Felix lured her to unfaithfulness to her husband and persuaded her to marry him, or these events must be condensed within an incredibly short interval. Besides, between the appearance of St. Paul before Felix and Drusilla and the deposi- tion of Felix two years must be allowed (Ac 24-^). — (3) Felix had sent certain Jewish leaders to Rome, where they were imprisoned pending trial. Jos- ephus says that in his OAvn 27th year (63-64) he went to Rome to negotiate the liberation of these prisoners. But if Felix ceased ruling Judsea in 55, these men were kept confined for the unparalleled period of 8 or 10 years. If, on the other hand, Felix remained in office until 60, their imprison- ment lasted only 4 years. — (4) The length of the procuratorship of Felix may be approximately computed from a comparison of Ac 24"* and 24^\ In the former passage Felix is said to have already ruled 'many years.' It would be impossible to construe this as meaning less than three years. In the latter his rule is reported as continuing for two years longer, thus giving a minimum of five years. This is, however, a bare minimum, and may well be doubled without violence to the situation. If, therefore, the computations which fix the date of the appointment of Felix be correct as given above, and the year 52 is approximately the correct time of that event, the year 59 or 60 would be a reasonable one to. fix on as the time of the end of his rule.
The only consideration that offers any difflcnlty in the way of this conclusion is the fact that Josephus associates the recall of Felix with the influential period of Pallas at court ; but (a) Josephus may have been in error in attributing Felix's escape from punishment to the intercession of Pallas. (6) He may have grouped together events belonging to two separate dates, i.e. certain charges made at the early date, when Pallas by his plea on behalf of Felix saved him from punishment, and the final complaints which ended in his removal. If this be the case, the effectiveness of the later accusations of the Jews could be all the more easily understood, since at that time Poppaea had acquired her influence over Nero and an appeal of the Je^vish leaders would enlist her strong endorsement, (c) It may be, however, that Pallas, after being charged with iugh treason and found innocent, was re-instated into favour by Nero, and so continued until the year 60. This is not probable in view of the testimony of Tacitus, who tells us that Pallas was indeed acquitted along with Burrhus {Ann. xiii. 23); but that he was never again treated with special favour (ib. xiii. 2). He died of poison in the year 62. The conflict between the state- ments of Tacitus and Josephus is best harmonized if we take the former to have been well informed on the order and time of events in Rome, but misled as to similar matters in Judaea ; Josephus, on the other hand, may be regarded as accurate in his statements regarding Palestinian events and less so on matters of an internal character in Rome. The result yielded by this view is that Felix was found guilty of maladministration in 54-55 and escaped punishment at this time through the interces- sion of his brother Pallas. Pallas was himself charged with high treason the following year and fell from Imperial favour. Felix continued until 60, and meantime added to the grievances of the Jews, and yet entrenched himself in favour with sundrj' leaders because of his bold measures against certain classes of criminals. In 60, however, he was finally brought to trial, and in the absence of the powerful intercession of his brother was at this time de- posed and succeeded by Festus. Cf. also artt. Felix, Festds.
IV. Corroborative Dates.— These are such as do not of themselves permit of clear determina- tion, but can be deduced from general considera- tions ; and when so deduced confirm and elucidate the chronology as a whole.
1. The famine under Claudius. — Josephus, in connexion with his account of Agrippa's death (Ant. XX. ii. 1, 5, v. 2), tells hoAv Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates were converted to Judaism and made a visit to Jerusalem during a famine which both she and her son helped to re- lieve by procuring provisions at great expense. According to Ac 1 1^-'*" a famine occurred ' through- out all the world,' but presumably it was especially severe in Judaea, for it was to this point that the brethren 'determined to send relief.' This relief came ' by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.' The death of Herod must have taken place during this visit of Paul and Barnabas (Ac 12"') ; else why
should it appear after the account of the mission of the Apostles to Judaea and before their return from Jerusalem ? This is a natural inference ; but it meets with a difficulty in the omission of all mention of this visit in Gal 1^^, where St. Paul presumably gives an exhaustive statement of all his visits to Jerusalem. The difficulty is primarily one of harmony between Gal. and Acts. Yet it indirectly afl'ects the chronological problem. By way of explanation it may be said that the enumer- ation of the visits in Gal 1" was meant to be ex- haustive, not absolutely but relatively to the possi- bility of St. Paul's meeting the ' pillar ' apostles at Jerusalem. If it Avere known that during the famine they were absent from the city, St. Paul might very well fail to allude to a visit at that time.