CRONOLOGIA BIBLICA

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. — A) OLD TESTAMENT. — The Old Testament, not being a historical book that presents events systematically and in chronological order, does not provide a continuous and complete chronology, but only scattered and disconnected dates, which, from the standpoint of textual criticism, are not always reliable.

Since the events of the Old Testament are interwoven with the general history of the ancient Near East, now more accurately known (cf. P. van der Meer, *The Ancient Chronology of Western Asia and Egypt*, Leiden 1947), it is possible to determine the absolute dates of certain events by means of Assyro-Babylonian or Egyptian chronology, thereby establishing a basis for a chronology at least of the individual periods of Israelite history. The closer one approaches the Greco-Roman era, the easier and more accurate the chronology becomes.

For the chronology of archaeological documents from the biblical period and the means of establishing it (pottery, etc.), see BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY; POTTERY.

OUTLINE:

I. The Maccabean and Hasmonean Period

II. The Period from the Return from Exile to Alexander the Great (538–331 B.C.). —

III. The Exile

IV. The Period of the Kings

V. The Judges

VI. The Time of the Exodus

VII. The Period of the Patriarchs

VIII. The Chronology of the Flood and the Preceding Times.

I. THE MACCABEAN AND HASMONEAN PERIOD

The final period of Israelite 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 secular history. It must be noted, however, that the epochs in 1 and 2 Maccabees differ: that of 1 Maccabees begins in the spring of 312 B.C., while that of 2 Maccabees begins in the month of Tishri (September–October) of 312 B.C. After the division of Alexander the Great’s empire among the Diadochi, Palestine was under the Ptolemies of Egypt (311–198 B.C.) until the Battle of Panium (200 or 198 B.C.), which decided the transfer of dominion to the Seleucids of Antioch. The Maccabean struggle against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.) is described with chronological dates in 1 Maccabees: 175–135 B.C.; in 2 Maccabees: 177/6–161 B.C. Initiated by the elderly Mattathias (d. 166 B.C.), it was continued by Judas Maccabeus (166–161 B.C.) and Jonathan (161–142 B.C.). This was followed by Simon (142–135 B.C.), John Hyrcanus (135–104 B.C.), Aristobulus I (104–103 B.C.), Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.), and Alexandra Salome (76–67 B.C.). With Aristobulus II (67–63 B.C.) and Hyrcanus II (63–40 B.C.), fratricidal wars began, leading to Roman intervention (in 63 B.C., Pompey took Jerusalem) and to the rise of Herod the Great (37 B.C.). The chronological determination of certain particular events within this framework is debated (cf. Kugler, op. cit. in bibliography, pp. 345–422).

II. THE PERIOD FROM THE RETURN FROM EXILE TO ALEXANDER THE GREAT (538–331 B.C.). — This is one of the most obscure periods. The events of the return and the rebuilding of the Temple (538–515 B.C.) are sufficiently defined by the dates provided by Ezra and Persian history. The dating of the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah has been much debated. Now, however, the Elephantine papyri prove that Nehemiah’s activity began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (464–424 B.C.), i.e., in 445 B.C. Ezra, according to the most probable opinion, was a contemporary of Nehemiah and arrived in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 B.C.); according to others, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (398 B.C.). Other chronological determinations for this period are lacking.

III. THE EXILE

Babylonian sources confirm 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 captivity occurred under Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, 561–560 B.C.) in 561 B.C. Other dates from the period of the exile are lacking.

IV. THE PERIOD OF THE KINGS

For chronological determination, the synchronisms of secular history known from cuneiform sources are of primary importance: the Battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.) under Ahab, the tribute paid 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 fall of Samaria under Sargon II (722–721 B.C.), the siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah by Sennacherib (701 B.C.), and the fall of Jerusalem under Zedekiah (587 B.C.).

