Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul. A Critical Life.
Chapter 1: The Chronological Framework, p. 1-31

(Detailed summary)

There are few chronological references to Paul’s life and ministry. Paul himself provides two of them. The rest come from Luke in his Acts of the Apostles.

1. The Evidence from the Pauline Letters
   1. Date of Birth

      In Philemon 1:9, Paul writes: “Yes, I, Paul, who am an old man (presbytēs).” At what age is one considered an “old man”?

      1. The Greek Tradition

         Philo from Alexandria (20 BC – 45 AD), a great Jewish philosopher and a contemporary of Paul, wrote:

         The growth of men from infancy to old age, when measured by the number seven, displays in a most evident manner its perfecting power; for in the first period of seven years, the putting forth of the teeth takes place. And at the end of the second period of the same length, he arrives at the age of puberty; at the end of the third period, the growth of the beard takes place. The fourth period sees him arrive at the fulness of his manly strength. The fifth seven years is the season for marriage. In the sixth period he arrives at the maturity of his understanding. The seventh period is that of the most rapid improvement and growth of both his intellectual and reasoning powers. The eight is the sum of the perfection of both. In the ninth, his passions assume a mildness and gentleness, from being to a great degree tamed. In the tenth, the desirable end of live comes upon him, while his limbs and organic senses are still unimpaired; for excessive old age is apt to weaken and enfeeble them all (De Opificio Mundi, 103-5, trans. Yonge).

         Solon, the Athenian lawgiver (635–560 BC), described these different ages in the following elegiac verses:

         In seven years from the earliest breath,
         The child puts forth his hedge of teeth;
         When strengthened by a similar span,
         He first displays some signs of man.
         As in a third, his limbs increase,
         A beard buds o'er his changing face.
         When he has passed a fourth such time,
         His strength and vigour's in its prime.
         When five times seven years o'er his head
         Have passed, the man should think to wed;
         At forty-two, the wisdom's clear
         To shun vile deed or folly or fear;
         When seven times seven years, to sense
         Add ready wit and eloquence.
         And seven years further skill admit
         To raise them to their perfect height.
         When nine such periods have passed,
         His powers, though milder grown, still last;
         When God has granted ten times seven,
         The aged man prepares for heaven.

         Solon therefore thus computes the life of man by ten periods of seven years. But [Pseudo] Hippocrates the physician says that there are seven ages of man—infancy, childhood, boyhood, youth, manhood, middle age, old age—and that these too are measured by periods of seven, though not in the same order. He said:

         In the nature of man there are seven seasons, which men call ages: infancy, childhood, boyhood and the rest:
         He is an infant [paidion] till he reaches his seventh year, the age of the shedding of his teeth.
         He is a child [pais] until he arrives at the. age of puberty, which
         takes place in fourteen years.
         He is a boy [meirakion] till his beard begins to grow, and that
         time is the end of a third period of seven years.
         He is a youth [neaniskos] till the completion of the growth of his
         whole body, which coincides with the fourth seven years.
         Then he is a man [anēr] until he reaches his forty-ninth year, or
         seven times seven periods.
         He is an elderly man [presbytēs] till he is fifty-six, eight times
         seven years old.
         And after that he is an old man [gerōn].

         Solon and Hippocrates divide human life into seven-year periods, but Solon is more realistic than Hippocrates, for whom 49 years is artificially the peak of life—since it is the square of seven—followed by a long decline. In contrast, Solon’s view aligns with Psalm 90:10a: “Seventy years is the span of our life, or eighty, if we are strong.” And the characteristics of its ninth phase are those we associate with “the elderly” as opposed to “the old.”

