Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-18-2012, 10:42 AM

Hi stephen,

This is extremely important. It is another indication that post Commodus, in the 190's and early 200's proto orthodoxy and the canonical texts are really only starting to be edited and put together in the form that we know them.

Lets try this experiment. Let us say that Acts is composed before Luke or at least before the 15th year of Tiberius passage is slipped into it. Irenaeus says in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." Claudius is 41-54 CE.

Irenaeus claims in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus was Baptized in his 30th years, but died twenty years later at age 50.

If we assume that Irenaeus is working from the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, he is placing the baptism in 25 CE or the 12th year of Tiberius (14-37 CE). The ancients had no zero and counted the first year as one. Thus he is placing the death of Jesus around the 45 CE.

Now let us look at Acts:

Quote:

19So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. 20But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. 22The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. 23Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; 24for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. 25And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; 26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

27Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

Acts suggests that Stephen's death happens soon after the Apostles start teaching about Jesus. No date is given, but there is nothing really to suggest that it does not happen within a year of Jesus' death. We have to assume that the men who were scattered because of Stephen's death only took a few weeks or months to reach their new destination and that the preaching was immediately successful. The only significant length of time mentioned here is this "And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." We may assume that this is all happening within two years of Jesus' death. The predicted famine would be the one that happened in fourth year of Claudius around 44 or 45 CE. This gives us a date from acts of 42 or 43 CE for the death of Jesus.

What we have is a three year discrepancy between Acts placing the death of Jesus in 42/43 CE under Claudius and Irenaeus placing it in 45 CE under Claudius.

We also get this three year discrepancy between Basilides/Marcion
date of 28 CE for the baptism (15th year of Tiberius) and 25 CE of Tertullian (12th yea of Tiberius).

Note that Tertullian and Irenaeus are in agreement about the baptism year 25 CE under Claudius. (Is this because Irenaeus and Tertullian are one writer?)

I thnk maryhelena is correct that the baptism date is coming from the Matthew birth narrative, just adding 30 years to the 4 B.C.E. date of Herod's death.

We can assume that this was the first calculation done and 25 was the first Baptism date arrived at for Jesus. Those reading the gospel of John and noticing the three passovers would have given the crucifixion a date of 28.

Those reading the gospel of John and seeing that the Jews suggested that Jesus was around 50 and the three passovers were not necessarily consecutive would have added 20 years to the 25 baptism date and arrived at a 45 CE crucifixion date.

Those reading Acts and knowing from Jospehus that the famine happened in 45 would have calculated the date from the famine backward to arrive at a crucifixion date of 42 CE for Jesus.

The writer or editor of the Pauline Galatians letter seems to be trying to synch up the different dates for the crucifixion. Paul gets converted, apparently in the same year as the death of Jesus. Yet he has to account for his visit visit to Jerusalem at the time of the prediction of the famine in 444/45 CE. The writer tells of a trip three years and then a trip 14 years later. He is trying most likely to get the 28 CE death date to match up with the 45 CE famine-trip to Jerusalem date.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Clement has a lot of interesting things to say about the chronology:

Quote:

And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months (= 28 CE);

and from the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) to the death of Commodus (Dec 31 192 CE), a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days. (= 63 CE?)

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. (= 2 BCE)

At first glance the chronology that 'works' seems to be 'correct.' Yet I think this was added by a later editor. Just look at what immediately follows:

If Clement really believes that the baptism of Jesus took place on the fifteenth of Tiberius why does he go on to say 'the Basilideans say this' or 'that'? How can he get the dates of Jesus's ministry so right relative to the destruction but not the date relative to a recent historical event - i.e. the death of Commodus? Surely one would expect Clement to nail the latter. The answer is that the Stromata has been edited. This is the only place in Clement's writings that 'the Gospel of Luke' is mentioned.

Clement NEVER mentions the names of the canonical gospels. I can only think of one other time that 'John' is mentioned (and I suspect even that was an interpolation). The fact that both 'Luke' and 'Matthew' are mentioned here side by side in a text WHERE THESE REFERENCES ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE makes it seem highly likely to me that these are later interpolations (a situation already mentioned by Jerome who says that Clement's texts were altered by the Arians)

maryhelena · 02-18-2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The Acts of Pilate says that Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year. The heretics seem to have argued for a one year ministry (Irenaeus AH 2.22). This makes sense given the fact - as Irenaeus notes here - they connected the concept of 'gospel' (= besorah) to the 'year of favor' (Isa 61:2). In other words, Jesus's ministry was conceived as god appearing in the year leading up to the Jubilee year (note Luke 4:9 still retains Jesus announcing Isa 61:2 AND the specific year of his 'coming down'). The multi-year ministry develops only from John. Which means it:

a) is only attached to a united synoptic tradition on 'one end' (i.e. at the beginning or end) and then works forward or backward from that point (i.e. three years back from the crucifixion or three years forward from the annunciation

or

b) there were two single year traditions (the 12th and the 15th) and John is attached to the beginning of one and the end of the other.

