Orosius (vil. vi.), a writer of the 5th cent., is more definite, and fixes the famine in the fourth year of Claudius, which, on his system of reckon- ing (see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? London, 1898, p. 223, which supplements and corrects the statement in St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, do. 1895, p. 68 f. ), was prob- ably from Sept. 44 to Sept. 45, or jjossibly from Jan. 45 to Jan. 46. This statement has, of course, only the value which may be attributed to the sources of Orosius, which are unknown ; but it supports Josephus fairly well, and it is not probable that Orosius was acquainted with the Antiquities, so that his statement has independent value.
3. Gallio's proconsulate. — This date has recently been fixed with considerable definiteness by the discovery of .a fragment of an inscription at Delphi t which contains a reference to Gallio as proconsul (which must be proconsul of Acliaia), and bears the date of the 26th ' acclamation ' of tlie Emperor Claudius. This acclamation was before 1 Aug. A.D. 52 [CIL vi. r25b), as an inscription of that date refers to the 27th acclamation, and after 25 Jan. 51, as his 24th acclamation came in his 11th tribunician year (i.e. 25 Jan. 51-24 Jan. 52). More- over, it must have been some considerable time after 25 Jan. 51, as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclamations
* See F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews, London, 1881, p. 130.
t First published by A. Nikitsky in Russian, in Epigraphical Studies at Delphi, Odessa, 189S, and now most accessible in Deissmann's Paulua, Tubingen, 191L
AUTiS OF THE APUSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
27
all came in the 11th tiibunician year, and the 25th acclamation has not yet been found, so that really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date for the 26th acclamation. Thus the Delphi in- scription must be placed between the end of 51 and 1 Aug. 52. At this time Gallio was in office. The proconsul usually entered on his office in the middle of the summer (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Staats- reclit^, ii. [Leipzig, 1888] 256), and normally held it for one year only, though sometimes he continued in it for another term. According to this, Gallio must have come to Corinth in July 51. Twelve months later is not absolutely impossible, though it is improVjable, for we do not know whether Claudius had been acclaimed for a long or a short time before 1 Aug. 52, merely that by then his 27th acclamation had taken place. According to Ac 18'-, St. Paul's trial took place VaWiwvos 5k oLvdvirdrov 6vtos, and this is usually taken to mean ' as soon as Gallio became proconsul.' Probably this is correct exe- gesis, though scarcely an accurate translation ; and, if so, St. Paul's trial must have been in the summer of 51, or, with later date for Gallio, in the summer of 52.
i. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome. — Ac- cording to Ac IS-, the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Kome. The same fact is mentioned by Suetonius {Claudius, 25), who says: ' ludseos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit,' but no date is given. Tacitus does not mention the fact ; nor does Josephus. Orosius (VII. vi. 15) states that it was in the ninth year of Claudius, which probably means Sept. 49-Sept. 50. He states that this date is derived from Josephus, which is clearly a mistake, unless he is referring to some other writer of that name (cf. Deissmann, Paidus), but the date agrees very well with that of Gallic's proconsulate ; for, if the trial before Gallio was in Aug. 51, and St. Paul had been in Corinth 18 months (Ac 18'^), the Apostle must have reached Corinth in April 50, at which time Aquila had just arrived in consequence of the decree of Claudius.
5. The arrival of Festus in Judaea. — This date is unfortunately surrounded by great difficulties. The facts are as follows : Eusebius, in his Chroni- con, places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero, which probably means not Oct. 55-Oct. 56 — the true second year of his reign — but, accord- ing to the Eusebian plan of reckoning, Sept. 56- Sept. 57. Josephus states that Felix, whom Festus replaced, was prosecuted on his return to Rome, but escaped owing to the influence of Pallas his brother. But Pallas was dismissed, according to Tacitus, before the death of Britannicus, and Britannicus was, also according to Tacitus, just 14 years old. Britannicus was born in Feb. 41, so that Festus must have entered on his office, according to this reckoning, before A.D. 55. Nevertheless, Josephus appears to place the gi'eater part of the events under Felix in Nero's reign, and this can hardly be the case if he retired before Nero had reigned for three months. It is thought, therefore, either that Tacitus made a mistake as to the age of Britannicus, or that Pallas retained considerable influence even after his fall. Various other arguments have been used, but none is based on exact statements or has any real value. Thus, in view of the fact that the combination of statements in Josephus and Taci- tus seems to give no firm basis for argument, we have only Eusebius and general probability to use. General probability really means in this case con- sidering whether the Eusebian date fits in with the date of St. Paul's trial by Gallio, and has, therefore, most of the faults of circular reason- ing. Still, the Eusebian date comes out of this test fairly well. St. Paul was tried by Gallio in