Age 33?

[Cyberseeker]

steve53:

The problem for many is that you have to assume that Luke is in frank error in some “facts.” Few Catholics are willing to admit that.

Is New Advent Encyclopaedia Catholic?They give equal credence to both options.

Was Tertullian Catholic? He said, “The Lord was was revealed in the 12th year of Tiberius” (Against Marcion, 1:15) In other words AD 26. I don’t believe that he was suggesting Luke was in error. So, the explanation that Luke was counting from Tiberius’ co-regency, and others were counting from his full reign is perfectly reasonable. It also fits with the other data.

http://5loaves2fishes.net/files/images/46years.png

 

[steve53]

To count Tiberius’ reign from his co-regency with Augustus is ridiculous. FWIW Tiberius, in fact, was virtually running the show for ten years before Augustus’ death. But no one counts those years as part of a reign. Like I said, ridiculous.

Okay, Bart. Let’s start off with Luke. Problems there.

Remember that Luke himself admits that his sources were many, and he was not an eyewitness. Herein lies the problem.

1. Jesus’ birth is placed at the census of Augustus. This took place in A.D. 6 when Augustus turned Judea from a client kingdom- part of the ethnarchy of Archelaus- into a formal province of Rome. At that time, Herod the Great- Archelaus’ father- had been dead for nine years.
   Folks have tried very hard to dance around this by various means. But nothing sticks.
   In a client kingdom situation, Rome had absolutely no interest in population numbers. They left all that sort of stuff and administration up to the King. What Rome wanted was peace, loyalty, a certain amount of troops under special circumstances, and for the King to be subservient to Rome.
   Augustus in fact had a great respect for Herod the Great, and allowed the Herod family a lot of lassitude. For him to demand a census was to essentially accuse them of cheating on the taxes paid to Rome- an unthinkable insult. In fact, any amount of money Rome wanted was gladly paid by the Herod the Great clan, even if they had to resort of extortion and murder of their citizens.

So Luke had to be mistaken on that- Matthew too. Was it James- later the Just- who was born in the manger in A.D. 6? A quick birth suggests the baby was not Mary’s first.

1. The story of Jesus as a teaching the Pharisees in the Second Temple is almost certainly lifted from Flavius Josephus, as he writes in his “Life.” We are not even sure that Jesus could read and write, much less debate with the Elders the fine points of Jewish law. Josephus, born and raised in Jerusalem from wealthy parents, did become a formal Priest and could easily be believed on his tale.

So Luke got it wrong. One of his sources mixed up Jesus with Josephus. This is not as far-fetched as one might think. Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles when he was in Rome with Paul in the years A.D. 61-64. Luke was presumably executed along with Paul and Peter and a lot of other Christians in A.D. 64.
However, Josephus in “Life” reported that he was IN Jerusalem as an emissary in A.D. 62-63. There, he was welcomed into the salon of Poppea, the wife of Nero, and traveled in high circles. So it is easy to see how the two famous Jews got mixed up by a well-meaning source that Luke used.

So using dates derived from Luke as the template to derive Jesus’ age will not wash.

Enough for tonight…

If you are motivated, you might read up on Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. Specifically, Herod’s battle with King Aretas of Nabotea and his loss, which prompted Tiberius to demand that General Lucius Vitellius avenge Antipas’ defeat.

The dates of those events are very important.

 

[BartholomewB]

Hi Steve. While we’re waiting for your next post, let me just ask you this. Is it essential to your argument that Luke was killed along with Peter and Paul, under Nero? If he had left Rome earlier and lived to write his Gospel later, whether in Caesarea or Antioch or anywhere else, would that make a difference to your date of 36 for the Crucifixion?

 

[steve53]

People who want to undermine the Gospels find ways to date them to as late as possible.

Acts ends very abruptly with Paul being in Rome for two years, bringing the year to A.D. 63-64, and considering going to Spain.

I don’t think to speculate any other scenario is useful.

 

[BartholomewB]

People who want to undermine the Gospels find ways to date them to as late as possible.

Acts ends very abruptly with Paul being in Rome for two years, bringing the year to A.D. 63-64, and considering going to Spain.

I don’t think to speculate any other scenario is useful.