      2. The Jewish Tradition

         Jewish tradition confirms this interpretation. According to Leviticus 27:2–5: “For a man between the ages of twenty and sixty, the value is fifty shekels of silver… for a man sixty years of age or older, the value is fifteen shekels… ” Thus, a person’s value decreases after the age of 60, as explained in the Damascus Document found at Qumran:

         Let no man be in office from 60 years and over as judge of the congregation; for because of the unfaithfulness of men their days are diminished, and in the heat of his anger against the in¬habitants of the earth God has ordained that their understand¬ing should decline before their days are fulfilled (CD 10:7-10).

         A rabbinic list offers us a slightly different perspective:

         At 5 years old one is fit for the Scripture,
         At 10 for the Mishnah,
         At 13 for the fulfilling of the commandments,
         At 15 for the Talmud,
         At 18 for the bride-chamber,
         At 20 for pursuing a calling,
         At 30 for authority,
         At 40 for discernment,
         At 50 for counsel,
         At 60 for to be an elder,
         At 70 for grey hairs,
         At 80 for special strength,
         At 90 for bowed back,
         At 100 a man is as one that has already died.

         This list corresponds to what is found at Qumran: education begins in early childhood, the age of majority (including the right to marry) is set at 20, people begin to assume responsibilities at 25, and a man can serve as a judge at 30.

         In short, for Paul’s contemporaries, a man in his late fifties or early sixties was considered an elder. And we can assume that Paul shared this perspective when he wrote to Philemon and identified himself as an elder. However, this letter was written in the year 53, which means that Paul was about 60 years old, placing his birth in the final years before the start of the modern era—that is, around the same time as the birth of Jesus.

   2. Date of Departure from Damascus

      In 2 Cor 11:32–33, Paul writes: “In Damascus, the ethnarch under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped from his hands”, and Gal 1, 17-18: “I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days”.

      The Arabia Paul refers to was under the control of the Nabatean king Aretas IV (whose reign began in 9 BC and ended upon his death around AD 40). We must assume that Paul encountered trouble in Arabia and was forced to return hastily to Damascus, where he then spent three years in peace before the Nabataeans took control of the city, forcing him to flee again, this time to Jerusalem.

   3. Nabataean Control of Damascus

      It should be noted that Damascus had been an integral part of the Roman Empire of Syria since Pompey’s conquest in 65 BCE. However, according to a model found in Alexandria, the ethnarch of Damascus was a sort of “consul” who governed the Nabatean trading colony established there. And if he bore the title of ethnarch rather than that of stratēgos, usually used to designate Nabatean governors, it is because it reflected the governor’s rank as prince of his own tribe. However, the use of such a title places us after March 16, 37 CE, i.e., after the death of Emperor Tiberius, who demanded well-structured provinces, not “client” kings, as his successor Caligula would later permit. Caligula had to be open to the Nabataeans, who regarded the city as a crossroad for trade, because they had aided his father, Germanicus, in his campaign in 18–19 CE against Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, governor of Syria.

   The Implications for Pauline Chronology

   It is therefore likely that the Nabataeans took control of Damascus in the second half of the year 37. From this date, which forced Paul to leave Damascus, we can deduce the other events. Since Paul tells us that he stayed in Damascus for three years—that is, from 34 to 37—his previous stay in Arabia must have taken place in 33 or 34. Furthermore, since Paul seems to indicate that this stay in Arabia followed his conversion (Gal 1:16–17), we can conclude that his conversion took place in the year 33, when he was in his thirties. Finally, Paul writes that, after leaving Damascus, he went up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), and fourteen years later, he went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus (Gal 2:1), which brings us to the year 51. Here is a brief summary table.

   Birth	c. 6 BC
   Conversion	AD 33
   Arabia	34
   Damascus	34-37
   Jerusalem (1st visit)	37
   Syria and Cilicia	37-?
   Jerusalem (2nd visit)	51

2. The Evidence from the Acts of the Apostles
   1. The Edict of Claudius
      In Acts 18 :1-2, Luke writes :

      After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he found a Jew named Aquila from Pontus, who had recently (prophatōs) come from Italy with his wife Prisca, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them.

