an answer be
given in terms so precise as to exclude some latitude, but to both with
sufficient exactness to rule out at once three of the six years. (i.)
The difficulty with regard to the month is to know how the commencement
of the Jewish year was fixed--in what years an extra month was
intercalated before Nisan. If the Paschal full moon was, as in later
Christian times, the first after the spring equinox, the difficulty
would be reduced to the question on what day the equinox was reckoned.
If, on the other hand, it was, as in ancient Jewish times, the first
after the earliest ears of the barley harvest would be ripe, it would
have varied with the forwardness or backwardness of the season from year
to year. (ii.) The difficulty with regard to the day is, quite
similarly, to know what precise relation the first day of the Jewish
month bore to the astronomical new moon. In later Christian times the
Paschal month was calculated from the astronomical new moon; in earlier
Jewish times all months were reckoned to begin at the first sunset when
the new moon was visible, which in the most favourable circumstances
would be some hours, and in the most unfavourable three days, later than
the astronomical new moon.
Direct material for answering the question when and how far astronomical
calculations replaced simple observations as the basis of the Jewish
calendar is not forthcoming. Jewish traditions represented the Sanhedrin
as retaining to the end its plenary power over the calendar, and as
still fixing the first day of every month and the first month of every
year. But as it is quite inconceivable that the Jews of the Dispersion
should not have known beforehand at what full moon they were to present
themselves at Jerusalem for the Passover, it must be assumed as true in
fact, whether or no it was true in theory, that the old empirical
methods must have been qualified, at least partially, by permanent, that
is in effect by astronomical rules. Exactly what modifications were
first made in the system under which each month began by simple
observation of the new moon we do not know, and opinions are not agreed
as to the historical value of the rabbinical traditions; but probably
the first step in the direction of astronomical precision would be the
rule that no month could consist of less than twenty-nine or more than
thirty days--to which appears to have been added, but at what date is
uncertain, the further rule that Adar, the month preceding Nisan, was
always to be limited to twenty-nine. In the same way the beginning of
the Jewish year according to the state of the harvest was supplanted by
some more fixed relation to the solar year. But this relation was not,
it would seem, regulated by the date, real or supposed, of the equinox.
Christian controversialists from Anatolius of Laodicea (A.D. 277)
onwards accused the Jews of disregarding the (Christian) equinoctial
limit, and of sometimes placing the Paschal full moon before it; and it
is possible that in the time of Christ the 14th of Nisan might have
fallen as far back as the 17th of March. In the following table the
first column gives the _terminus paschalis_, or 14th of the Paschal
moon, according to the Christian calendar; the second gives the 14th,
reckoned from the time of the astronomical new moon of Nisan; the third
the 14th, reckoned from the probable first appearance of the new moon at
sunset. Alternative moons are given for A.D. 29, according as the full
moon falling about the 18th of March is or is not reckoned the proper
Paschal moon.
A.D. 28 Sat. Mar. 27 Mar. 28 Mar. 30
" 29 Th. Mar. 17 Mar. 17 Mar. 19
F. Ap. 15 Ap. 16 Ap. 18
" 30 Tu. Ap. 4 Ap. 5 Ap. 7
" 31 Sat. Mar. 24 Mar. 25 Mar. 27
" 32 Sat. Ap. 12 Ap. 12 Ap. 14
" 33 W. Ap. 1 Ap. 1-2 Ap. 3 or 4
It will be seen at once that Friday cannot have fallen on Nisan 14th in
any of the three years A.D. 28, 31 and 32. The choice is narrowed down
to A.D. 29, Friday, 18th March (Friday, 15th April, would no doubt be
too early even for the 14th of Nisan); A.D. 30, Friday 7th April; and
A.D. 33, Friday, 3rd April.
