Chapter VIII: Part 8

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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
were by the Jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not
divided by them into two till the 16th century, through Christian
influence.

[2] For a discussion of the word "Massoretes" see W. Bacher (_J.Q.R._
vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation
of these words was [Hebrew: masoreth] and [Hebrew: momarah].

[3] The actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known,
but it must in any case have been later than the time of Jerome, and
is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. Of the systems of
punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the Tiberian,
or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the Hebrew
Bible. The other system, the Babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly
found in certain Yemen MSS. For yet a third system of vocalization
see M. Friedlaender, _J.Q.R._, 1895, pp. 564 f., and P. Kahle in
_Z.A.T.W._ xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. Probably the idea of providing
vowel points was borrowed from the Syrians.

[4] This represents the Western tradition as opposed to the Eastern
text of ben Naphtali. For the standard copies such as the _Codex
Hillelis_ referred to by later writers see H.L. Strack, _Proleg.
Critica_, pp. 14 f.

[5] Cf. F.C. Burkitt, _Fragments of the Books of Kings according to
the Translation of Aquila_.

[6] The Talmudic story of the three MSS. preserved in the court of
the temple (_Sopherim_, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative
efforts of the rabbis in this direction.

[7] W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament and the Jewish Church_, pp. 69
f.

[8] For these _Tiqqune Sopherim_ or "corrections of the scribes" see
Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 308 f.; Strack, _Prolegomena Critica_, p.
87; Buhl, _Canon and Text of the Old Testament_, pp. 103 f. In the
_Mekilta_ (Exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. Less
important are the _Itture Sopherim_, or five passages in which the
scribes have omitted a _waw_ from the text.

[9] _Text of the Books of Samuel_, pp. xxxix. f.

[10] According to Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7. 8) the temple on Mt.
Gerizim was set up by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus,
i.e. about 332 B.C. It is possible that he is correct in placing the
building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in
connecting it with the secession of Manasseh, which, according to
Nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he
has confused Darius Codomannus with his predecessor, Darius Nothus.

[11] e.g. Ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; Num. xx. f.; Deut. xxvii. 4.

[12] 1 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now
Professor) F.C. Burkitt in _Fragments of the Books of Kings according
to the Translation of Aquila_ (Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13;
xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor in _Sayings of the
Jewish Fathers_ (2nd ed., 1897).

[13] On the question of Theodotion's date, Schuerer (_Geschichte des
juedischen Volkes_, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for his
_priority_ to Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him
before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila's version had been adopted
by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been
somewhat superfluous. Theodotion's work, he suggests, formed the
first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should
correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory
affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish
tradition.

[14] Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived,
the _Codex Chisianus_.

[15] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 51.

[16] Hence the name _Hexapla_. In some books, especially the
poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the
_Quinta_ and _Sexta_, but the _Octapla_, as the enlarged work was
called, was not apparently a distinct work. The _Tetrapla_, on the
other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first
two columns of the _Hexapla_.

[17] Lagarde's projected edition of the Lucianic recension was
unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2
Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott
represents a Lucianic text.

[18] Hastings's _Dict. of the Bible_, iii. pp. 54 ff.

[19] _The Old Testament in Greek_, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol.
i. pt. 1 (1906)

[20] His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by
Jerome in his commentary on _Daniel_.

[21] In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work;
some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his
later Latin version.

[22] See particularly B. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
(1887-1888); J. Wellhausen, _Die Kleinen Propheten_ (1892); B.I.
Duhm, _Jesaia_ (1892); T.K. Cheyne, _Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah_ (1895); K. Marti, _Jesaja_ (1900), and _Das Dodekapropheton_
(1904).

[23] _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (1881); _The Prophets
of Israel_ (1882).

[24] For details see an article in the _Zeitschr. fuer d. altest.
Wissenschaft_ for 1889, pp. 246-302, on "Alttestamentliche Studien in
Amerika," by G.F. Moore, who has himself since done much
distinguished and influential critical work.

[25] To avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is
necessary to refer here to the fact that Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. in
the 16th century B.C. mentions two Palestinian places named
respectively Jacobel and Josephel, and Sheshonk in the both century
B.C. mentions another called "The field of Abram." From these names
alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their
names from individuals or tribes.

[26] Or according to some MSS., 167.

[27] Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the
Flood, and lives for 600 years.

[28] Disregarding the "two years" of Gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11.

[29] Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40.

[30] See further Driver's essay in Hogarth's _Authority and
Archaeology_ (1899), pp. 32-34; or his _Book of Genesis_ (1904, 7th
ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff.

[31] 1 Petrie, _Hist. of Egypt_, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii.
(1905), p. 2.

[32] See Merenptah's account of the defeat of these invaders in
Maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in Breasted's _Ancient Records of
Egypt_ (Chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252.