      The Claudius imperial edict evoked by Luke is also mentioned by Suetonius:

      He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius 25, 4)

      But when did this expulsion take place? Suetonius does not tell us.

      1. The Evidence of Orosius

         The Christian historian Paul Orosius (385 - 420) writes:

         Josephus refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius in his ninth year. But Suetonius touches me more in saying, ‘Claudius expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Christus.’ It cannot be determined whether he ordered only the Jews agitating against Christ to be restrained and suppressed, or whether he also wanted to expel Christians as being men of a related faith. (Historiae adversus paganos 7. 6. 15–16)

         So, according to Orosius, Claudius’s expulsion took place during his ninth year. However, Claudius was acclaimed emperor on January 25, 41, and thus his ninth year corresponds to the period from January 25, 49, to January 24, 50, which places Paul’s arrival in Corinth, mentioned in Acts 18:1–2, in the year 49. Unfortunately, Orosius is unreliable, as one would search in vain for the reference to Josephus of whom he speaks; he likely deduced this figure from Paul’s encounter with Gallio around the year 51, subtracting eighteen months from that date. Tacitus, whose Annals are complete for the year 49, makes no mention of any expulsion.

      2. The Evidence of Dio Cassius

         Dio Cassius furnishes an important item of information regarding the relationship of the emperor and the Jewish community:

         As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly by reason of their multitude that it would have been hard without raising a tumult to expel them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings (History 60.6.6)

         Based on the way Dio Cassius organizes his annals, the event he refers to must be placed in the first year of Claudius’s reign, that is, in the year 41. But is this the same event that Suetonius mentions? Among the common elements are: (1) an action by Claudius, (2) the mention of an expulsion, (3) of Jews, (4) from Rome, (5) and the idea of a riot. But there are major differences: (1) Suetonius states that the Jews were expelled, while Cassius Dio denies this; (2) the riot feared by Cassius Dio actually took place in Suetonius’ account.

         Unfortunately, Cassius Dio offers us no reason why the emperor would have ordered the Jews to stop gathering. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that the emperor would have prevented the Jews from gathering, since this was guaranteed by Roman law and would have created a permanent cause for grievance; an expulsion would have been simpler. It is possible that Cassius Dio was in possession of inaccurate information that he further misinterpreted.

         The most plausible hypothesis is that Claudius expelled only the troublemakers among the Jews. In fact, the expulsion likely targeted a single synagogue among all the synagogues in Rome. Furthermore, he could only expel visitors, not those who were Roman citizens. Thus, it appears that Claudius could only expel the missionaries who were not Roman citizens and deny that particular synagogue the right to assemble. This hypothesis is confirmed by Philo of Alexandria, who writes, while completing his Legatio ad Gaium in Rome in the year 41, while awaiting an audience with Claudius:

         Augustus knew that they had synagogues, and they were in the habit of visiting them, and most especially on the sacred sabbath days, when they publicly cultivate their national philosophy. He knew also that they were in the habit of contributing sacred sums of money from their first fruits and sending them to Jerusalem by the hands of those who were to conduct the sacrifices. But he never removed them from Rome, nor did he ever deprive them of their rights as Roman citizens, because he had a regard for Judaea, nor did he ever meditate any new steps of innovation or rigour with respect to their synagogues, nor did he forbid their assembling for the interpretation of the Law, nor did he make any opposition to their offerings of first fruits.

         This text by Philo presupposes that he had heard the rumor of the emperor’s intention (text in italics) to expel the Jews from Rome or to prohibit them from gathering, but that by invoking Emperor Augustus, whom Claudius revered, he knew the tradition would be respected. In short, we can assign a very high degree of probability to the hypothesis that, following an imperial decree issued in 41, certain Jews were expelled from Rome.

