shewn, from the latter end of J. P. 4724; to which if we add 15 years we shall arrive at the latter end of J. P. 4739, as the final limit. From all that has been said it follows that, supposing St. Luke to have computed the years of Tiberius from the date of his association to the empire, the propriety and period of which computation we have laboured by various considerations to establish," the word of God which came as we suppose to John the son of Zacharias in J. P. 4739, came to him in the 15th year of the government of Tiberius Cæsar." In other words, our calculations most accurately agree with the statement of the Evangelist, as far as this circumstance is concerned. SECTION II. Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea, THERE is some doubt about the fact which the title of this section asserts,-Pontius Pilate was dismissed from his government by Vitellius, and ordered to go to Rome after having passed ten years in Judea, and before he reached Rome the Emperor Tiberius was dead. All these circumstances, as well as the quotations which I shall introduce in the course of this investigation, may be found in the 6th chapter of the 18th book of the Antiquities of Josephus. Now from the statement, that before Pilate reached Rome the death of Tiberius had taken place, it is inferred with considerable plausibility, that Pilate had not been removed by Vitellius above two months before Tiberius died, March 16th J. P. 4750, and January J. P. 4750 10 years = = January J. P. 4740. Therefore Pilate entered upon the government of Judea about January J. P. 4740. If this were admitted as true, it would completely overturn both our opinion as to the time at which the word of God came to John, and also our method of computing the years of Tiberius. For St. Luke positively declares that when, in the 15th year of the government of Tiberius, the word of God came unto John, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. But if the word of God came to John, as we suppose, in May or October J. P. 4739, Pontius Pilate was not then, according to the above computation, the governor of Judea. a Lardner has taken this objection and difficulty into his particular consideration, and given it a very large and copious answer. It is not necessary to follow him through all his reasonings. The very chapter of Josephus upon which his answer is founded contains an irrefragable proof that Pilate was governor of Judea in the spring of J. P. 4739. I shall therefore pass over his lengthened arguments, which are not perhaps perfectly conclusive, and insist only upon this shorter solution of the difficulty which he has most unaccountably left unnoticed and neglected. The Senate of Samaria sent to Vitellius præfect of Syria an accusation against Pilate for what they deemed the murder of some of their countrymen. Vitellius, in consequence of their complaints, sent his friend Marcellus to supersede Pilate, whom he ordered to go directly to Rome, to answer before Cæsar the accusations which had been laid against him. "Thus Pilate having remained ten years in Judea, at the command of Vitellius whom he durst not disobey, returned to Rome, but Tiberius died before he got thither. Afterwards Vitellius went to Judea, and arrived at Jerusalem at the time of the celebration of the feast of the Passover.' This Passover, it is evident, was the first which occurred after the removal of Pilate. Was it also the first after the death of Tiberius? Because it is said by Josephus "that Tiberius died" before Pilate reached Rome, it is inferred that it was. From the subsequent tenor of the narrative of Josephus I think it may be clearly demonstrated that it was not. The tenor of the historian's narrative to which I allude is this: At the first Passover after Pilate's removal, Vitellius remitted to the inhabitants of Judea the tribute of fruit,-restored to the temple the sacerdotal robes,-deposed the high priest Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas,—substituted in his room Jonathan the son of Ananus, and then returned to b Josephus, ubi supra. Antioch.-"And now Tiberius sends letters to Vitellius commanding him to form a friendly alliance with Artabanus King of the Parthians." This was after Vitellius's return to Antioch; whence it is highly probable that Tiberius was then alive. But it is not absolutely certain, because these letters, though written before, might not be received by Vitellius till after the death of Tiberius,— We must therefore proceed. .... In consequence of these letters from Tiberius, Artabanus and Vitellius met together at the Euphrates for the purpose of settling the conditions of the treaty. The terms were fixed, and "not long after Artabanus, together with many presents, sent his son Darius as an hostage to Tiberius. . . . . Then Vitellius returned to Antioch, and King Artabanus to Babylon."-When Vitellius sent his dispatches to the Emperor with an account of his success in these negociations, "Cæsar signified to him, that he was acquainted with the whole affair from Herod before."Vitellius was much chagrined at this circumstance, and conceived a great dislike to Herod in consequence, which however "he carefully concealed until Caius obtained the empire." Tiberius, therefore, it is evident, was not only the Emperor to whom Vitellius sent his dispatches, but also that Cæsar who in his answer signified to him that he P |