Dates

Dates

The dates of the Apostolic Age are interlinked with those of the NT as a whole. No single date is fixed with the absolute precision which modern historical science demands in the case of recent or contemporaneous chronology. Although some individual dates are so nearly agreed upon that all practical ends aimed at in chronology are secured, yet, in the words of W. M. Ramsay, No man can as yet prove his own opinion about chronology and order in the New Testament to the satisfaction of other scholars (Expositor, 8th ser., ii. [1911] 154). In re-stating the information accessible on these dates, it will be well to exhibit clearly the limits of the apostolic period, to reproduce some Roman Imperial dates, to fix some pivotal points which may serve as landmarks, and to determine the times of some of the important events in the life of the Christian community so far as they can be related to the above. What has been said of the difficulty of reaching indisputable results will be found to be especially true of the last part of this task.

I. General Limit Dates.-In its broadest acceptance (in ecclesiastical history) the Apostolic Age begins with the birth of Jesus Christ (usually reckoned as 4 b.c.), and ends with the passing of the last of the apostles from the scene of action, i.e. the death of John in the reign of Trajan, or, for the sake of convenience, a.d. 100. In a narrower sense, the first 33 years of this general period are not included in the Apostolic Age. They constitute an epoch by themselves. The problems raised in them are connected with the life and work of Jesus, and the story is told in the Canonical Gospels. In this definition of it, the Apostolic Age begins with the Day of Pentecost, or at the point where the author of Acts takes up the story; and it ends with the last of the apostles. In a still narrower sense, the period beginning with the Fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) is thrown off on the ground that NT history may fitly be said to close with the great catastrophe of a.d. 70 (Turner in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. 415b). This limitation may be further justified by the fact that the destruction of the Temple established a new order of things not simply with reference to Judaism, but also to the whole apostolic activity, and that the only items of importance in Christian history that can be included in a chronology subsequent to that event are the dates of some apostolic (or other NT) writings.

The date of the Crucifixion.-Since the Apostolic Age begins with the Day of Pentecost, the question of the year in which the Crucifixion occurred falls to be briefly reviewed here. The line of departure for the chronology of the Crucifixion is given by the Gospel narratives. These name both the Roman and the Jewish rulers of the day. The Roman Emperor was Tiberius (a.d. 14-37), the procurator of Judaea was Pontius Pilate (a.d. 26-36), the high priest of the Jews was Caiaphas (a.d. 25[?]-34[?]). Since Pilate must have been procurator for two or three years before the case of Jesus came for trial (cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII. iii. 1-3, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. ix. 2-4), and since, according to St. Luke, the whole ministry of Jesus falls after the 15th year of Tiberius (a.d. 29, if sole reign is meant, and 27, if co-regency with Augustus), it follows that the earliest year for the Crucifixion is 28.* [Note: The question is somewhat complicated by the uncertainty as to the length of the ministry or Jesus (cf. L. Fendt, Die Dauer der ffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, 1906; W. Homanner, Die Dauer der ffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, 1908).] The latest limit is fixed by the fact that after 34 Caiaphas was no longer high priest. Between 28 and 34, however, the determination of the exact year is facilitated by the astronomical calculations as to the coincidence of Passover with the day of the week implied in the Gospel narrative. There is a margin of uncertainty on this point; but, whichever way the perplexing problem is solved, the year 29 or 30 still satisfies the conditions. [Note: For full discussion see Turner in HDB i. 410; cf. also art. Dates in DCG i. 413.] As between the two years to which the discussion narrows down the choice, the year 30 seems upon the whole, in view of traditional as well as internal grounds, to be the more satisfactory.

The net results arrived at for limiting dates, therefore, are:

(1) The Apostolic Church=4 b.c.-a.d. 100.

(2) Apostolic Age=a.d. 30-100.

(3) The Apostolic Era=a.d. 30-70.

II. Roman Imperial Dates.-Jesus Christ was crucified during the reign of Tiberius, and more precisely in the 15th year of that Emperors sole rule, and the 17th, or 18th, of his co-regency with Augustus. Tiberius was followed by Caius Caligula in a.d. 37. Caligula was succeeded by Claudius in 41. Nero followed Claudius in 54, and was supplanted in 68 by Galba. Otho succeeded Galba in 69, and was followed by Vespasian in 70. Vespasian was followed by his son Titus in 79. Domitian came next in 81, reigning until 96. Then came Nerva, whose reign lasted till 98; and, so far as the Apostolic Age was concerned, Trajan closed the succession, ascending the throne in 98 and reigning till 117.

a.d.

Tiberius14-37

Caligula37-41

Claudius41-54

Nero54-68

Galba68-69

Otho69-70

Vespasian70-79

Titus79-81

Domitian81-96

Nerva96-98

Trajan98-117

III. Pivotal Dates.-Close scrutiny brings into measurably clear detail the following fixed points in the apostolic chronology, which, therefore, may serve as general landmarks.

1. The rule of Aretas over Damascus.-In unravelling the complications of the problem raised by the mention of an ethnarch of Aretas by St. Paul (2Co 11:32), it must be borne in mind that Rome governed the subject territories of Asia either directly or through subject princes. Before 33-34 and after 62-63 Damascus was under direct Roman administration. This is made clear from the extant Syrian coins of these years, which bear the heads of the Roman Emperors Tiberius and Nero and do not allude to subject rulers. Since some allusion is always made where subject princes intervene, the case seems clearly made out that only after 34 and before 62 could a Nabataean king have secured ascendancy at Damascus. How this came about, however, is not definitely known. It could certainly not have been due to rebellion or any other form of violence. And if it was brought about peacefully, it is probable that it was done upon the initiative, or by consent, of Caligula, who is known to have encouraged the devolution of as much autonomy on the native dynasts as was consistent with Roman suzerainty. The Nabataean ascendancy in Damascus was thus near its beginning during the last years of Aretas (Harithath) IV. For the accession of this king is placed by Josephus (Ant. XVI. ix. 4) in connexion with certain events in the latter part of the reign of Herod the Great. His immediate successor Abia ruled under Claudius and was a contemporary of Izates, of Adiabene, against whom he waged war upon invitation of certain malcontents and traitors (Ant. XX. iv. 1). The probable limits of his reign thus appear to be 9 b.c. and a.d. 39 or 40 (cf. CIS [Note: IS Corpus Inscrip. Semiticarum.] , pt. ii. 197-217; also Schrer History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] I. ii. 357, II. i. 66, 67). The governor (ethnarch) of Aretas referred to by St. Paul must therefore have acted his part of guarding the gates of Damascus before the year 39. But how long before is not certain. And since from Gal 1:17 it is clear that Saul returned to Damascus as a Christian leader after a period of three years spent in Arabia, and the flight from Damascus (2Co 11:32) cannot be identified with any later event than this visit, his conversion must have taken place not later than 36, and perhaps several years earlier. See also article Aretas.

2. The death of Herod Agrippa I.-According to Josephus (Ant. XIX. viii. 2, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xi. 6), Agrippa died at the age of 54, at the end of the seventh year of his reign, four of which had been passed under Caligula and three under Claudius; Josephus also makes it plain that the three years that fell under the reign of Claudius were the period of Agrippas sole rule over the whole of Palestine, and that he had been made king over the whole of Palestine by Claudius immediately after his accession (Ant. XIX. v. 1, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xi. 5). Since Claudius succeeded Caligula on 24th Jan. 41, the death of Agrippa must be dated in 44. This conclusion harmonizes with the circumstance that the festivities at Caesarea during which he was stricken with his fatal illness were being held in honour of the safe return of the Emperor from Britain (, Ant. XIX. viii. 2) in the year 44 (Dio Cass. lx. 23; Suet. Claud. 17). But if this was the occasion for the celebration, the time of the year for it was in all probability the late summer or early autumn, since news of the return of the Emperor must have taken some time to reach the East. The year 44 is thus fixed as the date of the events in Acts 12, and at the same time serves as a terminus ad quem for all that precedes.

3. The proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia.-L. Junius Gallio (Act 18:12), brother of the philosopher Seneca and mentioned by him in affectionate terms (Quest. Nat., Preface), but adopted by the rhetorician Gallio, served a protonsulship of one year in Achaia some time between 44 and 54. The fact of his residence in Achaia is certified by Seneca, who alludes (Ep. XVIII. i. 104) to his having been obliged to leave that province on account of a fever. It is further attested by the mention of his name in an inscription found near Plataea in which he is designated as a benefactor of the city: [ ] [] []. But, since neither of these references to Gallios experience in Achaia is associated with any date, the exact year of his proconsulship was left to be determined in the earlier computations upon purely conjectural grounds; and these yielded no palpable gain in the direction of greater fixity.

Thus a great variety of results was reached: Anger (de Temporum Ratione, 1833, p. 119), a.d. 52-54; Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, 1848, p. 119), Lewin (Fasti Sacri, 1865, p. 299) Blass (Acta Apost., 1895, p. 22), Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., 1897, ii. 237), 48-50; Turner (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. 417b), after 44, probably after 49 or 50; Hoennicke (Chron. des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903, p. 30), at the latest 53-54; Clemen (Paulus, 1904), 52-53; O. Holtzmann (Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Holtzmann and others).2, 1906, p. 144), 53; and Zahn (Introd. to NT, Eng. translation , 1909, iii. 470), 53-54,

This uncertainty has been altogether removed by the discovery at Delphi of four fragment of an inscription naming Gallio and linking his proconsulship with the 26th acclamation of Claudius as Imperator. The fragments were fitted together and the inscription was given to the public by Emile Bourguet (de Rebus Delphicis Imperatoiae aetatis Capita Duo, Montpellier, 1905). The discovery and its significance were discussed more or less fully by Deissmann (Paulus, 1911, pp. 159-176; Eng. translation , 1912, Appendix I. p. 235), Offord (PEFSt [Note: EFSt Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement.] April 1908, p. 163), and Ramsay (Expositor, 7th ser., vii. [1909] 468). The text is not in a perfect state of preservation, but is sufficiently clear, with the restorations which have been proposed by Bourguet, to cover the chronological point under dispute. It was a letter sent by Claudius when he bore the title of Imperator XXVI. (KC ). It names Junius Gallio as the friend of the writer and proconsul of Achaia: [] [] []. This meaning of the inscription was first pointed out by A. J. Reinach (REG [Note: EG Revue des Etudes Grecques.] , 1907, p. 49), and is independently reached or otherwise accepted by Offord (loc. cit.), Ramsay (loc. Cit.), Clemen (ThLZ [Note: hLZ Theologische Litteraturzeitung.] , 1910, col. 656), Loisy (with his usual hypercritical caution, Revue dhist. et de lit. [Note: literally, literature.] relig., March, April, 1911, pp. 139-144), and Deissmann (loc. cit.). The exact date of the acclamation of Claudius as Imperator XXVI. is not given anywhere. But, since from R. Cagnats tables (Cours dpigraphie latine3, 1898, p. 478) it appears that at the beginning of 52 Claudius was Imperator XXIV. and at the end Imperator XXVII., both the 25th and the 26th acclamations must have been issued some time in 52, and in all probability after victories secured during the summer season. But if Gallio was proconsul when the document was sent to Delphi, since the proconsular year was fixed by Claudius as beginning April 1 (Dio Cassius, lvii. 14, 5; lx. 11. 6, 17. 3) Gallios term of office falls in the year beginning with the spring of 52. Cf. article Acts of the Apostles, VI. 3.

4. The recall of Felix and the accession of Festus.-The appointment of Felix was one of the later acts of the Emperor Claudius; and Nero on his accession confirmed it (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xii. 8, xiii. 2-7; Ant. XX. viii. 4, 5). The exact year of the event is given by Eusebius (Chron. [Armen. VS [Note: S Version.] and some Manuscripts of Jeromes translation ]) as the 11th year of Claudius. Tacitus (Ann. xii. 54; cf. Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xii. 7 f.), in his account of the troubles leading to the deposition of Cumanus, placed the event in connexion with the year 52. Although Harnack has drawn a different conclusion from the Eusebian Chronicle, it seems upon the whole that these three sources agree in pointing to the year 52 for the arrival of Felix in Palestine, or, at all events, for his assumption of the proconsulship. Much more complicated, however, is the question of the termination of Felixs tenure of office. There is no doubt that, like Cumanus, Felix had by his misrule made himself the object of hatred and the ground of complaint on the part of the Jews, and that, owing to representations mode by the latter, he had fallen into disfavour, and had escaped condemnation only by the timely intercession of his brother Pallas (Josephus, Ant. xx. viii. 7-9). According to the apparent meaning of Josephus words, this occurred after Festus had assumed control of Palestine in succession to Felix. But Tacitus informs us that Pallas had already fallen from his place as Neros favourite in 55 (Ann. xiii. 14), i.e. when Britannicus was 13 years of age. With this Dio Cassius (lxi. 7. 4) agrees.

Assuming that Josephus is correct, and taking in addition the testimony of Eusebius (Chron.), who places the accession of Festus in the second year of Nero, Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. i. 235) and Holtzmann (Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Holtzmann and others)., p. 128f.) place the vindication of Felix in 55 and the arrival of Festus in Palestine in 56. But, while this course seems the natural one upon the narrow range of evidence taken into account, it is precluded when the following considerations come into view.-(1) The sedition of the Egyptian (Act 21:38) occurred during the procuratorship of Felix, and some time earlier than the arrest of St. Paul. But Josephus informs us that it took place during the reign of Nero, or after 54 (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiii. 5; Ant. xx. viii. 6). If the downfall of Felix is to be dated before 56, the arrest of St. Paul must have been made in 53 or at the latest in 54, and the uprising of the Egyptian still earlier, or from two to four years before the accession of Nero.-(2) The marriage of Felix and Drusilla is, according to Josephus, rendered impossible before 55. For she had been given by her brother Agrippa to Azizus of Emesa, being herself 15 years of age, in 53 (Ant. xx. vii. 1). But according to Act 24:24 she was married to Felix at the time of St. Pauls appearance before the procurator. Either, therefore, the arrest of the Apostle and the end of the proconsulship of Felix most be dated several years later than 53, to allow time for the necessary development of the intrigues by which Felix lured her to unfaithfulness to her husband and persuaded her to marry him, or these events must he condensed within an incredibly short interval. Besides, between the appearance of St. Paul before Felix and Drusilla and the deposition of Felix two years must be allowed (Act 24:27).-(3) Felix had sent certain Jewish leaders to Rome, where they were imprisoned pending trial. Josephus says that in his own 27th year (63-64) he went to Rome to negotiate the liberation of these prisoners. But if Felix ceased ruling Judaea in 55, these men wore kept confined for the unparalleled period of 8 or 10 years. If, on the other hand, Felix remained in office until 60, their imprisonment lasted only 4 years.-(4) The length of the procuratorship of Felix may be approximately computed from a comparison of Act 24:10; Act 24:27. In the former passage Felix is said to have already ruled many years. It would be impossible to construe this as meaning less than three years. In the latter his rule is reported as continuing for two years longer, thus giving a minimum of five years. This is, however, a bare minimum, and may well be doubled without violence to the situation. If, therefore, the confutations which fix the date of the appointment of Felix be correct as given above, and the year 52 is approximately the correct time of that event, the year 59 or 60 would be a reasonable one to fix on as the time of the end of his rule.

