only 12 years and one month, because it began before the 1st of Tisri, and ended after the 1st of Tisri; and, as the Jewish civil year began on the 1st of Tisri, the interval was contained in 14 different civil years. On the other hand, if it began Oct. 1, A.D. 88, and ended Sept. 1, A.D. 50, it would only be called 12 years, although really only two months less than the former interval which was called 14 years. Hence, as we do not know the month of the flight from Damascus, nor of the Council of Jerusalem, we are at liberty to suppose that the interval between them was only a few weeks more than 12 years, and therefore to suppose the flight in A.D. 88, and the Council in A.D. 50. NOTE (C.) — On the Date of the Recall of Feliz. We have seen that St. Paul arrived in Rome in spring, after wintering at Malta; and that he sailed from Judæa at the beginning of the preceding autumn, and was at Fair Havens in Crete in October, soon after "the Fast," which was on the 10th of Tisri (Acts xxvii. 9). He was sent to Rome by Festus, upon his appeal to Cæsar; and his hearing before Festus had taken place about a fortnight (see Acts xxiv. 27 to xxv. 1) after the arrival of Festus in the province. Hence the arrival of Festus (and consequently the departure of Felix) took place in the summer preceding St. Paul's voyage. This is confirmed by Acts xxiv. 27, which tells us that Paul had been in prison two complete years at the time of Felix's departure: for he was imprisoned at a Pentecost; therefore Felix's departure was just after a Pentecost. We know, then, the season of Felix's recall; viz., the summer: and we must determine the date of the year. (a) At the beginning of St. Paul's imprisonment at Cæsarea (i.e., two years before Felix's recall), Felix had been already “for many years Procurator of Judæa” (Acts xxiv. 10). "Many years" could not be less than 5 years: therefore Felix had governed Judæa at least (5+2=) 7 years at the time of his recall. Now, Felix was appointed Procurator in the beginning of the 13th year of Claudius' (Joseph. Ant. xx. 7, 1, twelfth year complete); that is, early in the year A.D. 53. Therefore Felix's recall could not have occurred before A.D. (53+7=) 60. (3) But we can also show that it could not have occurred after A.D. 60, by the following arguments: 1. Felix was followed to Rome by Jewish ambassadors, who impeached him of misgovernment. He was saved from punishment by the intercession of his brother Pallas, at a time when Pallas was' in special favor with Nero (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, 9). Now, Pallas was put to death by Nero in the year A.D. 62; and it is improbable, that, at any part of that or the preceding year, he should have had much influence with Nero. Hence Felix's recall was certainly not after A.D. 62, and probably not after A.D. 60. 2. Burrus was living (Joseph. Ant., quoted by Wieseler) at the time when Felix's Jewish accusers were at Rome. Now, Burrus died not later than February, A.D. 62. And the Jewish ambassadors could not have reached Rome during the season of the Mare Clausum: therefore they (and consequently Felix) must have come to Rome not after the autumn of A.D. 61. 3. Paul, on arriving at Rome, was delivered (Acts xxviii. 16) to the prefect (not the pre 1 Tacitus places the appointment of Felix earlier than this; but, on such a question, his authority is not to be compared with that of Josephus. Pallas had been mainly instrumental in obtain. ing Nero's adoption by Claudius; but, by presuming too much on his favor, he excited the disgust of Nero at the very beginning of his reign (A. D. 54). In A. D. 55 he was accused of treason, but acquitted; and, after this acquittal, he seems to have regained his favor at court. fects): hence there was a single prefect in command of the prætorians at that time. But this was not the case after the death of Burrus, when Rufus and Tigellinus were made joint prefects. Hence (as above) Paul could not have arrived in Rome before A.D. 61, and therefore Felix's recall (which was in the year before Paul's arrival at Rome) could not have been afler A.D. 60. Therefore Felix's recall has been proved to be neither after A.D. 60, nor before A.D. 60: consequently, it was in A.D. 60. (7) This conclusion is confirmed by the following considerations:— 1. Festus died in Judæa, and was succeeded by Albinus. We are not informed of the duration of Festus's government; but we have proved (a) that it did not begin before A.D. 60: and we know that Albinus was in office in Judæa in the autumn of A.D. 62 (at the Feast of Tabernacles), and perhaps considerably before that time. Hence Festus's arrival (and Felix's recall) must have been either in 60 or 61. Now, if we suppose it in 61, we must crowd into a space of fifteen months the following events: (a) Festus represses disturbances. (b) Agrippa II. builds his palace overlooking the temple. (c) The Jews build their wall, intercepting his view. (d) They send a deputation to Rome