Doctor X

Indeed!

Some have tried to reconcile the dates with interesting gymnastics. The simple explanation is that both writers independently linked the birth to separate historical events. I can understand Mt's motivation; I am not sure of Lk's. One mentor states that Lk uses the census--incorrectly--as his excuse to get Junior in the proper places.

Most "default" the Mt because:

1. It is the "first" gospel . . . that you find.
2. It includes the wonderful "kill all the brats" story--where the "True Brat"--survives, HA!
3. Accepting Lk gets rid of all of those bad ol' Herod stories.
4. Few question what they read.

Now on the subject of mining scripture for prophecy, a mentor tells a story. He was in "the deep south" for a conference. I his hotel room, whilst unpacking, it put on the radio and found the local "thumper." What intrigued him was Reverend Brimstone was preaching from Leviticus--"why the hell would you want to do that?" The Rev. went on and on about some of the more tedious "how-many-goats-go-to-this-relative" probate rules to come up with "such and such" is "reserved for the son."

Rev: AND WHAT SON AM I TAKIN' ABOUT?!!!

Audience: JEEEEEESSSSSSSUUUUUSSSS!!!!!

As he noted, all you need for reference and prophecy is an active imagination . . . he also recommended Wild Turkey. . . .

--J.D.

Mullibok

Interestingly, most programs I've heard that mention when Jesus's birth really was instead of what we take as default say that it was probably around 4 A.D., which would be Luke's version. *But*, none of those pieces actually mentioned Gospel stories to reference this. Maybe this is because when I heard this it was in 1999 when people were trying to dispel any thought that that's when the Rapture would happen, because the 2000 year mark wouldn't even actually have happened yet. Anyway, I'm rambling on a bit.

Maybe some people prefer Luke's version because it's not a stretch to think that the census actually happened, Matthew's story on the other hand...

Doctor X

I first read that as "4 B.C." which made me think I had mixed up the damn narratives . . . again!

I would have to check, but I believe the census of Quirinius [Sp?--Ed.] is dated at around 10 A.D. or C.E.

What I have always found "funny" with regards to those who try to harmonize the narratives is that they never have a valid explaination why a writer would "forget" a mass-murder of children . . . or that "nothing" would have happened!

Not only are the dates wrong, the details of the subsequent journeys are incompatable. Both journeys serve purposes for the writers, of course, but in different ways.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

The NAB states, "Tiberius succeeded Augustus as emperor in A.D. 14 and reigned until A.D. 37. The fifteenth year of his reign, depending on the method of calculating his first regnal year, would have fallen between A.D. 27 and 29." The notes in the NAB are generally neutral, and they are not supporting Ramsay (who says 26 CE), about which see below.