Steve

*For two years Paul lived in a place he rented for himself, and there he welcomed all who came to see him. He preached about the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking with all boldness and freedom. *(Acts 28: 30-31, in the TEV translation).

If I’ve understood you correctly, Luke’s narrative breaks off at that point because he was arrested and executed in Nero’s persecution of the Christians. He would have written more if he had been given the chance. Is that what you’re saying?

 

[zz912]

People who want to undermine the Gospels find ways to date them to as late as possible.

Acts ends very abruptly with Paul being in Rome for two years, bringing the year to A.D. 63-64, and considering going to Spain.

I don’t think to speculate any other scenario is useful.

Additionally, Acts was written AFTER the Gospel of Luke.

 

[zz912]

Steve

*For two years Paul lived in a place he rented for himself, and there he welcomed all who came to see him. He preached about the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking with all boldness and freedom. *(Acts 28: 30-31, in the TEV translation).

If I’ve understood you correctly, Luke’s narrative breaks off at that point because he was arrested and executed in Nero’s persecution of the Christians. He would have written more if he had been given the chance. Is that what you’re saying?

The book ends abruptly, with no mention of Paul’s martyrdom, nor of Peter’s. It also doesn’t mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

That gives a heavy indication that the book was written before those events occurred.

 

[zz912]

1. Jesus’ birth is placed at the census of Augustus. This took place in A.D. 6 when Augustus turned Judea from a client kingdom- part of the ethnarchy of Archelaus- into a formal province of Rome.

There are some other theories about the census as well.

jimmyakin.com/2014/09/does-luke-contradict-himself-on-when-jesus-was-born.html

jimmyakin.com/2011/05/cool-discovery-about-the-birth-of-christ.html

 

[BartholomewB]

The book ends abruptly, with no mention of Paul’s martyrdom, nor of Peter’s. It also doesn’t mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

That gives a heavy indication that the book was written before those events occurred.

Yes, but Luke’s arrest and death, before he’d finished writing the book of Acts, is only one out of several hypotheses to explain why there’s no mention of the killings under Nero in the sixties. Luke may have decided to end his narrative at that point on purpose. Different NT scholars, at different times, have proposed possible reasons why he might have chosen to do that.

It’s perfectly true that Luke’s sudden arrest and execution during Nero’s persecution of Christians is a possibility, but it’s only one possibility out of several. It would be a mistake to assume that the debate is over and the question settled in favor of that hypothesis.

 

[steve53]

Luke’s latter focus in Acts was on Paul the Apostle. To believe that Luke would intentionally leave out Paul’s martyrdom is not reasonable.

Back to looking at a A.D. 36 crucifixion date. I’ll use bullet points.

1. In Mark, after Jesus’ baptism there is a period of time and then the Gospel really begins- with stories-after John the Baptist had been arrested. Then later we have John executed, and after that Jesus preaching on up until the Passover of his crucifixion.
2. From Josephus, we know that John the Baptist was arrested because he was causing political problems with Herod Antipas’ army- Antipas and his generals were preparing them for battle. Herodias’ daughter was Salome, and she danced provocatively for Antipas and his generals which led to John’s death. From his arrest to execution appears to be several months- it is doubtful Antipas, an educated man, wanted to execute John if it weren’t for Salome and Herodias.
3. Salome was married to Antipas’ brother Herod Philip, who ruled a fourth of Herod the Great’s old kingdom, with Herod Antipas ruling another fourth. When Herodias married Herod Antipas, probably not long afterwards the very young Salome married Herod Philip.
4. Herod Philip according to Josephus DIED in the twentieth year of Tiberius’ reign, which would be A.D. 33. It is doubtful that Salome would have danced provocatively for Antipas when she was Queen and married to Philip- and Philip is not mentioned anyway in the JB execution story. So Salome danced AFTER Philip died, most likely. And how long would a mourning period have been before she became a “free” woman and actions like that somewhat understandable? Six months? A year?
5. Herod Antipas’ army was defeated by King Aretas of Nabotea at least several months BEFORE Jesus’ crucifixion, and, of course, AFTER the execution of John the Baptist.
6. According to Josephus, Emperor Tiberius was furious at Aretas for defeating Antipas and ordered the Syrain President Lucius Vitellius to send troops into Nabotea and bring him the head of Aretas. Here is an important date point- Vitellius was in Jerusalem for the Passover when Tiberius died, with two legions of troops nearby to invade Nabotea. But Tiberius died and there were no orders from the new emperor Caius to proceed with the invation.
7. Vitellius aborted the planned invasion. So he was in Jerusalem for what we know was the Passover of A.D. 37, as Tiberius died in March of A.D. 37. Importantly, Pilate was removed from office some weeks before by Vitellius and ordered to report to Tiberius. Caiaphas had been removed at a previous Passover that Vitellius attended- Hagan argues for the Passover of A.D. 36 which was the previous year.

