Bernard Muller

Peter Kirby wrote:
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.

Exactly, Peter. I do not think there is any documentable answer for your first two questions, not from my side anyway.
I think the dating of ancient writers is to be understood as +- 6 months, and these six months might put us in a different year, according to our calendar.
However, according to Josephus, the date would be 26 +- 6 months. But that's based on when Herod becoming king. As I wrote, there is a discrepancy of one year between what I got from Josephus and nowadays history/encyclopedia books:
"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.)"
I did not reseach fully from where than 1 year may come from. So my raw result is 26 from Josephus or 27 according to modern dating of Herod's reign.
I have a series of reasons to choose 27 instead of 26, more so because I am convinced the short-lived John the Baptist's phenomenum occured after Pilate became prefect.
It's all explained here:


I also explained on that other page (towards the end) the very short duration of John's flash in the pan (a few months).
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appa.shtml

On the next page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appb.shtml
I put all the evidence together to show Jesus' "ministry" was only one year long, which is accepted by many scholars.

That would put Jesus' crucifixion in the spring of 28.
Then on the same page, I confirmed independantly 28 from a different line of argumentation.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Gregg,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I am going to have to dig for it but there is an ancient manuscript that gives an account of the people who were raised from the dead at Jesus resurrection. I can't remember if it was one of the scribes of Josephus or who it was , I'll get back with you on this. What it says basically though is that there were many who had been in hades and were brought back. There is also a text in the NT which states that Jesus on His return to heaven brought with Him a great number of captives with Him ( I'll get that text for you too). These resurrected people were the first fruits of Jesus' ministry death and resurrection.

As far as the earth quake and darkness, I'm not sure it isn't recorded , I'm still looking, however if it isn't that doesn't mean it didn't happen. We see evidense of great catastrophic occurrences which have scarred our earth with no recording of it happening. Like I said earlier with regards to Jesus and anything associated with Him the prevailing powers could have blocked the recording of those things because they didn't want to give any validity to Jesus.

Mullibok

Which things are you thinking of precisely? Doesn't count if it's prehistoric.

DrJim

Jim L. wrote:

Assuming of course that the prevailing powers would have associated the earthquake and darkness with the execution of Jesus. All this conspiracy theory does is raise the question of why the authorities knew those phenomena had to do with Jesus' death and not with some other events or decisions by Pilate or some other revolutionary (named Brian, perhaps). And why should one trust the Christians to know the earthquake and darkness relate to Jesus' death. Maybe one of the other poor slobs nailed up that day was the Messiah.

To buy the consipiracy theory one has to buy the whole nine yards of Christian claims. The conspiracy does not lend credibility to the claims but the other way around: believe the bible and the conspiracy is plausible. Subject the biblical claims to the smallest bit of critical scrutiny and the conspiracy theory appears to be little more than an excuse for the lack of data.

Doctor X

Dr.Jim:

Do not be alarmed by the men in black suits who are rushing towards your door. . . .

I would add that one has to buy more than that. One has to buy the whole Conspiracy Paradox:

The Conspiracy is so pervasive it can erase opposition but is so incompetent it cannot prevent its constant exposure by laypeople.

Thus, the CIA, FBI, MAFIA, Star Fleet Command or whatever "Flavor of the Month" killed Kennedy and "anyone else who knew the truth" but, for some reason does NOTHING to prevent some fool from hocking his book about it on Oprah!

The Jews . . . run the world . . . but, for some reason did not stop the Holocaust. . . .

Thus we have Holocaust denial--"they" made it up.

I use the Holocaust denial example not to suggest that Jim is making a similar claim, but it does require a similar willing suspension of critical thinking. With HD, people are willing to believe that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people lied and continue to lie . . . and build camps . . . and falsely confess . . . without ANYONE exposing it.

Why?

It is easier to believe an increasingly bigger lie than admit you have been duped.

So . . . return to the NT. The Roman Empire . . . with their Jewish helpers . . . had the power to SILENCE anyone about the events . . . yet let the followers of Junior hang about in Jerusalem?

A little sloppy?

Did they change their mind?

--J.D.

DrJim

Dr. X,
Well put.

Please let me know, if you can, when the guys in black are finished at YOUR house, if you have not been silenced... I will need all the warning I can get.


Actually, I did not write that last paragraph attributed to me. There are powerful people out to get me because I'm paranoid. Now that I think of it, I don't exist. I died (but I don't want to go on Descartes...), sorry, I don't have tenure yet, so I have no budget for a professional joke-writer...

I like the "conspiracy paradox" label. I think we could agree that Jim Larmore appealed to the conspiracy to shore up the plausiblity of his religious beliefs, and in that sense, it is a flawed, but certainly not dishonest contribution to the discussion here.

I will also agree with you that sometimes people fall for it big time, as in holocaust denial to reinforce an untenable position out of fear of admitting they were wrong. One might go farther, out of guilt of havng sympathy with bloody murdererous monsters: they justify their hate which legitimizes murder by claiming that they are falsly accused by those they hate and want dead! (Don't mean to role you up with this lot Mr. Larmore!)

