II. Roman Imperial Dates.— Jesns Christ was crucified during the reign of Tiberius, and more precisely in the 15th year of that Emjjeror's sole rule, and the 17th, or 18th, of his co-regency with Augustus. Tiberius was followed by Caius Cali- j4ula in A.D. 37. Caligula was succeeded by Claud- ius in 41. Nero followed Claudius in 54, and was supplanted in 68 by Galba. Otho succeeded Galba in 69, and was followed by Vespasian in 70. Ves- pasian was followed by his son Titus in 79. Domi- tian came next in 81, reigning until 96. Then came Nerva, whose reign lasted till 98 ; and, so far as the Apostolic Age was concerned, Trajan closed the suc- cession, ascending the throne in 98 and reigning till 117.
A.D.
Vespasian ... 70-79
Titus .... 79-81
Domitian . . . 81-96
Nerva .... 96-9S
Trajan. . . . 9S-117
III. Pi VOTAL Da TES.— Close scrutiny brings into measurably clear detail the following fixed points in the apostolic chronology, which, therefore, may serve as general landmarks.
1. The rule of Aretas oYer Damascus. — In un- ravelling the complications of the problem raised by the mention of an 'ethnarch of Aretas' by St. Paul (2 Co 11^^), it must be borne in mind that Rome governed the subject territories of Asia either directly or through subject princes. Before 33-34 and after 62-63 Damascus was under direct Roman administration. This is made clear from the extant Syrian coins of these years, which bear the heads of the Roman Emperors Tiberius and Nero and do not allude to subject rulers. Since some allusion is always made where subject princes intervene, the case seems clearly made out that only after 34 and before 62 could a Nabataian king have secured ascendancy at Damascus. How this came about, however, is not definitely known. It could certainly not have been due to rebellion or any other form of violence. And if it was brought about peacefully, it is probable that it was done upon the initiative, or by consent, of Caligula, who is known to have encouraged the devolution of as much autonomy on the native dynasts as was consistent with Roman suzerainty. The Nabateean ascendancy in Damas- cus was thus near its beginning during the last years of Aretas (Harithath) IV. For the accession of this king is placed by Josephus {Ant. XVI. ix. 4) in connexion with certain events in the latter part of the reign of Herod the Great. His immediate successor Abia ruled under Claudius and was a con- temporary of Izates, of Adiabene, against whom he waged war upon invitation of certain malcontents and traitors (Ant. XX. iv. 1). The probable limits of his reign thus appear to be 9 B.C. and A.D. 39 or 40 {ci.CIS, pt. ii. 197-217 ; also Schiirer, JIJFl. ii. 357, II. i. 66, 67). The 'governor (ethnarch) of Aretas' referred to by St. Paul must therefore have acted his part of guarding the gates of Damascus before the year 39. But how long before is not certain. And since from Gal 1" it is clear that Saul returned to Damascus as a Christian leader after a period of three years spent in Arabia, and the flight from Damascus (2 Co IP-) cannot he identified with any later event than this visit, his conversion must have taken place not later than 36, and perhaps several years earlier. See also art Aretas.
2. The death of Herod Agrippa I. — According to Josephus {Ant. XIX. viii. 2, BJ II. xi. 6), Agrippa died at the age of 54, at the end of the seventh
year of his reign, four of which had been passed under Caligula and three under Claudius ; Josephus also makes it plain that the three years that fell under the reign of Claudius were the period of Agrippa's sole rule over the whole of Palestine, and that he had been made king over the whole of Palestine by Claudius immediately after his acces- sion {Ant. XIX. V. 1, BJ II. xi. 5). Since Claudius succeeded Caligula on 24th Jan. 41, the death of Agrippa must be dated in 44. This conclusion harmonizes with the circumstance that the festivi- ties at Ca^sarea during w^iich he was stricken with his fatal illness were being held in honour of the safe return of the Emperor from Britain {aurrjpLas, Ant. XIX. viii. 2) in the year 44 (Dio Cass. Ix. 23 ; Suet. Claud. 17). But if this was the occasion for the celebration, the time of the year for it was in all jirobability the late summer or early autumn, since news of the return of the Emperor must have taken some time to reach the East. The year 44 is thus fixed as the date of the events in Ac 12, and at the same time serves as a terminus ad quern for all that precedes.
3. The proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia. — L. Junius Gallio (Ac 18'-), brother of the philosopher Seneca and mentioned by him in attectionate terms {Quest. Nat., Preface), but adopted by the rhetorician Gallio, served a proconsulship of one year in Achaia some time between 44 and 54. The fact of his residence in Achaia is certified by Seneca, who alludes {Ep. XVIII. i. 104) to his having been obliged to leave that province on account of a fever. It is further attested by the mention of his name in an inscription found near Platsea in which he is designated as a benefactor of the city : 'H ir6\is nXaraiicov Aovk[i.ov 'IovIvlov raXXiwj'a 'Aviavdv [dj'^i/]- Trarov rbv iavrijs evep'y[eTr]v'\. But, since neither of these references to Gallio's experience in Achaia is associated with any date, the exact year of his pro- consulship was left to be determined in the earlier computations upon purely conjectural grounds ; and these yiekled no palpable gain in the direction of greater fixity.