Biblical Chronology

CRONOLOGIA BIBLICA. — A) VECCHIO TESTAMENTO. — Since the Old Testament is not a history book that presents events systematically and in chronological order, it does not provide a continuous and complete chronology, but only dates scattered and disconnected here and there and, from the standpoint of textual criticism, not always certain.

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

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

SUMMARY:

I. The period of the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans

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 of the preceding times.

I. THE PERIOD OF THE MACCABEES AND THE HASMONEANS

The final period of the history of Israel, that of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans, is chronologically determined both by the dates contained in the two books of the Maccabees and by parallel dates from secular history. It must be borne in mind, however, that the eras used in I and II Mach. begin at different times: that of I Mach. begins in the spring of 312, while that of II Mach. begins on 1 Tišri (September–October) 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 determined the transfer of sovereignty to the Seleucids of Antioch. The struggle of the Maccabees against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164) is described, with chronological dates, in I Mach.: 175–135 B.C.; II Mach.: 177/6–161 B.C. Begun by the aged Mattathias (d. in 166 B.C.), it was continued by Judas Maccabeus (166–161) and Jonathan (161–142). They were followed by Simon (142–135), John Hyrcanus (135–104), Aristobulus I (104–103), Alexander Jannaeus (103–76), and Alexandra Salome (76–67). With Aristobulus II (67–63) and Hyrcanus II (63–40), the fratricidal wars began, leading to the intervention of the Romans (in 63 B.C. Pompey took 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 TO ALEXANDER THE GREAT (538–331 B.C.). - This is one of the most obscure periods. The events of the return and the reconstruction of the Temple (538–515) are sufficiently established by the dates supplied by Ezra and by Persian history. The date of the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah has been much debated. The papyri of Elephantine now prove that Nehemiah’s activity began as early as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (464–424), that is, from 445. Ezra, according to the more probable opinion, a contemporary of Nehemiah, arrived in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458); according to others, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (398). We lack other chronological determinations for this period.

III. THE EXILE

Babylonian sources establish that Jerusalem was captured by Nabuchodonosor in the summer of 587 B.C.; the same sources prove that Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C. The release of King Ioachin, after 37 years of captivity, took place under Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, 561–560) in 561 B.C. We lack other dates for the period of the exile.

IV. THE PERIOD OF THE KINGS

For chronological determination, certain synchronisms with profane history, known from cuneiform sources, are of primary importance: the battle of Karkar (853 B.C.) under Achab; the tribute paid to Salmanassar III by Iehu (842 B.C.); the tribute of Menahem under Theglathphalasar III (738 B.C.); the confirmation of Osea, king of Israel, by the same Theglathphalasar III (732 B.C.); the capture of Samaria under Sargon II (722–721); the siege of Jerusalem under Ezechia by Sennacherib (701 B.C.); and the capture of Jerusalem under Sedecia (587 B.C.).

The beginning of the period can be determined only approximately. The invasion of Palestine by Pharaoh Šošenk (Sesac) is assigned to the fifth year of Roboam, which, according to Egyptian sources, was the twenty-first year of Šošenk (945–924), that is, 925 B.C. The division of the kingdom is therefore placed at approximately 930 B.C.; the reign of Salomone (approximately 40 years), 971–930; the reign of David (likewise approximately 40 years), 1012–971; and the reign of Saul, approximately 1050–1012 (cf. Act. 13, 21). In the Books of the Kings, for each king of Judah the synchronism with the contemporary king of Israel and the length of the reign are given. In theory, therefore, on the basis of synchronisms with profane history, the date of each reign can be determined; in practice, however, there are many difficulties: the numbers are often distorted and uncertain; there are different ways of reckoning the beginning of reigns (“antedating” and “postdating”); and in some cases there was a co-regency of father and son. The many studies conducted on this matter have so far not produced an entirely concordant result; the following may be given as an approximate c. (cf. Kugler, op. cit., p. 171; W. F. Albright, in Bull. Amer. Schools Or. Research, 100 [1945], p. 21 ff.):

V. I GIUDICI

The chronology is very difficult. The period begins about 50 years after the entry of the Israelites into Palestine. Adding together the periods of the individual Judges (the major Judges are assigned 40 years [Iudc. 3, 11; 5, 32; 8, 28; cf. 13, 1), 80 years [3, 30], 20 years [cf. 16, 31; 4, 3]), the result is 410 years; but since according to I Reg. 6, i the entire period from the exodus to the building of the Temple was only 480 years (cf. Act. 13, 20: from the entry into Palestine to the kings, 450 years), only about 330 years would remain for the Judges (cf. Iudc. 11, 26: 300 years). It must therefore be said that some Judges were contemporaries, and that the numbers are perhaps rounded. Still more serious is the difficulty presented by the beginning of the period, since the date of the exodus from Egypt is much debated: according to some authors it should be placed in the reign of Amenophis II (1447-1511), about 1447 B.C. (cf. I Reg. 6, 1); according to others, under Mernephta (ca. 1225-1215). In the latter hypothesis the period of the Judges would be scarcely 150 years, hardly sufficient for the national and cultural development that took place within it; in the former hypothesis, about 300 years.

