Biblical Evidence For 31 AD Crucifixion

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why does something as Holy as the Bible need to talk about irrelevant things that God chose not to reveal to the world about the life of Jesus before,while, and after he began his ministry? Even the Bible says that all of Jesus's ministry isn't written down in the Bible. The apostles wrote about the important parts and not the trivial details.


Any and all of Jesus's life (aside from when he was 13 and Mary and Joseph found him in a synagogue) cannot be proven by the Bible. Instead they have been passed down through the ages. Like for instance that fact that he was a carpenter before he started his ministry. The fact that he started his ministry at 30 and died 3 years later. The day of Christmas (which may or may not have been when he was born. The apostles didn't think his actual birthday was important enough to write about) the fact that after Jesus died John took care of his mother and father. The fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters and therefore Mary was not a Virgin her whole life.


All of those facts have been passed down. That's how we know they're true. That and archeologists have found evidence that they are true.

Just like you would be an idiot for saying that Jesus never existed you would be an idiot for not accepting scientific evidence and things that were passed down over the last 2,000 years. It doesn't matter that these things are not in the Bible because the Bible is God's gift to man and everything that's in the Bible are things that God wants man to know without a shadow of a doubt because the Bible is the very words of God.
Not sure what your point actually is. But nothing about tradition turns out to be correct. NOTHING. Not a thing. It's very important to know the truth because Messiah Jesus fulfilled prophecy spoken in the Old Testament. If you can't verify the facts about His life, then prophecy does not prove anything. It is very relevant.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Unfortunately everything you wrote about a Friday date is just not possible. The Gospels just do not support it. Historical evidence just does not support it. Botanical evidence does not support it. Geological evidence does not support it. Orbital mechanics does not support it. Ancient Jewish Mishnah does not support it. And there's much more evidence that does not support it. It's actually very easy to prove that it could not have been Friday. Even Jesus' very words "three days and three nights" immediately disqualify Friday.
Your whole statement here is entirely false. A Wednesday crucifixion is incorrect.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Concerning the alleged earlier reign of Tiberius, I have written the following in the book I'm working on:

Now, one commonly expressed idea concerns an alleged earlier reckoning of Tiberius’ reign. Per the histories of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Velleius Paterculus, we know that Tiberius received, by vote of the Senate, an equal authority with Augustus over the provinces, essentially conferring on him a co-regency, or a “co-reign” as some are wont to suggest.[1] Chronologically speaking, scholars have long-since associated the granting of this co-regency with Tiberius’ triumphal celebration following his return from Germany in late 11 CE. Although none of the mentioned historians explicitly state that the Senate granted the co-regency at that time, there is, arguably, a chronological link between the events in Suetonius’ narrative.[2] Thus, relative to the date of Tiberius’ triumph, the co-regency has been generally deduced to 12 CE.[3] For those advocating an earlier starting point for Tiberius’ reign, this alternate reckoning effectively shifts Tiberius’ fifteenth year to 26 CE, which is in more ready alignment with Jesus’ thirtieth year according to the more popular 5 BCE nativity hypothesis. The matter-of-factness of this position, and the impetus behind it, is, for example, both casually and plainly stated by Edersheim.[4]

"It was, according to St. Luke’s exact statement, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—reckoning, as provincials would do, from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign), in the year 26 A.D. According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year."[5]

However, as Harold Hoehner commented, “this method is to be rejected because there is no evidence, either from historical documents or coins, for its employment, whereas there is abundant evidence that Tiberius reckoned his first year after the death of Augustus. Any theory that has to distort the normal sense of the text is already suspect.”[6]

I have long since agreed with this point of view. The notion of an earlier reckoning for the reign of Tiberius is based upon the conspicuous need to bring Tiberius’ fifteenth year of reign into harmony with a thirty-year-old Jesus in 26 CE. Apart from this synchronistic necessity, there would be no valid reason to even consider shifting Tiberius’ reign as described, much less applying or dogmatizing the shift. We have no evidence whatsoever of anyone counting the reign of Tiberius from his co-regency with Augustus, and no precedent to believe that Luke was using such an alternative dating paradigm. Tiberius’ reign was counted from the death of Augustus, and differs in the particulars only as it concerns the geographical regions and cultures, and the various methods of regnal counting. Someone in Alexandria might count his reign from September of 14 CE. A Roman might count it from January of 15 CE. Jews would count it from Nisan (March to April) of 14 CE. However, we have no evidence of any region, at any time, counting his reign from 12 CE as an offshoot of the standard reckoning.