The beginning of the period can only be determined approximately. The invasion of Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonq) in Palestine is attributed to the fifth year of Rehoboam, according to Egyptian sources to the twenty-first year of Shishak (945–924 B.C.), i.e., to 925 B.C. The division of the kingdom can thus be placed ca. 930 B.C., the reign of Solomon (ca. 40 years) 971–930 B.C., the reign of David (likewise ca. 40 years) 1012–971 B.C., and the reign of Saul ca. 1050–1012 B.C. (cf. Acts 13:21). In the Books of Kings, each king of Judah is given with a synchronism of the contemporary king of Israel and the duration of the reign. Theoretically, therefore, it is possible, on the basis of the synchronisms of secular history, to determine the date of each reign; but in practice there are many difficulties: often the numbers are distorted and unreliable; there are different ways of computing the beginning of reigns (antedating and postdating); in some cases there was a co-regency of father and son. The many studies conducted on this subject thus far have not yielded a fully agreed-upon result; as an approximate chronology, the following may be given (cf. Kugler, op. cit., p. 171; W. F. Albright, in *Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research*, 100 [1945], pp. 21 ff.):

| Saul | ca. | 1050–1012 |
| David | > | 1012–971 |
| Solomon | > | 971–930 |

| Kings of Judah | Kings of Israel |
| Rehoboam | 929–913 | Jeroboam I | 929–909 |
| Abijam | 912–910 | Nadab | 909–908 |
| Asa | 910–870 | Baasha | 908–885 |
| | | Elah | 885–884 |
| | | Zimri | 884 |
| | | Omri | 884–873 |
| Jehoshaphat | 870–849 | Ahab | 873–854 |
| | | Ahaziah | 854–853 |
| Jehoram | 849–842 | Jehoram | 853–842 |
| Ahaziah | 842–836 | Jehu | 842–815 |
| Athaliah | 842–836 | Jehoahaz | 814–798 |
| Joash | 836–797 | Joash | 798–783 |
| Amaziah | 797–789 | Jeroboam II | 783–743 |
| Azariah (Uzziah) | 789–738 | Zechariah | 743 |
| | | Shallum | 743 |
| Jotham | 738 | Menahem | 742–738 |
| | | Pekahiah | 738–737 |
| Ahaz | 736–721 | Pekah | 737–732 |
| | | Hoshea | 732–724 |
| | | Fall of Samaria 722–721 (between 20 Dec. 722 and 4 Apr. 721). |

| Hezekiah | 721–693 |
| Manasseh | 693–639 |
| Amon | 639–638 |
| Josiah | 638–609 |
| Jehoahaz | 609 |
| Jehoiakim | 609–598 |
| Jehoiachin | 598 |
| Zedekiah | 598–587 |
| Fall of Jerusalem | 587 |

V. THE JUDGES

The chronology is very difficult. The period begins about 50 years after the Israelites’ entry into Palestine. If one adds up the periods of the individual judges (the major judges are credited with 40 years [Judg. 3:11; 5:31; 8:28; cf. 13:1], 80 years [3:30], 20 years [cf. 16:31; 4:3]), the total comes to 410 years; but according to 1 Kings 6:1, the entire 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 year 450), leaving only about 330 years for the period of the judges (cf. Judg. 11:26). It must therefore be concluded that some judges were contemporaries and that the numbers may be rounded. A more serious difficulty is 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 Amenhotep II (1447–1411 B.C.) ca. 1447 B.C. (cf. 1 Kings 6:1), while according to others it should be placed under Merenptah (ca. 1225–1215 B.C.). In the latter hypothesis, the period of the judges would be only about 150 years, hardly sufficient for the national and cultural development that took place during it; in the former hypothesis, it would be about 300 years.

VI. THE TIME OF THE EXODUS

This also determines the chronology of the preceding periods, namely the sojourn in Egypt and the Patriarchs. According to Ex. 12:40 (cf. Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6: 400 years), the sojourn in Egypt lasted 430 years; thus, in the first theory, it spans from the year 1878 to 1448, and in the second, approximately from 1655 to 1225. Those who posit an intermediate date, such as Albright (between 1375-1300), must place the entry of the Israelites into Egypt around the mid-18th century. Both the first and second hypotheses rely on arguments both biblical and archaeological (particularly the excavations at Jericho, whose fall Garstang places around 1400 BC, while Fr. Vincent places it around 1250 BC). In favor of the second hypothesis, it can be argued that a notable cultural discontinuity is observed in Palestine precisely in the 13th century, and that the entry of the Israelites into Egypt would have occurred during the Hyksos period (ca. 1750-1580), many of whom were themselves Semitic immigrants 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

