Tiberius succeeded Octavian Caesar in the fall of AD 14 and would reign till his death in March AD 37. Tiberius was Octavian Casesar's stepson. He had married Octavian's daughter Julia in 11 BC but as an uncooperative and headstrong young man he could not muster the good graces to take orders from Octavian. Octavian in 17 BC adopted and groomed Julia's two sons by her first husband, Marcus Agrippa, as his successors. After Julia's older son, Drusus, died in 9 BC and his younger brother Gaius died in 4 AD Octavian again turned to their step-father, Tiberius. Octavian adopted Tiberius in 4 AD and the Senate granted him equal powers with Octavian in 13 AD. Now past 50 years of age and more seasoned, Tiberius somewhat grudgingly and awkwardly tolerated his fate. Throughout his twenty-three year reign he remained reclusive and impatient. He did not relish living at Rome, so he spent most of his reign either in Campania or on the island of Capri.
The Jewish community in the city of Rome did not fair well. Tiberius' administrator, Sejanus, the highly influential commander of the Praetorian Guard at Rome, was opposed to the Jews. He masterminded the expulsion of Jews from the city of Rome. Tiberius agreed to expel the Jews because of the crime of fraud committed by four Jewish con men against a wealthy Roman matron, Fulvia, who had adopted Judaism. Four thousand Jews were sent to Sardinia as soldiers and many of them who refused to serve as soldiers were punished. In AD 31 Emperor Tiberius eliminated Sejanus because he conspired to circumvent Tiberius' authority. Thereafter, according to Philo of Alexandria, the Emperor gave orders that all provincial governors were to be more diligent in guaranteeing the Jews of the Empire their religious freedoms.
While the Roman historian Tacitus in Histories 5:9, says "under Tiberius all was quiet", i.e. there were no open rebellions in the provinces. He paid no notice to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth in the Jewish regions of south Syria. The province of Judea (Judea proper together with Idumea and Samaria) was now ruled by praefectural ranked governors.
Up
The Praefect, Valerius Gratus, began ruling Judea either just months before Octavian Caesar Augustus died in AD 14 or shortly thereafter. He continued to rule the province until his successor Pilate came on the scene. About all that survives from Gratus' reign is the record that four High Priests served in order under him: Ishmael the son of Phiabi, Eleazar the son of Ananus (Annas), and Simon the son of Camith. Then just before the arrival of Pilate the fourth High Priest, Joseph Caiaphas, Annas' son-in-law, was installed. This traditional chronological reconstruction of Gratus' exceptionally long reign is based on the ambiguous, but only plausible reconciliation of the statements made by Josephus and those made by Luke
Up
It should also be noted here that in one of the surviving text traditions of Josephus there is an included section (Antiquities 18.3.3) on the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus. Many scholars consider this inauthentic; they believe it was an interpolation of Christian scribes a century or so later than Josephus. However, whether or not this was a later insertion the location of the insertion in Josephus' account of Pilate is quite significant. Both the account of Pilate and the debatable section about Jesus falls in the context of Josephus' Book Eighteen of The Antiquities of the Jews.
Josephus tells us that Vitellius dispatched his "friend" Marcellus to take over in Judea in Pilate's absence. Marcellus appears to have ruled Judea for the remainder of Tiberius' reign. According to the traditional interpretation of Josephus that was about one year, but there are a number of reasons to wonder if it might have been longer. The High Priest Caiaphas was set aside by the Syrian governor Vitellius when he came to Jerusalem for the Passover immediately following Pilate's departure from the province (Antiquities 18.4.3). Vitellius appointed Caiaphas' brother-in-law, Jonathan the son of Annas, as new High Priest. Jonathan served until Vitellius together with Antipas the Tetrarch made a brief side-trip to Jerusalem in the late Spring of AD 37 on his way to assault King Aretas IV's stronghold at Petra. Vitellius appointed Theophilus, Jonathan's brother, as high priest. Josephus dates Vitellius' visit by referring to "an ancient festival of the Jews", most probably Pentecost (Antiquities 18.5.3).