I suspect another force behind it though is that it is empowering: the faithful have "secret" knowledge, and so use this as a means to declare a truth contrary to the frightening "powers that be", or a world that ignores them.

Now for some shameless speculation on my part: I wonder if the empowerment of knowing a "secret" was not a motivating factor in the development of early Christian theology. I am WAY out of my own area here, but it was an idea that popped up so I thought I would throw it against the wall. Did it stick?

Getting back to another point Jim Larmore made: on the matter of resurrection. If there were lots of dead folk walking around, would not the Pharisees have written huge amounts on it to prove the Saducees were wrong?

JRL

Doctor X

No . . . YOU let ME know when they are finished at YOUR house!!!!

Picks up ball and runs away. . . .

Indeed. The Conspiracy Paradox just expands to account for any contrary evidence. The Pharisees were prevented from doing this by the Roman, of course. That is why Rome sacked Jerusalem . . . in order to silence witnesses. Massada had the last of the witnesses to the dead rising from the grave, the curtains renting, and a Judas who hung himself, then bought a field, then exploded. . . .

This, unfortunately, reminded me of a nut who believed George the Younger staged the entire 9/11 attacks--did you know that no plane actually hit the Pentagon? Thought so!

Whenever someone posted evidence he could not handle he accused the poster--I am not making this up--of being a CIA plant to foster miscommunication on webpages. Of course, he then whined about how people insulted him.

No, I am not accusing Jim of this, but you can see how this stuff just expands.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

But when we are debating 27 or 28 (or 29--which is also consistent with Luke), it is important to know how John is counting--even if we know which of the two dates in Josephus are right for the starting of construction and the day of year on which that construction began, which we don't. For example, if the author of John is not counting the few months of the "first" year, counting that as zero and giving an interval of years (exclusive), then the resulting date would be a year later than if the author of John is counting the first year (inclusive). Also, if the calendar used by the author of John places the month at which construction began in a later year than what you calculated from (using the Julian-Gregorian calendar?), then once again we have the problem of a year's difference.

Also, since the author of Luke could have meant the "fifteenth year" in such a way that corresponds from anytime from 27 to 29 CE in our reckoning, John and Luke could be in contradiction in reality even if they are close enough that we can't prove a contradiction.

Finally, I'd like to know whether you assume that the scene in John 2 is a very good piece of reporting, roughly accurate, or a bit of fiction about an incident that didn't happen as such (but which might reveal when the author knows Jesus to have started ministering--which the author knows and reveals through fiction?).

I already indicated a few features that make the account suspicious. 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).

Since the data can be taken in so many ways, and in fact have been done so in so many detailed expositions past and present, I don't know if we can with knowledge say when the author of John and the author of Luke placed these events on an absolute timescale, let alone determining when Jesus was crucified any more accurately than "30 CE, with a margin of error of five years on either side." How do you justify taking as historical the details which you base a date on? I can understand the claim that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but I don't know how to distinguish other specific historical details that were accurately transmitted to the evangelists that reveal a particular year. I think there is such a thing as trying to know too much, especially on an issue that has given rise to many exacting hypotheses based on a few stray comments.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amlodhi

It is certainly interesting speculation. It had always been my understanding, however, that Herod the Great had initiated an extensive renovation of the temple complex in 19 b.c. (which was not actually completed until 63 a.d.).

Since this would, of course, place the Jew's comment regarding the temple being under construction for 46 yrs. at c. 27 a.d., I had always thought that it was this renovation that they were referring to.

Is this in error in some way?

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Bernard Muller

I think there is such a thing as trying to know too much, especially on an issue that has given rise to many exacting hypotheses based on a few stray comments.

Peter, I cannot keep going like that. My whole way of thinking (and evidence) is explained on my website, from A to Z, which obviously you do not want to read, not even once. I am not exacting hypotheses based on a few stray comments.

On that website, I explained also my reasons why I trust "John" to give a good date for John the Baptist's advent. Also how I arrived at 28 for Jesus' crucifixion different ways. Also I covered GJohn in no less than four pages, explaining the why, when, etc.

Sure it looks like stray comments when I have to unpack anything piece meal and out-of-sequence in a email format from my website. I do not have the time to explain everything and there is a lot of things which get into play. That's why I wrote my website.

My question to you is according to all the dating considerations, what would be, according to John, the two extreme dates (like 26 and 30?) when allegedly Jesus is in Jerusalem, after meeting JB?

My main reference is as follows:

>> 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.) <<

Of course we do not know which month the temple was started to be reconstructed, just it was in the 18th year of Herod's reign.

So I surmised:

>> 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. <<

Then I went on:

>> 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. <<

I agree 28 has a small chance also to be right (if 37 is right, and the temple was started towards the end of the 18th year of Herod's reign), but 27 is the most likely date.

Can you comment on these specifics? That would be useful.

Best regards, Bernard