CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

date for the Crucifixion; see tlie present writer's art. 'Calendar' in Hastings' DCG i. 261 f.

2. The Baptism of our Lord. — According to St. Lulce (3'). the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Pilate being procurator. Eusebius (H£ i. 10) says that Christ was baptized in the fourth year of Pilate's governorship, and {HE i. 9) that Pilate was appointed 'about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius'; the latter statement is quoted from Josephus (Ant. XVIII. ii. 2), but the former seems to be Eusebius' own deduction from St. Luke. But Pilate cannot have reached Palestine before a.d. 26 or 27, as his ten years ended shortly before Tiberius' death in a.d. 37, and no date later than a.d. 27 is possible for our Lord's bap-tism, if we take into account the date of the Nativity and St. Luke's statement of our Lord's age. It is probable, therefore, that Pilate's accession to ofiSoe and John's appearance as a preacher both belong to the same year, say A.D. 26. Does this, however, suit St. Luke's phrase, 'the 16th year of the rule (or hegemony) of Tiberius,' for that is the exact phrase? The 15th year from the death of Augustus would be Aug. a.d. 28 to Aug. a.d. 29. Ramsay supposes (,Was Christ born at Bethlehem^, p. 202) that 'the rule of Tiberius' is dated from the grant by Augustus of a share in the government of the provinces just before he celebrated his triumph over the people of Paunonia and Dalmatia, Jan. 16, a.d. 12; and this would bring us to c. a.d. 25-26. This system of counting years is not found elsewhere, but it is quite a possible one. Turner inclines to the same supposition.

3. The rebuilding of the Temple. — In Jn 2™, at a Passover not long after the Baptism, the Jews say that the Temple was 46 years in building, which, since the Temple was hardly completed at the outbreak of the War (Joseph. Ant. xx. ix. 7), can only mean that the rebuilding had begun 46 years before the Passover in question. But this rebuilding began in Herod's 18th year de jacto (ib. xv. xi. 1 ; for the computation of BJ I. xxi. i., see Turner, p. 405); i.e. the Passover of B.C. 19 would be that of the first year of the rebuilding, and therefore the Passover of a.d. 27 that of the 46th'Vear. This would agree with the result already reached.

4. Date of the Crucifixion. — The Fathers seem to have known nothing certainly as to the exact year of our Lord's death. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cil.), who believed in a one-year ministry, gives the 16th year of Tiberius, 42 i years before the Destruction of Jerusalem (this would be a.d. 28), which was 128 years 10 months 3 days before the death of Commodus (this would make the latter 7 years too late). A common tradition (Ter-tullian [1\, adv. Jud. 8 [Pair. Lai. ii. 656] ; Lactantius, Div, Inst. IV. 10, de Mart. Pers. 2 [Pair. Lat. vi. 474, vii. 194]) assigns the Crucifixion to the consulship of L. Rubellius Geminusand 0. Fifius (?) Geminus— Hippolytus (in Dan. iv.) and the Acts of Pilate give the names as Rufus and Rubellio, — i.e. a.d. 29, or possibly a.d. 28. The latest possible year is a.d. 33 (so Eusebius, HB i. 10), for Josephus (,Ant. xviii. iv. 3, 6) relates that Caiaphas was deposed just before he tells us of the death of Herod PhiHp, which occurred in the 20th year of Tiberius, i.e. A.D. 33-34, reckoning from Augustus' death; Josephus' order has every appearance of being chronological.

Now, it is not certain on which day of the month Nisan the Friday of the Passion fell. We must put aside Westcott's suggestion that our Lord died on a Thursday, as contradicting entirely the Eastern idea of 'the third day' and 'after three days' (see above). But the Synoptics would suggest that our Lord ate the Passover with the disciples on 14th Nisan, and died on the 15th, while Jn. would lead us to suppose that He died on 14th Nisan at the time of the killing of the lambs. The determination of this difiicult question will only affect the chronological investigation if in a possible year of the Passion only Nisan 15 or only Nisan 14 can positively be said to have fallen on a Friday. But there is some uncertainty in the reckoning of Nisan.

