|
CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
$ 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 coordinately 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 A. D.
$ I. Chronology of the Life of Jesus.$
1. Birth of Jesus:
Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great
(Matthew
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 (Luke
2:1). 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 (Matthew
2:1). John the Baptist was six months older than
Jesus (Luke
1:36) and he was born in the days of Herod (Luke
1:5; compare Luke
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 Schurer,
GJV3, I, 358, note 11) 34 years (Ant , XVII, xviii, 1;
BJ, I, xxxiii, 7-8; compare Schurer, 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; Schurer, op. cit.,
I, 448, note 46 and 416, note 167). There are coins of
Antipas from his 43rd year (Madden, Coins of the Jews,
121). The genuineness of a coin from the 44th year is
questioned by Schurer but accepted by Madden. The coin
from the 45th year is most probably spurious (Schurer,
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 Luke
2:1, 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; Schurer, Theol. Ztg, 1907, 683; 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 (Acts
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 A
rchelaus, 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; Ramsay, Was
Christ Born at Beth.1, 178--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 t he 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, 148). Yet the
geographical work of Agrippa and the preparation of a
breviarium totius imperil 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,
Rom. Staatsverwaltung, II, 211; 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., 34) 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; 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, 207; Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka, I, 444)
and it is not improbable that this procedure was
introduced by Augustus (Schurer, 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., 158), 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, 80) 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., 320; Sanclemente,
op. cit., 426 passim; Ramsay, op. cit., 238). It has
also been suggested by Bour (L'Inscription de Quirinius,
48) 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., 172). Zahn (Neue kirch. Zeitschr.,
1893, IV, 633), followed by Spitta (Zeitschr. f. d.
neutest. Wiss., 1906, VII, 293), 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 (Matthew
2:1; Luke
1:5; 2:1);
by the differentiation of the census in Luke
2:1 f and Acts
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, 1 and XVII, iv, 5;
XVIII, i, 2; ii, 1) as due to the separation by Josephus
of parallel accounts of the same events in his sources
(Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1909, X, 307)--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 (Matthew
2:2; compare Matthew
2:7,9,16; Macrobius, Sat., II, 4; Sanclemente, op.
cit., 456; Ramsay, op. cit., 215) 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, 400).
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;
BJ, I, xxxiii, 1).
(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 (Schurer, 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 (Luke
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 (Matthew
3:1; Mark
1:1; Luke
3:1; compare of in John
1:19; John
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 fro m the death 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 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; 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 (John
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, I that it was the 15th year;
compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 369, 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 (Matthew
11:2-19; Luke
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 (Matthew
14:3-12; Mark
6:14-29; Luke
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 (Schurer, 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 (Matthew
12:1; Mark
2:23; Luke
6:1) and the condition of the grass when the Five
Thousand were fed (Matthew
14:15; Mark
6:39; Luke
9:12) points to the springtime, the Passion Passover
marking the return of still another springtime (compare
also Luke
13:7; Matthew
23:37). But the Gospel of John mentions explicitly
three Passovers (John
2:23; 6:4;
11:55)
and probably implies a fourth (John
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 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;
Zahn, Kom., IV, 708). The indications of time from John
6:4--the Passover when the Five Thousand were fed in
Galilee--to John
11:55--the Passion Passover--are definite and clear
(John
7:2; 10:22).
But the interval between the first Passover (John
2:23) and the Galilean Passover (John
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 (John
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 John
4:35 indicates the lapse of about nine months since
the Passover of John
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 John
5:1 with Purim, even if the article be not genuine,
is extremely improbable; and if so, a Passover must have
intervened between John
2:23 and John
6:4, making the ministry of Jesus extend over a
period of three years and the months which preceded the
Passover of John
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 Luke
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
(Matthew
27:2; Mark
15:1; Luke
23:1; John
18:29; John
19:1; Acts
3:13; 4:27;
13:28;
1 Timothy
6:13; Tac. Ann. xv.44), Caiaphas being the high
priest (Matthew
26:3,17; John
11:49; 18:13)
and Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Luke
23:7). Pilate was procurator from 779/26 to 789/36
(Ant., XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; compare Schurer, op. cit., I,
487, note 141); Caiaphas was high priest from 771/18 to
789/36 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2; iv, 3; compare Schurer, 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 (Matthew
27:62; Mark
15:42; Luke
23:54; John
19:14,31,42) 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 (Matthew
26:17; Mark
14:12; Luke
22:7). But the Fourth Gospel is thought by many to
represent the paschal meal as still uneaten when Jesus
suffered (John
18:28; compare John
13:29); and it is held that the Synoptic Gospels
also contain traces of this view (Matthew
26:5; Mark
14:2; 15:21;
Luke
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, 130; Fotheringham, Jour. of Theol.
