Biblical Chronology

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. - A) OLD TESTAMENT. - The Old Testament, not being a history book that presents events systematically and in chronological order, does not give a continuous and complete chronology, but only dates scattered here and there and disconnected and, from the point of view of textual criticism, not always certain.

Since the events of the Old Testament are interwoven with the general history of the ancient East, which is today more accurately known (cf. P. van der Meer, The Ancient Chronology of Western Asia and Egypt, Leiden 1947), one can determine the absolute date of certain events by means of Assyro-Babylonian or Egyptian chronology, and thus create the basis for a chronology at least of the individual periods of Israelite history. Chronology is easier to establish and more exact the closer it comes to the Greco-Roman era.

For the chronology of the archaeological documents of biblical times and the means of establishing it (pottery, etc.) v. ARCHEOLOGIA BIBLICA; VASELLAME CERAMICO.

I. THE PERIOD OF THE MACCABEES AND THE HASMONEANS

The last period of Israel's history, that of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans, is chronologically determined both by the dates contained in the two books of Maccabees and by parallel dates from profane history. It must be borne in mind, however, that the epochs of the eras of I and II Macc. are different: that of I Macc. begins with the spring of 312, that of II Macc. with 1 Tishri (Sept.-Oct.) 312. After the empire of Alexander the Great was divided among the Diadochi, Palestine was under the Ptolemies of Egypt (311-198 B.C.) until the battle of Panion (200 or 198 B.C.), which decided the passage of dominion to the Seleucids of Antioch. The struggle of the Maccabees against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164) is described, with chronological dates, in I Macc.: 175-135 B.C.; II Macc.: 177/6-161 B.C. Begun by the aged Mattathias (d. 166 B.C.), it was continued by Judas Maccabeus (166-161) and Jonathan (161-142). There follow Simon (142-135), John Hyrcanus (135-104), Aristobulus I (104-103), Alexander Jannaeus (103-76), Alexandra Salome (76-67). With Aristobulus II (67-63) and Hyrcanus II (63-40) begin the fratricidal wars that lead to the intervention of the Romans (in 63 B.C. Pompey takes Jerusalem) and to the seizure of power by Herod I, the Great (37 B.C.). The chronological determination of certain particular events within this framework is disputed (cf. Kugler, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 345-422).

II. THE PERIOD FROM THE RETURN FROM EXILE UP TO ALEXANDER THE GREAT (538-331 B.BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY)

It is one of the most obscure. The events of the return and the rebuilding of the temple (538-515) are sufficiently defined by the dates furnished by Ezra and by Persian history. The date of the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah has been much discussed. Now the Elephantine papyri prove that the activity of Nehemiah took place from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (464-424), that is, from 445. Ezra, according to the most probable opinion a contemporary of Nehemiah, arrives in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458); according to others in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (398). Other chronological determinations of this period are lacking.

III. THE EXILE

From Babylonian sources it is established that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the summer of 587 B.C.; the same sources prove that Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C. The release of King Jehoiachin, after 37 years of imprisonment, took place under Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, 561-560) in the year 561 B.C. Other dates for the period of the exile are lacking.

IV. THE PERIOD OF THE KINGS

For chronological determination, certain synchronisms of profane history known from cuneiform sources are of primary use: the battle of Karkar (853 B.C.) under Ahab, the tribute given to Shalmaneser III by Jehu (842 B.C.), the tribute of Menahem under Tiglath-Pileser III (738 B.C.), the confirmation of Hoshea, king of Israel, by the same Tiglath-Pileser III (732 B.C.), the capture of Samaria under Sargon II (722-721), the siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah by Sennacherib (701 B.C.), the capture of Jerusalem under Zedekiah (587 B.C.).

