maryhelena

Thanks, arnoldo, for the links.

I liked this from the Jewish encyclopedia:

I think the main issue with Josephus is how much history and how much re-telling of history, from an interpretative perspective, are we dealing with. I don't think his main concern was an accurate historical account - and writing under Roman 'protection' his Jewish history is going to have to be carefully screened - especially so if he was wanting to preserve any messianic interpretations of those earlier years.

(the mp3 links is a large download - so I've not listened to that....)

arnoldo

Michael Satlow's podcast can be heard online without downloading at the following site: From Israelite to Jew: 15: Herod the Great. To paraphrase, Satlow states that Josephus relied heavily on Nicholas's (now lost) writings. I agree with you that Josephus's writings must be screened against his interest towards his Roman benefactors.

maryhelena

Thanks, that link worked - the first link for listening online crashed for me (using Chrome).

Interesting that Satlow refers to Antigonus being put on a cross, flogged and then slain....quoting Dio.

Roger Pearse

I distrust all numerals in ancient accounts, because they get corrupted far more readily than any others. In Greek literature numerals were represented by letters, which could easily confuse, even in antiquity. Any copyist pushed for space was liable to write "8" rather than "eight", and so the problem could occur even in texts originally spelling out the numbers.

We can see this even in so great a scholar as St. Jerome, translating into Latin the Chronicle of Eusebius. On his first version, he misunderstood one passage and rendered a numeral as a proper name! On a later pass he realised his mistake and translated it correctly. Both versions are found in the Latin manuscripts, however.

Likewise in the first book of Pliny the Elder's Natural History, which contains a contents of the rest, the numerals are often missing or corrupt.

It's worth bearing in mind that working out what happened when was actually rather difficult for the ancients. Their most reliable form of dating was by the annual magistrates that most cities had, or by the year X of king Y. But until Eusebius (with immense difficulty) collated all of these together, it was very hard to cross-reference events in Jewish history with anything else.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

maryhelena

And the 15th year of Tiberius in gLuke - is the numeral in this date to be discarded - open to question?

Dating Tiberius is on a securer footing than dating Pilate - so dating JC to Tiberius opens up a 14 c.e. to 37 ce. time-frame, 23 years, in which to set the ministry of the gospel JC.

The dating for Pilate is not without question. Daniel Schwartz has interest in an earlier than 26 c.e. date for the start of Pilate's time in Judea. If the 19 c.e. date has any relevance - then its down to a 17 year period in which to place the ministry of the gospel JC.

Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Daniel R. Schwartz (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Thus, if the numeral in gLuke is in error regarding the 15th year of Tiberius - my goodness - what would that be doing for dating the ministry and the crucifixion of JC - not to mention as to questioning that 'about 30 years' in gLuke. 30 years old in 19 c.e. at the start of Pilate's tenure - that's back to 11 b.c. for the birth narrative and a crucifixion; going with gJohn and it's 3 years, a crucifixion in 22 c.e. Or crucifixion in 36 c.e. and start of ministry in 33 c.e...and the 'about 30 years' means a birth narrative in 3 c.e. Working from dating Pilate to 26 c.e. can give a crucifixion in 29 c.e. and a birth narrative in 4 b.c.

Wow - lots at stake re that numeral in gLuke 3.1.......

However, reading the numeral as it is - the 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 c.e. and running to the end of the time of Pilate and Tiberius, 36/37 c.e. - it looks to be that gLuke is running his 7 year pseudo-history re JC alongside the real history of Philip the Tetrarch - albeit with a little help from Josephus in placing the ‘death’ of Philip in 34 c.e. - right in the middle of those 7 years. (Philip’s ‘death’ in 34 c.e. not being above question - re the earlier postings...) The JC crucifixion story can easily be moved to 36/37 c.e - the cut off dating re Pilate and Tiberius. The war between Antipas and Aretes and JtB being killed prior to this war of 36/37 c.e.- makes some people argue, Kokkinos, for instance, that this is a better date for the JC crucifixion....Not forgetting, of course, that the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 c.e. is itself 70 years back to 40 b.c. and the rule of Lysanias of Abilene (and the time when Herod the Great became king while in Rome...).

