are proofs of this assertion. Yet St. Luke appears to have given only an abstract, and not the whole of St. Paul's speeches for the Apostle in the defence, which he made before Felix, must certainly have said more than is recorded by St. Luke, ch. xxiv. 12, 13. unless we suppose that he merely denied the charge, which had been laid to him, without confuting it. However he has certainly shewn great judgment in these abstracts : for, if he has not always retained the very words of St. Paul, he has adopted such as well suited the polished audience, before which the Apostle spake.

SECTION IV.

Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles.

It is evident that St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles with a tolerable strict attention to chronological order: but he has not annexed a date to any one of his facts, though in one instance he had done it in his Gospel. Ancient writers in general were less attentive to this subject, than modern anthors: and in some cases perhaps St. Luke did not exactly know in what year the events happened. However there are several parts of the Aets of the Apostles, in which ecclesiastical history is combined with political facts, of which we know the dates: and therefore I will endeavour to determine such as can be settled with any precision, because an acquaintance with the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles will not only contribute to the understanding of the book itself, but will assist us in fixing the year, in which many of St. Paul's Epistles were written.

Ch. iii. 1, 2.

33

I take for granted that the Acts of the Apostles commence with the year 33 of the Christian era. In the calculation of this era I follow Usher, and do not enter at present into any minute inquiries on this subject.

1. The first Epoch, after the commencement of the book, is at ch. xi. 29, 30: for what happened between the first Pentecost after Christ's ascension and this period, is without any marks of chrono44 logy. But at ch. xi. 29, 30. we have a date: for the famine which took place in the time of Claudius Cæsar, and which induced the disciples at Antioch to send relief to their brethren in Judæa, happened in the fourth year of Claudius's reign, that is, in the year 44 of the Christian era '.

44.

2. Second Epoch. Herod Agrippa dies soon after he had put to death the Apostle St. James: and about that time St. Paul and St. Barnabas return from Jerusalem to Autioch. Ch. xii. 2125. This is still in the year 44. 3. Third Epoch. Ch. xviii. 2. Shortly after the banishment of the Jews from Italy by Claudius Cæsar, St. Paul arrives at Corinth. Commentators affix the date 54 to this event: but it is uncertain, for Suetonius, the only historian who has noticed this banishment of the Jews, mentions it without date. For that reason I place no date in the margin.

For the convenience of the reader I place this as well as the following dates in the margin.

I have already observed that I follow Usher, without entering into any minute inquiries in respect to the Christian era. If this is calculated wrong, the following dates must be altered accordingly. Whoever has sufficient ability and leisure for the undertaking would contribute to the explanation of the Acts of the Apostles by calculating these Epochs with still greater precision. But conjecture must be discarded, and facts only admitted as proofs.

4. Fourth Epoch. St. Paul comes to Jerusalem, where he is imprisoned by the Jews, not long after the disturbances which were excited by the Egyptian. Ch. xxi. Ch. xxi. 37-39. 37-39. This imprisonment of St. Paul happened in the year 60, for it 60 was two years before Felix quitted his government of Judæa. Ch. xxiii. 26. xxiv. 27.

5. Fifth Epoch. Two years after the commencement of St. Paul's imprisoninent, Festus is ap- 62 pointed governor of Judæa. Ch. xxiv. 27. xxv. l.

From this period the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles is clear. St. Paul is sent prisoner to Rome in the autumn of the same year in which Festus arrived in Judæa: he suffers shipwreck, passes the winter in Malta, and arrives in Rome in the following year, that is, in 63. Ch. xxvi. xxvii. xxviii.

The Acts of the Apostles close with the end of the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome; consequently, in the year 65. Ch. xxviii. 30.

To the events which happened between the epochs 33 and 34, and between 44 and 60, it is difficult to assign any determinate year: and all that we can positively say of these events, is that they happened in those intervals. It is true that chronologers have made the attempt: but none of them has met with success, not even the truly eminent Usher. Unfortunately, the two most important years, that of St., Paul's conversion, and that of the first council in Jerusalem, are the most difficult to be determined for neither St. Paul's conversion, nor the council in Jerusalem, is combined with any political fact, by means of which the date might be discovered. Usher places St. Paul's conversion in the year 35, others in 38: but we cannot positively assert either the one or the other.

But though we cannot arrive at absolute certainty we can form in some cases a probable conjecture. For instance, St. Stephen hardly suffered martyrdom before Pilate was recalled from the government of Judea, for

under Pilate the Jews had not the power of inflicting capital punishments. Now, according to Usher, the year, in which Pilate was recalled, was the 36th of the Christian era. St. Stephen's martyrdom therefore probably happened after 36. If this be true, St. Paul's conversion must have happened likewise after 36, and therefore 35 is too early a date. But how long after 36, whether in 38, as some say, I cannot determine. Neither date agrees with the Epistle to the Galatians".

In what manner the chapters iii. iv. v. vi. are to be arranged between 33 and 36, I cannot determine: for what chronologers have said is mere conjecture, and not calculation. The same uncertainty prevails in respect to ch. viii. and x.: for we can affirm nothing more, than that the one must be placed before, the other after 36. We are likewise in the dark with respect to ch. xiii. xiv. and several other chapters. Of ch. xvi. we may assert, that it belongs to a period at least six years prior to the fourth epoch or the year 60: for a year and an half at Corinth, three years at Ephesus, and the time spent on several journies, can hardly be pressed into a smaller compass, than that of six years. To ch. xvi. therefore the latest date, which can be assigned, is 54 and it is not impossible that a still earlier date should be assigned to it.

Wherever I shall have occasion to speak, in the following chapters of this Introduction, of the dates to be annexed to St. Paul's Epistles, I must beg to be understood as delivering not my own opinion, except where I explain myself more fully, but the opinion of others. The most proper dates for St. Paul's Epistles are references to the respective parts of the Acts of the Apostles.

" See Ch. XI, sect. 1.

CHAPTER IX.

THE STUDY OF JOSEPHUS RECOMMENDED AS THE BEST MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BEFORE I Conclude my account of the historical books of the New Testament, I must particularly recommend a diligent study of the works of Josephus, from the beginning of Herod's reign to the end of the Jewish Antiquities. Ottius and Krebs, men of real learning, have set a very laudable example, in selecting passages from Josephus, with a view of illustrating the New Testament: yet, what is very extraordinary, this author is in general neglected, though he really furnishes the very best commentary on the Gospels and the Acts. I will select only one example in proof of this assertion; but this example is of great importance, because not only a perplexed passage in the New Testament will be explained, but a difficulty relative to a point of morality will be removed.

In the third chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, where the baptism of John is described, the Evangelist says, ver. 14. Επηρώτων δε αυτόν οι τρατευομένοι, λέγοντες" και ημεις τι wochooμe; to which question John the Baptist answered, Μηδένα διασεισητε, μηδε συκοφαντήσητε και αρκείσθε τους oferts due. In this passage, the word sparevoμevor is usually rendered 'soldiers,' as if there were no difference between the participle τρατευόμενοι and the noun τρατιωται. Grotius supposes that St. Luke meant soldiers, who spent the greatest part of their lives in garrison, and did not take the field, except on the greatest emergencies. But sparevoμEvo evidently denotes soldiers actually or service," or "soldiers actually engaged in war.’ Now it appears from the relation of Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 5.) that Herod the tetrarch of Galilee was engaged in a war with his father-in-law Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petræa, at the very time, in which