CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Outline

It is difficult to assign exact dates to many of the events of the NT for the following reasons: (1) Secular historians of the 1st cent. looked with contempt upon Christianity; hence they seldom bothered to mention events related to the Church. When Tacitus spoke of the persecution of Christians which followed the fire at Rome under Nero, he added the explanation that the name “Christian” was derived from “Christ,” the title given a certain Jew who was executed under Pontius Pilate. (2) The manners of reckoning chronology in the 1st cent. were so varied that statements of time made in that age are difficult to interpret. It is true that the Romans since Julius Caesar had used a solar calendar with the year beginning January 1, yet they had no single system of regularly-numbered years. Because Rom. numerals were too cumbersome for use in designating the years, dates commonly were identified by their distance from the accession of an emperor or from the year a consul came into office. Often this did not correspond with the regular calendar year. To add to the complication, the Jews followed a lunar calendar. Previous calendar changes had left them with two New Year’s days. The ecclesiastical or sacred year began on the first day of Abib (or Adar, later Nisan), which was the month when Israel was delivered from Egypt (Exod 12:2). Since the beginning of the month was determined by the phases of the moon, the first day might fall by our calendar from early in March to early in April. The civil year began on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri. Cf. Exod 23:16; 34:22; Deut 29:1), which corresponds to our September-October. The festivals and the reigns of Jewish kings were calculated from the beginning of the sacred year, while other matters, including the reigns of foreign kings, were reckoned by the civil year. Moreover, a lunar year of twelve months fell short of the solar year by ten or eleven days. The Jews met this difficulty by adding a thirteenth month at the time of the vernal equinox once in about three years (seven times in nineteen years). (3) People of Biblical times lacked a strong sense of chronology. Jesus’ statement, “three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40) appears to have meant by modern reckoning, “the day after tomorrow” (cf. 17:23; Luke 23:54-24:10). “Three years” (Acts 20:31) could have meant “twenty-seven months” (cf. Acts 19:8-10). “Three days” (Gen 42:17) sometimes meant something different than “seventy-two hours” (42:18). While Biblical writers frequently made statements from which chronological inferences may be drawn, their data cannot be interpreted accurately. This applies even to Luke’s writings when his purpose was to “write an orderly account” (Luke 1:3). It is evident, then, that many of the events of the NT must be dated approximately rather than precisely.

I. Chronology of the life of Jesus

A. Jesus’ birth

1. Course of Abijah. David organized the priests into twenty-four divisions or courses, sixteen of which were composed of descendants of Eleazar, and eight of descendants of Ithamar (1 Chron 24). These courses were to function according to a fixed chronological order. Luke implies that John the Baptist, who was six months older than Jesus (cf. 1:26, 36, 39, 56, 57), was conceived shortly after his father completed the work connected with his course (cf. Luke 1:5, 23, 25). So far there seems to be no historical evidence for the date when the division of Abijah served. If it can be ascertained, the time of Jesus’ birth can be fixed with considerable accuracy.

2. Census. Luke states that Jesus was born while Joseph and Mary were at Bethlehem in compliance with the demand that every man be registered in his native city. He declares that “Quirinius was governor of Syria” at that time (2:2). Some scholars object that no extra-Biblical evidence exists for a census by Quirinius (P. Sulpicius Quirinius), governor of Syria. In fact, they find no indication that Quirinius governed Syria at all, since the governors of Syria during the last years of Herod’s reign were C. Sentius Saturninus (9-6 b.c.) and P. Quintilus Varus (6-4 b.c.)

Events of the reign of Augustus were, in general, poorly documented. But if Luke, as he said, had “gone over the whole course of these events in detail” (1:3, NEB), it would seem that he should be given credit for knowing who was governor. He should also have known when an event so soul-shaking to the Jews as a Rom. census (cf. Acts 5:37), occurred. Luke implies that the census which resulted in the trip to Bethlehem by Joseph and Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth was the “first” (Luke 2:2), of a series of enrollments imposed by Rome which affected Pal.

THE NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE

The Unfolding Drama of Redemption.

It is conceivable, in view of the poorly documented reign of Augustus, that Quirinius may have been governor in Syria for only a few months, with the census falling at that time. That would not have disrupted the dating for the governorships of Saturninus and Varus.

Fortunately, a much better solution to the problem has been found. A damaged inscr. in the Lateran Museum mentions an unnamed Rom. who governed Syria twice. Mommsen held that this prob. was Quirinius, and most scholars have agreed with him. Reacting strongly against the theory that Luke must be assumed to have been in error unless his statements can be substantiated, Sir William Ramsay has pointed out, with respect to Quirinius, that there were various periods when two men with the rank of legatus Caesaris were appointed over the same Rom. province at the same time. One of them apparently took care of political matters while the other commanded the army (cf. IDB, 601). It is probable, then, that Quirinius was a coregent of Syria, in charge of political concerns at the time of Jesus’ birth.

