Three Years?

[patrick457]

In discussions about Jesus, it is pretty much standard to assume that the duration of His ministry lasted for approximately three years. But we need to clear up one thing: when one looks at the Gospels, there is no explicit indication about how long Jesus’ ministry lasted.

We do know that Jesus was executed during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (ca. AD 26-36) and the high priesthood of Joseph Caiaphas (ca. AD 18-36/7), so we at least can be pretty sure that the latest date possible for Jesus, aka the terminus ante quem, is AD 36. We also know that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, who according to Luke (3:1) began his preaching in “the fifteenth year in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius,” around AD 28 or 29 (the terminus post quem for Jesus). Hence, there’s not much dispute in those areas. What then about the duration of His ministry?

The Synoptics notably mention only a single Passover, which is Jesus’ last. Based of this, as well as what is seen as clues within the Synoptics - for example, in the Gospel of Mark 2:23-28 grain is eaten raw, which suggests early summer; in 6:39 it is spring since the grass is green; Jesus then goes to Jerusalem for Passover in 11:1, presumably during the same spring as chapter 6 - there are some folks who believe that Jesus’ ministry actually lasted only for more or less a year: between one early summer or late spring and the next spring.

They argue that this shorter time period is compatible with Josephus’ references to some other contemporaneous prophetic figures, such as John the Baptist, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, and Theudas, and yet another anonymous prophet, who also had apparently short careers before the authorities crushed their movement (though Athronges’ rebellion in 4 BC seem to have lasted for two years), as well as with Jesus’ itinerant lifestyle and His disciples’ lack of formal occupations (having abandoned them), which they think would not work as well in the long run.

The problem with this theory, however, is that it fails to consider that Matthew, Mark, and Luke often arrange their (episodic) material differently. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as Mark placed them, which would place one into a dilemma when you compare his Gospel with say, Matthew or Luke, both of whom place some pericopes in a different order than Mark. So, even these clues are not exactly helpful in determining how long Jesus was out in public.

 

[patrick457]

We turn over to John’s Gospel. In John, there are three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55ff.): John’s version of the Cleansing in the Temple occurs during the first Passover, the feeding of the five thousand occurs in the second, and the last Passover marks the end of Jesus’ ministry. Besides Passover, John also mentions an unspecified “feast of the Judaeans” in 5:1, while chapter 7 is set during Sukkoth, aka the Feast of Booths (cf. verse 2) and 10:22ff is set during Hannukah, aka the Feast of the Dedication.

Three years, right? No, actually. According to this reckoning, Jesus began His ministry somewhere before the first recorded Passover, which would make the length of time He was in public only slightly more than two years. And this does not take into account the possibility that John only recorded a small portion of what Jesus actually did (cf. 21:25).

Much speculation has arisen over the identity of the unnamed feast of chapter 5. Some have suggested that it also refers to Passover (which would make the total of Passovers in John into four, hence supporting the idea of a three-year ministry), others think that it is a reference to Shavuot, aka Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, still others take it as referring to Purim. There are yet other hypotheses.

Late March-late April (Spring): First Passover (2:13)
??: Unnamed feast (5:1)

Late March-late April (Spring): Second Passover (6:4)
Late September-late October (Autumn): Booths (7:1ff.)
Late November-late December (Winter): Dedication (10:22ff.)

Late March-late April (Spring): Third Passover (11:55ff.)

 

[patrick457]

So where did we go by the idea of Jesus’ ministry lasting for three years?

The first recorded writer to express this belief is the writer Origen. Origen related Jesus’ ministry to the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (9:24-27). Half the final week was three and a half years; thus, since Jesus must be the fulfillment of that prophecy, Origen reasons that His ministry would have lasted three and a half years. He wrote “about three years of the Lord’s Preaching,” which he related to half the week in the prophecy of Daniel.

Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century apparently repeated Origen’s idea and was the first to argue support for it. In his Church History (1.10.2) he argues that: “The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed. Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.” (This is often considered to be inaccurate nowadays, as Annas is generally held to have reigned from AD 6 to AD 15, which is way too early, and was first succeded by his son Eleazar before Caiaphas held the office in AD 18).

In his Demonstratio Evangelica (8.106-8) Eusebius stated, “the whole period of our Savior’s teaching and marvel-working is recorded to have been three years and a half, which is half of a week. This, I take it, John the Evangelist accurately establishes by his presentation in the gospel.” We must note that Eusebius claimed that John represents a three-year ministry, but offered no specific arguments as proof. He notably did not use the argument that some supporters now use that the unnamed feast of John 5:1 as a fourth Passover.

