James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 90 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 90 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

54-55 and escaped punishment at this time through the interces-
sion of his brother Pallas. Pallas was himself charged with high
treason the following year and fell from Imperial favour. Felix
continued until 60, and meantime added to the grievances of the
Jews, and yet entrenched himself in favour with sundry leaders
because of his bold measures against certain classes of criminals.
In 60, however, he was finally brought to trial, and in the absence
of the powerful intercession of his brother was at this time de-
posed and succeeded by Festus. Cf. also artt. FELIX, FESTUB.

as do not of themselves permit of clear determina-
tion, but can be deduced from general considera-
tions ; and when so deduced confirm and elucidate
the chronology as a whole.

1. The famine under Claudius. Josephus, in
connexion with his account of Agrippa's death
(Ant. xx. ii. 1, 5, v. 2), tells how Helena, queen
of Adiabene, and her son Izates were converted to
Judaism and made a visit to Jerusalem during a
famine which both she and her son helped to re-
lieve by procuring provisions at great expense.
According to Ac 1 1 38 - 30 a famine occurred ' through-
out all the world,' but presumably it was especially
severe in Judaea, for it was to this point that the
brethren 'determined to send relief.' This relief
came ' by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.' The
death of Herod must have taken place during this
visit of Paul and Barnabas (Ac 12 2S ) ; else why




should it appear after the account of the mission
of the Apostles to Judaea and before their return
from Jerusalem ? This is a natural inference ; but
it meets with a difficulty in the omission of all
mention of this visit in Gal I 17 , where St. Paul
presumably gives an exhaustive statement of all
his visits to Jerusalem. The difficulty is primarily
one of harmony between Gal. and Acts. Yet it
indirectly affects the chronological problem. By
way of explanation it may be said that the enumer-
ation of the visits in Gal I 17 was meant to be ex-
haustive, not absolutely but relatively to the possi-
bility of St. Paul's meeting the ' pillar ' apostles
at Jerusalem. If it were known that during the
famine they were absent from the city, St. Paul
might very well fail to allude to a visit at that

But even with the visit fixed during the distress
of the famine, which is in general associated with
the time of Herod's death, it still remains doubtful
whether this famine took place in 44. Since both
Josephus and the author of Acts introduce the
whole transaction (Ant. XX. ii. 1 ; Ac 12 1 ) with
the general formula ' about that time,' the famine
may very well have occurred as late as 45 or 46.

2. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Ac 18 2 ;
also Suet. Claud. 25). This cannot be the action
alluded to by Dio Cassius (Ix. 6), who expressly
says that the Emperor, deeming it unwise to ex-
clude the Jews from the city, commanded them
not to hold meetings together, although he per-
mitted them to retain their ancestral customs
(irdrpios /Sios). The decree, therefore, must be a
later one unmentioned by the secular historians
(except Suetonius, who assigns no date to it). It is
possible, in spite of the generally favourable attitude
of Claudius towards Agrippa H. in the years be-
tween 51 and 54, that he saw the necessity of
checking the growing power of the Jewish com-
munity in the capital, and decreed their exclusion
from the city.

3. Sergius Paulas (Ac IS 7 * 18 ). The data for the
fixing of Sergius Paulus in a scheme of NT chron-
ology are as follows : (1) The name occurs in in-
scriptions. Of these one was first published by
L. Palma di Cesnola (Salaminia, 1887, p. 256) and
afterwards carefully edited by D. G. Hogarth in
Devia Cypria, 1889, p. 1 14. It ends with the words
Ti/onjTei5(ras rty /SouAV [5t]d tf-affr&v tirl ILati\ov [dv6~]v-
a-drov. Palseographically the inscription is judged
to belong to the 1st century. The second inscrip-
tion is one found in the city of Home naming
L. Sergius Paulus as one of the curatores riparum
et alvei Tiberis during the reign of Claudius (GIL
vi. 31545). (2) The government of Cyprus was by
proconsuls. The island came under Roman control
before the establishment of the Empire, but was
defined as a 'senatorial' province in 22 B.C. under
Augustus (Dio Cass. liii. 12. 7 ; liv. 4. 1). Upon
these data, however, while it is very clear that
about A.D. 50 L. Sergius Paulus (who had already
been a high officer in Rome) was holding the pro-
consulship of Cyprus, no nearer approach to the
precise date either of the beginning or the end
of his rule can be made. See also art. SERGIUS