The Rom. census was made with special reference to property in order to determine taxation. Knowledge of how such censuses were executed is fragmentary. Census papers discovered in Egypt indicate that a census was taken there every fourteenth year from a.d. 90 to 258. One was taken also in a.d. 62. If these censuses were taken uniformly throughout the empire, earlier censuses must have fallen in 8 b.c., a.d. 6, a.d. 20, a.d. 34, and a.d. 48. Some evidence has been found for a census in a.d. 20. That would seem to place the birth of Jesus in 8 b.c. But Luke’s statement “all the world” (2:1) does not necessarily mean that every area of the empire was enrolled at the same time. In fact, Mommsen declares that Augustus conducted censuses in Italy in 28 b.c., 8 b.c. and a.d. 14 (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 34f.), while Dio Cassius (LIII. xxii. 5) and Livy (Epit., cxxxiv) state that a census was taken in Gaul in a.d. 27. In Luke’s statement about the census he appears to distinguish, by inference, between enrollments which had been made elsewhere in the empire and this new edict that the outlying provinces should be included. It should be noted, too, that the complicated task of organizing every village for its first enrollment may have delayed the process beyond the announced date by several months.

On the data reviewed above it is impossible to establish a precise date for Jesus’ birth. If a.d. 7 be taken, it is with the understanding that flexibility of a year or two in either direction should be allowed.

3. Star of the magi. Some have sought to explain the star of the magi (Matt 2:2) as a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces, which occurred in a.d. 6-7. Luke’s account, however, cannot be fitted into a normal stellar phenomenon. Luke clearly speaks of a star which, at least on the last lap of their journey, guided the magi with such accuracy that they could tell the very house where Jesus was living (2:9). The star’s movements appear to have been miraculous, at least insofar as the magi’s vision of it was concerned.

Herod, whose death occurred in 4 b.c., was still active when the magi arrived (Matt 2:3-8, 16; cf. “4” below).

4. Death of Herod. Josephus states that Herod was appointed king of Judea by decree of the Rom. senate in 40 b.c. (Antiq. XIV, xiv, 4, 5) during the consulship of Caius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio. He actually ruled in Jerusalem thirty-seven years after he had captured the city (ibid., XIV. xvi. 1-3; Wars, I. xvii. 9; I. xviii. 1-3).

There was an eclipse of the moon just before Herod’s death (Antiq., XVII. vi. 4). Astronomical calculations show that eclipses of the moon were visible in Pal. on 23 March 5 b.c., 15 September 5 b.c., 12 March 4 b.c., and 9 January 1 b.c. But Josephus says that Archelaus, who succeeded Herod (Matt 2:22), was deposed in a.d. 6 in the tenth year of his reign (Antiq. XVII. xiii. 2; cf. Wars, II. vii. 3), which gives the year as the ninth. This points to 4 b.c. as the year of Herod’s death. That it occurred in the spring of the year is seen by Josephus’ statement that Herod died shortly before the Passover (Antiq. XVII. vi. 4-ix. 3). That year the Passover fell on April 11. Herod’s death must have fallen then early in April, 4 b.c.

The infant Jesus seems to have lived in Pal. something less than two years before being carried into Egypt to escape Herod’s wrath. This is based on the supposition that the star appeared to the magi immediately upon the occasion of Jesus’ birth (cf. Matt 2:2, 16). Adding some months between the slaughter of the infant males of Bethlehem and the death of Herod, yet taking into account that the Jews customarily counted parts of years as years, it is probable that Jesus’ birth occurred about 5 or 6 b.c.

5. Day and month. Both the day and month of Jesus’ birth are uncertain. There was much opposition in the Early Church to the pagan custom of celebrating birthdays. December 25 began to be observed in the Western Church after the accession of Constantine. Hippolytus says the custom began in the 2nd cent. (Dan. IV, 23). January 6 was the date chosen by the E. December 25 was selected prob. because the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the sun god on that day. The winter solstice also was observed about that time. By choosing that day, the Church grasped the opportunity to convert purely pagan observances into a day of adoration of the Lord Jesus. Cyprian and Chrysostom both express this thought. The fact that shepherds were watching their flocks on the hills of Judea, however (Luke 2:8), make the choice of a winter month seem unlikely.

Although the data are too indefinite to warrant the establishment of a fixed date for the birth of Jesus, the year 6 b.c. or 5 b.c. is fairly accurate.

B. Jesus’ ministry

1. Baptism. Luke locates the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry by relating it to the terms of office of a number of Rom. and Jewish officials, but the only exact date which he gives is “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (3:1). A serious question with respect to which system of dating Luke was using makes it impossible for the modern chronologist to know for certain what year was meant.

Josephus states that Tiberius succeeded to the throne upon the demise of Augustus (Antiq. XVIII. ii. 2) who died 19 August a.d. 14. According to the usual Rom. reckoning “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius” extended from 19 August a.d. 28 to 19 August a.d. 29. Most chronologists are unwilling to date John’s ministry so late. Consequently, most scholars have adopted Ussher’s suggestion that Luke was reckoning Tiberius’ reign not from Augustus’ death, but from the time when Augustus made Tiberius coemperor with him, or the year a.d. 11. The fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign fell in a.d. 26, and the baptism of Jesus late in 26 or early in 27. The chief difficulty with this theory lies in the absence of numismatic evidence that the years of Tiberius’ reign were reckoned in this manner. If Luke was using Jewish chronology in his statement, “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius” fell in the year a.d. 27, beginning with Tishri 1.

Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. I. x) states that Christ was baptized in the fourth year of Pilate’s governorship and that Pilate was appointed about the twelfth year of Tiberius’ reign. Upon what Eusebius based the statement is not clear. It is improbable that Pilate began to rule before a.d. 26 or 27, and his ten-year period in office ended shortly before Tiberius’ death in a.d. 37. Recent writers place the event from a.d. 27 to a.d. 29 (cf. HDAC, p. 157).

