Chronology of the books of the Old and New Testaments

Chronology is the most important auxiliary means of any historical study, since for events occurring in time, it indicates the proper place, determines their relationship with previous, modern and subsequent ones, and thereby reveals their nature in origin, meaning and influence. If time is the actual course of the historical flow, then chronology is an image of the latter in all its twists and serves to accurately understand the entire historical movement, as it once happened in reality. All this is quite true for biblical history - even to a very extreme extent. The Bible depicts to us the historical life of mankind under the influence of divine providence, by which divine plans are carried out among the earthly conditions of human existence. These temporal-spatial conditions constitute the soil and sphere of divine guidance, and therefore, for the true understanding of the latter, a clear understanding of them is necessary. Only against the background of this spatial-chronological continuity can the radiance of providential light be seen with all its brightness, like a life-giving sun for human history. It is then that providential divinity is revealed with particular decisiveness in its highest power and supreme intelligence when approaching synchronistic phenomena, which, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, but always fulfill providential goals and only in them receive their true meaning. From here the importance of biblical chronology is already obvious, yet our theological science does not at all satisfy scientific demands on this subject. We have many chronological treatises in exegetical works and biblical dissertations, but these particular observations are not united in a special and holistic review. We have had only two works of this kind so far: this is 1) a master’s essay by a student at the Kyiv Theological Academy, Ivan Aleksandrovich Spassky (who died on November 20, 1904). with the name Sergius and in the rank of Archbishop of Vladimir) under the title “Study of Biblical Chronology” (Kyiv 1857), covering only the Old Testament period, and 2) an anonymous article “Biblical Chronology” in the magazine “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” in 1874; No. 2, pp. 186–204; No. 3, pp. 374–395; No. 5, pp. 771–833; No. 7, pp. 34–55, where the calculation is carried out “until the true year of the Nativity of Christ.” The involuntary, but undoubted and incorrigible drawback of these works is that both of them are completely outdated and are now inaccessible to updating. Over the past time, bibliology has made great strides, and the sciences related to it have only now received particularly fruitful development or even their very existence and have produced a huge mass of new materials and unexpected combinations that are essential for bibliological knowledge. This partly applies to the New Testament, but in the Old Testament much has changed radically and received original coverage. In the interests of the cause, it is necessary for us to enter into direct contact with this scientific movement, through its authoritative representatives, to become familiar with the results achieved and to assimilate them with reasonable adaptation. In these types, we decided to offer condensed treatises on biblical chronology in translation. It turned out that this is not at all so simple, because the newest acquisitions and theories of independent science have not yet been brought into rational agreement with the dignity of the Bible and are almost always to a certain extent directed against it, and such hasty opposition was least conducive to recommendation and popularization. It was necessary to choose something in between, where the latest data is presented with objective thoroughness, but is not exaggerated in its strength to the direct detriment of the significance of biblical evidence. From this point of view, the most suitable is Hastinis's "Biblical Dictionary" (A Dictionary of the Bible dealing whis its Language, Literature, and Contents including the Biblical Theology, edited by James Hastings; five volumes in Edinburgh's by T. & T. Clark), distinguished by its scientific value and moderate conservatism. From it the following treatises are taken - by the American professor Edward Levis Curtis, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature in the Divinity Schools, New Haven) on Old Testament chronology (vol. I, p. 397b-403b) and the Oxford scholar Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, M.A., Fellow of MagdalenCollege, Oxford, and a member of the editorial committee of the famous “The Journal of Theological Studies”) on the chronology of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 403b-424a), which, at my direction, were translated from the English original by priest Konstantin Vasilyevich Popov (St. Petersburg, village of Murzinka, School of the Deaf and Dumb), my nephew, previously about 11 years old (1895–1907) who served in the United States of North America in pastoral and teaching capacities. Unfortunately, these works could not be published in Russian in all their integrity, and the first, despite its relative brevity, was sometimes downright unacceptable. It became clear that it was necessary to edit and process other people's works with a change in the author's views and judgments. We performed this difficult task (On the Caucasian Mineral Waters in Essentuki 1909, VII, 7–20) so as not to alter the originals as much as possible, but only to smooth out the extremes and eliminate the doubtful, not beyond the actual scientific requirements. Therefore, in addition to small softenings of phraseology, we allowed only abbreviations and omissions of what seemed inconvenient for Russian transmission and for which it would be a scientific sin to redo everything in the opposite sense. We think that we have retained everything that is essential and important for Russian bibliology, but the latter should see here not its acquisition, but rather only a fulcrum and point of departure for its own research in the spirit of its principles, so that the merits of Western biblical scholars become our personal advantages without the inherent defects of being carried away by theories beyond biblical facts or even contrary to biblical data. Professor Nikolai Glubokovsky St. Petersburg 1909, X, 1 (Thursday), Protection of the Most Holy Mother of God. The Old Testament contains dates that can be used to create a chronology from the creation of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. For convenience, this chronology can be considered by periods. I. From the creation of the world to the flood. Dates regarding this period found in the “generalogies” of Gen. 5 and in the note about the year of the flood Gen. 7:6, - are different in the Hebrew text, in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Greek translation of the LXX. This difference is clear from the following table (and the years of the entire life of each patriarch are given in brackets). Thus, we have three dates of different lengths for the time from the creation of the world to the flood. Usually the testimony of the Hebrew text is accepted as original, although the testimony of the Samaritan Pentateuch has recently found defenders in the person of Dilman and Buddha. The text of LXX was accepted by the Hellenistic Jews, the ancient Christian Church, and finds supporters among some English (Hales, Jackson, Poole, Rawlinson, etc.) and other scholars who prefer this text as giving a chronology more consistent with the antiquity of man than the Hebrew text. The speculative nature of the genealogical table of Genesis. 5 can already be seen from the disagreement of the three texts. Such disagreements probably would not exist if the numbers were based on certain historical documents. The sacred writer of everyday life chose the form of genealogical tables to represent the initial period of world history. The number of patriarchs - ten - is usual when counting prehistoric ancestors. It is more difficult to explain the length of time from the creation of the world to the flood. If we accept the Hebrew text, a more natural explanation can be found by combining 1656 years with the time after the flood until the exodus from Egypt, which together will amount to 2666, or 2/3 - four thousand; and 4000 years, according to Jewish tradition, were supposed to pass from the creation of the world to the Messiah. Therefore two-thirds of this period expires at the time of the Exodus, or at the time of the Sinai legislation and the founding of the Jewish theocracy. II. From the flood to the exodus from Egypt. For the period from the flood to the birth of Abraham we have the genealogical tables of Gen. 11:10–26, similar to Gen. 5, and in the same way different according to the three ancient texts. But in this case the Samaritan and LXX texts are almost the same: they both indicate a period of time longer than the Hebrew text. The LXX text also has an additional name - Cainan, which is missing in the texts of Heb. and Samar. and giving 130 extra years; and the years of Nahor at the time of Sarah’s birth according to LXX are 179, according to Samar. text – 79. We note the differences in the following table (the years of the entire life are given in brackets, which are shown directly only in the Samaritan Pentateuch). Of these three texts, the original one is undoubtedly the Hebrew one. Texts LXX and Samar. reveal a desire to lengthen time by systematically increasing the years of birth of the patriarchs. The extra time LXX probably arose from the desire to make the number of patriarchs 10 (probably this was the original number) and thus bring this table more into agreement with the table of Gen. 5. The LXX text is preferred by Hals, Jackson, Puhl, and others, as representing a longer time (compared to the Hebrew text) for the spread of the peoples of antiquity 2 . Dates for the period from the birth of Abraham to the exodus from Egypt are given in the notes on the age of Abraham at the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:5) and - Isaac at the time of the birth of Jacob (Gen. 25:26) and - Jacob at the time of his migration to Egypt (Gen. 47:10) and in the indication of the duration of the Jews' stay in Egypt (Ex. 12:40). In this latter case the texts are LXX and Samaritans. in both periods of the Jews' stay in Egypt, they also include the time of the patriarchs' stay in the land of Canaan. In accordance with these dates, we present the following table, together with the results of the previous tables, indicating the age of Abraham at the time of his calling in the land of Haran (Gen. 12:4). At present, it is impossible to determine exactly how closely these figures represent the actual duration of the initial history of the people of Israel and the time of their stay in Egypt. Obviously, these figures come from the same original sources as in the previous tables 3; however, they may have retained some historical memories. The number 400 for the years of enslavement in Egypt appears in Gen. 15:13, and this passage belongs to one of the earliest sources of the Hexateuch. Time spent in Egypt. The migration of the Jews to Egypt, according to the story of Joseph, took place when Semitic foreigners could be favorably received at the Egyptian court and were given land. The reign of the Hyxes, or shepherd kings, corresponds to these conditions, and the migration of the Hebrews at this time is an ancient tradition, which is generally accepted by learned students of the Bible. The reign of the Hykses cannot be determined with complete certainty due to the darkness and uncertainty of Egyptian chronology. It lasted for several centuries and ended no later than 1530 BC. 4. Regarding the famine, it is mentioned that there was one during the reign of Athophis or Apeni, one of the last kings of the Hyx dynasty; and this monarch may have been the Pharaoh of Joseph's time. It is also called by George Sincellus, a historian of the 9th century after Christ, and in general this assumption is accepted favorably by Says, Brugsch, Kittel and others. But still, this is only an assumption. The oppressor pharaoh under whom the Jews built the storage cities of Pithom and Ramesses (Ex. 1:11) was Ramesses II. This fact, long suspected, was definitely established after Naville identified the site of Pythom and it was discovered that it was built by Ramesses II. The exodus from Egypt is usually attributed (by Brugsch, Ebers, Rawlinson, Says, etc.) to the reign of Menephtha (Merenptha) or Seti II, the immediate successor of Ramesses II. But since both of these sovereigns are not among the weak and, obviously, had both Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula under their rule, it is better (together with Kittel, Maspero, Wiedemann, etc.) to attribute the outcome to the time of weakening of royal power and general anarchy, which period followed the reigns at the end of the 19th dynasty (no later, according to Meyer, than in 1180 BC, according to Rawlinson et al., about a century earlier). McCurdy places the exodus during the 20th dynasty, during the latter part of the reign of Ramesses III or immediately after his reign. He does not think that the Egyptian rule over the Sinai Peninsula or Palestine at an earlier time was so weak that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, or their conquest of Palestine, was possible, which is why this scientist indicates the date about 1200 years BC. During the reign of Ramesses III (1180–1148), Jews were able to wander through the desert and take possession of the country to the East of the Jordan. This will be about 50 years from the time of the exodus from Egypt to the entry into western Palestine - generally consistent with the biblical 40 years. At least it seems certain that Palestine was for several centuries an Egyptian province and that the conquest of Palestine during the time of Joshua could not be accomplished until the end of the reign of the 19th dynasty and, probably, until the conclusion of the reign of Ramesses III. The opinions of some writers (Cook, Conder, Kohler, Sharpe, etc.), who attributed the outcome to an earlier time, were refuted through Naville's establishment of Pythos as built by Ramesses II; was refuted by the Tell Amarna tablets, which show that Palestine was entirely an Egyptian province during the 18th dynasty; was finally refuted by the fact of the rule of Seti I and Ramesses II over Palestine during the 19th dynasty. But this was how things stood until 1896, when (Flinders Netri) discovered a stela with an inscription that mentions the victory of Merenptha, the son and heir of Ramesses II, over the Libyans in the 5th year of his reign (which, according to Mahler, began in 1280). In the last part of the inscription, where other victories are listed, the subordinate localities are indicated in this order; Hittite land, Canaan (? country or city), Ascalon, Gezer, "Ianoch" (?), Ysiri'r = Israel, Southern Palestine, "all countries". There is no evidence yet to support Merenptha's Asian wars; but it is possible that, according to the custom of his time, he takes credit for the victories of his predecessors. The name "Israel" denotes, without any doubt, a people, and not a locality, like other names. Further: words concerning the state of countries indicate their devastation and destruction of the harvest. The obvious and only correct conclusion from these facts is that the Israelites, or part of this people, were already in some areas of Syria and were at war with Egypt. If we assume that by the reign of Merenptha the exodus of the Jews was already an accomplished fact (for the name Ysrw is mentioned in previous reigns in the area of ​​the Asher tribe), then it is permissible to identify the Jews with the Cabirs, about whose invasion of Palestine, 150 years earlier, the Amarna letters speak so much and who were suspected of S’sw, pacified under Seti I 5. III. From the exodus to the founding of the church. Foundation of Solomon's Temple, according to 1 Kings. 6:1, was in 480 after the exodus from Egypt (according to LXX in 440). The number 480 (like the numbers in the Pentateuch) seems conjectural and appeared due to the opinion that from the exodus to the founding of the church there were 12 generations of 40 years each. But this period is too long. The interval from the exodus to the founding of the church is probably closer to 300 than 500 years. As we saw above, the outcome cannot be assumed earlier than after the reign of Ramses II, and the foundation of the church was no later than in the middle of the 10th century BC. It is possible that reliable chronological data to indicate the exact duration of this period has not survived. The turmoil and confusion during the period of the Judges, when there was no central government, speaks against the assumption that a specific calendar was used and that there was an official record of events. The chronological dates for the book of Judges also seem somewhat artificial. They are as follows: To these years we also need to add: According to these figures, the entire period under consideration was over 550 years, and the number 40, or multiplied by 40, which appears more than once, shows that some numbers are round and, probably, conjectural. Some of those mentioned in the book. Judges of the board of judges could be local and at the same time with others. In this case, these readings cannot be entered into a sequential chronology. In all likelihood, the numbers should have indicated 480 years; – the years of enslavement, like the years of usurpers, are usually not counted in the East, and their time is included in the years of peace under the legal ruler. Guided by this principle, we will obtain the following results: If we count 30 years for Joshua (Joshua 24:24) and 10 years for Saul, then we will have exactly 480 years 7. IV. From the foundation of the church to the destruction of Jerusalem. This era was marked by an increase in culture among the Jews, and it seems that through the royal chroniclers regular records of its most important events were provided. The events were probably dated back to the years of the reigning monarchs. At least we find this system in 3 and 4 Kings, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But the ability to have accurate chronological memories does not mean that they were actually preserved, and the books of Kings, our biblical source for the chronology of this period, were not written until the end of it, several centuries after the earlier events of which they narrate. True, the writer of these books constantly refers to the “chronicle (book of chronicles) of the kings of Judah” and to the “chronicle (book of chronicles) of the kings of Israel” as the source of his information. But it is unknown whether he had access to the original royal chronicles, or only to two historical works based in any way on them. The latter is more likely because 1) it is difficult to imagine that the state records of the northern (Israelite) kingdom were preserved and brought to Jerusalem; 2) the reference is not to the actual chronicles or records, but to the “book of chronicles”, and 3) it is difficult to explain the peculiarities in the writer’s testimony regarding the dates of accession to the throne and the length of his reigns if he had access to the original records. The books of Kings 3 and 4 give a complete list of the kings of the kingdom of Judah and Israel and the duration of their reigns by year from Solomon to the fall of Samaria and Jerusalem. The beginning of each reign is designated (dated) by the year of the reign of the modern king - in another kingdom. Obviously, this method of correlative (synchronistic) dating belongs to the biblical writer, because it is hardly possible that in any kingdom the years of the reign of the king of another state were used to date the time of their own kings. The study of synchronicities leads to the same conclusion. From the construction of the Hebrew expressions, it seems that in many cases references to simultaneous events are added to dates about the duration of the reign, and in some cases there is a desire to reconcile two unequal series of figures. Rehoboam and Jeroboam ascended the thrones at the same time, as did Athaliah and Jehu. The years of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel between these two dates must therefore be the same. But, as can be seen from the following table, the years of the reign of the kings of Israel turn out to be longer than the years of the kings of Judah by 3 years. (7 days of the reign of Zamri are omitted, because this week is considered to belong to the reign of Ila or Omri). Since the duration of the reign is indicated in whole years, but in reality the reign could last for incomplete years, it is clear that calendar years are meant. This raises the question: is the calendar year in which the king died considered the last year of his reign and the first year of the reign of the successor king, or does the count of the years of reign of each new king begin with the next new year? The first method (of indicating earlier the beginning of the reigns) introduces confusion into the calendar year, considering it to belong to two reigns, but this is in accordance with the Jewish custom, according to which a part of the time is counted as a whole. For example, the siege of Samaria began in the 4th year and ended in the 6th year of Hezekiah’s reign, and it is said that it lasted 3 years (2 Kings 17:9ff.). A similar example is that Christ spent 3 days in the tomb (see below). Another method (of later designation of the time for the beginning of the reigns) was adopted by the Assyrians. It was their common practice to count the years of reigns from New Year's Day after accession and to call the time after accession to the throne and before New Year's Day "the beginning of the reign"; here, in fact, the first year of the reign was called the year following the day of the new year, and from this year the following years were counted sequentially. It is impossible to definitely decide which of these methods was systematically used by the Jews. It is possible that none of them are permanent or entirely. The Talmud clearly testifies in favor of the first method (Wieseler, Chron. Synopsis, S. 47), and this method is often considered Jewish. But Jeremiah and Ezekiel use the second method, and many scientists (Dilman, Stade, Wellhausen, etc.) think that this method is the Jewish one. Writer or compiler of 3 and 4 books of Kings. uses both methods, as can be seen from the following table of simultaneous events. The second method applies to the reigns of the kingdom of Judah before the reigns of Joram and Ahaziah: - the first of them was made to co-reign with his father for a period of 4 years. Asa and Jehoshaphat came to the throne in the years preceding the first year of their reign; but Abijah ascended the throne in the first year of his reign. Thus, we have two cases of the first method. The reigns of the kings of Israel are all designated by an earlier year and Ahaziah is made co-ruler of Ahab for one year. In this way the total length of the reigns is shortened, and the period from Solomon to Athaliah is only 90 years. According to 1 Kings 16:23, Omri began to reign in the 31st year of Asa, and according to 2 Kings. 1:17 Jehoram of Judah - in the 2nd year of Joram of Israel. Both of these indications are in harmony with the later system of indicating the time of entry of the kings of both Judah and Israel. This fact, together with the apparently systematic reduction of intervals among the kings, first in the kingdom of Israel, and then in Judah, in order to harmonize them with each other, points to the possibility that the duration of the reigns is based not only on accurate historical sources, but also maintains a chronological scheme, which the writer did not consider the right to change. Samaria was taken, according to 2 Kings. 18:10 - in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is, in the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel. Therefore, the time of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel from the accession to the throne of Athaliah and Jehu until this year should be the same. But the testimony of 2 Kings. give completely different results. Here the duration of the reigns of the kingdom of Judah exceeds by 21 years the duration of the reigns of the kingdom of Israel. The following table indicates the biblical contemporary events of this period 8 . In the following tables, columns a, b and c show the dates of accession to the throne of the kings of Judah, and columns d, e and f - the same for the kings of Israel: a - according to 1 and 2 Chronicles, according to which the duration of the reigns is given the same as for 3 and 4 Kings, and without relation to the corresponding reigns of the kingdom of Israel, why their sum naturally means the duration of the kingdom of Judah; b – in accordance with the above table of synchronisms; c – in accordance with the definition of time according to Assyrian inscriptions, with an asterisk (*) indicating co-government (but see the following paragraphs); d corresponds to a and is adapted here by an earlier designation of the time of the beginning of the reigns of Nebat, Elah and Ahaziah, and the reign of Jeroboam II is extended to 51 years and Pekah - to 30 years; e and f (explained in the following paragraphs) correspond to b and c (a and d correspond essentially to the Usheran dating system indicated in the margins of the authorized translation of the English Bible of 1611). Of these tables, only b and d represent approximately the historical course of events, while the others are given only for comparison. Considering the biblical testimony, we see both from the variety of methods of reckoning and from the obvious incompatibility of synchronicities (unless we accept the ever-changing fact of co-kingdom), that we must look for another source to determine the true chronology of this period. This source, in limited quantities, was found in Assyrian inscriptions. These inscriptions are dated according to the Assyrian calendar, or canon. This canon, which exists in several copies that closely agree with each other, covers the time period from (approximately) 900 to 650 BC; each year is called by the name of an official (who is an “eponym” - like the first of the nine Athenian archons defined by this term, whose name is designated by the year). Mention of the total eclipse that took place in 763 BC. (June 15th), the dates of all other years are determined. The following persons and events of biblical history are mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions and dated according to the Assyrian canon. According to Assyrian sources, Tiglath-Pilezer (Teghlaffelassar) III (745–728) waged a war (742–738) against Syria, Emath and Palestine. Azariah, king of Judah, is mentioned at the head of the coalition against him (742–740). Menaim is also mentioned as paying tribute in 738. During 737–735. Tiglath-Pilezer fought in the East, but in 734 he returned to suppress another coalition in the West when he conquered Pekah and installed Hoshea as king of Samaria in his place. According to biblical news, Menaim and Azariah were contemporaries and Menaim paid tribute to Tiglath-Pilezer (called Thul in 2 Kings 15:19); After the short reign of Phakias, Menaim's son, Phakias, ascended the throne in the last year of Azariah. Pekah, together with Rezin, king of Damascus, during the reign of Jotham and Ahaz, had a war with the kingdom of Judah. (2 Kings 15:37, 16:5. Isa. 7:1), obviously, with the goal of forcing the Jews to enter into an alliance with them against the Assyrians. During the reign of Pekah, the kingdom of Israel suffered great losses in land and population through the invasion of the Assyrians; Pekah was followed by Hosea. Both of these testimonies, biblical and Assyrian, agree with each other; All that remains is to set the dates. In 737 Phakia is king, having ascended the throne probably in the previous year. His reign was short-lived: in 736 or 735 he was killed by Phakay. In 737 or 736 Azariah died and Jotham (who had already been a co-ruler for about 14 years, as his father was a leper) became king. In 735 Ahaz replaced Jotham; in 734 Pekah was killed and Hosea became king. Samaria fell in the winter of 722–721. Thus, during this period the biblical chronological indications must have been significantly changed. The results are shown in tables c and f. The difficulty is also found in 2 Kings. 18:10–13, where the fall of Samaria refers to the 6th year of Hezekiah, and the invasion of Sennacherib to the 14th; but the first event took place in 722, and the last in 701. According to the first account, Hezekiah came to the throne in 728 or 727, and according to the last account - in 715 or 714. If we accept the latter account, then the reign of Ahaz should be lengthened by almost 20 years, and Manasseh or Hezekiah shortened by about 10 years. To resolve this difficulty, it is assumed that Hezekiah co-governed with Ahaz, or that the date of Sennacherib's invasion is shown, perhaps, the date of Sargon's invasion in 711. According to this assumption, Hezekiah entered in 725 or 724. Ahab's presence at the Battle of Karnar (on the route between Aleppo [Aleppo, Halibon, Berea Syria: 2 Macc. 13:4] and Emath) dates his reign to at least 854. In this battle, according to Assyrian inscriptions, Ahab is an ally of the king of Damascus. According to 1 Kings 20:34 – Ahab had such an alliance that lasted three years (1 Kings 22:1). In the third year of the union, peace was disrupted and Ahab was killed in Ramoth-gilead (1 Kings 22:1-3, 37-40). Assuming that the alliance was concluded in 855, we can date the end of Ahab's reign to 853 9 . In the period before Ahab, a change in the biblical length of Omri's reign is considered necessary by some scholars based on the testimony of the inscription of Mesha of Moab, where he says: "And Omri (Omri) took possession of the land of Megedeba, and he (Israel) dwelt there in his days and half the days of his son, forty years." 10 If “his son” is Ahab, then the reign of Omri (Omri) must be extended to account for Baasha. This is supported by the importance and significance of the reign of Omri (Mic. 6:16). The land of the “house of Omri” in Assyrian inscriptions is used to designate the kingdom of Israel. But if by “his son” we mean the grandson of Omri, Joram, then there is no need for any great change. This is more likely, and consistent with 2 Kings. 