The only consideration that offers any difficulty in the way of this conclusion is the fact that Josephus associates the recall of Felix with the influential period of Pallas at court; but (a) Josephus may have been in error in attributing Felixs escape from punishment to the intercession of Pallas. (b) He may have grouped together events belonging to two separate dates, i.e. certain charges made at the early date, when Pallas by his plea on behalf of Felix saved him from punishment, and the final complaints which ended in his removal. It this be the case, the effectiveness of the later accusations of the Jews could be all the more easily understood, since at that time Poppaea had acquired her influence over Nero and an appeal of the Jewish leaders would enlist her strong endorsement. (c) It may be, however, that Pallas, after being charged with high treason and found innocent, was re-instated into favour by Nero, and no continued until the year 60. This is not probable in view of the testimony of Tacitus, who tells us that Pallas was indeed acquitted along with Burrhus (Ann. xiii. 23); but that he was never again treated with special favour (ib. xiii. 2). He died of poison in the year 62. The conflict between the statements of Tacitus and Josephus is best harmonized if we take the former lo have been well informed on the order and time of events in Rome, but misled as to similar matters in Judaea ; Josephus, on the other hand, may be regarded as accurate in his statements regarding Palestinian events and less so on matters or an internal character in Rome. The result yielded by this view is that Felix was found guilty of maladministration in 54-55 and escaped punishment at this time through the intercession of his brother Pallas. Pallas was himself charged with high treason the following year and fell from Imperial favour. Felix continued until 60, and meantime added to the grievances of the Jews, and yet entrenched himself in favour with sundry leaders because of his bold measures against certain classes of criminals. In 60, however, he was finally brought to trial, and in the absence of the powerful intercession of his brother was at this time deposed and succeeded by Festus. Cf. also articles Felix, Festus.

IV. Corroborative Dates.-These are such as do not of themselves permit of clear determination, but can be deduced from general considerations; and when so deduced confirm and elucidate the chronology as a whole.

1. The famine under Claudius.-Josephus, in connexion with his account of Agrippas death (Ant. xx. ii. 1, 5, v. 2), tells how Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates were converted to Judaism and made a visit to Jerusalem during a famine which both she and her son helped to relieve by procuring provisions at great expense. According to Act 11:28-30 a famine occurred throughout all the world, but presumably it was especially severe in Judaea , for it was to this point that the brethren determined to send relief. This relief came by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. The death of Herod must have taken place during this visit of Paul and Barnabas (Act 12:25); else why should it appear after the account of the mission of the Apostles to Judaea and before their return from Jerusalem? This is a natural inference; but it meets with a difficulty in the omission of all mention of this visit in Gal 1:17, where St. Paul presumably gives an exhaustive statement of all his visits to Jerusalem. The difficulty is primarily one of harmony between Gal. and Acts. Yet it indirectly attests the chronological problem. By way of explanation it may be said that the enumeration of the visits in Gal 1:17 was meant to be exhaustive, not absolutely but relatively to the possibility of St. Pauls meeting the pillar apostles at Jerusalem. If it were known that during the famine they were absent from the city, St. Paul might very well fail to allude to a visit at that time.

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

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

3. Sergius Paulus (Act 13:7-12).-The data for the fixing of Sergius Paulus in a scheme of NT chronology are as follows: (1) The name occurs in inscriptions. Of these one was first published by L. Palma di Cesnola (Salaminia, 1887, p. 256) and afterwards carefully edited by D. G. Hogarth in Devia Cypria, 1889, p. 114. It ends with the words [] []. Palaeographically the inscription is judged to belong to the 1st century. The second inscription is one found in the city of Rome naming L. Sergius Paulus as one of the curatores riparum et alvei Tiberis during the reign of Claudius (CIL [Note: IL Corpus Inscrip. Latinarum.] vi. 31545).-(2) The government of Cyprus was by proconsuls. The island came under Roman control before the establishment of the Empire, but was defined as a senatorial province in 22 b.c. under Augustus (Dio Cass, liii. 12. 7; liv. 4. 1). Upon these data, however, while it is very clear that about a.d. 50 L. Sergius Paulus (who had already been a high officer in Rome) was holding the proconsulship of Cyprus, no nearer approach to the precise date either of the beginning or the end of his rule can be made. See also article Sergius Paulus.

4. Agrippa II and Drusilla.-Agrippa II., the son of Agrippa I., was born in a.d. 28. According to Photius (Bibl. 33) he died in 100. At the time of his fathers death he was considered too young for the responsibilities of the large kingdom, which was therefore again put under the care of procurators. But on the death of his uncle in the eighth year of Claudius (48) he was given the government (kingdom) of Chalcis [Ant. xx. v. 2, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xii. 1). Within four years, however, Claudius, when he had already completed the twelfth year of his reign (Ant. XX. vii. 1), transferred him from the kingdom of Chalcis to the rule of a greater realm consisting of the tetrarchy of his great-uncle Philip, of the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and of that portion of Abilene which had been governed by Varus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xii. 8). When Nero succeeded Claudius, he enlarged this kingdom by the addition of considerable tracts of Galilee and Peraea, but the dates of these larger additions are not clearly given. More important than the growth of Agrippas power is his giving of his sister in marriage to Azizus, whom not long after ( ) she left in order to marry the Roman procurator Felix. These events cannot be fixed earlier than 54 or 55. The incidents of Act 20:16; Act 24:1-2 are therefore posterior to this time. Cf. article Drusilla.

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

6. The Passover at Philippi (Act 20:4-7).-W. M. Ramsay, upon the basis of some very precarious data (see his St. Paul, p. 289ff; also Turners discussion, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. 419f.), claims the fixed date 57 for St. Pauls fifth and last recorded visit to Jerusalem, which was also the occasion of his arrest. The argument is briefly as follows. The Apostle celebrated the Lords Supper at Troas on Sunday night (Act 20:7). If so, he must have left Philippi on Friday. Friday was the day after the Passover, which was therefore observed on Thursday that year. But the 14th Nisan (Passover Day) fell on Thursday in the year 57, not in 56 or 58. The uncertain factors in the computation are: (1) the exact day of the week for the Passover; concerning this there is always room for dispute, owing to the well-known but unscientific method of the Jews in determining the beginning of the month Nisan; (2) the interval between the Passover and St. Pauls departure from Philippi, which, on Ramsays assumption, is a single night (but the text does not exclude a longer interval); (3) the time when the Lords Supper was observed at Troas, which is stated to have been the first of the week ( ) (but this may be construed as Saturday evening towards Sunday). Any one of these uncertainties vitiates the conclusion arrived at. Yet on the whole the conclusion corroborates the date 59, and is not necessarily inconsistent with 60for the removal of St. Paul to Rome.

V. Palestinian Secular Dates

1. The procurators of Judaea

(1) Pontius Pilate, it seems to be universally agreed, was appointed procurator of Judaea in 26, and held the office until 36, being then deposed and sent to Rome by Vitellius, after ten years in Judaea (Ant. XVIII. iv. 2). He arrived in Rome just after the death of Tiberius.

(2) The year following the deposition of Pilate, the Imperial authority of Rome was represented in Judaea by Marcellus, a friend and deputy of Vitellius. He is nowhere given the title of procurator, and Josephus is careful to call him a curator (, Ant. XVIII. iv. 2). Nor had he apparently come into sufficient prominence through any action to warrant his being mentioned in the succession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a.d.

Pilate26-36

(Marcellus)36-37

Marullus37-41

Cuspius Fadus44-46

Tiberius Alexander46-48

Ventidius Cumanus48-52

Antonius Felix52-60

Porcius Festus60-62

Albinus62-64

Gessius Florus64-70

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

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

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

Antipas, a.d. 4-39-Galilee and Peraea.

Philip, a.d. 4-84-beyond Jordan.

Agrippa I., a.d. 37, as tetrarch; 39(41)-44, as king.

Agrippa II., a.d. 49-53 (of Chalcis),-100 (of Galilee, Peraea, etc.).

VI. Pauline Dates.-The pre-eminence of St. Paul in the Apostolic Age and the leading part he took in the development of the earliest Church have furnished the ground for the preservation, in his own Epistles and in the Book of Acts, of a double series of data regarding his work. These determine not only the general order of the facts of his ministry, but also many of the minuter details of time and place. The accuracy of the author of Acts has been questioned, especially on matters of remoter interest; but his reports of the movements of St. Paul are coming to be more and more recognized as drawn from personal knowledge of, companionship with, and participation in, the Apostles ministry.* [Note: The researches of W. M. Ramsay and A. Harnack have contributed much toward this result (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul, 1895, Luke the Physician, 1908; Harnack, Luke the Physician, 1907, The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911).]

A fixed starting-point for Pauline chronology is given in the year of the accession of Festus. This took place, as shown above, in a.d. 60. But, according to Act 24:27, St. Paul was detained by Felix a prisoner at Caesarea for two years. His arrest must, therefore, have taken place in 58 (possibly as early as May). But he left Philippi 40 days earlier, late in March or about the beginning of April (after the days of unleavened bread). From Philippi his course is next traceable backward to Corinth. His presence at Philippi was only incidental, his purpose being to journey into Syria (Act 20:3). At Corinth he had spent three months, arriving there in January of the year 58. This visit to Corinth immediately followed the memorable and troublous residence at Ephesus. From a comparison of 1Co 16:5-9 and 2Co 2:12 f. with 2Co 7:5 it may be gathered that the continuation of the whole journey from Ephesus to Corinth through Macedonia was prolonged by circumstances not included in the record. A fair allowance for these yields the approximate estimate of nine months earlier, or the spring of 57, for the end of the stay at Ephesus. This stay, however, lasted nearly three full years. [Note: Although in Act 19:8 the period of his active work in the synagogue is said to be three months and in Act 19:10 his teaching in the school of Tyrannus two years, the further detail in Act 19:22 (for a season) would tend to confirm the conclusion reached here that the three years of Act 20:31, though possibly reckoned in the Hebrew sense of parts of three, were in reality more nearly three entire years than a whole year with mere fragments of the year preceding and the year following.] This leads to the year 54. The departure from Antioch in the spring or summer of 54 marks the beginning of the third missionary journey.

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

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

The chronology of the years between the conversion of the Apostle and the Conference at Jerusalem may now be approached from another point of view. The item furnished by the allusion to the ethnarch of Aretas at Damascus (2Co 11:32; cf. above) fixes as the latest limit for the conversion of St. Paul the year 36, but admits of several years latitude for the earlier limit. In determining this earlier limit much depends on the identification of the journey to Jerusalem alluded to in Gal 2:1 ff. Two questions must he answered here: (1) When did the 14 years begin-at the conversion or after the three years mentioned in Gal 1:18? (2) Are these full years in each case, or are they reckoned after the Hebrew plan, with parts of years at the beginning and end counted in the number as separate years? The answers to these questions yield respectively longer or shorter periods between the conversion and second visit of the Apostle to Jerusalem. The longest period admissible is 17 years; the shortest, 12. The smaller of these figures in excluded almost certainly by the datum found in connexion with the control of Damascus by Aretas, which does not admit of a later date for the conversion than 36. The longer period necessitates the very early date of 32 or 33 for the conversion. This is favoured by W. M. Ramsay, who fixes the conversion in 33. But there are intermediate possibilities. The interval may have been 13, 14, or 15 years; which would bring the conversion in any one of the years 34-36, with the probability in favour of the earlier dates.

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

Between the date of the conversion of St. Paul and the beginning of the first missionary journey it is possible to identify the date of one more incident, viz. the visit to Jerusalem, with the aid in relief of the famine. Computations independent of the life of St. Paul lead to the placing of this date in the year 45-40 (cf. IV. 1). For reasons given in rehearsing these computations it is impossible to identify this visit with that made in Gal 2:1. This must be regarded as the prolonged visit for purposes of conference and thorough interchange or views with the leaders of the Jerusalem church of which the author of Acts gives an account in ch. 15. The chronology of the life and work of St. Paul yielded by the above items may therefore be put as follows:

a.d.

Conversion34-35

Visit to Jerusalem with aid for famine-stricken church45-46

First missionary journey47-48

Conference at Jerusalem49-50

Second missionary journey51-54

Third missionary journey54-57

Arrest at Jerusalem58

Imprisonment at Caesarea58-60

Removal to Rome60

Imprisonment at Rome60-62

Release62

Last missionary journey63-64

Arrest, imprisonment, and execution at Rome(65-67?)

VII. Apostolic Church Dates

1. Pentecost.-It is manifestly the intention of the author of Acts to begin his narrative with the significant event of Pentecost. Just as he had closed his Gospel with the account of the Resurrection of the crucified Jesus, he opens his second treatise with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. For the Apostolic Age, Pentecost becomes the epoch-making day. But, as the very name of it indicates, Pentecost was a relative date in the year, being computed from a day of manifestly more importance than itself. Accordingly, in the determination of the year for the Pentecost of Acts 2 it is necessary to revert to the computation which fixed the date of the Crucifixion (see above, I). Pentecost is thus dated in May a.d. 30.

2. The martyrdom of Stephen.-The date of this event is fixed with approximate certainty by its relation to the conversion of St. Paul. It was the persecution following the death of Stephen which enlisted Saul in the effort to exterminate the nascent Christian community and thus led him on the way to Damascus and his conversion. Stephens martyrdom could not therefore have preceded the conversion by a very long interval, and must have taken place between 32 and 34.

3. The execution of James the son of Zebedee, together with the imprisonment and deliverance of St. Peter, is so closely associated with the death of Herod that both these events may be safely placed in the same year (44).* [Note: In a recently published fragment of Papias (de Boor, TU v. 2, p. 170) it is said that John and James his brother were Killed by the Jews. This, together with the bracketing of the names of the two brothers in the Martyrology on the same day, has led some to infer that the death of John the son of Zebedee took place in 44. The question, however, is involved in the vexed problem of the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and must be left open for further investigation and discussion. See art. James and John (sons of Zebedee).]

4. The rise of Antioch into prominence as a centre of Christian aggressiveness must be placed at some time before the year 46, though, from the nature of the case, the exact time cannot be fixed. From Act 2:26 (cf. Tacit. Ann. xv. 44) it is clear that some time before the year of the famine there was a large number of believers to attract attention and to be recognized as a type of religionists different from the Jews. Immediately after the year of the famine the church at Antioch became the fountain-head of missionary activity.

