(i ) Where did Eusebius flx his new year? It is natural to think first of Jan. 1, the commencement of the Roman consular year Hut Eusebius was an Eastern, and in the East the year was all but universally commenced about Septemher. The Jewish civil vear began in September; the old Attic lunar year in Julv; the old Macedonian lunar year in October; the talcnrtirs of Asia Minor in imperial times used the Macedonian months in.ide into a solar year, commencing Sept. 2J ; the similar cjilendar of Svria used the same months in the same way, onlv that each month was pushed down one place, so that the veaV Dresumablv began at the end ol October ; the Alexandrian year on Aug. 29; the era of Alexander or the Greeks wa» reckoned from Sept. s.c 312 ; the Indictions, an invention of Eusebius' own dav, were counted, certainly from September, probably from Sept. a.d. 312. The strong presumption that Eusebius would range himself with all this mass of usage is re- inforced by his use of the Olympiads as parallel, year by year, to his own years ot Abraliam, for tbe Olympiwls began in July, and a year that began on Jan. 1 must be out ol reckoning with an Olympiad year lor either its Brst or last six months.
(ii ) Granted, then, that each Eusehian year began In tlie September ol a Julian year, can that Julian year be conclusively fixed? Now, the starting-point of the Olj-mpiads is known to be Julv ot the Julian year b c. 776; it, therefore, a fixed relation Is established between Eusehian years ol Abraham and Olym- Diads a fixed relation between Eusehian and Julian years follow*. Unlortunatelj-. the two versions of the ChnnxcU diBer
by one year as to which year of Abraham is parallel ta 01. 1. 1, the Armenian giving Ann. Abr. 1240, Jerome r241, and so throughout. That Jerome U the more trustworthy la now. through the labours of Hort and Lightloot, recognised even by scholare who had pinned their faith to the Armenian (so, ..£., Harnack, Chronol6git, p. 113 It.); and in this particular case two synchronisms ol years ol Tiberius with the 01)-rapiads, the one given in the prelace to the Chronu:le (Jerome), and repeated in the Praep. Bvai^g. of Eusebius himself (x. 9. 1), the other given ir the note on the Cruciflxion (both Jerome and the Armenian), clench the proof. In the first case Tib. 15 is «^, .f-fo-n^'-lf with 01. 201, or more fully m the Prxp. iwii^ with 01. 201. 4. Now, in the ChronuUe it«elf Tib. 15 = Abr. 2044 (Jerome and Arm;nian) = 01. 201. 4 Jerome, but Ol. 202. 1 Aral. In the second case the date tor the Crucifixion is supported by appeal to Phlegon's date, Ol. 202. 4. Now, Tibenus 19 (which is un- questionably Eusebius' dat« for the Passion 8^' P'^'?"^ '[^ p 413')=Abr. 204>* (Jerome and Arm.) = 01. 202. 4 Jerome, 01 203. 1 Arm. Clearly, then, the paraUeham of the oolumnf is right in Jerome, wrong in the Armenian.
It follows from this investigation that, accord- ing to Eusebius, Tiberius 1 = 01. 198. 2 (Jerome) =Sept. A.D. UtoSept. A.D. 15; Gaius 1 = 01. 204^1 (Jerome) = Sept. 37-Sept. 38 A.D. ; Claudius 1 = 0 . 205. l(Jerome) = Sept. 41-Sept. 42 A.D. ; Nero 1 = 01. 208. 3 (Jerome) = Sept. 55-Sept. 56 A.D. As the true accession-days of these four emperors were Aug. 19, A.D. 14; Mar. 16, A.D. 37; Jan. 24, A.D. 41 ; Oct. 13, A.D. 54, an entirely consistent result is obtained, namely, that Eusebius commences the 1st reqnal year of each emperor in the September next after his accession. When, therefore, he puts the arrival of Felix in Claudius 11, he means not (as Harnack says) Jan. 51 to Jan. 52, but Sept. 51 to Sept 52, and his evidence, instead of contradict- ing, comes into line with that of Tacitus and
°r The ' Departure of Felix and Arrival of Festus.—The chronology of so large a period of St Paul's apostleship can be reckoned without difBculty backwards and forsvards from his im-_ prisonment at Ca!sarea, that this date of helix recall becomes the most important of the series ol synchronisms that have been under discussion. Yet there is none about which opinions vary more widely, years so far apart as A.D. 55 and 61 beins preferred by diflerent ennuirers ; what may be Called the received chronology (Wieseler, ^hron des apost. Zeitalters, pp. 66-99 ; Lightfoot, BMxcal Essays, pp. 217-220; Schurer, HJPl. u. 182. and the bibliography there given) assignmg it to A.D. (61 or) 60, but not earlier, whi e a few older writers, reinforced now by Harnack (o.c. p. 06 n.), push it back to quite the beginning of Ijlero s reign, A.D. 55 or 56. Blass (Acta Ap. W. 21-24) leaves the question open, but is, on the wnole, against the ' received ^ view ; Ramsay (see No. 9, below) modifies the latter by one year, to A.D. 59. (i ) Arqumentsfor the later date, A.D. bO or bi. a St. Paul at the time of his arrest, two years before Felix' recall, addresses him as '(or many years past a judge of this nation, (k to\Kw» ^wr La «p<rV TV f««' ToiVrv (Ac 24'»-»'),. a phrase which it is said cannot mean less than six or seven years' procuratorship, i.e. from 52 to 58 or o9 A.D But it has just been shown from Taxjitus that Felix had been in Samaria before he came mto office in Judaea; and since St. Pauls purpose is naturally to press all that could truly be said of Felix' experience, he would not too minutely distinguish between his present position as pro- curator and his previous position as a suborUinabe. The Ir-n iroXXi are therefore to be reckoned from an indeterminate point previous to A.D. 5i, and no certain deduction of any sort can be drawn about