William Ramsay wrote: "The elaborate series of synchronisms by which Luke dates the coming of John the Baptist are especially remarkable; and it is to them we turn for evidence as to the date of composition. On our view the Crucifixion took place at the Passover of A.D. 30, the fourth Passover in the public career of Jesus. Now John was six months older than Jesus; and his career began in his thirtieth year, a little before the coming of Jesus. Thus we reach the conclusion that the synchronisms of Luke III 1, 2, are calculated for the summer (say July) of A.D. 26; and he calls this year the fifteenth of the reign of Tiberius, implying that he reckoned his reign to begin A.D. 12, when Tiberius was associated by Augustus in the Empire. But such a method of reckoning the reign of Tiberius was unknown. According to Roman reckoning, Tiberius, in July A.D. 26, was either in his twelfth year (reckoning from the death of his predecessor) or in his twenty-eighth year (reckoning his tenure of the tribunician power). No other way of reckoning his reign was ever employed by Romans. How then could Luke speak of his fifteenth year? There can hardly be any other reason than that the calculation was made under an Emperor whose years were reckoned from his association as colleague; so that Luke, being familiar with that method, applied it to the case of Tiberius. Now that was the case with Titus. His reign began from his association with his father on 1st July A.D. 71. We thus get a clue, though in itself an uncertain one, to suggest the date when Luke was at work. His chronological calculations were probably inserted as the finishing touches of Book I (p. 23), while Titus was reigning as sole Emperor, 79-81 A.D.; and the composition of that book belongs to the years immediately preceding, while the composition of Book II belongs to the years immediately following. This argument, taken by itself, would be insufficient; but it is confirmed by the impression which the book as a whole makes. Acts could not have been written so late as Trajan, when long persecution had altered the tone and feeling of the Church towards the State. It is the work of a man whose mind has been moulded in a more peaceful time. and who has not passed through a time like the reign of Domitian (p. 22). On the other hand, its tone is not that of assured conviction about the relation to the State, such as we observe in Paul's Epistles. It is the tone of one who seeks to prove a position that is doubtful and assailed, but still of one who believes that it may be proved. As we have seen, there runs through the entire work a purpose which could hardly have been conceived before the State had begun to persecute on political grounds. So long as Christians were proceeded against merely on the ground of crimes, which the accuser sought to prove by evidence (as was the case with Paul, p. 360), there was no necessity to establish that Christianity was legal. Defence then consisted in disproving the specific crimes charged against the individual Christian; but, after the Flavian policy had declared Christianity illegal and proscribed the Name, the first necessity for defence was to claim legal right." (St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Chapter 17, pp. 386-388)

Ramsay made some rather glittering apologetic statements, and he is most often abused as a converted atheist, rather than used as a meticulous Christian researcher. The facts of which Ramsay knew about secular history, though not necessarily his interpretations of biblical texts, are usually correct. Even his interpretation of Paul's letter called the "South Galatian theory" and its justification has swept the Pauline field. In this case, the fact is this: "After two years he (Tiberius) returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph. . . . Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies; but he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private." (Suetonius: Augustus 97:1; Tiberius 20-21) On October 23 of 12 CE there was a triumphal celebration of Tiberius as "colleague." The chronological quandary concerning Tiberius and Titus, and particularly them among the emperors of the first century, is a real one. It has once been stated that Ramsay's argument does not prove a year of AD 80 for Luke, but that nobody since has come up with a better one.

Meier and Theissen agree with Ramsay in choosing 30 rather than 33 as the year of the passover crucifixion of Jesus. In this case, Ramsay misinterprets the Gospel data as implying four passovers, while the usual view is that three are stated at most. Ramsay also supposes without much argument that Luke is reckoning the beginning and end of a year, and the time that the regnum began (namely 12 CE), by the common means of his time and place in Rome writing for Romans. If this supposition is dropped, and 28 CE held as the date of the first passover of Jesus, we can make up for Ramsay's "missing" three years yet still hold that Jesus died in 30 CE and that there were three passovers during the ministry and that the reign of Tiberius was counted from the actual 14 CE. (The alternative of course is to accept 33 CE for the death and adopt 29 CE for the baptism [before the first passover in 30 CE], thus in the fifteenth year from 14 CE--the only extra defect of which is the passover unmentioned in John [but four is Ramsay's view]; of course, one could apply the same argumentum e silentio logic to Luke and conclude that it is a one year flash in the pan "ministry" starting with a baptism in 29 CE and ending in the spring of 30 CE. In fact, now that I think it, there is no historical difficulty with such an interpretation of Luke's chronology.)

Doig is more recent in his 1990 New Testament Chronology:

If you were to query a random NT scholar, they would probably find this view acceptable. It accords with the length of the ministry in John and the 30 CE date of the death and the customary reckoning of Tiberius from the year of 14 CE, as well with the idea that Luke was a Syrian (or Macedonian Greek) in origin. In fact, Ramsay is probably right about at least one thing: his 12 CE starting regnal year virtually demands the hypothesis of Luke writing in the reign of Titus and projecting that system back in time--for there is absolutely no (other) ancient writer who counts the regnal years from the status of Tiberius as "colleague" in 12 CE. Ipso facto, if Ramsay is wrong about the date of Luke, he is also wrong about the start of the reign of Tiberius in Luke.

