Biblical chronology and archaeology remain closely associated and interdependent. For the entire biblical period a working knowledge of biblical chronology provides helpful information for establishing the historical setting of the Bible’s events. Biblical archaeology adds to the fund of historical knowledge of the period particularly through production of new knowledge as well as through verification of and clarifying chronological issues. Some biblical events remain elusive such as the conquest of biblical Hazor by Joshua’s army or by Deborah’s army. The date of the birth and the date of death of Jesus of Nazareth remain in dispute.

Many events in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have chronological significance. Information preserved in the scriptures may be of value as chronological markers. For those who regard the Bible as an inspired account the Bible becomes a controlling factor in interpreting archaeological findings while those who do not see the Bible as inspired require objective criteria outside the Bible itself. 

Irrespective of one’s predisposition on inspiration, the Hebrew Perpetual Calendar has great importance in the fixing of dates and determining chronological markers in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. The normal convention of reporting biblical dates remains with the Julian calendar.

For example, in his letter to the Galatians the Apostle Paul recounted to his readers the account of his escape from Damascus. He states that this escape occurred during the rule of Nabataean King Aretas (Galatians 1:17). King Aretas (Harithat IV) who died in 40 CE (2 Corinthians 11:32-33) reigned from 9 BCE to 40 CE (Swaim 1962:217–218). Josephus rendered an account providing the details of Aretas’ boundary dispute with Herod Antipas (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.3).

Josephus described Aretas as the “king of Arabia Petrea”(Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.1§109), (Whiston, 1987, p. 484). Tiberias came in on the side of Herod Antipas and ordered Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, “to make war with Aretas.” On the way Vitellius received communications informing him of the death of Tiberius and he recalled his army. Tiberius died March 16, 37 CE and at that time Damascus was under the control of imperial Rome and administered by Vitellius. As King Aretas died in 40 CE Paul’s escape from Damascus would have had to occur between 37 and 40. The question remains open as to when Aretas received Damascus from Caligula in the imperial settlement of the affairs of Syria. The Aretas’ administration in Damascus may have begun as early as 37 CE based upon archeological evidence in the form of a coin. This was the view of Dosker who wrote:

As Tiberias died in C.E. 37, and as the Arabian affair was completely settled in 39, it is evident that the date of Paul’s conversion must lie somewhere between 34 and 36. This date is further fixed by a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37, making the date of Paul’s conversion C.E. 34. (T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f.). (Dosker 1986:288-289).

With archaeological evidence, the chronology of the events in these written records can be further refined or verified. According to Charlesworth:

Another example of a chronological marker occurs during the apostle Paul’s visit to Corinth following the famous Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. This marker has value in determining the date of the Acts 15 conference. Immediately after the conference the apostle Paul traveled to Asia Minor and then went on to Greece ultimately settling in Corinth. There he remained for eighteen months. Paul has a confrontation with Diaspora Jews and appears before Gallio soon after the proconsul’s arrival and fairly soon after Paul’s preaching in the city. Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia for a short time (Acts 18:12), from about July 1, 51 CE to July 1, 52 C.E., during Paul’s stay in Corinth (Charlesworth 1971:682).

According to F. F. Bruce:

Since proconsuls normally entered their office on July 1, Gallio probably became proconsul of Achaia on July 1, 51. Paul’s Corinthian ministry may thus have run from the autumn of 50 to the spring of 52, and his Ephesian ministry (which was separated from his Corinthian ministry by a hasty visit to Palestine) from the autumn of 52 to the summer of 55. (Bruce 1986:709).

While Gallio served as deputy or pro-consul of Achaia an insurrection against Paul, instigated by the Jews, broke out (Acts 18:12). Bruce continues:

More precise information is provided by the statement that Gallio’s procouncilship of Achaia coincided with or at least overlapped Paul’s stay in Corinth (v. 12). Gallio’s procouncilship probably lasted no longer than a year, being terminated by an attack of malaria (Seneca Ep. mor. 104.1); it is dated rather closely by a reference to him as proconsul of Achaia (either currently or very recently) in a rescript of Claudius to the citizens of Delphi dated to Claudius’s twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator (W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, II [4th ed. 1960], no. 801). Other inscriptional evidence (CIL, III, 476; VI, 1256) points to the first seven months of 52 as the period of this acclamation. (Bruce 1986:709.)

This remains the least speculative part of the chronology as it comes from archaeological evidence. Once benchmarks become established for absolute dating and correlated with relative dating events can be fixed calendrically. For the events recorded in Acts 15 to have occurred in 49/50 would not be enough time for the events described in Acts between the hearing before James and the appearance before Gallio. Residing in Corinth for 18 months and then parting for Jerusalem mid-April 52 CE would place Paul’s arrival at Corinth in mid-October 50 CE. This allows about four months, mid-June (Pentecost) – mid-October (the fall festival period), for Paul’s travel from Troas to Corinth with stopovers at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens.

The hearing before James may be understood as having occurred in 48/49 with reasonable certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) as December 48/January 49. So with archaeological evidence reasonable certainly can be given to an event. Without these archaeological findings the probable date of the Acts 15 proceedings would be far more speculative.