The beginning of the period can be determined only approximately. The invasion of Palestine by the pharaoh Shoshenq (Shishak) is attributed to the fifth year of Rehoboam, according to Egyptian sources to the twenty-first year of Shoshenq (945-924), that is, to 925 B.C. The division of the kingdom is therefore placed at ca. 930 B.C., the reign of Solomon (ca. 40 years) 971-930, the reign of David (likewise ca. 40 years) 1012-971, the reign of Saul ca. 1050-1012 (cf. Acts 13:21). In the books of Kings, for each king of Judah the synchronism with the contemporary king of Israel and the duration of the reign are given. Theoretically, therefore, on the basis of the synchronisms of profane history, the date of each reign can be determined; but in practice there are many difficulties: often the numbers are corrupted and uncertain; there are various ways of computing the beginning of reigns ("antedating" and "postdating"); in some cases there was a coregency of father and son. The many studies made on the subject have so far not yielded a fully concordant result; as approximate, the following chronology can be given (cf. Kugler, op. cit., p. 171; W. F. Albright, in Bull. Amer. Schools Or. Research, 100 [1945], p. 21 ff.):

V. THE JUDGES

The chronology is very difficult. The period begins about 50 years after the entry of the Israelites into Palestine. Adding up the times of the individual Judges (to the major Judges are attributed 40 years [Judg. 3:11; 5:32; 8:28; cf. 13:1], 80 years [3:30], 20 years [cf. 16:31; 4:3]), the total comes to 410 years; but since according to 1 Kings 6, the whole time from the Exodus to the building of the Temple is only 480 years (cf. Acts 13:20: from the entry into Palestine to the kings, 450 years), only about 330 years would remain for the Judges (cf. Judg. 11:26: 300 years). One must therefore say that some Judges were contemporaries, and that the numbers are perhaps round figures. Even more serious is the difficulty presented by the beginning of the period, since the time of the Exodus from Egypt is much debated: according to some authors it should be placed in the reign of Amenophis II (1447-1511) around 1447 B.C. (cf. 1 Kings 6:1), according to others under Merneptah (ca. 1225-1215). On the latter hypothesis the period of the Judges would be barely 150 years, hardly sufficient for the national and cultural evolution that took place in it; on the former hypothesis, about 300 years.

VI. THE TIME OF THE EXODUS

It also determines the chronology of the preceding periods, that is, of the sojourn in Egypt and of the Patriarchs. The sojourn in Egypt was, according to Ex. 12:40 (cf. Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6: 400 years), 430 years; it therefore lasts, in the first theory, from the year 1878 to 1448, in the second, approximately from 1655 to 1225. Anyone who establishes an intermediate date, such as Albright (within 1375-1300), will have to place the entry of the Israelites into Egypt around the middle of the 18th century. The first and second hypotheses bring forward arguments both biblical and archaeological (especially the excavations of Jericho, whose fall is placed by Garstang around the year 1400, by Fr. Vincent around 1250); in favor of the second one may bring forward the fact that in Palestine a notable discontinuity of culture is observed precisely in the 13th century and that the entry of the Israelites into Egypt would have occurred in the period of the Hyksos (ca. 1750-1580), who for the most part were themselves Semites who had immigrated from Syria and Mesopotamia, whereas in the first hypothesis the Israelites would have entered Egypt under the strong 13th dynasty (ca. 2000-1785).

VII. THE PERIOD OF THE PATRIARCHS

It comprises (according to Gen. 21:5; 25:26; 47:28) 290 years; thus for the birth of Abraham one would arrive, in the three hypotheses, respectively at the years 2168, 1945, 2040. The only synchronism that would make a more accurate determination possible would be the reign of Hammurapi, king of Babylon. But the time of Hammurapi is still much debated (Sidersky: 1848-1806; A. Ungnad: 1792-1749; Albright: ca. 1728-1686), and the identification Amraphel (Gen. 14) = Hammurapi, encountering difficulties both philological and historical, is very doubtful (F. M. Böhl, King Hammurabi of Babylon in the Setting of his Time, Amsterdam 1946).

VIII. THE BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE FLOOD AND OF PRECEDING TIMES

It cannot be established. From the genealogies of the Sethites (Gen. 5:3-31) and of the Noachites (Gen. 11:10-26) there result 1656 years (in the Samaritan codex 1307, in the Septuagint 2242 [2262]) from the creation of man to the flood, 920 years (Samaritan codex 940, Septuagint 1170) from the flood to Abraham, hence from Adam to Abraham 2576 years (Samaritan codex 2247, Septuagint 3417). It is clear that none of these figures suffices to cover the time that prehistory and paleontology require for the origin of man. The genealogies are therefore to be considered as schemata made by the sacred Author to express some religious or cultural idea, which, however, still eludes us. The time of the creation of man can be determined only by the results of the profane sciences, which so far agree neither on the method of such a determination nor on the result.