This period comprises (according to Gen. 21:5; 25:26; 47:28) 290 years; thus, the birth of Abraham would fall, under the three hypotheses, respectively in the years 2168, 1945, and 2040. The only synchronism that allows for a more precise determination would be the reign of Hammurabi, king of Babylon. However, the dating of Hammurabi’s reign is still much debated (Sidersky: 1848-1806; A. Ungnad: 1792-1749; Albright: ca. 1728-1686), and the identification of Amraphel (Gen. 14) with Hammurabi encounters both philological and historical difficulties and is highly doubtful (F. M. Böhl, *King Hammurabi of Babylon in the Setting of his Time*, Amsterdam 1946).

VIII. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE FLOOD AND PRECEDING TIMES

This cannot be established. From the genealogies of the Sethites (Gen. 5:3-31) and the Noahites (Gen. 11:10-26), there result 1,656 years (in the Samaritan codex: 1,307; in the Septuagint: 2,242 [2,262]) from the creation of man to the Flood, and 920 years (Samaritan codex: 940; Septuagint: 1,170) from the Flood to Abraham, thus from Adam to Abraham 2,576 years (Samaritan codex: 2,247; Septuagint: 3,417). It is clear that none of these figures suffice to cover the time required by prehistory and paleontology for the origin of man. The genealogies must therefore be regarded as schemata devised by the sacred author to express some religious or cultural idea, which, however, cannot be escaped. The time of the creation of man can only be determined by the findings of secular sciences, which thus far agree neither on the method of such determination nor on the result.

**

---

B) NEW TESTAMENT

The main questions regarding the time in which the events narrated by the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles took place revolve around the following five points.

**OUTLINE:**
I. Year of the Birth of Jesus Christ
II. Period of the Baptism and the Beginning of Christ’s Public Ministry
III. Duration of Christ’s Public Ministry
IV. Year of the Death of Christ
V. Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of St. Paul

### I. YEAR OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST

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

The year of Herod’s death can be fixed both by the beginning and duration of his reign and by the dates relating to the reigns of his three sons.

a) The nominal beginning of Herod’s reign dates to 713 AUC (40 BC), at the end of which he was named king (Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, XIV, 14, 3); the actual beginning of his reign was in 37 BC, when, after defeating King Antigonus, he conquered Jerusalem (ibid., 16, 4). Indeed, “he reigned for 3 years from the defeat of Antigonus, and 37 years from when he was named king by the Romans” (ibid., XVII, 8, 1). Since the years of kings were reckoned from the month of Nisan (*Mishnah*, *Rosh Hashanah*, I), we have: 1st year of Herod’s nominal reign: December 714 AUC (40 BC) – Nisan 715; 2nd–36th years: Nisan 715 (39 BC) – Nisan 750; 37th year: Nisan 750 (4 BC; only a few days).

For Herod’s actual reign: 1st year: September 717 AUC (37 BC) – Nisan 718 (36 BC); 2nd year: Nisan 718 (36 BC) – Nisan 719; 34th year: Nisan 750 (4 BC; a few days).

b) The ethnarch Archelaus was deposed in 759 AUC (6 AD; Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, XVIII, 2, 1) after having reigned for 10 years (ibid., XVIII, 13, 2), thus beginning his reign in 750 AUC (4 BC). Antipas was deposed in 792 AUC (39 AD; ibid., XVIII, 7, 1); a coin of his indicates the year 43 (Schürer, I, 4, 15), thus he assumed the tetrarchy in 750 AUC (4 BC). Philip died “in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius,” i.e., in August 786 AUC (7 BC), after having reigned for 37 years (Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, XVIII, 4, 6); thus he began his reign in 750 AUC (4 BC) or 749 AUC (5 BC).

c) This is confirmed by Flavius Josephus’ account of the eclipse (*Antiquitates Judaicae*, XVII, 6, 4). Shortly before Herod’s death, there was a lunar eclipse between March 12 and 13 in 750 AUC (4 BC). The eclipse of September 5, 749 AUC (5 BC), and that of January 9, 752 AUC (2 BC), which occurred after Herod’s death, are too distant from his death (cf. Th. Oppolzer, *Kanon der Finsternisse*, Vienna 1887, nos. 1852-62, p. 343; F. K. Ginzel, *Spezieller Kanon der Finsternisse*, Berlin 1899, p. 195).