(e) _The Civil Year_ (consuls, or regnal years of Tiberius) in early
Christian tradition. It is not _a priori_ improbable that the year of
the central event from which the Christian Church dated her own
existence should have been noted in the apostolic age and handed down to
the memory of succeeding generations; and the evidence does go some way
to suggest that we have in favour of A.D. 29, the consulate of the two
Gemini (15th or 16th year of Tiberius), a body of tradition independent
of the Gospels and ancient, if not primitive, in origin.
The earliest witness, indeed, who can be cited for a definite date for
the crucifixion gave not 29, but 33 A.D. The pagan chronicler, Phlegon,
writing in the reign of Hadrian, noted under Olympiad 202.4 (= A.D.
32-33), besides a great earthquake in Bithynia, an eclipse so remarkable
that it became night "at the sixth hour of the day." The eclipse meant
is, presumably, that of the Crucifixion (so Origen, _contra Celsum_,,
ii. 33 [but see _in Matt_. 134, Delarue iii. 922], Eusebius's
_Chronicle_ Tib. 19 [= A.D. 33], Anon, in Cramer's _Catena in Matt_. p.
237), but as the notice of it was clearly derived by Phlegon, pagan as
he was, directly or indirectly from the Gospel narrative, there is no
reason at all to ascribe any independent value to the date. Phlegon may
have had grounds for dating the Bithynian earthquake in that year, and
have brought the dateless portent into connexion with the dated one.
Eusebius adopted and popularized this date, which fell in with his own
system of Gospel chronology, but of the year 33 as the date of the
Passion there is no vestige in Christian tradition before the 4th
century.
The only date, in fact, which has any real claim to represent Christian
tradition independent of the Gospels, is the year 29. Tiberius 15 is
given by Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 147; Origen, _Hom. in Jerem._ xiv. 13;
cf. c. _Cels._ iv. 22. Tiberius 16 by Julius Africanus (Routh, _Rell.
Sacr._ ii. 301-304), and pseudo-Cyprian _de pascha computus_ (A.D. 243),
Sec. 20. The consulship of the two Gemini by Lactantius, _Div. Inst._ iv.
x. 18, and (Lactantius?) _de morte pers._ Sec. 2; the consulship of the two
Gemini = Tiberius 18 by Hippolytus, _Comm. in Danielem_, iv. (ed.
Bonwetsch, p. 242); the consulship of the two Gemini = Tiberius 15 by
[Tertullian] _adv. Judaeos_, Sec. 8; the consulship of the two Gemini =
Tiberius 15 (_al._ 18 or 19) = Ol. 202.4 [this last is a later
interpolation from Eusebius] in the _Acts of Pilate_. Other methods of
expressing the year 29 appear in Hippolytus's _Paschal Cycle_ and
_Chronicle_, and in the Abgar legend (_ap._ Eusebius, _H.E._ i. 13). No
doubt it would be possible to explain Tiberius 16 as a combination of
Luke iii. 1 with a one-year ministry, and even to treat Tiberius 15 as
an unintelligent repetition from St Luke--though the omission to allow a
single year for the ministry would be so strange as to be almost
unintelligible--but the date by the consuls has an independent look
about it, and of its extreme antiquity the evidence gives two
indications: (i.) Hippolytus's Commentary on Daniel (now generally dated
c. A.D. 200) combines it with an apparently inconsistent date, Tiberius
18; the latter is clearly his own combination of the length of the
ministry (he says in the same passage that Christ suffered in his 33rd
year) with Luke iii. 1--the consulship must have been taken from
tradition without regard to consistency; (ii.) the names of the Gemini
are divergently given in our oldest authorities; in [Tert.] _adv.
Judaeos_ correctly as Rubellius Geminus and Fufius (or Rufius) Geminus,
but in Hippolytus and the _Acts of Pilate_ as Rufus and Rubellio. But if
the tradition of the consulship was thus, it would seem, already an old
one about the year 200, there is at least some reason to conclude that
trustworthy information in early Christian circles pointed,
independently of the Gospels, to the year 29 as that of the Crucifixion.