[33] Namely, 40 years in the wilderness; Joshua and the elders
(Judges ii. 7), x years; Othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; Ehud (iii. 30),
80 years; Barak (v. 31), 40 years; Gideon (viii. 28), 40 years;
Jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76
years; Samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), 40 years;
Samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; Saul, y years; David, 40 years; and
Solomon's first four years--in all 440 + x + y years.

[34] Namely, Moses (in the wilderness), Joshua, Othniel, Ehud,
Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.

[35] The "300 years" of Judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum
of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the
successive periods of oppression and independence. The verse occurs
in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the
figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of
the present chronology of the book.

[36] The real Biblical date, Ussher in Gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60
years, because it is said in Acts vii. 4 that Abraham left Haran
_after_ his father Terah's death (Gen. xi. 32), and also (as
explained above) interpreting wrongly Ex. Xii. 40.

[37] Hilprecht's dates (_The Bab. Expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania_, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23,
24, 43, 44).

[38] Petrie's dates, _Hist. of Egypt_, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20,
30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360.
Other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the
dynasties prior to the 18th. Thus Breasted (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with Ed. Meyer in giving, for reasons
which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynasty
c. B.C. 3400, for the 4th dynasty c. B.C. 2900-2750, and for the rule
of the Hyksos c. B.C. 1680-1580; and in his _Researches in Sinai_,
1906, p. 175, Petrie proposes for Menes B.C. 5510, and for the 4th
dynasty B.C. 4731-4454. See EGYPT (_Chronology_).

[39] So Sayce, Rogers (_Hist. of Bab. and Ass._, 1900, i. 318 f.) and
others. The date rests upon a statement of Nabu-na'id's, that
Sargon's son, Naram-Sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. Lehmann
holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by
error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of
3200.

[40] The real Biblical date.

[41] Rogers, i. 373-375. Many monuments and inscriptions of other
kings in Babylonia, between 4000 and 2000 B.C., are also known.

[42] The lists of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings are not
continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the
discussion in Rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), Khammurabi, the sixth
king of the first Babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such
dates as 2376-2333 B.C. (Sayce) or 2285-2242 B.C. (Johns). But
inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty
was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved
that these dates are too high; see L.W. King, _Chronicles Concerning
Early Bab. Kings_ (1907), i. 93-110; and the article BABYLONIA,
_Chronology_. The data B.C. 2130-2088 is that adopted by
Thureau-Dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in the _Journal
des Savants_, 1908, p. 199; and by Ungnad in the _Orient.
Litt.-zeitung_, 1908, p. 13, and in Gressmann's _Altorientalische
Texte und Bilder zum A.T._ (1909), p. 103.

[43] King, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14.

[44] The dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by
Kautzsch in the table in his _Outline of the Hist. of the Literature
of the O.T._ (tr. by Taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also A.R.S.
Kennedy, "Samuel" in the _Century Bible_ (1906), p. 31. The dates
given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or
four years.

[45] The figures after a king's name indicate the number of years
assigned to his reign in the O.T. For Saul, see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, R.V.

[46] The date of Sheshonq depends on that fixed for Rehoboam. Petrie
places the accession of Rehoboam in 937 B.C.

[47] If these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages
assigned to Ahaz and Hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25
respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that Ahaz,
dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! The date 728
for Hezekiah's accession rests upon the assumption that of the two
inconsistent dates in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10
(which places the fall of Samaria in Hezekiah's 6th year) is correct;
but some scholars (as Wellhausen, Kamphausen, and Stade) suppose that
the date in ver. 10 (which places Sennacherib's invasion in
Hezekiah's 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly Hezekiah's
accession to 715. This removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty
referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz;
but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns
of the kings succeeding Ahaz.

[48] Breasted's dates for these three kings (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
p. 601) are: Shabaka 712-700; Shabataka 700-688; Taharqa 688-663.

[49] See George Smith, _The Assyrian Eponym Canon_ (1875), pp. 29
ff., 57 ff.; Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_
(transcriptions and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian
inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff.

[50] It may be explained here that the dates of the Assyrian and
Babylonian kings can be reduced to years B.C. by means of the
so-called "Canon of Ptolemy," which is a list of the Babylonian and
Persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from
Nabonassar, 747 B.C., to Alexander the Great, drawn up in the 2nd
century A.D. by the celebrated Egyptian mathematician and geographer
Ptolemy; as the dates B.C. of the Persian kings are known
independently, from Greek sources, the dates B.C. of the preceding
Babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of
the Canon. The recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully
established the accuracy of the Canon.

[51] Or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see Rost, _Die
Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-pilesers III._, 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with
the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi.