4. Agrippa u. and Drusilla. Agrippa II., the
son of Agrippa I., was born in A.D. 28. According
to Photius (Bibl. 33) he died in 100. At the time
of his father's death he was considered too young
for the responsibilities of the large kingdom, which
was therefore again put under the care of procu-
rators. But on the death of his uncle in the eighth
year of Claudius (48) he was given the government
('kingdom') of Chalcis (Ant. XX. v. 2, BJu. xii.
1). Within four years, however, Claudius, ' when
he had already completed the twelfth year of his
reign' (Ant. XX. vii. 1), transferred him from the

kingdom of Chalcis to the rule of a greater realm
consisting of the tetrarchy of his great-uncle
Philip, of the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and of that
portion of Abilene which had been governed
by Varus (BJ II. xii. 8). When Nero succeeded
Claudius, he enlarged this kingdom by the addition
of considerable tracts of Galilee and Pereea, but
the dates of these larger additions are not clearly
given. More important than the growth of
Agrippa's power is his giving of his sister in mar-
riage to Azizus, whom not long after (per oi> iroXtiv
Xp6vov) she left in order to marry the Roman procu-
rator Felix. These events cannot be fixed earlier
than 54 or 55. The incidents of Ac 20 1B 24 1 - w
are therefore posterior to this time. Cf. art.

5. Death of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome.
The belief that the martyrdom of the two apostles
took place in Rome in one of the last years of
Nero's reign is based on tradition. Epiphanius
places it in the 12th year of Nero, Euthalius in
the 13th, Jerome in the 14th. Dionysius of Corinth
associates the death of St. Peter and St. Paul in
the phrase /card rbv airrbv Kaip6v ('about the same
time'). No positive result for precise chronology
is gained by these data. The general conclusion,
however, that St. Paul's death took place after 64
is borne out by the necessity for finding a place in
his life later than the Roman imprisonment for the
composition of the Pastoral Epistles ; and, although
this necessity is not admitted on all sides, the pre-
dominance of view among critics seems to recognize
it. The death of the two apostles may thus be
approximately placed between the years 65 and 68.
See artt. PAUL, PETER.

6. The Passover at Philippi (Ac 20 4 ' 7 ). W. M.
Ramsay, upon the basis of some very precarious
data (see his St. Paul, p. 289 ff; also Turner's
discussion, HDB i. 419 f.), claims the fixed date 57
for St. Paul's fifth and last recorded visit to Jeru-
salem, which was also the occasion of his arrest.
The argument is briefly as follows. The Apostle
celebrated the Lord's Supper at Troas on Sunday
night (v. 7 ). If so, he must have left Philippi on
Friday. Friday was the day after the Passover,
which was therefore observed on Thursday that
year. But the 14th Nisan (Passover Day) fell on
Thursday in the year 57, not in 56 or 58. The un-
certain factors in the computation are : (1) the ex-
act day of the week for the Passover ; concerning
this there is always room for dispute, owing to
the well-known but unscientific method of the
Jews in determining the beginning of the month
Nisan ; (2) the interval between the Passover and
St. Paul's departure from Philippi, which, on
Ramsay's assumption, is a single night (but the
text does not exclude a longer interval) ; (3) the
time M'hen the Lord's Supper was observed at
Troas, which is stated to have been ' the first of
the week ' (rg iuq. r&v ffafipartav) (but this may be
construed as Saturday evening towards Sunday).
Any one of these uncertainties vitiates the con-
clusion arrived at. Yet on the whole the conclu-
sion corroborates the date 59, and is not necessarily
inconsistent with 60 for the removal of St. Paul to

curators of Judaea. (1) Pontius Pilate, it seems
to be universally agreed, was appointed procurator
of Judsea in 26, and held the office until 36, being
then deposed and sent to Rome by Vitellius, after
'ten years in Judaea' (A nt. xvni. iv. 2). He ar-
rived in Rome just after the death of Tiberius.

(2) The year following the deposition of Pilate,
the Imperial authority of Rome was represented
in Judsea by Marcellus, a friend and deputy of
Vitellius. He is nowhere given the title of 'pro-
curator,' and Josephus is careful to call him a




'curator' (^jrt/ieXijnJj, Ant. XVIII. iv. 2). Nor had
he apparently come into sufficient prominence
through any action to warrant his being mentioned
in the succession.

(3) From 37-41 the procurator was a certain
Marullus (Ant. XVlil. vi. 10) who, like Marcellus,
does not seem to have done anything official worthy
of note.

(4) From 41 to 44 Agrippa I., as king on approxi-
mately the level of independence enjoyed by his
grandfather Herod the Great, superseded all pro-
curators. At his death, according to Josepnus,
Cuspius Fadus was appointed, thus resuming the
line broken for three years (Ant. XIX. ix. 2, XX. v.
1, BJ II. xi. 6 ; Tacit. Hist. v. 9). The term of
office of Fadus was probably between two and
three years.

