Page images

ap Iren, loc. cit., Clementine Homilies, xvii. 19, Clem. ness of the season from year to year. (ii.) The difficulty video Alex Strom. I. 145, vi. 279; Julius Africanus, ap. Routh, Rell. regard to the day is, quite similarly, to know what precise relatie Sacr ii. 240, 306, Hippolytus, Paschal Cycle and Chronicle; the first day of the Jewish month bore to the astronomical se Origen, in Levil Hom. ix. 5, de Principiis, iv. 5) becomes moon. In later Christian times the Paschal month was calculated more difficult to account for the farther it is removed from the from the astronomical new moon; in earlier Jewishi times al actual facts

months were reckoned to begin at the first sunset when tk k* 5. The date of the Crucifixion.

moon was visible, which in the most favourable circumstances (u) The Roman Governor - Pontius Pilate was on his way back would be some hours, and in the most unfavourable three days. to Rome, after ten years of office, when Tiberius died on the 16th later than the astronomical new moon. March A.D 37 (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. ii. 2, iv. 2). Luke xiii. 1, Direct matenal for answering the question when and hos far xxiii. 12, show that he was not a newcomer at the time of the astronomical calculations replaced simple observations as the Crucifixion. For the Crucifixion “under Pontius Pilale the basis of the Jewish calendar is not forthcoming. Jez ish tradiPassover of A.D. 28 is therefore the carliest possible and the tions represented the Sanhedrin as retaining to the end its Passover of A.D 36 the latest.

plenary power over the calendar, and as still fixing the first day (6) The Jewish High-Priest.-Caiaphas was appointed before of every month and the first month of every year. But as it is Pilate's arrival, and was deposed at a Passover apparently not quite inconceivable that the Jews of the Dispersion should not later than that of the year of Herod Philip's death, A.D. 34 have known beforehand at what full moon they were të (Josephus, Ant. Xvin. ii. 2, iv. 3-v. 3. The Crucifixion at some present themselves at Jerusalem for the Passover, it must be previous Passover would then fall not later than A.D. 33. assumed as true in fact, whether or no it was true in theory,

(c) The Day of the Week.—The Resurrection on “ the first that the old empirical methods must have been qualiñed, at day of the week.” (Sunday) was “on the third day" after the least partially, by permanent, that is in etect by astronomical Crucifixion, and that "the third day" implies an interval of rules. Exactly what modifications were first made in the systea only two days hardly needed to be shown, but has been shown under which each month began by simple observation of the to demonstration in Field's Noles on the Translation of the New new moon we do not know, and opinions are not agreed as to Testament (on Matt. xvi. 21). The Crucifixion was therefore the historical value of the rabbinical traditions, but probabır on a Friday in some year between A D 28 and 33 inclusive the first step in the direction of astronomical precision would

(d) The Day of the Jewish Month Nisan.—The Passover was be the rule that no month could consist of less than twenty-nine kept at the full moon of the lunar month Nisan, the first of the or more than thirty days--to which appears to have been added, Jewish ecclesiastical year, the Paschal lambs were slain on the but at what date is uncertain, the further rule that Adar, the afternoon of the 14th Nisan, and the Passover was eaten after month preceding Nisan, was always to be limited to 19èntrsunset the same day, which, however, as the Jewish day began nine In the same way the beginning of the Jewish year accord. at sunset, was hy their reckoning the early hours of the 15thing to the state of the harvest was supplanted by some more bred Nisan; the first fruits (of thc barley harvest) were solemnly relation to the solar year But this relation was not, it would offered on the 16th. The synoptic Gospels appear to place the secm, regulated by the date, real or supposed, of the equinos Crucifixion on the 15th, since they speak of the Last Supper as Christian controversialists from Anatolius of Laodicea (A.D. 277) a Passover,' St John's Gospel, on the other hand (xiii 1, 29, onwards accused the Jews of disregarding the (Christian) equi. xviii 28), distinctly implies that the feast had not yet taken noctial limit, and of sometimes placing the Paschal full moon place, and thus makes the Crucifixion fall on the 14th. Early before it, and it is possible that in the uime of Christ the 14th Christian tradition is unanimous on this side; either the 14th of Nisan might have fallen as far back as the 17th of March is mentioned, or the Crucifixion is made the antitype of the In the following table the first column gives the leaders slaughter of the Paschal Lamb (and the Resurrection of the first paschalis, or 14th of the Paschal moon, according to the Christian fruits), in the following authorities anterior to A.D. 235: St Paul, calendar, the sccond gives the 14th, reckoned from the time 1 Cor. v 7. xv 20, Quartodecimans of Asia Minor, who observed of the astronomical new moon of Nisan; the third the 14th. the Christian Pascha on the “14th," no matter on what day of reckoned from the probable first appearance of the new moon the week it fell; Claudius Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, at sunset. Alternative moons are given for A.D. 29, according Hippolytus, all three quoted in the Paschal Chronicle; Irenaeus as the full moon falling about the 18th of March is or is not (apparently) iv. x. i (xx. 1); (Tertulliani ado. Judaeos, 8; reckoned the proper Paschal moon. Africanus, in Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 297 The Crucifixion, then,

Sat. Mar. 27 Mar 28 should be placed rather on the 14th than on the 15th of Nisan.