I. YEAR OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST

It is certain that Herod the Great died at the beginning of April of 750 from the founding of Rome (4 B.C.). Christ was born at least a year and a half before the death of Herod.

The year in which Herod died can be fixed both from the beginning and the duration of his reign, and from the dates relating to the principalities of his three sons.

a) The beginning of Herod's nominal reign goes back to 713, or 40 B.C., at the end of which he was named king (Fl. Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XIV, 14, 5); the beginning of his real or effective reign to 37 B.C., when, having defeated King Antigonus, he conquered Jerusalem (ibid., 16, 4). In fact he reigned 34 years from the defeat of Antigonus, 37 years from when he was named king by the Romans (id., op. cit., XVII, 8, 1). Since the years of kings are reckoned from the month of nisān (Mišnah, Roš ha-šānah, I), one has: 1st year of Herod's nominal reign: Dec. 714 (40 B.C.) - nisān 715; 2nd-36th year: nisān 715 (39 B.C.) - nisān 750; 37th year: nisān 750 (4 B.C.: only a few days).

For Herod's effective reign: 1st year: Sept. 717 (37 B.C.) - nisān 718 (36 B.C.); 2nd year: nisān 718 (36 B.C.) - nisān 719; 34th year: nisān 750 (4 B.C.: a few days).

b) The ethnarch Archelaus was deposed in 759 (6 A.D.: Fl. Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 2, 1) after having reigned 9 years, or in his "10th year" (id., op. cit., XVII, 13, 2), therefore he began his reign in 750 (4 B.C.). The tetrarch Antipas was deposed in 792 (39 A.D.: id., op. cit., XVIII, 7, 1); a coin of his indicates the year 43 (Schürer, I, p. 415), therefore he assumed the tetrarchy in 750 (4 B.C.). Philip died "in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius", that is, in Aug. 786 (7 A.D.), after having reigned 37 years (Fl. Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 4, 6); therefore he began his reign in 750 (4 B.C.) or in 749 (5 B.C.).

c) This is confirmed by Fl. Josephus's account of the eclipse (id., op. cit., XVII, 6, 4). Shortly before the death of Herod there was an eclipse of the moon, between 12 and 13 March of 750 (4 B.C.). Too far indeed from the death of Herod are that of 5 Sept. 749, or 5 B.C., and the third of 9 Jan. 752, or 2 B.C., which occurred after the death of Herod (cf. Th. Oppolzer, Kanon der Finsternisse, Vienna 1887, nos. 1852-62, p. 343b, F. K. Ginzel, Spezieller Kanon der Finsternisse, Berlin 1899, p. 195).

The birth of Jesus took place in winter. The Romans in fact could choose only this season to carry out the census without harming agriculture.

How much time elapsed between the birth of Jesus and the death of Herod? When Jesus was born, Herod was not yet ill, otherwise he could not have promised, albeit falsely, that he would go to Bethlehem (Mt. 2, 8). But in the last six months of his life he fell ill, and resided almost continuously at Jericho. He established, on the basis of what he had learned from the Magi (Mt. 2, 16), that the age of the children to be killed was that of "two years". Therefore the adoration of Jesus took place in his second year of life. This is confirmed by Christian art: the numerous images of the mystery of the Epiphany almost always represent Jesus not as an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, but as a child dressed in a little tunic, that is, as a child of two years.

Since therefore between the birth of Jesus, which took place in winter, and the death of Herod, which took place shortly after 1 April 750, or 4 B.C., there elapses at least a year and a half, the birth of the Lord took place neither in 749 (5 B.C.) nor in 748 (6 B.C.), but in one of these three years: 747 (7 B.C.) or 746 (8 B.C.) or 745 (9 B.C.). All the other calculations do not hold, and still less the tradition that speaks of the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus (reckoned from the death of G. Caesar to the ides of March 710, or 44 B.C.), that is, of an epoch later than the death of Herod.