VI. THE DATE OF THE EXODUS

It also determines the chronology of the preceding periods, namely that of the sojourn in Egypt and of the Patriarchs. The sojourn in Egypt lasted, according to Ex. 12, 40 (cf. Gen. 15, 13: Act. 7, 6: 400 years), 430 years; thus, in the first theory, from 1878 to 1448 B.C., in the second, approximately from 1655 to 1225. Whoever sets an intermediate date, such as Albright (between 1375 and 1300), must place the entry of the Israelites into Egypt around the middle of the eighteenth century. The first and second hypotheses adduce both biblical and archaeological arguments (especially the excavations at Jericho, whose fall is dated by Garstang to about 1400 B.C., by Fr. Vincent to about 1250); in favor of the second, one may cite the fact that in Palestine a notable discontinuity of culture is observed precisely in the thirteenth century, and that the entry of the Israelites into Egypt would have taken place during the period of the Hyksos (ca. 1750-1580), who were themselves largely Semites immigrating from Syria and Mesopotamia, whereas in the first hypothesis the Israelites would have entered Egypt under the powerful Thirteenth 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 Abramo, 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 date of Hammurapi is still much disputed (Sidersky: 1848-1806; A. Ungnad: 1792-1749; Albright: ca. 1728-1686), and the identification Amraphel (Gen. 14) = Hammurapi, since it encounters both philological and historical difficulties, 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 OF PRECEDING TIMES

It cannot be established. From the genealogies of the Sethites (Gen. 5, 3-31) and of the Noahites (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, thus 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 must therefore be regarded as schemes made by the sacred Author to express

some religious or cultural idea, which, however, has so far eluded us. The time of the creation of man can be determined only from the results of the secular sciences, which so far are in agreement neither on the method of such determination nor on its result.

SUMMARY:

I. Year of the birth of Jesus Christ

II. Date of the Baptism and of the beginning of Christ’s public ministry

III. Duration of Christ’s public teaching

IV. Year of Christ’s death

V. The c. of the Acts of the Apostles and of the life of s. Paolo.

I. YEAR OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST

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

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

a) The beginning of Herod’s nominal reign dates to 713 or 40 B.C., at the end of which he was appointed king (Fl. Giuseppe, Antiq. Iud., XIV, 14, 5); the beginning of his real or effective reign dates to 37 B.C., when, having defeated King Antigonus, he captured Jerusalem (ibid., 16, 4). Indeed, he reigned 34 years from the defeat of Antigonus, 37 years from the time when he was appointed 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), the following results: 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 Archelao was deposed in 759 (A.D. 6: Fl. Giuseppe, 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 Antipa was deposed in 792 (A.D. 39: id., op. cit., XVIII, 7, 1); one of his coins bears the year 43 (Schürer, I, p. 415), and therefore he assumed the tetrarchy in 750 (4 B.C.). Filippo died “in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius,” that is, in Aug. 786 (A.D. 7), after having reigned 37 years (Fl. Giuseppe, 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. Giuseppe’s account of the eclipse (id., op. cit., XVII, 6, 4). Shortly before Herod’s death there was an eclipse of the moon, between 12 and 13 March 750 (4 B.C.). The eclipse of 5 Sept. 749 or 5 B.C. is too far removed from Herod’s death, as is the third, on 9 Jan. 752 or 2 B.C., which occurred after Herod’s death (cf. Th. Oppolzer, Kanon der Finsternisse, Vienna 1887, nn. 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, indeed, could choose only this season for conducting the census without damaging 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. On the basis of what he had learned from the Magi (Mt. 2, 16), he determined that the age of the children to be slain 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 representations of the mystery of the Epiphany almost always depict Jesus not as an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, but as a child clothed in a little tunic, that is, as a child of two years.