1:1, 3:5, where the rebellion of the Moabites (which could hardly have happened under the powerful king Ahab) refers to the reign of Jehoram. If from Egyptian history we knew the exact date of the reign of Shishak (Susakim) and his invasion of Palestine, we could accurately establish the time of the reign of Rehoboam (in the 5th year of Rehoboam Susakim attacked Jerusalem: 1 Kings 14:25). As far as is known, Egyptian history confirms the date indicated in c. For the period between the death of Ahab and Azariah (Uzziah), it is necessary to shorten the duration of some reigns. The turbulent state of affairs after the death of Jeroboam II (the destructive enmity of parties is indicated in the prophetic writings) gives the right to assume a reduction in the reign of Menaim to 3 years in order to have time for other reigns of Israel. The internal state of affairs favors leaving the length of the reigns of Athaliah and Joash unchanged. The sole reign of Azariah (Uzziah) and Jotham can, in this case, be shortened by recognizing them as co-rulers of their fathers for several years. The lengths given for the reigns of Ammon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah are without a doubt correct. The following table indicates the dates and synchronicities of their reigns. These dates are determined by the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, which year, according to the canon of Ptolemy 11, is the 604th. The reigns indicated in this table are designated the next year after the actual accession to the kingdom. This distribution (of reigns and events) is generally accepted. But some prefer to think that events and reigns are designated by the year in which they took place, and not by the next. Then the destruction of Jerusalem will be in 587 or 588. This is favored by Jer. 52:28, 29, where the captivity of Jehoiachin and the destruction of Jerusalem refer to the 8th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzar. The Battle of Carchemish (Jer. 46:2) is dated to the 4th year of Jehoiakim. According to Thiele et al., this was in the year 605 - the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne, and the 4th year of Joachim turns out to be marked earlier (predated). From the facts presented it is clear that only some dates in the history of Israel can be established with complete certainty. The time of most events can only be indicated approximately, with an accuracy of 2–3 years. And in general, there remains a considerable amount of uncertainty, why only a few tables of scientists on Old Testament chronology completely agree with each other. But another question arises: aren’t the chronological dates of this period, like the previous one, speculative and artificial, and aren’t the complete chronological dates for both kingdoms – Judah and Israel – lost? This point of view is shared by W. Smith, Stade, Wellhausen and others. It is supported by the fact that from the foundation of the Temple of Solomon to Zerubbabel, according to the biblical account, 480 years passed, and the duration of the existence of the Kingdom of Israel is (if you skip 2 years of Elah, or reduce the years of Baasha to 22 -) 240 years. They also say that the arrangement of the duration of the kingdoms indicates artificiality. The combination 41 81 38 = 40 80 40, as they say, cannot be random. It is argued that a similar artificial system is also noticeable in the years of the reigns of the first 8 kings of Israel. Here - 8 kings reign for 96 years, an average of 12 years each; three reign for 1210 and two for 12. Due to the inaccuracy of some biblical numbers and their symmetry, it is possible to assume that the missing duration of the reign of some kings was supposedly filled in so that the duration of the existence of the Kingdom of Israel was 240 years, and the interval between the foundation of both churches was 480 years. This arrangement could be useful for memorization and is similar to the account of earlier periods of world and Jewish history, and this arrangement is also reflected in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the Evangelist Matthew, where the generations are located in 3 sections, 14 each. However, if we take the biblical dates in their entirety for this period, these dates do not seem to be so symmetrically located that in their entirety or for the most part they can be considered artificial. But, without a doubt, in the list of reigns the duration of some was not preserved exactly, and therefore was shown tentatively. V. Chronology of the period after the Babylonian captivity. When Judea became a subordinate (vassal) state and there were no longer any kings of its own, then the years of the reign of foreign monarchs - as we already saw at the beginning of the captivity - began to be used to date events. The reigns of these monarchs are indicated by the canon of Ptolemy. The following table notes the major Old Testament events of this period: The chronological dates of the earthly life of Jesus Christ are grouped around 3 points: Nativity, Baptism and Crucifixion, and also relate to the time between these events, namely: the age of Jesus Christ at the time of baptism and the duration of His earthly ministry. If some of these dates could be determined definitively, it would be easy to establish other dates: for example, the date of the Nativity of I. Christ, together with His age at baptism, would make it possible to establish the date of Baptism; if the dates of the beginning and end of the Savior’s earthly ministry were known, the duration of the ministry would naturally be determined, etc. But for none of these dates and time periods there are clear indications and about each of them one can come to more or less probable conclusions, and therefore there is a need to study them separately and check the final results by comparison with each other. a) St. Evangelist Matthew narrates that Jesus Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who, no later than two years after that, ordered the beating of all babies in Bethlehem, why St. the family fled to Egypt, where they remained until the end of this king’s life (Matthew 2:1, 13–16, 19). Thus, the death of Herod V. is the starting point for determining the time of the Nativity of Christ. For the chronology of events in Jewish history during the New Testament times, the main authority is the works of Josephus Flavius ​​“On the War of the Jews” and “Antiquity” (cited in this section from the critical edition of V. Niese, Berolini 1887–1895). Josephus nowhere definitely indicates the year of death of Herod V., but he indicates the duration of his reign, from two more or less firmly established starting points, and equally indicates for his three successors the duration of their reigns, ending at more or less firmly established points. I) Herod V. - when he died, not long before Easter - reigned 37 years 12 as king de jure from the time of the Roman decree of the 184th Olympiad (from mid-44 to mid-40 BC) and the consulate of Domitius Calvin and Asinius Pollio (40 BC): Ant. XIV, 14: 4, 5; XVII, 8, 1; B. J. I., 33: 8. It is clear that the decree belongs to the first half of 40 BC; but since it is unknown whether the month of this act was earlier or later than the month (around Easter = March?) of Herod’s death, it is unknown whether the 37th year of Herod’s reign began before March 4 BC. or only before March 8th year BC. II) Herod V. reigned de facto 34 years as king, from the time of the death of Antigonus, and Antigonus died “on the day of the Great Festival (September-October) in the consulate of M. Agrippa and Canidius Gallus (37 BC), exactly 27 years after Pompey entered Jerusalem in the consulate of Antony and Cicero” (BC 63 – 27 = 36 BC). Of these two contradictory testimonies about the time of Antigonus’ death, if you count 34 years, then according to the first account, Herod’s death will be at the beginning of the 3rd year BC, according to the second account - at the beginning of the 2nd year BC; and if the second account can be reliably ignored, as arising from the confusion of any chronology before the introduction of the Julian calendar in 46 BC, then even the year 37 BC. stands in contradiction with the testimony of Dio Cassius, a later, but also well-informed historian, who names the consuls of 38 BC. Claudius and Norbanus, so that 34 years will be completed in 4 BC. (Ant. XIV, 4: 3; XIV, XVI, 4; XVII, 8: 1; B. J. I., 33: 8; Dio. XLIX, 22). III) Of the successors of Herod Vel., Archelaus, king of Judea, was exiled to the consulate of Lepidus and Arruntius (in 6 AD), in the 9th year of his reign according to the “War of Judas,” in the tenth according to “Ancient.” Since its entry was close to the beginning of the year, then according to the first account it could probably have been in 3 BC. (possibly in 4 BC), and at last count it was in 4 BC. (m.b., in 5 BC Chr.). If both of these accounts can be agreed upon by the assumption that the time of exile was at the beginning of the 6th year A.D., before the anniversary of the accession to the throne, and that “Ancient.” count the second year of the reign of Archelaus and the following - from January 1, then both accounts will point to the 4th year BC. If it were otherwise, then “Ant.,” as a later and more complete work, would rather correct an earlier error than introduce a new one, so that the date is 4 BC. in any case more probable (B. J. II, 7: 3; Ant. XVII, 13: 2, 3; cf. Vita 1, Dio LV, 25, 27). IV) Herod Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitida, reigned for 37 years and died in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius, that is, counting from the death of Augustus in August 14 AD, between August 33 and August 34 AD; this places the accession of Herod Philip to the throne to 3 or 4 BC. (Ant. XVIII, 4:6). Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, minted coins even in the 44th year of his reign, and since his exile under Caius Caligula (in March 37 - until January 41 AD) could hardly have been later than in the 39th year (for his rival and nephew Herod Agrippa left Palestine after him and was in Lyon with the emperor in the winter of 39–40 AD. Chr.), then the second year of his reign will refer to 4 BC, and his accession to the throne (the Jewish princes obviously counted their years from the 1st Nisan -) refers to the year preceding the 1st Nisan in 4 BC. (Dio LV, 24; see also Philo in Flaccum 5 according to the edition of Mang-eu II, 521, Jos. Flav. Ant. XVIII, 6: 11; 7; 2). According to all data, it seems that the death of Herod V. was probably in the 4th year BC, but it is possible in the 3rd year. The following remark from Josephus may help resolve this doubt. The lunar eclipse happened at a time when Herod V., being in Jericho during his last illness, felt better. But he again became worse, and was transported to the baths of Callirhoe, on the other side of the Dead Sea; and when nothing helped here, he was transported back to Jericho - and here, as the last whim of tyranny, he called to his bed all the noble Jews of Palestine, planning to order that they should all be killed at the moment of his death. Then the long-awaited permission came from Emperor Augustus to execute Antipater and was immediately carried out; five days after this the king himself died. The funeral rites lasted a week, and soon after this the Easter holiday was “already near” (Ant. XVII, 6; 4–9; 3). But the only lunar eclipses visible in Palestine during 5–3 BC were on March 23 and September 15. in the 5th year and March 12–13 in the 4th year BC. But it is unlikely that the above events could be extended beyond 12 or 13 months (from March 12, 4 to March 31 - Easter - 3 BC), and therefore the year 3 BC. cannot be the year of the death of Herod V. If, on the other hand, one month is also insufficient for these events, as 12 months is too much time, then the intended eclipse could be the September eclipse in 5 BC: - then the death of the king falls at a time six months after that, around March 4 BC. The Nativity of Christ, it must be assumed, not only happened before the death of Herod V., but, as can be seen from the narrative of Ev. Matthew, some time before; because the age set for infants subject to beating is the same as the journey of St. families to Egypt are inclined to such a conclusion, even if we admit that in the first case Herod V. rather set the age too high (two years), and in the second - that the Evangelist Luke is silent about this flight. It appears that the Nativity of Christ could have taken place a year, 2 or even 3 years before the death of Herod V. - in 5–7 BC. (according to our era). Keppler’s astronomical assumptions agree with a longer interval (7 years BC) that the star Matt. 2:2 was a confluence of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which happened in the constellation Pisces in May, October and December 7 BC. The statement of the medieval Jew Abarbanel that the confluence of these two planets in Pisces would be a sign of the coming of the Messiah may have been taken from ancient traditions known to the Chaldeans. On the other hand, they claim that the confluence of planets in 7 BC. was not at all so close that they could be mistaken for one star, but this hardly speaks much against Keppler's assumption. In any case, chronological conclusions cannot rest primarily on such a basis. b) St. Luke dates the Nativity of Christ by the general census, which was ordered by Augustus and carried out in Syria by the legate Quirinius (2.2, αυτη [η] απογραφη πρωη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρνιου ). The term in brackets is omitted in the Greek lists B, D (and in fact in κ). This saying should not be translated as follows: “this was the first census (of those that were made) while Quirinius ruled Syria,” but the following. image: “this census was the first (of the entire series up to the present one) at the time of Quirinius, etc.”; so does Clement of Alexandria: οτε πρωτον εκελευσαν απογραφας γενεθαι (Strom. I, 21, 147, p. 407 according to the Pottera edition). The famous census, for which Quirinius was sent, took place 10 years or more A.D., when Judea, after the expulsion of Archelaus, in the year 6 A.D. Chr. became a Roman province; all this caused the rebellion of Judas the Gaulonite (Golan), or Galilean (Ant. XVII, 13: 5; XVIII, 1:1. Acts 5:37). But there is reason to believe that Quirinius is the name missing from the damaged inscription, which describes some ruler who twice ruled Syria during the reign of Augustus; in this case, another census can be assumed in his other reign - according to Ev. Luke. Time period from 9 or 10 BC. - until the death of Herod, V. is exhausted by the management in Syria of M. Titius, Sentius Saturninus and Quinctilius Varus. Var began to rule as the immediate successor of Saturninus - no later than the summer of 6 BC. (because his coins from the 25th year of the era from the battle of Actium were preserved: Sept. 31 BC), i.e. from September 7th year to September 6th year BC - and was in his position at the time of the death of Herod V. Following, either Quirinius left the service several years before Christmas, or arrived at the service after the Nativity of Christ (Ant. XVI, 8: 6; 9: 1; XVII, 5: 2; 9: 3; Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, according to the 2nd ed. p. 69 et seq.) 13. There is nothing incredible in the assumption that there was a census in Judea in 8–5 AD. BC About another vassal ruler, Archelaus of Cappadocia, Tacitus (Ann. VI, 41) mentions that he (Archelaus) carried out a census “according to the Roman model” during the reign of Tiberius. And if Herod V. himself also wanted to deliver information to his Master (and collecting information about the empire, including subordinate states, was Augustus’s favorite pastime), then we can believe that he covered his intentions with a form that was not offensive to the Jews, and thus, having avoided the unrest that happened during the later Roman census, he also avoided comments about this history. In this case, the testimony of Ev. Luke gives for the chronology of the Nativity Chr. only that it took place simultaneously with the census. c) Don’t ancient Christian legends help establish the date of the Nativity of Christ more accurately? Patriotic writers, in almost all cases where the date of Christ is indicated, apparently derive it from the date of Baptism, or Crucifixion; although it is not superfluous to note that the more ancient of them indicate the year of the Nativity much closer to 2–3 BC than Dionysius the Lesser, 4th century, the author of the present account of the Christian era (Irenaeus Haeg. 3; 21, 3 according to Massuet; Clement Al. Strom. 1, 21, p. 147; Tertullian Adv. Judaeos 8; Hippolytus on Daniel 4, ed. Bratke, p. 19). By the way, there is one random testimony of Tertullian, which remarkably serves to explain the bewilderment arising from the difficulty of connecting the name of Quirinius with the census around the Nativity of Christ. The Marcionites defended their docetic views, pointing to the Savior’s own words: “who are My mother and My brothers,” and saw in them the denial of all human kinship; the statement of the Jews: “your mother and your brothers stand outside,” in their opinion, was made only in order to “tempt” Christ. Tertullian reminds them (Adv. Marcionem 4, 19) “by the way” that the family of Christ can be easily recognized from the census that took place in Judaea during the reign of Augustus under Sentius Saturninus (census constat actos sub August o nune in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent). Of course, if Tertullian had said “Quirinius” here, he would only have repeated Ev. Luke; but instead of Quirinius he mentions his penultimate predecessor, who was the ruler around 9–6 BC. It is not clear whether Tertullian himself wants to connect this census with the Nativity of Christ; but the essence of the matter is that the name of Saturninus (since it could hardly have been just a mistake instead of Quirinius Ev. Luke) comes from an independent authority - perhaps from the same one from which there is another mention of Saturninus in Tert, de Pallio, 1. In general, in terms of reliability, Tertullian is incomparably lower than Ev. Luke; but a Roman lawyer could have access to many sources 14 ; and it seems fair to believe that on this single occasion he was the first by good fortune to keep the true news. If we accept this amendment that the census took place when Saturninus was legate of Syria 15, then the census could not have been later than the time when Var succeeded him (Saturninus) - before half of 6 BC. or half of this year. The order of events according to Ev. Matthew allows a period of two or three years between the Nativity of Christ and the death of Herod; and the most consistent (with the events) date will be if the Christmas census is attributed to 7 or the beginning of 6 BC. Nothing precise is known about this; since patriotic evidence, interesting in itself, but too numerous to discuss here, does not lead to definite results. Suffice it to say that the oldest traditional date for the day of the Nativity of Christ is January 6th in the East, December 25th in the West. The oldest traces of the first date are noticeable in the celebration of January 6th, not as the day of the Nativity of Christ, but as the day of Epiphany - by the Gnostic Basilidians during the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1; 21, 147, p. 408), but the Gnostic tradition in this form has no value. Another date (December 25) is visible from Ippolitova’s recently found “Fourth Book on Daniel Avenue” (p. 19) and, probably, he derived it from March 25, which day, according to his “Chronicle”, is not only the day of the Crucifixion, but also the day of the Conception: γ ενεσις Χιστου together with παθος. Ev. Luke narrates (3:23) that Jesus Christ was about 30 years old at the time of Baptism: τριάκοντα. The word ἀρχ ό μενος does not serve to designate age, as the oldest known interpreters, represented by the Valentinians of the Ptolemaic school, believed (Irenaeus 2, 22: 5: ad baptismum venit nondum qui triginta annos suppleverat, sed qui inciperet esse tamquam triginta annorum; also Epiphanius, Haer, LI, 16: τριάκοντα μεν ετων , αλλ ου πληρης διο λεγει Αρχομενος ). Rather, it means "just beginning one's ministry" (entering one's... ministry); for such special use αρχεσθαι cf. Onion. 23:5: ἀρξάμενος ἀπο τῆς Γαλιλα ί ας; Acts 1:22: ἀρξάμενος ἀπο τοῦ βαπτ ί σματος Ἰ ωάννου; Acts 10:37 : ἀρξάμενος ἀπο τῆς Γαλιλα ί ας μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐκ ή ρυξεν Ἰ ωάννης. In fact, the chronological indications are limited to the words: ὡ σεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα and these words are given such a meaning that the Savior expected the fulfillment of 30 years, as the age required for teaching. But it seems that Jewish views did not attribute any special significance to this particular age - exactly 30 years old. If the minimum age for Levitical service was originally 30 years (against Numbers 4:3, 47 according to Hebrews, 1 Chronicles 23:3 see Numbers 4:3, 47 to 62 and 8:24, where the age is 25 years), then this age was reduced to 20 years by the time of the book. Paralip. (1 Chron. 23:24, 27), where this change is attributed to David. On the other hand, if there was any official age for teaching, it was not 30, but 40 years old; see treatise Aboda Zara in Vav. Talmud (according to Francofurt. 1715, fol. 19. b in Shoettgen on Luke 3:23): Ad quondam vero aetatis momentum exspectandum est antequam vir doctus alios docere possit? Answer: Ad exactos annos quadraginta. Similarly, Irenaeus (2; 22:4, 5) contrasts: prima indoles juvenis at 30 years and magistri perfectam aetatem, which is 40 years. And the age of 30 years for various degrees of the Christian priesthood comes, without a doubt, from the testimony of Ev. Luke; so especially according to the 11th rule of the Neocaesarea Council. This means that there is no basis for the expression of Ev. Luke must be understood either as follows: “when you have not yet turned 30 years old,” or: “at the moment of reaching teacher age - 30 years old.” This phrase is flexible and can indicate an age from 28 to 32 years. Counting from R. Chr. in 6–7 years, - the probable limit for the date of Baptism can be set in 22–27 AD. This conclusion must now be verified by comparison with direct evidence in favor of such a date. The Gospels indicate the final limit (terminus ad quem) by mentioning the next Easter soon after this in connection with the years of construction of the church (John 2:20) - they also indicate the initial limit (teminus a quo) by mentioning at the beginning of John’s ministry the years of Tiberius (Luke 3:1). a) In. 2:20: the Jews say in their debate with the Savior, bearing in mind not that the Herodian church took 46 years to build (counting from the beginning to the end of it in some past time), for the church was just finished when the uprising of the Jews began (Joseph. Fl. Ant. XX; 9: 7), - but that at the time of the conversation the church had already been under construction for 46 years (the aorist here is completely parallel to that used in the phrase about the church of Ezra in 1Ezra 5:16: ἀπο τ ό τε ἕ ως τοῦ νῦν ᾠ κοδομ ή θη καὶ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη hitherto it was in the period of construction and not yet finished). The construction of the church was started by Herod V. according to V. J. (I, 21, 1) in the 15th, and according to Ant. (XV, 9: 1) in the 18th year of his reign; and since Josephus Flavius ​​in both books considers the duration of Herod’s reign according to a double calculation: referring the beginning of the de jure reign to 40 BC, and the beginning of the de facto reign to 37, then a clear resolution of the disagreement can be had by counting the 15th year from the last point, and the 18th from the first - in this case, the year of the beginning of the construction of the church will be the 23rd BC. But in reality, Josephus, when he indicates the date, inevitably considers it from the beginning of his de facto reign. So in “Antiquities” - in a book in which, according to the above hypothesis, the date of the beginning of the construction of the church is from 40 BC, - the battle of Actium (in September 31 BC) is considered to have taken place in the 7th year of the reign of Herod V.; Augustus's second visit to Syria, which occurred no earlier than 21 BC. (because it was ten years after the first, and this in turn was after the battle of Actium), dated to the 17th year of Herod V.; and the end of Caesarea is dated to the 92nd Olympiad (12–8 BC) and the 28th year of the reign of Herod V. (Ant. XV; 5: 2; 6: 7; XVI; 5: 1; V. J. I., 20, 4). From this we can see that the difference in testimony cannot be explained by double counting (the beginning of Herod’s reign), but should be attributed to an error in the book “On the War of Judas.” and correction in the Antiquities, so that the final date for Josephus will be the 18th year from 37 BC, or, in other words, 20–19 BC. and the Easter of the first year (the construction of Herod’s church) was probably in the year 19 BC, and the Easter of the 46th year was in the year 27 AD. Thus, according to the instructions of John. 2:20 – the latest date for Baptism is the first months of the year 27 AD. b) Luke. 3:1 : ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτ ῳ τῆς ἡγεμον ί ας Τιβερ ί ου Κα ί σαρος ... εγενετο ρημα Θεου επι Ιωανην. Counting from the death of Augustus on August 19. 14 AD, - the 15th year of Tiberius will be from August 28 to August 29 AD; so the Baptism of the Lord could hardly have happened before 29 A.D. Even if the 2nd year of Tiberius is counted from January 1, 15 AD, then his 15th year will fall on the 28th, and such a year cannot be agreed with the results achieved in the first two sections of this article: with the chronology of the construction of the church, which was just discussed, and with the conclusions that will be established below by comparing the duration of the Savior’s earthly ministry with the date of the Crucifixion. Ev. Luke could have derived the date “15th year of Tiberius” for the beginning of the earthly ministry of the Savior from 29 A.D., which year, according to ancient traditions, was considered the year of the end of the ministry of Jesus Christ. But is it known with certainty what is meant by the 15th year of Tiberius? The modern reader is inclined to transfer to the first century his own views about hereditary monarchy, according to which the rights and privileges of each ruler pass to him at the time of the death of his predecessor - no earlier and no later. But the Roman Empire of Augustus was in reality hardly hereditary; in any case, she was not like that according to the law. The prerogatives of imperial power came - theoretically - from the various positions that he - the emperor - had, in the dating of events - both on coins and on inscriptions - he does not count the years of his reign, but the years of his consulate, his emperorship, the years of tribunician power. It is clear that Ev. Luke did not follow any of these official methods, because Tiberius was not consul more than 5 times, was not emperor more than 8, and his tribunician power, considered one of the main factors of imperial power, was already in its 16th year at the time of Augustus' death. There was no generally accepted literary device regarding this point (dating events by rulers). Contemporaries of Ev. Luke The Romans would probably have used the old system of dating events according to the consuls of each year; and the Eastern would use the account according to the Olympiads (from 776 BC), the era of Alexander V. (from 312 BC), the era of Sulla (from 85 BC) or the era of Actium (from September 31 BC). So, if Ev. Luke himself preferred to choose the count according to the years of the reign of the emperors; he did not have any established traditions about when to start counting; It has recently been pointed out (by Ramsey) that not long before the probable date of the writing of the Gospel, Titus was co-ruler in the empire with his father Vespasian, at the same time accepting the proconsulship and tribunician power, along with other signs of imperial dignity (July 1, 71 A.D.). According to Ramsey, the conditions of Luke's time could lead to the fact that the Evangelist noted a similar (to Titus) rise of Tiberius, who, by a special decree, already during the life of Augustus was given a position in the provinces equal to the senior emperor, so that provincial custom could take this moment as the starting point of his reign (Velleius Paterculus II, 121; Suetonius Tib. 21; cf. Bury, Student''s Roman Empire, pp. 54, Mommsen, Staatsrecht II, ed. 3, p. 1159, approx. 