Th. Mar. 17

Mar 17
F. Ap. 15

Ap. 16
These four lines of inquiry have shown that the Crucifixion

Ap. 18
Tu. Ap. 4

Ap. 5 Ap. 7 fell on Friday, Nisan 14 (rather than 15), in one of the six years

Sat Mar. 24 28–33 A.D., and therefore, if it is possible to discover (i.) exactly

Sat. Ap. 12 Ap. 12 which moon or month was reckoned each year as the moon or

W. Ap. 1

Ap. 1-2

Ap. 3 of 4 month of Nisan, and (ii.) exactly on what day that particular It will be seen at once that Friday cannot have fallen on Nisan moon or month was reckoned as beginning, it will, of course, be 14th in any of the three years A.D. 28, 31 and 32. The choice is possible to tell in which of these years Nisan 14 fell on a Friday. narrowed down to A.D. 29, Friday, 18th March (Friday, 15th To neither question can an answer be given in terms so precise April, would no doubt be too early even for the 14th of Nisani; as to exclude some latitude, but to both with sufficient exactness A.D 30, Friday 7th April; and A.D. 33, Friday, 3rd April to rule out at once three of the six years. (i.) The difficulty with (c) The Civil Year (consuls, or regnal years of Tiberius) in ear'y regard to the month is to know how the commencement of the Christian tradition. It is not a priori improbable that the year Jewish year was fixed-in what years an extra month was inter- of the central event from which the Christian Church dated her calated before Nisan. If the Paschal full moon was, as in later own existence should have been noted in the apostolic age Christian times, the first after the spring equinox, the difficulty and handed down to the memory of succeeding generations, would be reduced to the question on what day the equinox was and the evidence does go some way to suggest that we have ia reckoned. If, on the other hand, it was, as in ancient Jewish favour of A.D. 29, the consulate of the two Gemini (15th or 15th times, the first after the earliest cars of the barley harvest would year of Tiberius), a body of tradition independent of the Gespes be ripe, it would have varied with the forwardness or backward and ancient, if not primitive, in origin.

The earliest witness, indeed, who can be cited for a definite 1 If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day, in date for the crucifixion gave not 29. but 33 A.D. The pagan rules in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibilieys, the chronicler, Phlegon, writing in the reign of Hadrian, neied evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with under Olympiad 202:4 (= A.D. 32-33), besides a great earthquake that of St John.

in Bithynia, an eclipse so remarkable that it became sigbo

A.D 28

Mar. 30
Mar. 19

30 31 32

Mar. 25

Mar. 37
Ap. 14

[ocr errors]

at the sixth hour of the day.” The cclipse meant is, présum-, very early, too early to be explained with Dr Salmon (Dicionary ably, that of the Crucifixion (so Origen, contra Celsum, ii. 33 of Christian Biography, iii. 926), as originated by Hippolytus's (but see in Mall. 134, Delarue iii. 922), Eusebius's Chronicle Paschal cycle of A.D. 221. Now Epiphanius (Haer. I. i) had Tib. 191 = A.D. 33). Anon. in Cramer's Catona in Moll. p. 237), seen copies of the Ads of Pilate in which the day given was but as the notice of it was clearly derived by Phlegon, pagan as not 25th March, but a.d. xv. kal. Apr. (= 18th March); and he was, directly or indirectly from the Gospel narrative, there is if this was the primitive form of the tradition, it is easy to no reason at all to ascribe any independent value to the date. see how 25th March could have grown out of it, since the Phlegon may have had grounds for dating the Bithynian earth- 18th would from comparatively early times, in the East at any quake in that year, and have brought the dateless portent into rate, have been thought impossible as falling before the equinox, connexion with the dated one. Eusebius adopted and popular- and no substitution would be so natural as that of the day ized this date, which fell in with his own system of pel week, Friday, 25th March. But Friday, 18th March, A.D. 29, chronology, but of the year 33 as the date of the Passion there is was one of the three alternative dates for the Crucifixion which on no vestige in Chrissian tradition before the 4th century. astronomical and calendar grounds were found (see above, sd)