Since, therefore, at least a year and a half elapsed between the birth of Jesus, which occurred in winter, and the death of Herod, which occurred shortly after 1 Apr. 750 or 4 B.C., 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 other calculations fail, and still less tenable is the tradition that speaks of the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus (reckoned from the death of G. Cesare on the Ides of March 710 or 44 B.C.), that is, of a date subsequent to Herod’s death.

II. THE PERIOD OF CHRIST’S BAPTISM AND THE BEGINNING OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY

The ministry of Giovanni began “in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius” (Lc. 3, 1). Three hypotheses have been advanced concerning this. The first proposes the year 781 (28 A.D.), reckoned from 19 August 769 (14 A.D.), the day of Augustus’s death, to the same day of the following year, on the assumption that the first year of Tiberius was a full year of 365 days. In the East, however, the first year of a reign was often reckoned only up to the first day of the civil year, which in the East was 1 October. It seems that this usage was adopted first of all at Antioch, where the years were reckoned from the battle of Pharsalus (6 August 706 or 48 B.C.), with the beginning of the era placed on 1 October 705, 49 B.C. Thus the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius extended from 1 October of 780 (27 A.D.) to 1 October of 781 (28 A.D.).

There is, however, a different reckoning, which counts the years of Tiberius’s 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 jointly with him. Tiberius assumed this imperium processulare mutus between September and October of 765 (12 A.D.). This reckoning is corroborated by the fact that Lc. 3, 1 attributes to the Caesar no proper and exclusive title (neither ἀρχὴ nor αὐτοκρατορία), but only the ἡγεμονία, which is also attributed to Pilate and Quirino (Lc. 2, 2). One may add the analogy of the second king of Egypt: Tolomeo II Filadelfo died at the beginning of the year 246 B.C. “in the 39th year of his reign.” Now this numbering began in 285 B.C., that is, in the year when his already aged father Tolomeo I Sotér (d. later, in 283 B.C.) proclaimed him his associate in the kingdom. Thus Tolomeo II reckoned the years of his reign by including also those in which he had been associated with his father (cf. H. Frank, in Archis für Papyrusforschung, 11 [1933-34], pp. 1-56, especially p. 11). There is nevertheless an objection: all the ancient sources attributed to Tiberius (d. 16 March 37) a reign of 22 years, or 22 and a half, or at most 23, never 24 or 25, as would necessarily be the case if this emperor had reckoned the years of his reign from 12 A.D. Nonetheless, it is possible that such a reckoning of Tiberius’s reign was in use for some time at Antioch and thus entered the Gospel of Luca.

In Io. 2, 20, the members of the Sanhedrin declare to Christ: “it took 46 years to build this temple.” Since Erode began the magnificent 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 Easter of 781 (28 A.D.); but already at the preceding Easter of 780 (27 A.D.) it could be said: “this work has been under way for 46 years.” This provides excellent confirmation of the year 27, established by the preceding reckoning.

Fl. Giuseppe, it is true, does not speak of the works carried out in the Temple until the time of Nerone, when “the foundations suffered damage” (Antiq. Iud., XV, 11, 2; cf. E. Power, in Biblica, 9 [1928], pp. 257-88); this leads one to believe that repair work on the Temple had already been necessary earlier. To the period of “three days” affirmed by Christ, the members of the Sanhedrin opposed the long duration that, historically, had proved necessary for restoring 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); a few decades ago it was revived by van Bebber, J. Belser, H. Dieckmann, and J. Mader. Today, however, the discussion concerns only one point: whether two years suffice (the hypothesis maintained by M.-J. Lagrange and followed particularly in France), or whether three years are required.

23. Biennial theory

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

Attempts to declare the passage spurious are futile. In the first centuries, it is said, this passage was read neither by those who maintained the hypothesis of one year nor by those who opposed that opinion, for whom this passage would have been clearer and more useful than all their arguments. Indeed, the hypothesis of one year of preaching was introduced by the Gnostics, who arose as early as the first century and wrote at a time when the Gospel of John either did not exist or was not yet known. What would have been easier: for the first supporters of the hypothesis of one year of preaching not to have noticed the passage of Io. 6, 4, or for that passage subsequently to have been inserted, throughout the universal Church, in all codices and lectionaries, to have even entered all the versions, and for no trace of the ancient reading to have remained?