(f) _The Civil Month and Day._--The earliest known calculations, by
Basilidian Gnostics, quoted in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 147, gave
alternative dates, Phamenoth 25, Pharmuthi 25, Pharmuthi 19; that is,
according to the fixed Alexandrine calendar of B.C. 26, 21st March, 20th
April, 14th April; in the older, not wholly superseded, Egyptian
calendar the equivalents with Roman days varied from year to year. But
in all probability these dates were only one development of those
speculations in the region of numbers to which Gnosticism was so prone;
and in any case to look for genuine traditions among Egyptian Gnostics,
or even in the church of Alexandria, would be to misread the history of
Christianity in the 2nd century. Such traditions must be found, if
anywhere, in Palestine and Syria, in Asia Minor, in Rome, not in Egypt;
within the Church, not among the Gnostics. The date which makes the most
obvious claim to satisfy these conditions would be the 25th of March, as
given by Hippolytus, [Tert.] _adv. Judaeos_, and the _Acts of Pilate_
(according to all extant MSS. and versions, but see below), _locc.
citt._--the same three authorities who bear the earliest witness for the
consuls of the year of the Crucifixion--and by many later writers. It
cannot be correct, since no full moon occurs near it in any of the
possible years; yet it must be very early, too early to be explained
with Dr Salmon (_Dictionary of Christian Biography_, iii. 92b), as
originated by Hippolytus's Paschal cycle of A.D. 221. Now Epiphanius
(_Haer._ l. 1) had seen copies of the _Acts of Pilate_ in which the day
given was not 25th March, but _a.d. xv. kal. Apr._ (= 18th March); and
if this was the primitive form of the tradition, it is easy to see how
25th March could have grown out of it, since the 18th would from
comparatively early times, in the East at any rate, have been thought
impossible as falling before the equinox, and no substitution would be
so natural as that of the day week, Friday, 25th March. But Friday, 18th
March, A.D. 29, was one of the three alternative dates for the
Crucifixion which on astronomical and calendar grounds were found (see
above, 5d) to be possible.
Thus A.D. 29 is the year, the 18th of March is the day, to which
Christian tradition (whatever value, whether much or little, be ascribed
to it) appears to point. Further, the Baptism was tentatively placed in
A.D. 26-27; the length of the ministry was fixed, with some approach to
certainty, at between two and three years, and here too the resultant
date for the Crucifixion would be the Passover of A.D. 29.
To sum up: the various dates and intervals, to the approximate
determination of which this article has been devoted, do not claim
separately more than a tentative and probable value. But it is submitted
that their harmony and convergence give them some additional claim to
acceptance, and at any rate do something to secure each one of them
singly--the Nativity in 7-6 B.C., the Baptism in A.D. 26-27, the
Crucifixion in A.D. 29--from being to any wide extent in error.
_The Chronology of the Apostolic Age._
The chronology of the New Testament outside the Gospels may be defined
for the purposes of this article as that of the period between the
Crucifixion in A.D. 29 (30) on the one hand, and on the other the
persecution of Nero in A.D. 64 and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Of
the events in Christian history which fall between these limits it must
be admitted that there are many which with our present information we
cannot date with exactness. But the book of Acts, our only continuous
authority for the period, contains two synchronisms with secular history
which can be dated with some pretence to exactness and constitute fixed
points by help of which a more or less complete chronology can be
constructed for at least the latter half of the apostolic age. These are
the death of Herod Agrippa I. (xii. 23) and the replacement of Felix by
Festus (xxiv. 27).
1. The death of Herod Agrippa I. This prince, son of Aristobulus and
grandson of Herod the Great, was made (i.) king over the tetrarchy which
had been Herod Philip's, "not many days" after the accession of Gaius,
16th of March A.D. 37; (ii.) ruler of the tetrarchy of Antipas, in A.D.
