Cicero (ad Fam. iv. 6. 1) says that Aimilius Paullus, the conqueror of Macedonia, lost two sons within seven days. Livy (xlv. 40) tells the story in more detail, that the younger son died five days before, and the elder three days after, his triumph over Macedonia was celebrated. Some scholars have remarked on the discrepancy be- tween these statements. But there is no discrep- ancy when the numbers are counted according to the ancient fashion. If the triumph was cele- brated, say, on the 14th day of the month, then, as Livy says, the younger son died on the 10th and the elder on the 16th; and, as Cicero says, the 16th is the seventh day after that on which the first son died,
Galba adopted Piso on 10 January A.D. 69. Then followed four complete days of sovereignty ; and on 15 January Piso, in a speech to the soldiers, spoke of the day as the sixth since his adoption (Tacitus, Hist. i. 18 and 28),
There are some exceptions to this usage; but probably all could be explained as arising out of the special circumstances. Thus Tacitus else- where speaks of Piso’s reign as lasting four days (Hist. i. 19 and 48). According to our reckoning, it lasted five clear days, from 10 to 15 January ; but there were only four unbroken days of sovereignty.
The general rule that has just been stated must be applied in interpreting the numerical state- ments in the NT.—
1. The three days between the Saviour’s death and resurrection are part of Friday (viz. the few hours that remained before sunset), the whole twenty-four hours from sunset on Friday to sunset
on Saturday, and the few hours between sunset on Saturday and the early hour of the resurrection before sunrise on Sunday. f
2. The three years and the fourteen years in Gal 1/8 21 must be counted in the same way, the first and the last year in each period being only fractions of a year. Here the reckoning is com- plicated by the uncertainty as to how St. Paul counted the years. Was he thinking of years of his own age; or years reckoned from the day of his conversion as prominent in his mind at the moment; or years according to the common Asia Minor and N. Syrian reckoning, with New Year in the autumn; or years according to the 8. Syrian style, with New Year in the spring (like the Jewish sacred year); or years according to the Roman style, with New Year on 1 January? (see § ili. 7).
The first two of these suppositions may be at once set aside as inconsistent with the ancient custom of thought and expression: years were counted by St. Paul as beginning and ending according to the current usage, and any part of the current year, however small, was counted as one year. It would be as unreasonable to consider that he counted the years as beginning and ending according to his birthday or his conversion day as it would be to consider that he counted days as beginning and ending according to the hour of either of those events. But the real difficulty lies in determining what system of years was ordi- narily used by St. Paul in thinking and counting: in other words, what day was New Year’s day in his estimation.
The present writer is not aware of any argument justifying an absolute and confident answer to this question. But the general impression made by the facts stated in § iii. 7 is that St. Paul counted according to the N. Syrian system, with the year beginning about the autumn equinox. This gives the general rule (stated only as probable, not as certain), that, in reckoning the number of years that had elapsed since any event, St. Paul counted the second year as beginning to run about the next autumn equinox: thus the interval between the event and the ensuing autumn equinox, however short, was reckoned as a year, and so with the interval separating the point down to which he counts from the last preceding autumn equinox.
According to this rule, the conversion of St. Paul (assuming, for the moment, the traditional day, 19 January, to be correct) and his first visit to Jerusalem (which he says took place three years after his conversion) might have occurred in two successive years of the Christian era. In his way of counting, the first year would be at an end about 23 Sept. or 1 Oct., after the conversion, the second year would end in the autumn of the following year, and any event in Oct. or later of that year would be in the third year. Thus, if the con- version were in January A.D. 31, the first visit to Jerusalem might have occurred in Oct.-Dec. A.D. 32, or in the first nine months of A.D. 33. On the other hand, if St. Paul was thinking of Roman years, the first visit could not be earlier than Jan. of 33, and might be as late as Dec. of 33. Thus a difference of nearly a whole year might be caused by the slight difference between those two methods ot reckoning.
3. The statement in 2 Co 12? is also interesting. Fourteen years before writing, St. Paul had enjoyed the greatest vision, and the closest com- munion with the Divine nature, that had ever been granted him, ‘There is probably little doubt in the mind of almost all scholars that these words were written during late summer or early autumn, about six months before the last journey to Jeru- salem began. On the scheme of chronology which is followed in this article, this would be about Aug.