In weaving the ministry of Jesus in with what we know of other famous Romans of the time- Antipas, Aretas, Herodias, Vitellius-, an early crucifixion date- either A.D. 30 or A.D. 33 becomes very tenuous if not impossible.

Read the above points over and over. When Antipas’- who was a personal friend of Tiberius’-was defeated by Aretas, how long would it have taken a furious Tiberius to order Vitellius to seek revenge? And how long WOULD it have taken Vitellius to bring troops down to Jerusalem from Syria- which we know was A.D. 37?

If an early crucifixion date of A.D. 33 is assumed, well, Vitellius wasn’t even President of Syria until A.D. 35. So Tiberius waited three years until he appointed Vitellius to make his wishes known? And it took Vitellius another couple years to actually mobilize the troops? Not likely.

So looking at Josephus and these factors, an A.D. 36 crucifixion date is almost mandated.

Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” has all the Josephus references printed out and goes into all of this. I recommend it.

So Bart, some grist for you to chew on this weekend.

 

[patrick457]

The book ends abruptly, with no mention of Paul’s martyrdom, nor of Peter’s. It also doesn’t mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

That gives a heavy indication that the book was written before those events occurred.

Which begs the question: why do people assume that Luke had to mention the two events? Isn’t this some kind of argument from silence?

What if, they were omitted simply because the author thought they’re not really relevant to the main plot of the work?

 

[steve53]

I am surprised at you, Patrick.

You don’t really think that Luke purposefully left off a description of the martyrdom of Paul and Peter?

You could argue that he lost control of the manuscript, or the manuscript was later altered, but I don’t think any reasonable person who was not trying to be a provocateur or undermined Luke’s works would come to any sort of conclusion like that.

 

[BartholomewB]

Steve

It is my pleasure to demolish your arguments one by one. Or in some cases, two by two.

1. In Mark, after Jesus’ baptism there is a period of time and then the Gospel really begins- with stories-after John the Baptist had been arrested. Then later we have John executed, and after that Jesus preaching on up until the Passover of his crucifixion.

Correct, but irrelevant to the question of the dating the Crucifixion.

1. From Josephus, we know that John the Baptist was arrested because he was causing political problems with Herod Antipas’ army- Antipas and his generals were preparing them for battle. Herodias’ daughter was Salome, and she danced provocatively for Antipas and his generals which led to John’s death. From his arrest to execution appears to be several months- it is doubtful Antipas, an educated man, wanted to execute John if it weren’t for Salome and Herodias.

Your #2 is a strange cocktail of truth, reasonable supposition, and outright falsehood. We need to take it sentence by sentence.

(a) “From Josephus, we know that John the Baptist was arrested because he was causing political problems with Herod Antipas’ army- Antipas and his generals were preparing them for battle.” No, Steve, we couldn’t possibly know that from Josephus. Josephus says no such thing. John the Baptist is mentioned in only a single brief passage in the whole of Josephus. The reference is Antiquities 18:116-119. Read it again. You’ll see that neither the army nor the generals are even mentioned anywhere in that passage.

(b) “Herodias’ daughter was Salome, and she danced provocatively for Antipas and his generals which led to John’s death.” Factually true, but why single out the “generals,” as you call them? They weren’t the only guests at the birthday party. Other guests included the leading citizens of Galilee (Mark 6:21).

(c) “From his arrest to execution appears to be several months- it is doubtful Antipas, an educated man, wanted to execute John if it weren’t for Salome and Herodias.” Okay, I have no quarrel with that, but the timing is supposition, not verifiable fact, and in any case it is irrelevant to the question of the dating the Crucifixion, since it is equally consistent with the dates 30 and 33.