      3. The Attitude of Claudius to the Jews

         The question arises because some historians have denied that Claudius could have expelled Jews from Rome, since at the beginning of his reign he restored the privileges that his predecessor, Gaius (Caligula), had revoked. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus preserved this letter in which Claudius reaffirms the traditional rights of the Jews. However, the third paragraph contains a warning that reads as follows:

         It will, therefore, be fit to permit the Jews, who are in all the world under us, to keep their ancient customs without being hindered in so doing. But I charge them also to use this my kindness to them with moderation, and not to show contempt of the superstitious observances of other nations, but to keep their own laws only (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 19.290).

         There is, therefore, a limit to what Claudius can tolerate. This is clear from a letter addressed to the Alexandrians on November 10, 41, which includes the following paragraph:

         On the other hand I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in future to send out a separate embassy as if they lived in a separate city, a thing unprecedented, and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Syria or Egypt, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions; otherwise I will by all means take vengeance upon them as fomentors of what is a general plague infecting the whole world.

         This document reveals that from the very beginning of his reign, Claudius was prepared to react vigorously to anything that might be seen as a threat to public order. And so, if in the year 41 certain Jews were perceived as agitators, Claudius could certainly have acted in the manner described by Suetonius and Cassius Dio.

         Let us return, then, to Acts 18:1–2 and Luke’s statement that Paul arrived in Corinth at the time Prisca and Aquila had left Italy. This means that Paul’s arrival in Corinth would date to the year 42 at the latest. Note that Luke does not mention Rome, but Italy. It is plausible that, having been expelled from the city of Rome under Claudius’s edict, they might have remained in Italy to see how the situation developed. Luke writes: “who had recently (prophatōs) arrived from Italy”; what does “recently” mean? On this point, Luke is not always reliable, as evidenced by his reference to Quirinius’ census to justify the journey of Jesus’ parents to Bethlehem (Luke 2:2), even though we know that this census took place in the year 6 or 7 CE.

   2. Paul’s Encounter with Gallio

      In Acts 18, 12, Luke writes :

      But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal.

      The only way we have to date Gallion's proconsulship is a badly broken inscription.

      1. The Delphi Inscription

         Four fragments were discovered at Delphi in 1905, and three more from the same inscription in 1910. In 1967, André Plassart succeeded in piecing together the two sets of fragments and added two more. This yielded the following result:

         Tiber[ius Claudius Caes]ar Au[gus]tus Ge[rmanicus, invested with tribunician po]wer [for the 12th time, acclaimed Imperator for t]he 26th time, f[ather of the fa]ther[land … sends greetings to …]. For a l[ong time I have been not onl]y [well disposed toward t]he ci[ty] of Delph[i, but also solicitous for its prosperity, and I have always guar[ded th]e cul[t of t]he [Pythian] Apol[lo. But] now [since] it is said to be desti[tu]te of [citi]zens, as [L. Jun]ius Gallio, my fri[end] an[d procon]sul, [recently reported to me, and being desirous that Delphi] should continue to retain [inta]ct its for[mer rank, I] ord[er you (pi.) to in] vite [well born people also from ot]her cities [to Delphi as new inhabitants and to] all[ow] them [and their children to have all the] privi [leges of Del]phi as being citi[zens on equal and like (basis)].

      2. Dating the Letter of Claudius

         The letter was written after Claudius had been acclaimed emperor for the twenty-sixth time. Such acclamations were ritualized public applause that sanctioned a triumph of the emperor, e.g. the conclusion of a successful military campaign or an especially significant victory. Unfortunately, we have no text which dates the twenty-sixth acclamation precisely. The problem, then, is to delimit as tightly as possible the time-span within which it must have occurred.

