Thus a great variety of results was reached : Anojer (de Tem- porum . . . liatione, 1833, p. 119), a.d. 52-54 ; W ieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, 1848, p. 119), Lewin {Fasti Sacri, 1865, p. 299), Blass (Acta Apost., 1895, p. 22), Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., 1897, ii. 237), 48-50 ; Turner (HDB i. 417b), after 44, probably after 49 or 50 ; Hoennicke (Chron. dcs Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903, p. 30), at the latest 53-54 ; Clemen {PaiUus, 1904), 52-53 ; O. Holtzmann (NTZG^, 1906, p. 144), 53 ; andZahn (introd. to NT, Eng. tr., 1909, iii. 470), 53-54.
This uncertainty has been altogether removed by the discovery at Delphi of four fragments of an inscription naming Gallio and linking his proconsul- ship with the 26th acclamation of Claudius as Imperator. The fragments were fitted together a_nd the inscription was given to the public by Emile Bourguet {de Rebus Delphicis ImperatoricB yEtatis Capita Duo, Montpellier, 1905). The dis- covery and its significance were discussed more or less fully by Deissmann {Patdus, 1911, pp. 159- 176 ; Eng. tr., 1912, Appendix I. p. 235), Oftbrd {PEFSt April 1908, p. 163), and Ramsay {Expositor, 7th ser., vii. [1909] 468). The text is not in a per- fect state of preservation, but is sufficiently clear, with the restorations which have been proijosed by Bourguet, to cover the chronological point under dispute. It was a letter sent by Claudius when he bore the title of Imperator XXVI. (KC TlaTr)piraTpi5os). It names Junius Gallio as the friend of the writer and proconsul of Achaia : ['Iou]NIOS rAAAmNO[0t\os] MOT KAI [avdi!,']- IIATOS. This meaning of the inscription was first pointed out by A. J. Reinach {REG, 1907, p. 49), and is independently reached or otherwise accepted by Ofibrd {loc. cit.), Ramsay {loc. cit.), Clemen {ThLZ, 1910, col. 656), Loisy (with his usual hyper- critical caution. Revue d'hist. et de lit. relig..
276
DATES
DATES
March, April, 1911, pp. 139-144), and Deissmann (loc. cit.). The exact date of the acclamation of Claudius as Imperator XXVI. is not given any- where. But, since from R. Cagnat's tables (Cours (Pipigraphie latine^, 1898, p. 478) it appears that at the beginning of 52 Claudius was Imperator XXIV. and at the end Imperator XXVIi., both the 2.5th and the 26th acclamations must have been issued some time in 52, and in all probability after victories secured duringthe summer season. Butif Gallio was proconsul when the document was sent to Delphi, since the proconsular year was fixed bj'^ Claudius as beginning April 1 (Dio Cassius, Ivii. 14. 5 ; Ix. 11. 6, 17. 3), Gallio'sterm of oflSce falls in the year begin- ning Avith the spring of 52. Cf. art. ACTS OF THE Apostles, VI. 3.
4. The recall of Felix and the accession of Festus. — The appointment of Felix was one of the later acts of the Emperor Claudius ; and Nero on his accession confirmed it {BJ II. xii. 8, xiii. 2-7 ; Ant. XX. viii. 4, 5). The exact year of the event is given by Eusebius {Chron. [Arm en. VS and some MSS of Jerome's tr.]) as the 11th year of Claudius. Tacitus {Ann. xii. 54; cf. Jos, BJ 11. xii. 7f.), in his account of the troubles leading to the deposition of Cumanus, placed the event in connexion with the year 52. Although Harnack has drawn a different conclusion from the Eusebian Chronicle, it seems upon the whole that these three sources agree in pointing to the year 62 for the arrival of Felix in Palestine, or, at all events, for his assumption of the j^roconsulship. Mucli more complicated, however, is the question of the ter- mination of Felix's tenure of office. There is no doubt tliat, like Cumanus, Felix had by his misrule made himself the object of hatred and the ground of complaint on the part of the Jews, and that, owing to representations made by the latter, he had fallen into disfavour, and had escaped con- demnation only by the timely intercession of his brother Pallas (Josephus, Ant. XX. viii. 7-9). According to the apparent meaning of Josephus' words, this occurred after Festus had assumed control of Palestine in succession to Felix. But Tacitus informs us that Pallas had already fallen from his place as Nero's favourite in 55 (Ann. xiii. 14), i.e. when Britannicus was 13 years of age. "With this Dio Cassius (Ixi. 7. 4) agrees.
Assuming that Josephus is correct, and taking in addition the testimony of Eusebius (Chron.), who places the accession of Festus in the second year of Nero, Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. 1. 235) and Holtzmann (NTZG, p. 128 f.) place the vindication of Felix in 55 and the arrival of Festus in Palestine in 56. But, while this course seems the natural one upon the narrow range of evidence taken into account, it is precluded when the follow- ing considerations come into view, — (1) The sedition of 'the Egyptian' (Ac 2p8) occurred during tiie procuratorsliip of Felix, and some time earlier than the arrest of St. Paul. But Josepims informs us that it took place during the reign of Nero, or after 54 (BJ II. xiii. 5 ; Ant. XX. viii, 6). If the downfall of Felix is to be dated before 56, tlie arrest of St, Paul must have been made in 53 or at the latest in 54, and the uprising of ' the Egyptian ' still earlier, or fi'oin two to four years before the accession of Nero. — (2) The marriage of Felix and Drusilla is, according to Josephus, rendered impos- sible before 55. For she had been given by her brother Agrippa to Azizus of Einesa, being herself 15 years of age, in 53 (Ant. XX. vii. 1). But accord- ing to Ac 24'-^ she was married to Felix at the time of St. Paul's appearance before the procurator. Either, therefore, the arrest of the Apostle and the end of the proconsulship of Felix must be dated several years later than 53, to allow time for the necessary development of the intrigues by which