So I will state again the best answer: "Tiberius succeeded Augustus as emperor in A.D. 14 and reigned until A.D. 37. The fifteenth year of his reign, depending on the method of calculating his first regnal year, would have fallen between A.D. 27 and 29."

best,
Peter Kirby

Gregg

So, Jim, if Jesus was so notorious and so hated, why don't we have any contemporary Jewish writings attacking and discrediting him? All we have is that (discredited) passage in Josephus that actually extols his virtues. The stories in the Talmud that ridicule Jesus got made up long after the supposed events, when Christianity was emerging as a rival to Judaism.

And anyway, your "conspiracy of silence" theory ignores the fact that lots of other things failed to get mentioned anywhere, like earthquakes, eclipses, and dead people getting out of their graves and going for strolls in Jerusalem. You mean the scribes and the Pharisees covered all that up, bought everyone off? And what happened to those living dead people anyway? Did they stay alive or did they crawl back in their graves when all the excitement was over?

I don't know anything about the Hittite thing, but I think you're wrong that the "Jewish historical record" was silent about them. The Bible itself IS a Jewish historical record--not a completely accurate one by any means, any more so than other ancient historical records, but still, certainly a source of information about the past. Now, perhaps nobody BUT the Jews recorded anything about the Hittites, but that's not necessarily surprising--undoubtedly many small nations went unrecorded. It's hard enough to find evidence that other nations were even aware of Israel's existence for a long time.

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter:
With Jim not answering, this topic is drifting away from the original topic. Thank you for your expose on the dating according to GLuke.

It is not well known GJohn also provided a dating for Jesus first alleged visit to Jerusalem, immediately following his alleged meet with John the Baptist (which would indicate when JB started to be known).

From my page
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appa.shtml.count

>> In Jn2:20a, during the first Passover (out of the three) mentioned in the gospel, we read:
"The Jews replied, "It has taken forty six years to build this temple ...""

So, when was the temple reconstruction started?

In Josephus' Ant., XV, XI, 1, we read:
"And now Herod [the Great], in the eighteenth year of his reign , and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work, that is, to build of himself the temple of God, and make it larger in compass, and to raise it to a more magnificent altitude, ..."
Note: "the fifteenth year" in Josephus' Wars, I, XXI, 1, appears to be an error that Josephus corrected in 'Antiquities'. With that later date, John would have appeared two or three years before Pontius Pilate's rule over Judea, conflicting with Lk3:1-3:
"... when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea ... John ... went ... preaching a baptism ..."

When did Herod start to reign?
In Ant., XVII, VIII, 1, we read:
"Herod] having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years;"
Herod died in March-April of 4B.C.E. Therefore, his reign began in: 4 + 34 = 38B.C.E. (however most encyclopaedias state 37B.C.E.)

That means the reconstruction started in 21B.C.E. (38 - 17) or 20B.C.E. (38 - 18).
Notes:
a) "Eighteenth year" means that between 17 and close to 18 years have elapsed.
b) NIV Study Bible's comment on Jn2:20:
"Forty-six years. The temple was not finally completed until A.D. 64. The meaning is that work had been going on for 46 years. Since it had begun in 20 B.C., the year of the event recorded here is A.D. 26 [when John appeared]."
- The fact there is only one year between B.C. 1 and A.D. 1 was obviously missed. If it had been taken in account, A.D. 26 would become A.D. 27.

Forty-six years later bring us to: 46 - 21 +1 = 26C.E. or 46 -20 + 1 = 27C.E. The later date is more likely because:
a) As previously mentioned, "eighteenth year" means that between 17 and close to 18 years have elapsed.
b) The most accepted year for the start of the reign of Herod is 37B.C.E.

Note: the "+1" is to allow for the fact that between 1B.C.E. and 1C.E. there is only one year.

