Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ON THE SOURCES
1.1 SOURCES, HISTORICAL DATA AND HISTORICAL FACTS
How do historians know about the past? Their sources include
written works left from the past, oral retelling of stories, archaeological
relics and, for the history of the past century or so, still photos, voice and
video recordings. For the period of early Christianity, our main sources are
written documents, supplemented by some archaeological finds.
Of course, we cannot simply read these documents and assume what
is written is the "gospel truth". Sources need to be evaluated to determine
their authenticity and reliability. As noted by historians Martha Howell
and Walter Prevenier in their book, From Reliable Sources: An
Introduction to Historical Methods (2001), sources need to be evaluated
technically with both external and internal criteria. External criteria uses
paleography, archaeology, statistics and other methods to evaluate the
authenticity of documents. Internal criteria for evaluation of sources
essentially concentrates on the author - his or her identity, sources, biases,
agenda, authority (i.e. whether it is an eyewitness account), competence
and trustworthiness. The time and location of writing are also important
considerations here. If the original autograph no longer exists and there
are more than one copy extant, then the textual analysis of the history of
the text also becomes important.1
Even if a document is "authentic", historians do not simply then
assume they are reading pure unadulterated history. The sources may
have been written with a particular agenda and hence provide a one sided
view of events or they have been written by a non-eyewitness whose
sources may not be reliable. Accepting sources as completely sacrosanct
means that no history is possible for we are asked to swallow wholesale
what is told to us, regardless of the authors agenda or their own
accessibility to the events they are reporting. All we would have are
conflicting sources telling conflicting stories.
Yet sources are still the major font of our knowledge of the past. In
order to extract useful, historical information from these sources, they
4
5
7
8
According to the late Catholic New Testament scholar, around 80% to 90% of
critical scholars reject the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. [Brown, An Introduction
to the New Testament: p629, 654, 673]
Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 591, 600, 621
For these who are interested in the reasons why these epistles are rejected as
authentic by the majority of scholars, I have provided a short summary in Appendix A.
The passages are Romans 1:18-2:29, 13:1-7, 16:25-27; I Corinthians 2:6-16, 10:1-22,
11:3-16, 12:31b-14:1a, 14:34-35, II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, I Thessalonians 2:13-16. [Walker,
Interpolation in the Pauline Letters (2001)]
White, From Jesus to Christianity: pp.191-192, 204-207
Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: p.85
The oldest extant Christian document is the first letter of Paul to the
Thessalonians, I Thessalonians for short. Thessalonika is the capital of
the Roman province of Macedonia. It was a major city lying on the great
Roman military highway, the Via Egnatia. The Thessalonian congregation
were mainly former pagans,9 since Paul referred to them as people who
"turned to God from idols" (I Thessalonians 1:9).10
The authorship of Paul is not seriously disputed in modern
scholarship. The location and time of composition is not given in the letter
itself. However, we can get some clues on these from the epistle and by
some statement found in Acts. In the epistle, Paul mentioned that he has
sent his disciple Timothy to Thessalonika from Athens (I Thessalonians
3:1-2). After leaving Athens, Paul went to Corinth (Acts 18:1). According to
Acts 18:5, Timothy and Silas joined Paul from Macedonia after this. In I
Thessalonians 1:1, Silas and Timothy was already with Paul. Later on in
the same epistle, he mentioned that Timothy has "just now" came to him
from the Thessalonians (I Thessalonians 3:9). This means that this epistle
was most likely written from Corinth.11
10
11
Acts 17:2-4 mentioned that that Paul converted Jews and "devout Gentiles". The
latter term means Gentiles who were no longer pagans but who worshipped the Jewish
God without going the whole Torah (i.e. circumcision etc). This stands in uneasy contrast
to I Thessalonians 1:9.
