PAUL
568
PAUL
lasted nearly five years (more than two years at Cx-
saroa, Acts, xxiv, 27, six months travelling, including
the sojourn at KlaUa, and two years at Rome, Acts,
xxviii, 30); the third mission lasted not less than four
years and a half (three of which were spent at Ephesus,
Acts, XX. 31, and one between the departure from
Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem, 1 Cor., xvi, 8;
Acts, XX, 10. and six months at the very least for the
journey to Calatia, Acts, x\'iii, 23); while the second
mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen
months for Corinth, Acts, xviii, 11, and the remainder
for the evangelization of Galatia, Macedonia, and
Athens, Acts, xv, 36-xvii. 34). Thus from the con-
version to the end of the first captivity we have a
total of .about twenty-nine years. Now if we could
find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a
fact in the life of Paul and a certainly dated event
in profane historj', it would be easy to reconstruct
the Pauline chronology. Unfortunately this much
wished-for mark has not yet been indicated with
certainty, despite the numerous attempts made by
scholars, especially in recent times. It is of inter-
est to note even the abortive attempts, because the
discovery of an inscription or of a coin may any day
transform an appro.ximate date into an absolutely
fixed point. These are: the meeting of Paul with Ser-
gius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus, about the year 46
(.\ets, xiii, 7), the meeting at Corinth with Aquila and
Priscilla, who had been expelled from Rome, about 51
(Acts, x\-iii, 2), the meeting with Galho, Proconsul of
Achaia, about 53 (Acts, xviii, 12), the address of Paul
before the Governor Felix and his wife Drusilla about
58 (Acts, xxiv, 24). All these events, as far as they
may be assigned appro.ximate dates, agree with the
Apostle's general chronology but give no precise re-
sults. Three synchronisms, however, appear to afford
a firmer basis : —
(1) The occupation of Damascus by the ethnarch of King Aretas and the escape of the Apostle three years after his conversion (II Cor., xi, 32-33; Acts, ix, 23-26). — Damascene coins bearing the effigy of Tiberius to the year 34 are extant, proving that at that time the city belonged to the Romans. It is impossible to assume that Aretas had received it as a gift from Tiberius, for the latter, especially in his last years, was hostile to the King of the Nabata;ans whom Vitellius, Governor of Syria, was ordered to attack (Joseph., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 13); neither could Aretas have possessed himself of it by force for, besides the unlikeUhood of a direct aggression against the Romans, the expedition of Vitellius was at first directed not against Damascus but against Petra. It has there- fore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that Ca- ligula, subject as he was to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of his accession (16 March, 37). As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperial coins of Damascus dating from either Caligula or Claudius. According to this hypothesis St. Paul's conversion was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus and his first \n3it to Jerusalem, to 37.
(2) Death of Agrippa, famine in Judea, mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to bring thither the alms from the Church of Antioch (.\cts, xi,27-xii, 25).— Agrippa died shortly after the Pasch (Acts, xii, 3, 19), when he was celebrating in Cajsarea solemn festivals in honour of Claudius's recent return from Britain, in the third year of his reign, which had begun in 41 (Jcsephus, "Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). These combined facts bring us to the year 44, and it is precisely in this year that Orosius (Hist., vii, 6) places the great famine which desolated Judea. Josephus mentions it some- what later, under the procurator Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that the whole of Claudius's reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet., "Claudius", 18) and ageneral famine was usu- ally preceded by a more or less prolonged period of scarcity. It is also possible that the relief sent in an-
ticipation of the famine foretold by AgabuB (Acts, xi,
28, 29) preceded the appearance of the scourge or coin-
cided with the first symptoms of want. On the other
hand, the synchronism between the death of Ilerod
and the mission of Paul can only be approximate, for
although the two facts are closely connected in the
Acts, the account of the death of Agrippa may be a
mere episode intended to shed light on thesituation
of the Church of Jerusalem about the time of the
arrival of the delegates from Antioch. In any case,
45 seems to be the most satisfactory date.
(3) Replacing of Felix by Festus two years after the arrest of Paul (Acts, xxiv, 27). — Until recently chronologists commonly fixed this important event in the year 60-61. Harnack,0. Holtzmann, and Mc- Giffert suggest advancing it four or five years for the following reasons: (1) In his "Chronicon", Eusebius places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero (Oct., 55-Oct., 56, or if, as is asserted, Eusebius makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the Septem- ber after their accession, Sept., .56-Sept., 57). But it must be borne in mind that the chroniclers being always obliged to give definite dates, were likely to guess at them, and it may be that Eusebius for lack of definite information divided into two equal parts the entire duration of the government of Felix and Festus. (2) Josephus states (Ant., XX, viii, 9) that Felix having been recalled to Rome and accused by the Jews to Nero, owed his safety only to his brother Pallas who was then high in favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal., XIII, xiv-xv), Pallas was dismissed shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth anniversary, that is, in January, 55. These two state- ments are irreconcilable; for if Pallas was dismissed three months after Nero's accession (13 Oct., 54) he could not have been at the summit of his power when his brother Felix, recalled from Palestine at the com- mand of Nero about the time of Pentecost, arrived at Rome. Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal re- tained his wealth and a portion of his influence, since he stipulated that his administration should not be subjected to an investigation, was able to be of as- sistance to his brother until 62 when Nero, to obtain possession of his goods, had him poisoned.
The advocates of a later date bring forward the following reasons: (1) Two years before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for many years judge over the Jewish nation (Acts, xxiv, 10-27). This can scarcely mean less than six or seven years, and as, according to Josephus who agrees with Tacitus, Felix was named procurator of Judea in 52, the beginning of the captivity would fall in 58 or 59. It is true that the argument loses its strength if it be admitted with several critics that Felix before being procurator had held a subordinate posi- tion in Palestine. (2) Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 5-8) places under Nero everything that pertains to the government of Felix, and although this long series of events does not necessarily require many years it is evident that Josephus regards the government of Felix as coinciding for the most part with the reign of Nero, which began on 13 Oct., .54. In fixing as follows the chief dates in the life of Paul all certain or prob- able data seem to be satisfactorily taken into account: Conversion, 35; first visit to Jerusalem, 37; sojourn at Tarsus, 37-43; apostolate at Antioch, 43-44; sec- ond visit to Jerusalem, 44 or 45; first mission, 45- 49; third \-isit to Jerusalem, 49 or 50; second mission, 50-53; (I and II Thessalonians), 52; fourth visit to Jerusalem, 53; third mission, 53-57; (I and II Corin- thians; Galatians), 56; (Romans), 57; fifth vi.sit to Jerusalem, arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure for Rome, 59; captivity at Rome, 60-62; (Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians; Philippians), 61; second period of activity, 62-66; (I Timothy; Titus), second arrest, 66; (II Timothy), martyrdom, 67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the N. 'T." in Hastings, "Diet, of