Up
Jesus' baptism and the beginning of his public ministry are usually dated on the basis of Luke 3:1 which sets these events in the fifteenth year of Emperor Tiberius (= AD 29). He further elaborates that Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch of Galilee, Philip the Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene. All of these indicators seem to generally confirm the time frame; however, the reference to Lysanias being the Tetrarch of Abilene remains a loose end.
Up
The Iturean kingdom of the historically documentd ruler named Lysanias (c. 40 to 36 BC) was governed from Chalcis in the Beka'a valley between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. It included Baalbek/Heliopolis on the north, touched the northern coast of the Sea of Galilee on the south and reached eastward just below Damascus to include Trachonitis and portions of Gaulanitis, Bataneae and Auranitis. The northeastern section of Lysanias' kingdom, situated along the eastern slopes of the Anti-Lebanon range and including the northern and eastern slopes of Mt. Hermon was called Abilene and was governed from Abila.
Lysanius, son of Ptolemy Mennaeus, ruled the whole Iturean kingdom, not just Abilene, and he was beheaded in c. 36 BC by Marcus Antonius on the excuse he had allied with the Parthians, but also because Cleopatra wanted his territory. The successor whom Cleopatra installed in the western part of Lysanius' kingdom was named Zenodorus. The Nabataeans added Trachonitis and adjacent territories to their kingdom. Octavian Augustus recognized Zenodorus after 27 BC, and his Tetrarchy seems to have included Trachonitis once again. When Zenodorus died c. 20 BC his whole Tetrarchy was turned over to Herod.
After Herod's death in 4 BC the Iturean kingdom was divided up. As we know Herod's son Philip received a Tetrarchy (4 BC - 34 AD) including Iturea (cf Luke 3:1), but we do not know whether that was understood to include Chalcis and Abilene both north of Mt. Hermon. Indeed, Herod's later heirs were installed at Chalcis beginning with Herod III (AD 37-48), and Marcus Julius Agrippa II (AD 50-c. 93). It is not clear whether Abilene was ruled by either Herod III or Agrippa II. So the disposition of both Chalcis and Abilene in the period from 4 BC to 37 AD is unaccounted for except for Luke's statement (3:1) that "Lysanias was Tetrarch of Abilene" in Tiberius' fifteenth year. Such an inconsistency does not justify ignoring Luke's statement, and we should point out that knowledge of Luke's Lysanias has one feeble assist from the archaeological dating of an Abilene inscription attributed to Lysanias' former slave.
Up
Luke 3:1 is typically interpreted to indicate John's ministry began early in the year AD 29 while Jesus was baptized in the fall of that year. Jesus ministry would then extend through the Passover festivals of 30, 31, 32, and up to the Passover in 33 when he was crucified on Friday, April 3. Some prefer a more unusual interpretation based on the fact that Tiberius was given equal powers with Octavian Augustus in 13 AD. Hence, they read Luke's statement as indicating the ministries of John and Jesus began a year earlier in 28 AD.
Up
Considerable evidence has been identified that bolsters Luke's dating, but not well enough to eliminate inconsistencies and much confusion. For example, the ambiguous statement involving 46 years and the construction of the Temple reported by John (2:20) at the first Passover following Jesus' baptism (i.e. spring of AD 30). Herod began the Temple building project during the eighteenth year of his reign (Josephus, Antiquities, XV.11.1,6), i.e., twelve months spanning across 20 and 19 BC. The materials were gathered and the old Temple structure dismantled and rebuilt a section at a time without stopping the routine worship practices. The main Temple structure was built by the priests themselves and was completed in 18 months. A festival was inaugurated to celebrate its completion in the fall of 17 BC. The 46th anniversary of that festival occurred in the fall of AD 29. On the other hand 46 years after the beginning of the work would fall in about 26 AD.