(5) Tiberius Alexander, a renegade Jew, who
was rewarded for his apostasy by appointment to
various offices, culminating in the procuratorship,
probably reached Palestine in 46 (Jos. Ant. XX. v.
2; BJ II. xi. 6, xv. 1, xviii. 7f., IV. x. 6, VI. iv.
3 ; Tacit. Ann. xv. 28, Hist. i. 11, ii. 74, 79 ; Suet.
Vespas. 6).

(6) Ventidius Cumanus was sent to succeed
Alexander in 48. According to Tacitus (Ann. xii.
54), he was placed over Galilee only, while Felix
was assigned rule over Samaria. They were both
involved in various cruelties practised on the
natives, and both were accused before Quadratus,
who was commissioned to examine into the affair.
But the commissioner quietly exculpated Felix,
and even gave him a place on the court of investi-
gation and judgment. Cumanus was condemned
and removed. Such a joint procuratorship, how-
ever, is excluded by Josephus' explicit statements
(Ant. XX. vi. 2, vii. 1). According to these,
Cumanus alone was the procurator and alone
responsible. Felix was sent by Claudius from
Rome to succeed him at the express request of
Jonathan, the high priest. The contradiction is
probably due to some confusion on the part of
Tacitus. The date of the removal of Cumanus
may be approximately fixed as 52.

(7) Antonius Felix immediately succeeded Cuma-
nus. Soon after his arrival in Palestine, he saw
and was enamoured of Drusilla, the sister of Herod
Agrippa II., and enticed her to leave her husband,
Azizus king of Emesa, and marry himself. This
he succeeded in accomplishing through the aid of
a magician from Cyprus, bearing the name of
Simon. Drusilla was born in 38, being six years
of age at the time of her father's death (44), and
his youngest child. She was therefore at this
time 14 or 15 years old. The procuratorship of
Felix was characterized by arbitrariness and greed.
Though he did much to punish lawlessness, he
also provoked complaints on account of which he
was recalled in 60. See above, III. 4 and art. FELIX.

(8) Porcius Festus. The reasons which fix the
beginning of the procuratorship of Festus in 60
have been given above. The time of the year
when he arrived is determined as the summer
season (Ac 25 1 ). There are clearer data for fixing
the end of his term. From BJ VI. v. 3 we learn
that Albinus his successor was in Jerusalem at
the Feast of Tabernacles (?), four years before the
outbreak of the great war and seven years and
five months before the capture of Jerusalem or,
in other words, the Feast of Tabernacles of the
year 62. Allowing for sufficient time for the
next procurator to assume the reins of government
at Csesarea, for a similar interval for his appoint-
ment, for the journey from Rome and arrival in
Palestine, the death of Festus, which took place
Avhile he was still in office in Palestine, must be
dated very early in the summer or late in the
spring of 62.

(9) Albinus. The date of the death of Porcius
Festus determines also that of the accession of
Albinus (BJ VI. v. 3). W. M. Ramsay (Expositor,
6th ser., ii. [1900] 81-105), in harmony with his
theory that the death of Festus occurred in the
autumn of 60, dates the arrival of Albinus in May
or June 61. But the computation rests on a series
of obscure and questionable considerations. Albinus
was recalled in 64, after more than two years of

(10) Gessius Florus was the last of the procu-
rators. According to Josephus (Ant. XX. xi. 1), it
was in his second year that the Jewish War broke
out. Since this is fixed at 66 (BJ II. xiv. 4), he
must have entered upon his office in 64. The end
of his administration was also the end of the
method of governing Judaea by procurators. For
the events which follow the year 66 and culminate
in the catastrophe of 70 he is held responsible.

We thus obtain the following list of procurators
of Judaea, with dates of their administration :