3). As for the exact year of this decree, authorities say differently; Most of them connect this decree with the granting of tribunician power for life in the 13th year AD, but there is no need to consider both events simultaneous, and Momsen, based on the context in Velleius, dates it to 2 years earlier - to the 11th AD. If this permission is possible (and it is not issued for more), then the various dates are brought to full agreement. The preaching of the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius, counting from the 11th year, will be in 25–26 AD. The Baptism of the Lord can be attributed to the year 26–27 and the first Easter of the earthly ministry of the Savior - at the same time, and the Easter of the 46th year of the construction of the church will be in the spring of 27 AD. a) The Gospel of Mark, the most prominent representative of the general synoptic tradition, contains few precise chronological indications; here events are connected with each other by vague expressions: “after this,” “in a few days,” “soon after this.” The general impression that the synoptic narratives apparently wanted to give (and at first they probably did) is that the period described was short. In the absence of other dates, two episodes are of particular significance, which, either in themselves or in reference to the surrounding environment, mark the seasons. Describing the feeding of 5,000 people, Ev. Mark adds the detail to the general legend that the greenery of early spring appeared (ἐπι τῷ χλωρῷ χ ό ρτῳ in Mark 6:39; cf. Matt. 14:15. Luke 9:12). And the plucking of the ears (Mk. 2:23 = Matt. 12:1. Luke 6:1) testifies that what was sown is ripe, but has not yet been harvested: - if it is barley, then the time will not be earlier than April, and if it is wheat, then no later than June (see R. Samuel in Wetstein on John 4:35). Thus, here in the spring, or early summer, Mk. Chapter 2 follows early spring Mk. 6, i.e. a period of one year; but a second year is also required by the events of Mark. 6:56–10:52, which also includes travel in the regions of Phenicia, Upper Galilee and Perea (7:24; 8:27; 10:1), which eliminates the possibility that the miracle of the 6th chapter and the Easter of the Crucifixion were one spring. This means, if only the order of events, although in general terms, is chronological, two years of the Savior’s ministry are already marked. True, our most ancient authority, Papias (in Eusebius T.I. III, 39), apparently denies this characteristic feature of Ev. Mark, saying that his facts are all accurate, but the same cannot be said about order (ακριβως εγραψεν ου μεντοι ταξει), but this probably only characterizes the lack of a pattern for history, such as in Ev. Luke gives remarks about travel to Jerusalem, and in Ev. John - remarks about Jewish holidays. From the beginning of the ministry in Galilee with Mark. 1:14 is narrated without interruption, the place of activity, the figures, the surrounding environment - all this is exclusively and only Galilean. So it goes up to Mk. 3:6. At this point a change takes place, and the wider area of ​​Palestine becomes the scene of activity. The listeners come not only from Galilee, but from Jerusalem, Judea, Idumea, Perea and Phenicia; the opposition was strengthened by scribes from the main city; Apostles were chosen for preaching the Gospel (Mark 3:8, 14, 22). In this section, in which the first two chapters mark the initial stage of the earthly ministry of the Savior, the nature of the teachings and the nature of the deeds agree with each other. Five miracles arouse the attention of the people and spread the glory of the Perfecter (1:21–2:12) - just as in the five episodes the teaching first arouses criticism and then the enmity of the scribes and Pharisees (2:1–3:6). The healing of the paralytic with the forgiveness of his sins, where the miracle itself excites the teaching, is a transition from the first half of the section to the second. The presence of development and progress is proof of the actual chronology of events. At least, the event of the beginning of the division, such as the plucking of ears of grain, actually happened, of course, before the event that followed after the great break (3:6), which was the feeding of 5000 people. It can be believed with greater certainty that the miracles of Chapter 6 could not have happened in the same spring as the Crucifixion. Therefore, these three dates: late spring of one year, early spring of another year and Easter of the third - may indicate, in the Gospel of Mark, at least two years of the earthly ministry of the Savior. On the other hand, one cannot think that the arrangement of events in each department is chronological; rather, we can believe that the Evangelist prefers the principle of grouping to the principle of chronological order. For example, although his general scheme in 1:14–3:6 follows from the natural conviction that some of the miracles which brought Christ to the attention of the people were preceded in time by hostility to doctrine - which might otherwise have gone unnoticed; - but it is hardly possible for all the miracles to be performed first, and then all the teaching to be proposed. In short, the possibility that the plucking event actually preceded all the events from 3:6 onward does not warrant the equal probability that it also preceded the events of 3:1–6, or that it followed the events of 1:21–2:22. Even if the sections are generally arranged chronologically, the events in them are undoubtedly presented in groups. b) Narration of Ev. Luke on the ministry of the Savior, in general, is clearly divided into two parts, of which the first (Luke 4:14–9:50) parallels the general traditions of other synoptics, while the second part (9:51–19:28) is for the most part completely special; This division corresponds to a (apparently methodical) indication of the places where the events took place, and this will help the historical order. In the first section, representing the Galilean ministry according to general synoptic traditions, the indicated localities (with one exception, and that is more apparent than real) are all Galilean: 4:14 - Galilee; Art. 16 – Nazareth; Art. 31 – Capernaum; 5:1 – Lake Gennesaret, 7:1 – Capernaum, v. 11 – Nain, 8:2 f. – Mary of Magdala and John, wife of Herod’s steward, v. 22:26 – Lake of Galilee with opposite shores. A mention is made, as in Ev. Mark, about the gathering of listeners from Judea, Jerusalem, Tire and Sidon, as well as the fact that the glory of Christ’s miracles spread throughout Judea and throughout the surrounding area (Luke 5:17; 6:17; 7:17). But nowhere did Christ leave Galilee, except for a single indication in Luke. 4:44 that He taught in the synagogues of the Jews: Ἰ ουδα ί ας ϗ V.S.L.Q.R. and others; Γαλιλαιας in textus receptus. Apologetic interests discovered here an unintentional coincidence with the Jewish ministry according to Ev. John, in reality - both in this and in other cases - Ev. Luke uses the word Judea in a broad sense, meaning: Palestine - in which sense this term is quite common in the New Testament and in general in the first century AD. When Ev. Luke wrote that the Roman province, although it included all of Palestine, except for upper Galilee, was still known only under the name of Judea. The features of use (of this word in such a broad sense) are noticeable in the writings of Ev. Luke (along with its use in the narrower sense of “Judea” as opposed to “Samaria” or “Galilee”); so, according to Acts. 26:20 – “Damascus and Jerusalem, the land of Judah and the Gentiles”; according to Acts 10:37 – “throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee”; a similar phrase in Luke. 23:5 et Wed. 6:17; 7:17: in each of these places, the name “all Judea” means Palestine. The phrase could be used in 4:44 in the sense of a general introduction to the ministry of the Savior - and, although it does not directly follow from this that the Savior was in Galilee all the time, it does not necessarily follow that He was outside its borders. Certain indications in the first half of the narrative are entirely Galilean. In sharp contrast to this, part two is special for Eva. Luke, - begins with the story of Jesus Christ, that when the days of His taking away (from the world) were approaching, “He desired to go to Jerusalem” (9:51: ἀναλ ή μψεως αὐτοῦ ). The same direction is constantly indicated in the remaining chapters. Christ travels through cities and villages, teaching and directing the way to Jerusalem (13:22); He passes between Samaria and Galilee on his way to Jerusalem (17:11); He ascends to Jerusalem (18:31), was near Jerusalem (19:31). It is clear that all these chapters, according to the Evangelist, depict a journey (though not necessarily in a direct direction) to Jerusalem, and the phrase about “the fulfillment of His days” cannot mean a period of time of more than a few months. There is also no reason to assume that, since the events of the second part are so limited in duration, the events of the first part, which occupy less space in the narrative, took place in a much larger period of time. There is even an assumption that Ev himself. Luke, like many of the readers of his Gospel, understood his recorded reference to the prophecy of Isaiah (61:2) “about the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:19) in relation specifically to one year of ministry. c) The Gospel of John differs from others in its careful listing of six chronological dates (of which five are Jewish holidays) between the time of Baptism and the Crucifixion. This accuracy and detailed recollections of the eyewitness must be attributed decisive significance, not to mention the fact that this very accuracy could consciously be aimed at (tacitly) correcting the impression erroneously deduced from the previous Gospel narratives. 2:13: καὶ ἐγγύς ἦ ν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰ ουδα ί ων καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱ εροσ ό λυμα ὁ Ἰ ησοῦς . 23: ὡ ς δὲ ἦ ν ἐν τοῖς Ἱ εροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τ ῇ ἑορτ ῇ. 4:35: οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅ τι ἔτι τετράμην ό ς ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἔρχεται ἰδού λέγω ὑμῖν ἐπάρατε τούς ὀφθαλμούς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χ ώ ρας ὅ τι λευκα ί εἰσιν προς θερισμ ό ν . 5:1: μετὰ ταῦτα ἦ ν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰ ουδα ί ων καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰ ησοῦς εἰς Ἱ εροσ ό λυμα. 6:4: ἦ ν δὲ ἐγγύς τὸ πάσχα ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰ ουδα ί ων . 7:2: ἦ ν δὲ ἐγγύς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰ ουδα ί ων ἡ σκηνοπηγ ί α . 10:22: ἐγένετο τ ό τε τὰ ἐγκα ί νια ἐν τοῖς Ἱ εροσολύμοις . Of these evidences the first and last are clear in themselves. The second allows for a twofold explanation: - either the time of the harvest, or the time 4 months before that. Regarding the third testimony, there is not only a difference in readings (“holiday or this holiday”), but (whichever reading is accepted) there is also doubt as to what kind of holiday is actually meant here. The fourth instruction raises the question of which reading is correct, and the counting of years in the chronology of the Savior’s earthly ministry depends on the resolution of this question; and since this problem is both simpler and more important than the other two, it is best to start with it. 1) In. 6:4. If we keep the word τὸ πάσχα here, then in Ev. John mentions three Passovers (2:13; 6:4 and 11:55), so the Savior’s ministry lasted over 2 years. If these words are omitted, then the “Feast of the Jews,” which was “near,” can be recognized as the Feast of Tabernacles, marked “near” in 7:2: - in this case, the entire time of the Savior’s earthly ministry could have been in “one year”: 2:13, 23 Passover in March or April, 4:35 harvest in May, 5:1 - Pentecost in May, or early in June, or the Feast of Trumpets in September, 6:4; 7:2 Feast of Tabernacles in October, 10:22 Feast of Renewal in December, 11:55 – another Passover. Thinking that the latter reading brings the four Gospels into agreement with each other and with the ancient extra-canonical traditions, it was first defended by Henry Browne in the Ordo Saeclorum (London 1844), and then with greater caution by Hort in his detailed comment (on the Greek New Testament, Appendix, pp. 77-81). But any such assumption in favor of omitting τὸ πάσχα can be countered by the consideration that all known manuscripts of the original Greek and translations contain this phrase or preserve its meaning; and above it was shown that in Ev. Mark there is evidence against the earthly ministry of the Savior lasting only one year, and patriotic evidence is divided more evenly (between 1 and 3 years of Christ’s ministry) than the above-mentioned two writers allowed. In any case, the authority that Hort's writings enjoy makes it necessary to examine his arguments more accurately. It will be argued that the shorter reading α ) is unlikely to have belonged to St. John; β) in Hort's interpretation it does not fit the context and γ) is confirmed by direct evidence of only one father. α) If the word τὸ πάσχα is not considered original, in this case St. John wrote simply: “ἐγγύς ἦ ν η ἑορτ ῇ τῶν Ἰ ουδα ί ων” and it is assumed that he means to indicate the “Feast of Tabernacles” as more than all others the actual “Feast” of the Jews. No doubt, in the Old Testament and even as late as the time of the Mishnah, the word "feast" was used to designate the Feast of Tabernacles (see Cheyne on Isa. 30:29). But even if we recognize the special significance of the Feast of Tabernacles 16, why does St. John, as a Jew, could have used this phrase himself; does it follow from this that he used this phrase in this exact sense in his writing for pagan Christians? For them, Easter and Pentecost were associated with gospel events, while the Feast of Tabernacles reminded them only of the Old Testament law. The phrase “feast” could rather only indicate to them the “feast” of the Passover, as the similar or even more vague phrase 5:1 indicated it for Irenaeus. The evangelist, who usually means by the word “Jews” the enemies of Christ, was hardly so attached to Jewish custom as to use a reciprocal expression that could have one meaning for him, and another for his Ephesian disciples. β ) The context of the speech says the same thing. First of all, the abundance of grass indicates spring, not autumn (John 6:10: πολύς and χλωρῷ in Mark 6:39 on the same occasion). Further: “after this Jesus walked through Galilee” (John 7:1: περιεπάτει), and, however, according to Hort’s hypothesis, this holiday, which was already close according to 6:4, was still only approaching according to 7:2: – ἐγγύς in both cases. γ ) 4 patriotic evidence in favor of the pass, cited by Brown and Hort - Irenaeus, a heretical sect described by Epiphanius and called by him "Alogi". Origen and Cyril of Alexandria - can be reduced to one thing - the testimony of Origen. Irenaeus criticizes the Gnostic theory of the one-year ministry of the Savior by comparing it with Ev. John, in which he finds that the Savior ascended to Jerusalem after Baptism on three Easter days: the first time after the miracle at Cana, the second time when He healed the paralytic, and the third time at the Crucifixion (Haer. II, 22, 3). It is said that this father so desired to increase the number of Easter feasts that he included an unnamed feast among them, 5:1; therefore they say that it is incredible that he would not have noted such a clear case as 6:4, if the word "passover" had been here in his text. In fact, Irenaeus wanted to quote only those Passovers at which Christ was (quoties secundum tempus paschae Dominus post baptisma ascenderit in Hierusalem), and for this purpose he describes in detail the journeys there and back. He does not even try to list exactly all the Passovers, since he thinks to prove that the Savior’s ministry lasted 10 years or more. The Alogians, according to Epiphanius (Haer. LI, 22), rejected the Gospel of John as disagreeing with others, among other things, on the grounds that instead of one Easter it indicated the celebration of two. For the sake of their views, they could, according to Epiphanius, further strengthen the disagreement (Ev. John - with other Gospels), pointing out that in this Gospel not only two, but three Easters are mentioned. Here the answer is again that Ev. John does not speak of “observing” more than two Passover festivals by traveling to Jerusalem for them. In Origen's commentary on Ev. John lacks comments on chapters 5–7. But in the explanation of 4:35 (torn. XIII, 39. 41) against the view of the Valentinian commentator Heracleon, that 4 months had passed from the time of the main harvest and that, therefore, now the time was winter, Origen asserts two events: 1) and the time of the actual harvest on the basis of events in further chapters, where 4:35 is followed almost immediately by the holiday 5:1 and 2) the holiday 5:1 mentioning that the Feast of Tabernacles “was now at hand” (John 6:4 or 7:2?). The reasoning clearly indicates that there is no intervening Passover 6:4; and although it is possible, in view of the loss of commentary on these very verses, to attribute this to a simple oversight, the omission of τὸ πάσχα in Origen’s text is more likely based on the evidence of his follower Cyril Al., whose testimony is given as the 4th and last. The commentary of Cyril of Alexandria, like many other later fathers, presents a composition: his own work is fused with that of his predecessors, especially Origen. Therefore, if Kirill Al. (after ed. Pusey I, 398, 399, 404) places the controversial again τὸ πάσχα. not only in the biblical text at the beginning of the section (where, no doubt, the scribes were inclined to place the more famous reading), but also in two references in an earlier paragraph, and at the same time explains the removal of the Savior beyond the Lake of Galilee (John 6:1) by the desire to avoid the crowd, which, in view of the approach of the feast (not the Passover, but) of tabernacles, will be drawn to Jerusalem; – then the simplest explanation would be to assume that the words τὸ πάσχα were actually in Cyril Al.’s own text, and that the connection of the removal beyond Lake Galilee with the Feast of Tabernacles is a repetition of Origen. Thus, of the 4 testimonies of Hort, two: Irinea and Alogov are not at all relevant to the issue under discussion, and the testimony of Cyril Al., insofar as it speaks against the indicated words, apparently turns into the testimony of Origen. But it is much easier to assume that Origen either deliberately changed or completely missed the remark, which he found in disagreement with the ancient views about the one-year ministry of the Savior, than to admit that he alone preserved the apostolic text, despite the disagreement with this of all other authorities. Neither internal nor external evidence suggests that the omission of the Passover reference in 6:4 was original or genuine. Therefore, the Fourth Gospel excludes the possibility of recognizing less than two years of the Savior’s ministry. The result of this is a completely simple chronology for the second half of the Gospel. From 6:4 to 11:55 the interval is exactly a year, during which the autumn Feast of Tabernacles and the winter Feast of Renewal are indicated (7:2 and 10:2). The earlier chapters, from 2:13 to 6:4, present a more difficult problem, the solution of which depends mainly on the meaning of the expressions about the season in 4:35 and about the festival in 5:1. 2) In. 4:35. Here reference is made to two seasons: the period of 4 months after the harvest (“Don’t you say that there are still four months, and the harvest will come?”) and the time of the harvest itself 17: (“look at the fields, how they turned white and are ripe for the harvest”). Of these expressions, of course, only one can be taken literally; – question: which one? Patriotic explanations of this place show that the difficulty was felt from the very beginning. The oldest known commentator, the Valentinian Heracleon, “like most, explained literally and said that the material harvest was four months away, but the harvest of which the Savior spoke, the harvest of souls, was ready and ripe.” Origen answers that it was rather the middle or end of the harvest time, because the connection of the narrative shows that it could not be winter. You cannot allow it, he says (Orig. in In.t. XIII, 39, 41), - so that as many as 8 or 9 months - from April to January, 7 passed after the Easter of the 2nd chapter, because in the gospel story there is nothing that would indicate a long period, and the impression made on the Galileans at this Easter (2nd chapter) was still alive in their minds when Christ, leaving Samaria, came to Galilee (4:35); equally, you cannot allow as much - from January to October - between this episode and the Feast of Tabernacles, which is mentioned shortly after this 18. It is impossible at present to directly reject any of these explanations as unacceptable in themselves. The words of the verse, especially ετι “4 more months,” will perhaps have a more natural meaning if we recognize that there were still 4 months left before the time of harvest. But on the other hand, the immediate context, the promise of water that should quench the thirst of all, is believed to point to a warmer time than January, since the conversations in Heb. John, as they say, are always adapted to the surrounding external environment. From this point of view, it is assumed that τετραμηνον is a proverbial phrase to denote the interval between sowing and harvest, and ουχ υμεις λεγετε stands instead of το λεγομενον, the usual expression for proverbs. In response to this, it is objected that this exact expression has not been preserved anywhere else, although phrases of similar meaning, expressing the interval between the time of preparation (sowing) and gathering, are common in all languages. They also say that by exact count the interval will be 6 months rather than 4; but the rabbis (see Wetstein to this verse) usually divided the year into 6 parts - 2 months each - sowing time, winter, spring, harvest, summer, vacation (time of rest of the earth), so that between the two parts (i.e. between sowing time and harvest) there are actually 4 months. If we also take into account the difference in climate in different parts of Palestine and the difference between the harvest time of barley and wheat, then it will not be impossible to assume that the intended interval could be depicted as either six months or four months. Origen, indeed, took the proper point of view when he made the comparison of this passage with the general chronological arrangement of the Gospel a decisive factor in determining a date which would otherwise have remained an open question. This comparison obliges, first of all, a discussion of the third and last dubious indication of time in John. 3) In. 5:1. Here there is a different reading of εορτη and η εορτη and a different explanation for each reading. η εορτη has already been discussed by us when discussing John. 6:4, when the word was found to indicate either the Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles, although the very existence of doubt as to the comparative superiority of the two feasts renders the use of the phrase—without much further explanation—invalid. εορτη - does not at all determine what kind of holiday it was. Origen and Epiphanius both argue correctly that uncertainty excludes Easter. The first (Orig. on John t. 13, 39) considers the holiday to be Pentecost (like his follower Cyril Al., although the text at the beginning of this section in his commentary has a member); the second (Epiph. Haer. LI, 21 according to ed. Dind.) chooses (vacillates) between Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles 19. - But just as the Feast of Tabernacles is important enough that, along with Passover, it could be meant by a definite η εορτη, - in exactly the same way, it - along with Passover - is too important to be designated by an indefinite εορτη, which expression should refer to one of the less important holidays: Pentecost (in May), Trumpets (in September), Renewal (in December) or Purim (in February). As for the two readings, the term is in ϗ CL Δ 1 – 118.33; Egypt, translations, in Eusebius Caesar., in the text of Cyril Al. (probably also in Irenaeus, for he considers the holiday to be Easter: see above on John 6:4), and the member is omitted in A.V.D., in Origev, Epiph., Zlat. and in the Easter Chronicle. The significance of external data favors the latter group, because it has behind it not only ancient, but also various evidence; Meanwhile, another reading is of a more private nature, originally purely Alexandrian and could easily have been due to the post-Nicene defenders of the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea for the sake of the theory that prevailed through him about the three-year ministry of the Savior with 4 Easters. And if we add the dubious nature of the word η εορτη on internal grounds, then εορτη without a member can be confidently considered an authentic Gospel text. So, the first half of John's Gospel indicates: 1) Easter (2:13, 23), 2) date of time - either May or January (4:35), 3) an unnamed minor holiday, 4) second Passover (6:4). These instructions can be adapted in more than one way to one year of service, for example, like this: α) Passover - May - a lesser holiday, Passover, or β) Passover - January, - Purim (in February) - Passover. But the shortest duration of the Savior’s ministry, deduced on the basis of Ev. John, is it also the greatest? If the comments about the time 2:13–6:4 are attributed to one year, and 6:4–11:55 to another, is it possible to prevent even greater duration? This is the decisive question. A negative answer is given by Irenaeus, the oldest in time and one of the most reliable of all existing patriotic authorities (Haer. II, 22: 3-6). Irenaeus immediately refutes the limitation of the Savior’s ministry to one year by indicating three trips to Jerusalem for the Easter holidays (see above on John 6:4); but he finds three other considerations in favor of the fact that the Savior’s ministry lasted much longer - not just a year, not even two, or three years. I) A priori. The Savior came to save and sanctify every age: infant, child, adolescence, youth and maturity, and to immediately be the perfect image and perfect mentor and teacher of all; and the Savior appears to them only after they have passed through all degrees of human life and serves as a teacher for them, not otherwise than having reached the age of teaching 20. II) Based on the Holy. Scriptures: Ev. John notes (8:57) how the Jews said about Christ that He could not see Abraham, since he was not yet 50 years old; - this phrase indicates that Christ was a little short of 50 years old and was over 40 years old, because for a person between 30 and 40 years old the objection would be this: you are not yet 40 years old. III) Based on legend. The elders (presbyters) who gathered around the elderly John during his long life in Asia, some of their disciples, as well as the disciples of other Apostles, all passed this on as apostolic teaching. Of these arguments, the first two are not of particular importance; but the third is a proof which can only be refuted by clear and numerous evidence to the contrary. Is there no way to explain or at least reduce the significance of this seemingly decisive reference to the tradition of John? In a later place (5, 33:3) Irenaeus makes a similar reference to the elders (presbyters) who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, and their testimony is presented as the teaching of the Lord about the thousand-year kingdom in such a section, which is presented as a written testimony of “Papius, the listener of John and the companion of Polycarp.” And since Pappius’s work was in the original “Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings,” it is legitimate to assume that the earlier section, containing a unique explanation of the text of John. 8:57, with reference to the authority of the elders - this section also refers to the authority and explanation of Papias alone and probably alone. But Papias had only antiquity for the exaggerated attention that Irenaeus showed him. And the writer of a “weak mind” (in the words of Eusebius), Papias was able to take to the extreme the meaning of the words of the Jewish co-questionnaires “you are not yet 50 years old,” meanwhile this expression was an argument a fortiori; it is even possible that Papias attributed the years “forty-six years” of the material church to the physical church of Christ. But although the theory extending the time of the Savior’s earthly ministry to 10 or 15 years is, on all grounds, unacceptable, it still does not follow from this that the addition of one or two years to the shortest duration indicated by the indicated Easters could not be accepted at all. At the same time, the general conclusion from the following 4 considerations seems to strongly argue against even such a deviation from the explanation of the narrative of Ev. John. α) No matter how far the patristic writers differ from one another in the count of the indicated paschas, they all, with the exception of Irenaeus (i.e. Papias), agreed in believing that, whatever their number, all the paschas are indicated. Origen, in his earlier writings, apparently counts no more than two Easters and, therefore, allocates only “a year and a few months” to the ministry of the Savior (De principiis 4, 5). If Eusebius and the Easter Chronicle find 4 Easters in the text, then they count the time of service from three to 4 years. If Jerome, Epiphanius and Apollinaris talk about three Easters, then they define the duration of the service as two years, or two years and several days. Of course, one cannot attribute too much importance to such agreement, for chronologists naturally strive to use their authorities as much as possible and draw conclusions even where the dates are weak or insufficient. However, in this case, patriotic writers do not seem to go against the intentions of the Evangelist John. β) After all, if St. John wrote with reference to the traditions of the earlier Gospels, and if one of his intentions was to supplement what they lacked by pointing out neglected facts, for example, in relation to the service in Judea or for the day of the Crucifixion, it is prudent to suppose that the numerous remarks about time, which divide his narrative into periods, were deliberately introduced in view of the uncertainty of the account of the weather forecasters, and thus to erase an erroneous conclusion regarding the duration of the service, which might already have spread. based on other Evangelists. The fact is that Ev. John mentions these Passovers and only so many of them - this fact can be taken as proof that there was no more Passover to which one could point. The two previous proofs do not depend on this or that number of pasoks according to Ev. John; and the following two proofs are based on the above results, that there were three Passovers, or at least no less than two, during the ministry of the Savior. γ) An ancient tradition dating back to the time of the Gnostics of the 2nd century and, perhaps, leading back to Ev. Luke, limits the time of the Savior's ministry to one year; therefore, every year added to the minimum of two years according to Ev. John, makes it more difficult to understand how this error (about one year of ministry) could have such ancient origins and such widespread distribution. δ) If the apparent shortness of time in which the events took place according to the weather forecasters could partly serve as the reason for the theory of the one-year ministry of the Savior, then almost the same rapid sequence of events is suggested by two instructions in the fourth Gospel, instructions that (if only not for the direct listing of holidays) apparently limit the ministry to an even shorter time than two years. 4:45: “The people of Galilee did not receive Him, seeing all that He did in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover” refers to 2:23: “And when He was in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, many, seeing the miracles that He did, believed in His name.” 7:21–23: “I have done one thing, and you all marvel...I healed every man on the Sabbath” refers to 5:1–9. Not only cannot there be a visit to Galilee between the narratives of 2:23 and 4:45 and a visit to Jerusalem between 6:1 and 7:21, but the intervals between these events must be comparatively very short: - eight or nine months is the extreme limit for the first, and since many miracles were performed during the first recorded visit to Jerusalem, the impression of the only miracle that is mentioned in 7:21-23 during the second visit could hardly remain with particular distinctness, if the interval between the first and second visits was much longer than we expected. Since the words of 7:21 were spoken at the Feast of Tabernacles and before it there was Passover according to 6:4, this serves as proof that the journey of 5:1 cannot be considered beyond the Feast of Purim (February). The general conclusion from these considerations gives the right to conclude that for the interval from In. 2:13, 23 BC 11:55 should count two years, and perhaps not more than two. Now it remains to be asked to what extent the results established on the basis of Ev. John, agree with the final conclusions based on Ev. Brand. a compared to c. The Gospel of Mark indicates, if the arrangement of events in it can be considered chronological, two years of the Savior’s ministry. Mark's second remark about the timing - the spring of the miracle of the feeding of 5000 people - is in complete agreement with John's remark on the same occasion that Easter is “near” (Mark 6:39 = John 6:4). Mark's first remark about plucking ears of grain (Mark 2:23) - if it is written in its place - belongs to the months immediately following the Passover. 