The only date, in fact, which has any real claim to represent to be possible. Christian tradition independent of the Gospels, is the year 29. Thus A.D. 29 is the year, the 18th of March is the day, to which Tiberius 15 is given by Clem. Alex. Sirom. i. 147; Origen, Christian tradition (whatever value, whether much or little, Hom. in Jcrem. xiv. 13; cf. c. Cels. iv. 22. Tiberius 16 by be ascribed to it) appears to point. Further, the Baptism was Julius Africanus (Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 301-304), and pseudo- tentatively placed in A.D. 26–27; the length of the ministry Cyprian de pasclla compulus (A.D. 243), § 20. The consulship was fixed, with some approach to certainty, at between two and of the two Gemini by Lactantius, Dio. Insi. iv. X. 18, and three years, and here too the resultant date for the Crucifixion (Lactantius?) de morte pers. § 2; the consulship of the two would be the Passover of A.D. 29. Gemini = Tiberius 18 by Hippolytus, Comm. in Danielem, iv. To sum up: the various dates and intervals, to the approxi(ed. Bonwetsch, p. 242); the consulship of the two Gemini= mate determination of which this article has been devoted, do Tiberius 15 by (Tertullian) ado. Judaeos, $ 8; the consulship of not claim separately more than a tentative and probable value. the two Gemini = Tiberius 15 (al. 18 or 19) = 01. 202.4 (this But it is submitted that their harmony and convergence give last is a later interpolation from Eusebius) in the Ads of Pilale. them some additional claim to acceptance, and at any rate Other methods of expressing the year 29 appear in Hippolytus's do something to secure each one of them singly--the Nativity Paschal Cycle and Chronicle, and in the Abgar legend (ap. in 7-6 B.C., the Baptism in A.D. 26–27, the Crucifixion in A.D. 29 Eusebius, H.E. i. 13). No doubt it would be possible to explain from being to any wide extent in error. Tiberius 16 as a combination of Luke üi. i with a one-year ministry, and even to treat Tiberius 15 as an unintelligent

The Chronology of the A postolic Age. repetition from St Luke—though the omission to allow a single The chronology of the New Testament outside the Gospels may year for the ministry would be so strange as to be almost un be defined for the purposes of this article as that of the period intelligible-but the date by the consuls has an independent between the Crucifixion in A.D. 29 (30) on the one hand, and on look about it, and of its extreme antiquity the evidence gives the other the persecution of Nero in A.D. 64 and the fall of Jerusatwo indications: (i.) Hippolytus's Commentary on Daniel (now lem in A.D. 70. Of the events in Christian history which fall generally dated c. A.D. 200) combines it with an apparently between these limits it must be admitted that there are many inconsistent date, Tiberius 18; the latter is clearly his own which with our present information we cannot date with exactcombination of the length of the ministry (he says in the same But the book of Acts, our only continuous authority for passage that Christ suffered in his 33rd year) with Luke iii. the period, contains two synchronisms with secular history i-the consulship must have been taken from tradition without which can be dated with some pretence to exactness and conregard to consistency; (ii.) the names of the Gemini are diverg. stitute fixed points by help of which a more or less complete ently given in our oldest authorities; in (Tert.) ado. Judacos chronology can be constructed for at least the latter half of the correctly as Rubellius Geminus and Fufius (or Rufius) Geminus, apostolic age. These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (xii. 23) but in Hippolytus and the Ads of Pilale as Rufus and Rubellio. and the replacement of Felix by Festus (xxiv. 27). But if the tradition of the consulship was thus, it would seem, 1. The death of Herod Agrippa I. This prince, son of Arisalready an old onc about the year 200, there is at Icast some reason tobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, was made (i.) king to conclude that trustworthy information in early Christian over the tetrarchy which had been Herod Philip's, circles pointed, independently of the Gospels, to the year 29 days " after the accession of Gaius, 16th of March A.D. 37; (ii.) as that of the Crucifixion.

ruler of the tetrarchy of Antipas, in A.D. 39-40; (ii.) ruler of the The Civil Month and Day.—The earliest known calculations, whole of Palestine (with Abilene), on the accession of Claudius by Basilidian Gnostics, quoted in Clem. Alex. Sirom. i. 147, at the beginning of A.D. 41. Josephus's Jewish Wars and Antigave alternative dates, Phamenoth 25, Pharmuthi 25, Pharmuthiquities differ by one in the number of years they allot to his reign 19; that is, according to the fixed Alexandrine calendar of over the tetrarchies (the former work says three years, the latter E.C. 26, 2150 March, 20th April, 14th April; in the older, four), but agree in the more important datum that he reigned not wholly superseded, Egyptian calendar the equivalents three years more after the grant from Claudius, which would with Roman days varied from year to year. But in all make the latest limit of his death the spring of A.D. 44. The probability these dates were only one development of those Anliquities also place his death in the seventh year of his reign, speculations in the region of numbers to which Gnosticism was which would be A.D. 43-44. On the other hand, coins whose so prone; and in any case to look for genuine traditions among genuineness there is no apparent reason to doubt are extant Egyptian Gnostics, or even in the church of Alexandria, would of Agrippa's ninth year; and this can only be reconciled even be to misread the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. with A.D. 44 by supposing that he commenced reckoning a second Such traditions must be found, if anywhere, in Palestine and year of his reign on Nisan 1, A.D. 37, so that his ninth would Syria, in Asia Minor, in Rome, not in Egypt; within the Church, run from. Nisan 1, A.D. 44. On the balance of evidence the culy not among the Gnostics. The date which makes the most year which can possibly reconcile all the data appears to be obvious claim to satisfy these conditions would be the 25th of A.D. 44 after Nisan, so that it will have been at the Passover March, as given by Hippolytus, (Tert.) adv. Judaeos, and the of that year that St Peter's arrest and deliverance took Ads of Pilate (according to all extant MSS. and versions, but place. see below), loce. citl.- the same three authorities who bear the After Agrippa's death Judaea was once more governed by earliest witness for the consuls of the year of the Crucifixion-procurators, of whom Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander and by many later writers. It cannot be correct, since no full ruled from A.D. 44 to 48; the third, Cumanus, was appointed in moon occurs near it in any of the possible years; yet it must be A.D. 48; and the fourth, Felix, in A.D. 52. Under Tiberius