24. Triennial theory

The question is how to interpret Io. 4, 35: “do you not say that there are still (ἔτι) four months (τετραμηνός, quattuor menses) and then comes the harvest?” Christ then adds that the crops are already (ἦδη) white, that is, ripe for harvesting. Here Christ is not quoting a proverb. This is evident from the particles ἔτι and ἦδη and from the fact that the time ordinarily intervening between sowing and harvest is six months, not four (v. Holzmeister, pp. 144–47). This sentence was spoken four months (whether complete or incomplete) before the only ordinary harvest, which in those mountainous regions does not take place before the middle of May; therefore the sentence was spoken almost in February, and only a few days later Christ began preaching in Galilee (Io. 4, 43–46). It is unlikely that the preaching in Galilee, which ended with the first multiplication of the loaves (Io. 6, 4), comprised only a few weeks.

As long as exegetes assigned Christ’s passage through Samaria (the passage to which the text under discussion refers) to December–January, or to January, or to January–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 in the first half of May.

J.-M. Braun (Ev. selon S. Jean, in La S. te Bible di L. Pirot, X, 2ª 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 customary interpretation forgets how carefully Christ sought to adapt his doctrines to the circumstances that the disciples had before their eyes”; “Jesus has in view a real event, namely, the harvest in the field, which can occur only at the beginning of June.” But Christ referred not only through similes to the circumstances present, but also when arguing a contrario, and he did so with the particles ἕτε or ἕδη.

A further argument comes to us from the three texts (Io. 4, 35; 5, 1; 6, 4), which are connected with one another by the expression μετὰ ταῦτα (Io. 5, 1; 6, 1). It follows, in fact, that between the month of February after the first Passover (Io. 2, 13) and the penultimate Passover (Io. 6, 4), a religious feast was celebrated in Jerusalem. But the Jewish calendar knew of no feast in the first months of the Julian year, before Passover. Therefore it must be inferred that the texts extending from Io. 4, 34 to 6, 4 do not cover a period of two or three months, but approximately 14–15 months or an entire year.

This argument is rendered doubtful by the hypothesis that transposes chapters 5 and 6 of the Fourth Gospel. In that case, the feast of Passover comes to be the same in the two texts 5, 1 and 6, 4, specifically the second Passover, announced first as approaching and then as having occurred. But this hypothesis is not without difficulties, and therefore greater authority must be attributed to the opinion of three years of preaching.

IV. YEAR OF CHRIST’S DEATH

With regard to the year of Christ’s death, the Gospels state that in that year the 14th of nísān, or the very day of Passover (15 nísān), fell on a Friday. We do not intend to resolve the question here; while accepting the hypothesis of the 14th of nísān, supported by the controversy of the «Quartodecimans», we shall also leave to the other hypothesis (that of death on the 15th nísān) its share of probability.

Astronomy comes into play here, indicating in which years Friday could have fallen in this way; thus, by eliminating the years that cannot be considered, we shall be able to choose between the two years in which this condition was fulfilled. 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 or not the new moon appeared. In the former case the new month was consecrated, and that same evening everyone began the new month. In the latter case, however, they waited for «witnesses» to come and attest that they had seen the new moon. If the witnesses did not come, the day following the 29th was regarded as the thirtieth day of the preceding month, and on the following evening the new month was begun without further ado. The announcement that the new moon had been sighted was communicated to the other cities, as far as Babylonia, by waving torches on the Mount of Olives and on the other mountains.

The progress made in astronomy during the last few decades enables 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. Indeed, the time of the conjunction of the moon and the sun is known with complete accuracy (an error of only a few minutes is possible). Moreover, we know the evening on which the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw the new moon and consequently declared that the following day would be the first of the new month. Thus the beginning of the various months, and consequently also the individual days of the months, are perfectly known to us; only rarely has any doubt been possible.

The position occupied by the moon in the (western) sky at the moment when the sun sets can be determined according to two lines: one rises into the sky in a straight line from that point and is called the moon’s altitude; the other follows the horizon toward the north and is called the «azimuthal difference». The azimuth is the distance from the punctum vernum at noon; the difference between 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 of sunset).

The rules governing 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 drawn, with the aid of cuneiform documents, from approximately 400 Assyrian 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 when it is located at a given azimuth. In this way one finds the zone of the moon’s visibility and the zone of its invisibility, the 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 statements advanced on this subject around 1930-1933, we select the following, beginning with the most important case (cf. J. B. Schaumberger, in Verbum Domini, 13 [1933], pp. 103-13; U. Holzmeister, p. 200).

On Thursday, 19 March 33, the sun and the moon (according to Jerusalem time) came into conjunction at 13:07; the new moon could be seen on the following day, Friday evening, 20 March, and therefore 1 nísān was Saturday, 21 March; consequently, Friday, 3 April, was the day astronomically suitable for the Lord’s crucifixion.