Taking into account the date of Jesus’ birth, Luke’s statement that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (3:23; cf. “2” below), and the brevity of the ministry of John, who had been imprisoned by the year a.d. 28 (cf. Dummelow, 664), it would seem that Jesus’ baptism took place in the fall of a.d. 26 (cf. WesBC, IV, 227).

2. The age of Jesus. The word “about” in Luke’s statement that Jesus “was about thirty years of age” (3:23) when He began His ministry is difficult to interpret. It is not known whether he meant to state the exact age of Jesus or His approximate age. If the latter, then Jesus could have been perhaps twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, or thirty-two when He began His ministry. Since Jewish men assumed places of leadership after they were thirty years of age it would appear that Jesus was no younger than thirty. Neither do the facts connected with His ministry and death allow the supposition that He was much past that age. Nor is it likely that Jesus, who always was quick to fulfill every detail of His mission (cf., e.g., Luke 9:51; 12:50; John 14:31b), tarried beyond what was proper when it was time for Him to begin His ministry. It is probable, therefore, that Luke meant to imply that Jesus’ ministry began when He was thirty years of age.

3. The first Passover. During the first Passover which Jesus attended after beginning His ministry, the Jews stated that the Temple had been in the process of construction for forty-six years (John 2:20). They doubtless referred to Herod’s project of remodeling Zerubbabel’s temple, upon which, according to Josephus, he embarked in the eighteenth year of his reign (Antiq. XV. xi. i), which was 20-19 b.c. That makes the Passover of which John wrote fall either in the year a.d. 26 or a.d. 27. It is probable that Herod did not begin the project at exactly the time which he had announced. Since Augustus made a visit to Syria in the earlier part of that year, Herod must have been fully occupied for several months entertaining Caesar and his retinue (cf. IDB, 601). If the Jews counted from the time operations actually began, it is probable that the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry fell in the year a.d. 27.

4. Duration of the ministry. Until recently it has been assumed by most scholars that Jesus’ ministry lasted between three and four years. Eusebius thought so (Euseb. Hist. I. x. 39, 40). Melito (c. a.d. 165) also speaks of Jesus working miracles for three years (Ante-Nicene Christian Library xxii, 135). Ramsay supported the same view (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, 212f.).

A ministry of ten years was posited by Irenaeus on the basis of John 8:56, and on the theory that if Jesus came to save all ages He must have passed through every age, since after forty a man begins to decline toward old age. Jesus must have ministered until He was forty—on the threshold of old age.

Applying the phrase, “the acceptable year of the Lord” (Isa 61:2; Luke 4:18) as meaning one literal year, are those at the opposite extreme. Certain of the 2nd and 3rd cent. Fathers held this view, among them Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I. xxi) and the Valentinians (cf. HDCG, 155). Among more recent scholars who take this view are Von Soden and Hort (loc. cit.)

While John frequently refers to events which indicate the passage of time, the synoptists give little attention to the matter. In John, mention is made of the Passover (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; etc.), the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2); the Feast of Dedication (10:22); and “a feast” (5:1). He also speaks of the harvest (4:35), which began in April. Three distinct Passovers are included here, requiring a period of something more than two full years. Neither is it certain that John mentions every Passover feast during Jesus’ ministry, since his purpose in referring to them was to explain Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem and to provide a logical setting for the things which He said and did.

Some think they see indications of a two-year period in Mark’s gospel. His reference to the harvest in 2:23 is believed to indicate that it was the spring of the year. So does the “green grass” (6:39) and the Passover of 14:1. But the “green grass” (6:39) may find its explanation in a nearby spring of water, or in a stream rather than in the season of the year.

Hort arrives at a one-year period for Jesus’ ministry by excising as a primitive addition “the Passover” from John 6:4 (Westcott & Hort, NT in Greek, Int., App., 77ff.). But no MS or VS gives him a basis for this claim. He rests it solely on the fact that Irenaeus did not mention this Passover in his enumeration of Jesus’ trips to Jerusalem. An argument from silence is at best weak.

The assertion that “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23) suggests that His ministry lasted more than one year; for it would seem that no intelligent writer would state that of a man whose work ceased in the same year that it began.

From the foregoing considerations it is evident that the ministry of Jesus lasted from two to three and one-half years, with two and one-half years being most probable.

5. Crucifixion. The Fathers seem to have been uncertain as to the exact year of Jesus’ death. Most of their comments appear to have been influenced by the Biblical data. Clement of Alexandria dates it in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, forty-two and a half years before the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. in a.d. 28. But Clement allowed only one year for Jesus’ ministry (HDB rev., 157). Eusebius put the crucifixion as late as a.d. 33 (Euseb. Hist., I. x).

Before the date can be settled with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is advisable to consider the day of the week and the day of the month on which Christ died. John’s gospel puts it on the fourteenth day of Nisan. The following day was the sabbath and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, hence the haste with which the burial of Jesus was consummated. The synoptists, however, assign the crucifixion to the fifteenth of Nisan with the sabbath falling on the sixteenth. The suggestion that Jesus died on Thursday is untenable since it contradicts the eastern manner of calculating “the third day” prophesied for the Resurrection.