2 chapters. It follows that the journey during which the Galileans accepted Christ (John 4:45), as the first visit to Galilee after John. 2, must precede Mark. 2:23, and the remark in Ev. John about the time of his stay in Samaria (John 4:35) should be attributed to the time between Easter and the episode of plucking the ears of grain, i.e. for the time of harvest. Very soon after Easter - since it takes time only for Nicodemus to visit the Lord - probably around April 20 (for Easter in the year 27 A.D. was April 11 or 12) Christ and His disciples left Jerusalem and were in the “land of Judea” while John the Baptist was still preaching; but the taking of John the Baptist into custody probably followed quickly and could have served as the real reason for the Savior’s departure through Samaria to Galilee precisely when, at least, the barley was already ripe, for example, around mid-May (John 3:22, 24; 4:1). “After John was betrayed, Jesus came into Galilee”: this is the description of this event in Mark. 1:14. Up to this point the chronological dates agree; the further difficulty concerns only whether 6 weeks (the longest period of time that can be allowed between the middle of May and the end of harvest time) is sufficient for the initial stages of the Galilean ministry up to the episode of plucking the ears. It was shown above that in its first section, Ev. Mark, obviously, groups events rather by objects than by time, so that a priori there is no reason against positing the episode of plucking ears of grain during and even before the bypass of the villages (κωμοπ ό λεις: 1, 38), of which there is almost only one and is clearly noted in this chapter. However, the entire initial Galilean ministry will be assimilated by this hypothesis in too short a time; for example, the double calling of the Apostles is more understandable when we assume that a sufficient chronological interval during which they returned to their original occupations elapsed between the return to Galilee in May and the second (and final) calling. But if an agreement is considered impossible, then one should abandon the recognition of the chronology of events in Mark, and not the limitation of the Savior’s ministry to two years. The episode of plucking the ears of grain must be placed in the second year of the ministry and placed after the miracle of feeding the 5,000 people. d) Thus, the most reliable results are established on the basis of the Gospels about the duration of the Savior’s ministry. Lack of space forces us to omit the section of evidence from antiquity - evidence that is less important than completely secondary and based on conclusions (sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect) from the Holy Scripture itself. Scriptures. Suffice it to say briefly that among the ante-Nicene writers there is against evidence in favor of one year of ministry of the Savior, the Ptolemaic Valentinians, Clement's homilies (17, 19), Clement Al. (Strom. I, 145. VI, 279), Julius Africanus (Routb, Rel. Sac. II, pp. 240. 306), the later works of Hippolytus (Easter cycle and chronicle) and the earlier works of Origen (on Lev. Horn. IX, 5; De princ. IV, 5) it is possible to exhibit evidence for the time of the Savior's ministry from two to 3 years of Melito (Routh, Rel. Sac. I, 121), Heracleon (judging by his explanation of John 4:35 about winter), Tatian (in the Diatessaron), Hippolytus (Fourth book on the Ave. Daniel) and Origen (S. Celsum II, 12; Comm. in Matt. XXIV, 15 and probably in the lost commentary on Isa. 24:1). None of the writers before Eusebius claimed that the Savior's ministry lasted from 3 to 4 years. 1) Dating according to officials: α) according to the ruler and β) according to the high priest. α) All the Gospels, not to mention the Acts and Pastoral Epistles, name Pilate (Pontius Pilate in Matt. 27:2, Acts 4:27, 1 Tim. 6:13) as the ruler (hegemon, procurator) before whom Christ was on trial. The period of his supervision is approximately indicated by Josephus (Antiqu. XVIII, II, 2. IV, 2). 1) Pilate was the successor of Valerius Grat, whose eleven years of ministry (since his entire ministry was under Tiberius) lasted at least until 25 AD. 2) Pilate left service after ten years and was on his way to Rome when Tiberius died in March 37 AD; therefore, he could hardly have arrived at his post in Palestine before 27 A.D., and according to Luke. 13:1; 23:12 (not to mention Luke 3:1) he was not just arrived at the time of the Crucifixion. Hence, the possible limits for the Passover of the Crucifixion will be the years 28–36 AD. β) Caiaphas is named High Priest in Matt. 26:3, 57, and in John. 11:49; 18:13, 24 it is marked so expressively that it is as if St. John corrects the less accurate message in Ev. Luke, who calls both Caiaphas and his predecessor Anna, who was deposed some time before, high priest (Luke 3:2: ἐπι ἀρχιερέως Ἅ ννα καὶ Καϊάφα, but in Acts 4:6 is called Anna, with the exception of Caiaphas: Ἅ ννας ὁ ἀρχιερεύς καὶ Καϊάφας ). Caiaphas was appointed during the time of Valerius Gratus before the procuratorship of Pilate. He was deposed by Vitellius, legate of Syria, while he was visiting Jerusalem on the feast of Easter, the year of which can be determined with certainty. 1) His successor Jonathan was deposed by the same Vitellius during another visit on one of the holidays of 37 AD, probably on the feast of Pentecost 21, for the news of the death of Tiberius on March 16 arrived at the same time; therefore, the deposition of Caiaphas was no later than Easter of the 36th year. 2) The death of Herod Philip in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius, 33-34 AD, is mentioned by Josephus a page or two after the news of the deposition of Caiaphas, with a fairly precise indication “at that time,” so that, if the order of events is correct, then the Easter of the 34th year is the final limit (terminus ad quern) for Caiaphas, and the Easter of the 33rd year. – for the Crucifixion (see Jos. Ant. XVIII, II, 2. IV, 3. V, 3). This means that the Crucifixion under Pilate and Caiaphas can hardly be outside the years 28–33. 2) Dating according to the calendar: α) day of the week; β) day of the (Jewish) month. α) Since the Resurrection of Christ is supposed to have happened on the first day of the week, on Sunday, then the Crucifixion, which happened on the third day (according to Jewish reckoning) before, was on Friday. No proof would have been needed for this if there had not been a strange assumption (Westcott in Introduction to the Study of the Gospels 2, addendum to rk. 6, p. 348) that the day of the Crucifixion was not Friday, but Thursday, based on the prediction that the Son of Man would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). But both tradition and the New Testament strongly speak against this assumption: 1) the fast of Wednesday and Friday goes back to such antiquity as the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” (8, 1); 2) the usual expression of N. 3. about the day of the Resurrection in comparison with the day of the Crucifixion is τ ῇ τρ ί τ ῃ (in the Gospels 8 times, and even in 1 Cor. 15:4), and in Greek it never means or cannot mean anything other than “the second day” or the day after tomorrow, or the day before evening (cf. Luke 13:32. Acts 27:18, 19; Ex. 19:10, 1Mac. Even the apparently stronger phrases μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας; (Mark 8:31. Matt. 27:63, 64) and τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας (Matthew 12:40) mean exactly the same thing; Wed Life 42:17, 18 : καὶ ἔθετο αὐτούς ἐν φυλακ ῇ ἡμέρας τρεῖς ε ἶ πεν δὲ αὐτοῖς τ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ τ ῇ τρ ί τ ῃ. Esther. 4:16: μὴ φάγητε μηδὲ π ί ητε ἐπι ἡμέρας τρεῖς νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, and in 5:1 (Vulgate 15:14) this expression is rendered as follows: καὶ ἐγεν ή θη ἐν τ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ τ ῇ τρ ί τ ῃ… περιεβάλετο τὴν δ ό ξαν αὐτῆς (see Field, Otium Norvicense III, p. 7). β ) But the day of the week must be connected with the day of the month before we achieve any further result. On what day of the (Jewish) month did the Crucifixion take place? – Easter was celebrated on the full moon of Nisan, the first month according to the Jewish church calendar, the months were lunar, beginning with the new moon; The time of the full moon falls approximately on the 15th day. On the 14th day, after noon, the Passover lamb was slain (Ex. 12:6 is explained in Iom. Flavius V. Jud.VI, IX. 3: απο ενατης ωρας μεχρις ενδεκατπς and in Philo according ed. Mangey II, 298: κατα μεσημβριαν εως εσπερας ); the lamb was eaten in the evening of the same (natural) day, but since for the Jews the day began at sunset, it was already on the 15th day of Nisan according to the calendar account. On the 16th day, the firstfruits of barley (the first sheaf) were lifted up, or “shaken” before the Lord (Lev. 23:11, 15. Josephus, Ant. Ill, X, 5). The entire Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted 7 days - from 15 to 21 inclusive. Was the Crucifixion written on the 14th or 15th, i.e. whether Easter was a few hours later or earlier (the Crucifixion), that was always the question. But for present purposes this is important only insofar as it could determine that in any of the possible years Friday could coincide with one and not the other of these two dates (the 14th or 15th of Nisan). However, the study of Jewish months often cannot be done with such accuracy that it is permissible to state a decisive formula: if Friday in a certain year is calculated on the 14th of Nisan, then it could not be on the 15th of Nisan, and vice versa. And the evidence in either direction (unlike most of the points considered) is found in considerable quantity in the available authorities (see in favor of the 14th Nisan: Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, ch. XII, or Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels 2, addendum to ch. VI; in favor of the 15th Nisan: Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah II, pp. 479-482; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, pp. XXXI, M'. Clellan, New Testament, pp. 473–494). Regarding the Gospels, there is no need to say more here that although the Gospel of John prima facie testifies for the 14th, and the synoptics for the 15th of Nisan, there are also indications in the synoptic narratives that confirm John's view (episodes of Simon of Cyrene and the taking down from the cross: Mark 15:21, 42, 46). Probably here, as in other places, repeatedly indicating that Easter will still “come” (13, 1: προ δε της εορτης του πασχα. 13, 29: αγορασον ων χρειαν 18, 28: ινα μη μιανθωσιν, αλλα φαγωσιν το πασχα, St. John had the intention of silently correcting the erroneous impression that was, or could have been, received from other narratives 22 . As for the decisive evidence from Christian antiquity, going back perhaps to the Apostle Paul, in favor of Nisan 14, see below, page 76. In what year, out of the already established limit 28–33, did Friday fall on the 14th of Nisan, taking into account the less probable date of the 15th of Nisan? The question is not as easy to resolve as it seems, because one can never be sure which day was considered the day of the new moon or the first of a given month, and it is also not always possible to be sure which month was considered Nissan, or the first of a given year. 1) How was the beginning of the Jewish month determined? Theoretically, no doubt, by simple observation. And since astronomers can calculate the exact time of any new moon, by adding a few hours (at least 30) so that the new month is visible, and by taking the first sunset after that, it is possible to find out when each month should have begun if the Jewish observations had been made carefully. But what happened when observations were impossible? Was the new month delayed so long while the nights were foggy? Did the Jews of the Diaspora in Babylon and Rome remain ignorant on what day the new moon began in Jerusalem? The empirical method must be determined by the constant rules of some calendar. At the very least, it can be recognized that with the average duration of the moon's circle being 29 1/2 days, not a single month could be less than 29 or more than 30 days. The table below (cf. Salmon, Introduction to N. T., approx. to reading XV; Mas Latrie, Tresor de Chronologie, p. 94) shows, firstly, the terminus paschalis or the 14th day of the Easter moon according to the present Christian calendar, secondly) the beginning of the 14th day, counting from the astronomical new moon of Nisan, and thirdly) The 14th day, counting from the first appearance of the new moon after sunset (it must be remembered that the Jewish day began in the evening). It is safe to assume that the 1st and 3rd columns represent the possible boundaries of each year, and from them it is immediately clear that Friday could not have been Nisan the 14th, or the 15th in the three years 28, 31 and 32: in each of these years, the 14th of Nisan falls on the days from Saturday to Monday or Tuesday, and for the 15th from Sunday to Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore, the required year should be looked for in one of the remaining ones - 29, 30 and 33rd. 2) But how can we be sure that the full moons indicated now were the full moons of Nisan, and not of any other month? Nisan was originally the circle of the moon (lunar month), before the middle of which the early ears of barley ripened (Deut. 16:9. Lev. 23:10); and when the previous month of Adar ended, and the early barley could not yet ripen for two weeks, then the 13th month of “veadar”, the second Adar, was inserted. But for both the months and the counting of the beginning of the year, a systematic calendar was soon to replace simple observations, because the "sojourners of the dispersion" could not visit Jerusalem at Passover unless they had previously known whether a 13th month would be inserted or not. Such a method, which was necessary to harmonize the lunar year with the solar year, exists in the well-known rule that the Easter full moon immediately follows the spring equinox. Since there is no trace of any other system of agreement, we must assume that this particular method existed before the Christian era 23 . But the vernal equinox itself - although its count varied within very short limits - was not completely definite. The account accepted by the entire Christian world, the account of the Alexandrians of the 4th century, recognizes March 21 as the day of the equinox. But Anatoly of Laodicea (see excerpt from κανονες του πασχα, 277 AD, in Eusebius Ts.I. 7, 32), attributing the first new moon of the first year of his cycle to the 26th Phamenoth = a. d. XI cal. arg. (11 days before the April calends) = March 22, says that the sun is then already in the fourth day of the first τμημα (or 1/12 of its annual circle from equinox to equinox); This means that he places the beginning of the last (or equinox) on March 19th. And according to the same evidence, some people, not paying attention to the boundaries of the equinox, mistakenly considered the month of Easter - one that was not in fact the first month of the year, but the last of the previous one - this is said by Anatoly directly against the testimony of the ancient Jewish authorities - Philo, Josephus, Musaeus and the even more ancient Agathobulus and Aristobulus. Who these people were, Anatoly does not say in the remaining passage. But the evidence of various writers of the 4th century. make it certain that these were Jews of his time. The district letter of Constantine V. in Nicaea dissuades from imitating the Jewish Passover, celebrated twice in one year; The “Apostolic Constitutions” recommend independence from the Jewish account and paying careful attention to the equinox, so that the holiday (Easter) does not happen “twice in one year,” i.e. once correct, exactly after the spring equinox, and once incorrect, just before the next one. And the Easter teaching of Pseudo-Chrysostom (387 AD) against modern Jews and their neglect of the day of the equinox appeals to their ancient sages: Philo, Josephus and others in expressions that seem borrowed directly from Anatolius (Socrates C.I. 1, 9; Apost. Post. 5, 17; Chrysostom according to the Benedictine ed. VIII, pp. 277; cf. also Haer. It is quite possible that the alleged error of the Jews was simply that they considered the equinox earlier than their Christian contemporaries, who were more familiar with astronomy; the result of this could be that sometimes the Jews celebrated Easter, while the Christians, believing that the equinox had not yet arrived, waited for the next full moon. In any case, the older the church Easter calculations are, the earlier the equinox is considered. Anatoly himself considers the equinox two days earlier than according to the Alexandrian account, just as Hippolytus, the first known author of the Christian circle (222 AD), counts one day earlier than Anatoly. It is possible that both Jews and Christians of ancient times considered the equinox even a day earlier than Hippolytus' 18th March. In the series of six years 28th to 33rd AD. there is one year, the 29th, in which the new moon of Nisan is given as late as April 2nd at 8 pm, and the 14th of Nisan is given as late as April 15–18; but the foregoing considerations show that if the new moon occurred in the early hours of March 4th, and the 14th fell on March 18-19, then this previous lunar revolution has an equal and even greater right to be considered the month of Nisan. In this case, the 14th, falling on March 18th, will actually be on Friday, which is why March 18th is the most likely date to choose. Of course, counting from the new moon phase after sunset gives the formula: Nisan 1 = March 6, and Nisan 14 = March 19. But it has already been noted (p. 67) that the space of observation even before the 29th year was replaced by calendar rules, and one of these rules, which could go back to the time of the earthly life of the Savior, was such that Adar never consisted of more than 29 days. Therefore, Nisan began a day earlier in relation to the new moon than if it followed a month of 30 days, so that this year the 1st of Nisan was more likely to be equal to the 5th of March. Suppose further that the equinox was reckoned one day earlier than that of Hippolytus, and two days earlier than that of Anatolius; then the 14th of Nisan will be equal to the 18th of March precisely in the year 29 A.D., and this is also in accordance with the final limits of the equinox. Thus, three years - 29, 30 and 33 - satisfy the Gospel evidence about the date of the Crucifixion. Now, in order to choose between them one, the real year of the Crucifixion, one must turn to other authorities. 1) Jewish dating. Although the evidence from these additional sources usually concerns Roman or other civil dates, the question of the day of the 14th or 15th of Nisan is definitely decided by a consistent chain of evidence from the 1st century to the 4th. The Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians around the time of Easter (5:8: ὥ στε ἑορτάζωμεν; cf. 16:8), and Easter symbolism underlies his references to the Crucifixion (5:7: ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην … καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστ ό ς ) and on Resurrection (15:20: νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγ ή γερται ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων ). On the days of Nisan 14th and 16th - the days of the Passover lamb and the bringing of the first fruits - the churches of the Apostle Paul, apparently, included memories of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. In the next century, the Quartodeciman (Quartermen), as their name indicates, celebrated the 14th of Nisan, and not the 15th, for the theory of the Tübingen school that the Johannine Churches observed the 14th of Nisan not as the day of the Crucifixion, but as the Last Supper, is too pre-occupied to be refuted. Certain evidence in favor of the 14th Nisan from the lost writings of the three "holy fathers of the church" is quoted in the "Easter Chronicle" (641 AD according to Ducange, pp. 6. 7). 1) Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis - around 180 AD. - in his περι του πασχα λογος accuses of ignorance of those who connected the 14th day not with the true Passover of the Lord, the Great Sacrifice, but with the Last Supper 24 and the Passion attributed to the 15th, referring to the authority of the Gospel of Matthew: - this point of view, according to him, is in contradiction with dilapidated law (apparently because the Paschal lamb served as the Old Testament prototype of Christ) and introduces disagreements between one another in the Gospels (obviously because the date of St. John is recognized as the 14th of Nisan). II) Clement of Alexandria, in the work bearing the same title, contrasts the years before the public ministry of Christ, when He ate the Passover lamb, with the year of His teaching, when He did not eat it, but suffered on the 14th of Nisan, Himself becoming the Passover lamb of God, and rose again on the 3rd day (16th), on which the law commanded the priests to offer sheaves of firstfruits. III) St. Hippolytus in his essays “On Easter” and “Against All Heresies” (which should be distinguished from the more extensive work “Refutation of All Heresies”, which was recently discovered) asserts that Christ ate the supper before Easter, but not the legalistic Easter: ουτος γαρ ην το Πασχα το προκεκηρυμενον και τελειουμενον τη ωρισμενη ημερα. Of the other ancient writers, Irenaeus (IV, x, 1) is hardly clear on this point, but Tertullian seems to indicate the 14th of Nisan (Adv. Jud. 8). Julius Africanus says quite definitely: προ δε της μιας του πασχα τα περι τον Σωτηρα συνεβη (Chronicon fr. 50 in Bouth, Rel. sac. II, 297). Even from the end of the 4th century. three writers can be named in favor of the same opinion; this is Epiphanius (Haer. 1, 2: Pseudo-Chrysostom (387 A.D.; Benedict, ed. VIII, Append., p. 281: The Crucifixion fulfills the law of Moses, that a lamb must be sacrificed between the evenings of the 14th of Nisan) and Julius Gilarian 25 (397 A.D.; De die paschae et rnensis XV in Galland. VIII, 748: the sacrifice of a lamb from the flock is replaced by the sacrifice of the Lord Christ Himself in Iuna XIV). Here we must also add Anonymous in the Catenas of Cramer (on Matt. p. 237) and Paul Orosius (History 7; 4, 15: darkness happened εν τη ιδ ημερα της σεληνης ; quartern decimam ea die lunam), as well as the "Easter Chronicle" and συντομος διηγησις, containing the Egyptian system. But at the same time, the opposite opinion, which first appeared in the 3rd century. (in the West Pseudo-Cyprian, Computus de pascha 243 AD according to the ed. Hartel'A III, 248, par. 9: manducavit pascha, par. 21: passus est luna XV; in the East Origen on Matthew XXVI, 17 according to the ed. Delarue III, 895: Jesus celebravit more Judaico pascha corporal iter... quoniam... factus est sub lege), began to take over. It is certain that St. Ambrose (episr. XXIII Dominis fratribus dilec- tissimis per Aemiliam constitutis about 386 according to R. Chr., ed. Benedict. II, 880 ff. and in Migne lat. XVI, col. 1026 sqq.), Chrysostom (for example, Conversations on Matthew LXXXII according to ed. Pield. II, 461: Easter replaced by the Eucharist, μετατιθεις τραπεζαν ), Proterius of Alexandria (to Pope Leo, 444 AD, printed under N-rum LXXXIII among the letters of Leo V. according to the edition of Ballerini: XIV luna rnensis primi... pascha manducans... sequenti die XV luna crucifigitur) and, probably, Theophilus of Alexandria (to Emperor Theodosius IV, 386 AD, in Galland. VII, 615: because, although in Greek it is τη τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαταια, but in Latin decima quinta - according to Ambrose and Proterius, which both apparently borrowed from Theophilus). This latter opinion seems to have originated from the use of the word yaaaha among the Synoptics: Origen, the most influential advocate of this opinion, directly refers to the text of Heb. Matthew. On the other hand, none of the earlier witnesses in favor of the 14th Nisan - with the exception of Apollinaris, a champion of the traditions of the Johannine churches of Asia Minor - appeals to Heb. John; rather, they represent an independent and decisive confirmation of the date of the fourth Gospel by the living voice of the original tradition. 2. The civil year can be identified either by the consulates or by the years of the emperor's reign; less often - according to the count from any special era, used in the East, like the Olympiad, or the era of Alexander (otherwise called Greek), from 312 to R. Chr. a) The most ancient authority, which apparently defines the Crucifixion by indicating a specific year, is the pagan chronicler Phlegon; his “chronological collection of the Olympiads” covers the period from the 1st year of the 1st Olympiad (776 BC) to the time of Hadrian (117–138 AD). General information about his work was given by Patriarch Photius (cod. 97), however, it did not extend beyond book 5, or around 170 BC. Photius summarizes the last chapter he read as an example of the style and content of the whole, concluding that “the reader becomes bored with lists of names and victories at the Olympic Games, unnecessary and unusual details regarding miracles and prophecies, which crowd out actual history.” Probably, this interest in the miraculous prompted Phlegon to mention the prediction of I. Christ, although his knowledge was so uncertain that he, if Origen’s expression is correctly understood, confused the personalities (or, perhaps, only the miracles) of I. Christ and Apostle. Peter (C.Cels. II, 14: συγχυθεις εν τοις περι Πετρου ως περι του Ιησου ). The most interesting thing about this writer for our purposes is that he notes, under the 4th year of the 202 Olympiad (32–33 AD), the darkness that accompanied the Crucifixion; however, it is difficult to establish the true words of Phlegon, for this evidence is gleaned from second or even third hands. I) The reference in the middle of the passage, quoted by Sincellus from the chronicle of Julius Africanus (fr. 50: Routh, Rel. sac. II, 297. 477), is (as Routh already found) probably an insertion, owing its origin to the fact that Sincellus brought there his memories from Eusebius. II) More ancient authentic references - two in Origen: S. Cels. II, 33 that Phlegon noted in the 13th or 14th book of his “chronicles” an eclipse that happened under Tiberius, and an earthquake at the same time; Comment. on Mt. 134 (according to ed. Delarue III, 922) that pagan opponents argued that the eclipse indicated in the Gospels 26 could not have happened on the full moon, for Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that happened under Tiberius, but not on the full moon. III) But although Phlegon does not mark the full moon with this exact word, Anonymous in Cramer’s “catenas” on Matt. (p. 237) - followed by pseudo-Origen on Matt. (see Routh, op. cit., p. 479) - claims that he spoke of the eclipse as a miracle, παραδοξως γεγονοτος, and Christian writers naturally understood by this “extraordinary” its coincidence with the full moon. IV) Further restoration of the text of Phlegon is possible from the “Chronicle” of Eusebius - according to its Armenian translation, in the Latin version of Jerome and according to quotes by G. Sincellus. “In the same year as the year of the Crucifixion, the following remark is also found among pagan historians: “the sun darkened, an earthquake occurred in Bithynia and most of Nicaea collapsed”; even more precisely, Phlegon, the famous chronologist of the Olympiads, notes in his 13th book, under the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (32–33 AD): “an eclipse of the sun more amazing than any known before, because it happened in the evening at the sixth hour, so that the stars were visible in the sky, and a great earthquake in Bithynia destroyed most of Nicaea.” It is obvious that these two quotations are dependent on one another; the first and more general (in expressions) seems to be an abbreviation of some intermediate writer from the same department of Phlegon, which is given directly and completely by Eusebius. That Phlegon here uses Christian sources (whether canonical Gospels or not) was obviously not intended by Eusebius or Origen, but the mention of the “sixth hour” leaves no doubt about it. However, it does not follow from this that he also borrowed the year itself from Christian sources, because a chronicler who does not find the exact date in his authorities is obliged to find it himself. After all, if he had attributed the signs of the Crucifixion simply to the 202nd Olympiad (29–33), Phlegon would not have been in conflict with other more ancient evidence. But if he definitely dates them to the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (33), he is the only witness to this before Eusebius. In this case, the most likely hypothesis is that Flegon did not know from Christian authorities (and from the Gospels, as they are, he could hardly have learned) moreover, that the Crucifixion happened in the last part of the reign of Tiberius, and he stopped at the date of 33 AD. because he could already have reason to attribute the Bithynia earthquake to this year. However, Eusebius found that the date of Phlegon surprisingly agrees with his own theory about the duration of the Savior’s ministry, and therefore his “Chronicle” dates the embassy of John the Baptist (according to Luke 3:1) to the 15th year of Tiberius, the beginning of the Savior’s ministry to the 16th, and the Passion to the 19th (33 AD) 27. The latter account is confirmed both by Sincellus: ετους ιθ της Τιβεριου βασιλειας, and by the Armenian translation of the Chronicle; Jerome, no doubt, because he considers the duration of the Savior’s ministry to be from 2 to 3 years, and not from 3 to 4 years, like Eusebius, replaces the 19th year of Tiberius here with the 18th. β) More important is the tradition (though not preserved by such an ancient authority as Phlegon, but by so many authorities that their common source must go back to ancient times), which relates the Crucifixion to the consulate of two Gemins, i.e. by the 15th or 16th year of Tiberius, or by 340 of the Greek era. L. Rubellius Geminus and S. Fufius (or Rufius, or Rufus, or Fusius) Geminus were consuls in 29 AD. The Seleucid era (= era of Alexander V., Greek era) begins from September 312 BC, why 340 will be from September 28th to September. 