to obtain leave to keep their wall. (e) They gain their suit at Rome by the intercession of Poppaa. (They return to Jerusalem, leaving the high priest Ishmael as hostage at Rome. (g) Agrippa, on their return, nominates a new high priest (Joseph), the length of whose tenure of office we are not told. (h) Joseph is succeeded in the high priesthood by Ananus, who holds the office three months, and is displaced just before the arrival of Albinus. This succession of events could not have occurred between the summer of A.D. 61 and the autumn of A.D. 62; because the double voyage of the Jewish embassy, with their residence in Rome, would alone have occupied twelve months. Hence we conclude that from the arrival of Festus to that of Albinus was a period of not less than two years and consequently that Festus arrived A.D. 60. 2. The Procurators of Judæa were generally changed when the Proprætors of Syria were changed. Now, Quadratus was succeeded by Corbulo in Syria A.D. 60: hence we might naturally expect Felix to be recalled in that year. 3. Paul was indulgently treated (Acts xxviii. 31) at Rome for two years after his arrival there. Now, he certainly would not have been treated indulgently after the Roman fire (in July, 64). Hence his arrival was, at latest, not after (64—2=) A.D. 62. Consequently, Felix's recall was certainly not after 61. 4. After Nero's accession (Oct. 13, A.D. 54), Josephus mentions the following consecutive events as having occurred in Judæa: (a) Capture of the great bandit Eleazar by Felix. (b) Rise of the Sicarii. (c) Murder of Jonathan unpunished. (d) Many pretenders to Inspiration or Messiahship lead followers into the wilderness. (e) These are dispersed by the Roman troops. (ƒ) An Egyptian rebel, at the head of a body of Sicarii, excites the most dangerous of all these insurrections: his followers are defeated; but he himself escapes. This series of events could not well have occupied less than three years; and we should therefore fix the insurrection of the Egyptian not before A.D. 57. Now, when St. Paul was arrested in the Temple, he was at first mistaken for this rebel Egyptian, who is mentioned as "the Egyptian who before these days made an uproar" (Acts xxi. 88), an expression which would very naturally be used if the Egyptian's insurrection had occurred in the preceding year. This would again agree with supposing the date of St. Paul's arrest to be A.D. 58, and therefore Felix's recall A.D. 60. 1 The official phrase was in the plural, when there was more than one prefect. Bo Trajan writes, "Vinctus mitti ad præfectos prætorii mei debet.” Plin. Ep. x. 65 • The references are given by Wiessler. 5. St. Paul (Acts xviii. 2) finds Aquila and Priscilla just arrived at Corinth from Rome, whence they were banished by a decree of the Emperor Claudius. We do not know the date of this decree; but it could not, at the latest, have been later than A.D. 54, in which year Claudius died. Now, the Acts gives us distinct information, that between this first arrival at Corinth, and St. Paul's arrest åt Jerusalem, there were the following intervals of time: viz., from arriving at Corinth to reaching Antioch, 13 years; from reaching Ephesus to leaving Ephesus, 2 years; from leaving Ephesus to reaching Jerusalem, 1 year. (See Acts xviii., xix., and xx.) These make together 5 years; but to this must be added the time spent at Antioch, and between Antioch and Ephesus, which is not mentioned, but which may reasonably be estimated at year. Thus we have 5 years for the total interval. Therefore the arrest of St. Paul at Jerusalem was probably not later than (54 +5}=) A.D. 59, and may have been earlier; which agrees with the result independently arrived at, — that it was actually in A.D. 58. It is impossible for any candid mind to go through such investigations as these without seeing how strongly they confirm (by innumerable coincidences) the historical accuracy of the Acts of the Apostles. Achaia, 273; harbors of, 360; province of, Amyntas, King of Galatia, 21. under the Romans, 362. Acre, St. Jean d', 614. Acrocorinthus, the, 359; its importance, ib.; views from its summit, ib. Acropolis, the, 300, 305; view of the, re- Acts of the Apostles, 121. Egæ, 220 n. Egina, Island of, 299. Agabus the prophet, 117, 615. Agora, the, of Athens, 306. 'Aveúnarоs, the word as translated in the "Antinomian,” the term as applied to the Antinomianism, Corinthian, 589. Agrippa, Herod, grandson of Herod the Antinomians, 422. Great, 103; his death, 119. Agrippa II., 652. 'Akon, meaning of, 570 n. Ak-Sher, 233. Alban Mount, 781. Albinus, 667 n. Alcibiades, character of, 315; fortifications of, at Cos, 605. Alexander the coppersmith, 472, 474. 144. Alexandria, eminence of, 684. Alexandria Troas, 241; harbor of, 242, 591. Antinous, the favorite of Hadrian, birth- Antioch, 101; Jewish Christians in, 109; Antioch in Pisidia, 150; identified with the modern town of Jalobatch, 151; its 'Avτioxɛías Túxn, statue of the, 116, n. 4. |