A.D. 44-64

a.d. 44-64, we should have a fixed point from which to argue back. unfortunately, even less agreement exists on this head than on the question whether the fourteen years of the last-mentioned visit are to be reckoned from the conversion or from the previous visit. most critics, indeed, are now agreed that the fourteen years are to be calculated from the conversion; and most of them still hold that the visit of galatians ii. is the same as the council of acts xv., partly, no doubt, on the ground that the latter visit was too important and decisive for st paul to have omitted in giving even the most summary description of his relations with the twelve. this ground would, however, be cut away from their feet if it were possible to hold (with j.v. bartlet, _apostolic age_, 1900, and v. weber, _die abfassung des galaterbriefs vor dem apostelkonzil_, ravensburg, 1900) that the epistle was actually written just before the council, i.e. in the winter of 48-49 [49-50]. in that case, of course, the two visits of galatians i. and ii. would be those of acts ix. 26 and xi. 30. the fourteen years reckoned back from the latter (c. a.d. 46) would bring us to a.d. 32-33 as the latest possible date for the conversion. with the older view, on the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned from the council in a.d. 49 [50] would allow us to bring down the conversion to a.d. 36. the new view clears away some manifest difficulties in the reconciliation of the epistle and the acts, and the early date for galatians in relation to the other pauline epistles is not so improbable as it may seem; but the chronology still appears more satisfactory on the older view, which enables the conversion to be placed at least three years later than on the alternative theory. but it is clear that the last word has not been said, and that definite results for this period cannot yet be looked for. to sum up: an attempt has been made, it is hoped with some success, to provide a framework of history equipped with dates from the time of st peter's arrest by herod agrippa i. at the passover of a.d. 44 down to the martyrdom of st peter and st paul in the persecution of nero, a.d. 64-65. for the previous period, on the other hand, from a.d. 29 to a.d. 44, it appeared impossible in our present state of knowledge to state conclusions other than in the most general form. authorities.--the views stated in this article are in general (though with some modifications) the same as those which the present writer worked out with more fulness of detail in hastings' _dictionary of the bible_, i. (1898) 403-424. of older books should be mentioned:--ideler, _handbuch der mathematischen und technischen chronologie_ (2 vols., 1825); wieseler, _chronologie des apostolischen zeitalters_ (1848); lewin's _fasti sacri_ (1865). important modern contributions are to be found in prof. (sir) w.m. ramsay's various works, and in harnack's _chronologie der altchristlichen litteratur bis eusebius_, i. 233-244. mention should also be made of an article, containing much useful astronomical and talmudical information, by mr j.k. fotheringham, "the date of the crucifixion," in the _journal of philology_, xxix. 100-118 (1904). mr fotheringham is of opinion that the evidence from christian sources is too uncertain, and that the statements of the mishnah must be the starting-point of the inquiry: taking then the phasis of the new moon as the true beginning of nisan, he concludes that friday cannot have coincided with nisan 14 in any year, within the period a.d. 28-35, other than a.d. 33 (april 3rd). but in one of the two empirical tests of the value of these calculations that he was able to obtain (_loc. cit._ p. 106, n. 2), the new moon was seen a day earlier than his rules allowed. this being so, it would be premature to disregard the convergent lines of historical evidence which tell against a.d. 33. among the latest german works may be cited the chapter on new testament chronology in the _neutestamentliche zeitgeschichte_ of dr oscar holtzmann (2nd ed., 1906), pp. 117-147: regarded as a collection of historical material this deserves every praise, but the mass is undigested and the treatment of the evidence arbitrary. as might be expected, dr holtzmann's conclusions are clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly excluded: the crucifixion is dated on the 7th of april a.d. 30, and st paul's arrest (with the older writers) at pentecost a.d. 58. (c. h. t.) footnotes: [1] the books of samuel, kings, ezra and nehemiah, and chronicles, were by the jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not divided by them into two till the 16th century, through christian influence. [2] for a discussion of the word "massoretes" see w. bacher (_j.q.r._ vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation of these words was [hebrew: masoreth] and [hebrew: momarah]. [3] the actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known, but it must in any case have been later than the time of jerome, and is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. of the systems of punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the tiberian, or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the hebrew bible. the other system, the babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly found in certain yemen mss. for yet a third system of vocalization see m. friedlaender, _j.q.r._, 1895, pp. 564 f., and p. kahle in _z.a.t.w._ xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. probably the idea of providing vowel points was borrowed from the syrians. [4] this represents the western tradition as opposed to the eastern text of ben naphtali. for the standard copies such as the _codex hillelis_ referred to by later writers see h.l. strack, _proleg. critica_, pp. 14 f. [5] cf. f.c. burkitt, _fragments of the books of kings according to the translation of aquila_. [6] the talmudic story of the three mss. preserved in the court of the temple (_sopherim_, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative efforts of the rabbis in this direction. [7] w. robertson smith, _old testament and the jewish church_, pp. 69 f. [8] for these _tiqqune sopherim_ or "corrections of the scribes" see geiger, _urschrift_, pp. 308 f.; strack, _prolegomena critica_, p. 87; buhl, _canon and text of the old testament_, pp. 103 f. in the _mekilta_ (exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. less important are the _itture sopherim_, or five passages in which the scribes have omitted a _waw_ from the text. [9] _text of the books of samuel_, pp. xxxix. f. [10] according to josephus (_ant._ xi. 7. 