5. The Conference at Jerusalem is placed, through its relation to the missionary journeys of St. Paul, in the year 50.

6. The death of James the brother of Jesus.-From the time of the Conference at Jerusalem, St. James was recognized as one of the foremost men in the Christian community at Jerusalem (Act 15:13, Gal 2:9). In consequence of his relation to the mother church, he bears the title of bishop of that church. According to Josephus, he was put to death during the interregnum between the procuratorships of Festus and Albinus (Ant. XX. ix. 1). This was in the year 62.

7. The death of St. Peter.-For the date of St. Peters death we are obliged to appeal to extra-historical (purely traditional) information. The difficulties of estimating the value of such information are due (1) to the absence of sufficient data regarding the original witnesses on whose authority such information secured circulation, and (2) to the facility with which even good historians in antiquity accepted unverified statements where events of importance were concerned. The desire for some definite data often overcame whatever intuitive sense of accuracy may at other times have ruled the outlook of these historians. Thus tradition, i.e. the unverifiable belief of an age not capable of direct contact with the facts, may be credited frequently with a high degree of probability, more frequently with less probability; in most instances it is incapable of giving more than the mere possibility of what it attests. In the case of the death of St. Peter several considerations conspire to render the tradition highly probable. The Apostle was in Rome at a time of persecution. This appears from the contents of 1 Peter, irrespective of the genuineness of the writing. Even if it be assumed, as seems probable to many scholars, that it was composed about a.d. 80, it would issue from a period near enough the date of the reputed death of St. Peter to afford a reflexion of a living current belief regarding his experiences. The allusion to Babylon in the Epistle has from the days of Papias ( Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)ii. 15) to the present time (with slight exceptions) been taken to refer to Rome. From this city the Apostle, according to Papias, sent the letter to his fellow-Christians dispersed and scattered by the persecution of which he was made a victim. But, even granting that the martyrdom of the Apostle occurred in the Neronian persecution, the question of the exact year remains uncertain. Harnack believes that it took place in 64 (Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Euseb., pt. i. Chron., 249ff.). Erbes (Texte and Untersuchungen , new series, iv. [1900]) fixes it in 63. Of the older historians, William Cave (Lives of the Apostles, 1677, St. Peter, xi. 7) also believed in the date 64. In the Chronicon of Eusebius, however, the 13th or 14th year of Nero (67-68) is given as the date, and the same conclusion is accepted by Jerome. The tradition of the Roman Catholic Church has uniformly adhered to the period 42-67 as the twenty-five year episcopate of the Apostle in Rome. Upon the whole, this later date seems best supported. See IV. 5 and article Peter.

8. The pre-eminence of Ephesus in Christian activity may be generally placed in connexion with the ministry of St. Paul in that city; but its rise to the first rank as the seat of apostolic influence under John (the Presbyter?) must have followed the Fall of Jerusalem, but cannot be fixed with precision.

9. The death of St. John, the beloved disciple, is associated by tradition with his residence at Ephesus to an extreme old age, occurring in the reign of Trajan (98-117). See article James and John (sons of Zebedee).

VIII. Literary Dates.-Nothing in the Apostolic Age was fuller of significance for the future than the production of the NT writings. But, while the dates of production of a few of these are comparatively easy to determine, the majority do not afford sufficient data for the positive solution of the problem as it affects them.

1. The Epistle of James.-Discussions of the date of this writing are based for the most part on the neutral features of it. The character of the audience to which it is addressed does not betray an advanced development of Christian thought or practice. There is no allusion to Gentiles in the Church. Compact organization has not yet been achieved, and it is possible for teachers () to assume the function at will (Jam 3:1; cf. Act 13:1, Rom 12:7). The eschatological outlook still includes the vivid expectation of the Parousia (Jam 5:7-9), which has not been disputed as in 2Pe 3:3-9. In general the author addresses Jews as if the new doctrine of Christianity were the legitimate and rightful outcome of historic Judaism. Such a point of view was natural in the early beginnings when the challenge to Christianity was still in its first forms, but scarcely after the rupture between Judaism and the Church had issued in open and wholesale hostilities on each side. On the other hand, certain characteristics of language and style, together with supposed allusions to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, have led others to assume an extremely late date for the Epistle. Upon the whole, it seems probable that the date 40 to 44 is the correct one. Cf. James, Epistle of.

2. The Thessalonian Epistles.-The First Epistle was written during the sojourn at Corinth (Act 18:11). The referenec to Achaia (1Th 1:7 f.) is decisive on this point. The view that Athens was the place of writing, held by Theodoret and many ancient Fathers, is deduced from 1Th 3:1, which, however, evidently refers to a stay at Athens somewhat anterior to the composition of the Epistle. Since the Corinthian sojourn falls in 52-53, 1 Thess. must be dated accordingly. The Second Epistle could not have been written much later than its predecessor. It is evidently designed to explain what was misunderstood in 1 Thess. (2Th 2:2), and aims to do this as speedily as possible. Cf. Thessalonians, Epistles to the.

3. Galatians.-The date of Galatians has been made the subject of a new discussion as the consequence of the promulgation of the South Galatian theory of its destination. The traditional dating of the document based on the North Galatian destination fixed it in the sojourn of the Apostle at Ephesus (Act 19:1). The reasons for this view are that St. Paul proceeded from Galatia to Ephesus (Act 18:23), and must have written either before he reached that city (which is improbable) or during his sojourn, or perhaps on the way from Ephesus to Corinth. The rise of the South Galatian theory, however, renders it possible to think of a much earlier date. Accordingly, many argue for its priority over all the Pauline writings (Emilie Briggs, New World, 1900, p. 115ff.; C. W. Emmet, Expositor, 7th ser., ix. [1910] 242ff.; Garvie, Studies of Paul and his Gospel, 1911, p. 23ff.); some trace it even to a time anterior to the Conference at Jerusalem. Calvin, singularly, held this view (cf. Com. on Gal 2:1), fixing the date at 48 or 49. Had St. Paul written it as early as this date, however, he must have named Barnabas, who was still with him in his labours. Upon the whole, the year 54 still appears the most probable for the writing of this Epistle. See, further, article Galatians, Epistle to the.

4. The Corinthian Epistles.-The First Epistle was written in Ephesus some time before Pentecost (1Co 16:8), whether before or after the Passover does not appear (1Co 5:6-8). The Apostle was expecting to leave very soon; and the writing must, therefore, be placed towards the close of the stay at Ephesus, hence about the time of the Passover in 56. On the assumption of the unity of 2 Cor., the interval between it and the First Epistle could not have been very long, and the writing must accordingly be placed somewhat later in the same year. But, if the Epistle is a composite one, as it seems reasonable to believe upon good critical grounds, the probabilities are that the earliest section of it (1CO 1Co 6:14 to 1Co 7:1) constitutes a fragment of a letter earlier than 1 Corinthians. The second section in point of time is 2 Corinthians 10-13 (the painful letter) and represents the sequel to 1 Cor., growing out of the situation created by the last-named communication. This portion of 2 Cor. is accordingly to be located in 56 as above. The remainder of the composite document (2 Corinthians 1-9, exe. 2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1) must be dated later than chs. 10-13, but is not necessarily separated from this section by a long interval. If the phrases since last year ( ), a year ago (2Co 8:10), for a year past (2Co 9:2) refer to 1Co 16:1, approximately one year must have intervened between this portion of 2 Cor. and the First Epistle. This would bring the date to 57. Thus the dates of St. Pauls letters to Corinth would be: (1) 2Co 6:14-18; 2Co 7:1 in 55 or early 56; (2) 1 Cor. in 56 before Pentecost; (3) 2 Corinthians 10-13 in summer of 56; (4) 2 Corinthians 1-9, late 56 or 57. Cf. Corinthians, Epistles to the.

5. Romans.-Since Romans 15 must be regarded as an original part of the whole Epistle (cf. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., p. 143), the allusion in Rom 15:25 to St. Pauls intended journey to Jerusalem fixes the point of departure for the date of the Epistle. The statement in Rom 15:19 that the Apostle had fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum, has led some to place the writing of Romans in Illyricum; but the greater probability lies with the view which identifies the place with Corinth, and fixes the date as the eve of St. Pauls departure thence for Syria (Act 20:3). This was in the spring of 58 (during the Apostles three months sojourn at Corinth). See article Romans, Epistle to The.

6. The Imprisonment Epistles.-Under this title are usually included Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. Ephesians is by many made an exception to this class. The period of St. Pauls imprisonment, however, is divided into two parts by his removal from Caesarea to Rome. Assuming the Pauline authority of Ephesians, it has been, with Colossians and Philemon, located in the Caesarean period of his imprisonment (56-60; so Meyer, Weiss, Sabatier [The Apostle Paul, 1891, pp. 225-249]). Others have included even Philippians in this list. But it is difficult to think of Philippians and Philemon as composed elsewhere than in Rome and during the Roman part of the imprisonment (cf. the reasons in a summary by Bleek, Einleitung in das NT4, 1885, 161). It is possible, though not probable, however, that Col., which was written earlier than Eph., may have fallen within the latter portion of the Caesarean imprisonment. In such a case the order and dates of these writings would be: (1) Colossians in 59 (Caesarea); (2) Ephesians in 60 (Rome); (3) Philemon in 60 (Rome): (4) Philippians in 61 (Rome). See articles on the various Epistles named.

7. The Pastoral Epistles.-The present condition of opinion on the problem of the Pastoral Epistles presents three distinct views as to their dates: (1) that they were composed by the Apostle after his release from the Roman imprisonment (62), towards the end of his fourth missionary journey (66 or 67); (2) that they represent a much more advanced stage of development in Christian thought and organization, and therefore fall between the date of St. Pauls death and the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 67-117), with the greater probability for 90-100 (cf. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., pp. 395-420); (3) that they represent short letters by St. Paul produced in his last year and expanded by interpolation. The merits of these views it is not possible to discuss in the compass of this article (cf. J. V. Bartlet, Acts [The Century Bible, 1901], Moffatt, loc. cit., and the articles on Timothy, Ep. To, and Titus, Ep. to).

8. Acts.-All the discussion of the problem created by the abrupt close of the Book of Acts seems to lead to but one clear conclusion, viz. that the author knew nothing more to tell about St. Paul and the fortunes of the gospel, and that the date of the composition of the book coincides with the end of the second year of the Apostles imprisonment at Rome (62). This in general is the simple process of reasoning that ruled opinion in ancient times from the days of Eusebius onwards (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] ii. xxii. 6). In modern times its advocates have been some of the ablest critics (Alford, Godet, Salmon, Rendall, Bisping, Rackham, Blass, and Harnack). On the other side, it is argued that, as Acts is a sequel to the Third Gospel ( ), which, it is assumed, was written after a.d. 70, the earliest date possible for Acts must be some years posterior to this date. The more precise determination of the period, however, becomes a question of extremely debatable considerations. Accordingly, a wide variety of dates of composition is proposed, as by Zahn, Headlam, Bartlet (72-74); by Bleek, Adeney, Gilbert (80); by Jlicher, Burkitt, Wrede (circa, about 100); by the Tbingen critics (110-120), or even later. Harnack, however, has shown reasons why the posteriority of St. Luke to the year 70 cannot stand (The Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels), and the traditional dating at a.d. 62 may be said to have received a rehabilitation at his hands. See article Acts of the Apostles.

9. The Synoptic Gospels.-That the Synoptic Gospels were composed upon the basis of pre-existing collections of Sayings of Jesus, through a process of development, may be assumed as one of the fairly well-established results of modern critical study. How long this process continued is of secondary importance. The order in which the Gospels evidently appeared is-Mark, Luke, Matthew. The earliest notices of the time of the composition of Mark are not perfectly harmonious. Irenaeus (Haer. iii. 1] testifies that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, published the things preached by Peter after the departure () of Paul and Peter; but Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary, represents the Gospel of Mark as written in the lifetime of Peter, and adds that the Apostle neither forbade nor encouraged the work. This discrepancy is not of course a contradiction. The departure, to which Irenaeus makes the writing of Mark posterior, may be a mere departure from Rome (though this is not likely); or it may be that the statement of Clement merely means that Peter knew of Marks purpose to write, though that purpose was not actually carried out till after his death. The best view, however, of the discord is that neither of the representations is primarily based on chronological interest, and therefore neither can be used as a precise datum in a chronological computation. So far as the passage in Irenaeus is concerned, Chapman has shown this to be true (Journal of Theological Studies , vi. [1905] p. 563ff.), and Harnack contends that it is also true of the passage in Clement. Such an estimate of these testimonies of the ancients leaves the time of the origin of the Gospels indefinite, but is in itself just. Upon the whole, therefore, it seems not improbable that Mark and Luke at least were composed before Acts and in the years of St. Pauls imprisonment in Rome or even earlier. The case is slightly different with Matthew, where signs of a later time are more clearly visible (Mat 27:8; Mat 28:15 : , until to-day, implying a considerable interval from the days of Jesus); a date as late as 70 or even later is quite admissible. See article Gospels and articles on separate Gospels in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels .

10. Epistle to the Hebrews.-The evidence as to the date of this production is extremely faint and uncertain. The external data are partly some free citations from it in Clem. Rom. (xix. 2, xxi. 9 [cf. Heb 12:1], xxxiv. 1 [cf. Heb 2:18; Heb 3:1; Heb 4:2-5; Heb 1:3 f.]), and partly a certain dependence of thought on St. Paul and on 1 Peter. Internal data appealed to are such as that the Temple service was still operative (Heb 7:8; Heb 8:3-5; Heb 9:6-9; Heb 13:10); that, considering the purpose of the writing, if the Temple service had been rendered impossible by such an event as the catastrophe of 70, the writer must have mentioned the fact; the non-occurrence of any severe persecution of Christians in the Hebrew world leading to martyrdom (Heb 12:4), the possibility of which is, however, kept in view. Other items are slighter and less conclusive. The most decisive indications of time seem to be the allusions in Heb 10:33 f.; Heb 12:4; Heb 12:6 ff., which show that the writer was thinking of an attitude in his readers of shrinking from suffering publicly, whether this was imminent or actual, though not severe. In Palestine this attitude of mind was to be met in the years of the Jewish war. The latter portion of the period, therefore, or the years 68 and 69, may very well be taken as the most appropriate setting for the writing. See, further, Hebrews, Epistle to the.

11. The Epistles of Peter and Jude.-The date of the death of St. Peter as already fixed necessitates a date for 1 and 2 Peter prior to 67. For 2 Peter (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ), in the present condition of the evidence, this proves impossible, on both internal and external grounds. The conclusion is inevitable that this writing (together with Jude [q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ]) must be detached from the Apostolic Age. For 1 Peter, however, there is a very natural place in the Apostles sojourn in Rome. The mention of Babylon (1Pe 5:13) has been from very early days ( Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)ii. 15) referred to Rome, in harmony with the literary methods of the day. The conditions reflected in the writing also correspond with those that prevailed in the reign of Nero. Christians had been obliged to leave the capital in large numbers and create a new Dispersion. It was a time of temptation to fall away because of hardships, threatened or actual, for bearing the name Christian. Altogether, the year 66 or even 65 may, therefore, well have been the date of the writing of this Epistle. See, further, article Peter, Epistles of.