II. TIME OF THE BAPTISM AND THE BEGINNING OF CHRIST'S PUBLIC MINISTRY

John's ministry began "in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius" (Lk. 3:1). On this point three hypotheses are put forward. The first proposes the year 781 (A.D. 28), reckoned from August 19, 769 (A.D. 14), the day of Augustus' death, to the same day of the following year, if one holds that Tiberius' first year was a full year of 365 days. But in the East the first year of a reign was often reckoned only up to the first day of the civil year, which, in the East, was October 1. It seems that this usage was adopted first of all at Antioch, where the years were reckoned from the battle of Pharsalus (August 6, 706, or 48 B.C.), placing the beginning of the era on October 1, 705, 49 B.C. Therefore the 15th year of Tiberius' reign ran from October 1 of 780 (A.D. 27) to October 1 of 781 (A.D. 28).

There is, however, a different reckoning, which counts the years of Tiberius' reign from the time when "at the request of the senate and the people" he assumed effective power alongside Augustus in order to administer the provinces together with him. Tiberius assumed this imperium processulare mutus between September and October of 765 (A.D. 12). This reckoning is confirmed by the fact that Lk. 3:1 does not attribute to the Caesar any title of his own and exclusive (neither ἀρχή nor αὐτοκρατορία), but only the ἡγεμονία, which is also attributed to Pilate and to Quirinus (Lk. 2:2). Add to this the analogy with the second king of Egypt: Ptolemy II Philadelphus died at the beginning of the year 246 B.C. "in the 39th year of his reign." Now this numbering begins in 285 B.C., that is, in the year in which his now aged father Ptolemy I Soter (who died later, in 283 B.C.) proclaimed him partner in the kingdom. Therefore Ptolemy II counted the years of his reign including also those in which he was associated with his father (cf. H. Frank, in Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 11 [1933-34], pp. 1-56, especially p. 11). There is an obstacle, however, in the fact that all the ancient sources attributed to Tiberius (d. March 16, 37) a reign of 22 years or of 22 and a half or at most of 23, never of 24 or 25, as would be obligatory if this emperor had counted the years of his reign starting from A.D. 12. Nevertheless it is possible that such a reckoning for Tiberius' reign was in use for some time at Antioch and thus entered the Gospel of Luke.

In Jn. 2:20, the members of the Sanhedrin declare to Christ: "it took 46 years to build this temple." Since Herod began the splendid restoration of the Temple when Augustus was leaving the East, "in the 18th year of his reign," that is, in 734 (20 B.C.), those 46 years ended at the Passover of 781 (A.D. 28); but already at the preceding Passover of 780 (A.D. 27) one could say: "this work has lasted 46 years." This excellently confirms the year 27, established by the preceding reckoning.

Fl. Josephus, it is true, does not speak of the works carried out in the Temple until the times of Nero, when "the foundations suffered damage" (Antiq. Iud., XV, 11, 2; cf. E. Power, in Biblica, 9 [1928], pp. 257-88); this leads one to hold that even earlier repairs to the Temple had been necessary. To the "three days" asserted by Christ the members of the Sanhedrin opposed the long duration that had historically been necessary to restore the Temple.

III. DURATION OF CHRIST'S PUBLIC MINISTRY

The opinion that was most common before the Council of Nicaea admitted only one year of ministry (U. Holzmeister, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 114-17); it was revived a few decades ago by van Bebber, J. Belser, H. Dieckmann, J. Mader. Today, however, the discussion turns on a single point: whether a two-year period suffices (a hypothesis upheld by M.-J. Lagrange and followed particularly in France) or whether a three-year period is required.

1. Two-year theory

In the middle of Christ's preaching, John 6:4 mentions a Passover that is certainly neither the initial one (John 2:13) nor the one of his death: ἦν δὲ ἐγγύς τὸ πάσχα ἢ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων "the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near"; therefore Christ's ministry lasted at least two years.