1. Salome was married to Antipas’ brother Herod Philip, who ruled a fourth of Herod the Great’s old kingdom, with Herod Antipas ruling another fourth. When Herodias married Herod Antipas, probably not long afterwards the very young Salome married Herod Philip.
2. Herod Philip according to Josephus DIED in the twentieth year of Tiberius’ reign, which would be A.D. 33. It is doubtful that Salome would have danced provocatively for Antipas when she was Queen and married to Philip- and Philip is not mentioned anyway in the JB execution story. So Salome danced AFTER Philip died, most likely. And how long would a mourning period have been before she became a “free” woman and actions like that somewhat understandable? Six months? A year?

True, up to a point. Philip died, as you say, in 33 or possibly 34, leaving Salome a widow. We don’t know how long they had been married. Josephus says only that their marriage was childless and that she then married Aristobulus, the son of Agrippa’s brother Herod, by whom she bore three children. He says nothing to suggest that the birthday party episode occurred after the death of her first husband. The passage (Antiquities 18:137) is entirely consistent with the generally accepted view that she danced at the birthday party when she was very young, possibly as young as twelve, and in any case before her first marriage.

1. Herod Antipas’ army was defeated by King Aretas of Nabotea at least several months BEFORE Jesus’ crucifixion, and, of course, AFTER the execution of John the Baptist.

After the execution of John the Baptist, certainly. How long afterward is doubtful. It seems to have been toward the end of Tiberius’s reign since, as you say below (#6), Tiberius died before Vitellius had complied with his order. In any case, there is nothing to correlate this event with the date of the Crucifixion.

1. According to Josephus, Emperor Tiberius was furious at Aretas for defeating Antipas and ordered the Syrain President Lucius Vitellius to send troops into Nabotea and bring him the head of Aretas. Here is an important date point- Vitellius was in Jerusalem for the Passover when Tiberius died, with two legions of troops nearby to invade Nabotea. But Tiberius died and there were no orders from the new emperor Caius to proceed with the invation.
2. Vitellius aborted the planned invasion. So he was in Jerusalem for what we know was the Passover of A.D. 37, as Tiberius died in March of A.D. 37. Importantly, Pilate was removed from office some weeks before by Vitellius and ordered to report to Tiberius. Caiaphas had been removed at a previous Passover that Vitellius attended- Hagan argues for the Passover of A.D. 36 which was the previous year.

None of this (#6 and 7) has any bearing on the date of the Crucifixion.

Regards
Bart

 

[steve53]

You are not very open minded, are you? You are taking aim at selected targets while ignoring others that matter more and certainly are intentionally missing the big picture.

But I appreciate your efforts.

Lets look at these events as part of a continuum, and then make reasonable assumptions about time intervals involved. And we have at least three very solid dates to work with in this regard.

I will use bullet numbers for your convenience.

1. Herod Antipas going to Rome and falling in love with Herodias
2. Herod returning to the Galilee and sending away Pharaelis in order to send for Herodias in order to marry her.
3. King Aretas, Pharaelis’ father, is furious and swears revenge on the Herod family, and moves troops into contested territory.
4. Herodias, now in the Galilee, sees additional opportunity and arranges for her daughter to marry Antipas’ brother Philip.
5. Herod Philip dies sometime in A.D. 33, Tiberius puts Philip’s kingdom in limbo- NOT giving it to Antipas.
6. Herod moves his army into southern Perea- basing out of Macherus- a southern stronghold fort-city near Nabotea. Macherus is VERY CLOSE to Bethany-on-the-Jordan, John’s camp.
7. Antipas arrests John the Baptist, and HOLDS HIM IN MACHERUS.
8. Antipas’ birthday party is held, Salome dances, and John the baptist is executed and his head is shown to Antipas. ALL THIS HAPPENS IN MACHERUS, AND NOT THE GALILEE.
9. Antipas’ army is destroyed by King Aretas.
10. Tiberius is very angry and orders Vitellius to avenge Antipas’ defeat.
11. Vitellius moves troops into Jerusalem for the revenge war, but Tiberius dies in March of A.D. 37, and the expedition is aborted.

So you can put as much time as you want between events, but you have to be rational about it.

