Cleansing of the Temple: Before or after Palm Sunday?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartholomewB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It will all be conjecture unless someone invents a time machine or a 1st century AD manuscript of the first order is discovered.

The point is that there is nothing in Josephus that supports an early crucifixion date and several pieces of evidence that make that date impossible. On the other hand, considerable evidence in Josephus points towards a late crucifixion date, namely, A.D 36, and nothing contradicts it.

And there are other aspects that I have not gone into. Again, I recommend Hagen.

Have these posts changed your opinion on the subject at all?
 
40.png
steve53:
The point is that there is nothing in Josephus that supports an early crucifixion date …
Click to expand...
I cannot see how you can make such a claim when Antiquities 15.11 records the commencement of Herods temple rebuild :hammering: starting in his 18th year. That would have been 20 BC. Yes? Tie that fact into the day when Jesus cleared the temple and we get a firm date of Passover 27 AD. We know that from John 2:20’s comment about it taking *“46 years to build this temple.” *

Look no further; you’ve got a Josephus date for the start of Jesus’ ministry, and a crucifixion date of 30 AD!
 
steve53 said:
Have these posts changed your opinion on the subject at all?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so. Nothing really that I could put my finger on. Questions of emphasis, perhaps, but no more than that.
steve53 said:
The point is that there is nothing in Josephus that supports an early crucifixion date and several pieces of evidence that make that date impossible. On the other hand, considerable evidence in Josephus points towards a late crucifixion date, namely, A.D 36, and nothing contradicts it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I repeat what I said yesterday (#34 on this thread):
BartholomewB said:
**Conclusion.—**There is nothing at all in Josephus, not a single word, to support your original contention that the Crucifixion of Jesus can be confidently dated to the year 36.
Click to expand...
 
Cyberseeker said:
I cannot see how you can make such a claim when Antiquities 15.11 records the commencement of Herods temple rebuild :hammering: starting in his 18th year. That would have been 20 BC. Yes? Tie that fact into the day when Jesus cleared the temple and we get a firm date of Passover 27 AD. We know that from John 2:20’s comment about it taking *“46 years to build this temple.” *

Look no further; you’ve got a Josephus date for the start of Jesus’ ministry, and a crucifixion date of 30 AD!
Click to expand...
Actually, if you date it right and do the math, you get 28 A.D. as the date, with Jesus’ death at 30 A.D.
 
Cyber, still on that kick that Tiberius began his reign in 12 AD? No no one else agrees with this.
Bart, maybe.
 
steve53 said:
Cyber, still on that kick that Tiberius began his reign in 12 AD? No no one else agrees with this.
Bart, maybe.
Click to expand...
Steve, my friend, I think I may have a surprise for you. I’m happy to go along with Harold Hoehner.

In an appendix to his 1972 book Herod Antipas, Hoehner lists five dating systems, each one of which has at some time been put forward as the one that Luke had in mind when he wrote that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius. Surveying the evidence for the numbering of regnal years in Rome, Syria and elsewhere, Hoehner goes on to assess the likelihood of Luke having followed one or other of the five.

Under Hoehner’s five rules, each new regnal year would begin:

▪️ 1: On the anniversary of the ruler’s accession
▪️ 2: In Tiberius’ case only, on the anniversary of his appointment as co-regent in AD 11
▪️ 3: At the New Year, reckoned as 1 Tishri (close to the autumn equinox)
▪️ 4: At the New Year, reckoned as 1 Nisan (close to the spring equinox)
▪️ 5: At the Julian New Year, 1 January

Under any of the last three methods, Year 1 of each reign would last less than a full year, running only from the date of accession to the end of that calendar year. Hoehner spells this out very precisely:

The fifth opinion is that Luke used the Julian calendar, and therefore that he reckoned Tiberius’ first year from 19 August AD 14 to 31 December AD 14 and his fifteenth year from 1 January to 31 December AD 28. . . .] This method was used by the Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

To cut a long story short, the three alternatives that he rejects as unlikely, for different reasons, are Nos. 1, 2, and 4, leaving Nos. 3 and 5 as reasonable possibilities.

Under Hoehner’s rule 3, the regnal year 15 Tiberius would run from (say) September 20, AD 27, to (say) September 19, AD 28.

Under his rule 5, 15 Tiberius would run from January 1 to December 31, AD 28.
 
40.png
BartholomewB:
Steve, my friend, I think I may have a surprise for you. I’m happy to go along with Harold Hoehner.
Click to expand...
I suppose you know that Hoehner was a senior professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. As such, he shared their dispensational theology agenda. Therefore his chronological arguments carry a heavy bias toward the AD 33 crucifixion date. Are you aware that dispensationalism **MUST ** have a AD 33 crucifixion in order to work? If not, it falls like a house of cards.

My agreement with Luke’s beginning of Tiberius’ reign at his co-regency is based on good data, not the least of which is its fit with the 46-year temple construction.
 
