This chronological weakness is not a peculiarity special to the NT, but is characteristic of many ancient writers, even those whose purpose was more specially historical than was the case with the early Christians, among whom St. Luke alone seems to have had any thought of historical sur- roundings to his narrative. The chronological relations of ancient narratives are often so insufli- ciently marked that modern students are perplexed to arrange the events described in them according to the strict chronological order which present-day requirements demand. In Tacitus’ biography of Agricola, the author obviously avoided chrono- logical statements as out of keeping with fine literary quality. Only in the conclusion (ch. 44) he gives the exact years of the birth and death of Agricola according to the Roman consular method of dating. In the body of the work no date is given ; but, by the allusions to contemporaries with or under whom Agricola served, and by our know- ledge of the principles applicable to the Roman official career and of the legal intervals between the several offices, it is possible to arrange the chronology of Agricola very precisely: but much of the chronology is fixed by external evidence, and the biography alone would not be enough. If the history of the Eastern provinces in the NT period were well known, many of the chronological difficulties of the NT would disappear, and the references to the two kings, Herod Agrippa, to Sergius Paulus, Festus, he the tetrarch, ete., would be points chronologically fixed by external evidence, assuring the NT history that lies around them. If, on the other hand, the history of Rome and the rules of Roman official life in the time of Agricola were as obscure as the state of Palestine in NT times, if the dates of Suetonius Paulinus and M. Silanus were as uncertain as those of Pilate | and Festus, of Aretas and Sergius Paulus, if the date of Galba and the consulship of Collega and
NUMBERS, HOURS, AND YEARS
NUMBERS, HOURS, AND YEARS 483
Priscus were the subject of as much controversy as the chief events in the reigns of the Herods, then the life of Agricola would offer many chronological problems; but with all its advantages and all modern research it has given rise to a good deal of chronological discussion, and a few of the dates are still uncertain.,
6. Dating by counting from a fixed era (Seleucid, Actian, etc.).—The more rational and practically useful system of chronology, by counting the years from a conventionally fixed and generally accepted era, has not affected the NT; but dates according to such an era are found in the Books of Macca- bees, where it is called ‘the year of the kingdom of the Greeks’ (1 Mac 1”). This name was applied to the era widely used in the central or Syrian part, rarely in the western or Asia Minor part, of the Seleucid Empire. It was fixed according to some uncertain event in the end of B.C. 312 or the early part of B.c. 311.
The rule in regard to all eras of this kind was not that the critical event on which the chronology depended was made the starting-point of the years of the era, but that the current local year in which that critical event occurred was counted the first year. Hence the year 1 of the era might last only a few days or weeks ; and that was the case, for example, with the Actian era. In almost all lands where we know of that era being used, the current local years began at or about the autumn equinox (either on 23 September or on 1 October). Now, the battle of Actium was fought on 2 September in B.C. 31; and therefore the year 2 of the Actian era began at the following New Year, which was either on 23 September or on 1 October, according to the way of counting in different localities.
This rule, which is accepted by almost all recent writers on chronology, is disregarded once or twice in the excellent article on CHRONOLOGY OF THE NT in vol. i. p. 403, and therefore ought to be stated more emphatically here. It is proved definitely for the Actian era in the present writer’s Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 441,* and has been illustrated and proved in other eras by various writers: see, ¢.g., Th. Reinach, Nwmis- matic Chronicle, 1902, p. 1f. (who quotes the rule from the place just cited).
The rule has to be applied to the Seleucid era. M. Clermont-Ganneau has pointed out that, where- as in Syria generally that era was counted accord- ing to the Macedonian years, beginning from 1 October, in Damascus it was counted according to the local years, which began at the spring equinox. He considers that the first year of the Seleucid era lasted in Syria generally from 1 October 312 to 30 September 311 B.c., and in Damascus from 23 March 312 to 22 March 311 B.c. But it is highly probable, though not as yet definitely proved, that wherever in the Syrian regions a different kind of year was in use (e.g. in Tyre, where the year began on. 18 April, as Niese} has shown), the Seleucid era was counted accordingly.
A careful study, according to modern principles, of this era in its various forms (¢.g. in Babylon, where it is said that the year 1 ran from 1 Oct. 311 to 30 Sept. 310 B.C.) is much needed, and would prove extremely useful ; but that lies beyond the proper limits of the present article.§ ;