Ehrman, The New Testament: p.276-277
Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p.457
Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p.257
Schnelle, The New Testament Writings: p.44
13
14
15
with some depth. During the time of Paul, Corinth was the provincial
capital of Achaia. It was a thriving city bursting with commerce and
manufacturing. The city housed many pagan shrines and temples. We
hear of shrines and altars dedicated to Poseidon, Isis, Dionysius among
others and a temple dedicated to Asclepius. The city has a large
population consisting of Romans, Greeks and Jews. 16
I Corinthians was written from Ephesus, because Paul mentioned in
the epistle that he will stay there until Pentecost (16:8). The reference to
the Pentecost and an earlier mention about celebrating the Passover (5:78) suggests that the letter was written in Spring. The fact that some in
Corinth may have assumed he is not coming back and thus were behaving
badly ("puffed up") implies that he had left Corinth for some period of time
already (4:18). His conveyance of greeting from the churches (plural) of
Asia also shows that he must have been working in that area for some
period of time (16:19). Since he left Corinth around 52 CE, most scholars
reasonably place the date of composition between 53 and 56 CE. 17
The letter was written as a response to two reports from Corinth
itself. The first was an oral report from "Chloe's people" (1:11) who told
him that about a man who was carnal relations with his father's wife (5:113) and lawsuits among the members of the community (6:1-19). The
second was a letter he received (7:1), probably brought by Stephanus,
Fortunatus and Archaicus that Paul said in his greetings had come from
Corinth (16:17). This letter contained questions for Paul regarding such
varied issues as marriage and celibacy (7:1-40), on freedom to eat food
offered to idols (8:1-13, 10:1-32), on gender, head coverings and worship
(11:2-16), on spiritual gifts and its abuses by some in Corinth (12:1-14:40)
and on the resurrection (15:1-58). But the most important subject of this
epistle is the report of strife and dissension within the community. People
have divided themselves in camps, variously claiming allegiance to Paul,
Apollos, Cephas (Peter) and Christ (1:12). The first section of the letter is
a call to unity (1:10-4:21) against this development. 18 This dissension
16
17
18
19
20
21
9).
This was the occasion in which II Corinthians (or at least the
fragment 1-7) was written. Estimates for the time within which all these
events transpired vary from around six months (Kmmel & Schnelle) to
around 2-3 years (Roetzel & White) So if I Corinthian was written
somewhere between 53-56 CE, then II Corinthians was composed around
54-58 CE.22
Indisputably Pauline, the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the most
important sources for identifying the opponents Paul faced during his
missionary travels. Scholars have argued for more than two centuries who
the recipients of this letter were. Paul addressed his letter to "the churches
of Galatia (1:2)" and called the recipients "Galatians" (3:1). The problems
lies in the term "Galatia" itself. Ethnically, the term refers to the Celtic 23
people who lived in what is today upper central Turkey around Ankyra
(modern Ankara). During the time of Paul, the Roman province of Galatia
covers this area as well as the area further south towards the
Mediterranean Sea which included Psidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and
Derbe. The inhabitants of the southern regions were not ethnic
Galatians.24
Due of this ambiguity, there has been two hypotheses about who the
addressees were. The first hypothesis, called the south Galatian (or
"provincial") hypothesis, claims that the "churches of Galatia" addressed
by Paul are those churches that Acts mentioned he visited during his first
missionary journey25 namely Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14-50, 14:19, 21),
Iconium in Phyrgia (Acts 13:51-14:6, 19, 21) and Lystra and Derbe in
Lycaonia (Acts 14:6-21).26 These churches lie in the south of the Roman
province of Galatia where the population consists mainly of Greeks. The
main arguments in support of this is the account in Acts of the founding of
22
23
24
25
26
10
the various churches in the southern part of the province, the silence in
the same document of any prosyletization by Paul in the northern part and
the fact that Paul normally employs the names of Roman provinces (e.g.
Asia, Macedonia, Achaia) in his letters. 27
These arguments are not very convincing. In his description of the
southern cities of the Roman province of Galatia, Luke always refers to
them by their district not province: Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14), Lystra
and Derbe in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).28 Furthermore, Acts did describe Paul
as passing through Galatia on at least two occasions (Acts 16:6, 18:23).