39-40; (iii.) ruler of the whole of Palestine (with Abilene), on the
accession of Claudius at the beginning of A.D. 41. Josephus's _Jewish
Wars_ and _Antiquities_ differ by one in the number of years they allot
to his reign over the tetrarchies (the former work says three years, the
latter four), but agree in the more important _datum_ that he reigned
three years more after the grant from Claudius, which would make the
latest limit of his death the spring of A.D. 44. The _Antiquities_ also
place his death in the seventh year of his reign, which would be A.D.
43-44. On the other hand, coins whose genuineness there is no apparent
reason to doubt are extant of Agrippa's ninth year; and this can only be
reconciled even with A.D. 44 by supposing that he commenced reckoning a
second year of his reign on Nisan 1, A.D. 37, so that his ninth would
run from Nisan 1, A.D. 44. On the balance of evidence the only year
which can possibly reconcile all the data appears to be A.D. 44 after
Nisan, so that it will have been at the Passover of that year that St
Peter's arrest and deliverance took place.
After Agrippa's death Judaea was once more governed by procurators, of
whom Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander ruled from A.D. 44 to 48; the
third, Cumanus, was appointed in A.D. 48; and the fourth, Felix, in A.D.
52. Under Tiberius Alexander, i.e. in A.D. 46 or 47, occurred the great
famine which Agabus had foretold, and in which the Antiochene church
sent help to that of Jerusalem by the ministry of Barnabas and Saul
(Acts xi. 30, xii. 25). Thus the earliest date at which the commencement
of the first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 4) can be placed is the
spring of A.D. 47. The journey extended from Salamis "throughout the
whole island" of Cyprus as far as Paphos, and on the mainland from
Pamphylia to Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, at each of
which places indications are given of a prolonged visit (xiii. 49, xiv.
3, 6, 7, 21). The same places were visited in reverse order on the
return journey, as far as Perga on the Pamphylian coast; but instead of
revisiting Cyprus the voyage to Syria was this time made direct. In
estimating the length of time occupied by this first missionary journey,
it must be remembered that a sea voyage could never have been
undertaken, and land travel only rarely, during the winter months, say
November to March; and as the amount of the work accomplished is
obviously more than could fall within the travelling season of a single
year, the winter of 47-48 must have been spent in the interior, and
return to the coast and to Syria made only some time before the end of
autumn A.D. 48. The succeeding winter, at least, was spent again at
Antioch of Syria (xiv. 28). The council at Jerusalem of Acts xv. will
fall at earliest in the spring of A.D. 49, and as only "certain days"
were spent at Antioch after it (xv. 36) the start on the second
missionary journey might have been made in the (late) summer of the same
year. The "confirmation" of the existing churches of Syria and Cilicia,
and of those of the first journey beginning with Derbe (xv. 41, xvi. 5),
cannot have been completed under several months, nor would the Apostle
have commenced the strictly missionary part of the journey in districts
not previously visited, before the opening of the travelling season of
A.D. 50. No delay was then made on the Asiatic side: it may still have
been in spring when St Paul crossed to Europe and began the course of
preaching at Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea and Athens which finally
brought him to Corinth. The stay of eighteen months at the last-named
place (xviii. 11) will naturally begin at the end of one travelling
season and end at the beginning of another, i.e. from the autumn of A.D.
50 to the spring of A.D. 52. From Corinth the Apostle went to Jerusalem
to "salute the church," and then again to Antioch in Syria, where he
stayed only for "a time" (xviii. 22), and soon left--on the third
missionary journey, as conventionally reckoned--proceeding "in order"
through the churches of the interior of Asia Minor. These journeys and
the intervening halts must have occupied seven or eight months, and it
must have been about the end of the year when St Paul established his
new headquarters at Ephesus. The stay there lasted between two and three
years (xix. 8, 10, xx, 31), and cannot have terminated before the spring
of A.D. 55. From Ephesus he went into Europe, and after "much teaching"
given to the churches of Macedonia (xx. 2), spent the three winter
months at Corinth, returning to Philippi in time for the Passover (xx.