The birth of Jesus took place in winter. The Romans could only choose this season for the census so as not to harm 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 would not have been able to promise, 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 in Jericho. Based on what he had learned from the Magi (Mt. 2:16), he determined that the age of the children to be killed was “two years.” Thus, the adoration of Jesus occurred in His second year of life. This is confirmed by Christian art: the numerous depictions of the Epiphany almost always represent Jesus not as an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, but as a child dressed in a small tunic, that is, a child of about two years.

Since, therefore, between the birth of Jesus, which took place in winter, and the death of Herod, which occurred shortly after April 1, 750 AUC, at least a year and a half elapsed, the birth of the Lord did not occur in 749 AUC (5 BC) or 748 AUC (6 BC), but in one of these three years: 747 AUC (7 BC), 746 AUC (8 BC), or 745 AUC (9 BC). All other calculations are untenable, as is the tradition that speaks of the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus (counted from the death of Gaius Caesar at the Ides of March 710 AUC), i.e., a time after Herod’s death.

II. The Time of Christ’s Baptism and the Beginning of His Public Ministry

The ministry of John began “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius” (Lk 3:1). Three hypotheses are advanced regarding this.

The first proposes the year 781 (AD 28), calculated from 19 August 769 (AD 14), the day of Augustus’ death, up to the same day of the following year, assuming that Tiberius’ first year was a full year of 365 days. However, in the East, the first year of a reign was often counted only from the first day of the civil year, which in the East was 1 October. It seems that this usage was first adopted at Antioch, where years were counted from the Battle of Pharsalus (6 August 706 BC), placing the start of the era on 10 October 705 BC (49 BC). Thus, the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign ran from 1 October 780 (AD 27) to 1 October 781 (AD 28).

There is, however, a different calculation that 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 to administer the provinces together with him. Tiberius assumed this *imperium proconsulare maius* between September and October of 765 (AD 12). This calculation is supported by the fact that Lk 3:1 does not attribute to Caesar any proper and exclusive title (neither ἀρχή nor αὐτοκρατορία), but only the ἡγεμονία, which is also attributed to Pilate and Quirinius (Lk 2:2). An analogy is also drawn with the second king of Egypt: Ptolemy II Philadelphus died at the beginning of the year 246 BC “in the thirty-ninth year of his reign.” This numbering began in 285 BC, the year in which his aged father, Ptolemy I Soter (who died in 283 BC), proclaimed him co-regent. Thus, Ptolemy II counted the years of his reign as including 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). However, this is contradicted by the fact that all ancient sources attributed to Tiberius (who died on 16 March AD 37) a reign of 22 years, or 22 and a half, or at most 23, never 24 or 25, as would be required if this emperor had counted the years of his reign from AD 12. Nevertheless, it is possible that such a calculation was used for some time at Antioch and thus entered into the Gospel of Luke.

In Jn 2:20, the Sanhedrin declares to Christ: “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple.” Since Herod began the splendid restoration of the Temple when Augustus left the East “in the eighteenth year of his reign,” that is, in 734 (20 BC), those forty-six years ended at Passover in 781 (AD 28); but already at the preceding Passover of 780 (AD 27), it could be said: “This work has been going on for forty-six years.” This excellently confirms the year AD 27, established by the previous calculation.

Flavius Josephus, it is true, does not mention the works carried out in the Temple until the time of Nero, when “the foundations suffered damage” (*Antiquitates Judaicae*, XV, 11, 2; cf. E. Power, in *Biblica*, 9 [1928], pp. 257–88), which suggests that repairs to the Temple had already been necessary beforehand. At the “three days” mentioned by Christ, the Sanhedrin opposed the long duration that was historically known to have been required for the restoration of the Temple.