These would have been occasions when he could have preached in the
tribal Galatian regions.29 Finally we find many occasions in Paul's letters
where he refers to names not in the official sense as a Roman province. In
Galatians 1:21, he spoke of coming "to the regions of Syria and Cilicia"
after leaving Jerusalem. Yet Jerusalem was well within the Roman
province of Syria! He was using the term "Syria" in its older sense as the
Seleucid territory where Antioch was. Similarly he used the unofficial
term "Arabia" for Nabatea (Galatians 1:17)30
In addition to these objections to the south Galatian hypothesis, a
further argument adds weight to the north (or tribal) Galatian hypothesis.
In Galatians 3:1, Paul addressed his audience as "you foolish Galatians".
Firstly, there were very few Celts in the southern region. Secondly, in the
south, the inhabitants maintained their own cultures and languages - Acts
14:11 notes that the Lycaonians spoke in their own language. Thus, the
term "Galatians" as used by Paul is more naturally understood as an
ethnic term.31 The majority of scholars today favor the north Galatian
hypothesis.32
27
28
29
30
31
32
11
34
35
12
36
37
38
39
40
13
between the "strong" and the "weak" (14:1-15:3) where the former has
reservations on eating certain kinds of foods.41
Chronologically, the epistle to the Romans was written after the two
Corinthian epistles and Galatians. We know this because in Galatians
2:10, Paul wrote of agreeing to gather a collection for the poor in
Jerusalem after his meeting with James the brother of Jesus, Peter and
John there. In I Corinthians 16:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 8-9 he talks about
his collection efforts in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia. By the time
Romans was written, he was preparing to go Jerusalem with the complete
collection (Romans 15:25-26).42 Thus, scholars date the composition of this
letter to the late 50's - around 56-58 CE. 43 Romans was written in the
house of his host, Gauis (Romans 16:23). We know that Gauis lives in
Corinth because Paul mentioned him as being one of the two he baptised
at Corinth (I Corinthians 1:14). The letter was therefore composed in
Corinth.44
Although its authenticity was questioned by F.C. Baur in the 19th
century, the epistle to the Philippians is today accepted by a general
consensus of scholars as authentically Pauline. 45 The letter is one of the
two in the authentic Pauline corpus that were written when the apostle
was in prison. In Philippians 1:7 he mentioned that he was "in bonds" and
a little later (1:13) he noted that "the whole palace (or praetorian) guards"
know that his "bond is in Christ". That Paul was incarcerated during his
career is not new. In II Corinthians 11:23 he mentioned about being in
prison many times. However, his letters do not give any direct information
about exactly where he was imprisoned. Acts only narrates two
41
42
43
44
45
14
47
48
15
51
52
53
16
send letters) fits well with the account given in Acts 28:30-31 which
mentioned Paul being able to preach unhindered from his house arrest for
two years. Furthermore, his relative unfamiliarity (see Philippians 1:1218) with those in the area points to him being in Rome and not Ephesus. 54
There are two major objection normally raised against the Roman
hypothesis. The first objection, as in the case of Caesarea, is that the
distance between Rome and Philippi is simply too far to allow for the
numerous to-ing and fro-ing indicated in the epistle.55 However as Udo
Schnelle pointed out, a sea voyage between the two cities would take no
more than two weeks, while a predominantly land route, around 1084 km,
would take around 4 weeks. The letter presupposes four trips: (1) news
travel to Philippi of Paul's imprisonment (2) Epaphroditus's trip to Paul
with the gift from the Philippians, (3) news travel back to Philippi about
Epaphroditus's illness and (4) news travel to Rome about the concern of
the Philippians for Epaphroditus. At the time of writing, Paul was
preparing to send Epaphroditus back. These trips could easily fit into the
two year imprisonment period mentioned in Acts 28:30-31.56
The second objection is Paul's stated plan to visit Philippi should he
be released (Philippians 1:26, 2:24) is incompatible with what he wrote in
his epistle to the Romans (15:24-28) - that he planned to visit Spain after
visiting Rome.57 This objection is very weak. We know that sometimes
situations can cause Paul to change his travel plans (cf. I Corinthians 16:58 with II Corinthians 1:15f). In this case, Paul could hardly had expected
his long imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome when he wrote the epistle to
the Romans. The generosity of the Philippians may have given Paul hope
that the community there could help him with his, now postponed, mission
to Spain. Thus a trip there would make sense.
