Was Luke Mistaken?

[Faith1960]

Why does any of this matter? It doesn’t have any bearing on the Gospel or Christian teaching.

People couldn’t just pull out a phone back then and Google when things happened. Maybe Tertullian was recalling the year from memory and had a lapse in memory. Or maybe Tertullian’s words reflect a tradition he was taught. Or maybe Tertullian felt St. Luke’s dating was wrong, so he gave what he felt the right year was.

Doesn’t matter. The Evangelists were inspired to convey the Gospel of Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection. They did that. The Church continued to do that. A little historical discrepancy between St. Luke and a later Christian author is a trivial issue. Neither St. Luke or Tertullian were inspired to be infallible historians.

To answer your question though:

We don’t know why the difference is there. Maybe one was mistaken. Maybe neither was. Maybe both were.

Yes, there might be another explanation. Maybe this discrepancy was just irrelevant in the grand scope of the Christian worldview. Two witnesses to a crime give a statement. One says the criminal looked in the window two times before smashing it to burglarise the house. The other says the criminal looked thrice before smashing the window. “Why the discrepancy,” you may ask. I may ask, “What is it about your outlook on life that makes you even ask this question?”

So Catholics, does it matter if theres a discrepancy?

 

[steve53]

Can you share your sources to come up with the AD 36?

I really like Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome.” He starts at the beginning with no ax to grind- or so he says- and then follows the clues to come up with a number. He quotes liberally from Josephus and Tacitus to support his points.

It has been a while since I have read Schonfield’s “The Passover Plot” which came out in the early sixties. He came up with the same year- A.D. 36, relying, like Hagan, primarily on Josephus. Lucius Vitellius and Antipas’ war with Arabia are defining events- as they should be.

 

[TimothyH]

So Catholics, does it matter if theres a discrepancy?

Not always.

Sometimes the discrepancy is perceived because we are not first century Jews and don’t understand the context.

Sometimes the author is trying to make a point or referencing something from the Old Testament and accuracy to historical fact is not his concern.

Ancient Semitic writers did not write the way we do today.

-Tim-

 

[BartholomewB]

It has been a while since I have read Schonfield’s “The Passover Plot” which came out in the early sixties. He came up with the same year- A.D. 36, relying, like Hagan, primarily on Josephus. Lucius Vitellius and Antipas’ war with Arabia are defining events- as they should be.

It’s true that in *The Passover Plot, *Schonfield argues for 36 as the year of the Crucifixion, but look at what he takes as the starting point of his calculation:

*The ostensible cause of the Baptist’s imprisonment by Antipas was that John had denounced as unlawful the tetrarch’s marriage to Herodias, widow of his brother Philip. On the evidence of Josephus, Philip died at the end of AD 33 or early in 34, and the marriage must be presumed to have taken place in 34. *

But the Philip who died in 33 or 34 was the ruler of the northeastern tetrarchy with his capital at Caesarea Philippi, and whose wife was not Herodias but her daughter Salome. Herodias’ first husband was a different member of the Herodian family, who lived in Rome as a private citizen. So Schonfield’s calculations are unfortunately worthless.

 

[jlhargus]

Being a Roman, he would have used a Roman calendar system of dating reigns of emperors. So, the part-year of AD14 would have been considered Tiberius’ accession, and AD15 would have been year 1, and so on.

Hence, according to Tertulian, the Lord was revealed in AD 26. It would have referred to his baptism in the same year that John began baptising.

He wrote ‘Against Marcion’ in AD207. That’s quite early, and Tertullian was not silly. Im sure he knew how to work a calender; yes?

Could it be Luke didn’t use a Roman calendar, or was Tertulian simply mistaken?

 

[Faith1960]

Not always.

Sometimes the discrepancy is perceived because we are not first century Jews and don’t understand the context.

Sometimes the author is trying to make a point or referencing something from the Old Testament and accuracy to historical fact is not his concern.

Ancient Semitic writers did not write the way we do today.