In his Prophetic Eclogues (3.46) he further makes the connection between Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ ministry: “Therefore it is written, ‘and in the midst of the week shall be taken away sacrifice and libation’; (Daniel 9:27) and it is clear that with the Passion was forcibly taken from them sacrifice and libation, when according to the Evangelical Scripture ‘the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom’ (Matthew 27:41).” It seems that it was really with Eusebius that the idea became widespread and popular unto the present day.

 

[thistle]

What does it matter if his ministry is 3 years or more or less?
That has no impact on our faith and salvation.

 

[patrick457]

What does it matter if his ministry is 3 years or more or less?
That has no impact on our faith and salvation.

Indeed. In fact, if you’ve noticed, all I ever write are the small, minor stuff, the things that does not really have any “impact on our faith and salvation” (I would leave that to more able folks) but are perhaps rather interesting to know nevertheless.

 

[thistle]

Indeed. In fact, if you’ve noticed, all I ever write are the small, minor stuff, the things that does not really have any “impact on our faith and salvation” (I would leave that to more able folks) but are perhaps rather interesting to know nevertheless.

I don’t disagree that its interesting.

Something you might also find interesting is that I collect Biblical coins and I have coins for the three years of Pontius Pilate so the coins I have were circulating during the public ministry of Jesus including his death and Resurrection.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t disagree that its interesting.

Something you might also find interesting is that I collect Biblical coins and I have coins for the three years of Pontius Pilate so the coins I have were circulating during the public ministry of Jesus including his death and Resurrection.

Is it a lepta? You know, the one with the curving staff design and Tiberiou Kaisaros inscription?

 

[patrick457]

So where did we go by the idea of Jesus’ ministry lasting for three years?

The first recorded writer to express this belief is the writer Origen. Origen related Jesus’ ministry to the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (9:24-27). Half the final week was three and a half years; thus, since Jesus must be the fulfillment of that prophecy, Origen reasons that His ministry would have lasted three and a half years. He wrote “about three years of the Lord’s Preaching,” which he related to half the week in the prophecy of Daniel.

Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century apparently repeated Origen’s idea and was the first to argue support for it. In his Church History (1.10.2) he argues that: “The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed. Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.” (This is often considered to be inaccurate nowadays, as Annas is generally held to have reigned from AD 6 to AD 15, which is way too early, and was first succeded by his son Eleazar before Caiaphas held the office in AD 18).

In his Demonstratio Evangelica (8.106-8) Eusebius stated, “the whole period of our Savior’s teaching and marvel-working is recorded to have been three years and a half, which is half of a week. This, I take it, John the Evangelist accurately establishes by his presentation in the gospel.” We must note that Eusebius claimed that John represents a three-year ministry, but offered no specific arguments as proof. He notably did not use the argument that some supporters now use that the unnamed feast of John 5:1 as a fourth Passover.

In his Prophetic Eclogues (3.46) he further makes the connection between Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ ministry: “Therefore it is written, ‘and in the midst of the week shall be taken away sacrifice and libation’; (Daniel 9:27) and it is clear that with the Passion was forcibly taken from them sacrifice and libation, when according to the Evangelical Scripture ‘the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom’ (Matthew 27:41).” It seems that it was really with Eusebius that the idea became widespread and popular unto the present day.

Just as an aside: I’ve noticed that a few people out there who repeat the idea that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three and a half years without much questioning are also the types of folks who would seem to retch and squirm uncontrollably at the notion of anything that reeks of ‘traditions of men’, something that a few of them would even bash Catholics for believing (at least, based on a personal Google search). Nothing big about it, but it just made me curious: what if these guys actually learned about the origins of this small-t tradition?

 

[thistle]

Is it a lepta? You know, the one with the curving staff design and Tiberiou Kaisaros inscription?

How do I put photos in here? A simple copy and paste does not work.

 

[steve53]

Hagan concluded that Jesus had an eight year ministry, but made some assumptions. One was that there was an error in Luke, transcriptional or otherwise. This was assuming a crucifixion year of A.D. 36, a birth year of 12 B.C., and that John’s “not yet fifty” verse is correct.

 

[patrick457]

How do I put photos in here? A simple copy and paste does not work.

I suggest you first upload the photos on an image hosting site (such as Imageshack or Photobucket).

 

[patrick457]

Hagan concluded that Jesus had an eight year ministry, but made some assumptions. One was that there was an error in Luke, transcriptional or otherwise. This was assuming a crucifixion year of A.D. 36, a birth year of 12 B.C., and that John’s “not yet fifty” verse is correct.