Cyberseeker said:
I suppose you know that Hoehner was a senior professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. As such, he shared their dispensational theology agenda. Therefore his chronological arguments carry a heavy bias toward the AD 33 crucifixion date. Are you aware that dispensationalism **MUST ** have a AD 33 crucifixion in order to work? If not, it falls like a house of cards.

My agreement with Luke’s beginning of Tiberius’ reign at his co-regency is based on good data, not the least of which is its fit with the 46-year temple construction.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. Until now I had never heard there was a connection between dispensationalism and a preference for the year 33. Hoehner says, in fact, at one point in the appendix:

If one were to accept AD 30 as the crucifixion date, then the third method would be the most probable. On the other hand, if one thinks that Jesus was crucified in AD 33 as the present author does, then either the first or fifth method would be preferable.

He seems to be dealing very fairly with the evidence, and is up front about his personal reasons for preferring one alternative to the other. That is why, in my post #49, I said he accepts both Nos. 3 and 5 as reasonable possibilities.
 
Cyberseeker said:
Hi JB Bro.

Chronology can send you cross-eyed sometimes. That’s why I prefer to count on a diagram. See if this fits our timeline. Bear in mind that the Bible uses inclusive counting.

http://5loaves2fishes.net/files/images/46years.png
Click to expand...
Your diagram is off by a bit. Recent studies have shown that the death of Herod the Great was in 1 B.C.- 1 A.D. Jesus’ birth in the Scriptures is two years before the Slaughter of the Innocents.The life span of Jesus was probably from 3 B.C. to 30 A.D.
 
Continuing my last post, a partial solar eclipse occured in 4 B.C., but a full solar eclipse took place in the Passover of 1 B.C.
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
Your diagram is off by a bit. Recent studies have shown that the death of Herod the Great was in 1 B.C.- 1 A.D. Jesus’ birth in the Scriptures is two years before the Slaughter of the Innocents.The life span of Jesus was probably from 3 B.C. to 30 A.D.
Click to expand...
I like your AD 30 crucifixion date, but your 1 BC birth of Jesus creates several awkward problems. First, if Herod died in 1 BC, it means he must have co-ruled with Archelaus for three years. That’s rather dubious don’t you think?

Second, if Jesus was born in 1 BC or shortly before, it would make his age at the start of his ministry, twenty-seven years old. This contradicts Luke 3:23 which says, *“Now Jesus himself was about **thirty years old *when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.”

As for the merits of a full eclipse vs. partial eclipse, I dont think that needs to be an issue because Josephus never specified which. The widely quoted birth year of 5 BC fits the equation better IMO.
 
Lunar eclipse, folks. Not solar.

And it had to have occurred shortly before the Passover of that year- in other words in March.

Does the 1 B.C. eclipse fit?

Of course, this is dependent on believing Josephus. For some people, that is a very difficult thing to do.
 
Cyberseeker said:
I like your AD 30 crucifixion date, but your 1 BC birth of Jesus creates several awkward problems. First, if Herod died in 1 BC, it means he must have co-ruled with Archelaus for three years. That’s rather dubious don’t you think?

Second, if Jesus was born in 1 BC or shortly before, it would make his age at the start of his ministry, twenty-seven years old. This contradicts Luke 3:23 which says, *“Now Jesus himself was about **thirty years old ***when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.”

As for the merits of a full eclipse vs. partial eclipse, I dont think that needs to be an issue because Josephus never specified which. The widely quoted birth year of 5 BC fits the equation better IMO.
Click to expand...
I said 3 B.C. not 1 B.C.!!

I sent these links to help with the chronology.

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/jesus-birth-and-when-herod-the-great-really-died/
agapebiblestudy.com/Matthew_Gospel/Matthew_Lesson_2.htm
 
JB Brother
Cyberseeker
Steve53

Let me ask the three of you a follow-up question, now that we have moved on to the question of John the Baptist’s ministry and “the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign.” Leaving aside for a moment the question of dating in terms of AD years, what is your understanding of the length of time that elapsed between the three events:
  1. John begins baptizing in the Jordan (Mt 3:1, Mk 1:4, Lk 3:3)
  2. Baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:15, Mk 1:9, Lk 3:21)
  3. Antipas has John arrested and imprisoned (Mt 14:3, Mk 6:17, Lk 3:20)
The usual view seems to be that a period of a few weeks to a few months elapsed between 1 and 2, and the same again between 2 and 3, so that the total length of time from 1 to 3 might be anything from, say, three months to a year.

Are there any alternative interpretations of the evidence that would point to a radically different timescale, either very much longer or very much shorter?

Thanks
Bart
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
I said 3 B.C. not 1 B.C.!!
Click to expand...
My apologies JB. (Cyber cleans specs and pours another coffee) :coffeeread:

Nevertheless, my concerns remain: if Herod died in 1 BC, it means he must have co-ruled with Archelaus for three years. That’s rather dubious don’t you think?

Second, if Jesus was born in 3 BC, it would make his age at the start of his ministry (AD27) twenty-nine years old. Your AD 28 is not right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top