There is thus no reason to reject the traditional idea that Philippians
was written during Paul's Roman imprisonment. This would make the
date of the composition to around 60 CE.58
The last of the seven authentic epistle is Philemon. This is the
shortest of the Pauline letters, consisting only of a single page - a typical
length of personal Greco-Roman correspondence. And indeed, Philemon is
54
55
56
57
58
17
59
18
Epistle
Time of Composition
Place of Composition
I Thessalonians
Corinth
49-51 CE
I Corinthians
Ephesus
53-56 CE
II Corinthians
Ephesus
54-58 CE
Galatians
Ephesus
55-57 CE
Romans
Corinth
56-58 CE
Philippians
Rome
60 CE
Philemon
Ephesus or Rome
55 or 61 CE
6:1-8:40
9:32-11:18
11:19-29
12:1-24
This Herod was actually known as Julius Agrippa I (10 BCE-44 CE). Agrippa was
the grandson of Herod the Great through his father Aristobolus, who was Herods second
son. It is only in Acts that he was given the family name Herod. [Barrett, Acts: A Shorter
Commentary: p. 181]
19
15:36-39
19:1-21:25
61
62
63
64
62
20
66
67
21
69
70
71
22
23
confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who
were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia. Then I returned to
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter,
and stayed with him fifteen days. But of the other apostles I saw no one,
except James, the Lords brother. [Galatians 1:15-19]
Christian martyr. In Acts 7:58, the yet to be converted Saul was said to be in
75
24
stoned him thought he was dead (Acts 14:19-20) and to survive what
would have been a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3-6). Yet we find very little of
such claims of miracles in the authentic epistles. In his own statements
about this Paul used vague terms like "signs of the Apostle" (II
Corinthians 12:12), "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (I
Corinthians 2:4) and "the power of signs and wonders" (Romans 15:18-19).
Paul's tone in these remarks were generally defensive, showing us that
these were made in defense against some accusations of his opponents. In
II Corinthians (chapters 10-12) for instance, he was defending against the
critiques of his presence and public speaking skills (10:7-11), of his status
as an apostle (11:7-15) and that he was granted no vision (12:1-10). Within
this context then, the criticism which forced Paul into verse 12:12 must be
that he had performed few and unimpressive miracles. 76
Paul is everywhere presented in Acts as an outstanding orator. He
defended himself with eloquence in front of Tertullus (Acts 24:1-21).
Through his mastery of public speaking, Paul was able to keep a
tumultuous Jewish crowd silent for some time (Acts 21:40-22:21). As
Haenchen remarked:
Whether he speaks before Jews or Gentiles, governors or philosophers
(Acts 17:22-31), he is never at a loss for the right word. He is a born
orator, imposing himself with the eloquence of Demosthenes.77
Yet the picture we get from Paul's own letters is the exact opposite! Paul
himself recounted his opponents' critique of him "For, 'His letters,' they
say, 'are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his
speech is despised.'" (II Corinthians 10:10) That Paul did not provide a
direct counterargument against this means that the criticism must have
been right on target. Thus, by the time Luke was written, Christian
tradition (or Luke himself) had morphed Paul the great missionary to the
Gentiles into Paul the great orator!78
The historical Paul considered himself an apostle equal to the
apostles in Jerusalem. In I Corinthians 9:1, Paul wrote "Am I not free? Am
I not an apostle? Havent I seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Arent you my
work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you;
for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." That he considered
76
77
78
25
There are only two places where Luke did use the term "apostles" to refer to Paul
and Barnabas. (Acts 14:4, 14:14) The origin of the term here is 14:14 which comes from
the story of the healing at Lystra (14:8-20) The fact that there is no trace of the standard
Lukan schema, i.e. no preaching in the synagogues first (see Acts 13:14, 14:1, 17:1, 17:10,
17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8), shows that the whole story is an isolated tradition which Luke
incorporated into his work. Thus the word "apostles" came from his source. The presence
of that word in 14:4 is probably a reading back by Luke. [Conzelmann, Acts of the
Apostles: p108-109]
26
80
81
82
27
fall short of the fulfillment of the law or because the law provides no
complete justification."83
Christology is the study of Jesus' significance for the Christian faith, the
significance of his death, his messiahship and his nature. In Acts Paul
made only one significant statement on Christology (Acts 13:13-43).