Of course, the main problem would be that John’s mention of “You do not yet have fifty years” is second-hand. In other words, in the context it is posed as more of a rhetorical question by the Judaeans to Jesus rather than a definite statement about Jesus’ actual age.

The Judaeans said to Him, “Now we have known that you have a demon! Abraham died, and the prophets; and you are saying, ‘If any one may keep my word, he shall never taste of death to the age’. You are not greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died. Whom do you make yourself?" Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom you say that He is your God; and you have not known Him, and I have known Him. And if I say that I have not known Him, I shall be like you - a liar; but I have known Him, and His word I keep. Abraham your father was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and rejoiced.”

The Judaeans, therefore, said to Him, “You do not yet have fifty years, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was - I am.” They took up, therefore, stones that they may throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out from the temple.

The “fifty years” has been the subject of much speculation. Aside from the ideas that it points to Jesus’ approximate age or that the number was used to symbolize the end of a full working life (all the while knowing that Jesus has not yet completed it), there have also been scholarly theories about how it was a reference to the fifty-year Jubilee period. The Jubilee was the fiftieth year that concluded the cycle of seven “weeks” of seven years in Leviticus 25, when property was returned to the original owners, the farmer was not to sow or reap, and slaves were released. It is also the unit that the Book of Jubilees (2nd century BC) uses to calculate the age of the patriarchs and in its goal of calendrical reform, hence the title.

It is speculated that Jesus (or John) knew of Jubilees and was at this point deliberately making a subtle reference to it: “Abraham your father was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and rejoiced.” (cf. Jubilees 16:20-31, where Abraham rejoices at the promise of a future exalted seed of Isaac.) The book’s concern for the Sabbath, and the fact that even Abraham did not complete four Jubilees before dying, would make the taunt especially appropriate for Jesus, the Sabbath-breaker who had not yet completed even one Jubilee. In any case, they argue that John’s apparent disinterest in concrete dates (he mostly prefers to date events by days or festivals), coupled with his interest in the number seven (the seven “I am” sayings, the seven discourses or the seven semeia or signs that Jesus performs in this Gospel come to mind), makes it more likely in their opinion that the number fifty was used symbolically rather than indicating the actual age of Jesus.

 

[patrick457]

And I think I know why Hagan prefers a crucifixion date of AD 36. One thing that has puzzled many readers of Josephus is that his description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus. To some, it has been taken as a sign that John actually came later in time after Jesus (in contradiction with the Gospels, where John comes first).

He is not at all clear as to when John arose, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off, as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors (after all, he’s only human and this was before internet searches widened the scope of one’s research, we mustn’t be too hard on him), so it seems that a bit of caution is necessary.

Josephus records that the marriage of Herod and Herodias led directly to war with the neighboring Arab king Aretas, since Herod had been married to Aretas’ daughter. Whatever circumspection he had planned to gently divorce her without angering Aretas was thwarted when his wife got wind of his plans and prematurely fled to her father. This, coupled with a dispute over borders, led to the battle that culminated in a crushing defeat for Herod. It was this battle, says Josephus, that Galileans associated with Herod’s treatment of John the Baptist.

Now hy would they make such a connection? One is a simple chronological proximity: if the army’s defeat occurred immediately after Herod’s execution of John, the people would have made a direct link between the two events, and indeed this seems to be the line of thinking followed here by Hagan and other folks who think likewise. But the other possibility is conceptual, with no regard for chronological proximity: if John had been killed by Herod some time earlier (but not necessarily immediately before the feud) because he criticized Herod’s marriage to Herodias, then seeing the army destroyed as the direct result of this marriage must have looked like a just punishment indeed.

It does appear that Josephus dates Herod’s battle with Aretas as occurring in AD 36. This date is seen as follows. Herod’s battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod’s first wife, Aretas’s daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus also seems to give several indications that the war flared up in 36:

• He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up “about the time” (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod’s brother Philip died in 34 (Antiquities 18.4.6 106).
• During this time Herod’s brother Agrippa had gone to Rome “a year before the death of Tiberius” (18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas’s departure in 36.
• Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 of 37 (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37.
• Vitellius’ action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians under Tiberius’ orders, and the latter’s death. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36, as indicated both by Josephus as well as Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)

The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from Aretas’ daughter.

When did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives (which is not of much assistance at this point) is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in AD 6.

Now that being said, the French scholar Christiane Saulnier published a paper in 1984 (Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarqes sur les confusions chronlogiques do Flavius Josephus, in Revue Biblique 91:362-376) wherein he argues that the battle with Aretas can be placed in between AD 24 to 28. However, this hypothesis is not without detractors.