12. The Johannine writings.-Of the writings of this group the Apocalypse offers the clearest marks of its age. But even here, from the earliest times, differing views have prevailed. Signs of an earlier time than Domitians reign may easily be pointed out in the book. But they are quite as easily accounted for as reminiscences or traditions incorporated into the work. The undeniable allusion to the worship of the Emperor (Joh 17:8; Joh 17:12), however, points to the reign of Domitian, under whom for the first time Emperor-worship assumed its serious aspect to the Christians. This, with some minor considerations, gives the predominance of weight to the Domitianic dating of the Apocalypse. See, further, article Apocalypse.

The Fourth Gospel is related to the Apocalypse not merely by the external and superficial identity of the authors name but by the substantial agreement of the two writings in view-point and doctrinal system. Stylistic and linguistic characteristics, however, separate them very widely, and the affiliation of the two is best explained on the ground of origin within a Johannine school or group. But if the Apocalypse was written between 85 and 95, the Gospel cannot be dated much earlier than the latter year, since such a Johannine group must have taken some time to develop its characteristic point of view and conceptions. On the other hand, the likelihood that Ignatius, Justin, and Papias were familiar with the Gospel fixes the latest date for the latter as 110. It must be dated, then, some time between 95 and 110, with the probability strongly in favour of a year prior to 100.

Of the Johannine Epistles (see John, Epistles of) the First must be connected in time as well as authorship with the Fourth Gospel. Whether it preceded the larger writing or followed it is of small importance. Its general period remains the same. The two minor Epistles by the Presbyter issue from the same group, and probably belong to the same general period.

Chronological Table.

a.d.

James44 (80-100)

1 and 2 Thessalonians53

Galatians54 (50-53)

1 and 2 Corinthians56-57

Romans58

Imprisonment Epistles (Col., Eph., Philem., Phil.)59-61

Synoptic Gospels (Mk. [60], Lk. [61], Mt. [68])60-68

Acts62

Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim., Tit.)66

1 Pet.66

Hebrews69

Apocalypse81-96

Epistle of John98 (?)

Fourth Gospel96-100 (?)

Literature.-The primary sources of information outside the apostolic records and Epistles are the works of Josephus (Ant. and Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ); the Annals of Tacitus; Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; and the works of Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] and Chronicon, together with Jeromes VS [Note: S Version.] ). The modern study of the subject has issued in a vast number of discussions. Some of these are incorporated in works of larger scope, such as E. Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 3 i. [1901], ii. iii. [1898] (History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] , Eng. translation , 1885-1890); W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895; A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Lit., ii. [1897]; C. H. Turner, article Chronol. of NT in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. [1898] 403; T. Zahn, Introd. to the NT (Eng. translation , 1909), Appendix; J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., 1911. Of separate treatments of the Apostolic Age, mention must be made of R. Anger, de Temporum in Actis Apost. Ratione, 1833; T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865; G. Hoennicke, Chronol. des Lebens des Apostels Pautus, 1903; F. Westberg, Bibl. Chronol., 1910.

Andrew C. Zenos.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Dates

DATES.The chronological sequence of the Gospels is quite as important as that of the Epistles to the student of the beginnings of Christianity, and forms an essential branch of the study of the development of our Lords revelation and His Messianic consciousness. The difficulties in the way of forming an exact time-table of the dates in the Gospels are due (1) to the indifference of the early Christians, as citizens of the heavenly city, to the great events that were taking place in the world around them; (2) to their lack of means of ascertaining these events, and their obliviousness of the important bearing they might have on the evidences of the faith; (3) to the fact that, the early Christian traditions being recorded in the interest of religion and not of history, the writers confined their attention to a few events, which were arranged as much according to subject-matter as to time sequence. The result is that there are many gaps which can be only approximately filled up by strict inference from casual remarks. The author of the Third Gospel is the only one to give parallel dates of secular history in the manner of a true historian, and to profess to relate things in order (, Luk 1:3). There are many inferences as to time to be drawn from statements in Mt., but they are of an accidental character. St. John marks points of time of significance in his own and in his Masters life, but his purpose is to trace the development of the drama of the Masters passion, not to suggest its chronological relation to the history of the world.

The early Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, and Hippolytus, were the first to attempt to arrange the events of the Gospel in chronological sequence. But these attempts are not always to be relied upon, owing to the difficulties of ascertaining many of the dates of secular history, to which reference has already been made, and which were still further increased in their case by the different ways of reckoning the years of reigning monarchs and of calculating time in the different eras. For example, Luk 3:1 in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius may be reckoned from Augustus death, Aug. 19 a.d. 14, or from the time when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire by special law; but that law, again, is variously dated, being identified by some with the grant of the tribunicia potestas for life in a.d. 13, but assigned by Mommsen (after Velleius Paterculus, ii. 121) to a.d. 11. So that we have to choose between a.d. 29, 28, and 26. Furthermore, the Roman calendar began on Jan. 1, so that the imperial year might be adjusted to the civil year (1) by counting the fractional year as a whole, and by commencing a second imperial year on the first New Years Day of each reign,Lightfoot (Ignatius, ii. 398) mentions the practice of Trajan and his successors of beginning a second year of tribunicia potestas on the annual inauguration day of new tribunes next after their accession,or (2) by omitting the fractional year altogether, and calculating the emperors reign from a fixed date, like Eusebius, who seems to commence each emperors reign from the September following his accession (see art. Chronology in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible i. 418). The Julian reform of the Roman calendar, by which the year b.c. 46 was made to contain 445 days, in order to bring the civil year into line with the solar year, adds to the complications.

Furthermore, the Jewish calendar bristles with problems. Originally the Paschal full moon was settled by observation, but that became impossible when the people were spread over distant lands, and was also hindered by atmospheric causes; and, in any case, the beginning of the month was determined not by the astronomical new moon, but by the time when the crescent became visible, about 30 hours afterwards, the first sunset after that event marking the beginning of the new month. A fresh difficulty was created by the 13th month, Veadar, which was intercalated whenever the barley was not within a fortnight of being ripe at the end of the month Adar; but this was forbidden in sabbatical years, and two intercalary years could not be successive. The lunar year was correlated with the solar by the rule that the Paschal full moon immediately followed the spring equinox. There were also various calculations of the equinox, Hippolytus placing it on March 18, Anatolius on March 19, the Alexandrians on March 21.

And with regard to chronology in general it is to be noted that in the East the year almost always began with September. The Jewish civil year began in Tishri (Sept. [Note: Septuagint.] ); the religious and regal in Nisan (April) (Josephus Ant. i. iii. 3), the order of months beginning with the latter, that of the years with the former. The Alexandrian year began on Aug. 29; the era of the Greeks started from Sept. [Note: Septuagint.] b.c. 312, the Olympiads from July b.c. 776. In the Christian era, also called the Dionysian after Dionysius Exiguus of the 6th cent., 753 a.u.c. = 1 b.c., and 754 a.u.c. = 1 a.d.

The points of chronology in our Lords life which have to be settled before any table of dates can be drawn up are (1) date of nativity, (2) age at baptism, (3) length of ministry, (4) date of crucifixion. While no one of these can be verified with anything like precision, it is certain that the accepted chronology, based on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th cent., is erroneous.

Dionysius started, seemingly, from Luk 3:1, the 15th year of Tiherius, placed the public ministry of our Lord one year later, and counted back 30 years, on the strength of Luk 3:23. This gave 754 a.u.c. for the year of Christs birth. Following Hippolytus, he fixed on Dec. 25 in that year, and, according to the usual method for reckoning the years of monarchs, counted the whole year 754 as 1 a.d. (see Ideler, Handbuch, ii. 383 f.). That his views need correction will be proved in the course of this article.

1. Date of Nativity.This may be fixed somewhat approximately by its relation to (a) the date of Herods death (Mat 2:1-22), (b) the enrolment under Quirinius (Luk 2:1), and by (c) Patristic testimony.

(a) Herods death, the terminus ad quem of the Nativity, is generally settled by the Jewish chronology in Ant. and BJ, in which are found indications of the dates of Herods accession and death, and of the dates of his predecessor Antigonus, and of his immediate successors, Archelaus, Herod Philip, and Herod Antipas. For notice of Herods death see Ant. xvii. viii. 1, having reigned, since he had procured the death of Antigonus, 34 years, but, since he had been declared king by the Romans, 37 years. The death of Antigonus is noted in Ant. xiv. xvi. 4. This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Canidius Gallus were consuls at Rome, Olym. 185, in the 3rd month, on the solemnity of the fast, like a periodical return of the misfortunes which overtook the Jews under Pompey, by whom they were taken on the same day 27 years before. The consuls mentioned held office b.c. 37, and 27 years from b.c. 63 (consulship of Cicero and Antonius), when Pompey took Jerusalem (Ant. xiv. iv. 3), allowing for the three intercalary months of b.c. 46, gives practically the same date, b.c. 37, for the confirmation of Herod in his kingdom. Herods death might therefore be placed in the month Nisan (see below) b.c. 4 (Sivan 25 b.c. 37 to Nisan b.c. 4, according to the method of counting reigns, being 34 years).

Of Herods successors (1) Archelaus, ethnarch of Judaea, was banished in the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (a.d. 6), in the 10th year of his reign (Ant. xvii. xiii. 2), or in the 9th (BJ ii. vii. 3), and therefore would have come to the throne b.c. 4, being probably banished before he celebrated the 10th anniversary of his accession. (2) Herod Philip died in the 20th year of Tiberius, having been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis 37 years (Ant. xviii. iv. 6), and would have commenced his reign b.c. 43.

There are two move data to help us to fix the year of Herods death: the eclipse of the moon which preceded his last illness (Ant. xvii. vi. 4), and the Passover which followed soon after (xvii. ix. 3). The lunar eclipses visible in Palestine during b.c. 53 were those of March 23 b.c. 5, Sept. [Note: Septuagint.] 15 b.c. 5, March 12 b.c. 4. As it is quite possible that the final scene of Herods life and his obsequies did not cover more than one month, we might, with Ideler and Wurm, fix on the eclipse of March 12 b.c. 4 (Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 56), which is also indicated by the Passover that immediately followed. b.c. 4, Herods death, would therefore be the terminus ad quem of the Nativity.

But how long before b.c. 4 Jesus was born cannot decisively be said. The age of the Innocents, (Mat 2:16), would give b.c. 6 as the superior limit and b.c. 5 as the inferior, as this clause is qualified by the diligent investigation of Herod ( ). This massacre, quite in keeping with the growing cruelty and suspicion of Herod, who had recently procured the murder of his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, was secretly carried out and seemingly of small extent, not being mentioned by Josephus, and being apparently limited to children to whom the star which the Magi saw in the east, at least six months before, might have reference. Although Mat 2:11 does not suggest an infant babe, the stay of the Holy Family in Bethlehem, where the Magi found them, cannot have been long, the presentation in the Temple following 40 days after the Nativity. b.c. 65 would then be approximately the date of the Nativity.

Of the star in the east it cannot be said with truth that the star shines only in the legend (von Soden in Encyc. Bibl. art. Chronology), for the appearance of a striking sidereal phenomenon between the years b.c. 7 and b.c. 4 has been proved by Kepler and verified by Ideler and Pritchard. Kepler suggested that a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the zodiacal sign of the Pisces, similar to that which took place in Dec. 1603, took place in b.c. 7. But this would be too early for the star that stood over Bethlehem. Wieseler (l. c. p. 67) therefore, elaborating another suggestion of Kepler, held that a brilliant evanescent star, similar to that which appeared in Sept. [Note: Septuagint.] 1606 between Jupiter and Saturo, and waned in March 1604, may have appeared then. The Chinese tables mention such an appearance in b.c. 4. Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) suggests that the conjunction in b.c. 7 first aroused the attention of the Magi, and that the evanescent star of b.c. 4 stood over Bethlehem. Two Jewish traditions, one that the star of the Messiah should be seen two years before His birth, and the other that the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces portended something of importance for the Jewish nation, might be mentioned. The former is found in the Midrashim, the latter in Abarbanels Com. on Daniel (15th cent.). While no theory could be established on such a basis as this appearance, yet it may support a theory founded on more certain data. If the coming of the Magi took place shortly after the death of Herods sons Alexander and Aristobulus (b.c. 7) and the mission of Antipater, his heir, to Rome (s.c. 6), their question, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? would, indeed, be startling to Herod.

(b) The enrolment under Quirinius (Luk 2:2 , this enrolment took place for the first time when Quirinius was governor of Syria; cf. [Strom, i. 147]). A Roman census took place in a.d. 6, after the deposition of Archelaus, and caused the revolt of Judas of Gamala (Ant. xviii. i. 1), who in consequence became the founder of the Zealot party, which resisted Gentile taxation and authority. This taxing (xviii. ii. 1) was concluded in the 37th year of Caesars victory at Actium (a.d. 7). To this enrolment the author of Act 5:36 refers. But it cannot be the enrolment of Luk 2:2. And Josephus should not be accused of having ascribed to a.d. 7 what took place in b.c. 65, as the census he mentions was made after and in consequence of the removal of Archelaus. Mommsen and Zumpt suggest that Quirinius held office twice in Syria. And his, indeed, might be the name wanting in a mutilated inscription, describing an official who was twice governor of Syria under Augustus. But Saturninus was governor b.c. 97, and Varus b.c. 74, being in power after Herods death; so that no place can be found for the rule of Quirinius before b.c. 4, the terminus ad quem of our Lords birth. He may have come, b.c. 32, and completed a census begun by his predecessor. And there is also the possibility of his having received an extraordinary military command by the side of Varus. The Annals of Tacitus (ii. 30, iii. 22, 48) describe him as a keen and zealous soldier (impiger militiae et acribus ministeriis), who had obtained a triumph for having stormed some fortresses of the Homonadenses in Cilicia, but who was distinctly unpopular on account of his friendship with Tiberius, his sordid life and dangerous old age. Such an officer would have been a most useful agent for Augustus in preparing the document called by Suetonius (Aug. 28) the rationarium imperii, which contained a full description of the subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes direct and indirect (regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, Tac. Ann. i. 11), made out by the emperor himself, especially as Varus was slack, and inclined to favour Archelaus. Certain riots mentioned in Josephus (Ant. xvii. ii. 4), in which the Pharisees appear, may have been due to the census. Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 34, 46; Dial, circa (about) Tryph. 78) appeals to the made in the time of Quirinius, whom he styles the first or procurator in Judaea. For until Palestine became a Roman province in a.d. 6 there could be no procurator in the strict sense of the term. Previous to that, if Q. did hold office, it would be as a military officer of Syria, and so he might be well described by the vague , although the word is also applied (Luk 3:1) to Pilate, whom Tacitus styled procurator (Ann. xv. 44). With regard to the census, of which no mention is made in contemporary history, it is to be noted that there is evidence that periodic enrolments, , were made in Egypt (Class. Rev., Mar. 1893). Prof. Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?) builds on these. It is quite possible that a series of periodical enrolments in a cycle of 14 years were initiated by Augustus, an indefatigable statistician, in other parts of the empire, and that the first of these may have taken place in the days of Herod, who would have carried it out according to Jewish tastes, and so without much disturbance (unless the riots of Ant. xvii. ii. 4, BJ i. xxxiii. 2 might be connected with it), whereas the later census was conducted according to Roman ideas, and provoked a rebellion. If this be true, the first census would occur b.c. 75, just where it would be required. Some hold that it is possible that St. Luke made a mistake in the name Quirinius (C. H. Turner), and also in the census (von Soden).

