10. The argument for the year 61, as the date of Paul's arrival at Rome, is thus put by Wieseler (Ckr9- nohgie desApost, Zeiialia^ p. 66 sq.). The narrative of Josephus (Ant. xx, 8 ; Wctr, ii, 13), from Nero's a& cession (18th Oct, A.D. 54) to the defeat of the *' Egyp- tian," implies at least two years ; this impostor, daini- ing to be another Motes, would of course make his ip- pearanoe at the Passover, i. e. at the earliest, that of A.D. 57. That this must have been at least a year be> fore Paul's arrest is implied in the tribune's expressioD, ** before these days" (Acts xxi, 88) ; theref<a% the esr- liest possible date for this arrest is A.D. 58, Pentecost ; the " two years" of xxiv, 27, gives A.D. 60 as the eor- Uest pottible date for the airival of Festns, and the spring of 61 for the apostle's arrival at Borne. Hh latest possible is given by the liberty allowed Paul (Acts xxviii, 81), for the Neronian persecution began July^ A.D. 64. The extreme date hence resulting is limit- ed by further considerations. Pallas and Burrus were living and influential men at the time when Felix was recalled ; but Pallas died in the latter half, and Bums in the first or second month of A.D. 62 ; consequently Felix arrived in 61 at latest. But Paul was delivered to the one prefect of the prKtbiian guards, nf (rrparoTrt- ^^PXVi ^^^ uiust therefbre be Burrus, before and after whom there were tujo. As Bnmis died Jan. or Feb., and Paul arrived May or June, the year could not be 62, and the latest possible date would be A.D. 61. Lat- est possible and earliest possible thus cmndding, tlie date, Wieseler thinks, is demonstrated. To this it is objected, and justly, that r^ ffTparovMpx*^ of necct* sity means no more than the prefect concerned (Mej- er, Komm. in Apostelgesch, p. 19; Lange, Apost. Zi. ii, 9). In fevor of the later date (A.D. 62), it is urged that on the hearing before Nero of the complaints res- tive to Agrippa's building overlooking the Temple (Jo- sephus, Ant, XX, 8, 10, 11 ; War, ii, 14, 1), the Jews <^ tained a fevorable judgment through the influence of Poppiea, ** Nero's wife." But Poppsa was married May, 62, and undoubtedly Festus's successor, Albinoi, was at Jerusalem in the Feast of Tabemades of the same year (Josephus, War, vi, 5, 8). Hence it is ar- gued that unless Josephus's escpression, **at that time" (xard rbv Kaiphv tovtov, Ant. xx, 8, 11), is tak- en with undue latitude, Festus cannot have entered upon the province earlier than A.D. 61 (Meyer, v. <.> Ewald (Gesch. vi, 44) also urges the dcctfXvrwc? **iio man forbidding him," of Acts xxviii,^., for this year 62, and calls attention to the circumstance that the im- perial rescript, rescinding the Jewish isopolity, obtahi- ed by the Greeks of Caesarea through the inflneuoe of Burrus (Josephus, ^fi^. xx, 8-9), is spoken of as something recent in the beginning of the rebdlioo (spring of A.D. 66) ; indeed (In War, ii, 14, 4), it seems as if the rescript had but just then reached Ccsarea. Ewald surmises that the death of Festus and of Bums may have retarded the process. But the fact may be (as was suggested above) that Josephus in that passage has confused some exercise <tf Burrus's influence ui be* half of the Cesarean Greeks, in the time of Claudius, or early in the time o^ero, with the much later matter of the rescript, which would officially pass through Bia^* , rus's hands as secretary for the East (ra^tv r^iwi riiv 'EXXi^vcKu^v ifcwToX&v wtmcrsv/ikvogy, and the opera-
CHRONOLOGY
813
CHRONOLOGY
tion of which may have been delayed through the infliu enoe of PoppaM (who died Aug. , A. D. 65). That Pop- psa is spoken of as Nero's " wife/' on the occasion above mentioned, may be merely euphemistic anticipation : this woman (^* din pellex, et adnlteri Neronis, mox ma- ' riti potens," Tacit. Ann, xiv, 60) may have befriended tlie Jews in the former capacity (at any time after A. D. 68, ^NA. ziii, 45). In fact, the marriage conld not have taken place at the time when she is said to have aided tiiem, unless it be possible to crowd the sabse- quent occurrences of Josephus (Ant. xx, 8, 11 and 9, 1) into the space of three or four months (Browne, Ordo ! StBcL p. 122). Nor can any certain inference be drawn from the narrative in Josephus mfe^ 3) of certain ^ priests whom Felix had sent to be tried at Rome, and , for whom Josephus, after his own 26th year, which was complete A.D. 64, was enabled, through the good offices of **C8B8ar's wife," Popp»a, to obtain their lib- erty. The men had been prisoners three years at least, and, for aught that appears, may have been so seven OT eight years or more. That they were obscure and insignificant persons is evident from the fact that Is- mael and HelkJas, whom the " devout" Poppssa, two years before, had graciously detained at her court, ap- pear to hava made no intercession for their release. See Nero.
But Wieseler (p. 99), after Anger (De temp, m Act, Ap. rationej p. 106), has an argument to which both | attach high importance, derived from the notice of a Sunday (Acta xx, 7), the twelfth day after leaving Philippi, which departure was ** after the days of Azy- ma" (15-21 Nisan), and, indeed, very soon after, for the i^ostle " haated, if it were possible, to reach Jeru- salem for the Pentecost" (verse 16) ; and of the 48 days which he had before him fh>m 22 Nisan to the day of Pentecost, the iays specified or implied in the narrative (Acts XX, xxi), amount to 35 to the landing at CsBsa- rea (comp. Chrysost in Act, Bom, xlv, 2), leaving but eight days for the stay there (iffxipag TrXtiovCi xxi, 10) and the joomey to Jerusalem. Wieseler concludes that the departure from Philippi was on the 2dd Ni- san, which, bei4g twelve days before the Sunday at Troas, would be Wednesday, consequently the 15th Nisan fell on a Tuesday. According to his method of Jewish calendar reckoning, from A. D. 56 to 59 in- dnsive, the only year iiv which 15th Nisan would fall on a Tuesday woiUd be 58, which is his date for Paul's arrival at Jerusalem. Were it worth while, the argu- ment might be claimed for the year 55 (the date as- signed by the ancients), in which year the day of true fall moon =15 Nisan was 1st April and Tuesday. Bat, in fact, it proves nothing ; the chain is no stron- ger than its weakest link, and a single " periiape" in the reckoning is enough to invalidate the whole con- catenation. See Passover.