3, 6) of A.D. 56. Pentecost of the same year was spent at Jerusalem, and
there St Paul was arrested, and kept in prison at Caesarea for two full
years, until Festus succeeded Felix as governor (xx. 16, xxiv. 27), an
event which, on this arrangement of the chronology of the missionary
journeys, would therefore fall in A.D. 58.
Care, however, must be taken to remember exactly what this line of
argument amounts to--what it can fairly be said to have proved, and what
it still leaves open. It has been shown, firstly, that the missionary
journeys cannot have commenced before the spring of A.D. 47, and,
secondly, that between their commencement and the end of the two years'
imprisonment at Caesarea not less than eleven full years must have
elapsed. Consequently A.D. 58 appears to be the earliest date possible
for the arrival of Festus. On the other hand, a later date for Festus is
not absolutely excluded. It is possible that the first missionary
journey should be placed in A.D. 48 instead of A.D. 47; and it is
possible, though not probable, that the missionary journeys should be
spread over one year more than has been suggested above. At any rate,
then, the alternative is open that every date given above, from A.D. 47
to A.D. 58, should be moved on one year, with the result of placing
Festus's arrival in A.D. 50.
It is now time to run to the direct evidence for the date of Festus's
arrival as procurator, in order to test by it the result already
tentatively obtained.
2. The replacement of Felix by Festus. This is the pivot date of St
Paul's later life, but unfortunately two schools of critics date it as
differently as A.D. 55 and A.D. 60 (or 61). The former are represented
by Harnack, the latter by Wieseler, whom Lightfoot follows. It can be
said confidently that the truth is between these two extremes (though in
what exact year it is not easy to say), as will be evident from a
consideration of the arguments urged, which in each case appear less to
prove one extreme than to disprove its opposite.
_Arguments for the Later Date, A.D. 60 or 61._--([alpha]) St Paul, at
the time of his arrest, two years before Felix's recall, addresses him
as "for many years past a judge for this nation" (Acts xxiv. 10, 27).
It is certain that Felix succeeded Cumanus in A.D. 52, for Tacitus
mentions Cumanus's recall under that year, Josephus immediately before
the notice of the completion of Claudius's twelfth year [January, A.D.
53], Eusebius probably under Claudius II, that is, between September
51 and September 52 (for the meaning of the regnal years in the
_Chronicle_ of Eusebius see the present writer's article in _Journal
of Theological Studies_, January 1900, pp. 188-192). It is argued that
"many years" cannot mean less than six or seven, so that St Paul must
have been speaking at earliest in 58 or 59, and Felix will have left
Judaea at earliest in 60 or 61. But this argument overlooks the fact
that Felix had been in some position which might properly be described
as that of "judge for this nation" before he became governor of all
Palestine in A.D. 52. In the words of Tacitus, Felix was at the time
of that appointment _iampridem Iudaeae impositus_ (_Annals_, xii. 54);
he certainly supposes Felix to have been already governor of Samaria,
and apparently of Judaea too, and only recognizes Cumanus as governor
of Galilee; and Josephus, though he says nothing of this, and treats
Cumanus as the sole procurator down to A.D. 52, implies that Felix had
been in some position where the Jewish authorities could judge of his
fitness when he tells us that the high priest Jonathan used to press
on Felix, as a reason for urging him to govern well, the fact he that
had asked for his appointment to the procuratorship (_Ant._ xx. viii.
5). If Felix had acted in some position of responsibility in Palestine
before 52 (perhaps for some time before), St Paul could well have
spoken of "many years" at least as early as 56 or 57.