Up
Another example of our frustration is found in Luke 3:23 where it is stated that Jesus was "about 30 years" of age when he began teaching. If we combine that with Luke 3:1-22 which places the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in Tiberius' fifteenth year we are confronted with Jesus being born "about" 1 AD during the reign of Herod the Great's son, Herod (Archaelaus). In all likelihood this understanding played an important role in the development of the Christian Era Calendar when it was first proposed in Italy in the sixth century AD. However, this understanding cannot be supported in the light of Matthew's Chapter 2 account where Jesus' birth and early childhood is discussed in the context of the reigns of Herod the Great who died in 4 BC, and his successor Archaelaus.
Up
The crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus occurred in the Spring of the year just before the Feast of Unleavened Bread and in close conjunction with the celebration of the Passover which inaugurates the seven day feast. The Passover lamb was sacrificed in the afternoon before sunset, but the Passover meal was not eaten until after the sun went down.
The usage that confuses us is that the Hebrew heritage apparently considered sunset as the boundary between days, as both the termination of the past day and the beginning of the next. That contrasts with today's conventional reckoning that divides days at midnight. Hence, when a day of the month is given in the Hebrew calendar (e.g. 14 Nisan) scholars have assumed that this "day" begins with the sunset ending 13 Nisan and lasts through the night and all day long until sunset ending 14 Nisan. However, when we are not being careful it will confuse our thinking. An event after sunset is, by definition, on the next day. So the passover lamb was slain in the afternoon of Nisan 14 and then consumed that evening after sunset on Nisan 15.
Now while Biblical commentators are generally consistent in their handling of this there are some curious pieces of New Testament evidence that some scholars believe show that the Jews were not always consistent in their handling of such dates. The Hellenistic practice based on the old Athenian custom generally agreed with the Hebrew custom; however, the old Egyptian calendar counted days from sunrise to sunrise. Hellenistic Egypt was frustrated with this conflict. Early Babylonian astronomers used midnight as the boundary and, perhaps because of the influence of the Etruscan legacy, the Roman day was also measured midnight to midnight. Even though the Jews brought the Babylonian calendar (especially the month names) back to Judea after the exile, they evidently did not adopt the midnight to midnight usage.
The Passover sacrifice was, according to the Hebrew calendar reflected in the Torah (Exodus 12:1-11; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16-17), to be held on 14 Nisan, "towards evening" (LXX), and the Passover meal was to be eaten after sunset, presumably on 15 Nisan. Likewise, the Feast of Unleavened Bread was introduced in Exodus 23:14-20 and specifically dated as being from [the end of] the fourteenth day of the month at evening until [the end of] the twenty-first day at evening. Both Leviticus 23:6 and Numbers 28:17, however, specifically mandated the first day of Unleavened bread as the fifteenth day of the first month (15 Nisan). We understand that despite the different dates given the passages are in agreement.
We do encounter a problem with the synoptic authors. All seem to agree in using similar phrases, "the first day of unleavened bread" (Mark 14:12; Matthew 26:17), "the day of unleavened bread" (Luke 22:7) with Mark and Luke reporting that the Passover sacrifice took place on that day. This appears to move the first day of unleavened bread forward one day. We have noted above that the Passover sacrifice was to take place before sunset on 14 Nisan in anticipation of the Passover meal once it became night. That day likewise served as preparation time for the Feast of Unleavened Bread that also began at sunset at the end of 14 Nisan. Perhaps this discrepancy may be due to Roman influences; in any case it appears that Mark and Luke are reporting the feast of Unleavened Bread beginning with the day ending at sunset before the Passover meal (i.e. Nisan 13), not simultaneously with it following sunset on 14 Nisan.
Moreover, Mark, Matthew and Luke (22:7) all agree that it was the first day of unleavened bread when the disciples made preparations (during the day of 14 Nisan, which was apparently Thursday) for their Passover meal with Jesus (The Last Supper), the night before he was crucified.