The Jewish months were lunar, and (in early times at least) the first day of the month was not that of the true new moon, but that on which it was first visible. This would be some 30 hours later than the true new moon. But it seems certain that the Jews at the time of the Gospel narrative had some sort of calendrical rules or some rough cycle to determine the first day of a lunar month; otherwise the Jews of the Dispersion would never have been sure of observing the Passover all on the same day, and the difference of a cloudy or of a bright sky on a particular day would introduce confusion. Thus we have to exercise great caution. A table of the true new moons, and of the days when the moon may be presumed to have been first visible, from a.d. 27 to 36 inclusive, is given by Dr. Salmon (.Introd., lect. xv.). His result is that in a.d. 27, 30, 33, 34, one or other of the two days Nisan 14 and IS might have fallen on a Friday. We may omit the first and last of these years, and we have left a.d. 30 and 33. But a.d. 29, which has the best traditional support, is also calendrically possible. Taking the equinox as March 21, Nisan 14 that year would be Sunday, April 18; the moon would have been first visible on Monday, April 4. But the equinox was not then, as now, accurately determined, and Turner (op. cit. p. 411 f.) gives an argument for believing that Nisan in A.d. 29 was really the month before that supposed by Salmon. In that case Nisan 14 would fall on one of the three days March 17-19, of which March 18 was a Friday. Thus a.d. 29 is admis-sible, and the choice almost certainly lies between it and A.D. 30; for a.d. 33 is hard to fit in with the calculation as to the Nativity, and no doubt that year was selected because of the dating of the 'fifteenth year' of Lk 3' from the death of Augustus. Of the two years, then, A.D. 30 is chosen by Lightfoot, Salmon, and Wieseler; A.D. 29 by Turner, and in this conclusion Ramsay now acquiesces (Was Christ born, etc.? ', p. 202), as does also Sanday (art. ' Jesus Christ ' in Hastings' DB, p. 610). Of the days of the month, Nisan 14 is upheld by Claudius Apollinaris (c. 150), Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian (7), Africanus; and by many moderns, e.g. Sanday (art. 'Jesus Christ' in Hastings' DB) and Westcott. Nisan 15 is supported by Origen, pseudo- Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom ; and in modern times by Edersheim (LT), Lewin (Fasti sacri), and McClellan {Com. on NT). But the choice between these days should be determined by internal evidence of the Gospels rather than by the chronological investigations, which are too uncertain to be trustworthy.

6. Aretas and the occupation of Damascus.^Turner deduces the earliest possible date for the conversion of St. Paul from the incident of 2 Co IV'-, and accordingly gives A.D. 38 for the first visit to Jerusalem, a.d. 35 or 36 for the Conversion. But, in the opinion of the present writer, for reasons stated In art. Aeetas, the incident cannot be used in determining the chronology at all. If it is so used, the date is consistent with the view that the second visit synchronizes with the Apostolic Council (above, i. 4). Ramsay, however (;Sf. PauP, p. xiv), adduces as an external support for his date (a.d. 33) for St. Paul's conversion, a 4th cent, oration found in St. Chrysostom's works, which says that Paul served God 35 years and died at the age of 68. If he died in a.d. 67, this would give a.d. 33 for the Conversion. But Patristic chronology is very erratic.

6. Herod Agrippa the Elder received Herod Philip's tetrarchy and the title of king early in a.d. 37 from Caligula, and somewhat later Antipas' tetrarchy (Josephus, BJ II. ix. 6); and Claudius gave him the whole of his grandfather's kingdom, which he held for three years till his death, 'as he had governed his tetrarchies three other years' (ib. xi. 6). We see from his coins, which were issued up to his ninth year, that he died in a.d. 44 or 45; probably his 'second year' began with the Nisan next after his accession in a.d. 37.

136