([beta]) Josephus enumerates after the accession of Nero (October 54)
a long catalogue of events which all took place under the
procuratorship of Felix, including the revolt of "the Egyptian" which
was already "before these days" at the time of St Paul's arrest, two
years from the end of Felix's tenure. This suggests, no doubt, that
the Egyptian rebelled at earliest in 54-55, and makes it probable that
St Paul's arrest did not take place before (the Pentecost of) A.D. 56;
and it implies certainly that the main or most important part of
Felix's governorship fell, in Josephus's view, under Nero. But as two
years only of Felix's rule (52-54) fell under Claudius, this procedure
would be quite natural on Josephus's part if his recall were dated in
58 or 59, so that four or five years fell under Nero. And there is no
need at all to suppose that all the incidents which the historian
masses under his account of Felix were successive: events in Emesa,
Chalcis, Caesarea and Jerusalem may easily have been synchronous.
The arguments, then, brought forward in favour of A.D. 60 or 61 do not
do more than bring the rule of Felix down to 58 or 59.
_Arguments for an Early Date, A.D. 55 or 56._--([alpha]) Eusebius's
_Chronicle_ places the arrival of Festus in Nero 2, October 55-56, and
Eusebius's chronology of the procurators goes back probably through
Julius Africanus (himself a Palestinian) to contemporary authorities
like the _Jewish kings_ of Justus of Tiberias. But (i.) Nero 2 is
really September 56-September 57; (ii.) it is doubtful whether
Eusebius had any authority to depend on here other than Josephus, who
gives no precise year for Festus--Julius Africanus is hardly probable,
since we know that his chronicle was very jejune for the Christian
period--and if so, Eusebius had to find a year as best he could.[60]
([beta]) Felix, on his return to Rome, was prosecuted by the Jews for
misgovernment, but was acquitted through the influence of his brother
Pallas. Pallas had been minister and favourite of Claudius, but was
removed from office in the winter following Nero's accession, 54-55.
Felix must therefore have been tried at the very beginning of Nero's
reign. But this argument would make Felix's recall--if Festus came in
summer, as Acts xxv. 1, xxvii. 1, 9, seem to prove--to fall actually
under Claudius. And, in fact, it would be a mistake look upon Pallas's
retirement as a disgrace. He stipulated that no inquiry should be made
into his conduct in office, and was left for another seven years
unmolested in the enjoyment of the fortune he had amassed. There is,
therefore, every likelihood that he retained for some years enough
influence to shield his brother.
Of these arguments, then, the first, so far as it is valid, is an
argument for the summer, not of A.D. 55 or 56, but of A.D. 57 as that
of the recall, while the second will apply to any of the earlier years
of Nero's reign.
In the result, then, the arguments brought forward in favour of each
extreme fail to prove their case, but at the same time prove something
against the opposite view. Thus the point that Josephus catalogues the
events of Felix's procuratorship under Nero cannot be pressed to bring
down Felix's tenure as far as 60 or 61, but it does seem to exclude as
early a termination as 56, or even 57. Conversely, the influence of
Pallas at court need not be terminated by his ceasing to be minister
early in 55; but it would have been overshadowed not later than the year
60 by the influence of Poppaea, who in the summer of that year[61]
enabled the Jews to win their cause in the matter of the Temple wall,
and would certainly have supported them against Felix. Thus the choice
again appears to lie between the years 58 and 59 for the recall of Felix
and arrival of Festus.
If St Paul was arrested in 56 or 57, and appealed to Caesar on the
arrival of Festus in 58 or 59, then, as he reached Rome in the early
part of the year following, and remained there a prisoner for two full
years, we are brought down to the early spring of either 61 or 62 for
the close of the period recorded in the Acts. That after these two years
he was released and visited Spain in the west, and in the east Ephesus,
Macedonia, Crete, Troas, Miletus, and perhaps Achaea and Epirus, is
probable, in the one case, from the evidence of Romans xv. 28, Clem. _ad
Cor_. v. and the Muratorian canon, and, in the other, from the Pastoral
Epistles. These journeys certainly cannot have occupied less than two
years, and it is more natural to allow three for them, which takes us
down to 64-65.