The determination of the year could be accomplished by ascertaining the exact day of the month if it could be shown that in a given year of that period only the fourteenth or the fifteenth could have fallen on a Friday. But the Jewish manner of determining the beginning of Nisan was not accurate. The beginning of each month was reckoned from the time of the new moon and was celebrated with a feast (Num 28:11-15; 1 Sam 20:5, 18, 24). But in early times at least, the first day of the month was not reckoned from the new moon but from the time, some thirty hours later, when the moon first became visible. Powers holds that before the time of Jesus the rule of Badhu (בדו) was devised, apparently to keep the Passover sabbath and the weekly sabbath from falling on consecutive days (cf. Ogg, 217, 218). This rule made it possible, too, for Jews in the Dispersion to know the day when the feast would begin, for without some fixed system cloudy weather made the calculation of the first day of the month impossible. In the year of the crucifixion, the fourteenth of Nisan, for those who reckoned it from observing the moon, fell on Thursday. According to the synoptics, Jesus and the disciples sat down to the feast on that evening; but the majority of the Jews, who followed the rule of Badhu, ate the Passover on the following evening. This explains why the Jews who crucified Jesus had yet to celebrate the Passover, when Jesus and His disciples had already eaten it. If it could be proved that the above theory is true, the puzzle of the apparent discrepancy between John and the synoptics on this point would be resolved. Unfortunately, its validity has not been securely established.

Either the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan could have fallen on Friday, April 11 in a.d. 27; on Friday, April 7 in a.d. 30; and on Friday, April 3 in a.d. 33. The fourteenth of Nisan fell on Friday, March 18 in a.d. 29. Of all these possibilities, the crucifixion must have fallen on Friday, April 7, a.d. 30, or on March 18 a.d. 29, the years a.d. 27 and a.d. 33 being respectively too early and too late to receive serious consideration. Of the two most probable years, a.d. 30 is chosen by Goguel, Lightfoot, Salmon, and Wiesler, while Lake, Sanday, Turner, and others favor a.d. 29. The latter has more traditional support and fits better into the dates for the nativity and baptism.

II. Chronology of the Apostolic Age

A. Conversion of Paul. Paul’s (Saul’s) conversion did not occur immediately after Pentecost since time must be allowed first for the Church to have lived in communal fellowship in Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-8:1). Time must be allowed also for Saul to have persecuted the Christian Jews “in all the synagogues...even unto foreign cities” (Acts 26:11). The brethren at the Syrian capital had had time to hear of Saul’s persecutions, and that he had authority to bind the Christians in that place (9:13, 14).

After Saul’s conversion he remained at Damascus “several days” (9:19), after which he fled because he had become an object of persecution. When he fled, the Nabatean Aretas (Haritha IV) was king of Syria (cf. Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32, 33). This Aretas was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, but Herod divorced his wife to marry the wife of his brother Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19).

Because of a boundary dispute, Antipas and Aretas engaged in a bitter war (Jos. Antiq. XVIII. v. 1. 3). When Antipas was defeated by Aretas, Antipas sought and obtained assistance of the Romans, whereupon Tiberius dispatched Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, to help Antipas. While in preparation, however, Vitellius received word that Tiberius had died (16 March a.d. 37). Believing his authority to fight Aretas to be gone, Vitellius recalled his army (cf. CAH, X, 649).

Paul indicates (2 Cor 11:32) that Aretas was in charge of Damascus when the apostle fled from that city, escaping in a basket over the wall. This could not have been on the occasion of Paul’s conversion but after his three-year stay in Arabia (cf. ISBE, I, 240), the apostle’s sojourn in Arabia falling between vv. 21 and 22 of Acts 9 (cf. “H” below). Paul’s conversion, then, was in a.d. 33 or 34.

B. Death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:23). The best information regarding Herod Agrippa comes from Josephus (cf. Antiq. XVIII. vi. 10; XVIII. vii. 2; XIX. v. 1; XIX. viii. 2). He states that soon after Caius (or Gaius, also called Caligula) succeeded Tiberius (Caligula reigned from a.d. 37 until his assassination in a.d. 41), Agrippa was given the tetrarchy of Philip. In a.d. 39 he received the tetrarchy of Antipas; and he became king of Judah, Samaria, and Abilene in a.d. 41 when Claudius ascended the throne (Jan. 24). His total reign was seven years, only three of which had been over Judea. Acts 12:23 implies that he died at the same festival at which he was stricken. Josephus states that his death came within five days (early in a.d. 44).

Two coins have been discovered which purport to come from the eighth and ninth years of Agrippa’s reign. Yet if the festival at which Agrippa died was “in honor of Caesar,” as Josephus states (Antiq. XIX. viii. 2), and as the majority of authorities hold, these were the quadrennial games instituted by Herod the Great at Caesarea in 9 b.c. and should have fallen in a.d. 44 or 45. The stronger evidence is in favor of Josephus’ statement.

It is likely that the death of James, and Peter’s imprisonment mentioned earlier (Acts 12), took place near the beginning of Agrippa’s reign, prob. in a.d. 41. This suggestion is strengthened by Luke’s indication that he launched the persecution to gain the favor of the Jews (12:3); and at the time of Agrippa’s death he appears to have been held in high esteem (had become established in Jewish esteem). This puts James’ death about a.d. 41.