Vain are the attempts to declare the passage spurious. In the first centuries this passage — it is said — was read neither by those who upheld the hypothesis of a single year, nor by those who opposed that opinion, for whom the passage would have been clearer and more useful than all their arguments. In fact, the hypothesis of a one-year preaching was introduced by the Gnostics, who arose as early as the 1st century, writing at a time when the Gospel of John either did not exist or was not yet known. What would have been easier: that the first supporters of the hypothesis of a one-year preaching did not notice the passage of John 6:4, or that this passage was later inserted, in the universal Church, into all the codices, lectionaries, that it even entered into all the versions, and that no trace of the ancient reading remained?

2. Three-year theory

The question is how to interpret John 4:35: "do you not say that there are still (ἔτι) four months (τετραμηνός, quattuor menses) and then behold the harvest comes?" Christ then adds that the harvest is already (ἦδη) white, that is, ripe for reaping. Here Christ is not quoting a proverb. This is clear from the particles ἔτι and ἦδη and from the fact that the time that ordinarily elapses between sowing and harvest is 6 months and not 4 (v. Holzmeister, pp. 144-47). This sentence was spoken four months (complete or incomplete) before the single ordinary harvest, which in those mountainous regions does not occur before mid-May; therefore the sentence was spoken almost in February, and, only a few days later, Christ began preaching in Galilee (John 4:43-46). It is not probable that the preaching in Galilee, which ended with the first multiplication of the loaves (John 6:4), comprised only a few weeks.

As long as exegetes assigned that passage of Christ through Samaria (the passage to which the text under discussion refers) to Dec.-Jan. or to Jan. or to Jan.-Feb., they found the time of the preaching in Galilee sufficient. But the serious difficulty arises from the fact that the harvest cannot be placed in Apr. or in the first half of May.

J.-M. Braun (Ev. selon S. Jean, in La S. te Bible by L. Pirot, X, 2nd ed., Paris 1946, p. 347), following M.-J. Lagrange (Ev. selon S. Jean, ibid. 1925, p. 119), assigns this conversation to the days of Pentecost. "The usual interpretation forgets with what care Christ sought to adapt his teachings to the conditions the disciples had before their eyes"; "Jesus has in view a real fact, that is, the harvest in the field, which can occur only in early June." But Christ not only used similitudes to refer to present conditions, but also argued a contrario, and this he did with the particles ἕτε or ἕδη.

A further argument comes to us from the three texts (John 4:35; 5:1; 6:4), which are linked to one another by the expression μετὰ ταῦτα (John 5:1; 6:1). From this it follows in fact that between the month of Feb. after the first Passover (John 2:13) and the penultimate Passover (John 6:4) a religious feast was celebrated in Jerusalem. But the Jewish calendar knew no feast in the first months of the Julian year, before Passover. Therefore one must infer that the texts comprised between John 4:34 and 6:4 do not span a period of two or three months, but of about 14-15 months or a full year.

This argument is rendered doubtful by the hypothesis that transposes chapters 5 and 6 of the Fourth Gospel. In that case, in fact, the Passover feast turns out to be the same in the two texts 5:1 and 6:4, namely the second Passover, announced first as near and then as having occurred. But this hypothesis is not without difficulties, so that greater authority must be attributed to the opinion of the three-year preaching.

IV. YEAR OF CHRIST'S DEATH

The Gospels, with regard to the year of Christ's death, say that in it the 14th of Nisan or the very day of Passover (15th Nisan) fell on a Friday. It is not intended here to settle the question, and, accepting the hypothesis of the 14th Nisan supported by the controversy of the "Quartodecimans," we also leave to the other hypothesis (of the death on the 15th Nisan) its measure of probability.

Astronomy intervenes in this matter, indicating to us in which years the Friday could have fallen, so that, by eliminating the years that cannot be taken into consideration, we may choose between those two years in which such a condition occurred. It should be borne in mind that the Jewish months were not determined according to a fixed calendar, but according to the new moons. Since these months were either "complete" (that is, of 30 days) or incomplete (that is, of 29 days), on the evening of the twenty-ninth day of each month it was observed whether the new moon appeared or not. In the first case the new month was consecrated and that same evening everyone began the new month. In the second case, however, they waited for "witnesses" to come and assure that they had seen the new moon. If the witnesses did not come, the day following the 29th was considered as the thirtieth of the month just ended, and on the following evening the new month was begun without further ado. The announcement of the sighting of the new moon was given to the other cities, as far as Babylonia, by waving torches on the Mount of Olives and on the other mountains.