Jesus and the disciples celebrated the Passover with the meal (The Last Supper) after sunset on Thursday evening (when 15 Nisan begins). Jesus was crucified and buried before the sun set ending 15 Nisan. Nisan 15 was Friday; hence the Day of Preparation (for the Sabbath). When the sun went down Friday evening the Sabbath, 16 Nisan, began. Then at sundown on the Sabbath, the first day of the week began. After sunrise on that same day the disciples discovered the empty tomb. He was in the tomb three days if you count the day he died as 1, the intervening day, and the day he rose. In our counting convention the day he died would not be counted; we would say he was in the tomb two days.
The (month & day) dates in the Jewish Calendar are, of course, derived from the Torah (as sited in foregoing paragraphs) and from Jewish traditional practices. The Gospel accounts do not repeat these dates but simply mention the activities and refer to specific days of the week in a traditional way. The first five days as well as the seventh (sabbath) are simply known by number while the sixth day is regularly referred to as "Preparation" (Mark 15:42; John 19:42; Luke 23:54). Of course the mandatory activities of Nisan 14 and 15 always fall on the same day of the month (numerically), but the New Moon (day one of each month) was in some way based on a series of observations made at Jerusalem.
Correlating these specific traditional dates in the Jewish calendar with exact corresponding dates in the Julian Calendar or the Gregorian Calendar is a nearly insurmountable challenge. The present day Jewish Calendar was established as a mathematically structured system in the fourth century AD. Prior to that, probably from at least the time of the Maccabees for as long as the Second Temple stood at Jerusalem, and as late as the second century AD the Jewish Calendar seems to have been, as it were, "under construction". Official lunar observations by the priests at Jerusalem determined the first day of each month and localized environmental observations were the basis of a year by year decision during each eleventh month (Shevat)of whether or not to add an extra month (Adar I) to the current year. The result was that the Jewish Calendar over the long haul usually kept up with the Egyptian, Babylonian, Macedonian, and Roman calendar systems, but it was almost never synchronized with them in any predictable or reconstructable way.
The Persian Empire had adopted and standardized the Babylonian Lunisolar Calendar across its Empire in the fourh century BC. With its seven leap years (years with thirteen months) in a 19-year fixed cycle, the deviation from the solar calendar for the new years day (1 Nissanu) ranged from none in one year out of 19 to as much as 27 days. The Babylonian calendar had been adopted by the Macedonians when they arrived although they renamed the months. Yet, by the first century AD the Seleucid Calendar had gotten one month out of sync with the standardized Babylonian calendar. (See E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, pp. 22-26)
The correlation of different calendars can be difficult, and precision in many cases is not a reasonable expectation. Hence, determining the month and day of the Passover to say nothing of the particular year requires hypothetical assumptions, i.e., guess work, of various kinds. That is why we sometimes resort to theoretical arithmetic reconstructions of two kinds. Those based on the uniform behavior of the celestial bodies (lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, etc) projected into the past, and those projecting back the present day calendar calculation formulas for ancient calendars (e.g. the Hebrew) that, although based on traditional and historical precedent, have over the centuries become more precise and scientific than they were in the first century AD. The results may be interesting, but they are not conclusive! They only become more convincing when calculations from a great number of different points of reference consistently using the same assumptions all converge on a reasonable and coherent chronological scenario.
Here is an example. C. J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington (in Chronos, Kairos, Christos, Vardaman and Yamauchi, eds., 1989, pp. 165-181) have ventured to confirm the crucifixion on Friday, April 3, 33 AD using the following argument. Astronomers calculate that a partial lunar eclipse was visible very near the eastern horizon in Palestine on the evening of Friday, April 3, 33 AD. It has also been found that various early Hellenistic authors referred to such a phenomenon as the "moon turning to blood." Using these facts, scholars begin with the passage from Peter's sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:15-21) where Peter quotes Joel's prophecy about the moon turning to blood. (Please notice that the date is reported as a Christian Era date (AD) of the Gregorian variety. The eclipse would have occurred just after sunset on Friday evening; hence, if it had been observed and recorded in Judea it would have been recorded as occurring on the following day, the Sabbath.)