Now, we can't, surely, mess up all gLuke's carefully laid prophetic time-frames by suggesting that it's not the 15th year of Tiberius that is relevant - that the numeral is just not kosher....and it could just as easily have been any other date during the rule of Tiberius....

maryhelena

Is the crucifixion of the gospel JC in 30, 33 or 36 c.e.? Did Philip the Tetrarch die in 34, 37 or in 44/45 c.e.? Are gLuke and Josephus playing prophetic time slots here? Josephus, as a prophetic historian, using ‘death’ and new identity as a means of conveying his prophetic interpretations of history? Is gLuke doing the same, albeit with a literary, pseudo-historical, figure of JC?

The 15th year of Tiberius: Gospel of Luke	The 20th year of Tiberius: Josephus	The 22nd year of Tiberius: Josephus + Gospel of Luke	The 22nd year of Tiberius:
29/30 c.e.	33/34 c.e.	36/37 c.e.	36/37 c.e.
JC starts preaching. 70 years from Lysanias of Abilene in 40 bc. Herod made king in Rome.	Philip the Tetrarch ‘dies’. Josephus Ant. 18 ch.4. 70 years from the crucifixion of Antigonus in 37 b.c.	Early copies of Josephus: in the 22nd year of Tiberius, Philip the Tetrarch ‘dies’. Slavonic Josephus: JtB survives the ‘death’ of Philip. Josephus: JtB gets killed prior to the war between Antipas and Aretes in 36 c.e. Crucifixion and resurrection of gospel JC after the death of JtB. 7 years from the 15th year of Tiberius	Philip the Tetrarch becomes Agrippa I. Coins testify to a 37 year rule from the death of Herod the Great, in 1 b.c. Plus 7 years as Agrippa I. Death in 44/45 c.e
-	-	100 years from 63 b.c. and Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem	44/45 c.e. is 490 years from 445 b.c. when Nehemiah returns to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

judge

As Tiberius began co-regency in 13 CE his 15th year would be 27 CE, I would think.
13 CE being the first, 14 being the second etc...
But even if we take 14 CE the 15th year would then be 28CE

maryhelena

I did a quick Google search and found this:

Perhaps keep in mind that attempts to have a co-regency for Tiberius are more likely than not having to do with the 'about 30 years' of gLuke. An early dating for Pilate and those 'about 30 years' can be stretched back to coincide with the death of Herod the Great - or near enough to 4 b.c. to allow gLuke's birth narrative of 6 ce to be discarded....But if Herod the Great died in 1 b.c. such efforts are wasted....

Philip the Tetrarch 'died', according to Josephus, in the 20th year of Tiberius - usually given as 34 c.e. (Wikipedia).

I'm not going to quibble about a year - if it's 28/29 c.e. 29/30 c.e. or 33/34 c.e. makes no real difference to the chart in the above post. History is never going to be that specific re when exactly one should start counting from. It's the overall picture that is more important than any 'lost' of 'gained' year.

judge

Here is the reference given in Wikipedia for the coregency.

Seager, Robin (2005). Tiberius. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1405115297.p vx

Tiberius , heir to Augustus

maryhelena

I checked out the book by Seager. Unfortunately, the reference numbers are located at the end of the book - so am unable to locate what ancient source, apart from the coins, is being utilized for the co-regency.

If the evidence for co-regency is so high it makes me wonder why my early quote made the statement that it did. Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopaedia is going with a co-regency from 10 c.e. Thus, all in all, it seems to me, that using the 14 c.e. date for the start of the rule by Tiberius is a more solid date to be dealing with.

An interesting article is this one - lots of arguments re the whole dating of JC.....

footnote:

judge - is this dating of the 15th year of Tiberius, in my chart, to 29/30 c.e., in regard to a 70 year time slot from 40 b.c., something you think I'm being careless with re the 30 c.e. date? I'm interested in viewing gLuke's detailed list of historical figures as being related not to one year, the 15th year of Tiberius - but to a longer, a 70 year time frame. The dating for Lysanias of Abilene, Wikipedia, is 'from about 40 - 36 b.c. Thus, that start date, for the 70 years, is itself not confirmed - 'from about'. Either way, the beginning or the end dating being moved back one year - does not have any consequence for viewing gLuke as placing his list of historical figures within a 70 year time frame. It's not about exact dating for the start and the end of the 70 years - it's all approximate - a symbolic number into which an interpretation of history, the JC figure, is being placed.