C. Famine under Claudius (Acts 11:28). While various famines occurred within the Rom. empire during Claudius’ reign (a.d. 41 to 54) there is no evidence, outside of Luke’s account, of “a great famine over all the world.” Luke seems to locate the famine in question about a.d. 41 (11:28). Tacitus speaks of a wide scarcity in a.d. 51, and Suetonius describes a famine severe enough to reduce noticeably the grain-tribute which arrived at Rome. Of this he gives no date (HDB rev., 157). Josephus refers to a famine (Antiq. XX. ii. 5; XX. v. 2) which ravaged Judea while C. Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were its procurators. (The former was in office from a.d. 44 to 46; the latter, from a.d. 46 to 48.) Obviously this famine lasted for a number of years. Josephus tells how Queen Helena, at that time, sent her servants to Egypt to buy food and distribute it to those in Pal. who were in want. Many of the Jews had already died of starvation.

Despite conflicting data and the difficulty of determining the exact years of the famine to which Luke refers, it appears to have fallen within the period from a.d. 41 to 45, the latter date being preferred.

D. Jewish insurrectionists. Gamaliel pointed out two leaders of abortive uprisings against Rome (Acts 5:35-37). One of them was Theudas; the other, Judas.

Josephus tells of a magician who bore the name of Theudas who arose while Fadus was procurator of Judea (a.d. 44-46). Many followed him to the Jordan where he had told his followers that at his command the waters would divide allowing them to cross it on dry land. Fadus cut short the wild scheme of Theudas by sending a troop of horsemen against him and his supporters. Many of the latter were slain; the rest were taken alive. After being held prisoner for awhile, Theudas was decapitated and his head was carried to Jerusalem (Antiq. XX. v. 1).

This Theudas could hardly have been the one to whom Gamaliel referred, for Gamaliel was speaking of him before the events described above took place. The Theudas in question may have been a man whom Josephus called Judas (Antiq. XX. v. 2, note; XVII. xi. 5, note). If so, Theudas—Theudas, Thadeus, and Judas are much alike—was the son of Ezekias, a very strong man who was leader of a band of robbers. He and his profligate followers attacked the palace at Sepphoris in Galilee, seized its weapons, and carried off much money. In order to call attention to himself and obtain royal acclaim, he mutilated many people. Herod had great difficulty in apprehending him.

The Judas of whom Gamaliel spoke was in the days of Cyrenius’ census (ibid., XX. v. 2). Details of his activities are not available.

There was also Simon, a slave of Herod. He was handsome, tall, and robust; and gained a sizeable following. After having himself proclaimed king, he burned the royal palace at Jericho and plundered and burned many of the king’s houses in other parts. Some Rom. soldiers under Gratus conquered Simon and cut off his head. Neither the date of Judas nor that of Simon is known for certain. If Judas came into prominence during a census (Acts 5:37), it was prob. the census of a.d. 20 (cf. I. A. 2 above).

E. Edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2). When Paul first went to Corinth he met Aquila and Priscilla who had been expelled from Rome because Claudius had issued an edict expelling the Jews. Both Suetonius (Claudius 25) and Dio Cassius (LX, vi, 6) mention the edict without giving its date; but Orosius dates it in the ninth year of Claudius’ reign, or a.d. 49 (Hist. VII, vi, 15). Usually Orosius is one year off in his dates, but he seems to have been correct in this; for when Paul arrived in Corinth the first time Aquila and Priscilla had “lately” come from Rome (Acts 18:2).

F. Proconsulship of Gallio (18:12). The proconsular governors of senatorial provinces regularly held office for one year. Gallio’s term of office could not have been earlier than a.d. 44, for it was then that Claudius gave Achaia back to the Senate to be administered by a propraetor with the title of proconsul (cf. Dio Cassius lx. 24). Furthermore, the career of Gallio’s philosopher-brother Seneca would not allow a date for Gallio’s term of office before a.d. 49 or 50 (Harnack, Chronology, I. 237). A badly mutilated inscr. at Delphi is the key to the proconsulship of Gallio. It states that Gallio was appointed over Achaia at the twenty-sixth acclamation of Claudius as emperor. This prob. occurred between January 25 and August 1 of a.d. 51 or 52. Since Gallio suffered with malaria while in Corinth, his appointment, which some believe began 1 July a.d. 51, prob. lasted no more than one year (cf. Camb. Ancient History X, 682, n. 2). Luke’s statement that Paul remained in Corinth “many days” after appearing before Gallio, along with his reference to eighteen months as the limit of his stay (Acts 18:11, 18), suggest that he appeared before Gallio near the end of Paul’s first year in Corinth. In view of the above, it is fairly certain that Paul’s stay in Corinth extended from late in a.d. 50 or early in a.d. 51 to about the middle of a.d. 52.

