E receded it, the latter must have fallen in the very rst months of Nero's reign, and Festus must have come out as procurator in the summer of A.D. 54 under Claudius, a result which it is hopeless to try and reconcile with the other authorities.
Harnack, o.c. p. 238, on the ground of the confusion which besetseven the best chronologists through the different methods of reckoning imperial years, conjectures that Tacitus bos mis- takenly put Britannicus' 14th birthday for his 16th, so that the whole stor^ should be transferred from a.d. 55 to 50. But this is unlikely : m the first place, because Tacitus reckons his years, as a Roman naturally would, by consulships, and not by regnal years of the emperor at all ; in the second place, because the detail about Britannicus' age introduces the account of his murder, and that was far too crucial an event to be likely to be misdated. It seems obvious — there is certainly no reason against the view —that Pallas retained sutflcient influence in the early years after his retirement to be able to secure immunity for his family. Tacitus expressly says that he stipulated that no inquiry should be made into his conduct In office, a very different attitude to what most fallen ministers had to adopt under the empire. Doubtless, Josephns exaggerates when he speaks of Nero at the date of the trial as /iMcA,mx iv rort 3jk nuiie ityttt ixiTvov, but this appears to be only his way of accounting tor the acquittal of an oppressor of the Jews.
Stated as a proof for the year A.D. 55 or 56, this argument, too, breaks down ; but if restated with a more modest 8coj)e, it will be found not without force. It is, in fact, difficult to believe that the Jews would not have gained their case against Felix had Poppfea already acquired that ascendency over Nero which enabled tiiem under the ne.\t procuratorship to win their cause in the matter of the temple wall against Festus and Agrippa com- bined. Ant. XX. viii. 11. It is under A.D. 58 that this woman's first introduction to Nero is recorded, but it was not till A.D. 62 that she set the crown to her ambition by marrying him, Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 45, 46, xiv. 60 ff. It was in the same year, 62, that Pallas, who, according to Ann. xiv. 65, was too rich and too slow in dying for Nero's avarice, was poisoned. Not improbably, the in- terest of Claudius' favourite waned with that of Claudius' daughter, so that it was no mere coin- cidence that the same year saw the murder of Octa"ia to make room for Popp.-i'a, and the murder of Pallas. Anyhow, consiclering the respective histo'ies of Pallas and Poppn'a, the years 57, 58 (59?) would ai)pear to suit the circumstances of Felix' acquittal better than the years 60, 61.
In the result, then, the arguments for the ex- treme position on either side iiave been shown to be equally devoid of conclusive force. But, on the other hand, each set of them, though it does not establish its own case, tends to disprove the opposite. The facts about Pallas and Poppa;a, not to speak of the evidence of Eusebius, do not prove that Festus succeeded Felix as early as 55 or 56, but they do seem to exclude a date as late as A.D. 60. Conversely, the account of Felix' procurator- ship in Josephus, though it does not show that he was governor as late as 60 or 61, does seem to show that he remained later than A.D. 56. The prob- abilities, therefore, both sides being considered, concentrate themselves on the intermediate years A.D. 57-59 for Felix' recall (A.D. 65-57 for St. Paul's arrest).
9. The Dinjs of Unleavened Bread ( Ac 20'' ') in St. Paul's third missionary journey have lately been brouglit again into notice by Ramsay (Expositor, May 1896, p. 336) as a date which 'can be (ixed not merely to the year, but to the month and
420 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.
dai ' ' The Passover was celebrated and the Days oP Unleavened Bread were spent '," Pl".l'Pl';i Thereafter the con.pany .started for ™as ; and their voyage continued into the fifth day. in Troas tlfe^tayed seven days; the ast com,, e e day that they ipent there wa.s a ^""d'.y and they sailed away early on a Monday ">» "'"H' ./"^"^ on the system common in ancient u.age and followed by Luke . . . the seven days in T™a^ • • • , bcL'Ui with a Tuesday and ended with a Monday. Furt er theTuesda/of the arrival in Troas must be also counted as the fifth day of the voyage. . !t follo'vl therefore, that the party started from Philippi on a Friday. The only question that re3 iB whether the company started on the first morning after the Days of Unleavened Bread^ Considering that the plan was to reach Jerus. by Pentec^Lt^W that time was therefore precious we need not hesitate as. to this P<"°t • • ^ Ihe slaving of the Passover in that year fell on tne E^n of a Thursday, and tli. Seven Days o Unleavened Bread continued tdl tl>e follow in Thursday. That was the case in A.D. 5 , but not in any of the years immediately around it.