“ not many

Alexander, i.e. in A.D. 46 or 47, occurred the great famine which date given above, from A.D. 47 to A.D. 58, should be moved an Agabus had foretold, and in which the Antiochene church sent one year, with the result of placing Festus's arrival in A.D. 59 help to that of Jerusalem by the ministry of Barnabas and Saul It is now time to run to the direct evidence for the date of (Acts xi. 30. xii. 25). Thus the earliest date at which the com- Festus's arrival as procurator, in order to test by it the result mencement of the first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 4) can be already tentatively obtained. placed is the spring of A.D. 47. The journey extended from 2. The replacement of Felix by Festus. This is the pivot date Salamis“ throughout the whole island” of Cyprus as far as of St Paul's later life, but unfortunately two schools of citics Paphos, and on the mainland from Pamphylia to Pisidian date it as differently as A.D. 55 and A.D. 60 (or 61). The former Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, at each of which places are represented by Harnack, the latter by Wieseler, whos indications are given of a prolonged visit (xiii. 49, xiv. 3,6,7,21). Lightfoot follows. It can be said confidently that the truth is The same places were visited in reverse order on the return between these two extremes (though in what exact year it is sui journey, as far as Perga on the Pamphylian coast; but instead easy to say), as will be evident from a consideration of the arguof revisiting Cyprus the voyage to Syria was this time made ments urged, which in each case appear less to prove one extreme direct. In estimating the length of time occupied by this first than to disprove its opposite. missionary journey, it must be remembered that a sea voyage Arguments for the Later Date, A.D. 00 or 01.-(a) St Paul, at the could never have been undertaken, and land travel only rarely, time of his arrest, two years before Felix's recall, addresses his as during the winter months, say November to March; and as the

** for many years past a judge for this nation" (Acts civ. 10, 27). amount of the work accomplished is obviously more than could mentions Cumanus's recall under that year. Josephus immediately

It is certain that Felix succeeded Cumanus in A.D. 52, for Tacitus fall within the travelling season of a single year, the winter of before the notice of the completion of Claudius's twelfth year 47-48 must have been spent in the interior, and return to the January, A.D. 53), Eusebius probably under Claudius 11, that coast and to Syria made only some time before the end of

between September 5! and September 52 (for the meaning of the autumn A.D. 48. The succeeding winter, at least, was. spent article in Journal of Theological Studies, January 1900, PP. 188-1931)

regnal years in the Chronicle of Eusebius see the present writer's again at Antioch of Syria (xiv, 28). The council at Jerusalem It is argued that "'many years "cannot mean less than six or seven. of Acts xv. will fall at earliest in the spring of A.D. 49, and as so that St Paul must have been speaking at earliest in 58 or 99, 300 only “ certain days ” were spent at Antioch after it (xv. 36) the overlooks the fact that Felix had been in some position which mich

left Judaea at earliest in 60 or 61. But this arguren start on the second missionary journey might have been made properly be described as that of judge for this nation before be in the (late) summer of the same year. The confirmation became governor of all Palestine in A.D. 52. in the words of Tacitus. of the cxisting churches of Syria and Cilicia, and of those of the Felix was at the time of that appointment iam pridem Iudocce in first journey beginning with Derbe (xv. 41, xvi. 5), cannot have positus (Annals, xii. 54); he cerjainly supposes Felix to have bera becn completed under several months, nor would the Apostle alrcady governor of Samaria, and apparently of Judaca too, and have comnienced the strictly missionary part of the journey in though he says nothing of this, and treats Cumanus as the sole districts not previously visited, before the opening of the travel procurator down to A.D: 52, implies that Felix had beta in scrie ling season of A.D. 50. No delay was then made on the Asiatic position where the Jewish authorities could judge of his titness bea

he tells us that the high priest Jonathan used to press on Felix, as side: it may still have been in spring when St Paul crossed to

a reason for urging him to govern well, the fact he that bad and Europe and began the course of preaching at Philippi, Thessa- for his appointment to the procuratorship (And xx. viii. 5. If lonica, Beroca and Athens which finally brought him to Corinth. Felix had acted in some position of responsibility in Pakstise before The stay of eighteen months at the lasl-named place (xviii. 11) 53. (perhaps for some time before), St Paul could well have sokea will naturally begin at the end of one travelling season and end of many years"

at least as carly as 56 or 57. at the beginning of another, i.e. from the autumn of A.D. 50