But when (before the Passover) did John start to baptize and preach (and supposedly met Jesus)?
By the description of the alleged actions of Jesus since that time, it seems the gospel author (and other Christians in the community he was living in) knew it was only a few weeks before Passover:
Jn1:29a The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God ...""
Jn1:35 "Again, the next day ..."
Jn1:43 "The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, [three to four days' walk] ..."
Jn2:1 "On the third day there was a wedding [duration one day?] in Cana [Galilee] ..."
Jn2:12 "After this [the wedding] he went down to Capernaum, [one day's walk] ... [he] did not stay there many days"
Jn2:13a "Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand ..."

These observations would advocate that John the Baptist started to baptize in the late winter/early spring of 27C.E.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Peter Kirby wrote:
On October 23 of 12 CE there was a triumphal celebration of Tiberius as "colleague."

How did you find that date, Peter? This is not in Suetonius' works, as far as I can see. I am not challenging it, I am asking for confirmation.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Smart man! Most wouldn't bother, you know. But lots of misinfo floats around. Hell, this could be one of them for all I have researched. I pulled it from this 1990 book transcribed for the web on the chronology of the NT, which seems very scholarly and thorough. I gave the link and hoped for people to click. You know what happens when you do that!

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Your data on the reign of Herod and the construction of the third temple is helpful.

The month at which the Christ speaks in John on a visit to Jerusalem is logically that of passover (John 2:13-25). An incident at the temple is recorded at this time, similar to the one in the synoptics leading up to his death, but at least two years before his crucifixion in John. Jesus says "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up"--what the synoptics say was imputed by false witnesses. The Jews said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?" But Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body. John 8:57 has "The Jews therefore said to him, Thou hast not yet fifty years, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Perhaps the Jews in John were ironically speaking also of the temple of his body. I hope that is not too speculative for you, as I find that the text of the fourth gospel is fond of symbolic speculation, including the numeric (cf. Jn 21:11).

Two questions about the statement of John, undestood in the letter of the text:

What month of the year did the construction of the temple start?

What month of the year (in Julian-Gregorian terms) did the calendar used by John begin?

The answer to this is critical as a variation will lead to a one year margin of error. Which is exactly what we are talking about--27 or 28.

This persists to this day, if I say I am 22 years old, you don't know that I was born in 1981 until I also say that I was born in May. I could be born in 1980 if I were born in November. (The various calendrical systems of reckoning years in antiquity is an added delight. And then the inclusive vs. the exclusive numbering, aka ordinal or cardinal, oh my!)

best,
Peter Kirby

Jim Larmore

Barnard,
The evidence that Ezra was high priest is assumptive based on the duties he was given by the King. In Ezra 7:25-26 he was told to set up magistrates and judges according to the wisdom of thy God, he was given life or death powers over non- conformers. Ezra was to govern Jerusalem. This kind of authority would not be given to a regular priest.

I believe you are totally wrong about the completion of the temple, in the new testament it says it took 46 years to complete as was posted earlier. The decree by Xerxes would not have made sense if they had already completed the work. Ezra's whole function was to go and set up the infrastructure to make the rebuilding go foward.

I apologize for the delay in my response posts , I can only do this when I am at work , I am a high school teacher, I will do some more research on this statement on Ezra 6:15, I don't believe this verse will proove that the temple was completed that much earlier.

You are the one who contended that Artaxerxes decree was not to re-build Jerusalem and the temple, I was only asking if I had your contention right or not, the evidence is in your own post.

Your brash statement that there is no evidense for the statements I made in my earlier posts is rediculous. I have studied this and my sources are valid. Where you not aware of the cunieform tablets or the papyri found at Elephantine? I know these debate forums are a place to "refute" but you need to check out the claims I made and give proof of their invalidity rather than just saying there is no evidence.

Finally, even before I do the research on the temple the dates of its completion do not invalidate the prophecy per se. The prophecy was from the going forth of the command to"build Jerusalem" not just the " Temple" ( Dan 9:25). The Temple was indeed in Jerusalem but it was not the indicative end point or origin of the prophectic time line we are following here.