ページの画像
PDF
ePub

an extensive preaching of the Gospel to the heathen at Antioch.

§ 105. The Chronology of the latter part of the Acts, beginning at the 13th chapter, is independent of the preceding matters. Whatever may be the year of S. Paul's conversion, or the true account of his visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, it is certain that the time of Acts xii. is A.D. 44. Our business is to define the time of some one or more incidents subsequent to that chapter: and first, the time of the decree of Claudius for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome: Acts xviii. 2. The well-known passage of Suetonius, Claud. 25, in which this decree is mentioned, would afford a clear and satisfactory indication, if we could make out the time of the passing of that decree. Unfortunately the incident is not related by Dion Cassius, i. e. not in our mutilated copies of his history. For the words of this historian, lx. 6. (Tous Ιουδαίους πλεονάσαντας αὖθις ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἂν ἄνευ ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μὲν, τῷ δὲ δὴ πατρίῳ νόμῳ βίῳ χρωμένους ἐκέλευσε μὴ συναθροίζεσθαι.) certainly do not relate to the event noted by Suetonius and S. Luke, but to a precautionary measure taken by Claudius in the first year of his reign.-The order of events in Suetonius is as follows: Provincias Achaiam et Macedoniam, quas Tiberius ad curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit: Dion relates this under u.c. 797 A.D. 44. Lyciis...libertatem ademit, Rhodiis ob pœnitentiam veterum delictorum reddidit. Iliensibus quasi Romanæ gentis auctoribus tributa in perpetuum remisit....Judæos impulsore Chresto, &c. Now it appears from Tac. Ann. xii. 58. that this immunity was granted to the Ilienses D. Junio, Qu. Haterio Coss. i. e. v. c. 806. And in the same year, adds Tacitus, redditur Rhodiis libertas. But Sueton. Nero. 7. places these incidents in a different year: apud eundem consulem (sc. Claudium)...pro Rhodiis atque Iliensibus Græce verba fecit (sc. Nero): i. e. in the 5th consulate of Claudius (see Torrent. in l.) =u.c. 804. a. D. 51.-But to continue our extract:-Judæos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes urbe expulit: Germanorum legatis in orchestra sedere permisit, simplicitate corum et fiducia motus, quod in popularia deducti,

=

quum animadvertissent Parthos et Armenios sedentes in senatu ad eadem loca sponte transierant, nihilo deteriorem virtutem aut conditionem suam prædicantes. What embassy of the Parthians this can be, except that which is noticed by Tacitus, Ann. xii. 10, under the year U.c. 802, A.D. 49, it is impossible to say: certainly that embassy was soon despatched, and no other of Parthians is found at Rome in the latter years of Claudius.This is sufficient to shew that these several incidents are not related by Suetonius in the order of their occurrence: the pleading of Nero for the Ilienses belongs to A.D. 51, at earliest, yet is related before the mention of the Parthian embassy, which cannot be placed later than A. D. 49. Suetonius, then, leaves the matter doubtful: if the decree against the Jews was issued about the time of the pleading for the Ilienses, we must place it in A.D. 51 if at the time of the Parthian embassy, not later than 49.

:

$106. What may have been the specific cause of the decree against the Jews, we can only conjecture. The natural inference from the words of Suetonius would certainly seem to be, that the Jewish populace at Rome was in an excited state by reason of the preaching of Christ, i. e. of Christians. But there may have been other inducements as well. The Jews, it is well known, were often confounded with the common herd of Chaldæi, mathematici, astrologi. Now in the year 49 we find Agrippina, in Tac. Ann. xii. 22, just after her marriage, accusing her rival Lollia of dealings with Chaldeans and magi and at a later period, a. D. 52, de mathematicis Italia pellendis factum senatus consultum atrox et irritum, Ann. xii. 52. With this compare the statement of Zonaras (i. e. of Dion Cassius, from whom Zonaras compiles): οἱ ἀστρολόγοι δὲ ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς Ἰταλίας ἠλάθησαν καὶ οἱ αὐτοῖς συγγινόμενοι ἑκολάσθησαν: which is placed immediately after the account of Agrippina's elevation, and immediately before the account of Caractacus at Rome, i. e. between A. D. 49 and 50: just where Tacitus places the accusation of Lollia. Hence I am inclined to think that the decree against the mathematici was really issued in the year 49, i. e. soon after, and partly in consequence of, Aggripina's marriage. This deduction from Zonaras is important to our purpose, inasmuch as the decree against the Jews is assigned by the christian historian Orosius

(vii. 6.) to this very year. In default of further evidence, I acquiesce in this statement, and conceive that in truth the Jews were involved with the magi, mathematici and astrologi in a common sentence of expulsion, partly by reason of their supposed connexion with this class of persons, partly, as the statement of the unenquiring Suetonius implies (to us who are better informed), because the heat of their controversy with the early preachers of the Gospel rendered them annoying to the civil magistrates at Rome, just as we know to have been the case at this same time in Macedonia and Achaia. In the very beginning of Claudius's reign they were already, as we see in Dion Cassius, lx. 6, objects of suspicion : Suetonius's expression, assidue tumultuantes, implies that this was not the first time: Claudius, it seems, would fain have expelled them in the very beginning of his reign, but dared not. Now, perhaps, he took advantage of the stir which was raised against the Chaldæi to get rid of the Jews, not (ostensibly) on the score of their religion, but on pretence of their connexion with magical arts alleged to be employed against the person of the emperor.-If I may be allowed a further conjecture, I would suggest that Seneca's recal and advancement at court, the act of Agrippina immediately after her marriage, may be connected with this measure against the Jews: perhaps it was suggested by him. It deserves also to be remarked, that the Jews in Palestine began at this very conjuncture (A. D. 49) to manifest a disaffection towards the emperor. The exasperated state of feeling which now began to shew itself in Judæa was, I doubt not, provoked by the emperor's measures, and by the decree of expulsion in particular. Josephus relates events in this order: Ant. xx. 5. 2. ff. B. J. ii. 12. "In the 8th of Claudius, (A. D. 48) Cumanus arrived as successor to Tiberius Alexander, and Herod of Chalcis died... During his procuratorship, at a passover, a popular commotion occurred in which 20,000 Jews lost their lives. “τῆς πάσχα προσαγορευομένης ἑορτῆς ἐνα στάσης...πολλοῦ καί πανταχόθεν πλήθους συναχθέντος ἐπὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, δείσας ὁ Κούμανος μὴ νεώτερον τι παρὰ τούτων προσπέσῃ, stationed a cohort in arms at the porticoes of the Temple. A gross insult offered by one of the soldiers provoked the Jews to an assault, and the whole legion was marched upon them, &c." It naturally occurs to ask

66

why these precautions were taken at this particular time? What reason had Cumanus to fear a commotion at this passover? His two predecessors, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander, Josephus informs us, μηδὲν παρακινοῦντες τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸ ἔθνος διεφύλαξαν. Β. J. ii. 11. 6. Cumanus arrived a. d. 48, and thenceforth the face of things was changed. What more likely, than that the tidings of Claudius's harsh enactment against the Jews of Rome, which if the decree was issued early in A. D. 49, might reach Judæa before the passover of that year, furnished the inducement to these precautions, and so led to the insurrection? In the same light I am inclined to regard the incident which followed, viz. the assault and robbery committed by disaffected Jews on Stephanus, a servant of Claudius in Palestine. Ant. xx. 5. 4.

I see no reason, then, to doubt that the decree was issued A.D. 49, the year mentioned by Orosius.

$ 107. The date of Gallio's appointment to the government of Achaia is altogether unknown: the fact itself of his appointment is nowhere else on record, though his brother Seneca (Ep. cv.) in a letter written at a much later date, may perhaps allude to it in the mention of an attack of fever which Gallio once had in that place. It appears from Seneca's mention of him in the Consolatio ad Helviam (xvi. 12.) written about A. D. 43, that he had even then risen to eminence in civil offices, honores industria consecutus est. But the time noted in the Acts is of course much later. It is evident from the narrative itself that he was not in office, or not arrived, when S. Paul reached Corinth, Acts xviii. 5-12. i. e. soon after the decree against the Jews, which we have seen reason to assign to the year 49. But the fact of his appearance in Achaia as proprætor within eighteen months after that event, tallies extremely well with the view of the circumstances connected with that edict. Seneca's recal and advancement at court through the favour of Agrippina, and the edict against the Jews, were (if the latter belongs to A. D. 49) very nearly contemporary events. Soon after the decree, Seneca's brother is advanced to the government of Achaia. He was not likely, one would think, to obtain this preferment while his brother Seneca was in exile, under the implacable displeasure of the reigning empress (A.D. 41-48), but, when Seneca stood high

in favour at court, the advancement of the elder brother might soon follow, and according to S. Luke, did follow within a year or two, i. e. if Orosius is right in his date of the edict. I notice this, only by way of shewing how consistent S. Luke's narrative is with all that can be collected from contemporary history. As a note of time, the mention of Gallio is only so far serviceable, as it constitutes a probability, that S. Paul's departure from Corinth lies after A.D. 49, namely, because it is probable that Gallio would not be in such an office earlier than that year, at any time between A. D. 41 and 49.

§ 108. In the next place, we have to inquire what evidence may be derived from the narrative of S. Paul's arrest at Jerusalem, as related in the 22nd and following chapters. of the Acts.

At that time Felix was procurator, a person named Ananias was exercising the office of high priest, yet under such circumstances that S. Paul might naturally be ignorant of the fact and lastly, a certain Egyptian impostor had appeared, and that (as it is implied, xxi. 38) but recently. Josephus will enable us to deduce from these particulars a pretty clear indication of the time denoted by S. Luke's narrative.

...

§ 109. Felix, it is evident, became procurator of Judaa in one of the three last years of Claudius. Πέμπει δὲ καὶ Κλαύδιος Φήλικα Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίων προστήσομενον πραγμάτων. Τῆς δὲ ἀρχῆς δωδέκατον ἔτος ἤδη πεπληρωκως, δωρεῖται τὸν ̓Αγρίππαν τῇ Φιλίππου τε τραρχία. Λαβὼν δὲ τὴν δωρεὰν παρὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος Αγρίπ πας ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς γάμον Αζίζῳ Δρούσιλλαν τὴν ἀδελφήν.... Διαλύονται δὲ τῇ Δρουσίλλῃ πρὸς τὸν Ἄζιζον οι γάμοι μετ' οὐ πολὺν χρόνον τοιαύτης εμπεσούσης αἰτίας. Καθ ̓ ὃν καιρὸν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐπετρόπευσε Φῆλιξ, θεασάμενος ταύτην ...ἔπειθε τὸν ἄνδρα καταλιποῦσαν αὐτῷ γήμασθαι...ἡ δὲ πείθεται τῷ Φ. γήμασθαι. Ant. xx. 7. 1. 2. In like manner B. J. ii. 12. 8. Μετὰ ταῦτα Φήλικα ἐκπέμπει...ἐκ δὲ τῆς Χάλκιδος Αγρ. εἰς μείζονα βασίλειαν μετατίθησι, δοὺς αὐτῷ τὴν Φιλίππου γενομένην τετραρχίαν...αὐτὸς δὲ διοικήσας τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔτεσι ἶγ, μησὶν ἡ καὶ ἡμ. κ'. τελευτᾷ. It is evident, then, that the appointment of Felix took place not later than the expiration of the 12th year of Claudius, i. e. not later than Jan. A.D. 53, yet not long before it, for both in the

« 前へ次へ »