G. Procuratorship of Festus (Acts 24:27). Luke states that Festus succeeded Felix as procurator of Judea after Paul had been in prison at Caesarea for two years (Acts 24:27). Felix, who succeeded Ventidius Cumanus in office, was already ruling in a.d. 52 (cf. Josephus, Wars. II. xii. 8, n.). Josephus asserts that Felix became procurator during the reign of Claudius (Antiq. XX. vii. 1). Felix was tried in Rome for his violent but ineffective intervention between Jews and Gentiles who had rioted in Caesarea. But he escaped punishment because of Nero’s affection for Felix’ brother Pallas (ibid. XX. viii. 9). According to Tacitus, although Pallas was removed from office before 13 February a.d. 55 (Ann. XIII. xiv. 1; cf. xv. 1), he continued to influence the emperor. But the death of Pallas was in a.d. 62 (ibid. XIII. xiv. 1f.; xxiii. 1-3), while Nero began to reign in the summer of a.d. 55. At Paul’s arrest, the chief captain had supposed him to be the Egyptian who had led an insurrection that had been suppressed by Felix during the reign of Nero (cf. Acts 21:38; Josephus, Antiq., XX. viii. 6; Wars, II. xiii. 5). This happened in the spring of a.d. 55. Since Paul had been in prison at Caesarea for two years when Felix was removed (Acts 24:27), the accession of Festus could not have been earlier than a.d. 57.

Eusebius states that Festus took office in the tenth year of Agrippa II (Chronological Tables). Josephus says (Wars, II. xiv. 4) that the reign of Agrippa II was reckoned from Nisan 1, a.d. 50. Hence his tenth year began on Nisan 1, a.d. 59. It seems clear, therefore, that Festus assumed office in the summer of a.d. 59.

H. The life of Paul. Considerable difficulty has been experienced in harmonizing Paul’s account, in Galatians 1 and 2, of his activities following his conversion with Luke’s account of the same activities.

Paul was converted at Damascus and remained there with the disciples for several days (Acts 9:19-22). In Galatians, Paul mentions his retirement from Damascus to “Arabia”—prob. the wilderness area near Damascus since it was subject at that time to the king of Arabia (Dummelow, 948, col. 1). That the three-year period in Arabia, which is not mentioned in Acts, belongs between vv. 21 and 22 of Acts 9 is suggested by contrasting the “several days” of v. 19 and the “many days” of v. 23. That also explains why he did not stop at Jerusalem en route from Arabia. “Then after three years” (Gal 1:18) from the time of his conversion (which had become the focal point of his life) he went to Jerusalem. The church was afraid of him, but Barnabas presented him to the apostles (Acts 9:27). He saw Peter esp. and James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:18, 19). Being persecuted in Jerusalem, he retired after “fifteen days” (v. 18) to Syria and Cilicia. There he doubtless continued to preach Christ, for the churches in Judea heard (lit. “are hearing,” ἀκούοντες) rumors, evidently from Syria and Cilicia, that “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (v. 23). It was Barnabas who persuaded Paul to return to Antioch, where he remained for a year (Acts 11:25 26). Then came the famine trip to Jerusalem (11:27-30). Returning to Antioch (12:25), Saul (Paul) and Barnabas worked there until the Holy Spirit and the church sent them on the first missionary journey (chs. 13 and 14) about a.d. 46-48.

Returning again to Antioch, they found Peter laboring with the brethren. When some from Jerusalem arrived, Peter, who had been in full fellowship with the Gentile converts, vacillated but was corrected by Paul (Gal 2:11f.). Paul and Barnabas had a dispute with the visitors from Jerusalem who were teaching that Gentile converts should be “circumcised according to the custom of Moses” (Acts 15:1, 2); whereupon it was decided that Paul and Barnabas and others should take the matter to the church at Jerusalem (a.d. 49). Paul went up “by revelation” (by God’s direction, Gal 2:2) and was given a warm reception by the “pillars.”

After returning to Antioch, Paul, choosing Silas as a companion, went on his second missionary journey (c. a.d. 49-52). Passing through the Galatian country and Phrygia, they arrived at Troas, crossed into Macedonia, then to Achaia where he spent eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:11). It was then that he appeared before Gallio (c. a.d. 52; cf. II, F above). He is believed to have written 1 and 2 Thessalonians during this visit at Corinth.

Confirmation for the place of writing of the Thessalonian epistles comes from the fact that Paul, Silas (Silvanus), and Timothy were together when they were written (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1); from Luke’s statement that the three were together at Corinth (Acts 18:5); and from the total disappearance of Silas from Luke’s account from that point on. Apparently a few months elapsed between the two epistles, for the idleness mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:11, 12 had developed into rather serious proportions by the time the second epistle was written (2 Thess 3:6-15). Also, sufficient time was necessary for Paul’s messenger to observe conditions in Thessalonica and the results of his first epistle and return to Corinth with the report. Leaving Corinth, Paul went to Jerusalem via Ephesus and returned to Antioch (Acts 18:22).

He began the third missionary journey (prob. a.d. 53 to 57) “after spending some time” in Antioch (18:23). Passing again through Galatia and Phrygia, this time he went to Ephesus where he spent between twenty-seven and thirty-six months (cf. 19:8, 10; 20:31). Here he wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 16:8), prob. near the close of his ministry there. Leaving Ephesus, he passed through Troas (2 Cor 2:1, 2) on his way to Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5; Acts 20:1). While in Macedonia he wrote 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5-7). Not long after, he went into Greece, spending about three months at Corinth (Acts 20:3). Retracing his steps through Macedonia, he crossed over to Troas, sailed down the coast of Asia, and went to Jerusalem. Here began his arrest, his appearances before Felix and Festus, and his trip to Rome. About a.d. 63, after Paul had been in Rome for two years, Luke wrote the Acts (Acts 28:30). While in prison at Rome Paul wrote the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. The first three of these were written and dispatched at the same time (Col 4:7-9; Philem 10-12; Eph 6:21, 22). This is also suggested by the great similarity of expressions and subject-matter in Colossians and Ephesians. It is evident that Philippians was written after Paul had been at Rome for some time, and appeared later than the Ephesian letter, for in Ephesians he requests prayer that he may be given utterance to speak boldly for Christ while in bonds (6:19), and in Philippians that desire has been fulfilled (1:12-14). That Philippians was written after Paul had spent considerable time in Rome is seen also in his statements about Epaphroditus: (1) the Philippian church sent him with a gift for Paul after they learned that the apostle was in prison at Rome (Phil 2:25; 4:18); (2) the Philippians had had time to hear that Epaphroditus had been sick (2:26); and (3) Epaphroditus had had time to hear that the Philippians had heard that he had been sick (2:26). Since news traveled slowly in those days, Paul must have been in Rome a number of months when he wrote this epistle. Philippians should be dated about a.d. 62 or 63 and the other prison epistles about a year earlier.