Studies, October, 1910, 120), but the empirical
character of the Jewish calendar renders the result of
such calculations uncertain (Schurer, op. cit., I, 749
f). In the year 783/30 Friday, Nican 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.
Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen 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, Wa s 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 Ac 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 (Acts
9:3; Acts
22:5; Acts
26:12; Galatians
1:17). After a brief stay in that city (Acts
9:19) he went to Arabia and then came again to
Damascus (Galatians
1:17). When he left Damascus the second time, he
returned to Jerusalem after an absence of three years
(Galatians
1:18). The flight of Paul from Damascus (Acts
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 (Acts
9:23 f), guarded t he city to seize him (2 Corinthians
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 (Schurer, 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, 34). 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 (Galatians
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 (Acts
12:23; compare Acts
12:3,19). 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; 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 (Schurer, op. cit., 560, note 40;
Madden, op . cit., 132).
3. Famine under Claudius:
The prophecy of a famine and its fulfillment under
Claudius (Acts
11:28) are associated in Ac with the death of Herod
Agrippa I (Acts
11:30; 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 (Schurer,
op. cit., I, 567, note 8).
4. Sergius Paulus:
When Paul visited Cyprus with Barnabas the island was
administered by Sergius Paulus (Acts
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 (epi
Palilou (anth)upatou). 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 (Acts
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
(Schurer, op. cit., III, 62, note 92).
6. Gallio:
During Paul's first sojourn in Corinth the apostle
was brought before the proconsul Gallio (Acts
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; 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; Ramsay, The Expositor., 1909, I, 467; Princeton
Theological Review, 1911, 290; 1912, 139; Deissmann,
Paulus, 1911, 159-177; Lietzmann, Zeitschrift fur
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 (Acts
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; 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;
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; Ramsay, Pauline and
Other Studies, 1906, 350). There is evidence however in
Acts
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 (Acts
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, 1), 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, 1-8, 8; 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. (Acts
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, 5);
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 Schurer, op. cit., I, 577, 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, 345).
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 Ac would terminate in 63 AD (Acts
28:30). Paul's arrest in Jerusalem 2 years before
the accession of Festus (Acts
24:27) would fall in the spring of 58 AD. Previous
to this Paul had spent 3 months in Corinth (Acts
20:3) and 3 years in Ephesus (Acts
20:31; compare Acts
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 (Acts
18:23), and as Paul spent 18 months at Corinth (Acts
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 (Acts
11:30; 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 (1 Thessalonians
1:1; 3:1,2,6;
2 Thessalonians
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 (Galatians
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 (Philemon
1:22) and to the Philippians (Philippians
2:24; compare Philippians
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 (Romans
15:28), and when he bade farewell to the Ephesian
elders at Miletus (Acts
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 Ac 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 Ac and Galatians nor
with Paul's silence in Rom.
11. Death of Peter:
But 1Pe was probably written from Rome (1 Peter
5:13; compare Euseb., HE, ii.15, 2) and the
testimony to Peter's martyrdom (implied in John
21:18 f) under Nero in Rome by crucifixion (Tert.,
De praes. haer., xxxvi; compare 1 Clem 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, under the word "Simon Peter," especially col.
458; on the other hand compare Zahn, Einleitung3, II,
17, English translation, II, 158.)
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 (Acts
15:13; Galatians
2:9; compare Galatians
1:19; 2:12)
and later when Paul was arrested he seems still to have
occupied this position (Acts
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, 3; 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, 2), 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 2 Peter
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 Luke
21:21; Acts
11:28), and the silence of Ac 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 Luke
10:7; 1 Timothy
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 Revelation
1:1,4,9; 22:8;
John
21:22,23,14; 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,
56, 423), the Codex Coislinianus 305 of Georgius
Hamartolus. This tradition, it is thought, finds
confirmation in Mark
10:35-40; Matthew
20:20-23 (compare Bousset, Theologische Rundschau,.
1905, 225, 277). During the closing years of his life
John wrote the Revelation, the Fourth Gospel and the
three Epistles.
15. Summary of Dates:
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).
W. P. Armstrong |
Printer friendly
version
HOME 
TOP