(B) Josephus enumerates after the accession of Nero (October 54)

a long catalogue of events which all took place under the procurator to the spring of A.D. 52. From Corinth the Apostle went to ship of Felix, including the revolt of the Egyptian " 'hich exs Jerusalem to “salute the church,” and then again to Antioch already " before these days" at the time or Si Paul's arrese, i 9 in Syria, where he stayed only for“ a time" (xviii. 22), and soon


from the end of Felix's tenure. This suggests, no doubt that

the Egyptian rebelled at earliest in 54-55. and makes it postatile left-on the third missionary journey, as conventionally reckoned that St Paul's arrest did not take place before (the Pentecost of -proceeding“ in order” through the churches of the interior A.D. 56; and it implies certainly that the main or most important of Asia Minor. These journeys and the intervening halts must part of Felix's governorship fell, in Josephus's viey, under Nera. have occupied seven or eight months, and it must have been

But as two years only of Felix's rule (52-54) fell under Claudias,

this procedure would be quite natural on Josephus's part if his recal! about the end of the year when St Paul established his new

were dated in 58 or 59, so that four or hve years fell under Nero headquarters at Ephesus. The stay there lasted between two And there is no need at all to suppose that all the incidenes stick and ihrec years (xix. 8, 10, xx. 31), and cannot have terminated the historian masses under his account of Felix were successe: before the spring of A.D. 55. From Ephesus he went into Europe, been synchronous.

events in Emesa, Chalcis, Caesarea and Jerusalem may easily have and after “ much teaching" given to the churches of Macedonia

The arguments, then, brought forward in favour of A.D. 60 or 61 (xx. 2), spent the three winter months at Corinth, returning do not do more than bring the rule of Felix down to 58 or 99. to Philippi in time for the Passover (xx. 3, 6) oi A.D. 56. Pente- Arguments for an Early Dale, A.D. 55 01 56.-e) Eusebius's

Chronicle places the arrival of Festus in Nero 2. October 55-56, 20d cost of the same year was spent at Jerusalem, and there St Paul

Eusebius's chronology of the procurators goes back probably through was arrested, and kept in prison at Caesarca for two full years,

Julius Africanus (himself a Palestinian) to contemporary authorities until Festus succeeded Felix as governor (xx. 16, xxiv. 27), an like the Jewish kings of Justus of Tiberias. But (.) Nero 2 is real event which, on this arrangement of the chronology of the September 56-September 57; (ii.) it is doubtful whether Eute missionary journeys, would thercíore fall in A.D. 58.

had any authority to depend on here other than Josephus, who gia

no precise year for Festus-Julius Africanus is hardly probable since Care, however, must be taken to remember exactly what this

we know that his chronicle was very jejune for the Christian and line of argument amounts to-what it can fairly be said to have-and if so, Eusebius had to find a year as best lie could! proved, and what it still leaves open. It has been shown, firstly, (B) Felix, on his return to Rome, was prosecuted by the Jess for that the missionary journeys cannot have commenced before brother Pallas. Pallas had been minister and favourite of Claudias

misgovernment, but was acquitted through the influence ci tis the spring of A.D. 47, and, secondly, that between their commencement and the end of the two years' imprisonment at 1 Dr C. Erbes (Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, iv. 1) attepes Caesarea not less than eleven full years must have elapsed. to interpret the evidence of Euscbius in favour of the later dare for Consequently A.D. 58 appears to be the carliest dato possible for Festus as follows: Eusebius's date for Festus is to be found in Neo

1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and the the arrival of Festus. On the other hand, a later date for Festus Latín, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, met by is not absolutely excluded. It is possible that the first missionary years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroseosty journey should be placed in A.D. 48 instead of A.D. 47; and antedated Agrippa's reign by five years, commencing it with a... 4 it is possible, though not probable, that the missionary journcys should be moved to Nero 6, A.D. 59-60. The whole of this theory should be spread over one year more than has been suggested appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare's test: * above. At any rate, then, the alternative is open that every Journal of Theological Studies (October 1901). Pp. 120-123.

but was removed from office in the winter following Nero's accession, | indications given in the Acts; (ii.) on the evidence of the Epistle 54-55. Felix must therefore have been tried at the very beginning to the Galatians, which, though in appearance more precise, can Festus came in summer, as Acts xxv. 1, xxvii. 1, 9, seem to prove - be and is interpreted in very different ways. fall actually under Claudius. And, in fact, it would be a mistake (i.) The book of Acts is divided, by general summaries from to look upon Pallas's retirement as a disgrace. He stipulated that time to time inserted in the narrative, into six periods: i. 1-vi. no inquiry should be made into his conduct in office, and was left

