Cleansing of the Temple: Before or after Palm Sunday?

[Cyberseeker]

BartholomewB:

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)

#1 The month John began baptising is not mentioned, but there are reasons to believe that it was early Tishri (September AD 26)

#2 Jesus baptism would have been before winter while the Jordan was still safe to baptise. I estimate Kislev (Nov/Dec AD 26) That would make about 2 months between events.

#3 John was beheaded shortly before the ‘feeding of the 5000.’ That event was, in my reckoning, spring (March) of AD 28. (So, the last gap about 15 months.

 

[BartholomewB]

#1 The month John began baptising is not mentioned, but there are reasons to believe that it was early Tishri (September AD 26)

#2 Jesus baptism would have been before winter while the Jordan was still safe to baptise. I estimate Kislev (Nov/Dec AD 26) That would make about 2 months between events.

#3 John was beheaded shortly before the ‘feeding of the 5000.’ That event was, in my reckoning, spring (March) of AD 28. (So, the last gap about 15 months.

Thank you, Cyberseeker. That was very quick, and a very precise, clear set of answers!

Just one detail: my #3 was the arrest of John the Baptist rather than his execution, because I didn’t want to get into the question of how long he was held prisoner at Machaerus before the birthday party incident.

Thanks
Bart

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

#1 The month John began baptising is not mentioned, but there are reasons to believe that it was early Tishri (September AD 26)

#2 Jesus baptism would have been before winter while the Jordan was still safe to baptise. I estimate Kislev (Nov/Dec AD 26) That would make about 2 months between events.

#3 John was beheaded shortly before the ‘feeding of the 5000.’ That event was, in my reckoning, spring (March) of AD 28. (So, the last gap about 15 months.

John probably began his ministry at A.D. 26 with the baptism of Jesus being 6 months later. That leaves his arrest in A.D. 28 and death in A.D. 29.

 

[Cyberseeker]

BartholomewB:

Just one detail: my #3 was the arrest of John the Baptist rather than his execution,

Oh dear, another cup of coffee for me …

#3 John was still baptising at Aenon during Jesus early ministry. He was still active at the time of Jesus’ Samaritan trip (John 4:1) probably extending into that summer. So, I imagine his arrest was about July of AD 27. (The gap from the baptism of Jesus about 8 months.)

 

[steve53]

Search up Jimmy Akin.

OK. Which one of you is Jimmy Akin?

I know he is around here somewhere.

Here is a quick cut and past from one of his blog posts:

Kings don’t tend to come into office on New Year’s Day, and so they often serve a partial year before the next calendar year begins (regardless of which calendar is used). They also don’t die on the last day of the year, typically, so they also serve a partial year at the end of their reigns. This creates complications for historians, because ancient authors sometimes count these additional part-years (especially the one at the beginning of the reign) as a full year. Or they ignore the calendar year and treat the time that a king came into office as a kind of birthday and reckon his reign in years from that point.

*What scheme was Josephus using?

Advocates of the idea that Herod died in 4 B.C. argue that he was named king in 40 B.C. To square that with a 37-year reign ending in 4. B.C., they must count the part year at the beginning of his reign and the part year at the end of it as years. That’s the only way the math will work out.

The problem is that this is not how Josephus would have reckoned the years. Biblical chronology scholar Andrew E. Steinmann comments:*

"[T]here is no evidence for this [inclusive way of reckoning the partial years]--and every other reign in this period, including those of the Jewish high priests, are reckoned non-inclusively by Josephus." (From Abraham to Paul, 223)

In other words, Josephus does not count the partial first year when dating reigns in this period."

:loud buzzer:

That is completely wrong, Jimmy.

In Wars, Josephus clearly states the first year of Vespasian;s reign at A.D. 69- which began in December.

Then he goes on to talk about the second year of Vespasian’s reign when Titus finally conquered Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Clearly, a single year could be referred to as the the last year of reign of one king, or the first year in the reign of another king.

That makes sense. If not, if the first full year of Vespasian’s reign was called the “first” year of his reign, then how to we refer to an event that took place December of A.D. 69? The last year of the reign of Vitellius except that he was dead for December?

If you guys are serious about chronology and events in those times, you don’t start with the New Testament. You start with knowing Roman and Jewish history cold, and then turn to the New Testament and see how things fit in.

Know the forest, and then examine the trees.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Oh dear, another cup of coffee for me …

#3 John was still baptising at Aenon during Jesus early ministry. He was still active at the time of Jesus’ Samaritan trip (John 4:1) probably extending into that summer. So, I imagine his arrest was about July of AD 27. (The gap from the baptism of Jesus about 8 months.)

One more thing: Jesus was born 2 years before the Magi’s visit. You probably must have 6 A.D for your date of Jesus’ birth.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

One more thing: Jesus was born 2 years before the Magi’s visit. You probably must have 6 A.D for your date of Jesus’ birth.

So Cyberseeker you do realize what I just said, right?

 

[Cyberseeker]

Can you provide some evidence that Jesus was born 2 years before the Magi’s visit? I havn’t heard that one before.

 

[Cyberseeker]

I guess you’re referring to Matt 2:16? Ive always taken it that Herod was giving himself a wide berth to make sure that he got the right one. If Jesus was two, Herod would have slain infants below three - such was his nature.