(c) Patristic testimony, as represented by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, and perhaps based upon Luk 2:2, favours a date between b.c. 3 and b.c. 2. Irenaeus wrote, Our Lord was born about the 41st year (b.c. 3, reckoning from the death of Julius Caesar b.c. 44) of the empire of Augustus (Haer. iii. 21. 3). Clement stated, Our Lord was born in the 28th year (b.c. 3, counting from battle of Actium, b.c. 31) of the reign of Augustus, when first they ordered the enrolments to be made (Strom, i. 147). Hippolytus said, in his Com. on Daniel, Our Lord was born on Wednesday, Dec. 25, in the 42nd (b.c. 2) year of the reign of Augustus.

With regard to the month and day of the Nativity, no data exist to enable us to determine them at all. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 9) inferred from the presence of the shepherds in the fields that it was during winter, but Lewin (Fasti Sacri, pp. 23, 115) argues for August 1 as the approximate date. The date of the Annunciation is given in Luk 1:26 as in the sixth month, which is generally referred to Luk 1:36 , …, this month is sixth with her, but which may with equal probability refer to the sixth month of the Jewish calendar, Elul, or to both dates, both terms of six months running concurrently. The date of the service of the course of Abia, the eighth in order (1Ch 24:10), for the year 748 a.u.c. (b.c. 6) has been calculated from the fact that the course in waiting on Ab 9 a.d. 70, when Jerusalem was taken, was the first, Jehoiarib (Taanith on Fasting, p. 29a; BJ vi. iv.). This would give courses of Abia for 748 a.u.c., b.c. 6, April 1824, and (24 weeks later) October 39. Six months from the latter date would give a day in March as the date of the Annunciation and a date in December for the Nativity; but six months from the former date would give Elul, or the sixth month of the Jewish year, beginning about Sept. [Note: Septuagint.] 19, for the Annunciation, and the third month, Sivan or June, for the Incarnation. Elul was the month of the constellation Virgo, who holds in her hand the spica Virginis, which may be the offspring of a Virgin. The fourth month belongs to Cancer, among two stars of which is a group called The Manger.

Patristic tradition.Hippolytus is the first to give Dec. 25 for the date of the Nativity. On his chair in the library of St. John Lateran in Rome his celebrated table is given. The second year of the cycle has April 2, , evidently the conception, the calculation being made on the strength of Luk 1:36, which seems to imply an interval of 6 months between the conception of our Lord and that of the Baptist, and on the popular presumption that Gabriel appeared to Zacharias on the great Day of the Atonement, the 10th day of the seventh month. This would bring the conception of our Lord to the 14th day of the first month, or the Passover full moon. Hippolytus afterwards, in his Com. on Daniel, in order to allow for two additional years in our Lords life, altered the date April 2 to March 25, on which the Church has always celebrated the conception, and consequently the Nativity was assigned to Dec. 25. Edersheim (The Temple, p. 293) suggests the influence of the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, held on the 25th of Chislev.

2. The Baptism of Jesus might be settled, but not very approximately, by (1) the statement (Luk 3:23) that He was (at the beginning of His ministry); (2) the date of the Baptists preaching, Luk 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness; and (3) by the retort of the Jews in Joh 2:20 Forty and six years was this temple in building.

(1) This is an elastic expression, which gave the Valentinian Gnostics a basis for their belief that Jesus was in His 30th year when He came to His baptism (Haer, ii. 25. 5). But as Irenaenus, in his reference to Joh 8:57 Thou art not yet fifty years old, pointed out, 40, not 30, is the perfect age of a master (cf. Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Aboda Zara); and on the strength of this statement the presbyters in Asia Minor, who misled Irenaeus, ascribed an age of 40 or 50 years to Jesus. Again, while the maximum age of a Levite was 50 years, the minimum varied between 20 (1Ch 23:24; 1Ch 23:27, where the change is ascribed to David), 25 (Num 4:3; Num 4:47 LXX Septuagint ), and 30 (Num 4:3; Num 4:47 Heb.). This latitude, added to the general sense of (about) and the vague , which is omitted in Syriac Sin. [Note: Sinaitic.] , makes this indication of our Lords age indefinite, and capable of meaning either two years over or under 30.

(2) The preaching of the Baptist is the terminus a quo of the baptism of Jesus, and is assigned to the 15th year of Tiberius. Dating that reign from the death of Augustus, Aug. 19 a.d. 14, the 15th year corresponds with a.d. 2829. B. Weiss and Beyschlag, however, count from a.d. 12, when Tiberius was made co-regent with Augustus. W. M. Ramsay has pointed out that on July 1 a.d. 71, during the life of the Evangelist, Titus was similarly associated in the empire with Vespasian, which would give a.d. 2627 as the first year of the Baptists work. This would agree with the office of Pilate, who could hardly have arrived much sooner than a.d. 27, as he held office for 10 years, and was on his way to Rome in a.d. 37, when Tiberius died (Ant. xviii. iv. 2). We might, therefore, if it is permitted to follow Weiss and Beyschlag, fix on a.d. 2728 for our Lords baptism.

(3) Joh 2:20 (cf. Ezr 5:16 ). The Jews do not refer, therefore, to the completion of the restoration, which took place much later (Ant. xx. ix. 7). This work was begun in the 18th year of Herod (Ant. xv. xi. 1, reckoning from b.c. 37, death of Antigonus), in the 15th (BJ i. xxi. 1, reckoning from b.c. 40). This gives b.c. 1918, from which to a.d. 28 is 46 years. The Passover of a.d. 28 would be a likely date for the events of Joh 2:14-25. The time of Joh 1:19 to Joh 2:12 has yet to be settled. Prof. Sanday (art. Jesus Christ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 609) gives the time as Winter, a.d. 26. Now there are certain indications of the time of year in which our Lord was baptized which show that His visit to the Baptist may have synchronized with the preparations for the Passover in the month Adar (cf. Joh 11:55 And the Jews passover was at hand, and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover to purify themselves), while His sojourn and fast in the wilderness, of which St. Matthew and St. Luke give details, may have been due not only to a desire to be alone to reflect upon His mission, but also to the feeling of the necessity of a great self-restraint in order to check the urgings of His Messianic consciousness to manifest Himself to the Passover crowds in His connexion with His country as its Redeemer, with the Temple as the Son of God and its Priest, and with the world as its King. It was on His return from the desert that He was pointed out by the Baptist, when the marks of the recent struggle and fasting on His brow would have given additional point to the Baptists remark, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29), which has a true Passover ring (cf. Christ our passover [or Paschal lamb, ] was sacrificed for us, 1Co 5:7). Passover time would also account for the presence of so many Galilaeans in Judaea, while the atmosphere of the scenes of the baptism of Jesus and of His interviews with His first disciples in John 1 is spring, the budding life of the year, in the buoyant sunshine when mens hearts are most ready for a change of life. Nathanael, an Israelite without the guile of Jacob, at the feast exclusively for Israelites, is meditating under a fig tree, most likely on the story of Jacob. Passover seems a favourite time for baptism. It was after the Passover of Joh 2:13 that Jesus and His disciples baptized in Judaea, while John was baptizing in aenon near to Salim (Joh 3:22 f.). And it is most improbable that Jesus would have stayed away from the Passover.

On the other side may be urged the fact that Bethabara, for which the best MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] , ABC, read Bethany, has been identified by Conder with a ford called Aburah, N.E. of Bethshean, a site as near to Cana as any point on the Jordan, and within a days journey (art. Bethabara in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ). On the other hand, Encyc. Bibl. art. Bethany follows Sir G. Grove and Sir C. W. Wilson (Smiths DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , s.v. Bethnimrah) in holding that Beth-aimrah on the east of Jordan, opposite to Jericho, is the place meant. Beth-nimrah, now known as Nimrn, is beyond Jordan, (Joh 1:28; Joh 3:26); it is well supplied with water, and accessible both from Jericho and Jerusalem, and may have produced the variants Bethahara and Bethany. Origen advocated Bethabara because he could find no Bethany beyond Jordan. But the variant for is found in his text. That variant and the traditional site of our Lords baptism, Makhadet Hojla, are strongly against Col. Conders suggestion, while tradition connects our Lords temptation with the district of Quarantania, named from His 40 days fast; and something must be allowed for tradition in such matters. The third day of Joh 2:1 may possibly be counted from Joh 1:43 On the day after. But it is probable, in fact it is to be inferred from His mothers information of the exhausted wine, that our Lord was not present on the first day of the marriage festivities, which generally extended over a week, and were concluded with a supper (art. Marriage in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ), and it was quite possible for Him and His disciples to have accomplished the journey from the vicinity of Jericho to Nazareth (about 60 miles) in three or four days; so that there is no necessity to select a site for His baptism within one days journey of Cana. Again, the favourits time for such marriages was March (Wetzstein in Ztschr. f. Ethnol. v. [1873]). So that we have another indication of the early season of the year, which supports the hypothesis of a baptism at the Passover preceding the Passover of Joh 2:13, a period of time required for the preparation and selection of the disciples, and for the nursing of their nascent faith by miracles, of which one, a typical sign, as are all the seven signs in the Fourth Gospel, is narrated in Joh 2:1-12. To this faith referencasis made in v. 11 And his disciples believed in him. Nor does the Masters change of manner (v. 24 But Jesus would not trust himself to them) suggest the beginning of a mission.

The order in St. Marks Gospel is of little service here. For Mar 1:14 (Now after that John was put in prison Jesus came into Galilee preaching) refers to an event, the imprisonment of the Baptist, which was clearly later than Joh 4:1, and is, therefore, to be taken not as a note of time, but as a general introduction to the Galilaean ministry, which forms the subject of the Second Gospel. The selection of the disciples (Mar 1:16-19), the missionary work of Mar 1:38 , a portion of Mark 1-3, and apparently Luk 5:1-11 (the scene with Peter on the lake), may belong to the Galilaean work previous to Joh 2:13. On this hypothesis, which fills in the awkward gap between the 13th and 14th verses of Mark 1, the baptism of Jesus would fall on the Passover of a.d. 27.

3. Length of the Ministry.If the date of the beginning of the ministry be approximately fixed, the year of its close will vary according to the estimate we form of its length. Prof. von Soden (Encyc. Bibl. art. Chronology) reduces it to a one year basis, while Prof. Sanday (art. Jesus Christ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 610) requires nearly 2 years for his scheme of our Lords ministry. This difference is due to the fact that St. John seems to extend that ministry over three Passovers, while the Synoptists mention but one Passover.

(a) In the Second Gospel there seem to be three data for a chronology. (1) Mar 2:23 mentions ears of corn ( ). As the earliest barley was in April, the latest in June, it is believed that the point of time we have here is Passover, which was of old associated with ears of corn; the name of the month in which it was held being formerly Abib or ear of corn. (2) Mar 6:39 describes the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, in the course of which we read that the people were arranged in companies, (a phrase suggestive of garden-plots), and seated , an indication of early spring. (3) Mark 11, final Passover. In these data Turner (Chronology of NT in Hastings B [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ) sees a suggestion of a two years ministry. But it is evident that the arrangement of this Gospel is according to subject-matter, not to time. The time relation of the episode of the ears of corn cannot be satisfactorily settled with regard either to the events it precedes or those it follows in the narrative. It is, therefore, quite possible that it preceded the Passover of Joh 2:13. In St. Lukes Gospel it occurs shortly after the scene with St. Peter on the Lake (Luk 5:1-11), which must have preceded Joh 3:22, where Jesus and His disciples go into the land of Judaea and continue baptizing there; and in both the Second and Third Gospels it directly follows the question, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, and thy disciples fast not?, which occasioned the Parable of the Bridegroom and the Children of the Bridechamber, which seemingly but not really corresponds with the discussion in Joh 3:26 between the disciples of John and a Jew about purifying, which evoked from the Baptist the rhapsody on the bride and bridegroom. For the questions are quite different, and belong to distinctly different contexts; that in the Synoptists being caused by the feast of Levi and perhaps indirectly by the feast at Cana of Galilee, while that of the Fourth Gospel arose in connexion with the work in Judaea after the Passover of Joh 2:13.

No fresh light is thrown on the passage by the disputed point of time , which Wetstein explains as the first Sabbath of the second month, Scaliger as the first Sabbath after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Godet as the first Sabbath of the ecclesiastical year. The ripeness of the wheat suggests the month of Iyyar or May. And it is quite possible to conceive our Lord in that month (called in the old style Ziv () or the month of flowers, and in the new style Iyyar () or the bright and flowering month) teaching the people in the plain and on the hill to consider the lilies of the field, how they grow (Mat 6:28). It seems not impossible, therefore, to reconstruct the Second Gospel on the basis of a single year following the Passover of Joh 2:13, with a year or greater part of a year previous to that Passover.

(b) St. Lukes Gospel is divisible into two parts. The second (Luk 9:50 to Luk 19:28 containing matter peculiar to him), being devoted to the doings and teachings of the Master as the days of His assumption were being fulfilled (Luk 9:51), seems to restrict the Lords ministry to a single year, the acceptable year of the Lord (Luk 4:19; cf. Isa 61:2). The reference to three years in the parable of the Fig-tree (Isa 13:7), which suggested to many (Bengel among others) the beginning of a third year of ministry, is a vague expression to which Luk 13:32 (to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day) might be a parallel. In Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 there is but one apparent reference to any work outside the Galilaean, ( BCL) of Luk 4:44 being a variant for . But Judaea in the days of St. Luke included all Palestine (cf. Isa 23:5).

(c) The Fourth Gospel has seven notes of time between the Baptism and the Crucifixion:

(1)Joh 2:13; Joh 2:23 And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem And he was in Jerusalem at the passover during the feast.

(2)Joh 4:35 Say ye not, There are yet four months (), and then cometh harvest? behold. I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and consider () the fields that they are white already to harvest.

(3)Joh 5:1 After these things there was a [or the] feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

(4)Joh 6:4 Now [the passover, , uncertain] the feast of the Jews was high.

(5)Joh 7:2 Now the Jews feast of tabernacles was at hand.

(6)Joh 10:22 Then the dedication took place in Jerusalem.

(7)Joh 12:1 Jesus then, six days before the passover, came to Bethany.