According to this Paul, Jesus' crucifixion was a result of an error
committed by the people of Jerusalem (13:28) and a consequence of
fulfillment of the scriptures (13:28-29). There is no mention anywhere of
the saving significance of the cross of Christ. However in Paul's own
writings we are told that the cross "is a judgement on all mankind and at
the same time a reconciliation." (Romans 5:6-11; II Corinthians 5:14-21) 84
Eschatology is the branch of theology that discusses the issues
relating to the end of the world. Early Christian theology believed that
Jesus will return (the parousia) during that time to end the current world
order and initiate his rule on earth. The historical Paul certainly believed
that Jesus was returning very soon. This is what he wrote to the
Thessalonians:
For this we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who
are left to the coming of the Lord, will in no way precede those who have
fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with Gods trumpet. The dead
in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive, who are left, will be
caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.
So we will be with the Lord forever. [I Thessalonians 4:15-17]
The above passage clearly shows that Paul expected the return of
Jesus within his lifetime. He reiterated this in I Corinthians 7:29-31
when he mentioned that "the time is short" and that "the form of this
world is passing away."
To Luke the parousia was no longer imminent and had been
postponed to sometime in the future. For he had Jesus tell the apostles it
was not for them to speculate about this event. (Acts 1:6-8) Thus we are
given the following rather vague statement by the Lukan Paul about the
coming day of judgement:
83
84
ibid: p.42
ibid: p.43-45
28
Let us recap all the discrepancies in the presentation of Paul in Acts with
the real Paul from the epistles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
85
Acts claimed Paul made five trips to Jerusalem in his post conversion
period. The real Paul made only three such trips.
Acts mentioned that Paul visited the apostles in Jerusalem shortly
after his conversion. The real Paul visited the apostles only three
years after his conversion.
According to Acts, the pre-conversion Paul was present at the stoning
of Stephen in Jerusalem and was also an active persecutor of
Christians there, dragging them from their house and incarcerating
them. The real Paul was "unknown by sight to the Churches of
Judea" even three years after his conversion.
The Paul of Acts was an outstanding orator. The real Paul admitted
criticisms that his speech was of no accord.
Paul did not meet the criteria for apostleship set by Acts. The real
Paul considers himself an apostle equal to the apostles in Jerusalem.
Acts portrays Paul as telling the Athenians that man could reach
knowledge of God through reason. The real Paul thinks that all such
attempts are futile.
Acts portrays Paul as being a loyal and faithful Jew. The real Paul's
position towards Judaism was more complicated and certainly not
that of loyalty and fidelity.
29
8.
These discrepancies simply rule out the author of Acts as anyone who
could have been Paul's travelling companion.86
We noted above that Irenaeus cited the "we-passages" in Acts
(16:10-17; 20:5-15, 21:1-8 and 27:1-28:16) as evidence that the author was
an eyewitness to many of the events mentioned in Acts. Since we have
ruled this out above, it is time to take a closer look at these passages. One
example of such a passage is given below:
They all wept a lot, and fell on Pauls neck and kissed him, sorrowing
most of all because of the word which he had spoken, that they should
see his face no more. And they accompanied him to the ship. When it
happened that we had parted from them and had set sail, we came with a
straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to
Patara. [Acts 20:37-21:1]
86
87
30
This means that far from proving that the author of Luke-Acts was a
companion of Paul, the way in which the we-passages are embedded
within Acts is actually quite puzzling. There is something artificial
about the whole construct.