The advances made by astronomy in recent decades allow us to identify almost with certainty the observations made at the time of Christ by the Jews, under the direction of a special commission of the Sanhedrin. In fact, the time of the conjunction of the moon and the sun is known in a wholly exact manner (only an error of a few minutes is possible). Moreover, we know the evening on which the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw the new moon and therefore declared that the following day would be the first of the new month. Hence the beginning of the various months and consequently also the individual days of the months are perfectly known to us; rarely has a doubt been possible.

The position that the moon occupies in the (western) sky at the moment when the sun sets can be determined according to two lines: one rises in the sky in a straight line from that point and is called the altitude of the moon; the other follows the horizon toward the north and its name is "azimuthal difference." The azimuth is the distance from the punctum vernum placed at noon; the difference of the two azimuths is the difference between the azimuth of the place where the moon is and that of the point where the sun is (both determined at the moment when the sun sets).

The rules of the visibility of the moon were established by J. K. Fotheringham (Journal of Theol. Studies, 35 [1935-1936], p. 162, correcting what he had written there: 12 [1910-11], p. 120 ff.). He based himself on the induction that C. Schoch had derived with the help of cuneiform documents from ca. 400 Assyriological indications in S. Langdon-J. K. Fotheringham (The Venus Tablets of Ammizzaduga, Oxford 1928, pp. 45-48; Astronomische Nachrichten, Ergänzungsheft 8/2 [1930] B 17). These astronomers determined what the altitude of the moon must be if it is in a given azimuth. Thus the zone of visibility and the zone of invisibility of the moon are found, and these two zones are separated by a small intermediate zone; if the moon is in this zone it is doubtful whether it can be seen.

Among the assertions advanced on the matter around 1930-1933, the following are chosen here, beginning with the most important case (cf. J. B. Schaumberger, in Verbum Domini, 13 [1933], pp. 103-13; U. Holzmeister, p. 200).

On March 19, 33, a Thursday, the sun and the moon (according to Jerusalem time) were in conjunction at 13:07; the new moon could be seen the next day, March 20, a Friday, in the evening, and therefore the 1st Nisan was Saturday, March 21; hence Friday, April 3 was the day suitable from the astronomical point of view for the crucifixion of the Lord.

On March 22 of the year 30 the conjunction falls at 20:23, Jerusalem time. Astronomers dispute whether the new moon could be seen the next day, March 23 (Friday), or on March 24. In the first case Friday, April 7 was the 15th Nisan; in the other case the 14th Nisan.

The other years do not have the Friday immediately after a paschal full moon. Let us take the example of the year 32. The conjunction occurred on March 29 at 22:50, Jerusalem time. The moon was visible not the next day, March 30, but on March 31. Therefore the 1st Nisan was April 1 and the 14th Nisan was April 14; but that day was a Monday: therefore the day is not suitable, and even granting that an error of one day could have been made in the observation, the required Friday would never be found.

If, then, it is established that both April 7 of the year 30 and April 3 of the year 33 were days equally suitable to satisfy the required astronomical conditions of the day of the mystery of Calvary, it remains to be seen which of those two days must be chosen (for the arguments on the choice of one or the other day cf. U. Holzmeister, pp. 205-15).

V. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND OF THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL

The chronology of the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles must be determined by means of the chronology of Christ's death. It remains, therefore, to establish when the martyrdom of St. Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul took place, events that are separated by a considerable interval of time from the first mysteries of the Acts and that are, on the other hand, very close to one another. Many maintain that those events occurred after the deposition of Pilate (toward the end of the year 36), since during his magistracy the Sanhedrin would not have dared to arrogate to itself the ius gladii. But on the other hand the conversion of St. Paul seems to have occurred earlier (probably in 33 or 34): in fact according to Gal. 1:18 and 2:1 it preceded by 17 years the Council of the Apostles held around the year 50. Some reply that the three-year period of which Gal. 1:18 speaks must be included within those "14 years" indicated by Gal. 2:1, but such is not the obvious sense of this reckoning. With one argument thus conflicting with the other, we know nothing with complete certainty.