8) the temple on mt. gerizim was set up by manasseh in the reign of darius codomannus, i.e. about 332 b.c. it is possible that he is correct in placing the building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in connecting it with the secession of manasseh, which, according to nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he has confused darius codomannus with his predecessor, darius nothus. [11] e.g. ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; num. xx. f.; deut. xxvii. 4. [12] 1 kings xx. 7-17; 2 kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by mr (now professor) f.c. burkitt in _fragments of the books of kings according to the translation of aquila_ (cambridge, 1897), and ps. xc. 6-13; xci. 4-10, and parts of ps. xxiii. by dr c. taylor in _sayings of the jewish fathers_ (2nd ed., 1897). [13] on the question of theodotion's date, schuerer (_geschichte des juedischen volkes_, bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for his _priority_ to aquila on the grounds, (1) that irenaeus mentions him before aquila, and (2) that, after aquila's version had been adopted by the greek jews, a work such as that of theodotion would have been somewhat superfluous. theodotion's work, he suggests, formed the first stage towards the establishment of a greek version which should correspond more closely with the hebrew. moreover, this theory affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from jewish tradition. [14] only one ms. of the septuagint version of daniel has survived, the _codex chisianus_. [15] _introduction to the old testament in greek_, p. 51. [16] hence the name _hexapla_. in some books, especially the poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the _quinta_ and _sexta_, but the _octapla_, as the enlarged work was called, was not apparently a distinct work. the _tetrapla_, on the other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first two columns of the _hexapla_. [17] lagarde's projected edition of the lucianic recension was unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains genesis-2 esdras, esther. it may be noted here that the complutensian polyglott represents a lucianic text. [18] hastings's _dict. of the bible_, iii. pp. 54 ff. [19] _the old testament in greek_, by a.e. brooke and n. mclean, vol. i. pt. 1 (1906) [20] his arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by jerome in his commentary on _daniel_. [21] in what follows the actual quotations are from his english work; some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his later latin version. [22] see particularly b. stade, _geschichte des volkes israel_ (1887-1888); j. wellhausen, _die kleinen propheten_ (1892); b.i. duhm, _jesaia_ (1892); t.k. cheyne, _introduction to the book of isaiah_ (1895); k. marti, _jesaja_ (1900), and _das dodekapropheton_ (1904). [23] _the old testament in the jewish church_ (1881); _the prophets of israel_ (1882). [24] for details see an article in the _zeitschr. fuer d. altest. wissenschaft_ for 1889, pp. 246-302, on "alttestamentliche studien in amerika," by g.f. moore, who has himself since done much distinguished and influential critical work. [25] to avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is necessary to refer here to the fact that tethmosis (thothmes) iii. in the 16th century b.c. mentions two palestinian places named respectively jacobel and josephel, and sheshonk in the both century b.c. mentions another called "the field of abram." from these names alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their names from individuals or tribes. [26] or according to some mss., 167. [27] shem, the father of arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the flood, and lives for 600 years. [28] disregarding the "two years" of gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11. [29] taking account of the reading of lxx. in ex. xii. 40. [30] see further driver's essay in hogarth's _authority and archaeology_ (1899), pp. 32-34; or his _book of genesis_ (1904, 7th ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff. [31] 1 petrie, _hist. of egypt_, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii. (1905), p. 2. [32] see merenptah's account of the defeat of these invaders in maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in breasted's _ancient records of egypt_ (chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252. [33] namely, 40 years in the wilderness; joshua and the elders (judges ii. 7), x years; othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; ehud (iii. 30), 80 years; barak (v. 31), 40 years; gideon (viii. 28), 40 years; jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76 years; samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; eli (1 sam. iv. 18), 40 years; samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; saul, y years; david, 40 years; and solomon's first four years--in all 440 + x + y years. [34] namely, moses (in the wilderness), joshua, othniel, ehud, deborah, gideon, jephthah, samson, eli, samuel, saul and david. [35] the "300 years" of judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the successive periods of oppression and independence. the verse occurs in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of the present chronology of the book. [36] the real biblical date, ussher in gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60 years, because it is said in acts vii. 4 that abraham left haran _after_ his father terah's death (gen. xi. 32), and also (as explained above) interpreting wrongly ex. xii. 40. [37] hilprecht's dates (_the bab. expedition of the university of pennsylvania_, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23, 24, 43, 44). [38] petrie's dates, _hist. of egypt_, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20, 30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360. other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the dynasties prior to the 18th. thus breasted (_hist. of egypt_, 1906, pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with ed. meyer in giving, for reasons which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynasty c. b.c. 3400, for the 4th dynasty c. b.c. 2900-2750, and for the rule of the hyksos c. b.c. 1680-1580; and in his _researches in sinai_, 1906, p. 175, petrie proposes for menes b.c. 5510, and for the 4th dynasty b.c. 4731-4454. see egypt (_chronology_). [39] so sayce, rogers (_hist. of bab. and ass._, 1900, i. 318 f.) and others. the date rests upon a statement of nabu-na'id's, that sargon's son, naram-sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. lehmann holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of 3200. [40] the real biblical date. [41] rogers, i. 373-375. many monuments and inscriptions of other kings in babylonia, between 4000 and 2000 b.c., are also known. [42] the lists of the babylonian and assyrian kings are not continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the discussion in rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), khammurabi, the sixth king of the first babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such dates as 2376-2333 b.c. (sayce) or 2285-2242 b.c. (johns). but inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved that these dates are too high; see l.w. king, _chronicles concerning early bab. kings_ (1907), i. 93-110; and the article babylonia, _chronology_. the data b.c. 2130-2088 is that adopted by thureau-dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in the _journal des savants_, 1908, p. 199; and by ungnad in the _orient. litt.