-Tim-

Does this discrepancy matter?

 

[TimothyH]

Could it be Luke didn’t use a Roman calendar, or was Tertulian simply mistaken?

Luke cited six different ways to recon time in the first two verses of chapter 3.

1. 
   *]In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiber’i-us Caesar,
   *]Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
   *]Herod being tetrarch of Galilee
   *]his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturae’a and Trachoni’tis
   *]Lysa’ni-as tetrarch of Abile’ne,
   *]in the high-priesthood of Annas and Ca’iaphas,
   
   Bullet number one is the roman calendar.
   
   -Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Does this discrepancy matter?

Not to me. no.

-Tim-

 

[ericc]

So Catholics, does it matter if theres a discrepancy?

For this kind of discrepancy, it doesn’t matter because no doctrine is involved and inerrancy of the Bible is not at stake.

However, we must be prepared to answer legitimate questions especially from those of non-Christian faiths. If they are interested in our faith, we must be able to answer simple questions, but not with “it doesn’t matter”. To them , maybe it does.

Perhaps the answer to this one is “I don’t know why Tertullian wrote it that way. But the data doesn’t support it.”

 

[ericc]

Incidentally, are you aware that Eusebius mentions the destruction of the temple occurring 40 years after Christ’s death?

Eusebius in his Chronicles in fact started the appearance of Jesus in the same year as John.

In the 15th year of his reign, which was the fourth year of the 201st Olympiad [28
A.D.], our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ appeared among humankind.

which is AD 28. He also states:

From the 15th year of Tiberius to the very end of the siege
of Jerusalem–which occurred in the second year of Vespasian–is a total of 42 years.

which ties in with AD70 as the destruction date and the 40 years of Jesus death which you mentioned earlier. Which point to Christ death at AD30. From AD28 - AD30 is within the ballpark number of 2.5 to 3 years of the length of Christ’s ministry. The 2.5 years is typically derived from the number of passovers that Jesus observed from John’s Gospel.

Jn 2:13
Jn 6:4
Jn 11:55

 

[steve53]

It’s true that in *The Passover Plot, *Schonfield argues for 36 as the year of the Crucifixion, but look at what he takes as the starting point of his calculation:

*The ostensible cause of the Baptist’s imprisonment by Antipas was that John had denounced as unlawful the tetrarch’s marriage to Herodias, widow of his brother Philip. On the evidence of Josephus, Philip died at the end of AD 33 or early in 34, and the marriage must be presumed to have taken place in 34. *

But the Philip who died in 33 or 34 was the ruler of the northeastern tetrarchy with his capital at Caesarea Philippi, and whose wife was not Herodias but her daughter Salome. Herodias’ first husband was a different member of the Herodian family, who lived in Rome as a private citizen. So Schonfield’s calculations are unfortunately worthless.

Touche’!

I first read it in the early 1970s and briefly skimmed through it a few years ago. It is interesting that he made a mistake like that given that the differentiation between the two Phillips is clearly stated in Josephus.

 

[Cyberseeker]

I have place my conclusion to this problem on the Hermeneutics Stack website. My purpose in coming here is because I appreciate the feedback from Christians who are familiar with the Church Fathers. Thank you for your replies so far.

Tertulian (being a Roman) would have used a Roman calendar system of dating reigns of emperors. So, the part year of AD 14 would have been considered Tiberius’ accession, and AD 15 would have been year 1, and so on. Hence the Lord would have been revealed in AD 26. It would have referred to his baptism in the year that John began baptising, and by the time Jesus came out of his wilderness temptation, the beginning his ministry would have been early AD 27.