On 22 March of the year 30, the conjunction occurred at 20:23 Jerusalem time. Astronomers dispute whether the new moon could have been seen on the following day, 23 March (Friday), or on 24 March. In the first case, Friday, 7 April, was 15 nísān; in the other case, it was 14 nísān.

The other years do not have a Friday immediately following a Paschal full moon. Let us take the year 32 as an example. The conjunction occurred on 29 March at 22:50 Jerusalem time. The moon was visible not on the following day, 30 March, but on 31 March. Therefore 1 nísān was 1 April and 14 nísān was 14 April; but that day was a Monday. Thus the date is unsuitable, and even if we allow that an error of one day might have been made in the observation, the required Friday would never be found.

If, then, it is established that both 7 April of the year 30 and 3 April of the year 33 were equally suitable for satisfying the astronomical conditions required of the day of the mystery of Calvary, it remains to be seen which of those two days should be chosen (for the arguments in favor of choosing one day or the other cf. U. Holzmeister, pp. 205-15).
V. LA C. DEGLI ATTI DEGLI APOSTOLI E DELLA VITA DI S. PAOLO. — The chronology of the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles must be determined by the chronology of Christ’s death. It therefore remains to establish when the martyrdom of S. Stephen and the conversion of S. Paolo took place—events separated by a considerable span of time from the first mysteries of the Acts, but occurring very close to each other. Many maintain that these events took place after Pilate’s deposition (toward the end of A.D. 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 S. Paolo seems to have occurred earlier (probably in A.D. 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 mentioned in Gal. 1:18 must be included within the “14 years” indicated in Gal. 2:1, but this is not the obvious sense of this reckoning. Since one argument thus conflicts 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 A.D. 44. This king received Judea, Samaria, and Idumea from Claudius immediately after the latter was acclaimed emperor (25 January 41), with the assistance of Agrippa himself; he died after having ruled over all Judea (“tertium annum expleverat toti Iudaeae imperans”: Fl. 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 departed in 43 for the war in Britain, returned victorious to Rome after seven months and received great celebrations throughout the empire. Nevertheless, this death of the persecuting king does not fit chronologically with the martyrdom of S. James narrated in Act. 12:2.

In 1934 L. Hennequin (DBs, II, cols. 355–73), in the learned dissertation Delphes (inscription de), sought to prove that S. Paolo entered Corinth in October of A.D. 50. It is perhaps more prudent, for those suspicious of chronological determinations that go so far as to establish the months, to propose a simpler formula: S. Paolo went to Corinth in A.D. 50 or 51; consequently, in 49 (48) or 50 the Council of the Apostles was held.

In the same year in which S. Paolo began his journey toward Rome, Felix, procurator of Judea at Caesarea, yielded his position to his successor Porcius Festus (Act. 24:27). This occurred no later than A.D. 60 and not much before that year. Festus administered Judea for at least one year, as is evident from the acts of government he carried out; then he died in the province and, after an interregnum of several months, was succeeded by Albinus at least by October of A.D. 62. Indeed, under him the prophet Jesus, “four years before the war” (which broke out in 66), began his prophetic preaching by proclaiming the destruction of the city (Bell. Iud., VI, 5, 3).

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

Felix took office in the final period of Claudius’s reign, and two years before his deposition he had already been judge of the Jews “multis annis” (Act. 24:10). Furthermore, in 64 some imprisoned priests sent to Rome were still being detained there (Fl. 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 earlier Felix’s deposition is placed. In conclusion, A.D. 60 appears highly probable as the date of Felix’s deposition and of the beginning of Paolo’s journey to Rome.

With regard to the death of the Princes of the Apostles, reliable historical information is lacking. The opinions of authors therefore vary. The years 55, 57, and 58 have been proposed. Many place Nero’s persecution in 64, others in 67. Two arguments lend some support to the latter hypothesis: the first is that Clement of Rome states that S. Paolo suffered martyrdom “under the rulers,” μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων: Ad Cor. 5, 7 (ed. Funk, I, 106). Under this designation, Sabinus, Tigellinus, and Helius Caesarianus, who governed Rome in 67 while Nero was in Achaea, seem to be included. But the argument is uncertain. Jerome states, 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 65 (Tacitus, Annal., 15, 64; cf. O. Rossbach, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl., I, col. 2243). Here too, however, the argument is not certain.

U. Holzmeister, Chronologia vitae Christi, Rome 1934; J. Prado, Proclectiones biblicae, II, 7th ed., Turin 1947, pp. 322–25, 357–67, 871–73. Urbano Holzmeister