Joh 4:35 () ; () , , is a difficult note of time. The simplest interpretation is to take a literally of a harvest still remote, and spiritually of a harvest already ripening. Origen, however, held that it was already the middle or end of harvest when these things happened (in Joan. tom. xiii. 39, 41); but it is evident that our Lord made no long delay in Judaea after the unpleasantness that had occurred between His disciples and Johns, and it would not be long before the popular Baptist, with his great following, would hear of his greater Rival (Joh 3:26), or before the Pharisees would note the falling off of the Baptists followers. The fact that the impression His works in Jerusalem had made on the Galilaeans was still fresh (Joh 4:45), and that He did not tarry more than two days, possibly only one ( , Joh 4:43), among the kindly and believing Samaritans, and that He was wearied with the journey (Joh 4:6), points to no long interval between Joh 2:13 and Joh 4:45 and to no leisurely mode of travelling. Again, the word has a touch of reality, which suggests the natural interpretation of against those who would read the passage proverbially: Is it not a saying that there are four months between sowing and reaping? There is nothing, however, to prevent one taking the lateness of the Galilaean harvest into account, and reading the passage thus: Say ye not, ye men of Galilee, where the harvest is later than in Judaea, where Jeroboam held his feast of ingathering on the 15th day of the eighth month (1Ki 12:32) instead of on the 15th day of the seventh (Lev 23:34), that harvest is yet four months off? If these words were spoken towards the end of Nisan, the four months referred to would be Nisan (MarchApril, end), Iyyar (AprilMay), Sivan (MayJune), and Thammuz (JuneJuly, beginning). This would be in keeping with the fact that the harvest naturally varied not only with season, but also with elevation, etc., and that, while it commenced in the lowlands of the Jordan Valley in April, it ended on sub-alpine Lebanon in August (see art. Wheat in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ).

Joh 5:1 And there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem (with alternative readings, and , the latter being supported by the Alexandrian type of text, doubtless through the influence of Eusebius, who maintained a three years ministry with four Passovers). What this feast was cannot definitely be said. Irenaeus regarded it as a Passover. The early Greek Church identified it with Pentecost. Westcott (ad loc.) suggests Trumpets (September), as many of the main thoughts of the discourseCreation, Judgment, and Lawfind a remarkable illustration in the thoughts of the festival. But Exo 19:1 states that it was in the third month (i.e. after Passover) that the Law was given on Sinai. This would correspond with Pentecost, which is described in the later Jewish liturgy as the day of the giving of the Law (Saalschtz, Das Mos. Recht, p. 42a), and by Maimonides (Moreh neb. iii. 41) as dies ille quo lex data fuit. Furthermore, the strict regulations and calculations of the Sabbaths of the harvest period between Nisan 16 and Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, add point to the controversy concerning the Sabbath day (Joh 5:10-18). The voluntary nature of the cure, a contrast with the signs of Joh 2:11. and Joh 4:54 performed by request, suggests that this act was in accordance with the Pentecostal regulations of Deu 16:10, a free-will offering of His own hand, and according to Lev 23:22 the gleaning of His harvest for the poor.

There is a useful indication of time in Joh 5:33-36, where the Baptist, whose popularity is waning in Joh 4:1, and whose utterance in Joh 3:28-36 seems to contain a presentiment of doomHe must increase, but I must decreaseis referred to as a lamp that no longer shines. He was the burning and shining lamp, and ye were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. It is probable that Herod Antipas, who was jealous and suspicious of the Baptists influence (Ant. xviii. v. 1), seized the opportunity of his decreasing popularity to have him betrayed (, Mar 1:14) and arrested. The report of that arrest may have reached our Lord on His journey through Samaria to Galilee (John 4). If so, the Synoptic statements of Mar 1:14, Mat 4:12, regarding His work in Galilee as connected with the imprisonment of the Baptist would be suitably introduced by the healing of the noblemans son at Capernaum (Joh 4:46-51).

The interval allowed by the Synoptists between the arrest and the death of the Baptist, in which room is found for an extended work of Jesus in Galilee (Capernaum especially, Mat 11:1-30), for the Baptists mission to Jesus (Mat 11:3), and for Herods procrastination with the Baptist, whom he feared, tried to keep safe, and for whom he did many things (Mar 6:20), is also allowed in the Fourth Gospel. In it Jesus is represented as walking in Galilee (Joh 7:1-10) before the Feast of Tabernacles, nearly five months (Sivan 8Tishri 15) after the Feast of Pentecost (Joh 5:1), but not afterwards,a fact which is in agreement with the Synoptic account (Luk 9:10, Mat 14:13, Mar 6:31), which describes our Lord withdrawing from the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas to Bethsaida Julias, Caesarea Philippi, and other districts of Herod Philipthe best of all the Herodsin consequence of the formers identification of Him with the Baptist, whom he had beheaded (Mar 6:14).

With regard to the date of the Baptists execution, Keim, Hausrath, Schenkel, and others, on the strength of Joseplms account of the defeat of Antipas by Aretas (a.d. 36), in connexion with his narrative of the Baptists death, which the Jews regarded as divinely avenged in that battle, have held that the divorce of Herod Antipas wife cannot have been long before a.d. 36. But Josephus notes also a dispute about boundaries in Gamalitis (Ant. xviii. v. 1) as subsequent to the divorce of the daughter of Aretas, which he describes as the first occasion of the bitterness between him and Herod. And there is nothing in the annals of the Herods to controvert the date a.d. 28 for the scene in the castle of Machaerus as described in the Synoptics. In fact, a.d. 28 would be a more suitable date for the elopement of Herodias, and the description of her daughter Salome as (Mar 6:22; Mar 6:28), than a.d. 36. Herodias was the sister of Agrippa i., who (Ant. xix. viii. 2) was 54 years old when he died in a.d. 44, and was, therefore, born b.c. 10. Herodias must have been born shortly before or after, as she was betrothed by Herod the Great (Ant. xvii. i. 2), after the death of her father Aristobulus (b.c. 7), when quite a child, to Philip his son by Mariamne ii., daughter of Simon the high priest, whom he married in the 13th year of his reign, circa (about) b.c. 24 (Ant. xv. ix. 3). Herodias would, therefore, be about 37 years old, and her husband 52 in a.d. 28, and her daughter Salome not more than 18, as Herodias was married when arrived at age of puberty (Ant. xviii. v. 4). In a.d. 36 she would be 45 years of age, and Salome 26. The former age is, therefore, more probable. The fact that retribution was connected with the defeat in a.d. 36 proves nothing, as retribution is proverbially long delayed.

The fourth point of time is Joh 6:4. The difficulty in it is the reading . By many it is retained; by others omitted. If it is retained, there are three Passovers mentioned in Jn. (Joh 2:13, Joh 6:4, Joh 12:1), making the ministry extend over two years. But if it is removed, this feast of the Jews becomes identified with the Feast of Tabernacles of Joh 7:2. And the chronology of the ministry can be reckoned on the basis of a year and several months previous.

Joh 1:29 to Joh 2:12.Work in Galilee.

Joh 2:13.Passover in Jerusalem (Nisan).

Joh 5:1.Pentecost in Sivan (MayJune 1).

Joh 6:4.Tabernacles in Tishri (SeptemberOctober).

Joh 7:2.Tabernacles in Tishri.

Joh 10:22.Dedication in Chislev (NovemberDecember).

Joh 11:55.Passover in Nisan (MarchApril).

Hort urges the omission of , which is supported (1) by documentary evidence; (2) by the fact that of Joh 6:10 apparently = of Mar 6:39; (3) by the note (Joh 7:1), After these things Jesus walked () in Galilee, which implies some interval between the events of chs. 6 and 7, but on the Tabernacles hypothesis sufficient time would not be allowed, as the same feast was near in Joh 6:4 and in Joh 7:2; and (4) it is said that St. John, who was writing for Christians who had holy associations with Passover and Pentecost but not with Tabernacles, would hardly have spoken of that feast as the Feast . On the other hand, it is more than probable (1) that Irenaeus would have meotioned Joh 6:4 among the Passovers, it he knew of it, even though ostensibly he was merely recording the Passovers at which our Lord went up to Jerusalem, as his main object was to confute the Gnostics, who held that Jesus suffered a year after His baptism (Haer. ii. 22. 3); (2) that is a vague term allowing for comparative nearness, and our Lord did not hurry Himself for the feast, arriving only in the middle of it (Joh 7:14); (3) that Origens Com. on St. John clearly postulates the omission of a Passover between Joh 4:35 and Joh 7:2; (4) that St. John wrote as one familiar with Jewish fasts and feasts, and Josephus (Ant. viii. iv. 1) calls the Feast of Tabernacles , and it is in OT sometimes called the Feast (1Ki 8:2; 1Ki 8:65, Eze 45:25); (5) that the tradition of the Gnostics might have been more easily confuted by frenaeus by a reference to a Passover in Joh 6:4 than by an attempt to identify the feast of 5:1 with a Passover; (6) that the Alogi, according to Epiphanius (Haer. 51, 22), found in Jn. only a Passover at the beginning and another at the end of His ministry; (7) that the words might have easily been suggested by the discourse on the sacrificial feast and the barley loaves ( ), which, however, has a nearer reference to the offerings (two leavened loaves of the best wheat, etc.) and customs of Pentecost, which was distinguished by thank-offerings ( = ) and festive gatherings for the poor (Lev 24:22); (8) that the insertion of a Passover here would break the unity of the plot and interfere with the development of the drama from Joh 2:13 to Joh 12:1, creating a gap between chs. 4 and 6 out of all proportion to the other intervals in the Gospel after Joh 2:13. These reasons are not conclusive, but they are sufficient to prove the possibility of being an early gloss on .

The interval between the Feast of Tabernacles (Tishri, a.d. 28) and the Passover (14 Nisan, a.d. 29) is sufficiently ample to allow for the work in the towns of Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27), the preparation of the disciples for His death (Luk 9:22 f. = Mar 8:31), His Transfiguration six days after (Mat 17:1-13), His slow progress to Jerusalem, preceded by the Seventy (Luk 10:1), when the days were well-nigh come that He should be received up (Luk 9:51), the visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22), His work in the Peraea (Joh 10:40, Mar 10:1), and in the wilderness of Judaea (Joh 11:54). A ministry from Passover a.d. 27, when He was baptized, to Passover a.d. 29, is quite long enough to allow for the development of the life of the Master, and for the many journeys and missionary tours in a district as small as Wales, and where the festivals at the capital were so frequent. The details would be distinctly meagre for a longer mission.

4. Date of the Crucifixion.The procuratorship of Pilate and the high priesthood of Caiaphas roughly indicate the date. Josephus (Ant. xviii. ii. 2) notes the appointment of Valerius Gratus by Tiberius (circa (about) a.d. 1415), his return to Rome after 11 years (circa (about) a.d. 2526), and the appointment of Pilate in his place. In Ant. xviii. iv. 2 we read that Pilate when he had tarried 10 years in Judaea made haste to Rome; but before he could reach Rome, Tiberius died (a.d. 37). His office might be, therefore, dated a.d. 2636. Pilate at the trial of Jesus seems to have already had trouble with the Jews and Galilaeans and Herod. His yielding to them in the present instance through fear of their accusing him to Tiberius, and his release of a notable prisoner ( , Mat 27:16), who for a certain insurrection made in the city and for murder (Luk 23:19) was lying bound with them that had made insurrection (Mar 15:7), imply at least part of the 10 years of cross purposes which marked Pilates rule, but need not be ascribed to the censure received from Tiberius, circa (about) a.d. 33, on account of the votive shields (Philo, Legat. ad Gaium, 38), as he had in his very first year of office experienced the inflexibility of the Jews (Ant. xviii. iii. 1). A Passover earlier than that of a.d. 28 would hardly suit.

The high priesthood of Annas, referred to in Joh 11:49; Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24, is a terminus ad quem of the Crucifixion, his deposition occurring about the same time as Herod Philips death. It is assigned by Josephus (Ant. xviii. iv. 3, 6) to the 20th year of Tiberius. The latest possible date of the Crucifixion would thus be a.d. 34, the earliest a.d. 26.

As it is hard to believe that such an event would not be exactly chronicled by the Church, it is quite possible to regard Luk 3:1in the fifteenth year of Tiberiusas an indication of the acceptable year of the Lord which terminated on the cross, whether with Bratke (SK [Note: K Studien und Kritiken.] , 1892) we regard that acceptable year as terminating in the 15th, or with von Soden (Encyc. Bibl. art. Chronology) in the 16th of Tiberius. A well-known tradition of the Church assigns the Crucifixion to the consulship of the Gemini, L. Rubellius and C. Rufius, a.d. 29, which year, according to the strict method of computation from Aug. a.d. 14, would correspond with Tiberius 15, but, counting as a year the semester Aug. a.d. 14Jan. a.d. 15, when the consuls dated their term of office, would be Tiberius 16.

Among Patristic authorities for the year of the Crucifixion the following are chief:Clement of Alexandria: With the 15th year of Tiberius and 15th of Augustus so are completed the 30 years to the passion (Strom. i. 147). Origen: If you examine the chronology of the Passion and of the fall of Jerusalem from Tiberius 15 to the razing of the temple are 42 years (Hom. in Hierem. xix. 13). Tertullian: In the 15th year of the reign Christ suffered in the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and Rufius Geminus (adv. Jud 1:8, but authorship doubtful); and Hippolytus, who in his work on Daniel stated: Our Lord was born on Wednesday, Dec. 25, in the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus. He suffered in the 33rd year, on Friday, March 25, in the 18th year of Tiberius, and the consulship of Rufus and Rubellio, evidently attempting to combine a three years ministry with Luk 3:1. In his Chronicle the length of our Lords life is estimated at 30 years. Dr. Salmon in Hermathena, No. xviii., suggests that Hippolytus altered the chronology of the latter work in a.d. 234, on discovering that St. Johns chronology was incompatible with a one years ministry. In the tables of Hippolytus the Passion is assigned to the 32nd year of the cycle, which, reckoning hack by cycles of 112 years from a.d. 222, the first year of the cycle, is a.d. 29, which may have been suggested by the consulship of the Gemini, whose names he gives erroneously with or after the Acts of Pilate as Rufus and Rubellio. Other authorities who may be cited are Julius Africanus, who seems to hover between Tiberius 16 (in the Greek of Eusebius, Dem. Evang.) and Tiberius 15 (Latin of Jeromes Com. in Dan. ix.); Lactantius, who wrote: In the 15th year of Tiberius, that is, in the consulship of the Gemini (Div. Inst. iv. x. 18); the Liberian Chronicle, which has, Under Tiherius, the two Gemini consuls, March 25; and Augustine (de Civ. Dei, xviii. 54): Consuls the Gemini, March 25. a.d. 29 is therefore well supported by Christian tradition. The note of the annalist Phlegon, referred to by Origen (circa (about) Cels. ii. 33), and the Chronicle of Eusebius (under Ol. 202. 4 = a.d. 3233), which mentions the earthquake in Bithynia and the darkness at the sixth hour of the day, obviously comes from some unreliable Christian source.