The only event in the history of the New Testament whose chronology can be determined exactly is the death of Herod Agrippa I, which occurred around the middle of the year 44. This king in fact received from Claudius Judea, Samaria and Idumea, immediately after the latter was acclaimed emperor (25 January 41), with the help of Agrippa himself: he died after having reigned over all Judea ("tertium annum expleverat toti Iudaeae imperans": Flavius Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XIX, 8, 2; "per annos tres regnans": Bell. Iud., II, 11, 6; "vel quattuor et tribus annis ex quo a Caligula rex est constitutus": Antiq. Iud., XIX, 8, 2). The king died on the occasion of the festival in honor of the emperor (ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτῆρας: ibid.). Claudius, in fact, having set out in 43 for the war in Britain, returned victorious to Rome after 7 months and there were great celebrations throughout the empire. Nevertheless this death of the persecuting king does not meet chronologically with the martyrdom of St. James narrated in Acts 12:2.

In 1934 L. Hennequin (DBs, II, coll. 355-73), with the erudite dissertation Delphes (inscription de), sought to prove that St. Paul entered Corinth in October of the year 50. It is perhaps more prudent to propose, to anyone who is suspicious of those chronological determinations that go so far as to establish the months, a simpler formula: St. Paul went to Corinth in the year 50 or 51; therefore in 49 (48) or 50 the Council of the Apostles was held.

In the same year in which St. Paul began the journey toward Rome, Felix, procurator of Judea, left his post at Caesarea to his successor Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27). This happened not later than the year 60 nor much before that year. Festus administered Judea for at least a year, as appears from the acts of government carried out by him; then he died in the province and, after an interregnum of some months, he was succeeded by Albinus at least by October of 62; in fact under him the prophet Jesus "four years before the war" (which broke out in 66) began his prophetic preaching foretelling the ruin of the city (Bell. Iud., VI, 5, 3).

St. Paul was acquitted by Nero in the first trial. But the latter had already in 64 begun the persecution of the Christians after the fire of Rome, which according to some began on 19 July of 64 (Tacitus, Annal., XV, 41). Therefore Paul the year before, that is in 63, was acquitted; consequently he must have set out from Caesarea for Rome around the year 60.

Felix entered office in the last years of Claudius's reign and two years before being deposed had already been judge of the Jews "multis annis" (Acts 24:10). Moreover in 64 some priests sent as prisoners to Rome were detained there (Flavius Josephus, Vita, 3), and the controversy over the right of citizenship of the Jews, raised under Felix, was finally decided in 66 (id., Antiq. Iud., XX, 8, 9). These facts become all the less probable the more the deposition of Felix is brought forward. In conclusion, the year 60 appears very probable as the date of the deposition of Felix and of the beginning of Paul's journey to Rome.

Concerning the death of the Princes of the Apostles there is a lack of reliable historical information. The opinions of authors are therefore varied. There is talk of 55, of 57 and of 58. Many place the persecution of Nero in 64, others in 67. Two arguments somewhat support the latter hypothesis: the first is that Clement of Rome affirms that St. Paul suffered martyrdom "under the rulers" μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων: Ad Cor. 5, 7 (ed. Funk, I, 106): under this name it seems that Sabinus, Tigellinus and Helius Cæsarianus should be understood, who in 67 governed Rome while Nero was in Achaia. But the argument is uncertain. Jerome affirms, speaking of the philosopher Seneca: "Hic ante biennium, quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur martyrio, a Nerone interfectus est" (De viris inlustr., 12: PL 23, 629 [662]). Seneca was killed in April of 65 (Tacitus, Annal., 15, 64; cf. O. Rossbach, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl., I, col. 2243). Here too, however, the argument is not certain.

Urbano Holzmeister