Pilate . . .
(Marcellus) . .
Marullus . .
Cuspius Fadus
Tiberius Alexander




Ventidius Cumanus . 48-52

Antonius Felix . . 52-60

Porcius Festua . . 60-62

Albinus .... 62-64

Gessius Florus . 64-70

2. The Herodian kings. When Jesus Christ was
crucified, Herod Antipas and Herod Philip were
reigning simultaneously in accordance with the
testamentary provision of their father, Herod the
Great. Antipas held Galilee and Persea ; Philip
ruled over the region beyond Jordan. Both bore
the title of tetrarch. Philip died in 34 without
a successor. In 37 his place was filled by the
appointment of his nephew, the son of Aristobulus
and brother of Herodias, Herod Agrippa I., and
this was done by Caligula, whom Agrippa had
befriended. He did not, however, take, active
possession of his kingdom until 39. He lived for
the most part in Rome, and engaged in intrigues
with the politicians and secured the deposition and
banishment of Antipas. When the tetrarchy of
Antipas was added to his (BJ II. ix. 6), he took
his place in Jewish national affairs, and by assist-
ing Claudius to the Imperial throne after the
assassination of Caligula, he so ingratiated himself
into the favour of the new Emperor that the
province of Judaea was added to his domains immedi-
ately on the accession of Claudius (A.D. 41). Thus
he came to unite the different sections of the
kingdom of his grandfather, Herod the Great (BJ
II. xi. 5 f . ). He issued coins from which it appears
that he must have reigned until 44 or 45. These
dates, given for the most part by Josephus, are
corroborated by the incidental coincidence of the
order of events in Acts. The death of Herod is
recited in Ac 12. All that precedes must be dated
before 44 ; all that follows, after that year. The
appearance of Cornelius as the representative
Roman military authority in Caesarea is probably
prior to the elevation of Agrippa to the standing
of Herod the Great (41).

When Agrippa I. died, his son, Herod Agrippa II.
was deemed too young to succeed him, but in 49
he was given a portion of his father's kingdom
(Chalcis), held by his uncle Herod. In 53 he
exchanged this kingdom for another, made up of
portions of Galilee and Persea, and thus reigned
to his death in 100.

The following table exhibits the Herodian rulers
during the Apostolic Age :

Antipas, A.D. 4-39 Galilee and Persea.

Philip, A.D. 4-34 beyond Jordan.

Agrippa I., A.D. 37, as tetrarch ; 39(41)-44, as king 1 .

Agrippa n., A.D. 49-63 (of Chalcis),-100 (of Galilee, Persea, etc.).

VI. PA ULINE DATES. The pre-eminence of St.
Paul in the Apostolic Age and the leading part he
took in the development of the earliest Church




have furnished the ground for the preservation, in
his own Epistles and in the Book of Acts, of a
double series of data regarding his work. These
determine not only the general order of the facts
of his ministry, but also many of the minuter
details of time and place. The accuracy of the
author of Acts has been questioned, especially on
matters of remoter interest ; but his reports or the
movements of St. Paul are coming to be more and
more recognized as drawn from personal knowledge
of, companionship with, and participation in, the
Apostle s ministry.*

A fixed starting-point for Pauline chronology is
given in the year of the accession of Festus. This
took place, as shown above, in A.D. 60. But,
according to Ac 24 W , St. Paul was detained by
Felix a prisoner at Csesarea for two years. His
arrest must, therefore, have taken place in 58
(possibly as early as May). But he left Philippi
40 days earlier, late in March or about the begin-
ning of April ('after the days of unleavened
bread'). From Philippi his course is next trace-
able backward to Corinth. His presence at Philippi
was only incidental, his purpose being to journey
into Syria (Ac 20 3 ). At Corinth he had spent three
months, arriving there in January of the year 58.
This visit to Corinth immediately followed the
memorable and troublous residence at Ephesus.
From a comparison of 1 Co 16 5 " 9 and 2 Co 2 12t with
2 Co 7 5 it may be gathered that the continuation
of the whole journey from Ephesus to Corinth
through Macedonia was prolonged by circumstances
not included in the record. A fair allowance for
these yields the approximate estimate of nine
months earlier, or the spring of 57, for the end of
the stay at Ephesus. This stay, however, lasted
nearly three full years.f This leads to the year
54. The departure from Antioch in the spring or
summer of 54 marks the beginning of the third
missionary journey.

The interval between the second and third
missionary journeys is not given definitely. It in-
cluded some sort of a visit to the churches in Gal-
atia and Phrygia, and a sojourn of some length
in Antioch (Ac 18 23 ' after he had spent some time
there'). It is probable that this stay at Antioch
was as long as one year ; but, assuming that it
was not, there is still the period of three years to
be assigned to the second missionary journey.
One year and six months were probably consumed
in the earlier part of the journey. This would
bring the beginning of the journey to the spring
of 51 ; or, if the sojourn at Antioch had occupied
a whole year, to 50.

The second missionary journey was immediately
preceded by the Apostolic Conference at Jerusalem
on the question of the admission of the Gentile
converts without the rite of circumcision (Ac 15).
The interval between the Conference, from which
St. Paul proceeded immediately to Antioch, and
the beginning of the journey, was very brief and
spent at Antioch. The Conference itself would
thus appear to have been held in 49-50.