7, vi. 8-ix. 31, ix. 32-xii. 24, xii. 25-xvi. 5, xvi. 6-xix. 20, xix. 21for another seven years unmolested in the enjoyinent of the fortune he had amassed. There is, therefore, every likelihood that he retained xxviii. 31. Of these the three last extend respectively from the for some years enough influence to shield his brother.

death of Herod to the start for Europe in the second missionary of these arguments, then, the first, so far as it is valid, is an journey (A.D. 44 to the spring of 50 151]), from the start for argument for the summer, not of the recall, while the second will apply to any of the earlier years of Europe to the end of the long stay at Ephesus (A.D. 50 151) to the Nero's reign.

spring of A.D. 55 156]), and from the departure from Ephesus

to the end of the two years' captivity at Rome (A.D. 55 156) to In the result, then, the arguments brought forward in favour the beginning of A.D. 61 (62]). It will be seen that these periods of each extreme fail to prove their case, but at the same time arc of more or less the same length, namely, six (or seven) years, prove something against the opposite view. Thus the point that five years, six years. There is, therefore, some slight presumption Josephus catalogues the events of Felix's procuratorship under that the three earlier periods, which together cover about fifteen Nero cannot be pressed to bring down Fclix's tenure as far as years, were intended by so artistic a writer as St Luke to mark 60 or 61, but it docs seem to exclude as early a termination as each some similar lapse of time. If that were so, the preaching 56, or even 57. Converscly, the influence of Pallas at court need of the apostles at Jerusalem and organization of the Church at the not be terminated by his ccasing to be minister early in 55; but capital—the preaching of the seven and the extension of the it would have been overshadowed not later than the year 60 Church all over Palestine-the extension of the Church to by the influence of Poppaca, who in the summer of that year? | Antioch, and the commencement of St Paul's work-might each enabled the Jews to win their cause in the matter of the Temple occupy five years more or less, that is to say, roughly, A.D. 29-34, wall, and would certainly have supported them against Felix. 34-39, 39-44. The conversion of St Paul, which falls within Thus the choice again appears to lie between the years 58 and the second period, would on this arrangement fall somewhere 59 for the recall of Felix and arrival of Festus.

between five and ten years after the Crucifixion. Such .conIf St Paul was arrested in 56 or 57, and appealed to Caesar onclusions are, however, of course general in the extreme. the arrival of Festus in 58 or 59, then, as he reached Rome in thc. (ii.) A nearer attempt to date at least the chronology of St early part of the year following, and remained there a prisoner Paul's earlier years as a Christian could be made by the help of .for two full years, we are brought down to the early spring of the Galatian Epistle if we could be sure from what point and to either 61 or 62 for the close of the period recorded in the Acts. what point its reckonings are made. The apostle tells us that on That after these two years he was released and visited Spain in his conversion he retired from Damascus into Arabia, and thence the west, and in the east Ephesus, Macedonia, Crete, Troas, returned to Damascus; then after three years (from his conMiletus, and perhaps Achaea and Epirus, is probable, in the one version) he went up to Jerusalem, but stayed only a fortnight, case, from the evidence of Romans xv. 28, Clem. ad Cor. v. and and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Then after fourteen the Muratorian canon, and, in the other, from the Pastoral years (from his conversion or from his last visit ?) he went up to Epistles. These journeys certainly cannot have occupied less Jerusalem again to confer with the elder apostles. Now, if than two years, and it is more natural to allow three for them, either of these visits to Jerusalem could be identified with any which takes us down to 64-65.

of the visits whose dates have been approximately settled in the Early evidence is unanimous in pointing to St Peter and St chronology of A.D. 44-64, we should have a fixed point from Paul as victims of the persecution of Nero (Clem. ad Cor. v. vi., which to argue back. Unfortunately, even less agreement Dionysius of Corinth ap. Eus. H.E. ii. 25, &c., combined with exists on this head than on the question whether the fourteen what we know from Tacitus of the course of the persecution, and years of the last-mentioned visit are to be reckoned from the from Gaius of Rome, op. Eus. ii. 25, of the burial-places of the conversion or from the previous visit. Most critics, indeed, are two apostles); and tradition clearly distinguished the fierce now agreed that the fourteen years are to be calculated from the outbrcak at Rome that followed on the fire of the city in July 64 conversion; and most of them still hold that the visit of from any permanent disabilities of the Christians in the eye of Galatians ii. is the same as the council of Acts xv., partly, no the law which the persecution may have initiated. There is, doubt, on the ground that the latter visit was too important and therefore, no rcason at all to doubt that both apostles were decisivc for St Paul to have omitted in giving even the most martyred in 64-65, and the date serves as a confirmation of the summary description of his relations with the twelve. This chronology adopted above of the imprisonment, release and ground would, however, be cut away from their feet if it were subsequent journeys of St Paul.