         The upper limit is fixed by the twenty-seventh acclamation which took place before 1 August 52. The dedicatory inscription on one of these aqueducts requested by Claudius, the Aqua Claudia, reads in part, “Tiberius Claudius son of Drusus Caesar Augustus Germanicus Pontifex Maximus, 12th year of tribunician power, consul for the 5th time, acclaimed emperor for the 27th time, father of the country.” Now, tribunician power was accorded to an emperor at the moment of his accession to the purple, and for each year of his reign he added one unit. Since the first tribunician year of Claudius was 25 January 41 to 24 January 42, his twelfth year was 25 January 52 to 24 January 53. The twenty-seventh acclamation, therefore, took place between 25 January 52 and 1 August 52. This period, however, can be narrowed significantly. Acclamations were related to military prowess, and normally no major campaigns were undertaken in winter; the battle season was from late March to early November. Thus, the twenty-seventh acclamation must be dated between April and July 52. In consequence, the twenty-sixth acclamation must have taken place in the same period or in or before the previous November.

         The lower limit is fixed by a series of inscriptions which affirm that the twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth acclamations took place in the eleventh tribunician year of Claudius, i.e. 25 January 51 to 24 January 52. No inscription correlates the twenty-fifth acclamation with a tribunician year. So, on the one hand, the twenty-seventh acclamation must be dated between April and July 52, and the twenty-fourth acclamation took place between April and July 51. When did the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth acclamations take place? The most probable answer is the twenty-fifth to place during the period of April - July 51 and the twenty-sixth during the period of April – July 52, which would spread in a balanced way all the acclamations, on average every two months.

         Thus, the twenty-sixth acclamation would have taken place after the first significant victory in the spring campaign of ad 52, i.e. in April at the earliest. Thus, the letter of Claudius was probably written in the late spring or very early summer of that year.

      3. Dating the Proconsulship of Gallio

         Roman officials usually took office on July 1. This is inferred from an edict issued by Emperor Tiberius in the year 15, which required them to leave Rome in early June, allowing a month to reach their posts. In the year 42, Claudius moved this departure date forward to early April to account for the difficulties of traveling in the spring. Arriving early at their post was important for proconsuls, as they were appointed for only one year and therefore needed time to acclimate. Thus, a proconsul’s term ran from July 1 to the end of June of the following year.

         However, we have established that Claudius’s letter to Delphi was likely written in April or May of the year 52. And since this letter mentions a previous report by Gallio from when he was proconsul, this proconsulship must cover the period from July 51 to June 52 at the latest. But could this proconsulship have taken place earlier? This is unlikely, since Gallio was promoted to proconsul thanks to his brother Seneca, who returned from eight years of exile in Corsica in the year 49 and, having been rehabilitated, was appointed tutor to Nero. Thus, this proconsulship must cover, at the earliest, the period from July 50 to June 51.

         But how do we choose between the two possible periods of Gallio’s proconsulship, 50–51 or 51–52? It all depends on how quickly Emperor Claudius reacted to Gallio’s report regarding Delphi, a city in Achaea. Now, the historian Suetonius tells us this:

         He paid just as much attention to Greek studies, seizing every opportunity to express his esteem for that language and its superiority... and, in commending Achaea to the senators, he declared that it was a province dear to him because of its association with related studies (Claudius, 42).

         This attachment to Achaea implies that Claudius would have reacted quickly to Gallio’s report. However, this report would have reached him at the earliest by late fall of 51, or at the latest when the sea was once again open to normal navigation in the spring of 52. Gallio’s term therefore most likely took place in 51–52 rather than the previous year.

         We also know that Gallio did not complete his one-year term. We know this from a note by his brother Seneca: “When he began to feel feverish in Achaea, he immediately set sail, claiming that it was not an ailment of the body, but an ailment of the place” (Epistulae morales 104.1). The impression of a fussy hypochondriac is confirmed by Pliny’s account that Gallion felt the need for a long sea voyage to recover after his consulship (Natural History 31.62). This “illness of the place” likely refers to the fact that Gallio took a dislike to Achaea and used a minor ailment as a pretext to leave his post. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Gallio remained in Achaea for more than four months, that is, from June to September. Otherwise, he would have been stuck in Achaia all winter, as it was too dangerous to set sail during the winter season.