In traditional Israelite culture the Jubilee is declared on the Day of Atonement of the 49th year, announced in all countries over a period of just under six months (six months less nine days, because the Day of Atonement is on the 10th of the 7th of year 49), and then it runs from the first to the last day of year 50, which is also year 1 of the next seven years.

The Arabic bashîrah means annunciation, and is the normal Arabic word for Gospel. It is obviously the equivalent of the Hebrew bassorah (or besorah). Mubashshir (= Hebrew mevasser) means the person that carries a message; it also means Evangelist. Bashîr is a title applied to John the Baptist. It means herald.

Perhaps more than one version of the Acts of Pilate - whatever - Eusebius knows something about a crucifixion of JC in the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e.

Stephan, as I said in an earlier post - if NT scholars, today, can't make head or tail out of the contradictory NT dating structure for JC - then, likewise, back in earlier days - various compilations of the data would be in circulation.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Eusebius: Church History (Book I)

Quote:

Chapter 9. The Times of Pilate.

1. The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus succeeded to the government after Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Cæsar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers Philip and Herod the younger, with Lysanias, still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 10:49 AM

We also have to remember that four paragraphs later in Against Marcion Book One the familiar "fifteenth year of Tiberius" is referenced

Quote:

For the time it must suffice to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in few words, that Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god than the Creator. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit. In what year of the elder Antoninus the pestilential breeze of Marcion's salvation, whose opinion this was, breathed out from his own Pontus, I have forborne to inquire. But of this I am sure, that he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now from Tiberius to Antoninus there are a matter of a hundred and fifteen and a half years and half a month. This length of time do they posit between Christ and Marcion. Since therefore it was under Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god on the scene, at once, if you are in your senses, the fact is clear.

Yet what exactly is Tertullian referencing as coming 115 years 6 1/2 months after Jesus. The idea that Tertullian could be referencing Marcion's arrival is peculiar because what exactly is this a reference to? His birth? His appearance somewhere? Clement says certainly that Marcion was already in existence in the reign of Hadrian.

I think the beginning of Antoninus Pius reign is meant but even this doesn't make sense now. Yet scholars can't claim that Tertullian knows the year of Marcion He must be referencing 'the era of Antoninus.' But what does this have to do with 115 years 61/2 months I don't exactly know. The Edessan Chronicle similarly puts Marcion's arrival at 138 CE - clearly the beginning of Antoninus's rule but 138 - 115.6 = 123 CE or something like that.

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 11:08 AM

and that's the paradox of marcionite research. Tertullian says he doesn't know the date of marcion but scholars somehow turn that into a firm date for marcion!

DCHindley · 02-18-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have no explanation for this variant dating. I suspect it was the original Marcionite reading. The twelfth year, twelfth month (cf. Irenaeus AH 2.22), twelfth disciple etc.

I always thought it had something to do with one of the several ways to reckon a ruler's year of reign.

Event	Full years of reign from co-regency		Full years of reign from sole rule			Accession Yr system from coregency	Non-Accession Yr syst from coregency	Accession Yr system from sole rule	Non-Accession Yr syst from sole rule

Tiberius made co-regent with Augustus (10/23/12)	10/23/12-10/22/13	1			10/23/12-12/31/12	Acc Yr	1
	10/23/13-10/22/14	2			01/01/13-12/31/13	1	2
Death of Augustus (8/19/14) Tiberius names head of state (9/17/14)			09/17/14-09/16/15	1	09/17/14-10/22/15			Acc Yr	1
	10/23/14-10/22/15	3	09/17/15-09/16/16	2	01/01/14-12/31/14	2	3	1	2
	10/23/15-10/22/16	4	09/17/16-09/16/17	3	01/01/15-12/31/15	3	4	2	3
	10/23/16-10/22/17	5	09/17/17-09/16/18	4	01/01/16-12/31/16	4	5	3	4
	10/23/24-10/22/25	13	09/17/26-09/16/27	13	01/01/24-12/31/24	12	13	11	12
	10/23/25-10/22/26	14	09/17/27-09/16/28	14	01/01/25-12/31/25	13	14	12	13
	10/23/26-10/22/27	15	09/17/28-09/16/29	15	01/01/26-12/31/26	14	15	13	14
	10/23/27-10/22/28	16	09/17/29-09/16/30	16	01/01/27-12/31/27	15	16	14	15
	10/23/28-10/22/29	17	09/17/30-09/16/31	17	01/01/28-12/31/28	16	17	15	16
	10/23/35-10/22/36	24	09/17/35-09/16/36	22	01/01/35-12/31/35	23	24	22	23
Death of Tiberius (3/16/37)	10/23/36-03/16/37	25	09/17/36-03/16/37	23	01/01/36-12/31/36	24	25	23	24

Length of Rule	24 yrs and 143 days		22 yrs and 179 days

	03/16/37		03/16/37
	10/23/12		09/17/14

DCH

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 02:38 PM

well maybe that's the trick. 115 years and 6 and a half months from the beginning of July 11 138 is January 28 23 CE or there abouts.

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 02:50 PM

Jay

That's a very good point. It would have escaped me if you hadn't brought it up. Irenaeus's peculiar dating does fit (although from memory he says 'almost fifty'). Interestingly my friend Tjitze Baarda just sent me his latest article to be published I think later this year where he determines a variant in the 'not yet fifty' reading in John in the Syriac tradition.

