s!" josephus, after the mention of Nero's acces- sion, records as all happening under Felix : the death of Azizus, king of Emesa ; the succession of Aristobulus in Chalcis, and readjustment of the dominions of the younger Agnppa ; the jealousy between Felix and the high pneat
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 419
Joaathan, and the reign of terror which, after Jonathan's assassination, prevailed at each of the feasts ; the appearance of various robber chiefs or impostors, especially a certain E^ptian ; and lastly, the 'great quarrel' between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of Csesarea {Ant. XX. Wii. 4-8). J<ow, this long succession of incidents cannot, it is said, be brought within less than live or si.x years, i.e. from Oct. 54, Nero's accession, to 60 A.D., especially as the rising of the Egyptian was already 'before these da3'8' (Ac 21'*) at the time of St. Paul's arrest, two years from the end of Felix' tenure. But two considerations deprive this line of argument of a good deal of its force.
(1) Joeephus naturally groups together all be has to say about Pal. under Felix. That ne doeu this aft«r Nero's acres- •10Q, means that he conceived, not that the whole state of things described bepan only then to be true, but at most that the main part of Felix' government, and its most striking events, belonged to the new rei^'n ; and this, if Felix" procuratorahip began in a.d. 62, could easily be the case so long as it ended not earlier than A.D. 57 or 5S. ^xact information about the tatter date Joeephus obviously did not possess, or be would, as in other cases, have given it.
(2) The various events described were not necessarily succes- •ive. The political arrangements in Galilee or Chalcis, the growing disorder in Jerus., the risings In Palestine, may all have been in progress at one and the same time. Even the revolt of the Egv^itian is not given as the last in order of time of a series of such events, but as the most striking illustration of the decep- tions practised on the highly-wrought minds of the populace by miracle-mong:er» of all sorts ; for whereas the rest led their followers ofl into the wilderness with the promise of signs and wonders, 'a fellow from Egypt about this time,' ««t« rt^rtr rit maifiif, gave rendecvous for the Mt. of Olives, that from thence be might show how the walls of Jer\is. should fall down at his bidding. At the same time, if this rising is to be placed under Nero at all, then St. Paul's arrest cannot fall before Pentecost 65, or nlher, if the full natural meaning is to be given to the words «^ rtvrtn rvr AiMpir, before Pentecost 66, and Felix" recall before the summer of 67 or rather 68 a.0.
It appears, then, that the arguments nsed to Bupi>ort the 'received' date, A.D. 60, will not b«nr the whole weight placed on them, but that, to far as they go, they do suggest a year not earlier than a.d. 68, or at any rate than 57. The arguments used on the other side most now, in turn, be subjected to examination.
(ii.) Araumentt far an early date, A.D. 65 or 66.
a. Eusebius' Chronicle places P"e8tus' arrival in Nero 2, i.e. according to Harnack, in the year Oct. 65-Oct. 56 A.D. ; and Eusebius' chronology of the procurators is probably derived from Julius Africanus (A.D. 220), who, whether through the Jewish Icings of Jose|)huB' contemporary, Justus of Tiberias,* or through personal enquiry (for he lived in Palestine), had excellent opportunities of arriving at the facts. But, again, a twofold answer may be given. (1) In any case Eusebius' true dat« for Festus is Nero 2 = Sept. 56-Sept. 57 A.D., see above, p. 418''. (2) It cannot be too often repeated that chroniclers were tempted to invent dates for all undated events of historical interest ; and as Festus' connexion with St. Paul would deter a Christian from pa.ising him over without mention, it is poHsible that Eusebius (or Africanus), if the usual authorities failed liim, simply set him exactly midway between his predecessor Felix, A.D. 61-52, and bis successor Albinus, A.D. 61-62.
For the last procurator, Oessius Florus. Eusebius gives Nero 10-Bept. C4-Sept. 66 A.D. ; this agrees well enough with Joeephus' statement that the breakini^ out of the war — Aug. 68 A.D. — fell In the 12th year of Nero (i.e. on Josephns' system Oct. 66-Oct. Ofl) and 2nd of Florus, AjU. ix. li. 1. For Albinus, the last hut one, Eusel)ius has Nero 7«=8ept. fll-Sept. 62 a.d. ; and Josephns relates that a certain visionary was brought before Albinus at the Feast of Tabernacles, four years before the war, i.e. Oct. 62 A.D., BJ vi. v. 3, so that Eusebius' date Is at any rate the latest possible, and is very likely correct.
j9. Felix on his recall was prosecuted before Nero by the leading Jews of C.Tsarea, and ' would
* Photlus, cod. 33, read this book, and says that It extended from Moses to the death of the last Jewish prince, Uerod Agrtppa u., in a.d. 100.
certainly have been condemned for his wrong- doings towards the Jews had not his brother Pallas, who at that moment stood very high in Nero's favour, interceded on his behalf, .,4?!^ XX. viii. 9. Now, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 14, 15, Pallas was removed from office not long before Britannicus celebrated his 14th birthday ; and Britannicus was born just after hi.s father Claudius' accession, circa Feb. 41 A.D. But, again, if Pall.'is' retirement fell in Jan. 55 A.D., and Felix' trial