possible to hold (with J. V. Bartlet, A postolic Age, 1900, and Investigation, then, of that part of the book of Acts which v. Weber, Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem A posielkonzil, follows the death of Agrippa, recorded in chap. xii.-i.e. of that Ravensburg, 1900) that the epistle was actually written just part of the apostolic age which follows the year 44-has shown before the council, i.e. in the winter of 48-49 149-50). In that that apparent difficulties can be to a large extent set aside, and case, of course, the two visits of Galatians i. and i. would be that there is nowhere room between A.D. 44 and 64 for doubt those of Acts ix, 26 and xi. 30. The fourteen years reckoned extending to more than a single year. The first missionary back from the latter (c. A.D. 46) would bring us to A.D. 32-33 as journey may have begun in 47 or 48; the arrival of Fcstus may the latest possible date for the conversion. With the older view, have taken place in the summer of 58 or of 59; the two years of on the other hand, the fourtcen years reckoned from the council the Roman imprisonment recorded in the last chapter of Acts in A.D. 49 (50) would allow us to bring down the conversion to may have ended in the spring of 61 or 62; and the dates which A.D. 36. The new view clears away some manifest difficulties fall in between these extremes are liable to the same variation in the reconciliation of the Epistle and the Acts, and the early The present writer leans to the earlier alternative in cach case, date for Galatians in relation to the other Pauline cpistles is not 47, 58, 61; but he willingly concedes that the evidence, as he so improbable as it may seem; but the chronology still appears understands it, is not inconsistent with the later alternative. more satisfactory on the older view, which enables the conversion

But if the events of A.D. 44-64 can thus be fixed with a fair to be placed at least three years later than on the alternative approximation to certainty, it is unfortunately otherwise with theory. But it is clear that the last word has not been said, and the events of A.D. 29-44. Here we are dependent (i.) on general that definite results for this period cannot yet be looked for. This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay,

To sum up: an attempt has been made, it is hoped with some "A Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology," Expositor, success, to provide a framework of history equipped with dates August 1900.

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 Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 43; ☺ Paul in the persecution of Nero, A.D. 64-65. For the previous Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150. period, on the other hand, from A.D. 29 to A.D. 44, it appeared The oldest and most important of these MSS. is the so-called impossible in our present state of knowledge to state conclusions Vespasian Psalles, which was written in Mercia in the first half other than in the most general form.

of the 9th century. It was in all probability the original from AUTHORITIES.—The views stated in this article are in general which all the above-mentioned Old English glosses were derived, (though with some modifications) the same as those which the though in several instances changes and modifications were present writer worked out with more fulness of detail in Hastings introduced by successive scribes. The first verse of Psalm es Dictionary of the Bible, i. (1898) 403-424. Of older books should be mentioned :-Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und rech. (Vulg. xcix. 2) may serve as a specimen of these glosses. nischen Chronologie (z, vols., 1825); Wieseler, Chronologie des

Roman Text.

Gallican Text apostolischen Zeitalters (1848); Lewin's Fasti Sacri (1865)... Im

MS. Vespasian. A. I.

MS. Stowe. 2. portant modern contributions are to be found in Prof. (Sir) W. M. Ramsay's various works, and in Harnack's Chronologic der altchrist Wynsumiað godę, all corde Drymað drihtne, eall corte; lichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i. 233-244. Mention should also be

Biowiad Dryhtne in blisse; Neowiao dihine on bliss; made of an article, containing much useful astronomical and Tal. ingað in gesihðe his in

insarað on gesyhde hys mudical information, by Mr J. K. Fotheringham,“ The Date of the wynsumnisse.

on blijnysse. Crucifixion," in the Journal of Philology, xxix. 100-118 (1904). Jubilate Deo, omnis terra; Jubilate Domino, ostais tarts; Mr Fotheringham is of opinion that the evidence from Christian servite Domino in loetilia; servite Domino in laetitis; sources is too uncertain, and that the statements of the Mishnah intrale in conspectu eius in introite in conspectu cias must be the starting point of the inquiry; taking then the phasis exultatione.

in exultatione. 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

To the late 9th or early 10th century a work may be assigned period A. D. 28-35, other than A. D. 33 (April 3rd). But in one of the which is in so far an advance upon preceding efforts as to be a two empirical tests of the value of these calculations that he was real translation, not a mere gloss corresponding word for word able to obtain (loc. cit

. p. 106, n. 2), the new moon was seen a day with the Latin original. This is the famous Paris Psaita, to disregard the convergent lines of historical evidence which teli rendering of the first fifty Psalms (Vulg. i.-L. 10), contained in against A.D. 33. Among the latest German works may be cited the unique MS. lat. 8824 in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. the chapter on New Testament chronology in the Neutestamentliche The authorship of this version is doubtful, being by some scholars Zeitgeschichte of Dr Oscar Holtzmann (2nd ed., 1906), pp. 117-147: atiributed to King Alfred (d. 901), of whom William of Malmes. praise, but the mass is undigested and the treatment of the evidence bury writes (Gesla Regum Anglorum, ii. 123), “ Psalterium arbitrary. As might be expected, Dr Holtzmann's conclusions are transferre aggressus vix prima parte explicata vivendi finem clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly excluded: the Crucifixion is fecit." This view is, however, denied by others. 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.)