III. The Duration of Christ’s Public Teaching

The opinion most commonly held before the Council of Nicaea admitted only one year of public ministry (U. Holzmecher, op. cit. in bibliography, pp. 114–17); this was rejected a few decades ago by van Bebber, J. Belser, H. Dieckmann, and J. Mader. Today, however, the discussion centers on a single point: whether a two-year period suffices (a hypothesis supported by M.-J. Lagrange and particularly followed in France) or whether a three-year period is required.

1. **The Two-Year Theory.** — At the midpoint of Christ’s preaching, Jn 6:4 mentions a Passover that is certainly neither the initial one (Jn 2:13) nor the one at His death: ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα ἡ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.” Therefore, Christ’s ministry lasted at least two years.

Attempts to declare this passage spurious are in vain. In the early centuries, this passage was said “to have been read neither by those who supported the hypothesis of a single year nor by those who opposed that opinion, to whom the passage would have been clearer and more useful than all their arguments. Indeed, the hypothesis of a one-year preaching was introduced by the Gnostics, who arose already in the 1st century, writing at a time when the Gospel of John did not exist or was not yet known. What would have been easier: that the first supporters of the one-year preaching hypothesis did not notice Jn 6:4, or that this passage was later inserted, in the universal Church, into all manuscripts, lectionaries, and even entered all versions, leaving no trace of the ancient reading?”

2. **The Three-Year Theory.** — The interpretation hinges on Jn 4:35: “Do you not say that there are still (ἐπὶ) four months (τετράμηνος, *quattuor menses*), and then comes the harvest?” Christ then adds that the harvest is already (ἤδη) white, that is, ripe for harvesting. Here Christ was not quoting a proverb. This is evident from the particles ἐπὶ and ἤδη and from the fact that the time ordinarily between sowing and harvest is six months, not four (cf. Holzmecher, pp. 144–47). This statement was made four months (complete or incomplete) before the single ordinary harvest, which in those mountainous regions does not occur before mid-May; therefore, the statement was made almost in February, and only a few days later Christ began His preaching in Galilee (Jn 4:43, 46). It is unlikely that the preaching in Galilee, which ended with the first multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:4), comprised only a few weeks.

As long as exegetes placed that passage of Christ through Samaria (to which the text in question refers) in mid-January or February, 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 April or the first half of May.

J.-M. Braun (*Evangile selon S. Jean*, in *La Sainte Bible* of L. Pirot, X, 2nd ed., Paris 1946, p. 347), following M.-J. Lagrange (*Evangile selon S. Jean*, ibid. 1925, p. 119), assigns this conversation to the days of Pentecost. “The usual interpretation forgets how carefully Christ adapted His doctrine to the conditions before the disciples’ eyes”; “Jesus has in view a real fact, namely the harvest in the field, which can only occur at the beginning of June.” But Christ not only used similitudes based on present conditions but also argued *a contrario*, which He did with the particles ἐπὶ and ἤδη.

A further argument comes from the three texts (Jn 4:35; 5:1; 6:4), which are connected by the expression μετὰ ταῦτα (*Jn* 5:1; 6:1). From this, it follows that between the month of February after the first Passover (Jn 2:13) and the penultimate Passover (Jn 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, it must be inferred that the texts between Jn 4:34 and 6:4 do not cover a period of two or three months, but of about 14–15 months or a full year.

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

IV. Year of Christ’s death

The Gospels, in speaking of the year of Christ’s death, state that on that year the 14th of Nisan or the very day of Passover (15 Nisan) fell on a Friday. We do not intend to resolve the question here, and while accepting the hypothesis of the 14th of Nisan, which is supported by the controversy of the “Quartodecimans,” we also leave to the other hypothesis (that of the death on the 15th of Nisan) its share of probability.