Up
We can only in the most general way date the events spanning the period from the Resurrection through the death of Emperor Claudius in AD 54. As we have seen in the previous section, there are a number of chronological indicators that put the date of the resurrection and Pentecost in the Spring of AD 33. Similarly there are a number of indicators surrounding the end of Pilate's reign in AD 36 and the death of Tiberius in AD 37 also discussed above.
The problem we now confront is how to understand the chronology of the eighteen year period between the Resurrection (AD 33) and the death of Claudius (AD 54). The singular event in this period recorded in the book of Acts (18:12-17) that can be dated independently is the encounter between Paul and Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia, toward the conclusion of Paul's initial ministry at Corinth.
Even though Gallio's time in office can be dated with a high degree of probability there are numerous problems. If we take the chronology given us by Paul in Galatians superficially and uncritically we end up with (3 + 14) seventeen years from his conversion to his second visit to Jerusalem when the issue of Gentile converts was discussed. From the sequence apparent in Acts the Jerusalem conference is necessarily prior to the Second missionary journey when Paul was accompanied by Silas, the messenger commissioned by the church in Jerusalem. If we take the Book of Acts uncritically or carelessly we would have Paul visiting Jerusalem at least three times in the same period. Moreover, you will have Paul's second trip to Jerusalem before his first missionary journey. Starting with the date of Paul's conversion in 35 AD, which is by no means beyond question, and following Paul's chronology in Galatians uncritically you have to date Paul's second visit to Jerusalem in AD 52, a year after Paul stood before Gallio at Corinth which clearly contradicts the obvious sequence in Acts. I will attempt to address all these issues in the following presentation.
The whole chronological reconstruction of this period hangs on the date of Gallio's tenure as proconsul of Achaia. This is the one event in the period that can, at the moment, be dated historically from neutral sources. The date AD 51 is determined from three unrelated inscriptions which fit together like pieces of a puzzle and provide usable dating information. First a letter written by Emperor Claudius was found inscribed in stone at Delphi (*), an important hub of communication and travel in Achaia north of the Gulf of Corinth. This letter names Gallio as the current proconsul. Claudius dated the letter by referencing his 26th accolade. Other dating information probabaly included was not recoverable from the inscription.
The accolade is a ceremonial event with ancient Republican period roots. It was a part of the triumphal celebration of Roman officials who brought their troops home from battle victoriously. On a day permitted by the Roman Calendar and approved by the Senate his victorious veterans acclaimed their commander imperator, "emperor", or "victorious conqueror," for that triumphal parade across the city. When the form of Roman government changed many Republican traditions were transformed and maintained. Now since Octavian Augustus, Emperor's like Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius were regularly and frequently acclaimed imperator, at the very least once a year, sometimes more often. Octavian Augustus had with the Senate's approval taken the word imperator as an official part of his personal name, but no other member of the Julio Claudian dynasty followed his example until Nero. Remember that we call all these Roman rulers after Octavian Augustus "emperors" but that title did not attach itself to the office until later.
By itself the Delphi inscription does not give us a usable date. Another Roman inscription from southern Turkey identified Claudius' 26th accolade with his 12th Tribunate. The Tribunate was likewise a Republican institution recast by the transformation of the Roman state. In the Republic a group of officials known as tribunes were elected each year. Octavian Augustus held the Tribuneship for life but the emperors after Octavian were ceremoniously elected to the tribunate each year on the anniversary of their accession. In Claudius' case, 25 January. Claudius' twelfth tribunate began in the year beginning 1 January AD 52. This allows us to identify the year the Delphi letter was written.
There is yet another inscription from Rome itself dated August 1 in the 12th tribunate and 27th accolade. All together these inscriptions tell us that the 26th accolade occurred after Claudius' 12th tribunate began 25 January of AD 52 and that the 27th accolade was conferred sometime prior to 1 August AD 52. Hence the Delphi letter is dated to the early months of AD 52, which must then be the latter part of Gallio's year in office.
Using the date of Claudius' letter as an anchor and the carefully analyzed sequence of events recorded in Acts and Galatians we will reconstruct a chronology of this period.