Early evidence is unanimous in pointing to St Peter and St Paul as
victims of the persecution of Nero (Clem, _ad Cor_. v. vi., Dionysius of
Corinth _ap_. Eus. _H.E_. ii. 25, &c., combined with what we know from
Tacitus of the course of the persecution, and from Gaius of Rome, _ap_.
Eus. ii. 25, of the burial-places of the two apostles); and tradition
clearly distinguished the fierce outbreak at Rome that followed on the
fire of the city in July 64 from any permanent disabilities of the
Christians in the eye of the law which the persecution may have
initiated. There is, therefore, no reason at all to doubt that both
apostles were martyred in 64-65, and the date serves as a confirmation
of the chronology adopted above of the imprisonment, release and
subsequent journeys of St Paul.
Investigation, then, of that part of the book of Acts which follows the
death of Agrippa, recorded in chap. xii.--i.e. of that part of the
apostolic age which follows the year 44--has shown that apparent
difficulties can be to a large extent set aside, and that there is
nowhere room between A.D. 44 and 64 for doubt extending to more than a
single year. The first missionary journey may have begun in 47 or 48;
the arrival of Festus may have taken place in the summer of 58 or of 59;
the two years of the Roman imprisonment recorded in the last chapter of
Acts may have ended in the spring of 61 or 62; and the dates which fall
in between these extremes are liable to the same variation. The present
writer leans to the earlier alternative in each case, 47, 58, 61; but he
willingly concedes that the evidence, as he understands it, is not
inconsistent with the later alternative.
But if the events of A.D. 44-64 can thus be fixed with a fair
approximation to certainty, it is unfortunately otherwise with the
events of A.D. 29-44. Here we are dependent (i.) on general indications
given in the Acts; (ii.) on the evidence of the Epistle to the
Galatians, which, though in appearance more precise, can be and is
interpreted in very different ways.
(i.) The book of Acts is divided, by general summaries from time to time
inserted in the narrative, into six periods: i. 1-vi. 7, vi. 8-ix. 31,
ix. 32-xii. 24, xii. 25-xvi. 5, xvi. 6-xix. 20, xix. 2l-xxviii. 31. Of
these the three last extend respectively from the death of Herod to the
start for Europe in the second missionary journey (A.D. 44 to the spring
of 50 [51]), from the start for Europe to the end of the long stay at
Ephesus (A.D. 50 [51] to the spring of A.D. 55 [56]), and from the
departure from Ephesus to the end of the two years' captivity at Rome
(A.D. 55 [56] to the beginning of A.D. 61 [62]). It will be seen that
these periods are of more or less the same length, namely, six (or
seven) years, five years, six years. There is, therefore, some slight
presumption that the three earlier periods, which together cover about
fifteen years, were intended by so artistic a writer as St Luke to mark
each some similar lapse of time. If that were so, the preaching of the
apostles at Jerusalem and organization of the Church at the capital--the
preaching of the seven and the extension of the Church all over
Palestine--the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the commencement
of St Paul's work--might each occupy five years more or less, that is to
say, roughly, A.D. 29-34, 34-39, 39-44. The conversion of St Paul, which
falls within the second period, would on this arrangement fall somewhere
between five and ten years after the Crucifixion. Such conclusions are,
however, of course general in the extreme.
(ii.) A nearer attempt to date at least the chronology of St Paul's
earlier years as a Christian could be made by the help of the Galatian
Epistle if we could be sure from what point and to what point its
reckonings are made. The apostle tells us that on his conversion he
retired from Damascus into Arabia, and thence returned to Damascus; then
after three years (from his conversion) he went up to Jerusalem, but
stayed only a fortnight, and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Then after fourteen years (from his conversion? or from his last visit?)
he went up to Jerusalem again to confer with the elder apostles. Now, if
either of these visits to Jerusalem could be identified with any of the
visits whose dates have been approximately settled in the chronology of
A.D. 44-64, we should have a fixed point from which to argue back.