When Paul wrote Philippians he expected to be released soon (2:23, 24). That expectation apparently became a fact, though it is not clear whether his dream of reaching Spain (cf. Rom 15:28) ever was realized. Turning westward, he left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5) and Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) to be overseers of the churches there. Perhaps his desire to visit Philemon was fulfilled at that time also (cf. Philem 22). He seems to have spent a winter in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and to have been taken prisoner again while at Troas during the following summer (2 Tim 4:13). He finds himself in prison at Rome with winter coming on (ibid.). Paul expected to die this time (2 Tim 4:6). Tradition states that he was executed on the Ostian Road just outside Rome at the command of Nero. Since Nero died in June, a.d. 68, Paul’s death must have been about a.d. 67. Table I ties together the events of Paul’s life.

I. Epistles of Paul. Of all the extant writings of Paul, the Galatian epistle is the most difficult to date. The confusion arises over what Paul meant by “the churches of Galatia” (1:2). In the 3rd cent. b.c. many Gauls migrated from eastern Europe to a region in the northern part of Asia Minor (Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium became their chief towns), and became known as Galatians. When Rome gained control of Asia Minor the districts of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Phrygia were made parts of Galatia (under Augustus in 25 b.c.).

The N Galatian theory sees Paul evangelizing this original Galatian country on the second missionary journey (Acts 16:6), and returning through that region on his third missionary journey (18:23). It holds that he addressed the epistle to them instead of, or at least as well as, to the churches in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. The S Galatian theory holds that he wrote only to the churches in the S, which he founded on the first missionary journey.

It is evident that the chronology of the Galatian epistle depends to no small degree on the location of the churches addressed. If Paul was writing only to the churches of S Galatia, the epistle must have been his first, possibly appearing before the conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15). If, on the other hand, he was writing to churches in northern (ethnic) Galatia, he could not have written it so early and may well have penned it as late as the third missionary journey, near the time of his letter to the Rom. church.

1. Arguments for the North Galatian theory. (a) A person writing to people of a familiar area would use popular (ethnic) rather than technical (political) names for places in that area. In Acts, for example, Luke states that Antioch was Pisidian (Acts 13:14) while Lystra and Derbe were Lycaonian (14:6). In answer, it should be noted that Paul’s, not Luke’s, usage is significant for our purpose. Luke’s use of ethnic names, when referring to these regions, does not prove that the southern area was not also Galatia any more than the fact that Chicago is a city in Cook County proves that it is not also a city of Illinois. Paul typically used terms in their official, Rom. sense: e.g., Judea, Cilicia, Syria, Macedonia, and Achaia.

(b) The patristic writers thought Paul wrote the epistle to the churches in northern Galatia. This prob. was because the Fathers’ interpretation of the situation was based on the circumstances which prevailed in their own, rather than on those which prevailed in Paul’s day.

(c) Luke does not mention Paul’s ailment (Gal 4:13-15), which he would have done had he been writing to the S Galatians. This is at best an argument from silence and might be used against either theory.

(d) The fact that the Galatians were “so quickly” turning from Christ unto a modified Judaism (Gal 1:6f.) shows that they were fickle, hence were of Gallic origin. Yet the Gallic people are known to have kept their own religion, language, and laws while under Rom. rule (cf. ISBE, II, 1155, col. 2). On the other hand, the quick change of attitude toward Paul by the inhabitants of Lystra (Acts 14:8-19) condemns them as fickle.

(e) The Galatian epistle is doctrinally similar to the Rom. letter, even containing some of the same illustrations; hence both were written about the same time. They are indeed similar in several respects, though vastly different in others; and they were inspired by widely different situations. The central doctrine, not the time, could account better for their similarities.

2. Arguments for the South Galatian theory. (a) Paul ceases to give details of his Christian life in Galatians after mentioning his correction of Peter at Antioch (2:11b). This suggests that he wrote the epistle about that time.

(b) Although Paul deals in Galatians with the problem discussed by the whole church at Jerusalem (Acts 15), he makes no reference to the conference, which strongly supported his position.

(c) Paul mentions Barnabas as though he was well known to his readers (2:1, 13). The only record of Barnabas’ entry into Galatia was on the first missionary journey.

(d) Paul indicates that the Galatian churches were cooperating in the offering for Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1), where Paul obviously is on his way to Jerusalem (Acts 20:1-6) with the offering (cf. 2 Cor 8; Acts 24:17). No representative from N Galatia is named, though two are listed from S Galatia.