(a) Day of week and month.Some indications of the day of the week are found in Scripture. The general belief that the Crucifixion took place on Friday is founded on inference from the fact that He rose on the third day, (1Co 15:4), the Jews counting their days inclusively. Westcott, however, held that it took place on a Thursday, on account of the three days and three nights of Mat 12:40, a saying found only there, and evidently equivalent to on the third day (Gen 42:17-18, Est 4:16; Est 5:1).

(b) Day of month.The question is, Did the Crucifixion take place on the Passover, Nisan 15, or on the day preceding, Nisan 14? This question also concerns the relation of the Passover to the Last Supper; for while, strictly speaking, both events took place on the same day, on the Jewish reckoning from evening to evening, according to the ordinary Roman method the Crucifixion fell a day later than the Supper. Sanday (Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel), Westcott (Introduction to the Gospels), and many others maintain that it took place on Nisan 14. The principal champion for Nisan 15 is Edersheim, who holds that the Last Supper synchronized with the Passover, and that the Pascha of which the Jews desired to partake was the Chaggah or festive offering of the first festive Paschal day. The Synoptists in some places identify the last meal with the Passover, but in others give indications of an opposite view; while the Fourth Gospel gives unqualified support to the opinion that the feast of which our Lord partook had a quasi-Paschal significance, and preceded in order to supersede the Jewish Passover. A list of passages from the Gospels for both views makes this clear:

For Nisan 15, the Passover

Mat 26:17 The first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Luk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Mat 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover.

Luk 22:15 With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

For Nisan 14

Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the Passover.

Joh 18:28 And they themselves went not into the praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

Joh 13:29 Buy that we have need of for the feast.

Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the Passover.

Joh 19:31 Since it was the preparation, and that Sabbath day was a high day.

Mat 26:3-5 Then assembled together the chief priests and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people (cf. Mar 14:2).

Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation.

Luk 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.

Other incidents in the Synoptics point to Nisan 14, such as the holding of the trial on the feast day, the purchase of linen and spices, the arming of Peter, the coming of Simon from the field (Mar 15:21), the unseemly hurry with the trial, the execution and the final dispatch of the victims, the sword of Peter (Mar 14:47), the armed multitude with Judas (Mar 14:43), it being unlawful to carry arms on the feast day. It is to be noticed that Mt., Mk., and Jn. represent the Crucifixion as taking place on the Paraskeue, which is distinctly Friday in Joh 19:31, being mentioned in connexion with the Sabbath, and in Mar 15:42, where it is defined as . St. John in Joh 19:14 describes it as the preparation of the passover, but as the weekly Paraskeue in Joh 19:31, and Joh 19:42 referring to the removal from the cross and the hasty entombment says for it was the preparation and because of ( = because it was) the preparation of the Jews.

Against all these passages there stands one expression common to all the Synoptists, the day of unleavened bread, for Luk 22:15 may merely indicate the Paschal nature of the Last Supper. That expression is, therefore, to be reckoned with.

Chwolson (Das letzte Passamahl Christi, p. 3 f.) maintains that the Synoptists start with an error, for from the Mosaic writings down to the Book of Jubilees indeed, down to the present day, the Jews have always understood by the phrase the first day of the feast of unleavened bread only the 15th and not the 14th, so that it would be a contradiction in terms to say with Mar 14:12, on the first day of unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Passover. Ewald (Antiquities of Israel, p. 358 ff.) treats the Passover, which he shows from Exo 12:3-6 was originally fixed for the 10th of the month when the Paschal lamb was to be selected, as the preparatory expiatory festival of the Spring Feast of Unleavened Bread, just as the Day of Atonement, on the 10th day of the 7th month, preceded the great autumn festival of Tabernacles. Not till the 14th day, during the last three hours before and the first three hours after sunset, was the sacrificial animal slain and eaten. It was always appointed for the 14th, and in the earliest times at least the view was strictly upheld that the Feast of Unleavened Bread did not begin till the following morning. Philo distinguished the of Nisan 14 from the of Nisan 1521. Mar 14:1 unites without confusing them, .

It would seem that some technical error was committed by the Synoptists, which may have been due to (1) St. Peters inexact knowledge of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and probable identification of it with the removal of leaven before noon on Nisan 14 (Exo 12:15); (2) the custom of the Galilaeans, who, unlike the people of Judaea, who worked until the noon preceding, abstained from work the whole morning preceding the Passover, which was reckoned from evening to evening, and consequently would make their preparations after sunset on Nisan 13 (Students Com. on Mat 26:17); (3) some verbal confusion between the Syriac words for before (kedm, Mat 8:29) and first (kadmy, Mat 26:17) owing to Peters broad Galilaean accent, which may have caused St. Marks mistake; (4) a comparative use of Gr. (cf. Joh 1:15 , before me; Joh 15:18 , before you), in which case Mat 26:17 would mean on the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread; (5) a difference in the mode of reckoning the days adopted by St. John, who, according to Westcott (Joh 19:14), used the Western method of counting from midnight to noon, and by St. Mark, who adhered to the legal reckoning from evening to evening (Mar 15:42); (6) a natural confusion of the preparation of the Passover (Joh 19:14) on Nisan 13 with the weekly Paraskeue on Nisan 14 (Mar 15:42), or of the day when leaven was removed from the houses (Exo 12:15 [LXX Septuagint ]) with the Festival of Mazzth, which commenced after the Passover day. The argument that the expression not on the feast ( , Mat 26:5) cannot refer to Passover has to reckon with Exo 12:14 where the Passover is called feast (, LXX Septuagint ).

Support for Nisan 14 as day of Crucifixion in NT and tradition (Christian and Jewish).(1) 1Co 5:7 , identifies Christ with the Paschal lamb slain between the two evenings; and 1Co 15:20 identifies the Risen Christ with the First-fruits of the 2nd day of the Feast of Mazzth, . (2) The Quartodecimans, among whom was Polycarp, held a fast on Nisan 14 as the day of Crucifixion (letter of Irenaeus to Victor). (3) Jewish tradition fixes the Crucifixion on the crebh Pesah or Passover eve, and the Greek Church always used leavened bread in the Eucharist. (4) Apollinaris of Hierapolis (circa (about) a.d. 180) pointed out that the 14th is connected with the Crucifixion. (5) Clement of Alexandria said that Christ did not eat the Passover, but suffered on the 14th. (6) Hippolytus of Portus declared that Christ ate a supper before the Passover, for He was the Paschal lamb who had been promised and was sanctified on the appointed day. (7) Tertullian (adv. Jud 1:8a doubtful work) suggests Nisan 14. (8) Irenaeus (Haer. iv. x. 1), discussing Moses prediction of Jesus, says, The day of whose Passion he did not ignore, but foretold it in a figure, calling it Pascha. This is not very decisive, but suggests a memory of 1Co 5:7. This view of Nisan 14 may be said to be the best supported in the first two centuries.

Tradition in support of Nisan 15.Origen, in his comment on Mat 26:17, follows the Synoptic tradition: Jesus celebravit more Judaico pascha corporaliter. Chrysostom declares (Hom. in Mt. 82) that the new feast appointed by Jesus superseded the Passover. Ambrose, Proterius and others follow on the same side. This view seems more recently popular than the other. But the controversy of Apollinaris in shows that there were some in the 2nd cent. who connected Nisan 14 with the Supper, and therefore Nisan 15 (according to Roman reckoning) with the Crucifixion.

The cumulative evidence of St. John, St. Paul, and the early Fathers, joined with the incredibility of Jesus having been arrested, tried, and executed on the great Sabbath of the Jewish Year, and the statement of the Synoptists that that day was the Paraskeue, seem to turn the scale in favour of Nisan 14 as the day of the Crucifixion. See also Last Supper. Nisan 14, a.d. 29, is the date to be now tested by other evidence.

Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 147) notes the various views of the Basilidians. With regard to the Passion, some, after precise calculations, say it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius on Phamenoth 25 (March 21); others on Pharmuthi 25 (April 20); others, again, on Pharmuthi 29 (April 24). March 18 and March 25, however, are the best supported. Epiphanius (Haer. i. 1) had seen copies of the Acts of Pilate which gave March 18 as the date, but the Quartodecimans kept March 25 on the strength of these Acts; this is evidence of some hesitation between these dates. Hippolytus (Com. on Dan.) gives March 25. With regard to this date, also given in the Paschal Cycle, Dr. Salmon says (Hermathena, No. xviii. p. 175): We can therefore regard the date March 25 as inseparably connected with the sixteen years cycle of Hippolytus. As the Easter full moon was on March 25 in a.d. 221, and, working on the principle that after 16 years full moons return to the same day, Hippolytus trusted his cycle that it must have been on the same day in a.d. 29. But, as Br. Salmon shows, in that year the full moon really fell on March 18, a week previous. An interesting confirmation of the date March 18 is given by the Jewish calendar of Paschal moons, from which it would appear that Friday, which is generally accepted as the day of the Crucifixion, could not have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in the years a.d. 28, 31, 32, so that we are left to choose between 29, 30, 33, and of these a.d. 29 answers all the required conditions best, as the 14th day of the moon would fall in that year on Friday, March 18 (so C. H. Turner, Chronology in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ).

Dr. Salmon, in the article cited, said it was doubtful if Hippolytus had any historical authority for fixing on the year 29 over and above the reason that the day which his cycle exhibited as the Crucifixion Day should be a Friday, and that the only years he would find fulfilling this condition were, 26, 29, 32, and of these 29 is chronologically the most probable. Baron H. von Soden prefers a.d. 30, in which Nisan 15 would fall on Friday April 7, and opposes a.d. 29 on the ground that Nisan 15 fell on April 16 in that year. But the previous lunation, March 45, with 14th on March 18, would be more in keeping with the ripening of the barley harvest, and would have a prior claim.

The following table of dates is based on the arguments in the preceding pages, the years, months, and days especially, in each case, being offered as merely approximate.

Table of Dates of Events in the Gospels.

Herods reign b.c 374.

Restoration of temple commenced b.c. 1918.

Star in the east b.c. 75.

Courses of Abia in temple b.c. 6, April 1824, Oct. 39.

Conception of Elisabeth b.c. 6, Oct. [or April (25)].

Annunciation (6 months after) b.c. 5, March (25) [or Sept. (19)].

Birth of Baptist b.c. 5, June (24) [or b.c. 5, Jan.].

Birth of the Christ at Bethlehem during an enrolment b.c. 5, Dec. (25) [or a.c. 5, June].

Circumcision b.c. 4, Jan. (1).

Visit of Magi b.c. 4, Jan. (6 circa).

Presentation in temple 40 days after Nativity b.c. 4, Feb. (2 circa).

Herod plans massacre b.c. 4, Feb.

Flight into Egypt, apparently from Jerusalem b.c. 4, Feb.

Death of Herod b.c. 4, March (before Passover).

Archelaus ethnarch of Juda b.c. 4a.d. 6.

Herod Antipas tetrarch of Galilee b.c. 4a.d. 37.

Return of Holy Family to Nazareth b.c. 3.

The child Jesus in temple (12 years old) a.d. 7.

Annas high priest a.d. 715.

Caiaphas high priest a.d. 2434.

Pontius Pilate procurator of Juda a.d. 2636.

Preaching of the Baptist (15th year of Tiberius), beyond Jordan, in the Pera, where John at first baptized (Joh 10:40), the country about Jordan (Luk 3:3) a.d. 2627.

Baptism of Jesus in Bethabara, Johns second sphere of work a.d. 27 (Passover).

Selection and training of disciples, and work in Galilee, with Nazareth for a time as headquarters (Mat 4:13) (early chapters of Mt. and Mk. and Joh 1:29 to Joh 2:12) a.d. 2728 (Passover).

Purification of the temple and work in the city during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Joh 2:13-23) a.d. 28, Passover, March 30April 6.

Work in Juda broken by conflict between His disciples and the Baptists (Joh 3:22-36; Joh 4:1-4) April 714 (circa).

Arrest of the Baptist by Herod (Mar 6:17, Mat 14:3) (probably at non near to Salim, his third sphere of work) April.

Departure of Jesus into Galilee through Samaria (Joh 4:1-45) April 1418 (circa).

Work in Galilee, with Capernaum as centre (Joh 4:46, Mar 1:14, Mat 4:12-13, where His departure from Nazareth is noted; see also Luk 4:16) April 18May 14.

Jesus at Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem (John 5) May 20 (circa).

Miracles in Galilee (Nain), and consequent fame (Luk 7:11-17)

Injunctions to the Twelve, and their mission (Matthew 10, Mark 6, Luke 9)

Deputation from the Baptist (Mat 11:2, Luk 7:18).

Jesus at Feast of Tabernacles (John 7) October.

Execution of the Baptist (Matthew 14, Luke 9, Mark 6)

Herod hears the fame of Jesus (Mat 14:1)

Return of the Twelve with this and other news (Mar 6:30)

Jesus, in consequence, departs finally from Galilee (Mar 6:31, Mat 14:13, Luk 9:10)

Work in Tyre and Sidon, Decapolis, and villages of Csarea Philippi (Mar 7:24; Mar 7:31; Mar 8:27, Mat 16:13)

The confession of St. Peter (Mat 16:16, Mar 8:29, Luk 9:20, Joh 6:68-69)

The Transfiguration, six days after (Mat 17:1, Mar 9:2), about an eight days after (Luk 9:28)

Prediction of death (Mat 17:22)

The great journey, which may be described as a tour, whose final objective was Jerusalem, commences when the days were well-nigh come that he should be received up (Luk 9:51); given at great length (Luk 9:51 to Luk 19:28)

Rejected by a village or Samaria (Luk 9:52)

Mission of the Seventy before His face (Luk 10:1-17) [in Samaria, where He was in Roman territory, safe from Herod, Samaria having been added to the Province of Syria after the banishment of Archelaus, Jos. Ant. xvii. xiii. 5]

Sentence on Galilee and Capernaum (Luk 10:13-16, Mat 11:20-24)

Journeys towards Jerusalem, teaching in the towns and villages (Luk 13:22), moving southwards between the borders of Samaria and Galilee (17:11), the Jordan on His left hand

At the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem a.d. 28, Dec. 10 (circa).

Escapes from city into the Pera, (Joh 10:40, Mat 19:1, Mar 10:1)

Returns to Juda for the raising of Lazarus at Bethany (Joh 11:7)

Withdraws to Ephraim (Joh 11:54) in wilderness of Juda

Final journey towards city

Prediction of His death (Mar 10:32, Luk 18:31)

At Jericho: Zaeehus and blind Bartimus (Luk 19:1-11, Mar 10:46; Mar 10:52)

Approaches city, at Bethany (Mat 21:1, Mar 11:1, Luk 19:29, Joh 12:1) six days before the Passover a.d. 29, Nisan 9 (March 12).

