Vivisector

MaryHelena,

What if - and it's a big "if" - the secure point for both Matthew and Luke was Jesus's crucifixion during Pontius Pilate? Using conventional timeframes, that's 26-36 CE. Now, another what if with a big "if," both of these writers assumed that whatever happened to Jesus, it would have happened to him in the prime of his life. Who knows, let's say, around age 30. In that case, (and here comes a "might"), one (Matthew) might have assumed the crucifixion happened in 26 CE, in which case 30 years prior would have been around the time of the death of Herod the King. If the other (let's say, Luke) assumed that the crucifixion happened closer to the end of Pilate's prefecture, then he would have placed Jesus's birth closer to the census of Quirinius. Both Luke and Matthew would thus have placed Jesus's birth in proximity of (different) significant events.

I realize this is enough "if's" and "might's" to earn me an honorary membership in the Christian Apologetics Society, but I'm only suggesting that the same secure placeholder-in-time (i.e., crucifixion during the prefecture of P.P.) could possibly have produced both accounts. Just want to throw it into the mix of your thinking.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

Josephus could NOT have predicted the death of those who DIED BEFORE he was even born.

Prophecies are about the FUTURE not the past.

aa5874

Now what about "IF NOT" and "MIGHT NOT" ?

Please throw those into YOUR MIX.

You have got to MIX it up.

judge

I think an easy mistake to make is to add on an extra year. If 14 CE is the 1st year then the 15th year would be 28 CE.
We should include 14CE in the 15 years rather than add 15 years to it.

Vivisector

Good point. I always try to keep those in mind, even if I don't always write about them.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

Sure, all that means is that the 15th year still runs to 29 c.e. I did read somewhere, can't find it now - that the last 4 months of 14 c.e. would be assigned to Augustus and not to Tiberius - thereby the official rule of Tiberius would be from January of 15.c.e. It's an interesting exercise - but does not really do anything for my 70 year proposal re gLuke. A 70 year prophetic number into which gLuke is inserting an interpretation, a 'salvation', interpretation of those previous 70 years.

maryhelena

Thanks, Vivisector, for your suggestions.

Actually, dating the crucifixion of JC does not feature in my interpretation of Luke.3.1,2. I'm only interested in the historical data therein. JC is not part of that......

On the question of dating Pilate - Josephus has left it rather ambiguous. I did look at the options - So, yes, the whole dating the crucifixion of JC under Pilate is a bit of a ball of wax.....and many are the options proposed to harmonize gMatthew and gLuke. And without a historical JC, which is my position - still more options regarding the gospel JC storyline can be entertained...

aa5874

There is historical data about JC in gLuke!!!!???? Please don't let me LAUGH.

The author of gLuke did some kind of investigation and claimed JC was some kind of Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through some clouds.

There is A MAJOR event in the NT is historically SECURE and it is the Fall of the Temple. The Jesus story BEGINS AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Theological Crisis for Jews happened AFTER the Temple of their OWN GOD Fell.

And, you still get to use your "70 year interpretation" if the Jesus story was invented 70 years AFTER "PILATE" or shortly AFTER the writings of Josephus, or around the end of the 1st century.

avi

Please, friend, read her comment again....
She explicitly denies any historical data about JC in gLuke.

avi