I am so bad at math now it takes real effort to to figure out what the implications of 49 rather than 50 are. One obvious thing - which has nothing to do with this topic is that it would imply that Jesus could have both been born and died in a sabbatical year (assuming of course that what Eusebius says about the book of Daniel also matches to a sabbatical system of some kind).

BTW:

Quote:

Is this because Irenaeus and Tertullian are one writer?

No I have noticed this pattern in Against Marcion 4 and 5 and elsewhere. Tertullian was translating Irenaeus into Latin and embellishing it with orthodoxy from the period. Think Against the Valentinians vs. Against Heresies 1 - 12. Also Against Hermogenes and Against Marcion 2 have been traced back to Theophilus of Antioch.

Thanks for these rewarding posts guys.

Stephan

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

What we have is a three year discrepancy between Acts placing the death of Jesus in 42/43 CE

If Jesus was crucified in 43 CE at 49 then he was born c. 6 BCE (told you I have difficulties)

If he was born 6 CE he was thirty in 23 CE?

Marcion's coming being associated with the start of Antoninus reign 138 - 115 and six months 1/2 = 23 CE

THIS IS THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. Does this mean that the early Catholics assumed a common crucifixion date for the Marcionites c. 25 CE?

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...Note that Tertullian and Irenaeus are in agreement about the baptism year 25 CE under Claudius. (Is this because Irenaeus and Tertullian are one writer?)...

Something is radically wrong with your Maths. In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus was baptized at around the 15th year of Tiberius as stated in gLuke.

'Against Heresies 3"

Quote:

...also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar...

Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended during the REIGN of Tiberius in writings attributed to Tertullian.

The Apology attributed to Tertullian

Quote:

But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. ........... All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.

In the Apology attributed to Tertullian, Jesus Christ was Crucified, died, buried, Resurrected and ascended during the time of Pilate when TIBERIUS was Emperor.

It is completely unsubstantiated that Tertullian and Irenaeus agree about the baptism of Jesus at 25 CE under Claudius.

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 08:00 PM

With this discussion I can finally straighten out something which was only imperfectly accomplished in my book. The 'gospel' literary genre is non-existent in the Greek world. The only way the terminology makes any sense is if we assume a Hebrew or Aramaic original (as noted above). The underlying idea would be that when Jesus is standing in the Jewish house of worship reading Isaiah chapter 61 (or in Clement's gospel reading something related but ultimately not the same as what now appears in Luke):

Quote:

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. (Strom 1.21)

This argument is - yet again - attacked in Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Two equating Clement once more with the 'heresies.'

What comes from looking at Irenaeus's attack against Clement's understanding, Clement's statements equating the gospel with the Jubilee and other Alexandrian writers (Origen) is the clear intimation that Jesus's ministry must have coincided with a 49th year (i.e. anticipating the Jubilee in the subsequent year). This is not at all crazy. I have even read the current Pope make this argument. The difficulty is that the fifteen year of Tiberius does not fall on a sabbatical year.

Yet 26 CE does.

We know from the rabbinic literature that the temple was destroyed in the year following a sabbatical year. Not a Jubilee but the first year of a new cycle of seven. The temple was destroyed in the summer of 70 CE - so in other words in a year that began fall 69.

So we know that 68/69 was a sabbatical year. There are other references to sabbatical years dating back to the Second Commonwealth period. The cycle must have been as follows (counting backwards):

68
61
54
47
40
33
26
19
12
5 CE
2 BCE
9
16
23

The point is that this is notion is well established. Since DCH has provided us with a way of making 26 CE become 'the 12th year of Tiberius' I think it is a very significant discovery. Now the gospel starts to make sense (especially Jesus's announcement in the Jewish house of worship at the beginning of Luke)

The only things left to determine are - can we show the Jubilee fell in that cycle?

If Samaritan tradition was shared by the Jews (which must be true) Jesus would be appearing in the forty-ninth year. The Jubilee is declared on the Day of Atonement of the 49th year, announced in all countries over a period of just under six months (six months less nine days, because the Day of Atonement is on the 10th of the 7th of year 49), and then it runs from the first to the last day of year 50, which is also year 1 of the next seven years.

If 26 was the 49th year and 27 the Jubilee then this pattern would continue throughout time. The next pairing would be 75/76 CE and then 124/125 CE and then finally and most significantly 173/174, the year of the massive uprising in Alexandria that almost toppled Marcus Aurelius. This twelfth year of Tiberius finally begins to make the gospel make more sense.

The idea of God appearing among men on the Jubilee is implicit in the Qumran literature. http://books.google.com/books?id=h4d...page&q&f=false

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2012, 11:08 AM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	and that's the paradox of marcionite research. Tertullian says he doesn't know the date of marcion but scholars somehow turn that into a firm date for marcion!

02-18-2012, 02:38 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	well maybe that's the trick. 115 years and 6 and a half months from the beginning of July 11 138 is January 28 23 CE or there abouts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.