Date of the Acts of Pilate. — Tischendorf , the latest editor {EvawjHia Apocrypha, ed. 2, 1876. pp. 312-410), concludes for the beginning of the 2nd cent. ; Lipsius, the latest critic {Die Pilatutt-Acten, 1886. pp. 33, 40), 'not before about the middle of the 4th,' 'probably in the reign of Julian'(A.D. 3'U-:f6.'{). Appeal is made to these Acts for the day of the Crucifixion by pseudo- Chrysostom (a.d. 387; ed. Bene<l. viii. App. p. 277); so, too, Epiplianius (a.d. 376: Ucer 1. 1) states that certain of the t^uartodeciinans coininemoroted the Passion always oo March 2.') in deference to these Acts, though he himself had found copies of them where tho date given was not March 25 but .March 18. Now, if in a.d. 376 these Acta were being claimed as the authoritative sanction for a practice unique in the Christian world, and if there existed already divergent tni<litions of tho text on this very point for which they were cited, they must surely have had at that date a history behind them. So far from having been written under Julian, a presumption is raised that they dre earlier than tho lost Acta published under
• But the lOth year — see below under Africanus and pseudo- Cyi)rian— may also be a combination of Lk 3' (Tib. 15), as g^'ing the beginning, not of the Baiilist's niinistrv only, but of Clirist's, with tho estimate of one year for the duration of tho Ministry to which both these writers adhered. Julius Hilari- anus, however {ijtfra, p. 414'), givea both Tiberius 16 and
A.D. 29.
414 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
r^*;o?Xrrd-tr; pSkri^.'K.io,.te tend.
«iS copies while two ot them still betraym their ' 16th ot
•"'HTre'ihen,''^e nln, ante-Nicene authorities, »' whom four /.^ I ■' u\,[„ rlrt Act -Pil ) (rive the consulship <.f the Gemini, i^^'J^i'^'^^V-Tert' Act ra.) Tiberius 16, two (Afr., Ps.- C™%SiEerius 16 F?vep1,?t.NiceneWes,erT, authorities o^^ CjTir.) iioeriuo »"• v,p „otaloirued : Libenan ChrvmcU (a.d. S?-%tht?oot Sint' r263T under Tiberius, ^nsuls the ^^o'J^liini Mkr?h25^Julius&larianus Demu^id^^^^^ xvi and De die pascha et mensis icv (both a.d. 397 , "»"»>.™l'' S^"<m 7481 'Tiberius 16,' but De mund. dur. xvu., also 669 ;irs^im ?he ?^s"'n to the consulate o. C^nu"- -d han'l d rfVwi which clearly cannot mean anj-thing late''"''" *;;•
?utSoritv'S^JefomeTcK.^i..-tUl upheld the traditional date '"I'^f ?oTS"t^''ot??;s, the earliest after PWefon-not
fwy reckoning two years as from the Baptism m Tibenus 16.
Summan, of Patristic Evider^e /"t, <f « ^'';^ Year -A re>-iew of this witness from Phlegon to Epiphanius, from Tertullian to Augustine and Prosper, sums itself up in t«o questions : (i.) Is it TpLrl probable that tradition «ouldpre.eve independent evidence for the date of the Crua_ fixW (ii.) If so, do the data suggest that such has actually been the case ?
filing
l''rt"A>ir''^.)'^s?rsei;ru?^^ron^^rfirs,Vori"^n5
SSSS-t^^d-t^gSJeSS
?atr ofT^>0 RubcUius Gcnunus and Fuflus Geminus, named Fn fa? to?' the cVucUl.ion the consuls of ad. 30. ' is possible toal behind the confusion lies some older '"'"ority who rwkonlKl a riiorter Ministry with the Passion under Vinicius
• He counterbalances hU omission ot the consuls <>' *•■>•*• i^ius Catvis and Scntius Saturninus, by insertmg between fn 6 and 7 the fictitious pair C»sar and Capito. His consuU fe?A D 13 Flacous and Silvanus, are only a corrupt form ot tie real names Plancus and SiUus Cscma.
