stephan huller

The Pistis Sophia does. None of the other gospels provide a year.

stephan huller

I've had a problem with the fifteenth year of Tiberius for the longest time. Does it make any more sense that the gospel never mentions the name of a month ever? Someone subsequent to the original author(s) was obscuring the original provenance of the text. Many of the earliest sects are associated with 360 solar calendars. This would have been a big issue. Paul also condemns 'new moons.' Then suddenly in the third century they are back to using lunar calendars to figure out Easter. This is the time I think that the transformation would have taken place.

spin

This is your show, Bullwinkle. I wanna watch you pull a rabbit outa your hat.

spin

And none of them provide the sort of temporal setting of Luke with Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Philip and Lysanias.

Months are only really significant when you know the year.

stephan huller

I mean there is only so far that you can go with any of this. But the argument can also be turned around this way. When starting a narrative what's more important - the year that something happened or the month? I say the month because it naturally sets the stage for everything else - the weather but specifically in the case of religion what festivals are coming up. The complete lack of mention of any months is very odd.

stephan huller

Does the Pentateuch ever mention a year? Isn't that the ultimate model? But it does mention months quite consistently.

stephan huller

And we know the year already - it was either the year of favor (= the jubilee) or in the lead up to the year of favor (= the forty-ninth year).

spin

I think that's an odd conclusion.

It's overt that the names are given to locate the narrative. This means that Tiberius is likely in the context of the other names, but also the year to locate the narrative.

The month conjecture in this is weird.

stephan huller

Clement's citation reminds us of this:

And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months; and from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus, a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days. From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings. And they say that it the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

spin