One attempt at an explanation was that the "we" came from a
source the author of Acts was copying from. In other words, the author
may have inadvertently left the "we" when he was copying passages
verbatim from his source. However analysis of the literary and
grammatical structure of the "we-passages" shows that they were
written by the same author of the rest of Acts. If he had used any
sources, he had completely revised it to his own writing style. This
does not explain why the "we" was in the passages. 89
A more fruitful approach has been to suggest a literary function of
"we". Note that the we-passages in Acts are limited only to stories which
involve travel by sea. It would indeed be strange if the author was only
present during sea voyages and nowhere else in Pauls ministry.
In an important paper, Vernon Robbins90 showed that there was a
literary convention at the time Acts was written. Although, in general,
historiographical writing was done in an informal third person (i.e. he,
they, Paul etc), this changed when scenes relating to sea voyages were
involved. With examples from Mediterranean literature (Roman and
Greek) around the time of the writing of Luke-Acts, Robbins showed that
the we-passages is a stylistic device designed to add vividness and
excitement to the account of sea voyages.
One of the examples Robbins amassed is the tale of The Voyage of
Hanno the Carthaginian (c third or second cent BCE). Note how the
narration starts in the third person and then shifts abruptly to the first
person plural when the sea voyage starts:
The Carthaginians decided that Hanno should go past the Pillars and
found Carthaginian cities. He set sail with sixty pentekontas (fifty-oared
88
89
90
31
ships) carrying thirty thousand men and women with provisions and
other necessities. After passing the Pillars of Hercules and sailing for
two days beyond them we founded the first city, which was named
Thymiaterion.91
Thus the use of the first person plural may mean the author of the
narrative was present during the events described but it could also equally
mean that he was not.92 For our purposes here, we can say that the we in
the we-passages can no longer be straightforwardly used as evidence
that the author was a travel companion of Paul.93
Of course if the author was merely attempting to follow a literary
convention, it remains to be explained why not all the accounts of sea
voyages in Luke-Acts are in the first person plural (e.g. Acts 13:13).
Marrianne Bonz, managing editor of Harvard Theological Review, has
argued in her book The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and the Ancient Epic
that the we-passages serves an important rhetorical function. They begin
only after the Jerusalem council (15:22-29) where, significantly, full
equality was given to Gentiles. The whole of Acts now move away from a
focus on Jerusalem and the Jewish Christian church towards the Gentile
mission. As Bonz continues:
Once introduced the we group serves as a peripheral or vicarious
participant in all of the elements of Pauls active ministry: proclamation
[e.g. Acts 16:13], the breaking of bread [Acts 20:7] and its salvific results
- even acceptance by James and the body of Jerusalem elders [Acts
21:17-18]. Most importantly the group accompanies Paul to Rome [Acts
28:16], the dramatic climax of the narrative journey and the
geographical and theological symbol of the fulfillment of the missionary
prophecy.
91
92
93
32
Vernon Robbins reached more or less the same conclusion in his paper.
Thus we can discern the reasons why we was used in those passages in
Acts. Firstly, by using a literary convention it adds vividness to the
picture and secondly, since the we meant, like us in Luke 1:1, the
Gentile Christians, the we function as a metaphor representing Gentile
Christians in their spiritual journey. Therefore, the presence of the wepassages in Acts cannot be used against the evidence we have seen earlier
that the author of Acts could not have been a companion of Paul.95
We have seen in our investigation on the issue of authorship that the
author of Acts makes some mistakes about Paul. How about his general
reliability? Does he make mistake elsewhere? Yes. Critical scholars have
pointed out that Luke, in his attempt to anchor his story in the real world,
made quite a few mistakes.
According to Luke 1:5, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
Great. Yet the reason given for Joseph and Mary's presence in Bethlehem
was the "worldwide census" ordered by Quirinius (Luke 2:1). The problem
is well known to historians. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, while the
census order by Quirinius has been accurately dated to 6 CE, a full ten
years after the death of Herod! Attempts by evangelicals to harmonize
these account have met with failure.96
According to Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas was the high priest during
the ministry of Jesus. Yet we know from Josephus' Antiquities 18:2:1-2
that Annas (or Ananus) was appointed high priest after the census (6 CE)
and was deposed soon after Tiberius became Caesar (c 15 CE). After
94
95
96
33
98
99
34
100
101
35