(e) No mention of the founding of churches in Galatia appears in Acts 16 and 18. It is only stated that he passed through Galatia and Phrygia. He apparently made no new disciples in Galatia on these journeys but concentrated on “strengthening all the disciples” (18:23; cf. 16:1-6).

(f) No allusions esp. suited to Gauls are found in the epistle.

(g) The “so quickly” of Galatians 1:6 is more possible if related to the S Galatian theory since it was easier for Judaizers from Jerusalem to go to the cities of S Galatia than to those of the N.

(h) There is no record of the existence of churches in N Galatia until about a.d. 200 (cf. Dummelow, 944).

In view of the superior weight of the arguments for the S Galatian theory, it is likely that Paul wrote the epistle from Syrian Antioch early in a.d. 49.

The Pastoral epistles appear clearly to have been written subsequent to Paul’s release from his first Rom. imprisonment. Both 1 Timothy and Titus speak of events which do not fit into the earlier chronology of Paul’s life as seen in the Acts and Paul’s other letters. For example, earlier writings never suggest that Paul left Timothy in Ephesus when he himself was going into Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), nor that he left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5). Neither do they mention the winter which Paul planned to spend in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). When he wrote to the Philippians, he expected to be released (Phil 1:25; 2:24). This expectation, evidently, was fulfilled, at which Paul made his way to Crete, to Ephesus, and Colosse (Philem 22), and Macedonia (Titus 3:12). Evidence is clear that when he wrote 2 Timothy he was again in prison, this time expecting to be executed (cf. 1:8, 16; 2:9; 4:6).

From the above data that was mentioned under “II, H” above, Paul’s epistles may be tabulated as in Table II.

J. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The chronology of the Epistle to the Hebrews depends in part on its authorship. If Paul wrote it, it was written by a.d. 67. If another was its author, it may have been written shortly before Paul’s death, but not later than the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70. The evidence, for the most part, points to an author other than Paul, as the following will indicate.

1. Various patristic writers assumed, without giving evidence, that Paul wrote the epistle. Others doubted it. After Athanasius (a.d. 297-373), ecclesiastical writers of Egypt and Pal. attributed it to Paul. Elsewhere, the names of Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Clement, and others were also suggested. Origen (c. a.d. 185-254) concluded: “As to who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews God alone knows the truth” (Eccl. Hist., VI, xxv).

2. Jerome and Augustine accepted the Pauline tradition, which they influenced the church in the W to accept.

3. Luther and Calvin rejected its Pauline authorship. Subsequent scholarship has generally followed their lead.

4. Timothy was still living and is referred to in terms which Paul might have used (13:23). But Timothy’s prison experience is difficult to coordinate with known data on Paul’s life. Just before the apostle died, however, he urged Timothy to greater boldness in the ministry (cf. 2 Tim 1:8-12; 2:3; 4:5). A positive response by Timothy apparently resulted in his imprisonment.

5. The writer of the epistle acknowledges that he received the Christian message through others (Heb 2:3, 4), which Paul, as revealed in Acts and in his known letters, never did (cf. 1 Cor 9:1; 11:23; Gal 1:1, 12; Eph 3:3).

6. The epistle lacks the characteristic salutation of Paul.

7. Paul affirmed that he signed all of his letters (2 Thess 3:17). His name is not mentioned in this epistle.

8. While Paul used both the LXX and Heb. texts when quoting the OT, this writer uses only the LXX.

9. The theology of the epistle agrees with Paul—and with every other writer of the NT.

10. The style and vocabulary are far purer than Paul is known to have used, yet the letter bears no evidence of having been tr.

In view of the above, since the Temple still was standing and the priests functioning (5:1-4; 8:4; 10:11; 13:10, 11), and since the people addressed seems to have been entering upon a time of trial (cf. 10:36; 12:4), the epistle appears to have been written about a.d. 69.

K. The Epistle of James. This epistle has been dated from a.d. 45 to a.d. 150. Among those favoring an early date are Alford, Dods, Mayor, Neander, Plumptre, Renan, Stanley, Weiss, and Zahn. Others, such as Ewald, Farrar, Kern, Schmidt, and Wordsworth put it near the close of James’ life. Josephus states that James was killed by the high priest Ananus after Festus’ death, before Albinus arrived (Antiq. XX. ix. 1), which was in a.d. 62. Among those who believe the epistle to have been written at a later date are Bacon, Baur, Davidson, Harnack, and others.

Neither internal nor external evidence for the date of writing is conclusive. Some believe that Paul used James’ epistle when he wrote Romans 5:3-5 and 7:23 (cf. James 1:2-4; 3:14-16), making its appearance earlier than a.d. 67. Wordsworth, Farrar, and Ewald argue for a date around a.d. 62 on the supposition that James wrote it shortly before his death to correct certain misconceptions of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. A very early date (about a.d. 45) is favored by a number of authorities because they believe the epistle reveals a primitive form of church organization; because it appears to be a narrow link between Judaism and Christianity; and because such doctrines as love for one’s fellow men, the lordship of Christ, and the hope of His early return were much in the minds of the Early Church. Those who contend for a very late date appear to do so on the grounds that it manifests a waning of the theological position of Paul. The difference in Paul and James, however, is only one of degree of emphasis. James acknowledges faith but emphasizes works as its evidence, while Paul regularly insists, in his epistles, on a high level