         All of this means that Paul’s encounter with Gallio, as described by Luke (Acts 18:12–17), must have taken place between July—when Gallio arrived in Corinth—and September of the year 51, the latest possible date before the end of the sailing season to Rome. All of this is confirmed by Galatians 2:1, which places Paul in Jerusalem in the year 51; he would have left Corinth for Jerusalem very soon after his meeting with Gallio. Such a journey could not have taken place after mid-September, the deadline before the sea became too dangerous. If this is the case, Paul’s arrival in Corinth would have occurred in April of the year 50, an 18-month stay entirely plausible for someone who founded a community there (see Acts 18:11). All of this confirms the 14-year period (see Gal 2:1) between Paul’s departure from Damascus and his journey to Jerusalem. At the same time, these dates show that Paul’s stay in Jerusalem in Acts 18:22 and that in Acts 15:2–3 constitute a parallel account.

   3. Hearings of Felix and Festus

      After Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, Luke reports that he was sent to the governor Antonius Felix in Caesarea (Acts 23:24). Two years later (Acts 24:27), Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus (Acts 25:1). The date of the beginning of Felix’s term is determined by two rather imprecise references. According to Flavius Josephus, “Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to handle the affairs of Judea, and when he had completed the twelfth year of his reign, he entrusted to Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea” (Antiquities of the Jews 20:137–8). The mention of the 12th year allows us to establish that Claudius’s grant of territories to Agrippa II took place in the year 53, likely during the second half of the year. The juxtaposition of the mention of Antonius Felix suggests that his appointment took place shortly before, that is, toward the end of the year 52 or the beginning of the year 53. As for Festus, who replaced Felix, he died in the year 62, while still in office. This date is inferred from the fact that Albinus, his successor, was in Judea for the Feast of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) four years before the start of the Jewish revolt in the year 66.

      One question remains: during this 10-year period spanning the years 52 and 62, when did power pass from Felix to Festus? The only certainty is that this transfer of power took place after October 13, 54 (the date of Claudius’s death), since Felix was deposed by Nero and owed his life only to the entreaties of his brother Pallas. The Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea estimates that Felix’s removal occurred two years into Nero’s reign, but in fact, he was off by four years in his calculations of Nero’s reign, so that this transfer of power from Felix to Festus is now placed between October 59 and October 60. Confirmation of this date can be drawn from a change in the provincial currency of Judea during the fifth year of Nero’s reign, i.e., the year 58–59, a sign of the arrival of a new procurator.

3. Developing a Chronology of Paul’s Life
   1. Prior to AD 51

      According to Paul, he went to Jerusalem twice: first on a date we have determined to be the year 37 (Gal 1:18), and then a second time on a date we have determined to be the year 51 (Gal 2:1). So what did Paul do during the 14 years between these two visits? In Galatians 1:21 he writes: “I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” But in Galatians 2:5, when Paul refers to the Galatians regarding his activities prior to the Jerusalem conference, he writes: “We did not yield to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for you.” We can therefore infer that Paul set out from Cilicia toward the west. He did not need to specify to the Galatians that he was going to visit them.

      1. Galatia and a Journey into Europe

         In Gal 4:13, Paul tells us that he went to the Galatians by chance: “As you well know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you.” If this visit was unplanned, where was Paul headed then? Luke, in Acts 16–18, offers us an answer. But let us first examine Paul’s writings.

         According to 1 Thess 2:2, Paul’s visit to Thessalonica was preceded by one to Philippi, where he was mistreated; subsequently, he went to Athens (1 Thess 3:1), and then to a place he does not name, from which he writes his letter. In his letter to the Philippians, he alludes to the financial support he received from them when he left Macedonia, just as he had received from them when he was in Thessalonica. From all this, we can infer that the church in Thessalonica had only just been established, that Paul had not yet accomplished anything significant, for in fact, this was Paul’s first foray into Europe. Furthermore, after being in Philippi, then in Thessalonica, and subsequently in Athens, Paul must have received this money while he was in Achaia. Finally, since this was a north-south journey through Greece, the earlier churches were located to the east, i.e., in Asia Minor.