Remember that Herodias divorced her husband in Rome to physically travel out to the Galilee and wed Antipas. It is VERY unlikely that Salome danced before she married Philip. Once in the Galilee, Herodias would have seen the powerful and aging Philip and married off Salome quickly.

If you claim otherwise then I suspect your motives. These were rich, powerful people who were the most famous people of their times. Marriage, power, and money were all important.

Herod Philip was the older brother to Antipas, and was the warrior in the family. It’s in Josephus. By all estimation the brothers were close. If Antipas was planning an expedition against Nabotea, Philip would have been there helping. But he wasn’t. Why? HE HAD ALREADY DIED. AND PROBABLY HAD BEEN DEAD FOR AT LEAST A YEAR.

Is that an unreasonable assumption? Really?

And you cannot argue and A.D. 33 crucifixion date, and yet acknowledge that things wrapped up in this saga in A.D. 37 with Lucius Vitellius in Jerusalem- as it has to end.

And you gloss over the point that Vitellius only assumed power in A.D. 35. If you stick with an A.D. 33 crucifixion date, the battle and Tiberius’ rage against Aretas had to have occurred in A.D. 32- three years before Vitellius was appointed.

And we didn’t even go into the fact that their was a near-revolution in Rome that Tiberius unmasked in late A.D 31. Tacitus reported that for years the Empire and the city of Rome were blackened by the bloody proscriptions and mayhem ruled- and certainly that included A.D. 32. Tiberius had a lot on his plate- and that was when Lucius Vitellius assumed a lead role in his administration and had many tasks in Rome to do. Later, Tiberius would send him to Asia.

So on these grounds a late crucifixion date of A.D. 36 is hardly demolished, Bart.

Still stuck on A.D. 33? Based on what we know of Roman and Jewish history, and what is written in the NT, that is an impossible date for the crucifixion.

 

[BartholomewB]

Steve

You haven’t yet told me what connection you’re trying to establish between, on the one hand, Aretas’ attack and Vitellius’ inconclusive intervention and, on the other, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Please bear in mind that the NT specialists who favor either 30 or 33 know all about Aretas and his daughter, about Herodias and her daughter, and about Tiberius, Vitellius, and Antipas. They see nothing in that particular chain of events that might conceivably ring an alarm bell about their dating of the Crucifixion. So what have you found that they haven’t? What’s the connection?

Regards
Bart

 

[steve53]

I have told you twice now what the connection is.

And that is that Jesus had to be crucified after Herod Antipas’ army had been destroyed by King Aretas.

If I were you I would not put too much faith in what so called scholars tell you. It is all in Josephus and Tacitus and you can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

 

[BartholomewB]

I have told you twice now what the connection is.

And that is that Jesus had to be crucified after Herod Antipas’ army had been destroyed by King Aretas.

If I were you I would not put too much faith in what so called scholars tell you. It is all in Josephus and Tacitus and you can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Thank you, Steve. Now you’ve made it very easy for me.

Jesus had to be crucified after Herod Antipas’ army had been destroyed by King Aretas.

No, Steve, you have not substantiated any correlation between the two events. The chronological order may have been the attack by Aretas first and the Crucifixion later, or the Crucifixion first and the attack by Aretas later. There is no such thing as “had to be.”

 

[BartholomewB]

I have told you twice now what the connection is.

And that is that Jesus had to be crucified after Herod Antipas’ army had been destroyed by King Aretas.

If I were you I would not put too much faith in what so called scholars tell you. It is all in Josephus and Tacitus and you can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Thank you, Steve. Now you’ve made it easy for me.

Jesus had to be crucified after Herod Antipas’ army had been destroyed by King Aretas.

No, there’s no such thing as “had to be.” The Crucifixion could perfectly well have occurred first and the attack by Aretas not until a few years later. You have not substantiated any causal relationship between the two events.

 

[steve53]

I’m happy I made things easy for you.

May all your delusions ego-syntonic, my friend!

 

[patrick457]

I am surprised at you, Patrick.

You don’t really think that Luke purposefully left off a description of the martyrdom of Paul and Peter?

You could argue that he lost control of the manuscript, or the manuscript was later altered, but I don’t think any reasonable person who was not trying to be a provocateur or undermined Luke’s works would come to any sort of conclusion like that.

Well, first of all, why are you assuming that Luke must have - or rather, should have - written them?