[52] This interval does not depend upon a mere list of Eponym years;
we have in the annals of Sargon and Sennacherib full particulars of
the events in all the intervening years.

[53] The date of this epistle is rather uncertain. Something depends
upon the vexed question as to the identity of the Galatian churches.
The epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at Ephesus
(c. A.D. 52-53). It is to be noted that the chronological grouping of
the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive;
resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than
to proximity in date.

[54] E.g. from the preface to the Acts: "Dionysius, bishop of the
Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes that
Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of Nero
on the same day." And again: "Some industrious critics have added (to
the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted at his first trial by
Nero .... This conjecture they make from the 2nd Ep. to Timothy...."

[55] The phrase is Chillingworth's (1637), who may be described as a
Broad High-churchman.

[56] J. Wellhausen, _Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien_ (1905), p.
57.

[57] If Luke used Josephus, as F.C. Burkitt and others believe, the
later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more
probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a
companion of St Paul.

[58] It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel
(Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets
in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah's
coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately
depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to
Chaldaean magi.

[59] If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a
private Jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of Jewish rules
in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the
evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with that
of St John.

[60] Dr C. Erbes (_Texte and Untersuchungen_, new series, iv. 1)
attempts to interpret the evidence of Eusebius in favour of the later
date for Festus as follows: Eusebius's date for Festus is to be found
in Nero 1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and
the Latin, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by
years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroneously
antedated Agrippa's reign by five years, commencing it with A.D. 45
instead of A.D. 50, his date for Festus is five years too early also,
and should be moved to Nero 6, A.D. 59-60. The whole of this theory
appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare's nest: see
_Journal of Theological Studies_ (October 1901), pp. 120-123.

[61] This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay, "A
Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology," _Expositor_, August
1900.

BIBLE, ENGLISH. The history of the vernacular Bible of the English race resolves itself into two distinctly marked periods--the one being that of Manuscript Bibles, which were direct translations from the Latin Vulgate, the other that of Printed Bibles, which were, more or less completely, translations from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments.

Caedmon.

1. _The Manuscript Bible._--The first essays in Biblical translation, or rather paraphrasing, assumed in English, as in many other languages, a poetical form. Even in the 7th century, according to the testimony of Bede (_Hist. Eccl._ iv. 24), Caedmon sang "de creatione mundi et origine humani generis, et tota Genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Aegypto et ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis sacrae Scripturae historiis, de incarnatione Dominica, passione, resurrectione et ascensione in coelum, de Spiritus Sancti adventu, et apostolorum doctrina." It is, however, doubtful whether any of the poetry which has been ascribed to him can claim to be regarded as his genuine work.

Bede.

The first prose rendering of any part of the Bible--and with these we are mainly concerned in the present inquiry--originated in all probability in the 8th century, when Bede, the eminent scholar and churchman, translated the first portion (chs. i.-vi. 9) of the Gospel of St John into the vernacular, but no part of this rendering is extant. His pupil Cuthberht recorded this fact in a letter to a fellow-student, Cuthwine: "a capite sancti evangelii Johannis usque ad eum locum in quo dicitur, 'sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?' in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit" (Mayor and Lumby, _Bedae Hist. Eccl._ p. 178).

9th and 10th century glosses.

The 9th century is characterized by _interlinear glosses on the Book of Psalms_, and towards its close by a few attempts at independent translation. Of these "glossed Psalters" twelve MSS. are known to exist, and they may be ranged into two groups according to the Latin text they represent. The _Roman Psalter_ is glossed in the following MSS.: (1) Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (_Vespasian Psalter_); (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ. Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 17. 1 (_Eadwine's Psalter_); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. The _Gallican Psalter_ in the following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman's text); (2) Cotton Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 48; (5) Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150.[1]

The oldest and most important of these MSS. is the so-called _Vespasian Psalter_, which was written in Mercia in the first half of the 9th century. It was in all probability the original from which all the above-mentioned Old English glosses were derived, though in several instances changes and modifications were introduced by successive scribes. The first verse of Psalm c. (Vulg. xcix. 2) may serve as a specimen of these glosses.

_Roman Text._ _Gallican Text._

MS. Vespasian. A. 1. MS. Stowe. 2.

Wynsumiaeth gode, all eorethe Drymaeth drihtne, eall eorethe;
ethiowiad Dryhtne in blisse; etheowiaeth drihtne on blisse;
ingaeth in gesihethe his in infaraeth on gesyhethe hys
wynsumnisse. on bliethnysse.

_Jubilate Deo, omnis terra; _Jubilate Domino, omnis terra;
servite Domino in laetitia; Servite Domino in laetitia;
intrate in conspectu eius in introite in conspectu eius
exultatione._ in exultatione._