Up
Jerusalem was of all places the ideal location for the founding of the first congregation of believers. It was a cosmopolitan city representing a cross section of the Jewish subcultures from the dispersion. It was at the hub of a communication network connecting hundreds of other cities and rural regions across the southwest Asia and the eastern Mediterranean world. Note the diverse linguistic composition of the attendance at the Feast of Pentecost following the crucifixion, Acts 2:8-11. Also note that both the rich and the poor were included in the Jerusalem Koinonia, community or fellowship, of believers, Acts 4:34-35.
The believers, i.e., the followers of Jesus, in this early period are referred to under several names. During most of the earliest period the Christian movement was referred to as "the Way", ho hodos, (e.g. Acts 22:4) implying "way of life" or pattern of behavior. Jewish authorities utilized the term "Nazoreans" (Greek: nazoraioi. Acts 24:5; Matthew 2:23) as the official sect name for the group. Believers were not called "Christians" in this early period.
In the last years of Pilate's rule (AD 33-36) the little nucleus of believers at Jerusalem began almost at once (at Pentecost following the Resurrection) to become self-conscious and recognize themselves as assembled members (ekklesia) belonging to one common community (koinonia). Beginning with the multitude baptized on the Day of Pentecost the company of believers grew rapidly. Under the leadership of the Apostles the believers assembled on a regular basis both in house-sized groups in private homes as well as collectively in the porches and the courtyard surrounding the Temple.
Up
Both Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) and Aramaic-speaking Jews were represented in the population of Jerusalem. This cultural composition of the general population is reflected in the early Christian movement. The Aramaic component was indigenous to the region of Syria and Palestine and adjoining regions to the east. There were large urban populations present in the Aramaic region, the most noteworthy examples lay east of the Euphrates River (the Roman frontier), but the strength of the Aramaic regions' numbers was in the indigenous rural population in small towns and villages. The Hellenistic region overlapped the Aramaic region in Syria and Palestine. The Hellenistic component in the population was pocketed in and near the largest cities and selected smaller centers most of which had been originally settled since the days of Alexander the Great by Greek-speaking military veterans. The largest cities in western Syria like Antioch and Damascus, as well as Jerusalem in Palestine, were now home for interdependent Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking populations.
Many of the first believers were of Aramaic cultural background such as the Apostles themselves, and many others were from the Hellenistic Jewish population. Within each of these broad cultural categories there existed a variety of different sub-categories of Jews. It is hard for us in the twenty-first century to remember that all these baptized believers were Jews both ethnically and culturally despite all their differences. For example there were priests (Acts 6:7) who still had periodical responsibilities to perform in the Temple worship. There were rulers of synagogue communities and scholars who continued to function in their respective roles. And even as believers they joined their non-believing Jewish brethren in going to the Temple for prayer at mid-morning and mid-afternoon. At first they doubtless continued to participate in the Jewish festivals including even the Passover. Because of their contacts with believers in Jerusalem there were soon Jews from the Greek-speaking dispersion in Egypt, Ethiopia and what is now Libya, Cyprus, Syria and what is now Turkey all counted among the believers.
Up
Responding positively to the "good news" did not erase the social and cultural barriers of the day. The Book of Acts recounts the strife that broke out in the koinonia between the two predominate subcultures (Acts 6:1-6). In response to the complaint lodged by the Hellenistic party in behalf of their poor against the Aramaic party the community selected seven Hellenistic ministers to assist the Aramaic Apostles. This development resulted in the broadening of the stage of the their witness. While the Apostles taught and preached daily in the Temple courtyard, these Hellenistic leaders sought out their cultural comrades. They made contact with Hellenistic Jews through the various synagogues in Jerusalem that catered to the needs of pilgrims from across the Hellenistic Diaspora. It was from this cultural context that some Jews brought charges against Stephen which led to his trial and execution.
Saul, a Jew of Hellenistic culture and native of Tarsus in Cilicia (southern Turkey), assumed the role of chief prosecutor in a campaign to suppress believers of Hellenistic culture like Stephen. Many believers belonging to the Hellenistic part of the church were arrested by Saul or they fled from Jerusalem as a result of his activity. Saul, however, seems to have paid little attention to the Apostles (Acts 8:1) who openly continued to gather regularly with the Aramaic wing of the church in the Temple courtyard for preaching, teaching and prayer.