Unfortunately, even less agreement exists on this head than on the
question whether the fourteen years of the last-mentioned visit are to
be reckoned from the conversion or from the previous visit. Most
critics, indeed, are now agreed that the fourteen years are to be
calculated from the conversion; and most of them still hold that the
visit of Galatians ii. is the same as the council of Acts xv., partly,
no doubt, on the ground that the latter visit was too important and
decisive for St Paul to have omitted in giving even the most summary
description of his relations with the twelve. This ground would,
however, be cut away from their feet if it were possible to hold (with
J.V. Bartlet, _Apostolic Age_, 1900, and V. Weber, _Die Abfassung des
Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil_, Ravensburg, 1900) that the epistle
was actually written just before the council, i.e. in the winter of
48-49 [49-50]. In that case, of course, the two visits of Galatians i.
and ii. would be those of Acts ix. 26 and xi. 30. The fourteen years
reckoned back from the latter (c. A.D. 46) would bring us to A.D. 32-33
as the latest possible date for the conversion. With the older view, on
the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned from the council in A.D. 49
[50] would allow us to bring down the conversion to A.D. 36. The new
view clears away some manifest difficulties in the reconciliation of the
Epistle and the Acts, and the early date for Galatians in relation to
the other Pauline epistles is not so improbable as it may seem; but the
chronology still appears more satisfactory on the older view, which
enables the conversion to be placed at least three years later than on
the alternative theory. But it is clear that the last word has not been
said, and that definite results for this period cannot yet be looked
for.
To sum up: an attempt has been made, it is hoped with some success, to
provide a framework of history equipped with dates from the time of St
Peter's arrest by Herod Agrippa I. at the Passover of A.D. 44 down to
the martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul in the persecution of Nero, A.D.
64-65. For the previous period, on the other hand, from A.D. 29 to A.D.
44, it appeared impossible in our present state of knowledge to state
conclusions other than in the most general form.
AUTHORITIES.--The views stated in this article are in general (though
with some modifications) the same as those which the present writer
worked out with more fulness of detail in Hastings' _Dictionary of the
Bible_, i. (1898) 403-424. Of older books should be
mentioned:--Ideler, _Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen
Chronologie_ (2 vols., 1825); Wieseler, _Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters_ (1848); Lewin's _Fasti Sacri_ (1865). Important modern
contributions are to be found in Prof. (Sir) W.M. Ramsay's various
works, and in Harnack's _Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur
bis Eusebius_, i. 233-244. Mention should also be made of an article,
containing much useful astronomical and Talmudical information, by Mr
J.K. Fotheringham, "The Date of the Crucifixion," in the _Journal of
Philology_, xxix. 100-118 (1904). Mr Fotheringham is of opinion that
the evidence from Christian sources is too uncertain, and that the
statements of the Mishnah must be the starting-point of the inquiry:
taking then the phasis of the new moon as the true beginning of Nisan,
he concludes that Friday cannot have coincided with Nisan 14 in any
year, within the period A.D. 28-35, other than A.D. 33 (April 3rd).
But in one of the two empirical tests of the value of these
calculations that he was able to obtain (_loc. cit._ p. 106, n. 2),
the new moon was seen a day earlier than his rules allowed. This being
so, it would be premature to disregard the convergent lines of
historical evidence which tell against A.D. 33. Among the latest
German works may be cited the chapter on New Testament chronology in
the _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_ of Dr Oscar Holtzmann (2nd ed.,
1906), pp. 117-147: regarded as a collection of historical material
this deserves every praise, but the mass is undigested and the
treatment of the evidence arbitrary. As might be expected, Dr
Holtzmann's conclusions are clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly
excluded: the Crucifixion is dated on the 7th of April A.D. 30, and St
Paul's arrest (with the older writers) at Pentecost A.D. 58.
(C. H. T.)