29 A.D. With all this, the same spring of 29 can be attributed, according to different accounts, either to the 15th or 16th year of Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus in August of the 14th year, so that, counting accurately, the Easter of the 15th year of his reign will be in the 29th year. But the years of the reigns of emperors could sometimes be adjusted to the calendar year (which corresponds to the consular terms from January 1 to December 31) by starting the counting of the second year of the reign from the first day of the 1st new year; Wed the practice of Trajan and his successors in commencing the 2nd year of tribunicia potestas on the anniversary of the day of consecration of new tribunes following their assumption of office (Lightfoot, Ignatius 1 P, 398). In this case, the 15th year will be equal to exactly the 28th year according to R. Chr., and the 16th = the 29th year according to R. Chr. Or again: the example of the chroniclers gives the right to assume that the opposite may be true, when part of the year is simply omitted, and the first year of each emperor begins on a specific day; so, for example, it will be shown (see below about the time of Felix and Festus) that Eusebius apparently begins the first year of each emperor in the month of September following his accession to the throne. Then both of the years shown - but the 15th year more naturally - correspond to the spring of the 29th year A.D. during the consulate of Gemini 28. I) Clement Alex. (Strom I, 147 according to Potter. I, 407): “with the 15th year of Tiberius and the 15th of Augustus, so that 30 years were completed before the Suffering, and from the Suffering to the destruction of Jerusalem 42 years 3 months.” II) Origen (Note on Jeremiah 14, 33, about 245, according to the edition of De-larue III, 217 and cf. Cels. IV, 22), - probably copying Clement - “if we examine the chronology of the Suffering and destruction of Jerusalem..., then from the 15th year of Tiberius to the destruction of the church there were 42 years.” III) Tertullian Adv. Jud. 8 (but the authorship is doubtful): “In the 15th year of the reign of (Tiberius) Christ suffered”; “suffering... under Caesar Tiberius, in the consulate of Rubellius Gerninus and Rufius (other Fufius) Geminus.” IV) Hippolytus in the earlier 4th book of Daniel (ed. Bratke, p. 19) gives two discordant dates - Tiberius the 18th year (= 31, 32 AD) and the consulate of "Rufus and Rubellio", the first date being, no doubt, from the combination of his theory of a three-year ministry (because he also says that Christ suffered on 33 year, loc. cit.) with the 15th year of Tiberius in Luke, and the last date was already traditional”; therefore, the 29th year according to R. Chr. one also appears in his other works. The Chronicle of Hippolytus (Chronica minora according to the ed. Mommsen'a I, 1, p. 131) counts 206 years from the Suffering to the 13th year of Alexander Severus (234–235 AD); Hippolytus's "Easter Circle" marks the 32nd year for the Year of Suffering, and this circle began in 222 BC. and was counted for 112 years: this means that the 32nd year will be equal to 253 or 141 BC, or 29 according to AD. V) Julius Africanus in Greek in Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica and Eclogae Propheticae, and in Syncellus (Routh, Rel. sac. II, pp. 301, 302, 304) - wrote: “Tiberias 16th”, and in Latin in Jerome (Commentary on Dan. according to the ed. Vallarsi V, 683): "Tiberias 15th"; but since all authorities agree on the equation of this date with the 2nd year of the 202nd Olympiad (= 30, 31 AD), then it can practically be considered reliable that the 16th year is correct. VI) Pseudo-Cyprian, Computus de Pascha, 20 (243 after P. Chr.; Hartel III, 267) dates the suffering of Christ to the 31st year of His age and to the 16th year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius. VII) Lactantium Div. inst. IV. X, 18: “in the 15th year of Tiberius, i.e. to the consulate of two Gemins"; Mort. pers. 2: “to the consulate of two Gemins.” VIII) The legend about Abgar, as contained in Eusebius T.I. I, 13, dates the Resurrection and the sermon about this by Thaddeus to the 340th year (i.e. according to the Greek calendar = 28, 29 AD). IX) Of other authorities, the apocryphal Gospel story called “The Acts of Pilate” deserves attention, but the whole value here depends on the date of composition and on the true reading in the chronology of the Crucifixion; both of these issues require fuller discussion. Date of the Acts of Pilate. Tischendorf, the later publisher (Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. 2, 1876, pp. 312–410), stands for the beginning of the 2nd century. Lipsius, a later critic (Die Pilatus-Acten 1886, pp. 33, 40) “not before the middle of the 4th century,” “probably in the reign of Julian (361–363).” A reference to these “Acts” regarding the day of the Crucifixion is found in Pseudo-Chrysostom (387 according to the ed. Bened. VIII, Arr., p. 277); also Epiphanius (376, Haer. I, 1) claims that certain Quartodecimanes always remembered the Suffering on March 25th according to these “Acts,” although he himself had a copy of them, where the date was given not March 25th, but March 18th. But if in 376 these Acts were considered the authority justifying a peculiar practice in Christendom, and if there were already differences in the text regarding the very subject for which the Acts were quoted, then no doubt they had a whole history behind them up to this time. Of course, it is not acceptable that the Acts were written for the first time under Julian. A much more probable assumption is that they are older than the lost “Acts”, published under the same title by the apostate Theoteknos (minister of the persecutor Maximin Daza), who probably borrowed the idea for his forgery from them. The fact that, as Lipsius has shown, the chronological preface, according to all existing authorities, bears clear features of the influence of Eusebius, does not further prove that these “Acts” - together with many other apocrypha - were subject to numerous alterations. The reasons on which Harnack (Chronologie, pp. 603–612) confirms Linsius are not at all convincing. On the other hand, the treatment of the charge εκ πορνειας γεγεννηται seems to strongly favor an older date; because if Theoteknus wanted to renew such slander (which is possible), then his Christian opponents would have used much stronger expressions regarding the ever-virginity of the Mother of the Lord than the existing “Acts” do. It is not implausible that the author was a 2nd century Palestinian with Ebionite tendencies. Chronology of the Acts of Pilate. The text of Tischendorf's prologue reads in translation as follows: “In the 15th year [so in 2 Greek. manuscripts; in the other two and in one of the two Armenian reviews (see Conybeare in Studia Biblica IV, Oxford 1896) the 18th is indicated; in Latin, another Armenian and, apparently, in Coptic, the 19th] reign of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor, and Herod, king of Galilee is indicated, in the 19th year of his reign, on the 8th day before the calends of April, which will be the 25th of March, in the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio, in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, when Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest of the Jews." It cannot be denied that the references to the 19th year of Tiberius, to Herod and his 19th year or the 4th year of the 202 Olympiad were borrowed from the Chronicle of Eusebius. But these dates could be due to later correction; and there are also other dates here: the 15th year of Tiberius, two Gemini, 25 or 18 March, which, of course, are not from Eusebius, although the consulate is as constant a factor in different versions as the year of Herod, or the Olympiads. Paying attention to how many vicissitudes all ancient Christian literature experienced, how exactly the apocryphal Gospels could be used to satisfy the need for the sacred. books during the Diocletian persecution, how easily each generation (especially since the imagination could not have a role in relation to the canonical records) could decorate such material with the latest illumination of it - taking all this into account, we cannot but recognize the plausible hypothesis that the “Eusebius” review influenced all existing copies, but two of them still betray by their mention of the “15th year of Tiberius” the remains of an uncorrected document at the very point in which, most likely, should have revealed the work of the editor. According to this view, the only original phrase is: “The 15th year of Tiberius, on the 8th day (more likely the 15th) before the Kalends of April, in the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio, under the high priest Joseph Caiaphas.” So, there are 9 ante-Nicene authorities, and 4 of them (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Acts of Pilate) point to the Gemini consulate; four (Clement Alex., Origen, Tertullian and the Acts of Pilate) - Tiberius 15th year, two (South Africanus and Pseudo-Cyprian) - Tiberius 16th. Five post-Nicene Western authorities in favor of the same opinion need only be listed: Liberian Chronicle (354 AD, Lightfoot, Clement I, 253): “in the time of Tiberius, in the consulate of the two Gemini, March 25”; Julius Gilarian, De mundi duratione XVI and De die paschae et mensis XV (both 397 A.D.; Galland. VIII 238, 748): “Tiberias 16th,” but in De mundi duratione XVII also: “369 years from the Passion (of Christ) to the consulate of Caesarius and Atticus” (397 A.D. Chronicle: Flavius Caesarius. Nonius Atticus Maximus), which, obviously, cannot be understood later than 29 AD; Sulpicius Severus, Chronica II, 27 (401): “Herod's 18th, in the consulship of Fufius Geminus and Rubellius Geminus,” where Herod's date must be taken from Jerome's version (378) of Eusebius's Chronicle; Augustine, De civ. Dei XVIII, 54: “to the consulate of the two Geminae, March 25”; Prosper of Aquitaine, Ghronicon (433; Chronica minora, ed. Mommsen I, II, p. 409) distinguishes: quidam ferunt, i.e. chronology of Jerome, from usitatior traditio: Tiberius 15th, in the consulate of the two Gemini. Thus, the Western Church, despite the authority of Jerome's Chronicle for the century 350-450, still adhered to the traditional date for the Crucifixion - the 29th year A.D. γ ) I. Of the comments that disagree with this date, the oldest after Phlegon, not counting the instructions of Hippolytus in the 18th year, since he left him, is again the indication in the pagan work “The Acts of Pilate” by Theoteknos. Eusebius (Ts.I. I, 9) saw sufficient evidence of forgery in the fact that these “Acts” attribute the Crucifixion to the 4th consulate of Tiberius, because this event falls only in the 7th year of his reign (21 AD), and Pilate could not even arrive in Judea until the 12th year (Tiberius’ reign). But Lipsius (1. p., p. 31) notes that the next closest consulate of Tiberius in 31 AD, although Eusebius is considered the 5th, in fact there is a 4th according to Fasti Idatiani (the common basis of the consular lists of Epiphanius and in the “Easter Chronicle”), so Theoteknos could, referring to the 4th consulate Tiberius, mean not the 21st, but the 31st year according to R. Chr. II) About the “Chronicle” of Eusebius, both in the original and III) in Jerome’s version, a remark is made in the speech on the testimony of Phlegon (pp. 80-82), but there is no need to talk about its followers. IV) Epiphanius (376; Haer. LI, 22-25) writes out in full the names of the consuls from his date for Christmas, January 2 BC, to his date for Epiphany November 28 AD. 29. Moreover, his public service continues for two full consulates, one of two Gemini, the second: Rufus and Rubellio, and ends only in the 3rd, Vinicins and Longinus Cassius. Obviously, wanting to get to March 31, he made a mistake - gross even for him - dividing into two one pair of the 29th year, Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, and thereby indicates in reality the time of the Crucifixion of the consuls of the 30th year. It is possible that behind this confusion there is a more ancient authority, who considered the ministry of Christ to be shorter and attributed the Passion to Vinicius and Longinus in the actual - 30th - year of their consulate. V) Paul Orosius (417; Hist. VII, 4. 13) for the Crucifixion indicates the year of Tiberius as the 17th, probably counting two years from Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. General summary of patriotic certificates of the civil year. A review of the evidence - from Phlegon to Epiphanius, from Tertullian to Augustine and Prosper - leads to the following general questions: I) is it possible a priori that tradition has preserved independent evidence about the date of the Crucifixion? II) If possible, are the dates indicated by tradition really true? I) Patriotic testimonies about the duration of Christ's ministry were omitted for lack of space, as unnecessary in view of the full news of the Gospels and as useless, based in the end on the Gospels; – is there any reason to believe that this is not the case here? - Yes; because the date, for example, of Christmas was known well only to a few, and the duration of the service was of too secondary importance to lay the basis for a constant tradition, while in relation to the date of the Passion the conditions are completely different and even unique. Here - in the opinion of all Christians from the beginning - was the turning point of world development; and the confession of the Church has always put ahead of everything the indication of the time “under Pontius Pilate” (see 1 Tim. 6:13: τοῦ μαρτυρ ή σαντος ἐπι P οντ ί ου P ιλάτου Ignatius, to Magn. 11 [with Lightfoot's remark]: εν καιρς ηγεμονις ; and in the ancient Roman symbol: τον επι Π . Therefore, it cannot be considered incredible that a more accurate dating by consuls or by the years of the reigns of emperors could have been imprinted at a time when it was still possible, and then in oral tradition or in lost documents it could have been preserved for generations until it appeared in the writings of the century of Tertullian - along with other news, no doubt ancient. II) But do the facts really confirm what a priori seems possible? When reviewing the evidence, did we encounter one that could have the right to be a date of this kind for the Crucifixion? Obviously, there is nothing like that, except for the 29th year (consulate of two Gemini = 15 Tiberius = ? 16 Tiberius); because if Phlegon's date of 32–33 had been the traditional one, it would certainly have appeared somewhere in the ante-Nicene Christian evidence; the date of Hippolytus (eventually abandoned by him) “the 18th year of Tiberius” depends simply on connecting the chronology of the Savior’s ministry according to Heb. John, with the testimony of Luke. 3:1; Theoteknus, if he really means the year 31, probably came to this conclusion in the same way; Eusebius builds on Phlegon and his explanation of Ev. John; The chronology of Epiphanius, even more than Eusebius, is independent of his predecessors. This quite easily clears the field of nasty theories; The only question is: to what early era does the evidence for the 29th year belong and how can this evidence be explained on the basis of other hypotheses than the one that here is the remnant of an independent and true tradition? The three oldest evidence for the consulate, which dating most obviously means the 29th year AD, are Tertullian, Hippolytus and the Acts of Pilate. Of these, at least, Hippolytus borrows from some earlier source, because (not knowing to what year this consulate actually belonged) he considers it to be contemporaneous with the 18th year of Tiberius. Further, Hippolytus and Tertullian are independent of each other, because the latter marks Gemini as Rubellius and Rufius, or Fufius, and the former (with the Acts of Pilate) erroneously as Rufus and Rubellio. On this basis, it can hardly be assumed that the common source was later than 150, and perhaps incomparably older. It is true that, apparently, Phlegon was unaware of this tradition, but there is no need to assume that it was widespread in the time of Hadrian, and, moreover, Phlegon was a pagan, and it is impossible that he was familiar with all the traditions of the Christian Church. But even assuming such an antiquity, can this year be considered as a derivation from the Gospels in the sense that the consulate is a secondary date, derived from the 15th year of Tiberius (the date of the Suffering according to Clement Al. and Origen), and that this date, in turn, was taken from Lk. 3, 1 ? This is also possible; although, of course, it is not easy to believe that noted in Ev. Luke, the simultaneity of the beginning of the ministry of the Baptist with a known year was assumed to be so broad as to relate to the entire period - not only to the time before the Baptism of I. Christ, but also as far back as His Passion. There is no doubt that the Ptolemaic Valentinians of the time of Irenaeus (Iren. I. I, 3; III, 1-3; II. XX, 1; XXI, 1) based their calculations on 30 years of the entire life of the Savior, which age in fact, according to the Gospels, is the age of the beginning of His ministry; but even they did not omit from counting the period of the ministry of John the Baptist alone. Thus, apparently, it is not beyond doubt, but it is possible and even very likely that reliable Christian tradition indicates the year of the Crucifixion as the 29th year A.D. and the consulate time of the two Geminis. 3) Finally, a brief overview of the evidence for the day of the civil month. Probably the oldest witnesses are the Basilians, mentioned by Clement Alex. (Strom. I, 147 according to Potter., p. 408), which show the date differently - 25 Phamenoth, 25 Pharmuthi and 19 Pharmuthi (March 21, April 20, April 14). For March 25th there is a larger and more significant group; in lat. language: Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8: mense Martio temporibus paschae die VIII catendarum Aprilium and for a. d. VIII cal. Apr. simply - Liberian catalog 354, Julius Gilarian, De die pasclme XV (Gnllandi VIII, 748), Augustine, De civ. Dei XVIII, 54, and the Martyrology of Jerome; in Greek: τη προ οκτω καλανδων Απριλλιων: Hippolyta Comment. on Dan. according to ed. Bratke, p. 19 (also παθος Χριστου in his Easter table is assigned to this day), in the Acts of Pilate - in accordance with the quarto decima in Epiphanius (Haeg. I, 1) and in accordance with Pseudo-Chrysostom (according to Benedict, ed. VIII, Arr., p. 277) - most of Tischendorf's manuscripts, confirmed by the Latin and Armenian versions, add ητις εστιν εικας πευπτη Μαρτιου : Φαμενωθ κθ , recorded in "Easter Chronicle" (ed. Ducangéa, pp. 224, 225). There are three certificates for March 23rd. Lactantius, Div. inst. IV. X, 18: ante diem decimum kalendarum Aprilium; mentioned in Epiphanius (1. p.) τινες δε τη προ δεκα καλανδων Απριλλιων and “Easter Chronicle” (op. cit., p. 221): τη κγ του Μαρτιου μηνος. And Epiphanius also saw the lists of the Acts of Pilate, where the 18th of March is indicated, while his own opinion is decisively inclined in favor of another date, the 20th of March (Haeg. I, 1): ετι δε ευρομεν αντιγραφα εκ των (read ) παθος γεγενησθαι ταληθη δε, ως εκ πολλης ακριβειας εγνωμεν, εν τη προ δεκατρι ϖ ν καλανδων Απριλλιων τον Σωτηρα πεπονθεναι κατειληφαμεν (cf. Haer. LI, 23). The first impression from this type of evidence is the unanimity with which (except for some of the Basilidians) Christian antiquity places the Crucifixion on a day no later than March 25th: the second is that - if we admit a confusion between πασχα σταυρωσιμον and πασχα αναστασιμον, - the dates of March 23rd and 25th and March 18th and 20th are consistent with each other and explain one another, i.e., if the 25th was considered the day not of the Crucifixion, but of the Resurrection, then the 23rd was the day of the Crucifixion, or in the same way vice versa: March 20th can be attributed to the Resurrection (with the Crucifixion on March 18th). Thus, having excluded three Basilidian dates, as, in all likelihood, a fantasy of the Gnostics, we are left with two pairs: March 18–20 and March 23–25; of these, the date of March 25th (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Acts of Pilate?, etc.), obviously has more ancient and better evidence than March 23rd (Lactantius, someone known to Epiphanius, “Easter Chronicle”), and March 18th (lists of the Acts of Pilate older than Epiphanius) takes precedence over the date of March 20th (the date of the Epiphany). But these extreme days, March 18th and 25th, are exactly a week apart from each other, which is why it is quite possible that one of them can be explained by a conscious replacement of the other. But which one? Regarding one of those two days for which there is more evidence - the day of March 25 - Dr. Salmon, in a remarkable article on Hippolytus (Dictionary of Christian Biography III, 92 b), expresses the opinion that the only source (of this date) is the Easter Circle of this writer, compiled about 221 A.D. Hippolytus here (very erroneously) admits that every 8 years the full moon again occurs on the same day of the solar month; and, accepting for the Crucifixion the traditional date of 29 AD, he naturally assumes that since the full moon of 221 actually happened on March 25, then the full moon in 29, i.e. 192, or 8x24 years earlier, should have happened on the same day. “But in reality there is a difference of a whole week, and the real day of this new moon [29] was March 18th. It will not be a mistake to assume that where the 25th of March is considered the day of Suffering, there the circle of Hippolytus serves as the basis for the calculation.” However, this theory of Dr. Salmon, simple and attractive in itself, hardly answers all parts of the question. The acceptance of the date of March 25th by many in both the East and West can be explained by the dual position of Hippolytus, the Greek writer in the West, but Tertullian's Adversus Judaeos (if genuine) and Hippolytus's own commentary on Daniel prevent the derivation of the March 25th date for the Day of Suffering from March 25th as the day of the full moon of the year 221. For the Montanistic writings of Tertullian begin around the year 200, and his entire literary activity was almost at its end by the year 220; This means that if the first part of the work Adversus Judaeos was actually written by Tertullian during the period of complete membership of the Church (Fuller in Diet, of Christ. Biorg. IV, 827 b), then its chronology could not be due to the Easter circle of the 221st year. In the same way, Hippolyta's "Fourth Book of Daniel" was undoubtedly written earlier than his Chronicle and Paschal Circle (Lightfoot, Cllement I, 302); and since for the Day of Suffering she also indicates the date of March 25th (from which date the date December 25th for Christmas was ultimately derived; see page 41), this is the second reason for attributing the origin of the legend about March 25th to the 2nd century. But Dr. Salmon says (see also table, p. 66) that the full moon of the 29th year A.D. It was not the 25th, but the 18th of March. But this is the very day that remains for discussion - precisely the day indicated in the copies of the Acts of Pilate, seen by Epiphanius. It is true that even in these very Acts the date of March 25th is confirmed by I) all existing manuscripts and versions; II) the Quartodecimani, who, according to the authority of these Acts, celebrated Easter regularly on the 25th of March; III) Pseudo-Chrysostom (in 387), who, on the basis of this very authority, accepts the date of March 25th as historical. Therefore, it is possible that the 18th is simply a random error, IE’ instead of H’ before the April calendars; but it is also possible that this is a genuine reading of the Acts of Pilate, deliberately changed at some early time, either because the date of the 25th was more popular, or because regarding the 18th of March there were increasingly suspicions that it fell before the equinox. And if this date is genuine in the Acts of Pilate, then this is indeed a curious and remarkable confirmation of the possible date for the Crucifixion: Friday the 14th of Nisan, 29 A.D. Of course, Dr. Salmon says (Ioc. cit.): “It is obvious that if the ancient reliable traditions had preserved the day of the lunar year on which the Lord suffered, the Church would not have bothered itself with the calculation of the Easter full moons.” But I) not all legends, authentic in reality, were necessarily known as such in ancient times; II) in the Easter circle, the Church had the goal of giving a system for calculating in advance, according to the dates of the solar year, a day that was not a day of the solar, but of the lunar circle. As Pseudo-Chrysostom clearly points out, the various dates in the chronology of the Crucifixion do not converge in an ordinary year; The Church could effectively establish the required time only by combining the elements of the solar year (equinox, as the first terminus a quo), the lunar year (full moon, as the second terminus a quo) and the day of the week (Friday). But if only the solar year were taken into account, then the full moon would necessarily have to be discarded, while the full moon was considered by all Christians to be essential for the proper Easter celebration 30 . Therefore, it is not unfair to believe that the lonely date preserved by Epiphanius also somewhat supports the possibility that the Crucifixion should be attributed to Friday, March 18, 29 AD. Conclusion. The individual results of the study of the five points or sides agree with each other beyond expectation, so that each in turn serves as new confirmation of the others. Christmas in 6–7 BC; the age of the Lord at Baptism was 30 years (more or less); Baptism in the year 26 (26–27); duration of service from 2 to 3 years; Crucifixion in 29 AD. These five branches, no doubt weak individually, together provide a solid and lasting support for the chronology of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Literature. For all the auxiliary chronological material underlying this subject in this article, Ideler, Handbuch der mathematis- chen und technischen Chronologie (two volumes, 1825) still remains the main one. Of the books more specifically devoted to the chronology of the life of Jesus Christ, especially mention should be made of b. m., about Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. der Evangelien and Caspari, Chron. And. geog. Einleit. The author of the present article—some points of which have been sketched in his former works: Patrisiic Evidence and the Gospel Chronology in the Church Quarterly Review for January 1892, pp. 390-415, and A Paschal Homily printed in the Works of St. Chrysostom in Studia Biblica II (Oxford 1890), pp. 130-149, - learned much and took much guidance, in some parts of his work, from three writers (though he differs from their general conclusions in each case): N. Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, London 1844; Horl on In. 6:4 в Westcott and Hort''s Greek Testament, 1881, App., стр. 77–81; R. A. Lipsius, Die Pilatus-Acten, Kiel 1886. The Apostolic Age here means the time from the Crucifixion (the 29th year, less likely the 30th year) until the destruction of Jerusalem. Без сомнения, некоторые новозаветные писания находятся вне этих границ; but regarding New Testament history it can be said that it ends with the great catastrophe of the year 70 AD. Chr. These first 40 years of Christian history, generally speaking, are associated with the works of the Apostles Peter and Paul and the main documents of this period are, on the one hand, their writings, and on the other hand, the book of Acts, each half of which is essentially dedicated to one of these two Apostles. But these writings do not have any known system in designating time; and chronology must be based, first of all, on the simultaneity of events - noted mainly in the book of Acts - with Jewish or Roman history, namely: 1) Rule of Aretha over Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32; cf. Acts 9:25); 2) The reign and death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1–23); 3) Famine under Claudius (Acts 11:28–30 = 12:25); 4) Proconsulate of Sergius Paul in Cyprus (Acts 13:7); 5) Expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius (Acts 18:2); 6) Proconsulate of Gallio in Achaia (Acts 18:12); 7) The reign of Herod Agrippa II and the marriage of his sister Drusilla to Felix (Acts 24:24 = 25:13; 26:32); 8) Procuratorship of Felix and Festus (Acts 21:38; 23:24; 24:10, 27); 9) Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6, 7); Two preliminary remarks are in order here. a) Imperial chronology. Augustus died on August 19, 14 AD, Tiberius died on March 16, 37; Kai Caligula died on January 24, 1941; Claudius died on October 13, 54; Nero died on June 9, 68. b) Sources for this period other than the New Testament writers. There are mainly three such sources: for Jewish circumstances - Josephus, Roman - Tacitus and Suetonius; and since they sometimes disagree with one another, it is important to determine their position and significance as historians. I) Tacitus, born no later and probably not much earlier than 54, wrote his last work, the Annals, containing the history of the empire from the death of Augustus to the death of Nero, at the end of the reign of Trajan, about 115 AD; but his work in its present form is incomplete, because it is missing ten years - 37-47, except for two shorter gaps in the years. 30 and 66–68. The materials at his disposal - at least regarding everything that happened in Rome - were quite sufficient, although his anti-imperialist tendencies could be uniquely reflected in the transmission of facts not only regarding emperors, but also their ministers or favorites. 2) Suetonius, 20 years younger than Tacitus, wrote “The Life of the Caesars” (from Julius Caesar to Domitian) under Hadrian, probably around the year 120. As this emperor's private secretary, he may have had ample intimate information regarding previous monarchs, the same information that distinguishes his anecdotal biographies from the more ambitious and correct history of Tacitus. 3) Josephus, the historian of Judaism, was more contemporary with the childhood of the Christian Church than Suetonius, or even Tacitus. Born in 37–38 and raised in Jerusalem, he left this city for three years to stay among the Essenes: in 53–56, his participation in the uprising of the Jews (he commanded in Galilee and was captured at Iotapata) did not prevent him from immediately going over to the side of the Romans or surrendering to the fates of Vespasian and Titus. His works: "The Jewish War" (written before 79) and "Antiquities" clearly reveal the author's intention - to present himself and his compatriots before the Romans in the most favorable light. On the other hand, the writer, enjoying imperial patronage in Rome, who spent most of the years we are discussing in Palestine, was in an unusually favorable position to know the facts accurately; and, except in those cases where his “tendencies” should be taken into account, his testimony cannot be ignored even when it contradicts the testimony of Tacitus. 1) Arefa in Damascus. This Arefa, the fourth among the Nabatean kings (about whose dynasty see E. Schurer-Gesch. d. jud. Volkes on the 3rd and 4th ed. vol. I, p. 726 ff.) reigned approximately from 9 BC. until 40 AD; the exact date is unknown, but it is certain: a) that he reigned for over 47 years, for there are inscriptions indicating his 48th year; c) that he died in the period between the death of Tiberius - which led to the end of the actions begun against him by order of this emperor by the legate of Syria Vitellius (Ant. XVIII, V, 1, 3) - and the middle of the reign of Claudius, when his successor Abijah found himself leading the war against Izatus of Adiabene (about 48 AD; Ant. XX, IV, 1). But Damascus did not belong to Nabatea and, without a doubt, was under direct Roman control in the years. 