Astronomy intervenes in this matter, indicating in which years the 14th or 15th of Nisan could have fallen on a Friday, so that, by eliminating the years that cannot be considered, we may choose between those two years in which this condition was met. 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 “full” (i.e., of 30 days) or “defective” (i.e., of 29 days), on the evening of the 29th day of each month it was observed whether the new moon appeared or not. If it did, the new month was consecrated and that same evening everyone began the new month. If not, witnesses were awaited to testify that they had seen the new moon. If no witnesses came, the day following the 29th was considered the 30th day of the elapsed month, and the following evening the new month began without fail. The announcement of the sighting of the new moon was conveyed to other cities, as far as Babylonia, by lighting torches on the Mount of Olives and other mountains.

The progress made in astronomy in recent decades allows us to identify with almost absolute certainty the observations made by the Jews at the time of Christ, under the direction of a special commission of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the time of the conjunction of the moon and the sun is known with complete accuracy (only a few minutes’ error is possible). Moreover, we know the evening on which the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw the new moon and thus declared that the following day would be the first of the new month. Therefore, the beginning of the various months—and consequently the individual days of the months—are perfectly known to us; rarely has any doubt been possible.

The position of the moon in the sky (in the west) at the moment when the sun sets can be determined along two lines: one rises in the sky in a straight line from that point and is called the “height of the moon,” the other follows the horizon toward the north and is called the “difference in azimuth.” The azimuth is the distance from the *punctum venum* placed in the middle; the difference of the two azimuths is the difference between the azimuth of the place where the moon is and that of the place where the sun is (both determined at the moment when the sun sets).

The rules for the visibility of the moon were established by J. K. Fotheringham (*Journal of Theological Studies*, 35 [1935–1936], p. 162, correcting what he had written there: 12 [1930–1931], pp. 120–121). He relied on the induction that C. Schoch had derived with the help of cuneiform documents from about 400 astrological indications in S. Langdon–J. K. Fotheringham, *The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga* (Oxford, 1928), pp. 45–48; *Astronomische Nachrichten*, Ergänzungsheft 8/2 (1930), B 17). These astronomers determined what the height 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, these two zones being 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 in this regard around 1930–1933, the following are selected here, beginning with the most important case (cf. J. B. Schaumberger, in *Verbum Domini*, 13 [1933], pp. 103–113; U. Holzmeister, p. 200).

On March 19, 33 A.D., Thursday, the sun and moon (according to Jerusalem time) were in conjunction at 1:07 p.m.; the new moon could be seen the following day, Friday, March 20, in the evening, and thus the 1st of Nisan was Saturday, March 21; therefore, Friday, April 3, was the day astronomically suitable for the Lord’s crucifixion.

On March 22, 30 A.D., the conjunction occurred at 8:23 p.m., Jerusalem time. Astronomers dispute whether the new moon could be seen the following day, March 23 (Friday), or on March 24. In the first case, Friday, April 7, was the 15th of Nisan; in the other case, it was the 14th of Nisan.

The other years do not have a Friday immediately after a paschal full moon. We cite as an example the year 32. The conjunction occurred on March 29 at 10:50 p.m., Jerusalem time. The moon was visible not the following day, March 30, but on March 31. Thus, the 1st of Nisan was April 1, and the 14th of Nisan was April 14; but that day was a Monday: hence, the day is unsuitable, and even if we grant that an error of a day in observation could have been made, the required Friday would never be found.

Therefore, if it is established that both April 7, 30 A.D., and April 3, 33 A.D., were days equally suitable to satisfy the astronomical conditions required for the day of the mystery of Calvary, it remains to be seen which of these two days should be chosen (for arguments on the choice of one or the other day, cf. U. Holzmeister, pp. 205–215).

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 the chronology of Christ’s death. It remains, therefore, to establish when the martyrdom of St. Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul occurred, events that are separated by a considerable span of time from the first mysteries of the Acts but are very close to each other. Many maintain that these events took place after the deposition of Pilate (at the end of the year 36), since during his magistracy the Sanhedrin would not have dared to arrogate to itself the *ius gladii*. On the other hand, however, the conversion of St. Paul seems to have occurred earlier (probably in 33 or 34): according to Gal. 1:18 and 2:1, it preceded by 17 years the Apostolic Council held around 50 A.D. Some reply that the three years mentioned in Gal. 1:18 must be inserted into those “14 years” indicated in Gal. 2:1, but this is not the obvious sense of this numbering. As arguments clash with one another, we know nothing with complete certainty.