         In short, we can integrate these data into a single overarching hypothesis: during the same journey, Paul successively founded the churches of Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, after passing through Athens where he carried out no ministry. A comparison of the data from the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Galatians confirms that this journey took place before the year 51. Paul’s lack of any need to identify himself in his correspondence with the Thessalonians attests to the confidence of an emissary from an important church; these letters therefore date from a time when Paul was commissioned by Antioch. This relationship, however, came to an end in 51–52 (Gal 2:11–14), during his conflict with Peter and James’s entourage. All of this is confirmed by what Luke reveals in his Acts of the Apostles (16–18). Thus, the journey began in Antioch (Acts 15:30) and the route to Galatia passed through Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1), and Phrygia (Acts 16:6), before arriving in Macedonia.

      2. Dating the Stages of the Journey

         Our starting point is Paul’s arrival in Corinth in April of the year 50, 18 months before his departure for Jerusalem in September 51. Since we must take into account the fact that people did not travel in winter, we can infer that Paul spent the winter of 49–50 in Macedonia. That is the minimum. Given the quality of the communities he established in Philippi and Thessalonica, it is likely that he spent two winters in Macedonia, which was subsequently the case in Corinth, meaning that Paul would have arrived in Philippi in the summer or fall of 48.

         Paul arrived in Philippi from Galatia, a distance of approximately 771 km. We can imagine that this required six weeks of travel, if we calculate an average of 18 km per day. Paul must therefore have left Galatia in late spring 48, after the snow had melted, having certainly spent the winter of 47–48 taking refuge in one of his communities. In Galatia, however, a six-month ministry is probably too short. Galatians 4:13 suggests that Paul’s illness must have been quite serious, and we must therefore allow him time for his convalescence. Furthermore, it was only in the summer that he could undertake the journeys required to establish several communities, “the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2). Thus, Paul would have spent two winters in Galatia, namely 46–47 and 47–48.

         Paul arrived in Galatia from Antioch, a distance of 1,069 km that may have been covered in 43 days, at a rate of 25 km per day. If we are to believe Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul would have passed through Syria-Cilicia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia. Since Paul could not have left Antioch before the end of April 46 to avoid facing the Gates of Cilicia—the narrow passage through the Taurus Mountains behind Tarsus—the journey to Galatia took place during the summer of 46, and his stops in the communities along the way were very brief, as his involvement in their evangelization was secondary. All of this gives us the following picture:

         Antioch	Winter 45-46
         Departure From Antioch	April 46
         Journey to Galatia	April-September 46
         Ministry in Galatia	September 46-May 48
         Journey to Macedonia	Summer 48
         Ministry in Macedonia	September 48-April 50
         Journey to Corinth	April 50
         Ministry in Corinth	April 50-September 51
         Journey to Jerusalem	September 51
         Conference in Jerusalem	October 51.

   2. After AD 51

      Both Luke (Acts 15:30 = Acts 18:22) and Paul (Galatians 2:11–14) confirm that Paul returned immediately to Antioch after the Jerusalem Council, a journey of 600 km that must have taken between two and four weeks. Paul is said to have spent the winter there. But given his sense of urgency regarding the mission and the conflict he had just experienced there due to the intervention of James’s entourage, Paul must have set out again immediately in April of the year 52.

      1. Ephesus

         According to Luke, Paul traveled through the highlands of central Asia Minor—that is, Galatia (Acts 18:23)—on his way to Ephesus (Acts 19:1). The letters confirm this. We know that Paul was in Ephesus after the Council of Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:8), for he mentions the collection that was decided there (Gal 2:10), and we know that his itinerary took him through Galatia, for, regarding this collection, he tells the Corinthians to do “as I have directed the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor 16:1). The fact that Paul visited Galatia a second time before writing the epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians is perhaps also suggested by the “before” or “first time” when he announced the good news to them in Gal 4:13. Even assuming a one-month stay with the Galatians, it would have been entirely possible for Paul to arrive in Ephesus in July, or at the latest in August of 52.