33–34 and 62–63, because there are Damascus coins of these years with images of Tiberius and Nero, without any indication of local kings, as was invariably the case in clientel states. Therefore, Damascus should have passed into the hands of Arefa after 33–34; if this had been achieved by force, then the empire would hardly have allowed the Nabataean line to reign unhindered until 106; and if by donation, then such a donor was, of course, not Tiberius, whose discord with Arethas was just mentioned, but Caligula, who, unlike Tiberius (see below the case of Herod Philip), encouraged dependent kingdoms in the East. [In this case, Tacitus’s silence can be explained by the fact that in the Annals there is an omission regarding the reign of Caligula.] Then the flight of the Apostle Paul from the regional ruler of Damascus, Arephas, could not have happened earlier than the middle of 37; in any case, not earlier than 34 years old. 2) The reign and death of Herod Agrippa I. The tetrarchy of Herod Philip (Luke 3:1) was after his death, around 33–34, annexed by Tiberius to the province of Syria, but a few days after the accession to the throne of Caligula (March 16, 37) it was transferred, along with the title of king, to Herod Agrippa (son of Aristobulus and grandson of Herod V.), who then lived in Rome; to this territory the tetrarchy of Antipas was added in 39–40, Judea, Samaria, and Abilenea upon the accession of Claudius, at the beginning of 41. Agrippa reigned in total, according to the “War of Judas,” for three years over the entire kingdom and three years over the tetrarchy; according to "Ancient" four years under Caligula, three over the tetrachy of Philip, and a fourth also over the tetrarchy of Antipas, and three under Claudius over all Palestine, and he died in the 7th year of his reign and the 54th year of his life. The disagreement concerns only the reign of Caligula. “Ancient,” a later and more complete work, is apparently more accurate, and “three years” under Claudius is indicated in the same way in both accounts. But “Antiquities,” as just indicated, also speak of the 7th year of the reign, which year (counting from the spring of 37) rather indicates the 43rd–44th year than just the 14th year. Against this we can refer to the coins of Agrippa, which apparently go back to the year 9 31; because even if (as is quite possible) the Jewish kings began counting the new year from the 1st Nisan of the year following their accession to the throne 32, then the 9th year could not begin before the 1st Nisan of the 44th year, and even then only if the mercy of Caligula preceded the 1st Nisan of the year 37, so that the 2nd year of Agrippa could already begin from that day. The coins themselves indicate the year 45 rather than 44. Josephus is more suitable to the last part of the year 43, and both of these dates most easily agree on the date: the 44th year after Nisan (B. J. II, XI, 6; Ant. XVIII: IV, 6; VI, 10; VII, 2. XIX: V, 1; VIII, 2). 3) Famine under Claudius. After the death of Agrippa, Judea was again turned into a procuratorate under the control of Cuspius Fadas. He intervened in the strife between the Jews of Perea and the city of Philadelphia, captured and executed the chief of the robbers, Folomeus, and from that time freed Judea from such unrest; then (τοτε) Cuspius Fad enters into disputes with the Jerusalem authorities regarding the storage of the high priestly robes 33. Around that time (κατα τουτον το καιρον) Helen, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izat converted to Judaism, and the history of this and the previous circumstances are set out in detail and added, as Helen, seeing that their kingdom was in peace and that even foreigners envied her son for enjoying divine patronage, she wished to visit the Temple of Jerusalem, and Izat prepared large gifts to donate there. Her arrival was very fortunately temporary, because famine was raging “at that very time” (κατα τον καιρον εκεινον). But Josephus does not say that all this happened under Fada. On the contrary, hitting the messages about what was contemporary with Fado, i.e. about the conversion of Helen and Izates, after long chapters (XX, 2. 3 and 4) he continues this distracting story, bringing the story of Adiabene to a time later than even the actual visit to Jerusalem. Only then, returning to Fado and describing the indignation and death of Theudas under him, Josephus continues that his successor was Tiberius Alexander, “during which a great famine occurred in Judea,” and Helena showed generosity. After Alexander, about whom nothing more is reported except the execution of the sons of Judas the Galilean, Cuman becomes the new procurator; in the 8th year of Claudius (48 AD), Herod, king of Chalcis, died. These last two events are indicated in reverse order in the “War of the Jews”: – “after the death of Herod of Chalcis, Claudius gives his kingdom to the younger Agrippa and Cuman becomes Alexander’s successor. “Both of these indications, in fact, consider the two changes to be simultaneous, so that Josephus places the arrival of Cuman, of course, in the year 48. This means that the entire time of the ministry of Fadas and Alexander was within the years 44–48, and since the number of events described during the first of them is much greater than during the second, Alexander could not arrive before, for example, the spring of 46. This is the terminus a quo for visiting Helena; and since she, apparently, did not hear anything about the famine before she was nailed, then this same time is the terminus a quo for the famine, meanwhile, the expressions of Josephus leave no doubt that there was a famine during the entire reign of this procurator. It is therefore possible that the famine should be attributed, or partially attributed, to the year 47; there is no doubt that even the earlier part of this crisis cannot be attributed to a time before 46 (Ant. XX.I, 1, 2. II, 1, 5. V, 1, 2; B. J. II. XII, 1). 4) Proconsulate of Sergius Paul in Cyprus. The name of this ruler is found on the Cypriot inscription επι Παυλου [ανθ] υπατου "in the proconsulate of Paul", but unfortunately without indicating any contemporary events by which the year could be determined. On the other hand, the dedication to Claudius in the renaming of the city of Curium in Cyprus by the proconsul JI. Annius Bassus “in accordance with the previously adopted decision of the proconsul Julius Cordas” was signed in the 12th year, i.e. reign of the emperor, or 52 AD. The time of Cordus's service, if (as may be supposed) he was the immediate successor of Bassus, dates back to the year 51, why in none of these years can there be room for the ministry of Sergius Paulus (Censola, Cyprus, p. 425; Boeckh, CIG. 2682). 5) The expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius is recorded by Suetonius (Claudius 25): Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit, but since the method of this writer was to group together events of a homogeneous nature in any reign, here too he has no indication of the date at all. Tacitus, whose Annals, however, were preserved only for the last seven years (47–54) of the reign of Claudius, says nothing about the Jews, although he, under the year 52, mentions the expulsion of astrologers from Italy as a measure “both cruel and invalid.” Paul Orosius, 417 (Hist. VII. VI, 15), is the oldest authority for the date - Claudius 9th year = 49 AD. Chr., and he quotes this as if from Josephus; but, in fact, Josephus, like Tacitus, does not mention not only the dates, but also the whole matter. There is also no reason to believe that Paulus Orosius had access directly to Josephus; the only other reference to it (VII. IX, 7) turns out to be a repetition from Jerome's Chronicle. It therefore remains doubtful whether the source of Paul Orosius in this case was reliable or not, [Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 68) assumes that all the dates of P. Orosius for the events under Claudius are shown a year earlier (which could easily have happened if he, for example, copied some chronologist like Eusebius, for whom the 1st year of Claudius begins not in January, but in September 41: see below, No. 8a), so this expulsion should rather be attributed to the year 50.] 6) The proconsulate of Gallio in Achaia should have been after the year 44, in which (Dio Cassius 24) this province, taken by Tiberius in the year 15 AD. into its own hands and governed thereafter with the help of legati pro proetore (αντιστρατηγοι), was returned to the power of the Senate and administration with the help of proconsuls (ανθυπατοι). Further, if Gallio was equally strongly and for the same number of years affected by the deprivation of favor of his famous brother Seneca, who only in 49 (Tacitus. Ann. XII, 8) was returned from exile, which lasted about 8 years, then in this case the initial limiting time will not be the 41st, but the 49th, or - rather (since the proconcourts entered into provincial government at the beginning of the year) - the 50th year. The difference in the method of appointment to imperial and senatorial provinces was that the emperor was completely free in his choice, while in the second respect, all officials of the non-office in Rome, ex-consuls and ex-praetors, naturally were applicants for the position of senatorial ruler; e.g. Dion (loc. cit.) describes this difference in the same way as between appointment and lot: ? However, it is quite possible that candidates undesirable to the government were either not admitted at all, or their applications were rendered unsuccessful by the voting system. In any case, even then Gallio entered service in Achaia no earlier than the year 44, and it is possible that not before the 49th or even the 50th year 34. 7) The reign of Herod Agrippa II and the marriage of Felix to Drusilla. This Agrippa, son of Herod Agrippa 1, was, on the death of his father, considered too young to succeed; but after the death of another Herod, his uncle, the king of Chalcis) in the 8th year of Claudius (48 AD), he received this possession, from which he, after completing 12 years of the reign of Claudius, i.e. Around the beginning of 53, he was moved to two tetrarchies - Philip and Lysanias, i.e. to the northern part of Palestine. Upon his assumption of a new position, Herod Agrippa II gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azis of Emesa, which husband she, after a short time (μετ ου πολυν χρονον), left for the sake of the Roman procurator Felix. Thus, if the order of events of Josephus is correct, then the appearance of St. The Apostle Paul before Felix and Drusilla, which was after (but not very long) Pentecost (Acts 20:16; 24:1, 24), could not have happened in 53, but happened no earlier than 54 AD. (Ant. XX. V, 2. VII, 12). 8) a. Felix's prosecutor's office. – The events that led to the deposition of the above-mentioned procurator Cuman (appointed in 48 AD) are reported in full by Josephus (Ant. XX.VI, 1-3) and more briefly by Tacitus 35. Two writers who generally agree about Koeman disagree greatly about Felix. Both claim similarly that quarrels arose between the Galileans and the Samaritans, which began (according to Josephus) due to an attack on the Galileans who were traveling to Jerusalem for one of the holidays. Both agree that Roman soldiers intervened; that the quarrel was reported to the legate of Syria Quadratus, who investigated the guilt of the Roman commanders in this matter; and that the end result was Koeman's sacking. Further, both agree on the date, since Tacitus records the events under the year 52, and Josephus mentions the dismissal of Cuman immediately before the remark on the fulfillment of the 12th year of the reign of Claudius, in January 53. On the other hand, Josephus, throughout the entire story, speaks of Cuman as the only ruler, without mentioning whether it was Galilee, Samaria, or Judea. Tacitus gives Cuman in Galilee and Felix in Samaria equal and parallel jurisdiction, but which of them ruled Judea proper is not stated directly (and in his source, probably, it is not indicated at all), but he apparently considers Felix to be such, whom he presents as jampridem Judaeae imppositus. Thus, according to Josephus, only Cuman the procurator was accused before Square and sent to the imperial court; and according to Tacitus, Cuman and Felix were equally involved in the case, but since Felix was the brother of Pallante, the favorite of the emperor and minister, the legate, in order to avoid condemnation of him, appointed Felix to the commission for the trial of his colleague, who was convicted then and there for the guilt of both. How can these differences be reconciled? This answer is not without direct significance for the chronology of the life of St. Apostle Paul (see below #8b). Let us concede to Tacitus that Felix had some position in Samaria of sufficient importance to be appointed as one of the judices for the trial of Cumanus. Of course, this is greatly confirmed by the message of Josephus that the high priest Jonathan often reminded Felix of the need for better management of Jewish affairs, so that Felix, whom the emperor sent as procurator to Judea at the request of Jonathan, would not incur the hatred of the people (Ant. XX. VIII, 5). Such a request from Jonathan for the appointment of Felix is ​​much more natural if Felix was known in Palestine. Some of the best new authorities (Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte Bd. V, 4-te Aufl. Berlin 1894, p. 525; Prosopografia imperii Romani saec. I, II, III, pars 1 edid. Elim. Krebs, Berolini 1897, p. 95; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 313) are entirely in favor of Tacita. But Josephus gives detailed information about the history of his own country during his lifetime, and it must be agreed with him that the rule of Cuman certainly was over Judea (in a close sense) with Jerusalem and that Felix was probably only his subordinate in Samaria. Prejudice against such a close relative of Pallantus inclined Tacitus, or his authority, to attribute to the earlier years of Felix something of the position and participation in the abuses of his later procuratorate. A third authority for the date of Felix's ministry is the Chronicle of Eusebius: an Armenian version, with some manuscripts of Jerome's translation, placing his arrival in the 11th year of Claudius; other Latin manuscripts - by the year 10. (In Jerome's Bodleian MS., this note begins on the 2nd of two lines allocated to the 10th year, continues through the two lines of the 11th year, and ends on the first line of the 12th year.) But how are these imperial years counted? Harnack (Chonologie, pp. 233-237) attaches such great importance to the testimony of Eusebius that this initial difficulty must be unraveled in some detail. Harnack himself (ibid., p. 234) and Lightfoot (eg, Biblical Essays, p. 223, note 2, but this treatise dates back to 1863) admit the number of years of each emperor from the day of his accession to the throne. But it is highly improbable that the Chronicle, where the counting is carried out successively from Abraham, would admit in the parallel columns of the imperial years a constantly changing system of counting; and if Titus, although he reigned three months of his 3rd year (June 79 - September 81), or Trajan, although he reigned six months of his 20th year (January 98 - August 117) are considered to have reigned - the first only two years, and the second only nineteen years, then it seems clear, as might be expected, that the years of the emperors are reckoned according to a more definite order. But two more questions remain to be resolved: 1) From what point does Eusebius count the new year? It is natural to think that from January 1st, from the beginning of the Roman consular year. But Eusebius lived in the east, and there the year almost usually begins around September. The Jewish civil year began in September; the ancient Attic lunar year - in July; the ancient Macedonian lunar year was in October. The calendars of Asia Minor in imperial times used Macedonian months, adapted to the solar year, counting the beginning of the year from September 23. The similar calendar of Syria used the same months and in the same way, but with this difference that each month was counted a month later, so that their year probably began at the end of October. The Alexandrian era began on August 29; the era of Alexander the Great was considered from September 312 BC. Indicts, an invention of the times of Eusebius, were considered, without a doubt, from September and, probably, from September 312 AD. The strong assumption that Eusebius conforms to such a general custom is confirmed by his use of the Olympiads in parallel, from year to year, with his own counting of years from Abraham, because the Olympiads began in the month of July, and in this case it was the year beginning on January 1 that did not coincide with the years of the Olympiads either in the first six or in the last six months. 2) Let us assume in this case that each year of Eusebius began in September of the Julian year; – Can this Julian year be determined accurately? The starting point of the Olympics is known: - July of the Julian year 776 BC; if, therefore, it is possible to establish a certain relationship between the Eusebius years from Abraham and the Olympiads, then the relationship between the Eusebius and Julian years will naturally be determined. Unfortunately, the two versions of the Chronicle are one year apart as to which year from Abraham parallels the 1st year of the 1st Olympiad; the Armenian version indicates 1240, and Jerome's version 1241, etc. That Jerome's version is more reliable is now - after the works of Hort and Lightfool - recognized even by those scholars who believed the Armenian text (for example, Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 113 ff.); and in this particular case, two synchronicities between the years of Tiberius and the Olympiads - one in the preface of the Chronicle (in Jerome), repeated by Eusebius himself in Praep. Evang. (X, 9. 1), another in the remark about the crucifixion (both in Jerome and in the Armenian translation) serves as confirmation of this. In the first case, the 15th year of Tiberius is considered simultaneous with Olympus. 201, or more fully in Praep. EJvang. – Happy 4th year of the 201st Olympiad; and in the “Chronicle” of Tiberius itself, the 15th = Abraham 2044 (according to Jerome and the Armenian translation) = the 4th year of the 201 Olympiad according to Jerome, but = the 1st year of the 202 Olympiad according to the Armenian version. In the second case, the date of the Crucifixion is confirmed by reference to the date of Phlegon: the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad; but Tiberias 19th year (which is undoubtedly the date of the Crucifixion in Eusebius; see above) = Abraham 2048 (according to Jerome and the Armenian version) = 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad according to Jerome, but = 1st year of the Olympiad according to the Armenian version. Therefore, it is obvious that the parallelism of the columns is correct in Jerome and erroneous in the Armenian version. The conclusion from this study is that, according to Eusebius, the 1st year of Tiberius = the 2nd 198th Olympiad (according to Jerome) = Sept. 14 to Sept. 15th AD; 1st year of Caligula = 1st year of the 204th Olympiad = Sept. 37 to Sept. according to R. Chronicle; 1st year of Claudius = 1st year of the 205th Olympiad (according to Jerome) = Sep. 41 to Sept. 42 AD; 1st year of Nero = 3rd 208th Olympiad (according to Jerome) = Sept. 55 to Sept. 56 R. Chr. Since in reality the days of accession to the throne of these kings were: August 16th. 19th year; 16th March 37; January 24, 41; October 13, 54, then a lasting result is obtained from this, namely that Eusebius begins counting the years of the emperors’ reigns from September following the day of their accession to the throne. Therefore, when he attributes the arrival of Felix to the 1st year of Claudius, he does not mean (as Harnack believes) the year from January 51 to January. '52, and from Sept. 51st to Sept. 52, and then this evidence not only does not contradict, but is completely in agreement with Tacitus and Josephus. b. Departure of Felix and arrival of Festus. Chronology of such a long period of the apostleship of St. Paul can be determined without difficulty if we count forward and backward precisely from his imprisonment in Caesarea, so that this date of Felix's departure is the most important in the series of simultaneous events in question. But there is no such difference of opinion about any of the simultaneous events; Moreover, different researchers indicate such different years as the 55th and 61st years. More generally accepted (Wieseler, Chron. des apost. Zeitalters, pp. 66–99; Lightoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 217–220; Schurer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes on 3rd and 4th ed., vol. 1, pp. 577–579, where the bibliography) refers to (61 or) 60, but not earlier; and several older writers, now supported by Harnack (op., p. 233 ff.), go back almost to the beginning of the reign of Nero = to the year 55 or 56. Blass (Acta Ar., pp. 21–24) leaves the question open, but is generally against the “accepted” view. Ramsay (see #9 below) changes the accepted date by one year, i.e. dates back to 59 AD. I) Evidence in favor of a later date, gg. 60 or 61. α) The Apostle Paul, during his imprisonment, two years before the recall of Felix, says that he “judged this people justly for many years” (Acts 24:10, 27: ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ὄντα σε κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ), which phrase cannot mean less than 6 or 7 years of procuratorship, i.e. from 52 to 58 or 59. But it has just been shown from Tacitus that Felix was in Samaria before he entered into office in Judea; and since it is natural that the purpose of the Apostle Paul was to express an opinion only about the experience of Felix, there was no need to distinguish too precisely between his present position as a procurator and his former position as a subordinate. Therefore, ετη πολλα can be counted from any point before the year 52 and, therefore, on the basis of them it is impossible to draw very definite conclusions. β) Josephus, having mentioned Nero’s accession to the throne, describes everything that happened under Felix: the death of Azis, king of Emesa; the management of Lesser Armenia by Aristobulus, the son of the Chalcidice king Herod, and a new increase in the possessions of Agrippa the Younger; the enmity between Felix and the high priest Jonathan, and the reign of terror which, after the murder of Jonathan, reigned at every festival; the appearance of various rogues and impostors, especially a certain Egyptian, and in the end a “great quarrel” between the Jews and Syrians living in Caesarea (Ant. XX. VIII, 4–8). They say that this long chain of events could not have happened in less than 5 or 6 years, i.e. from the day of Nero's accession to the throne, in October 54, until the 60th year - especially since the Egyptian uprising was already "before these days" (Acts 21:38) during the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul, two years after the end of Felix's service. But two considerations greatly undermine this evidence. 1) Josephus naturally groups everything he had to say regarding Palestine under Felix. That he does this about this after the remark about Nero’s accession to the throne does not mean that all the events described began only then, but that only most of Felix’s reign and its most remarkable events belonged to the new reign; and this could easily have been the case if Felix’s procuratorate began in 52 and if it did not end before 57 or 58. Josephus obviously did not have exact information regarding the last date, otherwise he would have indicated it, as he did in other cases. 2) Various events are not necessarily described in chronological order. Political affairs in Galilee or Chalkidice, increasing disorder in Jerusalem, disturbance in Palestine - could all happen at the same time. Even the indignation of the Egyptian is indicated not as the latest in a series of such events, but as the most striking example of the deceptions exerted on the minds of a strongly inclined population by deceivers of this kind; while others were leading their followers into the desert, with the promise of signs and wonders, this stranger from Egypt, about the same time (κατα τουτον το καιρον) arranged a pilgrimage to the Mount of Olives, in order from there to show how the walls of Jerusalem would fall at his word. If this uprising is generally attributed to the time under Nero, then the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul could not have been before Pentecost of the year 55, or - rather (if we give the full natural meaning to the words προ τουτων των ημερων) - before Pentecost of the year 56, and the recall of Felix before the summer of 57 or - better - 58 years old. It is now clear that the evidence used to confirm the “accepted date” of the year 60 does not provide this date, but rather points to a year not earlier than 58 or even not earlier than 57. Next, we should consider, in turn, the opposite side ii) evidence in favor of an earlier date, 55 or 56. α) Eusebius’ “Chronicle” places the arrival of Festus in the 2nd year of Nero, i.e., according to Harnack, to the year from October 55 to October 56, and Eusebius’s chronology of the procurators is probably borrowed from Julius Africanus (220 AD), who, through the essay “Jewish Gifts” by Josephus’s contemporary, Justus of Tiberias 36, or through personal research (since he lived in Palestine) had an excellent opportunity to know the facts. But the answer here can be twofold. 1) In any case, the real date of Eusebius, i.e. Nero 2nd = Sept. 56 – Sep. 57, about which see above. 2) Needless to say, historians tend to invent dates for unspecified events of historical interest; and since Festus's connection with the Apostle Paul did not allow a Christian to remain completely silent about him, it is possible that Eusebius (or Africanus) - if there were no usual sources - simply placed him exactly halfway between his predecessor Felix, 51-52, and his follower Albinus, 61-62. For the last procurator, Hessius Florus, Eusebius indicates the year of Nero 10th = Sept. 64 to Sept. 65 AD; This is quite consistent with the testimony of Josephus that the beginning of the war in August 66 was in the 12th year of Nero (i.e., according to the system of Josephus, from Oct. 65 to Oct. 66) and in the 2nd year of Florus (Ant. XX. XI, 1.). For Albinus, the penultimate procurator, Eusebius indicates the year of Nero 7th = from Sept. 61 to Sept. '62; and Josephus reports that Albinus had a certain vision on the Feast of Tabernacles, 4 years before the war, i.e. in Oct. 62 years (B. J. VI. V, 3), so the date of Eusebius, in any case, is the latest possible and, very likely, correct. β) Felix, during his recall, was accused before Nero by the noble Jews of Caesarea and “would, of course, have been condemned for his crimes against the Jews, if only his brother Pallant had not stood up for him, who at that time enjoyed Nero’s great favor” (Ant. XX. VIII, 9). But, according to Tacitus (Ann. XIII 14, 15), Pallant was dismissed from office not long before the day when Britannicus was 14 years old, and Britannicus was born shortly after the accession of his father, Claudius, around February 21. In this case, if the removal of Pallant from office was in January 55, and the trial of Felix preceded this, then the last event should have happened in the very first months of Nero’s reign, and Festus’s assumption of the post of procurator would take place in the summer of 54 under Claudius, meanwhile all this is completely inconsistent with other authorities. Harnack (op. cit., p. 238), on the basis of a confusion of methods in counting imperial years - a confusion that confuses even the best chronologists - suggests that Tacitus erroneously gave the Britannica the 14th year instead of the 15th, so that the whole history should be assigned to the 56th year instead of 55. But this is incredible, first of all, because Tacitus counts years (like a Roman and naturally) according to consulates, and not at all according to the years of the reigns of emperors; secondly, because the details regarding Britannicus's age serve as a prelude to the news of his murder, an event too important to be dated incorrectly. It seems clear - at least there is no reason against it - that Pallant retained enough influence after his removal from office in the early years to be able to save his relatives. Tacitus clearly says (13, 14) that Pallant agreed (upon his resignation) that there should be no inquiry into anything relating to the past, and this situation is completely different from that which fell to the lot of most retired ministers under the empire. No doubt Josephus exaggerates when he speaks of Nero during the trial of Felix as μαλιστα δη τοτε δια τιμης αγων εκεινον (Pallanta); Apparently, this is only his personal hypothesis to explain the justification of the oppressor of the Jews. Given to confirm the dates of 55 or 56, this evidence is also irrelevant; but within more moderate limits it retains its strength. And, indeed, it is difficult to believe that the Jews would not have won the case against Felix if Poppaea had already acquired such influence over Nero, which gave them the opportunity, under the closest procurator, to achieve success in defending against the demolition of the church wall against Festus and King Agrippa, who acted together (Ant. XX. VIII. 11). Under the year 58, the first presentation of this woman to Nero was noted, but not before the age of 62 she achieved the crowning of her aspirations by marrying him (Tacitus Ann. XIII, 45, 46; XIV, 59 ff.). This was in the same year when Pallant was poisoned, who (according to Tacitus Ann. XIV, 65) was too rich and - for Nero's greed - took too long to die. It is possible that the importance of this favorite of Claudius disappeared along with the importance of Claudius's daughter, Nero's former wife Octavia, so that it was not a mere coincidence of time that in the same year there was both the murder of Octavia to clear the place for Poppaea, and the murder of Pallant. In any case, if we take into account the history of Pallante and Poppaea, then we must call the years 57, 58 (59?) more suitable to the circumstances of Felix’s acquittal than the years 60, 61. In the end, the arguments for the extreme limits of time of both views turn out to be equally unconvincing. But, on the other hand, arguments in favor of each opinion, although they cannot assert their own opinion, nevertheless serve to refute the opposing opinion. The facts regarding Pallantus and Poppaea, not to mention the evidence of Eusebius, do not prove that Festus succeeded Felix as soon as in 55 or 56, but they seem to exclude a date as late as 60. And, conversely, information about Felix’s procuratorship with Josephus, although it does not prove that he was a ruler as late as in the 60th or 61st year, but apparently shows that he remained later than the 56th year. Therefore, taking both opinions into account, it is possible to reconcile them on the date of 57–59 for the recall of Felix (and the arrest of the Apostle Paul will occur in 55–57). 9) Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6, 7) on the third journey of the Apostle Paul: - they were recently again drawn attention to by Ramsey (“Expositor,” May 1896, p. 633), as a date that can be determined not only by year, but also by month and day. “The Passover was kept, and the days of unleavened bread were kept in Philippi; After this, the participants went to Troas, and their journey continued until the 5th day. They were in Troas for 7 days, and the last full day they spent there was Sunday, and then they left early on Monday morning. But according to the system common in ancient times and accepted by Ev. Luke,... seven days in Troas began on Tuesday and ended with Monday. Further, the Tuesday of arrival in Troas should be considered the 5th day of their journey. It follows that the participants left Philippi on Friday. The only question that remains to be decided is this: did the participants set out on the first morning after the days of unleavened bread? But, given their intention to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, there is no need to think much about this issue. The slaughter of the Passover lamb this year fell on Thursday afternoon, and the seven days of unleavened bread continued until the following Thursday. This was the case in 57, but not in any of the other years closest to it.” Regarding this subject, three remarks seem to suggest themselves. I. The counting of the days from the departure from Troas back to the departure from Philippi, and the conclusion that the latter was done on the closest possible day, Nisan the 22nd, is all acceptable, but not entirely certain. II. Ramsay only took into account the years 56–59 as years that could be subject to discussion. However, although these years include the latest, they do not include the earliest possible year for the end of the third journey and for the arrest in Jerusalem, which event followed this particular Passover in Philippi after a few weeks. The year 55 even turned out (see No. 8b above) to be one of the three more probable years, and in order not to be mistaken, the year 54 should also be taken into account. III. The uncertainty as to which day in a given year was celebrated as the 14th of Nisan is always significant. Most of the researchers, between them and Ramsay, seem to believe that the question is decided by the name of the first evening on which the new moon was visible, Nissan 1st. But the Jews had already previously had to replace the method of simple observation with something in the form of a calendar, or a circle (see about this above), and each such circle, no doubt not rarely, deviated from the results of simple observation. Thus, the days of the terminus paschalis or Nisan 14th for these years according to the Alexandrian circle, which dominated the Christian Church from the 4th century, differ significantly from the days indicated in Lewin's Fasti Sacri or in Wieseler's Chronologie (p. 115, adopted by Ramsey), being always a day, and sometimes two, days earlier 37 . In this case, under the assumption, which seems correct and impartial, that the Alexandrian date is the earliest possible for each year, and two days later the latest, Nisan the 14th could have happened on Thursday in one of the following three years: in the 54th (April 11), 56th (March 18th) and 57th (April 7th). Then all that is true in Ramsey's study is that against the other three years - 55, 58 and 59 - some assumption of impossibility remains; and as regards the last two of these three years, these results of Ramsey serve as a confirmation of what has been achieved in the latter department. In connection with the previous research, it follows that the years 56 and 57 turn out to be probable for the time of the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul, the years 58 and 59 - for the recall of Felix and for the end of the two-year imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in Caesarea. 10) Persecution under Nero and the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul. That the two Apostles suffered martyrdom on the same day, this opinion is only a conclusion from the common holiday in their honor on June 29; but this day is actually the day of transferring their remains to a safe depository in the catacombs during the persecution of Valerian, Tusco et Basso coss. (in 258 AD). But that both of them suffered the death of martyrs in Rome and both under Nero is a constant tradition of the church; Peter and Paul, for some time under Nero, are at the head of the list of Roman bishops according to Julius Africanus (Harnack, Chronologie, p. 124 f. 171); according to Dionysius of Corinth, they taught together in Italy and suffered martyrdom kata tov aoxov Kaipov (in Eusebius T.I. II, 25, around 170 AD). St. Clement, himself from Rome, addressing the Corinthians about 96 AD. Chr., points them to “worthy examples of our generation,” the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and to the great multitude of the chosen ones who, along with them, were in various sufferings and torments, and women were treated like the Danaids and Dirks (1 epist. V. VI: συνηθροισθη πολυ πληθος ). That the “great multitude” are the martyrs under Nero is almost certain from the parallel narrative of Tacitus (Ann. XV, 44) about the “multitudo ingens” (huge multitude) and “addita ludibria” (mockeries added to the executions) of Nero’s Christian victims; and the whole situation is confirmed by the coincidence of Tacitus’ mention of the imperial gardens (i.e. horti Neroniani on Vatican Hill), as the place of execution, with the news (about 200) of the Roman Caius (in Eusebius Ts. I. II, 25) that the remains of St. Peter rested in the Vatican, and St. Paul - on the Ostian road. But the time of the martyrdom of St. The Apostles, if it happened during the so-called Nero persecution, was hardly long after the fire in Rome, in July 64, since Tacitus clearly says that the persecution of Christians arose from Nero’s desire to blame them for the burning of Rome. It is true that Suetonius speaks of the persecution of Christians under Nero in general terms and without specifying any specific date: Nero 16 (in the middle of the list of cases animadversa severe et coercita) afflicti suppliciis Christiani genus horainum superstitionis novae ac maleficae. But Suetonius is not at all in the habit of giving dates; and further it is quite true that Nero's persecution raised the main question of the illegitimacy of Christianity - while it is clear from Tacitus that the force of the first persecution was completely different in degree, if not in nature, from the usual conditions of accidental martyrdom that followed it. It is also true that Eusebius places the death of the Apostles at the end of Nero's reign, in 68, but he sets this date for the whole persecution as the last and greatest of Nero's atrocities. Since Eusebius did not use Latin writers, the story of Tacitus was unknown to him, and he had no idea that the persecution of Christians had any connection with the Roman fire, which he speaks of only in general terms, as what happened under Nero 9 (10): εμπρησμοι γεγονασι πολλοι εν Ρωμη. Eusebius chooses the very year, no doubt, because his chronology (or, better, Africana) of the popes, counted back from the 3rd century. according to the years of their service, indicates the accession of Linus, and consequently the martyrdom of the Apostles, in 67–68. What really matters is that he, like St. Clement of Rome, closely connects the fate of the two Apostles with the last victims of persecution; and this, taken in connection with the story of Tacitus and Caius, apparently dates their death to the year around the great fire, from the middle of 64 to the middle of 65 (Harnack, op. cit., p. 240, indicates it even more precisely: July 64, but it is not rational to limit simple possibilities so closely). It is probable that the new writers would not have been so reluctant to admit this, had not the accepted chronology extended the first Roman imprisonment of the Apostle Paul until at least the spring of 63, so that the two years or less remaining according to this dating to his martyrdom seem insufficient to accomplish all that is known or likely to be supposed regarding his last journey. But it has already been shown (see above No. 8b. 9) that not the 60th, but 58 or 59 years is the true date of the arrival of Festus in Judea, and therefore not the 63rd, but the 61 or 62nd year is most likely for the end of the two-year Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:30). Is the time from two to four years, which flows according to this corrected chronology, too short to agree with the testimony about the activities of the Apostle Paul after his release from his first bonds? Actually, this question belongs to a later stage of research; but since it stands outside the book of Acts and defines the termiunus ad quern, parallel to the terminus a quo of the Crucifixion, it is better for the subject of this article to discuss it now. That the Apostle Paul, after his release from his first bonds, fulfilled his desire, expressed long before (Rom. 15:28), to go from Rome to Spain - this is more than probable according to the testimony of St. Clement (to Cor. 5), that this apostle “preached the truth throughout the whole world and reached the borders of the West” επι το τερμα της δυσεως ελθων ), and according to the canon of Muratorium (c. 200): profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam profecicentis. To travel to such an untouched area, where it was necessary to lay the foundation of Christianity, it took at least a year, and it is necessary to add another 6 months for preaching on the way there through Southern Gaul, Marseilles, Arl, Nimes, Narbonne - unless γαλατια, to which Criscent was sent (Tim. 4:10) was, as Eusebius (C. I. III, 4) and others believe Greek writers are not small Gaul in Asia Minor, but great Gaul in the West. That the Apostle Paul visited the East again is clear from his pastoral letters; Even those critics who reject these messages in their entirety admit that they contain genuine information regarding the activities of the Apostle Paul after his release. But for the journey to Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Titus 1:3), for the enlightenment of Crete with the gospel teaching (Tim. 1:5), for the last visit to Troas, Miletus and, probably, Corinth (2 Titus 4:13, 20), for the winter in Nicopolis (in Epirus: Tim. 3:12 38) the second 18 months are again needed. Thus, three full years, although not necessarily more, apparently elapsed between the departure from Rome and the return there, and it follows that if the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul was at the beginning of Nero’s persecution, then of the two years that were indicated as the most suitable for the release of the Apostle (see above No. 9), the year 61 turns out to be more convenient than the year 62, and the years 56 and 58 - more more convenient than 57 and 59 for the arrest in Jerusalem and the journey of the Apostle Paul to Rome as a prisoner. So, ten points from Jewish and civil history are now determined with more or less probability, namely: 1) Arefa came into possession of Damascus, of course, not earlier than 34 and, probably, no later than 37. 2) Death of Herod Agrippa I, probably in 44 AD. 3) Famine in Jerusalem not earlier than 46. 4) The proconsulate of Sergius Paul in Crete was not in 51, 52. 5) Expulsion of the Jews from Rome, probably in 49 or 50. 6) Proconsulate of Gallion in Achaia, probably not earlier than 49 or 50. 7) Drusilla’s marriage to Felix - no earlier than 54. 8) Felix’s appointment as procurator of Judea was in 52, and his recall in one of 57–59. 9) Of these three years the first year seems to be excluded by the remark concerning the days of unleavened bread, 10) and the third, apparently, is excluded by the calculation of the necessary interval between the trial of the Apostle at Festus and his martyrdom in 64 (64–65). Thus, the difficult date of Felix’s arrival is apparently determined by the 58th year; and therefore the end of the Acts after the two-year imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in Rome will fall by 61 years. It is like a diagram into which details must be placed, firstly, from the entire history of Acts, and secondly, from fragmentary remarks in Paul's epistles. A. Acts of the Apostles; second half (chapters 13–28). The Book of Acts gives a generally accurate and reliable depiction of the events from the Descent of the Holy Spirit to the (first) Roman imprisonment of the Apostle Paul, 29-61. The image itself is divided into 6 departments and each is marked by a summary of successes; in relation to such a careful artist, such departments, in the absence of more precise dates, are natural points of departure for research. I) First section, 1:1. Church in Jerusalem and the sermon of the Apostle Peter. Summary in 6:7: “And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples increased greatly; and many of the priests submitted to the faith.” II) Second Section, 6:8. Spread of the Church throughout Palestine. Sermon of St. Stefan. Persecution from the Jews. Summary at 9:31; “The churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria were at rest, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord; and, being encouraged by the Holy Spirit, they multiplied.” III) Third section, 9:32. Spread of the Church to Antioch. Conversion of the Apostle Peter to Cornelius. Further persecution from the Jews. Message at 12:24; “The word of God grew and spread.” IV) Fourth period, 12:25 p.m. Spread of the Church to Asia Minor. Sermon of the Apostle Paul in Galatia. Disagreements with Judaism. Summary in 16:5: “And the churches were established by faith, and increased daily in number.” V) Fifth Section, 16:6. Spread of the Church to Europe. The missionary activity of the Apostle Paul in large centers like Corinth and Ephesus. The message in 19:20: “With such power the word of the Lord increased and became powerful.” VI) Sixth section, 19:21. Spread of the Church to Rome. Conclusion of the Apostle Paul. Summary in 28:31: “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness without restraint.” Of these six sections, in the first three the main figure is the Apostle Peter, and in the last three - the Apostle Paul, and the two halves into which the book naturally breaks down almost in the very middle divide the entire period in question. But further study of the first half can be postponed until the rich chronological material of the second half is brought into order. The starting point of the first missionary journey of the Apostle Paul (1st journey; Acts 13:3). The generalization that concludes the third section of the book. Acts, located between the remark about the death of Herod Agrippa I (44; see No. 2 above) and the end of the journey of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, on the occasion of the famine, why it seems fair to conclude that quite a lot of time passed between these events. Further: since the famine did not occur earlier than 46 (see above No. 3), it is unlikely that Paul and Barnabas could return to Antioch earlier than this year, unless the Antiochian church began to collect donations in anticipation of the famine, which was quite natural; but for her to finish collecting even before the onset of famine seems completely unnatural. In any case, if the ambassadors took part in providing assistance, then the year 46 will be the earliest possible. The beginning of the first journey of the Apostle Paul was not immediately after his return to Antioch. The description of the personalities of the Antiochian "prophets and teachers" introduced at this point indicates at least some further period of sedentary work; and since a journey to the west means departure by sea, or through the Taurus, this cannot be assumed in the winter months. (In general, in the following discussions it will be taken as axiomatic that the Apostle Paul's travels were, as far as possible, in the summer, from March or April to November, and during other months he usually lived in one place.) Thus, the spring of the year 47 or, in particular, the end of the Easter season (this year around March 28 - April 4) is the earliest possible starting point. Duration of the first journey (Acts 13:4–14:26). Having moved to Cyprus, the Apostles landed in Solamine and walked the entire island to Paphos, preaching in the Jewish synagogues (13:5, 6). The stay in Cyprus can hardly be less than a few months; at least, the results achieved prompted the Cyprian Barnabas to later choose this island as his field of activity, out of all the communities visited or founded by both of them together (15:36, 39). Therefore, no earlier than the summer of the same 47, the participants crossed to the mainland to Pamphylia; Whether Ramsay's tempting guess is true or not that the "weakness of the flesh" (Gal. 4:13) was a malarial fever caught here in the lowlands and making an immediate transition to the mountains necessary - in any case, a stop is not indicated anywhere until Antioch of Pisidia. To enlighten this city and Iconium, Lystra and Derbe with the Gospel teaching, the main labors of the journey were used for this; and since the return was by the same road, the first three cities were visited twice. The first stay in Antioch of Pisidia was quite long, because “the word of the Lord spread throughout the whole country” (Acts 13:49; cf. a similar, but stronger expression in Acts 19:10 about the two-year stay in Ephesus). “Quite a time” (ἱκανὸν χρ ό νον) was spent in Iconium (14:3). Together with Lystra and Derbe, the surrounding country was enlightened with the Gospel (14:6, 7), and in Derbe “quite a few disciples were acquired: (14:21). The visits on the way back were, no doubt, shorter, but since at the same time the work of establishing and forming new communities was accomplished (14:22, 23: πρεσβυτέρους), then these visits could not be too short. The second stop in Perga, unlike the first, was long enough to preach the word of the Lord (14:26 in contrast to 13:13, 14). The journey from the Pamphylian coast was made straight home. Where indications are given in such general terms, there will always be differences of opinion as to the duration of the time indicated. But, without a doubt, no one will say that the stay in the interior regions of Asia was less than 6 months; and since the mountains between Pisidian Antioch and Perga cannot be crossed in winter (December-March), then the entire time of absence from Syrian Antioch must be more than a year; in fact, even 18 months is the shortest period in which everything described in Acts could have happened. Let us assume approximately that the Apostles arrived in Cyprus in April and left it in July; that they reached Antioch of Pisidia on August 1, Iconium on November 1, spent the winter here - five months - until the Easter season (probably around March 18-25) of 48; in Lystra they were on April 1, in Derbe - on May 15 (the last two cities are less populated, or less important, than the first two); that they began their return around the 1st of July, reaching the Pamphylian lowlands at the beginning of October and returning to Syrian Antioch a month later, e.g. November 1, 48. It is easy to allow more time than this; and Ramsey increases the duration of the trip - from 1 year 7 months. up to 2 years and 3 or 4 months, ending on July 1, 49 (Church in Roman Empire, pp. 65–73). But the account is shorter if he agrees with the story of St. Luke - and apparently this is the case - should be preferred, for it seems incredible that the Apostles, in their first missionary experience, would separate from their base in Antioch in Syria, which was still so close to them, for so long a time as more than two years. The interval between the first and second journey; Council of the Apostles (Acts 14:27–15, 35). Two Alostols, Barnabas and Paul, after returning from their first journey, stayed in Syrian Antioch for quite some time (14:28: διέτριβον δὲ χρ ό νον οὐκ ὀλ ί γον); and although it is quite possible that this phrase may mean the entire period of time before the start of the 2nd journey, yet even then the early part of this period cannot be less than the 4 winter months from November 1, 48. For the Council (this can be taken as proven) could not have taken place during these months, and since the twelve Apostles at that time no longer lived in Jerusalem, a favorable occasion for the Council could have been a meeting of the Apostles on one of the great Jewish holidays. The earliest possible occurrence would have been Easter 49, around April 5–12. But Paul and Barnabas are said to have “passed through Phenicia and Samaria and told of the conversion of the Gentiles” (15:3); although this, of course, does not mean the same stops as when founding new communities, it excludes the possibility of too rapid transitions, which is why, in reality, it is more likely that Paul and Barnabas celebrated this Easter in Antioch in Syria, and spent the next six weeks on a slow journey to Jerusalem, arriving there for the Council at Pentecost (May 24th). They could easily reach back to Syrian Antioch at the end of June; and since the further stop here lasted only a few days (15:36: ἡμέρας τινας), there is no reason to believe that the start of the second journey could not be late in the summer of the same year, for example, September 1, 49, ten months after the return from the first journey. (For the Apostle Peter’s visit to Antioch according to Gal. 2:11, see below, pp. 139–140). Duration of the second journey (Acts 15:36–18:22). For the Apostle Paul to set off so late in the summer would have been unnatural for the first trip, when he was just beginning work in unknown regions, but on the second trip it was quite natural, since he first went only to visit churches already existing a second time; the winter could be spent among them, and they could also serve as a base from which the Apostle Paul could continue his journey in the spring to further “missionary” labors. This is actually what happened during the 2nd trip. The Apostle Paul left Antioch in Syria by land and “passed through Syria and Cilicia, establishing the churches” (15:41: ἐπιστηρ ί ζων; cf. 14:22; 18:23) - a phrase that, of course, means much more than overnight stays in each locality. Thus, many churches - such as, no doubt, Tarsus - were visited before the Apostle Paul reached the churches of his first journey. The fact that Derbe is mentioned first, and then Lystra (16, 1), comes from the adoption this time of traveling by land through the Taurus, which was crossed no later than in November. Ev. Luke is not in the habit of describing in detail anything other than the founding of new churches (cf., for example, the contrast between the description of the first journey to Macedonia 16:12–17:15 and the second: 20:2), so no conclusions can be drawn from his silence about events other than the circumcision of Timothy (16:3). On the contrary, the insertion at this point of the generalization of the IV-ro section (16:5), although, no doubt, primarily aims to note the great success that followed in Europe, but also indicates the time between the previous works and the new ones and suggests that the first were more than a mere episode on the way to the second. The Apostle Paul was probably somewhere long enough to note the success that “the churches increased daily in number” (16:5). It is unlikely that the Apostle Paul labored in a new field during the winter months. Only after Easter (March 25-April 1) of the year 50 could he finish his seven months of “visiting” the churches that already existed in Antonia of Pisidia, and go to areas still unknown. What are the expressions Phrygia and the Galatian country (16:6: τὴν φρυγ ί αν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χ ώ ραν) and “the country of Galatia and Phrygia” (18:23: τὴν Γαλατικὴν χ ώ ραν καὶ Φρυγ ί αν ) do not mean two different localities, but one and the same - this follows both from the union of both by one member (in Greek), and from the fact that the same names in the second case are indicated in reverse order, although the direction of travel remained the same as in the first knocking - from east to west. After leaving Antioch in Pisidia, the Apostle Paul's goal, naturally, was a group of famous and populous cities on the western bank. (The Phrygian-Galatian region, if it lay on the way to Ephesus, cannot be confused with Galatia in the proper sense, which was far to the north and north-east; and this is only one of many arguments which together make almost certain the opinion of Ramsey that the churches of Galatia are the churches of Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.) But entry into the province of Asia was not allowed by the Spirit. Saints, and the Apostle Paul turned his attention to the nearest group of large cities, and turned north to Bithynia, but met the same obstacle when he reached the borders of Bithynia. After this, the western direction remained open, and the evangelists went along the border of Mysia until they reached the coast in the northern part of “Asia” and precisely in Troas. But since these verses indicate that no stop was made for preaching, there is no need to count more than a month from departure from Antioch of Pisidia to arrival in Europe. The preaching of the Gospel in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea and Athens was to occupy the entire summer of 50: the stop, at least in the first two cities, was long enough to be necessary for the founding of flourishing churches, and the three Sabbaths in the synagogues of Thessalonica (17:2) no doubt represent not the entire time of the Apostle Paul's stay there, but only the time before the separation of Christians and Jews (cf. 18:6, 7–19:8, 9). Ramsey puts the time of stay in these 4 places (Church in Roman Empire, p. 85) even at 11 months, but, in the absence of any indication of a special length of stay (the opposite, see 13:49; 14:3, etc.) - six weeks for Philippi, two or three months in Thessalonica and several weeks each in Berea and Athens should be considered sufficient. The sea route from Veria to Athens most likely was undertaken before the autumnal equinox, and the Apostles, no doubt, were in a hurry to their future main stop, so their arrival in Corinth can be dated to October 50. The entire stay here - 18 months (because ημερας ικαας 18:18 are probably included in ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἓ ξ 18:11) - continues until April 52, embracing two winters and one summer. The Apostle Paul, as might be expected, arrived at the end of a good season for travel and departed at the beginning of another. The departure - if, as in other cases, it was undertaken immediately after the Easter days (about April 2-9, 52), - was adjusted so that the Apostle Paul could arrive (via Ephesus and Caesarea: 18:18-22), as in the 3rd journey, for the feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Here the stop was only to “greet the church,” and the Apostle immediately went to his former residence in Syrian Antioch, where he arrived, for example, in June 52, after an absence of two years and nine months. Duration of the third trip. But Syrian Antioch did not serve as an active center for the activities of the Apostle Paul; it was far from his new churches in Macedonia and Achaia, and the “Galatian” churches could easily be supervised from Ephesus, where the Apostle promised to return if possible (18:21). If the Apostle wanted to take advantage of the convenient season for travel in the mountainous regions of Asia Minor, then he could not hesitate for long; farewell to Syrian Antioch probably followed soon (18:23: ποι ή σας χρ ό νον τινὰ ἐξῆλθεν; contrast to this in the designations of incessant missionary activity in 11:26; 13:2; 14:28; 15:35), and the 3rd journey began around August 52. This time the passage through Asia Minor, apparently, was shorter. Nothing is said about stopping in Cilicia (contrast to this 15:41), and only in the Galatian churches of the first journey did the Apostle Paul, moving from one to another in order, make stops, “confirming all the disciples” (18:23: διερχ ό μενος καθεξῆς ... στηριζων ). This visit and the not too long or difficult journey between Antioch of Pisidia, the westernmost of these cities, and Ephesus could not last longer than the remaining months of 52 years. Probably, around the end of the year, when travel in not too mountainous areas was still possible, the Apostle Paul reached Ephesus and stayed here for a long time, at least two years, probably two years and three months, i.e. if 19:10: τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπι ἔτη δύο refers only to the competitions in the school of Tyrannus and excludes the three months of study in the synagogue (19:3). It is true that regarding the stop in Corinth (see above) the latest and more complete account includes, but does not exclude the earlier and shorter; but as for Ephesus, on the contrary, the additional testimony of Acts. 20:31: τριετ ί αν … οὐκ ἐπαυσάμην …, apparently, resolves the issue in favor of a duration of stay of significantly more than 2 years. The period of time just outlined did not end before March or April 55. [Departure not until spring is confirmed by the evidence of the two letters to the Corinthians. 1 Cor., written around Easter time (March 30-April 6, 55), reveals the intention to leave Ephesus after Pentecost to travel through Macedonia and, probably, to spend the winter in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:8; 16:5-8) - an intention that indicates a much longer, although not so quick, visit to Corinth than the original plan to go there on the way to Macedonia (cf. 2 Cor. