A New Chronology for the Life and Letters of Paul Dale Moody Southern Seminary Several significant reviews of Pauline chronology have been published in recent years. Many commentaries and articles have touched upon particular points, but a summary of the situation may be gained from three books. In 1964 Bo Reicke of Basle published his Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, l and Paul is included in this survey from 500 B. C. to A. D. 100. The Chronology of the Life of Paul by George Ogg was published in 1968. 2 This gathers most previously published ma­ terials and proposes a chronology that differs little from tradition­ al views. o The most recent revision is by John J. Günther. His Paul: Messenger and Exile makes some radical departures from those adopted by Reicke and Ogg, but there are still some pro­ blems left unaohed. It may seem presumptuous to say, in such a brief essav, that Bo Reicke, The Neu Testament Era, trans. b\ Da\id E. Greene (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.) 2 (Old Tappan, N. J.· Fleming W. Revell Co., 1968). American ei­ tle, 77/e Odyssey oj Paul. 3 (Valle) Forge, Pa.: The Judson Press, 1972). 250 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES all three of the above studies rely too much on secondary sources and fail to go directly to the original documents for a fresh start. The discussion which follows assumes the original sources are true unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is amazing how things fall together like pieces in a jig-saw puzzle when this is done. At the risk of being called a compulsive harmonizer the effort to solve the problem is made here. It is well to begin with four crucial dates as common ground for investigation. These dates may be supported by evidence that is both canonical and extra-canonical. This will be follow­ ed by a new thesis on the chronology and structure of the Acts of the Apostles. The final step is reconstruction of the origin, date and setting of each Pauline writing. Crucial Dates with Common Ground The first crucial date to be considered is the three-year period during which Paul was in Damascus and Arabia. This includes the date of his conversion and his escape from Damascus. Paul's conversion was vitally related to the martyrdom of Stephen. Bo Reicke has rightly dated the stoning of Stephen at the time Pontius Pilate was deposed in A. D. 36. 4 This created a power vacuum that enabled the Jews to launch an attack on the new sect that followed Jesus. This was perhaps followed by Paul's conversion late in 36 (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-22; 22:4-16; 26:9- 18; Galatians 1:13-17). Cf. death of James, Historia Ecclesias­ tica, IL 23. Bo Reicke also dates Paul's return to Jerusalem in A. D. 38, but A. D. 39 makes room for the full three years of Galatians * Bo Reicke, New Testament, p. 192. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 88-89. Hugh J. Schonfield, The Pentecost Revolution (Lon­ don: Macdonald, 1974), p. 308, is correct on the date of Stephen's death, despite his bias on the date of John the Baptist and Jesus. MOODY: A NEW CHRONOLOGY FOR PAUL 251 1:18. The escape of Paul from Damascus would need to be dated before A. D. 40, for Damascus was then under the jurisdiction of Aretas IV, who died in A. D. 40 (Acts 9:23-25; 2 Corinthians 11:32).5 The same New Testament sources speak of Paul's trance in the temple on his return to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17; 2 Corin­ thians 12:1-4), and it will be later shown that the fourteen years of 2 Corinthians 12:2 are included in the years late A. D. 39-53. The second date to be established by both the New Testa­ ment and extra-canonical sources is the death of Herod Agrip­ pa I in A. D. 44. He was the grandson of Herod the Great and the Maccabean Mariamne. His reign was four years under Gaius Caligula (37-41 ) and under Claudius (41-44). Josephus mentions his death in Jeuish War II, 218f., but the details are given later in Antiquities XIX. 343-352. Such details differ in Acts 12:20-23, but there is little doubt that Josephus and Acts speak of the same event in A. D. 14. The third date for common ground centers on the corning of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in Corinth, about A. D. 51. Ogg's careful study of Paul's eighteen months in Corinth concludes that Gallio was proconsul there between May A. D. 51 and May A. D. 52. 6 If this date be correct, then Paul must have arrived in Corinth in late A. D. 49. This links up with Claudius' edict in A. D. 49 in which the Jews were expelled from Rome for rioting over Chrestus, i.e., Christ. This agrees with the statement that Aquila had "lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all Jews to leave Rome" Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 109-25. Cf. G. Lancaster Harding, The Antiquities of Jordan (Revised edition; London: Lutterworth Press, 1967), p. 124. George Ogg follows Emil Schurer and others in the belief that between 37-40 Caligula gave Damascus to Aretas IV. Chronology, pp. 22f. 61 bid., p. 111. 252 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES (Acts 18:2).7 The date of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea is the most debated of the four crucial questions. Ogg again sees clearly when he argues that the dietia, the two-year period, of Acts 24:27 has reference to Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, not to the length of Felix' term as procurator. 8 The dietia is the last of a series of time references to Paul's imprisonment, and there is no evident concern about the length of Felix's term. Note the phrases: "put them off "when I have opportunity" (24:25), "sent for him often" (24:26), and "when two years had elapsed'" (24:27). It would be strange indeed if the last reference suddenly became in­ terested in how long Felix was procurator. These references are preceded by Paul's speech which begins by saying Felix has "for many years" been a judge over the Jewish nation (24:10). Does this mean that Paul's im­ prisonment was as as late as A. D. 58-60, as many sa>, or does it substantiate the statement by the Roman historian Tacitus, who says Felix had ruled in Samaria and possibly Judaea from about A. D. 48? 9 Most writers declare Tacitus in error. Ernst Haenchen says dogmatically that "Tacitus" \ersion of these events is well nigh worthless." 10 L. H. Feldman, in the Loeb Classical Library, has a note that is more restrained than Haenchen. He notes that Josephus said in Jewish War II. 247 that Felix was sent in A. D. 52 "to be procurator of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea" and that "this would not necessarily be inconsistent with his having served as procurator of one of these districts previously." n It is amazing how many writers resort to special pleading to 7Cf. Suetonius, Claudius XXV. 4. Ogg, Chronology, p. 149. ' Annals XII. 54. l0The Acts of the Apostles, trans. I)\ R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1971 )„ p. 70. Antiquities XX. 137, e. MOODY: A NEW CHRONOLOGY FOR PAUL 2S3 lengthen the time of Felix from A. D. 52 onward. Endless references can be found that say he was procurator A. D. 52- 60, but no documentation is gi\en. About the only argument to support this long term for Felix goes back to the brief statements by Josephus about the term of Festus. Festus gets little space, so it is argued that he sen ed a short term, A. D. 60-62. If this be the case with Festus, why does Florus get more space than Felix, although he also had only a two-year term, A. D. 64-66? It is more likely that the atrocities under Felix and Florus got the space while the stability under Festus was passed over lightly. n Haenchen makes the same observation, but he reduces Felix to a two-year term, A. D. 53-55. ^ A careful comparison of Josephus' Jewish War, written about A. D. 77-78, with his Antiquities, written about A. D. 94, will indicate that the former is far more reliable, but neither work by Josephus has material to refute the above con­ clusions. 4 It is altogether possible that Felix was procurator of Judaea and Samaria from A. D. 48 and all of Palestine, A. D. 52-57. Festus would then be procurator from A. D. 57 until his death in A. D. 62. This would agree with Acts 24:10. Support for this point of view ;nay also be found in extra- canonical sources. The Latin version of Eusebius' Chronicle done by Jerome says that Festus succeeded in the second year of Nero's reign, i.e., A. D. 56. This does not contradict the paragraph above. It would be May A. D. 57 before Festus ar­ rived in Caesarea, and this agrees with the picture given in Acts 24:27. It also does not contradict the evidence found in Josephus. ^ George Ogg rejects this so-called antedated 12Bellum Judaicum II. 247-335. 13Haenchen, Acts, p. 71. 14Cf. Antiquities XX. 137-258. Bellum Judaicum II. 271; Antiquities XX. 185-203. If E. J. Vardaman is correct in his claim that the Festus coin of A.