In the sequence of events the first significant event following Pentecost involved Jewish authorities who arrested Peter and the other Apostles (Acts 5:17ff). This would surely date a matter of only a few weeks or months after Pentecost, at the latest by the end of AD 33. The subsequent events described in Acts 6:1-8:40, beginning with the dispute over the neglect of the widows and including the martyrdom of Stephen, Saul's early persecution and the scattering of the believers probably took place during the time prior to the death of Tiberius in AD 37.
It is certainly reasonable that the food shortages that may have been the basis for the dispute over the neglect of the widows in the Hellenistic portion of the Church (Acts 6) were most likely to occur in the spring and early summer before harvest in AD 34. Then between the summer of AD 34 and the summer of AD 35 we can place Stephen's arrest, trial and execution (Acts 6:9ff) as well as the beginning of Saul's persecution and scattering of the Hellenistic believers living in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-40).
Luke does not identify the High Priest who granted Saul letters to the "synagogues" in Damascus (Acts 9:1-2), but, Caiaphas is the most logical choice. Josephus says Caiaphas was dismissed by Vitellius when he visited Jerusalem at the time of the Passover immediately after Pilate left the province. Saul's mission to Damascus may have taken place in AD 35, and surely no later than the Spring of AD 36 when Caiaphas lost his job.
Such an early conversion date for Saul is not without its problems as we shall see.
Up
One problem is Paul's personal testimony that Nabataean authority was present at Damascus (II Corinthians 11:32-33 taken in the context of Acts Chapter 9.). Some might assume that Roman authority in Syria would not allow the Nabataeans to be present in Damascus, but we have no evidence to support that hunch. In fact, the Nabaaeans were on hand in the region immediately south of Damascus in sufficient force to destroy the forces of Antipas II in about 35-36 AD. After Tiberius' new Syrian governor, Lucius Vitellius, arrived on the scene in late 35 or early 36 some months elapsed before Tiberius' orders to attack the Nabataeans reached Vitellius. If we are to believe that Josephus gives us the whole story (Antiquities 18.5.3) there was no attack directed at Damascus, but rather the Syrian legions were shipped down to Ptolemais (Acer) and marched down the coastal plain through western Judea toward Petra, the capital of Aretas IV. Word of Tiberius' death and Gaius accession came to Vitellius in mid-year 37 whereupon he aborted the Nabataean campaign and ordered his troops to return to north Syria.
The passage in Acts allows us to think that Paul's escape from Damascus was immediately prior to his return to Jerusalem, but Paul's testimony in Gal. 1:17 inserts a excursion "into Arabia" and back to Damascus prior to his return to Jerusalem. This brief trip into Arabia may have occurred earlier (Acts 9:23 talks about an indefinite period) before the Damascus Jews conspired to kill him. In either case Paul returned to Jerusalem "after three years" (Acts 9:26; Gal. 1:18). Most scholars familiar with chronological notation assume that Paul's reference to his return as meta tria eté, "after three years" (Galatians 1:18) should be interpreted according to the prevailing custom of the New Testament writers of counting inclusively rather than exclusively as we do today. Counting inclusively considers the beginning point "one" while counting exclusively considers it "zero". If Paul left Jerusalem in AD 35 we would count it exclusively as three years to AD 38 (36, 37, 38). Counting inclusively 38 AD would be four years (35, 36, 37, 38)! Hence, counted inclusively we must date Paul's return to Jerusalem "after three years" in AD 37, the year Tiberius died and Gaius became Emperor.
Up to table of contents
Continued account in Appendix V
The content of this page, ht3463b05.html, is copyrighted 2003-2007 by Harlie Kay Gallatin and is accessible as a part of appendix (No. 5) of the Ancient Part of the History of Christianity I. The Table of Contents for this page is on ht3463aa05.html.