The chronology of the last six days is still further complicated by the difference between the Second and Fourth Gospels regarding the Anointing at Bethany. Mar 14:1-3 gives the account of the Anointing apparently in connexion with the date after two days was the feast of the Passover and the unleavened bread, while Joh 12:1-3 gives the account of the Supper seemingly under the note of time, Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany. Two ways of getting out of the difficulty are (1) by referring the note of time in Mk. to the events of Mar 14:1-2; Mar 14:10-11 as giving the connexion of the conspiracy of the chief priests against Jesus, and the offer of Judas, and regarding the scene of the Anointing as an intrusion of strange matter similar to Mar 6:14-29; Mar 7:25-30; (2) by restricting the application of the note of time Joh 12:1 to the arrival at Bethany. The notice of the day of the entombment ( , Joh 12:7) would come more appropriately on the date given in Mar 14:1, the reason of the mention of the feast in connexion with the date of Joh 12:1 six days before, etc., being, perhaps, the fact that Jesus and His disciples made the house of Lazarus and his sisters the headquarters of His last mission to the city. Against this it may be urged that it is equally probable that this feast, which was attended by many out of curiosity to see not only Jesus but Lazarus whom He had raised (Joh 12:9), occasioned on the one hand the splendid reception given to Him by the multitude, and on the other the malignant opposition of the chief priests, who made plans to procure the death of Lazarus also (Joh 12:10). And the anointing of Jesus feet in so lavish a style would be in keeping with His entry as the Messiah, the Anointed, into the city, which follows in the Fourth Gospel. St. Marks order of events, however, is quite different. Our Lord proceeds straight from Jericho to Jerusalem by way of Bethphage and Bethany (Mar 11:1), and when He entered the temple and looked round on all things, the hour being late ( , Joh 12:11), He withdrew to Bethany with the Twelve. The cleansing of the temple, which immediately follows the entry in Matthew 21 and Luke 19, is thus reserved for the next day, and the banquet for the last evening spent in Bethany. May it not be possible that there were two banquets, and two similar acts of homage paid by women to Jesus, one at the beginning of His last mission, when His feet were anointed, and the other at the close of His mission, when His head was anointed, the former being recorded by St. John (Joh 12:2-8), who marks the commencement of the years work by the purification of the temple, the latter by the Synoptists, St. Matthew and St. Mark, who signalize its closing scenes with a similar act?

In the week itself there are three difficult notes of time. (1) Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany (John 12 :1 , cf. Amo 1:1 LXX Septuagint [ ], two years before the earthquake). Six days before Friday, Nisan 15, that is, according to Jewish reckoning, six evenings before the evening that followed the sunset of Nisan 14, would give the evening that directly followed the sunset of the Sabbath of Nisan 9, in which case the Supper would take place in the evening that was the close of the Sabbath. Or if, as Westcott held, the Passion fell on Thursday, the arrival at Bethany took place on a Friday, in which case the Sabbath would be kept as a day of rest, and would be followed by a feast on the next evening. (2) After two days is the Passover (Mat 26:1), or After two days was the Passover and the unleavened bread (Mar 14:1). This date, including the day on which the words were spoken, but excluding that of the Passover, points to Wednesday, Nisan 13, the Crucifixion falling on Friday, Nisan 15. Bengel allows an interval of one day only, biduum a feri quart ad quintam qua; Paschatos et azymorum dies erat; cf. Mar 8:31, where = . (3) On the first day of the unleavened bread the disciples of Jesus came to him, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? (Mat 26:17). Strictly speaking, that day would be Nisan 16, this feast commencing on the evening after the close of Nisan 15, the Passover, and lasting seven days. But this note of time refers probably to the legal beginning of the 14th day, the evening following the sunset of Nisan 13, or may be due to a confusion with the day Nisan 14 on which leaven was removed.

With regard to the method our Lord followed in His mission, see Luk 21:37 And during the days he was teaching in the temple; but during the nights going forth to the mount that is called the Mount of Olives, he used to abide () there: and all the people came to him at early dawn () in the temple to hear him; cf. Luk 22:39 And he came out and went to the Mount of Olives; and his disciples followed. And when he was at the place ( , evidently some familiar locality [see Joh 18:1-2 Jesus went forth with his disciples beyond the brook kidron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew ]). It would seem then that the night was generally spent in prayer on the mountain side during this mission. But the evening after the Triumphal Entry was spent in Bethany (Mar 11:11-12); yet evidently the greater part of night and morn was spent in prayer in the open air (Mat 21:17). This fact would explain His hunger on the morrow from missing the morning meal. For His practice of going out to pray a great while before day see Mar 1:35.

The following is a provisional arrangement of the days and occurrences of the Last Mission:

Sabbath, Nisan 9, 6th Day before Passover Arrival in Bethany (Joh 12:1).

Supper in the evening (Joh 12:2-8).

The Anointing of His feet.

First Day of Week (Palm Sunday, ), Nisan 10, 5th Day before Passover Triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mar 11:1-11, Mat 21:1-11, Luk 19:29-44, Joh 12:14; Joh 12:19).

Works of mercy in Temple (Mat 21:14-15).

Returns in the evening to Bethany (Mar 11:11, Mat 21:17).

Second Day of Week, Monday, Nisan 11: day of selection of Paschal lamb (Exo 12:3), 4th Day before Passover. Returns on the morrow ( ) from Bethany (Mar 11:12); hungry after midnight vigil or early morning prayer (Mar 1:35). Blasting of the Fig-tree; sign of an unfruitful nature (Mar 11:12-14). Purification of the Temple, more drastic and thorough in Mar 11:15-18 than in Luk 19:45; Luk 19:48 or Mat 21:12-13.

Leaves the city in evening (Mar 11:14).

Conspiracy of loes (Luk 19:47).

Third Day of Week, Tuesday, Nisan 12, 3rd Day before Passover. Returns early () past the withered fig-tree (Mar 11:20). Combination of foes, chief priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, Scribes, Herodians.

Day of Questions and Answers touching the authority of Jesus, the baptism of John, the tribute money, the brothers wife, the first commandment of all. What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? (Matthew 21, 22). From that day forth no man dared ask him any more questions (Mat 22:46). Woes on Pharisees (Mat 23:1-36).

Jesus in Treasury, the widows mite (Mar 12:41-44).The visit of Greeks, and parable of Seed-corn (Joh 12:20-36). Final Rejection (Joh 12:37). Lament over Jerusalem (Mat 23:37-39). Prediction of the destruction of the Temple, and final scenes of the coming of the Son of Man (24, 25).

Counsel of Caiaphas (Mat 26:3-5).

Fourth Day of Week, Wednesday, Nisan 13, 2nd Day before Passover. After two days is the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mat 26:2). It is supposed that our Lord remained all this day in Bethany, not returning to the city openly after Joh 12:36. The Anointing of His head at the Supper in the evening.

The Bargain of Judas.

The Day before the Passover, (Joh 19:14), Thursday, Nisan 14, Fifth Day of Week. (Mat 26:17), the first day of unleavened bread evidently being identified with the first day on which leaven was removed (Exo 12:15), the bread of Passover heing unleavened (Deu 16:3). The morning was occupied by disciples with preparations for the Supper (Mat 26:17-19), by Jesus in prayer.

(A) The events of the evening may be arranged according to the four Roman (as distinguished from the three Jewish) watches, (6 p.m.9 p.m.); (9 p.m.12); (123 a.m.); (3 a.m.6 a.m.), used in the Gospels (Mar 13:35, Mat 14:25, Mar 6:48).

or , 6 p.m.9 p.m. The Supper with the Twelve, (Mat 26:20, Mar 14:17). The washing of feet after Supper ( or during it, sec v.l. (Joh 13:2). Departure of Judas. Institution of Lords Supper. Upper Room Discourses (Joh 13:31 to Joh 14:31). Departure from Upper Room (Joh 14:31).

(9 p.m.12). Parable of Vine (John 15). Promise of the Holy Spirit (16). Prayer for disciples (17). Gethsemane (18:1, Mat 26:37-46, Mar 14:33-38, Luk 22:41-46). Agony, one hour (Mar 14:37).

123 a.m. Cock-crow. Arrival of Judas, Arrest of Jesus (Joh 18:2-12). Preliminary trial before Annas (Joh 18:13). Peters denial; (Joh 18:27). Jesus sent to Caiaphas (Joh 18:24). Trial before Sanherdrin (Luk 22:66), (Mat 27:1 loosely), towards the morning watch (Mar 15:1 more precisely).

or 3 a.m.6 a.m. Led to Pilate (Joh 18:28), from Pilate to Herod (Luk 23:7), back to Pilate (Luk 23:11). Behold, the man I (Joh 19:5). And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour (Joh 19:14). Delivered to be crucified (Joh 19:16).

(B) The third, sixth, and ninth hours of the morning, which were wont to be proclaimed by an officer of the Prtor (Smiths Dict. Ant. s.v. dies), marked similar divisions of the day which for the Jews ended in the evening.

Preparation for Crucifixion.

6 a.m.9 a.m.And it was the third hour (i.e. 3rd after the last watch of the night [36 a.m.], or 9 a.m.); and they crucified him (Mar 15:25).

[There is no need to suggest a corruption of F for or vice versa to explain the difference of Mar 15:25 and Joh 19:14, as the former hour marks the crucifixion and the latter the hour of sentence, between which some interval must have elapsed.]

9 a.m.12.Jesus on the Cross.

123 p.m.And when the sixth hour (12) was come there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour (3 p.m.) and at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (Mar 15:33-34).

Between the evenings [ Exo 12:6], as the Paschal lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple, Jesus gave up the ghost. The Removal from the Cross ensues, Pilate marvelling if He were already dead (Mar 15:44), (after 3 p.m.), the women following to the sepulchre and returning to prepare spices and ointment (Luk 23:55-56).

Friday, Nisan 15 (March 18). The Passover, also the Weekly Preparation, or (Mar 15:42).

Nisan 16, Saturday. First Day of Unleavened Bread, coincided with weekly Sabbath. The day of that () Sabbath was an high day (Joh 19:31, or that () day of the week was a high day. And (the women) rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment (Luk 23:56). This was a day of holy convocation in which no servile work should be done. Visit of Sanhedrin to Pilate, (Mat 27:62). In the Grave.

Nisan 17, Sunday. The First Day of Week and Second of Feast of Math, on which sheaf of new corn was presented as first fruits, (Mar 16:9), (Joh 20:1, Luk 24:1), (Mar 16:2), (Mat 28:1). After the Sabbath ( ), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices for the anointing (Mar 16:1).

It was still dark, (Joh 20:1), in early dawn, (Luk 24:1, cf. Mat 28:1), very early after sunrise (Mar 16:2), when they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared (Luk 24:1). Jesus rose early, (Mar 16:9). The first-fruits of them that slept. (1Co 15:20).Vision of angels to the women (Mar 16:5-7). Visit of Peter and John to the Sepulchre (Joh 20:3-10). Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (Joh 20:11-18); appearance to St. Peter (Luk 24:34).

46 p.m.Appearance to two disciples, who would not have left Jerusalem until after evening prayer (cf. Act 3:1), on way to Emmaus (Luk 24:13 ff.).

8 p.m. (circa).Appearance of Jesus to the Eleven and those with them (Luk 24:36). In the account of interview with disciples (Joh 20:19 ff.), Thomas absent.

Sunday Week, Nisan 24. Jesus appeared to the disciples, Thomas being present (Joh 20:26 ff.).

Between the evenings Exo 12:6], as the Paschal lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple, Jesus gave up the ghost. The Removal from the Cross ensues, Pilate marvelling if He were already dead (Mar 15:44), (after 3 p.m.), the women following to the sepulchre and returning to prepare spices and ointment (Luk 23:55-56).The Supper with the Twelve, (Mat 26:20, Mar 14:17). The washing of feet after Supper ( or during it, sec v.l. (Joh 13:2). Departure of Judas. Institution of Lords Supper. Upper Room Discourses (Joh 13:31 to Joh 14:31). Departure from Upper Room (Joh 14:31).

Friday, Nisan 15 (March 18).The Passover, also the Weekly Preparation, or (Mar 15:42).

Nisan 16, Saturday.First Day of Unleavened Bread, coincided with weekly Sabbath. The day of that () Sabbath was an high day (Joh 19:31, or that () day of the week was a high day. And (the women) rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment (Luk 23:56). This was a day of holy convocation in which no servile work should be done. Visit of Sanhedrin to Pilate, (Mat 27:62). In the Grave.

Nisan 17, Sunday. The First Day of Week and Second of Feast of Math, on which sheaf of new corn was presented as first fruits, (Mar 16:9), (Joh 20:1, Luk 24:1), (Mar 16:2), (Mat 28:1).After the Sabbath ( ), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices for the anointing (Mar 16:1).

It was still dark, (Joh 20:1), in early dawn, (Luk 24:1, cf. Mat 28:1), very early after sunrise (Mar 16:2), when they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared (Luk 24:1). Jesus rose early, (Mar 16:9). The first-fruits of them that slept. (1Co 15:20).Vision of angels to the women (Mar 16:5-7). Visit of Peter and John to the Sepulchre (Joh 20:3-10). Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (Joh 20:11-18); appearance to St. Peter (Luk 24:34).

46 p.m.Appearance to two disciples, who would not have left Jerusalem until after evening prayer (cf. Act 3:1), on way to Emmaus (Luk 24:13 ff.).

8 p.m. (circa).Appearance of Jesus to the Eleven and those with them (Luk 24:36). In the account of interview with disciples (Joh 20:19 ff.), Thomas absent.

Sunday Week, Nisan 24.Jesus appeared to the disciples, Thomas being present (Joh 20:26 ff.).

Further appearances recorded by Evangelists:To seven Apostles on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias (John 21). To the Eleven Apostles on a mountain in Galilee (Mat 28:16-20). To the Apostles in Jerusalem (St. Luke in Act 1:4). Ascension from Bethany forty days after Passion and ten days before Pentecost (Luk 24:50, Act 1:6-12).

Literature.Josephus, Ant. and BJ; Iranaeus, adv. Haer.; Clement of Alexandria, Strom.; Hippolytus, Com. on Dan., and Paschal Cycle; Origen, Com. on St. John; Ideler, Handb. der Chronol.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. der Evang.; Salmon in Hermathena, No. 18; Farrar, Life of Christ; Westcott, Gospel of St. John (Speakers Com.), and Introduction to the Gospels; Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, and art. Jesus Christ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Hitchcock, Studies in Our Lords Last Mission; Westcott and Hort, Greek Testament; artt. Chronology, Fasts and Feasts, Passover, Pentecost in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible .

F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Dates

DATES.See Chronology.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Dates

dats (, debhash): Arabic, dibbs (2Ch 31:5, King James Version margin); English Versions of the Bible HONEY (which see). See also PALM TREE.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Dates

Dates [PALM-TREE]

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Dates

Dates. 2Ch 31:5 margin. See Palm Tree.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary