rather thus expressed in the fifteenth year since Tiberius first bore sway.'

The joint rule of Augustus and Tiberius is attested by two ancient inscriptions, both of which Orelli has inserted.* The first was found in Dalmatia. It is of P. Cornelius Dolabella, who held an office at this period. The words referring to this are as follows:

" PRO. PR. DIVI AVGUSTI ET TI. CAESARIS AUGUSTI.'

As its date, Orelli gives in his note 10 A.D.,-at least a twelvemonth too soon.

The second of these inscriptions is, or was, at the monastery of Monte Cassino. It commemorates one Caius Ummidius, who under Claudius became Governor of Illyria, and under Nero Governor of Lusitania, but who under the joint Emperors held the office of Quæstor in Cyprus. Here are the words upon the last-named post :

'PROVINC. CYPRI Q. DIVI AVG. ET TI. CAESARIS AVG.'

Considering the high title here ascribed to the young Emperor, and the coequal obedience implied on the part of the officers of state, it seems difficult to doubt that if the writers of these inscriptions had been asked at a later period to name the first year of the reign of Tiberius they would have named the year 11 A.D., rather than the year 14 A.D.

It is certainly true that not only Tacitus and Suetonius, but Josephus also, date the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. Such, it appears, was the practice of historians who wrote for the great world at Rome. But the case might be far otherwise with local and provincial writers, who looked to the realities of power rather than to its due transmission and descent. They could distinguish between the radiance of the rising and the dimness of the setting sun; they saw from whom the orders came, and to whom the petitions were addressed; and where they saw the authority wielded they would deem the reign to have commenced.

There is a striking analogy to this case in the one that immediately precedes it-the sole sway of Augustus. However histo-rians and annalists at Rome might concur as to the date of his sovereignty, there was no such agreement elsewhere. From the coins or the inscriptions engraved in various cities we find that no less than eight different dates were assigned as the com

*Inscript. Latin. Collectio,' ed. Orelli, Nos. 2365 et 3128.

mencement

mencement of his reign.* Thus in the East, some reckoned it from the battle of Actium, others from the taking of Alexandria. In other provinces, further removed from such local impressions, some computed from the time when the title of Augustus, and some from the time when the office of Imperator, was bestowed. Since, then, we have to admit eight such dates as current for the commencement of the reign of Augustus, it does not seem unreasonable to infer that two might be in vogue for the commencement of the reign of Tiberius,-the one reckoned from his joint authority, the second from his undivided sway.

It seems natural, however, to inquire whether any light can be brought to bear upon this controversy from the other notes of time in St. Luke. Let us, in the first place, transcribe the two verses in question :—

'Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judæa, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituræa and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

'Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.'

There is no chronological point to be established from the mention of Annas and Caiaphas as the High Priests; nor does Lysanias of Abilene yield us any further information. The name was borne, it would seem, in succession by two chiefs at least of that little state. Of Herod's two sons, as we learn from Josephus, Philip died A.D. 34, after ruling thirty-seven years; and Antipas was deposed and banished by Caligula A.D. 37, after ruling thirty-five.† It is plain that these dates apply equally well to either theory, whether we fix the Tiberius era at A.D. 11 or A.D. 14.

There remains, then, the case of Pontius Pilate; and here again we have Josephus for a guide. We learn from him that, near the close of Tiberius's reign, Pilate was accused of grievous cruelty to the people of Samaria, and was sent home by Vitellius, then Governor of Syria, to answer for his conduct. On arriving at Rome, however, he found that the Emperor had already expired. Now the death of Tiberius took place on the 16th of March, A.D. 37, and we may fix the recall of Pilate in the month of January preceding. Josephus says that he had been ten years in Judæa. But here, as elsewhere, the Jewish historian speaks

* Marquardt-Becker, Handbuch der Römischen Alterthümer,' vol. ii. 3, 299, as cited by Dr. Zumpt. Clinton, in his Fasti Hellenici' (vol. iii. p. 276, ed. 1834), enumerates only five of these dates.

only in round numbers as to years, and takes no account as to months; and we have strong grounds to conclude that several months must, in this case, be added. For the predecessor of Pilate in office-namely, Valerius Gratus-had been recalled at the close of the year A.D. 25, and it seems in the highest degree improbable that for the space of an entire twelvemonth the Romans would have left so turbulent a province without a chief.* If, then, we take the government of Pilate as commencing in mid-summer, A.D. 26, and ending in mid-winter, A.D. 36, we shall find that it consists as well with the theory of Mann as with that more commonly received.

But there is another passage in the Gospels which is, as we think, entirely and without any doubt decisive in favour of Mann's theory. We would refer to the second chapter of St. John, where it is related how, shortly after the first miracle of Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and how being then at Jerusalem for the approaching feast of Passover, he was engaged in controversy with certain of the Jews::

'Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

'Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

"Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?'

Here the first question that arises is, whether at this time the building of the temple was completed. If it were, it might have been so for some time previous; and the Jews might still, very fairly for their argument, allege the number of years that its building had required. But if it were not completed then, the Jews could speak only of its progress up to the time at which they spoke; and in that case, by determining the date when the construction of the temple was commenced, we could also determine the date of the discussion which the Evangelist records.

Now, in both these cases our information is precise and clear. The main body of the temple was closed in and in use for the Jewish services for a long time before the ministry of Jesus, but the edifice was not brought to a completion until a long time afterwards. It was not finished till the year A.D. 63, in the reign of the Emperor Nero. On the other hand, we learn that Herod began the construction of the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign. Both these facts, with their dates, stand on the high authority of Josephus.†

* See this conclusion more fully established by Dr. Zumpt, Des Geburtsjahr Christi,' p. 297, ed. 1869.

Ant. Jud.,' lib. xx. c. 9, and lib. xv. c. 11.

But

But when did Herod's reign begin? We have already had occasion to show that, as in the case of Tiberius, there were two different computations for it; the one reckoning from the Decree of the Roman Senate, which named him King; and the other from his actual acquisition of the kingdom by the taking of Jerusalem and the death of the last Asmonean prince. The first of these events was in the year B.C. 40, the second in 37. However, we are left in no doubt as to which date Josephus here designed. For after telling us that the building of the temple was commenced in the eighteenth year of the King's reign, he goes on to say that it was after the acts already mentioned' (μerà Tàs προειρημένας πράξεις). Now, the acts just before related by Josephus were the visit of Augustus in the spring to Syria, and his return in the autumn to Samos; and this visit, as we learn from other sources, took place in the year B.C. 20. We may therefore fix the foundation of this, the third temple of Jerusalem, towards the close of B.C. 20 or the beginning of 19. If the Jews, as appears to have been their common practice with days, reckoned the broken year at the commencement as entire, the forty-six years stated from the first building would bring us to the early months of A.D. 27, and this is the more probable time. If, however, the broken year be not so included, we come then to the early months of A.D. 28; but by no possibility can this computation allow a later date. Those, therefore, who place the first appearance of our Lord in the year 29, do so in the very teeth of the deductions which the statement of the Jews in the fourth Gospel enables us to make.

There is another argument which we have reserved to the last, and which, as we hope, will have much weight with a large majority of our readers. It is only by the theory of Mann and Zumpt that we can fully vindicate the accuracy of St. Luke. If in our Biblical chronology we desire to postpone the first public appearance of Jesus till the year A.D. 29, and if we bear in mind that it is incumbent upon us to place his Nativity some months before the death of Herod, we must admit that he was thirty-four or thirty-five years of age at the commencement of his ministry. Now St. Luke has told us that he was then about thirty;' and this, were it really brought home to him, would in an Evangelist be a considerable error-above all, in one who speaks of himself as having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first.'

We have now brought to a close our argument on the year of the Passion, which we have endeavoured to state as briefly as clearness would allow. But, before we conclude, we desire to express the wish and hope which we have formed that some

scholar

scholar worthy of the task-Dean Stanley, perhaps, or Mr. Grove -might consent to undertake a local History of Jerusalem, similar to those which we already possess of Rome. From the excavations and researches that are even now in progress, he might compare to great advantage the descriptions in the Old Testament with the traces of foundation that still remain. The essay of M. Jacob Bernays, as published at Berlin in 1861, has with singular ingenuity brought to bear some facts, hitherto unnoticed, on the memorable siege of Titus-facts that any future writer would certainly not neglect. The Arabic manuscripts might-more doubtfully-afford him some new details as to the edifices in the Moslem period, and above all, as to the mosque of Omar. From that era of servitude the spirit of the annalist would kindle, and his materials, far from failing, would gather in masses round him, as he came to the days of the great deliverance-when, after contests fierce and dire, the Holy City was regained by Christian arms under auspices that even Gibbon can scarcely record without a thrill of enthusiasm-when in his own words, on a Friday, at three in the afternoon, the day and hour of the Passion, Godfrey of Bouillon stood victorious on the walls of Jerusalem.'

ART. VIII.-Recollections of Past Life. By Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.D., D.C.L., &c., &c., President of the Royal Institute of Great Britain, Physician in Ordinary to the Queen. London, 1872.

WE

E stand'-exclaimed Burke, addressing the House of Commons in 1782-' we stand where we have an immense view of what is and what is past. Clouds, indeed, and darkness rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this noble eminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity has happened within the short period of the life of man. It has happened within sixty-eight years. There are those alive whose memory might touch the two extremities. For instance, my Lord Bathurst might remember all the stages of its progress. He was in 1704 of an age, at least, to be made to comprehend such things.' . . . Fortunate man, he has lived to see it! Fortunate, indeed, if he lives to see nothing that shall vary the prospect and cloud the setting of his day.'

6

Change Lord Bathurst for Sir Henry Holland; take the seventy

Decline and Fall,' vol. vii. p. 227. Dr. Smith's edition.

one