7. Tlie Reign of Herod Agrippa II. and Mar- Triage of Drusilla to Felix. — This Agripp.a, son of Herod Agrippa I., at his fathers ileatli was thought too young to succeed ; but on the death of another Herod, his uncle, king of Chalcis, in the Sth year of Claudius (A.D. 48), he obtained that principality, from which he was transferred after Claudius had completed his 12th year, i.e. about the beginning of A.D. 53, to the two tetrarchies of I'hilip and Lysanias, i.e. the northern part of Palestine. On this accession to new dignitj' he bestowed his sister Drusilla in marriage on Azizus of Emesa, a husband whom, not long after, p.cT oi ■iro\i/y xpoyov, she deserted for the Roman pro- curator F'elix. Thus, if Josephus' order of events is correct, St. Paul's appearance before Felix and Drusilla, which was after, but not very long after. Pentecost (Ac 20'" 24'-"), cannot fall in A.D. o3, but at earliest in A.D. 54 (Ant. XX. v. 2, vii. 1,2).
8. a. The Procuratorship of Felix. — The events which led up to the deposition of the last- mentioned procurator, Cumanus (appointed in A.D. 48), are related in full by Josephus, Ant. XX. vi. 1-3, more brielly by Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54 ; the tw» writers, while consistent in the main alout Cumanus, dill'er seriou.sly in regard to Felix. Both agree that troubles broke out between the Gali- leans and Samaritans, originating, says Joseph\is, in an assault on Galileans travelling up to .Jens, for one of the feasts. Both agree that the Roni.tii soldiery intervened ; that the quarrel was taken before Quadratus, legate of Syria, who investigated the responsibility of the Roman officials for their conduct in relation to it; and that the ultimate result was the deposition of Cumanus. Both agree further on the date ; for Tacitus records the pro- ceedings under A.D. 52, Josephus mentions the recall of Cumanus immediately before the notice of the completion of Claudius' 12th year, Jan. A.D. 53. On the other hand, Josephus, throughout the
• See also Ramsa.v, Ex})Ointor, March 1897. p. 206 : Seneca otldrL-Hnecl hia (h- Ira to hiH brother, not under the adoptive niune Gutlio, but under the niinie Xovatus ; and if it is tnie that he wrote this treatise after his return from exile, it follows that liif brother's adoption, and sutujequent uppointnieiu to a proconsul- ship under the name Gallio, must also be not earlier than A.D. 40.
418 CHKONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
story, speaks of Cumanus as the only governor, whether of Galilee, Samaria, or Judaea. Tacitus gives Cumanus in Galilee and Feluc in Samana co-ordinate jurisdiction; which of them ruled Judfea proper is not said by him in so many words (by his authority perhaps not at all), but he apparently assumes it to be Felix, whom he introduces as iampridem ludmcc impositus. Thus in Josephus, Cumanus is the only procurator arraigned before Quadratus, and even he is sent oil' to the imperial tribunal ; in Tacitus, Cumanus and Felix are equally involved ; but since Felix was brother to Pallas, the emperor's favourite and minister, the legate, to avoid having to condemn him, puts him on to the commission tor the trial of his partner in guilt, who is condemned then and there for the crimes of both.
How are these divergence, to be reconcUed? The aiuwer Is not without a direct tearing on the chronology of St Faul s Ute • see below. No. 8. b. Let it be conceded, then, to Tacitus that Felix must have been holding some position in Samana ol sutficient rank to qualify him as one ot the luduM for Cumanus trial So much, indeed, is warranted by Josephus statement, that the high priest Jonathan was continually urging good government on Felix when procurator, 'lest he himself should focur blame before the populace for havm? requested his appointment from the emperor' (.Ant. p. vul. 5), a request which was more natural If Felix were already known in Palestine. Some of the best modem authorities (Mommsen, Roman Fro- m-^.. Eng. tr. ii. 202 ; Ramsay, St. Paul. p. 313) foUow Tacitus further still. But Josephus, after all, is givmg « det^led account of the history of his own country dunng his own life- time • and to him it must be conceded in turn that Cumanus rule certainly included Judma (in the narrower sense) with Jerus , and that Felix was probably only a subordinate of his in Samaria. Prejudice against so near a relation of Pallas made it easy tor Tacitus or his authority to project back on to the earlier years of Felix' residence something of the position, and a share of the misdeeds, of hi» later procuratorship.
A third authority for the dates of Felix' tenure is the Chronicle of Eusebius— the Armenian VS, with some MSS of Jerome's tr., placing his arrival in the 11th year of Claudius, the other Lat. MSS in the 10th. [In the Bodleian MS of the Jerome, this note commences in the second of the two lines given to the 10th year, is continued through the two lines of the 11th year, and ends in the first line of the 12th.] But how are these imperial years reckoned ?
So much weight is laid by Hamaok (ChronolotiU, pp. 233-237) on Eusebius' evidence, that this preliminary diflicult.v must be disentangled in some detail. Both Harnack himself (it. p. '234) and Lightfoot(«.s. Biblical Euaye. p. 2'23, n. 2 ; but this essay is as old asA.D. 18(53) assume a reckoning in the case of each emperor from his own accession-day. But it is m the last degree unlikely that a chronicle, where every year is reckoned continuouslv from Abraham, should admit in the parallel column of imperial 'years a system perpetually changing ; and if Titus, though he reigned three months ot a 3rd year (June 79-Sept. 81 4 D ) or Trajan, though he reigned six months ot a 20th year (Jan 98-Aug 117 a.d.), are vet allotted only two and nineteen years respectively, it seems clear that, as was to be expected, the imperial years are manipulated into accord with the more fixed arrangement. But two questions still remain.