The only event in New Testament history whose chronology can be determined exactly is the death of Herod Agrippa I, which occurred around the middle of the year 44 A.D. He indeed received Judea, Samaria, and Idumea from Claudius immediately after the latter was acclaimed emperor (January 25, 41 A.D.), with the help of Agrippa himself; he died after having reigned over all Judea (*et totum annum expleverat toti Iudaeae imperans*: Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Iudaicae*, XIX, 8, 2; *per annos tres regnans*: *Bellum Iudaicum*, II, 11, 6; *“vel quattuor et tribus annis ex quo a Caligula rex est constitutus”*: *Antiquitates Iudaicae*, XIX, 8, 2). The king died during a festival in honor of the emperor (*ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας*: ibid.). Indeed, Claudius, who had left in 43 A.D. for the war in Britain, returned victorious to Rome after seven months and had great celebrations throughout the empire. However, this death of the persecuting king does not coincide chronologically with the martyrdom of St. James narrated in Acts 12:2.

In 1934, L. Hennequin (*Dictionnaire de la Bible*, Suppl., II, cols. 355–373), in his erudite dissertation *“Delphes (inscription de),”* sought to prove that St. Paul entered Corinth in October of the year 50 A.D. It may be more cautious to propose, for those who suspect chronological determinations that extend to the point of establishing months, a simpler formula: St. Paul went to Corinth in 50 or 51 A.D.; therefore, the Apostolic Council was held in 49 (48) or 50 A.D.

In the same year in which St Paul began his journey to Rome, Felix, procurator of Judea at Caesarea, was succeeded by his successor Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27). This occurred not after AD 60 nor long before that year. Festus administered Judea for at least a year, as is evident from the acts of government he performed; then he died in the province and, after an interregnum of a few months, was succeeded by Albinus at least by October AD 62; indeed, under him the prophet Jesus began his prophetic preaching “four years before the war” (which broke out in AD 66), foretelling the ruin of the city (Jewish War, VI, 5, 3).

St Paul was acquitted by Nero in his first trial. But Nero had already begun the persecution of Christians after the fire of Rome in AD 64, which some date to 19 July AD 64 (Tacitus, Annals, XV, 41). Therefore Paul must have been acquitted the year before, i.e. in AD 63, and so he must have left Caesarea for Rome around AD 60.

Felix took office in the closing years of Claudius’ reign and had already been judge of the Jews “for many years” (Acts 24:10) two years before his deposition. Moreover, in AD 64 he had certain imprisoned priests sent to Rome in custody (Flavius Josephus, Life, 3), and the controversy over the right of citizenship of the Jews, raised under Felix, was finally decided in AD 66 (id., Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 8, 9). These facts become all the less probable the earlier Felix’s deposition is placed. In conclusion, AD 60 appears very probable as the date of Felix’s deposition and the beginning of Paul’s journey to Rome.

As for the death of the Princes of the Apostles, there is no certain historical information. The opinions of authors therefore vary. Some place it in AD 55, others in AD 57 or 58. Many place Nero’s persecution in AD 64, others in AD 67. Two arguments somewhat support the latter hypothesis: the first is that Clement of Rome states that St Paul suffered martyrdom “under the rulers” μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων (1 Clement 5:7 [ed. Funk, I, 106]): under this title it seems that Sabinus, Tigellinus and Helius Caesarion should be understood, who governed Rome in AD 67 while Nero was in Achaea. But the argument is uncertain. Jerome, speaking of the philosopher Seneca, says: “Hic ante biennium, quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur martyrio, a Nerone interfectus est” (De viris illustribus, 12: PL 23, 629 [662]). Seneca was killed in April AD 65 (Tacitus, Annals, XV, 64; cf. O. Rossbach, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl., I, col. 2243). Here too, however, the reasoning is not certain.