-zeitung_, 1908, p. 13, and in gressmann's _altorientalische texte und bilder zum a.t._ (1909), p. 103. [43] king, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14. [44] the dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by kautzsch in the table in his _outline of the hist. of the literature of the o.t._ (tr. by taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also a.r.s. kennedy, "samuel" in the _century bible_ (1906), p. 31. the dates given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or four years. [45] the figures after a king's name indicate the number of years assigned to his reign in the o.t. for saul, see 1 sam. xiii. 1, r.v. [46] the date of sheshonq depends on that fixed for rehoboam. petrie places the accession of rehoboam in 937 b.c. [47] if these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages assigned to ahaz and hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25 respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that ahaz, dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! the date 728 for hezekiah's accession rests upon the assumption that of the two inconsistent dates in 2 kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10 (which places the fall of samaria in hezekiah's 6th year) is correct; but some scholars (as wellhausen, kamphausen, and stade) suppose that the date in ver. 10 (which places sennacherib's invasion in hezekiah's 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly hezekiah's accession to 715. this removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of jotham and ahaz; but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns of the kings succeeding ahaz. [48] breasted's dates for these three kings (_hist. of egypt_, 1906, p. 601) are: shabaka 712-700; shabataka 700-688; taharqa 688-663. [49] see george smith, _the assyrian eponym canon_ (1875), pp. 29 ff., 57 ff.; schrader, _keilinschriftliche bibliothek_ (transcriptions and translations of assyrian and babylonian inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff. [50] it may be explained here that the dates of the assyrian and babylonian kings can be reduced to years b.c. by means of the so-called "canon of ptolemy," which is a list of the babylonian and persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from nabonassar, 747 b.c., to alexander the great, drawn up in the 2nd century a.d. by the celebrated egyptian mathematician and geographer ptolemy; as the dates b.c. of the persian kings are known independently, from greek sources, the dates b.c. of the preceding babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of the canon. the recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully established the accuracy of the canon. [51] or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see rost, _die keilschrifttexte tiglat-pilesers iii._, 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi. [52] this interval does not depend upon a mere list of eponym years; we have in the annals of sargon and sennacherib full particulars of the events in all the intervening years. [53] the date of this epistle is rather uncertain. something depends upon the vexed question as to the identity of the galatian churches. the epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at ephesus (c. a.d. 52-53). it is to be noted that the chronological grouping of the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive; resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than to proximity in date. [54] e.g. from the preface to the acts: "dionysius, bishop of the corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by eusebius, writes that peter and paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of nero on the same day." and again: "some industrious critics have added (to the narrative of acts) that paul was acquitted at his first trial by nero .... this conjecture they make from the 2nd ep. to timothy...." [55] the phrase is chillingworth's (1637), who may be described as a broad high-churchman. [56] j. wellhausen, _einl. in die drei ersten evangelien_ (1905), p. 57. [57] if luke used josephus, as f.c. burkitt and others believe, the later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a companion of st paul. [58] it is a curious coincidence that a medieval jew, r. abarbanel (abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets in this particular constellation was to be a sign of messiah's coming. it is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to chaldaean magi. [59] if the passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a private jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of jewish rules in the time of christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the evidence of the synoptic gospels would no longer conflict with that of st john. [60] dr c. erbes (_texte and untersuchungen_, new series, iv. 1) attempts to interpret the evidence of eusebius in favour of the later date for festus as follows: eusebius's date for festus is to be found in nero 1, by striking a mean between the armenian, claudius 12, and the latin, nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by years of nero, but by years of agrippa; and as eusebius erroneously antedated agrippa's reign by five years, commencing it with a.d. 45 instead of a.d. 50, his date for festus is five years too early also, and should be moved to nero 6, a.d. 59-60. the whole of this theory appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare's nest: see _journal of theological studies_ (october 1901), pp. 120-123. [61] this date appears to be satisfactorily established by ramsay, "a second fixed point in the pauline chronology," _expositor_, august 1900.