 

[patrick457]

As for the 12 BC date, I think it may have to do mainly with Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem being identified with Halley’s Comet, which did appear in the region around 12 to 11 BC - I don’t know since I’ve never read Hagan. But of course, this argument rests upon the idea that Halley’s Comet equals the Star of Bethlehem; and by extension, that the Star of Bethlehem must be an impressive event. After all, if you’ve looked at many of the popular candidates for the star, you would notice a tendency of folks picking the most eye-catching astronomical phenomena at the period, be it a comet or a supernova or a conjunction of certain planets or an occultation of certain by the moon.

I’ll admit that (warning: personal opinion) I’ve quite given up on identifying the Star of Bethlehem with “rare and awe-inspiring” astronomical events. On the contrary, I think it could equally likely be a more inconspicuous phenomenon, something that only the magi could pay close attention to due to their nature (they were after all astronomers/astrologers - the division between science and superstition was blurry in the ancient world). I think people are too subconsciously influenced with the popular iconography that surrounds them. It all reminds me of the 1925 silent film version of Ben-Hur, where the Star of Bethlehem is some sort of supernatural fusion between a comet, a meteor shower and the pointy, radiant massive ball of gas you often see portrayed in Christmas cards. Of course, you then have lots of people (not just the magi) noticing the ultra-bright star!

 

[steve53]

And I think I know why Hagan prefers a crucifixion date of AD 36. One thing that has puzzled many readers of Josephus is that his description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus. To some, it has been taken as a sign that John actually came later in time after Jesus (in contradiction with the Gospels, where John comes first).

He is not at all clear as to when John arose, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off, as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors (after all, he’s only human and this was before internet searches widened the scope of one’s research, we mustn’t be too hard on him), so it seems that a bit of caution is necessary.

Josephus records that the marriage of Herod and Herodias led directly to war with the neighboring Arab king Aretas, since Herod had been married to Aretas’ daughter. Whatever circumspection he had planned to gently divorce her without angering Aretas was thwarted when his wife got wind of his plans and prematurely fled to her father. This, coupled with a dispute over borders, led to the battle that culminated in a crushing defeat for Herod. It was this battle, says Josephus, that Galileans associated with Herod’s treatment of John the Baptist.

Now hy would they make such a connection? One is a simple chronological proximity: if the army’s defeat occurred immediately after Herod’s execution of John, the people would have made a direct link between the two events, and indeed this seems to be the line of thinking followed here by Hagan and other folks who think likewise. But the other possibility is conceptual, with no regard for chronological proximity: if John had been killed by Herod some time earlier (but not necessarily immediately before the feud) because he criticized Herod’s marriage to Herodias, then seeing the army destroyed as the direct result of this marriage must have looked like a just punishment indeed.

It does appear that Josephus dates Herod’s battle with Aretas as occurring in AD 36. This date is seen as follows. Herod’s battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod’s first wife, Aretas’s daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus also seems to give several indications that the war flared up in 36:

• He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up “about the time” (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod’s brother Philip died in 34 (Antiquities 18.4.6 106).
• During this time Herod’s brother Agrippa had gone to Rome “a year before the death of Tiberius” (18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas’s departure in 36.
• Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 of 37 (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37.
• Vitellius’ action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians under Tiberius’ orders, and the latter’s death. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36, as indicated both by Josephus as well as Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)

The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from Aretas’ daughter.

When did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives (which is not of much assistance at this point) is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in AD 6.

Now that being said, the French scholar Christiane Saulnier published a paper in 1984 (Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarqes sur les confusions chronlogiques do Flavius Josephus, in Revue Biblique 91:362-376) wherein he argues that the battle with Aretas can be placed in between AD 24 to 28. However, this hypothesis is not without detractors.

Josephus’ Book 18 is not an accurate chronology if you take each event he describes in sequence. It is plain to tell that he is not working from a single coherent source when he wrote it down. Hagan discusses this.

The key in Hagan’s chronology is the assumption when Herodias left Rome to go to the East an marry her uncle, Antipas. She also took along her DAUGHTER to marry the other son of Herod the Great who ruled, Herod Philip. Hagan assumed that Herodias was shaken out of Rome by the proscriptions following the unmasking of the conspiracy of Sejanus in late A.D. 31, with her marriage to Antipas taking place in early A.D. 32.

 

[randirhoades]

Beloved Friends,

Then what was Jesus doing when He was preaching at 12? And His parents being frantic found him and He said, He was doing His Father’s works. Paraphrasing.

Love ya’ll,
Sheila