Conclusion. — This article may be concluded by a comparison of the dates here adopted (col. ii.) with schemes preferred by three representative writers — Hamack (col. i.), who throws everything early; Lightfoot (col. iv.), who throws all the latter part late ; and Ramsay (col. iii.), who in- vestigates independently, but is nearer to Light- foot than to Hamack.
H. B. L.
Cruoiflxion . . . .» or 80 29 80 [30]
St Paul's conversion . . SO 86-36 83 34
Ist visit to Jerus. . 83 38 86-36 87
2nd Ml. . . [44] 46 46 46
1st M.J 46 47 47 48
Council at Jerus., 2nd M.J. . 47 49 60 61
Corinth reached late in . 48 60 61 62
4th visit to Jerus., 3rd M.J. 60 62 63 64
Ephesus left .... 63 66 66 67
6th visit to Jerus., arrest at
Pentecost .... 64 6« 67 68
Rome reached early in . . 67 69 60 61
Acts closes earlv in . . 69 61 62 63
St. Peter's martvrdom. . 64 64-68 80 64
St. Paul's martyrdom . . 64 64-«6 66 67
If these several schemes are brought to the test of agreement with the ten results established on a balance of probabilities in the first half of this article, it follows with regard to each in turn —
1. That certainly Harnack (A.D. 33), and prob- ably Ramsay (A.D. 35-36), put St. Paul's first visit to Jerus., and therefore his flight from Damascus, earlier than it seems that Aretas can have ob- tained possession of the latter city.
2. That for the death of Herod Agrippa I., A.D. 44 is accepted in all schemes.
3. "That Harnack, at least, puts the return from the second or famine visit to Jerus. [A.D. 44 1] con- siderably before the famine can have begun.
4. That no scheme puts the 1st M.J. and visit to Cyprus (A.D. 45, 47, 48) in either of the two years which are impossible for Sergius Paulus' governorship.
6. That all schemes bring St. Paul to Corinth (autumn of A.D. 48, of 5U, of 51, of 52) under Claudius ; but that if Orosius' date for the expul- sion of the Jews from Rome (A.D. 49-50) is correct, then, .since Aquila's arrival immediately preceded St. Paul's (Ac 18^ 7rpo<r(/>dTu5 ^Xt/Xi/SoVo), Harnack's date is certainly too early ; Lightfoot's certainly, and Ramsay's possibly, too late.
6. That all schemes make St. Paul appear before Gallio at Corinth (A.D. 49-50, 51-52, 52-53, 53-54) in a possible year for the latter's proconsulship ; but that the earliest of these years, Harnack s, is not a likely one.
7. That, in the same way, Harnack's scheme makes St. Paul aiipear before Felix and his wif«
CHURCH
CHURCH
426
DmsUIa at Ctesarea (a.d. 54), in the earliest pos- sible year of the marriage.
8. That Harnack puts the recall of Felix and arrival of P'estus too early (A.D. 56) to suit the evidence of Josephus, just as Light foot puts it too late (A.D. 60) to suit the evidence of Tacitus, and that a date equally distant from these two (a.d. 58) is perhaps best of all.
9. That ilarnack's year for St. PauFs arrest (A.D. 54), and still more Lightfoot's (A.D. 58), are less easy to reconcile ^v'ith the chronology of the passover at Philippi than A.D. 56 or 57.
10. That Lightfoot's year, and, to a less extent, Ramsay's year, for the release of St. Paul from the first Koman captivity, are ditiicult to reconcile with his martyrdom in A.D. 64-C5.
The evidence from these synchronisms, taken individually, does not pretend to amount to demonstrative proof ; but the whole of Harnack's scheme, and all the latter part of Lightfoot's, appear to contradict them at too many points to be entertained. Of the other two, Kamsay's is perhaps nowhere superior, and at several points inferior, to that of the present article, which is recommended as a consistent and fairly satis- factory harmonization of a good many results which, like the sticks in the faggot, are separately weak, but together strong.
LrrBRATURS. — The received view depends on Wieseler's Chrtmol. d. apost. ZeitatUrs, 1848. The Engliah reader may find it expouuded iii Veriables* tr. of Wieselcr, in Lewin'e Fa»ti Sacri, 1865, or in Lightfoot'a Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233, posthumously printed from notes of a course of lectures de- livered in 1363, but seeinin)?, in essentials, to represent his latest views. Most recent Kn^Iish wriicrt> hod accepted tliis chronolog-y without question, until Riinisay, St. Paul the TravtUfr and. the Roman Citizen, lb9."» (see also for some point* his Church in the Roman Umpire, 1893), subjected it » partial re-examination and restatement. Uis main con- tention, the identification of the visits of Gal 21-10 and Ac 12^, has not met, and is perhaps not likely to meet, with much acceptance ; but in spite of this, and in spite of an unneces- •arily dogmatic tone, his contribution to the subject is a real and substantial one, and the present article is very much more Indebted to him than to any other writer. German books have Id the main acquiesced in Wieseler's results, e.g. Schiirer's InTaluab'e Geschtchte de$ judischen VoUces im Zeitalter Jemi Christi, ed. 2, 1886-lb90. Some Roman Catholic writers, in- deed, clune to the system which throws back the chronolog-y of St. Paurs later life by four or five years behind Wieseler's ; and these have been now reinforced by Hlass, Acta Aposto- lorum, 1896, pp. 21-24, who does not commit himself beyond a trenchant criticism of the received view, and by Harnack, Chronol. d. altchrUtl. Litteraturbis EusebixisX 1897, pp. 23^^-244, whose adhesion is thorou^ht^oiiij^, though his treatment of the •vidence U unequal and unsatisfactory. C. H. TURNER,