So Tertulian’s system** fits well with an AD 30 crucifixion**. There is a growing consensus among Bible scholars that this date fits the facts better than the other popular option of AD 33. Also, the Tertulian schema, **does not contradict the gospel of Luke **as first appears. Yes, Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of his adoptive father, Augustus in AD 14. However, it is a well-known fact that he had become **co-regent **with his ailing father two years earlier in AD 12. In that year, he was made supreme military commander over Caesar’s armies and provinces. Ancient coins from Antioch dated AD 12 display the head of Tiberius and documents attest to his reign being fully in force from that time. Thus, his inauguration in AD 14 as emperor was only a formalisation of a reign that had begun two years earlier.

Therefore, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (as Luke put it) would make Jesus’ baptism AD 26, just the same as Tertulian’s conclusion, albeit by a different method of getting there. Neither Luke or Tertulian were mistaken!

 

[BartholomewB]

Touche’!

I first read it in the early 1970s and briefly skimmed through it a few years ago. It is interesting that he made a mistake like that given that the differentiation between the two Phillips is clearly stated in Josephus.

Yes, it’s an interesting book. Very thought-provoking. I had never read it until a few years ago – my copy is the 40th anniversary edition published in 2005 by an outfit called The Disinformation Company Ltd.

Pity about Schonfield’s slip with the dating.

Regards
Bart

 

[steve53]

Lol.

Your breezy arrogance is amusing.

But at least you don’t invent your own Roman dating system like other posters.

Defending Luke can be such a chore, eh Bart?

But I would like to hear from Patrick on the late dating senario.

Patrick?

 

[steve53]

I have place my conclusion to this problem on the Hermeneutics Stack website. My purpose in coming here is because I appreciate the feedback from Christians who are familiar with the Church Fathers. Thank you for your replies so far.

Tertulian (being a Roman) would have used a Roman calendar system of dating reigns of emperors. So, the part year of AD 14 would have been considered Tiberius’ accession, and AD 15 would have been year 1, and so on. Hence the Lord would have been revealed in AD 26. It would have referred to his baptism in the year that John began baptising, and by the time Jesus came out of his wilderness temptation, the beginning his ministry would have been early AD 27.

So Tertulian’s system** fits well with an AD 30 crucifixion**. There is a growing consensus among Bible scholars that this date fits the facts better than the other popular option of AD 33. Also, the Tertulian schema, **does not contradict the gospel of Luke **as first appears. Yes, Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of his adoptive father, Augustus in AD 14. However, it is a well-known fact that he had become **co-regent **with his ailing father two years earlier in AD 12. In that year, he was made supreme military commander over Caesar’s armies and provinces. Ancient coins from Antioch dated AD 12 display the head of Tiberius and documents attest to his reign being fully in force from that time. Thus, his inauguration in AD 14 as emperor was only a formalisation of a reign that had begun two years earlier.

Therefore, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (as Luke put it) would make Jesus’ baptism AD 26, just the same as Tertulian’s conclusion, albeit by a different method of getting there. Neither Luke or Tertulian were mistaken!

Not backing off, eh?

Tell me, how would your system handle A.D. 69, where Rome had four emperors?

Galba first, then Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian- who would “own” the year?

You need to tell us if you are going to disregard Josephus- who was an Imperial insider and personally knew four Roman Emperors.

Be specific.

And what are the names of the “scholars” who agree with you on this Roman dating system?

Thanks in advance.

 

[BartholomewB]

Lol.

Your breezy arrogance is amusing.

But at least you don’t invent your own Roman dating system like other posters.

Defending Luke can be such a chore, eh Bart?

But I would like to hear from Patrick on the late dating senario.

Patrick?

Steve

Since you find my breezy arrogance so amusing, allow me to provide you with a little further amusement.

Following the execution of John the Baptist at Antipas’ birthday party, and up to the death of Tiberius some eight or nine years later, several different chains of events are known to have occurred, including these three:

The ministry of Jesus, in the course of which he came into conflict with the Temple authorities, culminating in his arrest and Crucifixion at Passover one year.

An invasion of Antipas’ tetrarchy by Aretas, the ruler of Nabatea, whose army inflicted a crushing defeat on Antipas’ troops. Vitellius marched south from Syria, obeying Tiberius’ order to intervene on Antipas’ side, but before any fighting had begun news arrived that Tiberius had died.

Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome following a complaint of undue harshness in putting down a disturbance in Samaria.

So far, I think, we are both in agreement, aren’t we? But now comes the point on which we disagree. Like most people, I see no linkage between these three chains of events. Notionally, at least, it is possible to construct a time-chart for the Nabatean invasion and Vitellius’ arrival in Jerusalem, but there will be nothing in it that will be of any help in dating the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus. I have read and reread your posts on that other thread, but I still haven’t found your reason for believing that there is such a linkage.

Regards
Bart

 

[Cyberseeker]

steve53:

… how would your system handle A.D. 69, where Rome had four emperors?

Probably much the same as similar cases during the reigns of Israel and Judah. (2 Kings)

 

[steve53]

Steve

Since you find my breezy arrogance so amusing, allow me to provide you with a little further amusement.

Following the execution of John the Baptist at Antipas’ birthday party, and up to the death of Tiberius some eight or nine years later, several different chains of events are known to have occurred, including these three:

The ministry of Jesus, in the course of which he came into conflict with the Temple authorities, culminating in his arrest and Crucifixion at Passover one year.

For one, using the book of John, Jesus’ ministry spanned three Passovers and possibly four. And even John himself says he left out quite a bit of information.

You leave out another fact that is found only in Josephus- and that is JB was arrested because of fear of him disturbing the troops and was kept in Macherus, far to the south of the Galilee. And it was in Macherus that JB was executed and where Antipas and his men and entourage- and Herodias and Salome- were at the time he was executed.

So the time “link” has to include execution of JB, ill-fated invasion of Nabotea, Tiberius sending off a letter to Vitellius demanding vengeance, Vitellius arriving in Jerusalem with 2 legions in A.D. 37- when Tiberius dies.

In Mark, and in John, after the death of JB, Jesus’ ministry lasted only a year or so.

If you use a A.D. 33 crucifixion date, we have problems right out of the blocks. You have to account for at least five and possibly six years from JB’s execution to the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37.

These were ancient times, granted, but Rome could move an entire legion by sea across the Mediterranean in less than a week. And constant mercantile traffic made communication between Rome and the east very reliable- taking a couple weeks for message traffic under average conditions.

And I would bet that “royal” communications were fast-tracked on military galleys. Maybe only a matter of days for news to get to Rome, or to Antioch.

Seven years is a LONG time any way you look at it.

With an A.D. 36 crucifixion date, we see things moving right along. In fact, we now have a reason for Vitellius’ removal of Caiaphas as High Priest at the end of the Passover- could Vitellius have been outraged with Caiaphas’ high-handed actions? And did Pilate attack the Samaritans thinking he was actually going after Jesus- who survived his crucifixion?

And there are other correlating bits of evidence- including Salome’s marriage to Herod Philip (with Philip dying in A.D. 33) and the life of Herod Agrippa (which intersects with Herod Antipas and Herodias in several places).

It’s all in Hagan. I’ve set down the basics and it seems like I an going over the same points again and again. And you refuse to accept them.

What WOULD make you admit that Luke has errors in it?

 

[BartholomewB]

it seems like I an going over the same points again and again.

Exactly. You are just repeating your same points again and again. You say that you believe there is a linkage but you still haven’t yet ***explained why ***you think there is a linkage.

For someone like me who can see no reason to postulate a linkage, you need to explain why you think there has to be a linkage.

 

[steve53]

Lol.

Read my post again. There should be, and is, a close time linkage between all of those events- certainly shorter than FIVE YEARS which is the time period you would need in an A.D. 33 crucifixion date.

But, as is the case with Cyberseeker, your delusions are not only ego-syntonic but ego-reinforcing, so apparently there is no hope.

I want historical answers based on the best sources, best evidence, and the most reasonable assumptions in order to reach a logical conclusions.

You want to defend Luke.

Big difference.