         Luke gives us two figures for Paul’s stay in Ephesus: two years and three months (Acts 19:8–9), a figure that seems fairly accurate, and three years (Acts 20:31), a figure that appears to be rounded. Recall that Ephesus was a city as large, if not larger, than Corinth. And during his stay, he had to deal with problems arising from several churches (Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Corinth). Therefore, we can state with a fair degree of confidence that Paul definitively left Ephesus in October of the year 54. He had initially planned to leave earlier, at Pentecost (1 Cor 16:5–6), which fell on June 2 that year, but several issues required his attention.

         We learn from 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1–2 that Paul had to make a brief visit to Corinth in mid-June by ship. This stay in Corinth was brief and difficult, and he returned by land, passing through Thessalonica and Philippi (2 Cor 1:23–2:1). 736 km separate Corinth from Neapolis (Acts 16:11), today Kavalla, and 350 km separate Troas from Ephesus. At an average of 32 km per day, the journey would have taken a little over five weeks. But we must take into account the time needed for interactions with the churches in Macedonia. It is therefore highly likely that Paul was back in Ephesus by early August 54. It was later that summer that he left Ephesus for good, heading first to Troas and then to Macedonia (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5), presumably just before the end of the sailing season.

      2. Macedonia

         Paul spent the winter of 54–55 in Macedonia. It was from the Macedonians that he learned of their generosity in the collection for the poor in Jerusalem, and it was from Macedonia that he wrote to the Corinthians: “I know your good intentions, and I boast about you to the Macedonians: ‘Achaia,’ I told them, ‘has been ready since last year, and your eagerness has spurred on most of the churches’” (2 Cor 9:2). Paul is referring here to what he had previously written to them about the collection (1 Cor 16:1–4). Since the First Letter to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus in April or May of the year 54, we can infer from the mention of “a year” that Paul was still in Macedonia in the spring of the year 55.

         From Macedonia, Paul plans to travel to Corinth for his third visit (see 2 Cor 9:4; 12:14; 13:1–2; Rom 15:25–26). But before going there, he preached in Illyria (Rom 15:19) until a crisis in Corinth forced him to write 2 Cor 10–13 and led him to travel there urgently. Thus, Paul would have spent the winter of 55–56 in Corinth. And it was in the summer of 56 that he is said to have left for Jerusalem with the collection for the poor.

         For the rest of the events, we rely on Luke, who tells us that Paul had been a prisoner in Caesarea for two years when the procurator Felix was replaced by Festus (Acts 24:27–25:1). This change in authority is tentatively dated to the year 59 or 60. Paul’s arrest by the tribune Lysias (Acts 21:33) should therefore have taken place in 57 or 58. His transfer to Rome, at his own request (Acts 25:11), must have occurred before Festus’s death in 62. According to Luke, Paul spent two years in prison in Rome (Acts 28:30), a duration that does not appear to be in doubt. Subsequently, as we shall see, he made an unsuccessful journey to Spain, followed by a tour of the Aegean Sea to visit his churches. He returned to Rome to strengthen the local church after Nero’s persecution and was himself arrested and executed, probably in the year 67. All of this gives us the following picture:

         Jerusalem Conference	October 51
         Antioch	Winter 51-52
         Journey to Ephesus	April-July 52
         Ephesus	August 52-October 54
         Macedonia	Winter 54-55
         Illyricum	Summer 55
         Corinth	Winter 55-56
         Journey to Jerusalem	Summer 56
         Jerusalem- Caesarea	57?-61?
         Journey to Rome	September 61-Spring 62
         Rome	Spring 62-Spring 64
         Spain	Early Summer 64
         Around the Aegean	64-66?
         Death in Rome	67