However, I take your point. Jesus was not the swaddling-clothed baby we see on Christmas cards.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I guess you’re referring to Matt 2:16? Ive always taken it that Herod was giving himself a wide berth to make sure that he got the right one. If Jesus was two, Herod would have slain infants below three - such was his nature.

However, I take your point. Jesus was not the swaddling-clothed baby we see on Christmas cards.

Didn’t Herod ascertain the time of the star’s appearance from the wise men? According to Matthew His birth would have been two years before the visit of the Magi.

 

[patrick457]

Didn’t Herod ascertain the time of the star’s appearance from the wise men? According to Matthew His birth would have been two years before the visit of the Magi.

Not necessarily. The specification to kill boys two years old and younger could simply be a case of Herod being extra sure. It wasn’t necessarily an indicator that Jesus was exactly two years old at that time - only that He could not have been older than that. (Of course this doesn’t preclude the possibility that Jesus was younger than two years old.)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Not necessarily. The specification to kill boys two years old and younger could simply be a case of Herod being extra sure. It wasn’t necessarily an indicator that Jesus was exactly two years old at that time - only that He could not have been older than that. (Of course this doesn’t preclude the possibility that Jesus was younger than two years old.)

But it does say that does it not?

 

[BartholomewB]

Didn’t Herod ascertain the time of the star’s appearance from the wise men? According to Matthew His birth would have been two years before the visit of the Magi.

If the information available to Herod suggested that Jesus was then two years old, he would presumably have given orders to kill all boys aged, say, between one and three. He would have had no reason to specify age two as the cutoff point. Herod wasn’t the sort of tyrant to run unnecessary risks.

 

[BartholomewB]

But it does say that does it not?

Where does it say that? Matthew 2:16 doesn’t say Jesus was already two years old. Herod gave the order to kill all baby boys aged two ***and under. ***Not two-year-olds alone.

biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/2-16.htm

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Where does it say that? Matthew 2:16 doesn’t say Jesus was already two years old. Herod gave the order to kill all baby boys aged two ***and under. ***Not two-year-olds alone.

biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/2-16.htm

And that indicates that He was at most 2 years old.

 

[steve53]

OK. Which one of you is Jimmy Akin?

I know he is around here somewhere.

Here is a quick cut and past from one of his blog posts:

Kings don’t tend to come into office on New Year’s Day, and so they often serve a partial year before the next calendar year begins (regardless of which calendar is used). They also don’t die on the last day of the year, typically, so they also serve a partial year at the end of their reigns. This creates complications for historians, because ancient authors sometimes count these additional part-years (especially the one at the beginning of the reign) as a full year. Or they ignore the calendar year and treat the time that a king came into office as a kind of birthday and reckon his reign in years from that point.

*What scheme was Josephus using?

Advocates of the idea that Herod died in 4 B.C. argue that he was named king in 40 B.C. To square that with a 37-year reign ending in 4. B.C., they must count the part year at the beginning of his reign and the part year at the end of it as years. That’s the only way the math will work out.

The problem is that this is not how Josephus would have reckoned the years. Biblical chronology scholar Andrew E. Steinmann comments:*

"[T]here is no evidence for this [inclusive way of reckoning the partial years]--and every other reign in this period, including those of the Jewish high priests, are reckoned non-inclusively by Josephus." (From Abraham to Paul, 223)

In other words, Josephus does not count the partial first year when dating reigns in this period."

:loud buzzer:

That is completely wrong, Jimmy.

In Wars, Josephus clearly states the first year of Vespasian;s reign at A.D. 69- which began in December.

Then he goes on to talk about the second year of Vespasian’s reign when Titus finally conquered Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Clearly, a single year could be referred to as the the last year of reign of one king, or the first year in the reign of another king.

That makes sense. If not, if the first full year of Vespasian’s reign was called the “first” year of his reign, then how to we refer to an event that took place December of A.D. 69? The last year of the reign of Vitellius except that he was dead for December?

If you guys are serious about chronology and events in those times, you don’t start with the New Testament. You start with knowing Roman and Jewish history cold, and then turn to the New Testament and see how things fit in.

Know the forest, and then examine the trees.

Waiting for you response, Jimmy.

 

[patrick457]

Waiting for you response, Jimmy.

If you want to talk to Jimmy Akin, best contact him here. I doubt he’s posting here on CAF.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

If you want to talk to Jimmy Akin, best contact him here. I doubt he’s posting here on CAF.

Is anyone gonna answer my post?

 

[steve53]

His blog says that he is an apologist on this website. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t read thsee history posts and, in fact, is a well-known poster.

 

[patrick457]

His blog says that he is an apologist on this website. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t read thsee history posts and, in fact, is a well-known poster.

He works for Catholic Answers, the organization that runs the website (www.catholic.com) of which this forum is a part of. AFAIK he doesn’t post in the Catholic Answers Forums.

Just because you work(ed) in CA isn’t an automatic guarantee that you’re an active member of CAF. If that was the case, the likes of Tim Staples should really be here - they’ve got more knowledge and expertise than us amateurs who just pretend to know stuff and hide behind the keyboard.