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 16:7: The Ephesian disturbance could hasten the departure - before Pentecost: Acts. 20:1). Thus, at some time in the spring of 55, the Apostle Paul began a new circle of travel, intending to include Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21). [2 Cor. indicates that he had a plan to preach in Troas and stayed there long enough to find “the door open,” but hurried to Macedonia in order to quickly meet Titus and receive news from Corinth: 2 Cor. 2:12, 13]. The Apostle Paul passed through Macedonia slowly, visiting along the way the churches of the second journey and - possibly - others founded there (20:2: αὐτούς λ ό γ ῳ πολλῷ ), until he reached Greece proper or “Hellas”. There, or, in other words, in Corinth, he stayed for three months - apparently the winter months of 55-56, for on his way back he came to Philippi (20:6) at the time of Easter (March 18-25, 56). The longer route through Macedonia was suddenly replaced at the very departure by a direct route to Palestine (20:3), and the evangelists then had to hurry if they had to cover the distance from Philippi to Jerusalem in the period from Easter to Pentecost (20:16). A week (6 days) was spent in Troas, another in Tire, probably waiting for favorable weather or a ship, but the journey between these two places was with stops only necessary and, apparently, did not last more than 2 weeks. The remaining days were probably spent in Caesarea (21:10), and the arrival in Jerusalem was just before the holiday. Arrest of St. Apostle Paul. In Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul was taken (in May 56) and transported to Caesarea, where his imprisonment, although not strict, lasted two years (24:27: διετ ί ας πληρωθε ί σης), when Porcius Festus interceded with Felix in the middle of 58 Festus - not following his example predecessor Felix, - very soon appointed a trial (25: 1, 6, 13, 26), and in late summer the Apostle Paul, as having demanded the trial of Caesar, together with other prisoners, under the command of a centurion, was sent to Rome. But the journey was very slowed down by contrary winds, and they were still circling around Crete when the great fast had already passed (Tishri 10 = around September 15, 58), but how long ago it had passed - in Ev. Luke does not say (22:9). Even if the shipwreck did not occur until the beginning of November, and three months in Malta (28:11) are counted in full, the journey continued in early February, before the usual start of navigation; but, without a doubt, an official on public service business was more likely to risk sailing at unfavorable times than ordinary people. In any case, one can think that sometime in the first months of 59 the Apostle Paul arrived in Rome. "After two whole years" (28:30: διετ ί αν ὅ λην), i.e. in the spring of 61, the book of Acts ends and leaves the Apostle Paul still in prison, although the mention of a certain period suggests that at the end of this period a change of affairs took place, followed by liberation and a trip to Spain. (See regarding the rest of the life of the Apostle Paul above, pp. 107–109). Thus, the second half of Acts. from the beginning of the 1st journey of the Apostle Paul (13:2–28:31) covers a period of time of 14 years, in any case, no less and, apparently, no more; and if the 47th year was correctly indicated as the starting point, then 14 years will be completed in 61. B. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Of these, the pastoral epistles appear to be outside the period of the book of Acts and have already been discussed (p. 122). Two letters to the Thessalonians were written in community with Silas and Timothy - the first not long after leaving Athens (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 3:1, 2, 6; 2 Thessalians 1:1), i.e. during a long stay in Corinth on the 2nd trip, in 51 (50–52). Two letters to the Corinthians were written - one before, the other shortly after leaving Ephesus for Macedonia, towards the end of the 3rd journey, in 55 (see above p. 133). The book of Romans refers to a winter stay in Corinth in 55-56. (Rom. 16:1; 15:23–26 = Acts 19:21). The letters to Philip., Ephes., Colossae, and Philemon date, in all likelihood, to the time of the Roman imprisonment, 59-61. But one of the letters, which gives some indication of the chronology of the life of St. Apostle Paul (Galat. 1:18; 2:1) and can serve as a link between the 2nd half of Acts and the first - this message, due to the absence of any indications of simultaneous events, unfortunately, is the most difficult of all the messages to determine the date of its writing. The time of writing Galatians. I. The similarity of style and subject matter has generally led critics to classify Galatians as a second group of epistles, along with 1 and 2 Cor. and Rome. and even, in particular, to the time between 2 Cor. and Rome. (so Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 44–56), i.e., according to the above accepted chronology, to the last part of the year 55. But, perhaps, too much importance is attached to mere similarities - as if the history of the Apostle Paul were so strictly uniform that a certain subject could only be the subject of discussion at any one moment - and too little importance is attached to the influence of external circumstances, which could renew old ideas, or give rise to new ones. Thus, the epistle to Philip belongs to the same period; but the difference in conditions between the Asian province and the Romanized community of Macedonia produced a noticeable difference in the subject and indicates a noticeable development of thoughts. On the contrary, Gal. and Rome. may concern the same issues within the same boundaries (however, what a difference in tone between them!), or may be completely non-simultaneous with one another. Galatians must have been written before Romans, i.e. before 56 years old. But nothing more positive can be said than this. II. On the other hand, the starting point for the time of writing Galatians is the first journey; in this case, even if it was addressed (which is likely) to the churches founded at that time, it still appeared after 48. Further: the phrase in 4:13: “in the weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you τὸ προτερον” indicates either a significant period of years “in the former time”, or a second visit “in the former of my two visits” (the first time). In the first case, the latest possible date would be 53–55; in the second case, the writing was between the second and third visit, that is, between the spring of 50 and the autumn of 52 (see above p. 114). Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 189) says that the epistle was written from Antioch in Pisidia, just before the third visitation, and the reason for this accuracy is found in the statement that the critical state of affairs must have necessitated an immediate personal visit; but one can assert with no less justification according to Gal. 1:6 ο ὕ τως ταχέως μετατ ί θεσθε that the period of time between the last visit of the Apostle Paul - whatever it was - was not very long. Visit to Jerusalem according to the Epistle to the Galatians. Thus, for the date of the Epistle to the Galatians, 50–55 years remain, and which of them is an unresolved question. But the Apostle Paul, when he wrote this letter, visited Jerusalem, according to the book. Acts, or three times (Acts 9:26-30 after the flight from Damascus; Acts 11:30; 12:25 with offerings for the hungry, around 46; Acts 15:4-30 - Apostolic Council, in 49) or four (adding to the three above, Acts 18:22 - a short visit at the end of the second journey, in 52). The epistle, on the other hand, only mentions two visits: the first is a two-week visit to the Apostle Peter (Gal. 1:18), the second is the official visit of a representative of Gentile Christians to representatives of Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:10). This means that if Ev. Luke lists all the visits, but the Apostle Paul skips one visit or two. Although it seems difficult, the solution is simple. The Apostle Paul does not list all of his visits to Jerusalem, but only visits to communicate with the “foremost” Apostles (προς τούς προ ἐμοῦ ἀποστ ό λους Gal. 1:17), why he necessarily misses his visits when these Apostles were not there. But, in this case, what can we say about visiting Jerusalem with sacrifices for the hungry? If Ev. Luke mentions only the elders as those who accepted the sacrifice (Acts 11:30), then the natural, although, of course, not the only possible, explanation would be that the local elders, led by James, the brother of the Lord, were the highest authority at that time. It is certain that - either gradually, or at some specific time - the twelve Apostles withdrew from the Church of Jerusalem and became missionaries in the full sense of the word, which was actually their purpose from Jesus Christ, as indicated by their very name “Apostles.” After the persecution under Herod, they are not mentioned in Jerusalem except during the Apostolic Council in Acts. 15. Without a doubt, they returned to Jerusalem from time to time, when there was opportunity, to observe the holidays, like other Jews; but neither in the fourth nor in the fifth visit of the Apostle Paul is there any mention of their presence in the holy city. [If the ancient tradition is that the Apostles, by divine command, remained in Jerusalem for 12 years after the Ascension (Praedicatio Petri in Clement al. Strom. VI, 5; Apollonius in Eusebius C.I. V, 18; Harnack, op. cit., p. 243; von Dotschutz in “Texte und Uuters.” XI, 1, p. 52. 148), in reality represents a historical fact - which is quite possible - then their abandonment of Jerusalem will be in the year 41, or about that time]. There are sufficient reasons for the Apostle Paul's silence about his visit to Acts. 11–12 and (if the epistle was written after the summer of 52) visits to Acts. 18. Thus, the first visit to Jerusalem according to Gal. corresponds to the first visit in Acts; second visit according to Acts. omitted; second visit according to Gal. corresponds to the third visitation in Acts. (49). Communication Gal. 2:1–10 with Acts. 15 is generally accepted, with a strong argument in favor of this being the general atmosphere of crisis that permeates both essays, although they are told from different points of view. Ramsay (St. Paul, pp. 153-166) strongly defends the view that the second visitation according to Gal. may be only the second visit in Acts. Some of his provisions have already been discussed here earlier, some illustrate his scrupulousness, which Harnack, not without reason, attributes to him, for example, that the same visit cannot be said in the Apostle Paul κατα ἀποκάλυψιν Gal. 2:2, and in Ev. Luke, that it was on behalf of the Church of Antioch: as if the Holy Spirit and the Church could not be in agreement. But the recognition of those mentioned by Ap. Paul (Gal. 2:12) "some from Jacob" (τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπο Ἰ ακ ώ βου) for "some who came from Judea" (κα ί τινες κατελθ ό ντες ἀπο τῆς Ἰ ουδα ί ας ) in Ev. Luke (Acts. 15:1) is very tempting, for then the excommunication of the Apostle Peter from the pagan Christians in Antioch will precede, and not follow, his defense of their cause in Jerusalem, and this is much better than the usual opinion that the Apostles Peter and James made a formal promise of brotherhood, and then broke it. However, such an identification of two Jewish embassies from Jerusalem can be accepted even with the usual view that Gal. 2:1 ff. = Acts 15, if we recognize that in the order of time Gal. 2:11–14 preceded Gal. 2:1–10. There is nothing like eneita Gal here. 1:18, 21; 2:1, which would indicate a continuation of the chronological order. On the contrary, the argument of the Apostle Paul can be paraphrased, for example, as follows: “I did not receive my apostleship from the former Apostles. I was at their main residence in Jerusalem not immediately after my conversion, but for the first time three years later, and then after 14 years; the first visit was private; the second official, when I treated the Apostles and was accepted by them as an equal. Not only did I not obey them, but once I publicly opposed the chief of the Apostles on the occasion when he [previously] was on my field of activity in Antioch and, under pressure from certain people from James, deviated from his own liberal principles.” If such a paraphrase is correct, then Ramsey did not prove his main position, but he outlined the path to an auxiliary, but very important, new layout of the material. The dispute in Antioch can be dated back to the winter (48–49) before the Apostolic Council, at which the Apostle Peter “used such evidence for others as convinced himself.” Date of conversion of the Apostle Paul. If we recognize the second visit according to Gal. identical with the Apostolic Council, then the probable date for it is 49. (see above, pp. 114–115); and this visit took place 14 years later (Gal. 2:1: δια δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν), the first visit was three years after the conversion (Gal. 1:18: μετὰ τρ ί α ἔτη). But should the 14 years of the second visit also be counted from the conversion (i.e. 11 years after the first), along with Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 382), or from the first visit (i.e., 17 years after the conversion), along with Lightfoot? According to the Greek text, one can actually recognize both opinions; but the evidence favors the former, because it was natural for the Apostle Paul to indicate the largest gaps. The first of the synchronicities established above (pp. 98-99) confirms the same opinion: when the Apostle Paul came to Jerusalem on his first visit, he had just fled from the regional governor Arethas in Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32 = Acts 9:25, 26), and Arethas probably could not become ruler of Damascus until the year 37. The addition of 3 years to 14 pushes the first visit back to 35–36, probably to the time before Arefa, and the conversion dates back to 32–33, while the inclusion of three years in the number 14 places the conversion to 35–36, and the first visit under Arefa to 38. First half of Acts: chapters 1–12. Based on the dates established for the second part of Acts, it is now possible, with the help of the epistles, to approach back to the first half of Acts. and set two round dates: for conversion (Acts 9:26) 35–36 and for the first visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26) - 38. It remains only with the help of these points to use the division into departments (see pp. 111–112), which is the only indication of chronology in Ev. Luke in the earlier part of the book. Acts. The conversion of the Apostle Paul appears to have been shortly after the martyrdom of Stephen, and this death in turn is the first event recorded in the second section of Acts. (9:1. 8:3. 6:7–9). This means that the first period of relatively calm progress ended around 35, lasting six years - from 29. The second section, marking the beginning, but only the beginning, of the conflict, begins in 85, and the last event mentioned in this section is the first visit to Jerusalem by Alostol Paul in 38, but the peaceful development suggested by the summary of this section 9, 31, justifies, in all likelihood, the continuation of this period until 39-40. The third section ends with a record of successes 12:24 - after the death of Herod in 44 and before the second visit of the Apostle Paul (in any case before its end) during the famine of 46 - and lasts only from 39-40 years, until approximately 45. That the chronology adopted here leads to more or less equal divisions: I - from 29, II - from 35, III - from 39-40, IV - from 45-46, V - from 50, VI - from 55 (to 61) - as, apparently, was meant by Ev. Luke, this can be considered some confirmation of its truth. On the other hand, Harnack's chronology, which places the conversion of the Apostle Paul in the same year as the Crucifixion, or no later than the following year, this chronology, even in the latter case, allowing for an interval of only no more than 18 months between Acts. 1:1 and 9:18, completely ignores the noted divisions into departments. The conclusion can be devoted to a comparison of the dates accepted by us (column II) with those preferred by three other representatives of opinions different from ours - with the dates of Harnack (column I), who pushes everything back, Lightfoot (column IV), who dates everything later, Ramsey (column III), who studies independently, but is closer to Lightfoot than to Harnack. If these four assumptions are compared with the 10 results achieved in the first half of our treatise (pp. 123–124), then in turn the following will be obtained in relation to each assumption: 1) Of course, Harnack (33 years old) and probably Ramsey (35–36 years old) first visit to Ap. Paul of Jerusalem, and therefore his flight from Damascus is attributed to the time before, apparently, Arefa could take possession of this city. 2) As for the time of death of Herod Agrippa I, the year 44 is accepted according to all these assumptions. 3) Harnak, at least, returns from his second visit to Jerusalem on the occasion of the famine (44?) dates it much earlier than this famine could have begun. 4) None of these assumptions relate to the 1st journey of Ap. Paul and his visit to Cyprus (years 45, 47, 48) to any of the two years that are impossible for the proconsulate of Sergius Paul on the island. 5) According to all assumptions, the Apostle Paul was in Corinth (in the fall of 48, 50, 51, 55) under Claudius; but if Orosius's date for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (49–50) is correct, then - since the arrival of Aquilla immediately preceded Paul's (Acts 18:2: προσφάτως ἐληλυθ ό τα) - Harnack's date is no doubt too early, and the date Lightfoot, in any case, and probably also Ramsey's date is too late. 6) All assumptions place the appearance of the Apostle Paul before Gallio in Corinth (in the years 49–50, 51–52, 52–52, 53–54) to the possible years of his proconsulate, but the earliest of these dates, Harnac, is unlikely. 7) In the same way, Harnack's assumption places the appearance of the Apostle Paul before Felix and his wife Drusilla in Caesarea (in 54) to the earliest possible year of their marriage. 8) Harnack places the recall of Felix and the arrival of Festus at too early a time (56) to be consistent with the testimony of Josephus, and Lightfoot similarly places it at too late a time (60) to be consistent with the testimony of Tacitus. The date in between seems to be the best. 9) The year for the arrest of the Apostle Paul at Harnack (54th), and even more than a year for this at Lightfoot (58th), is more difficult to agree with the chronology of Easter in Philippi than the years 56 or 57. 10) The year of Lightfoot and, to a lesser extent, the year of Ramsey for the release of the Apostle Paul from the first Roman imprisonment is difficult to reconcile with the date of his martyrdom in the year 64–65. Arguments based on synchronicities, taken in isolation, do not serve as positive and convincing evidence; but the whole of Harnack's supposition, and the latter part of Lightfoot's, contradicts these arguments in too many points for this to be admitted. Of the other two, Ramsey's assumptions are nowhere better, and in some points even weaker than our assumptions, which justify themselves by the already consistent and fairly satisfactory agreement of many conclusions; They are individually weak, like a branch in a bunch, but together they are strong. According to the testimony of Gen. 11:10 that Arphaxad was born two years after the flood - the years of Shem’s life before the flood would be exactly 98. But “two years after the flood” is probably an insertion by someone who, seeing the rounded and systematic nature of the dates of the lives of the patriarchs, wanted to make the birth of Arphaxad exactly correspond to the detailed instructions about the duration of the flood (Gen. 7:6, 8:13, 14). But it seems that the time indicated by the text of LXX is very short for this. Here the flood is supposed to be 3000 BC. And Egyptian monuments testify to a civilization, the beginning of which dates back to no later than 5,000 years BC, and it is quite possible to increase by another whole millennium (Maspero indicates 8,000, or 10,000 years BC). Likewise, Assyrian excavations point to a historical period from the same early time. According to the Pentateuchal or Hexateuchal document hypothesis, these dates belong to the "priestly" documents now generally accepted as the latest part of the Pentateuch. This date is indicated Ed. Meyer, as the very last possible, and is accepted in such dignity by Wendel and Erman. Other dates relating to the end of this period or the beginning of the new empire are as follows: according to Wiedemann - 1750, according to Brugsch - 1706, according to Mariette - 1763, according to Rawlinson - 1640, according to Lepsius - 1591. The section on the Merenptha inscription - as directed by Curtis (p. 399 and not.) - is taken from W. E. Crum's article on Egypt (ibid., p. 665). The instruction for Samuel to 20 years is based on 1 Samuel. 7:2. The time of Judge Samuel is considered to be the period when the house of Israel turned to the Lord; and its end was the moment when the people wished to have and chose a king for themselves. This is Neldeke's account. Moore ignores Saul as an illegitimate ruler from the biblical writer's point of view, and according to the LXX he counts 20 years for Eli, suggesting 40 years for Joshua and Samuel. According to this table, the number of years from the accession of Gothlia and Jehu to the throne until the fall of Samaria is 129. This table is not intended to present the order of historical events, but only to provide an overview of the chronological indications of the books of 3 and 2 Kings. Another explanation of the events of this period is this: the king who was present as an ally of the Syrians at the battle of Qarqar was not Ahab, but Ahaziah, or Jehoram, but the Assyrian scribe indicated the name of the father instead of the son, not knowing about the accession of the latter to the throne. As evidence for this assumption, it is pointed out that the Israelites could only help the Syrians as their vassals, and such vassalage followed immediately after the battle of Ramoth-gilead. In this case, Ahab's death probably occurred in 866. Prof. YES. Khvolson in “Christ. Readings” 1870, 7, p. 97 like this: “And Omri took (the city or province) Megedeba and remained in it [he and his son, and the son] of his son for forty years.” The canon of the geographer and mathematician Claudius Ptolemy is a chronology compiled by the famous Alexandrian scientist Ptolemy in the 11th century AD. (about 150) - with astronomical remarks, starting in 747 BC. from the reign of the Babylonian kings. As far as has been researched, this chronology is a neat, reliable document. That is, in accordance with the general rule of ancient counting (which we now pay attention to once and for all -) not 37 years or more, but 37 or a little less. But in both cases, the census could still be called by the name Quirinia, as started or completed by him. – N.G. It is possible that the same source is indicated in Josephus in Vita 1, written in Rome during the time of Domitian: δημοσιαις δελτοις αναγεραμμενην ε ϒ ρον . But Tertullian’s news may equally indicate that the census in Syria was not carried out immediately and was carried out under different legates [although it began or ended under Quirinius, which is why it bears his name]. – N.G. On the one hand, it was on the Easter holiday that Joseph the Betrothed and the Virgin Mary went annually to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41); on the other hand, Cyril of Alexandria (probably according to Origen) speaks John. 11:56 : ουχ οτι αναγκη ἦ ν παντας συνδραμειν εις Ιερουδαλημ εν τὸ πάσχα ως επι τη σκηνπηγια. Ears of barley are ready for harvest in the districts where it ripens most quickly - at the end of March; The latest wheat is harvested in June. April and May are the main harvest time. The latter part of the argument is, of course, affected in an unfavorable sense by Origen's neglect of Easter 6:4, about which see above under γ. The fact is that Origen, who, of course, did not read the term, uses (vol. 13, 64) about the same holiday the words: περι των εν τη εορτη τ ϖ ν Ιουδαιων ... πεπραγμενων, indicates how easily a member could appear in indirect, side indications. Those. 40 years old; see above on Luke. 3:23. If it had been Easter, Josephus would probably have mentioned this, as he does on the previous occasion, speaking of the deposition of Caiaphas. If Easter is 37 A.D. was March 20–21, then Pentecost will be around May 8–9, 7–8 weeks after the death of Tiberius. The usual synoptic use of το πασχα to denote a meal on the evening of Nisan 13–14 can find an illustration in some places in Philo’s work: περι τηζ εβδομηζ και των εορτων. where, apparently, the Passover of Nisan 14 differs from αξυμα of Nisan 15–21 (Mangey II, 278, 292, 293), for example, 1) τεταρτη δε [ εορτη ] των διαβατηριων η καλειται πασχα πεμπιη δε η των ασταχυων απαρχη , το ιερον δραγμα εκτη δε αξυμα . 2) αγετε δε η πανδημοζ υσια τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατη του μηνοζ. 3) συναπτει δε τοιζ διαβατηριοιζ εορτη ... αξυμα . Doesn't Ev recognize? Mark makes such a difference when he says (14:l): ἦ ν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας? But against this, see Matt. 26:17, Mark. 14:12, Luke. 22:1, 7 Philo (op. cit. II, 293) connects the name of the “first month” given to Nisan in the Old Testament with the coincidence of the vernal equinox, as an annual reminder of the beginning of everything; see below a number of Jewish testimonies, understood by Anatoly, who quotes the actual words of “Aristovul, one of the Seventy.” Of course, strictly speaking, the Last Supper and the Crucifixion took place on the same Jewish day, but the ancient Christian practice soon began to use, even for the days of the lunar month, not the Jewish counting from sunset to sunset, but the usual counting from midnight to midnight. Apollinaris distinguishes between two days in exactly the same way as Clement of Alexandria; he attributes the washing of feet to the 13th, and Easter to the 14th. Quintus Julius Hilarianus, a bishop in Proconsular Africa, compiled at the end of the 4th century a small work De mundi duratione (Migne lat. XIII, 1097–1106) and a treatise De die paschae et mensis (Migne ibid, col. 1105–1114). See H. Helzer, Sextus Julius Africanus II, 1, pp. 121–129. A new edition of the work De mundi duratioe or, De cursu temporum is available from S. Frick, Chronuica minora 1 (Lipsiae 1892), p. 153–174. – H. G. Matt. 27:45. Mk. 15:33 simple: σκ ό τος ἐγένετο; but in Luke. 23:44 the original text appears to add του ηλιου εκλειποντος according to ϗ BCL, both Egyptian versions, Orignus 2/3 (more likely 3/3) and Cyril Hierus. 4/5. For Eusebius’ account of the years of the emperors, see below. But the 16th year (see below about Africanus and Pseudo-Cyprian) could also be a combination of Lk. 3:1 (Tiberias 15th year), which indicates the beginning of the ministry of not only the Baptist, but also the Savior, with the one-year duration of His ministry, which is the opinion of both these writers. Julius Gilarian, however, indicates Tiberius in the 16th year. 29 A.D. (see below, page 87). He reimburses his pass from the consuls of the 4th AD. Sex. Aeiius Calus and S. Sentius Saturninus inserted between the years. 6 and 7 fictional couple: Caesar and Capito. His consuls for 13 AD. Flaccus and Silvanus are only a corruption of the names Plancus and Silius Caecina. The only exceptions that Dr. Salmon can point to date back to the 4th century: I) the Quartodecimanes and Cappadocians, mentioned by Epiphanius, (haer. L [XXX], 1 Ar. Migne gr. XLI, col. 885; Works of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, part II, Moscow 1864, pp. 333–334), have always considered March 25th to be their πασχα; II) Montanists of Asia Minor, about whom Pseudo-Chrysostom says that they celebrated the 14th day, but not of the lunar, but of the “Asian” solar month, beginning on March 24, so that their πασχα always happened on April 6. See Madden, Coins of Jews, ed. 2nd (1881), p. 130. The attribution of these coins to Herod Agrippa II is impossible; however, de Saulcy considered them a Jewish counterfeit, and Madden speaks vaguely about them, since he himself has not seen these coins. But if you can trust the reproduction, the figure is completely clear, and, apparently, there is no reason (except for the chronological difficulty) to doubt them. See the Babylonian Gemara, tractate Rosh – hashanah (or “New Year”), fol 2*: “our rabbis teach that the king who ascended the throne on the 29th of Adar has already completed a year (of his reign), having reached the (nearest) 1st Nisan.” The Emperor's reply to a deputation sent to Rome on this subject is dated by the consulate of Rufus and Pompey Silvanus; and if these were, as is generally admitted, the cotisulee suffecti of the year 45, then the letter refers to some time after the first months of that year. (Former publishers read: προ τεσσαρων καλανδων Ιουλιου, but the last word is simply a translation of Julii in a bad Latin manuscript; Niese omits this and marks the blank). However, dating by other than consules ordinarii would be so unusual, if not unprecedented, that (especially in the absence of any other evidence of the existence of these “suffecti”) the authenticity of the letter must be considered doubtful. See also W.M. Ramsay in the Expositor, March 1897, p. 206. Seneca addressed De ira to his brother, not under the adopted name of Gallio, but under the name of Novatus; and if it is true that he wrote this work after his return from exile, then it follows that his brother’s adoption of the name, and together with his appointment to the proconsulate under the name Gallio, should not have happened before 49 AD. Ann. XII, 54 in “The Works of Cornelius Tacitus” translated by Prof. V.I. Modestova, vol. II (SPB. 1887), pp. 359–360: “Meanwhile, his brother (Pallanta), nicknamed [Antony] Felix (Happy), did not act with the same moderation [said in a critical tone], having long been the ruler of Judea and believing that, relying on such powerful support (Pallanta), he could do all sorts of things with impunity disgusting... Felix, through untimely measures, incited them (the Jews) to commit crimes, having a competitor in the most evil deeds in the person of Ventidius Cuman, who ruled part of the province. It was divided in such a way that the Galileans were subordinate to this latter, and the Samaritans were subordinate to Felicus - tribes that had previously lived in enmity, and now, out of contempt for the rulers, were even less able to curb their hatred. Therefore, they constantly robbed each other, sent gangs of robbers, set up ambushes and sometimes entered into battles, and took the loot and booty to the procurators [i.e. Felix and Koeman]. At first these were glad of this; but when subsequently the evil increased, and they decided to oppose it with the weapons of the soldiers, the soldiers were killed. War would have broken out in the province if Kvadrat, the ruler of Syria, had not helped the cause. In relation to the Jews who dared to kill the soldiers, he had no hesitation, and they paid with their heads; but Cuman and Felix caused him difficulty, since Claudius, having heard about the reasons for the rebellion, gave him the right to make a decision about the procurators. But Kvadrat put Felix between the judges, taking him to the tribunal, in order to discourage the jealousy of the accusers. For crimes of which two were guilty, (one) Cuman was convicted, and calm was restored to the province.” Photius (cod. 33) read this book and says that it covered the period of time from Moses to the death of the last king of Judah, Herod Agrippa II, in 100 AD. That the Alexandrian date always precedes a date dependent on simple observation is due to the fact that the compilers of the circle counted the 1st Nisan from the time of the astronomical new moon, and not from the time when, about 30 hours later, it first became visible to observers. That is, if the intention of the Apostle Paul to spend the winter here was fulfilled.