The chronology of the years between the con-
version of the Apostle and the Conference at Jeru-
salem may now be approached from another point
of view. The item furnished by the allusion to the

*The researches of W. M. Ramsay and A. Harnack have
contributed much toward this result (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul,
1895, Luke the Physician, 1908 ; Harnack, Luke the Physician,
1907, The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, The Date of the Acts and of
the Synoptic Gospels, 1911).

t Although in Ac 198 the period of his active work in the
synagogue is said to be three months and in Ac 19N> his teach-
ing in the school of Tyrannus two years, the further detail in
AolQ^Cfor a season') would tend to confirm the conclusion
reached here that the ' three years ' of Ac 2031, though possibly
reckoned in the Hebrew sense of ' parts of three,' were in real-
ity more nearly three entire years than a whole year with mere
fragments of the year preceding and the year following.

' ethnarch of Aretas' at Damascus (2 Co 11 s2 ; cf.
above) fixes as the latest limit for the conversion
of St. Paul the year 36, but admits of several
years' latitude for the earlier limit. In determin-
ing this earlier limit much depends on the identi-
fication of the journey to Jerusalem alluded to in
Gal 2 lff -. Two questions must be answered here :

(1) When did the 14 years begin at the conversion
or after the three years mentioned in Gal I 18 ?

(2) Are these full years in each case, or are
they reckoned after the Hebrew plan, with parts
of years at the beginning and end counted in the
number as separate years ? The answers to these
questions yield respectively longer or shorter
periods between the conversion and second visit of
the Apostle to Jerusalem. The longest period ad-
missible is 17 years ; the shortest, 12. The smaller
of these figures is excluded almost certainly by
the datum found in connexion with the control of
Damascus by Aretas, which does not admit of a
later date for the conversion than 36. The longer
period necessitates the very early date of 32 or 33
for the conversion. This is favoured by W. M.
Eamsay, who fixes the conversion in 33. But
there are intermediate possibilities. The interval
may have been 13, 14, or 15 years ; which would
bring the conversion in any one of the years 34-36,
with the probability in favour of the earlier dates.

The Conference at Jerusalem arose out of the
conditions produced by St. Paul's preaching during
the first missionary journey. This is shown by
the place given it by St. Luke, and also by the
fact that it was during this journey that the
preaching of the gospel met with large success
among the Gentiles, and that a definite movement
to preach to the Gentiles independently of the
Jews was inaugurated (Ac 13 46 14 27 ). From these
considerations it would be natural to draw the
inference that no very long interval separates the
end of the journey from the Conference. In spite,
therefore, of ' the long time ' alluded to in Ac 14 28 ,
it is safe to fix the limits of the first missionary
journey at 47-48.

Between the date of the conversion of St. Paul
and the beginning of the first missionary journey
it is possible to identify the date of one more in-
cident, viz. the visit to Jerusalem, with the aid
in relief of the famine. Computations independent
of the life of St. Paul lead to the placing of this
date in the year 45-46 (cf. IV. 1). For reasons
given in rehearsing these computations it is im-
possible to identify this visit with that made in
Gal 2 1 . This must be regarded as the prolonged
visit for purposes of conference and thorough in-
terchange of views with the leaders of the Jeru-
salem church of which the author of Acts gives an
account in ch. 15. The chronology of the life and
work of St. Paul yielded by the above items may
therefore be put as follows :

Conversion . . . 84-35
Visit to Jerusalem with

aid for famine-stricken

church .
First missionary Jour-


at Jerusa-



Arrest at Jerusalem



Imprisonment at Cse-
sarea . . . 68-60

Removal to Rome


Imprisonment at Rome 60-62

Last missionary jour-

Arrest, imprisonment,


and execution
Rome . .


Second missionary jour-
ney .... 61-64

Third missionary Jour-
ney .... 64-57

cost. It is manifestly the intention of the author
of Acts to begin his narrative with the significant
event of Pentecost. Just as he had closed his
Gospel with the account of the Resurrection of the
crucified Jesus, he opens his second treatise with
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. For the
Apostolic Age, Pentecost becomes the epoch-




making day. But, as the very name of it indi-
cates, Pentecost was a relative date in the year,
being computed from a day of manifestly more
importance than itself. Accordingly, in the de-
termination of the year for the Pentecost of Ac 2
it is necessary to revert to the computation which
fixed the date of the Crucifixion (see above, L).
Pentecost is thus dated in May A.D. 30.

Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 90 of 234)