a\ Patristic evidence for the duration of the Ministry wa.
a ssimilar and indeed unique in respect to the date ol tne
nTiJI \^ ilagn. 11 (With Lightfoofs note) i. ~yj' <w 1I,>.«T«/, ^P'- "'"" . ,^' ^,i„ Roman Creed, «. i«-< 11. O. "■'^'"'LtL^ Uiannottherbe considered improbable that a
p/ biwel ,'^'therr^ytSng in the review of -thonti^JJa
^X^Si^e^elXlt witnesses for the oonsulship^hed^^^^^^
indefinitely earUer. It U '■^^..^hal PWe on w^ ^ ^^^^ .^ itrnorant ot the tradition, but it nceo noi ""= ""i f ,, pv,,„,nn
tor as a mere deduction from the Gospe^s. J "■'is'^Tiberius (tKe consulship is a secondary date developed out of » Tibenu^^(t _^ date for the Passion "> Cl™en /nd Onten , an ^^^ ^^^ ^
Christ's Bapt sm, but also as far as ms *^assi"u. i u ,
?to,ema.nJ-a.entm^^^^^^^^^
oi ChrJst"Jh?<i. is really the Gospel reckoning to his sje a
the commencement of his ."}"'?'r-Vn'^Bole iTnis r/. leave out of account the period of John » sole ministrj
3 A iS review, tinally. of the evidence for the day of tlie civil vionth.
Perhaps the earliest witne«e, »", B^^.^^'tarieTb^weeS Clement (Strom, i. 147, ed. P"''^'' Ppl'ri'nuthi 19 ISIarch 21. Phamenoth 26, Pharmutlu 26- »"d Phannurti^ 19 P arc ■
April 20, April U), To M««h 25 » J^'f L^,™ ^^^^ i„ tnnpon" subscribes : in Latin, 'Tert.' <«'»--'"i,?;,?^'.''and (or a.d nil knl. Apr. simply, 'he Libenan catalogi«oIA.D.^ __
HUarianus Ve die pofchas xv (Gallandi, viu. imh -"^"B
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 41S
rrlU. 54, aod the MartyTX>logium Hierrmymianum : in Greek, rf w^ imTm »«Aa*3»v 'AvpiKX^ttt, Hippolytus. Vomm. in Dan., ed. Bratke, p. 19 (so, too, the radt XfinoZ in hin paachal tables ia attacheo to this day); Acta /'v/a(i, according to the Quarto- decimans In Epiphanius, Hcer. 1, 1, and to pseudo-Chrysoetom (ed. Bened. riii. App. p. 277)— mo8t of Tischendorf' a Greek MSS, •upported by the Latin and Armenian versions add nrn irrit Cxatt wifAWTn Ma>>T<«/ : ^xMtmS md' , in the ^CrrofMt liviy^fif in- corporated In the Chronicon Paachale, ed. Ducanife, ^p. 224, 225. For March 23 are three witnesses : Lactantius, uiv. xiut. iv. X. 18, ante diein dtcimum kaleiidarmn Aprilium ; persona known to Epiphanius, I.e., Ttt'is 3i t^ wpi 2t«» »MtA»f>ii> 'Awfikkimr ; and the Paschal Chronicler (op. eit. p. 221), r^ %y w*v Mx»Ti9v it*)»»f. Epiphaniua had further seen copies of the Acta Pttati which ^ave March 18, while his own view is decided In favour of yet another date, March 20 : ll<jer. I. 1, in ti i£ffi«iuuf mtriypttC<t ix riit [lege itJtTtto] thXetrov iv •!{ rrptci,i*ti wfii iiM»wi»n mxXmtiit 'AwpiXXimt ri Tocf^ef ■yiyior^Oeu' raXrOii it, it ix rtXXiie Axpi0tt9( tyntix4f, i> rji Tpo itXATpiHv xctXeL*iaif 'AwfiikXtmr rit rttTTpet wtvtttiittu MariiXr.^stf^tr ; cf. Hcet. li. 23.