In the course of the roth century the Gospels were glassed

and translated. The earliest in date is a Nortkumbias Gloss BIBLE, ENGLISH. The history of the vernacular Bible of

on the Gospels, contained in a beautiful and highly the English race resolves itself into two distinctly marked interesting MS. variously known as the Durham periods—the one being that of Manuscript Bibles, which were Book, the Lindisfarne Gospels, or the Book of S! direct translations from the Latin Vulgate, the other that of Cuthbert (MS. Cotton, Nero. D. 4). The Latin text

Gospels Printed Bibles, which were, more or less completely, transla- dates from the close of the 7th century, and is the work of tions from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Eadírith, bishop of Lindisfarne (698–721). The English gloss Fas Testaments.

added about a century and a half later (6. 950) by one Aldred, 1. The Manuscript Bible.—The first essays in Biblical trans

whom Dr Charles O'Conor (Bibl. Slowensis, 1818-1810, ii. 180) lation, or rather paraphrasing, assumed in English, as in many other languages, a poetical form. Even in the 7th The Lord's Prayer is glossed in the following way:

supposes to have been the bishop of Durham of that name. Cadmon.

century, according to the testimony of Bede (Hist. Eccl. iv. 24), Cædmon sang de creatione mundi et origine

Lindisfarne Gospels. humani generis, et tota Genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Matthew vi. 9. Suae donne iuih gie bidde fader urer du ar

sic Acgypto et ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis

ergo uos orabitis + Pater sester qui és

Du bist in heofnum tin heofnas; sie gehalgad noma : sacrae Scripturae historiis, de incarnatione Dominica, passione,

in caelis;

sanctificetur roses isse, resurrectione et ascensione in coelum, de Spiritus Sancti adventu,

(Io) to-cymeở rắc din. sie willo din suae is in becine et apostolorum doctrina.” It is, however, doubtful whether

adueniat regnum tuum fiat uoluntas lua sicu any of the poetry which has been ascribed to him can claim to

J in eorðo. be regarded as his genuine work.

et in terra. The first prose rendering of any part of the Bible-and (11)hlaf

oferwistlic sel ús to dæg. with these we are mainly concerned in the present inquiry- panem nostrum super-substantiale[m] nobis kod:c.

originated in all probability in the 8th century, when (12) j forgef us scylda usra suae uoe forgefon scyldgan Bede, the eminent scholar and churchman, translated

et demille nobis debila nostra sicut nos dimittimus debiteras the first portion (chs. i.-vi. 9) of the Gospel of St John into the

nostris. vernacular, but no part of this rendering is extant. His pupil

(13) I ne inlæd usih in costunge ah gefrig usich frem te Cuthberht recorded this fact in a letter to a fellow-student, et ne inducas nos in temtationem sed libera nos Cuthwine: “ a capite sancti evangelii Johannis usque ad eum

See A. S. Cook, Biblical Quotations in Old Englisk Prose Hricts locum in quo dicitur, 'sed haec quid sunt inter tantos ?' in

with an introduction on Old English Biblical Versions (London, 1865nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit ” (Mayor 1903), vol.i.pp.xxvi. ff.; H. Sweet

, The Vespasian Psalter in ordest and Lumby, Bedae Hist. Eccl. p. 178).

English Texts

(E.E.T.S., No. 83, London, 1885): F. Harsler, The 9th century is characterized by interlincar glosses on the John Spelman, Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum l'elus (Lee a

Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter (E.E.T.S., No. 92, London, 1802": Book of Psalms, and towards its close by a few attempts at 1640); Fr. Roeder Der altengl. Regius Psalic (Reg II. B. 5). Haize independent translation. Of these “glossed Psalters"

1904). twelve MSS. are known to exist, and they may be a Benjamin Thorpe, Libri Psalmorum versio Antique Latina en

ranged into two groups according to the Latin text paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica (Oxford, 1835); d. J. D. Bruce, Tone glosses. they represent. The Roman Psalter is glossed in the Anglo-Saxon. Version of the Book of Psalms ... known as the Porus

Psalter (Baltimore, 1894). following MSS.: (1) Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (Vespasian Psalter); *K. W. Bouterwek, Die vier Evangelien in all-nordk. Sprache (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ. Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. (Gütersloh, 1857), id. Screadunga (Elberfeld, 1858. prefaces to the Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 17. 1 (Eadwine's Gospels): J. Stevenson and E. Waring, The Lindisfarre asi Rob

worth Gospels (Surtees Soc., 1854-1865); W. W. Skeat, Tu Haiy Psalter); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. The Gallican Psalter in the Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercios Verses following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman's text); (2) Cotton (Cambridge, 1871-1887).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




9th and 10th cen tury

« PreviousContinue »