To the contrary, all the evidence we have implies that the points of accession for the emperors, including that of Tiberius, were common knowledge throughout the empire and reckoned from the same points universally. As it concerns Tiberius, although this evidence has already been given, let me restate that we have numismatic evidence that shows Tiberius’ first year of reign coincident to the 45th year of the Actian Era, and his third to the 47th year.[7] Tacitus puts his ninth year in the year of the consuls Gaius Asinius and Gaius Antistius, or 23 CE, while Suetonius reckons his twenty-third year to 37 CE, in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus.[8]

It should also be noted that Josephus records that Tiberius reigned twenty-two years, whereas Philo remarks that Tiberius was emperor during three and twenty years.[9] In the former case, Josephus is referring to his regnal years, from 14 CE through 36 CE, with his final year left incomplete in the manner of Jewish regnal counting. In the latter instance, Philo is commenting on inclusive Jewish calendar years from 14/15 CE through 36/37 CE. Thus, he reigned twenty-two regnal years over the span of twenty-three Jewish calendar years, the relevance here being that his reign in both testimonies ends with his death in 37 CE, demonstrating retrogressively a starting point of 14 CE, not 12 CE.

In all instances, whether it be Suetonius and Tacitus speaking as Romans, or Josephus and Philo speaking as Jews, the testimony is the same. Tiberius’ reign began with the death of Augustus in 14 CE, and differs from one region to the next only insomuch as to say that the calendar and regnal systems each function in their own unique way.

Given the universal understanding of Tiberius’ reign throughout the empire, there is simply no precedent to believe that Luke, and Luke alone, is dating Tiberius’ reign according to some enigmatic dating system that begins two or more years earlier than any other dating system in the Roman empire. There’s no proof that he’s doing it, no precedent to believe he would do it, and no documentation of anyone else doing it. The idea is, in every way, a flight of fancy, and has no foundation in fact.

Furthermore, the argument itself hinges on the idea that the Senate voted Tiberius the co-regency with Augustus in 12 CE.[10] The chronology of the event is figured according to Suetonius, who, seemingly in context of Tiberius’ return from Germany, says that the consuls caused the law for his co-regency to be passed “soon after.” As the argument goes, if the consuls passed this law “soon after” he returned from Germany in 11 CE, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that it occurred in the vicinity of 11 CE or 12 CE.[11]

However, in its more direct and immediate context, Suetonius also said that Tiberius was given this joint authority so he would have equal authority over the provinces while conducting the census with Augustus. It was for that reason that the consuls caused the law to be passed, granting him joint governance over the provinces, and the passing of the law was in a chronological proximity to the lustral ceremonies and Tiberius setting out for Illyricum immediately afterwards.[12]

Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies; but he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private.

Ergo, the consuls who passed the law were the consuls during the year of the lustrum. The lustrum, according to Augustus himself, occurred in 14 CE, which was, consequently, also the year he died.[13] Therefore, any co-reign, co-princeps, etc., would actually be coincident to 14 CE rather than 12 CE, confirming the succession in 14 CE, even counted from the point of their joint administration.

And in the overall treatment of this topic, we shouldn’t let Pontius Pilate fall by the wayside. Luke states that it was the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, with Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea.[14] Pilate governed Judea over the course of ten years. Having been dismissed within ninety days of Tiberius’ death, his final calendar year in Judea, as previously discussed, was 36/37, which puts his arrival in Judaea in 27 CE. That’s a year later than the fifteenth year of Tiberius by an ante-dated reign, as figured by the presumed co-reign in 12 CE.

Now, alternately, one could argue that the joint reign with Augustus centers around Tiberius being given the tribunician authority in 13 CE, when Lucius Munatius and Gaius Silius were consuls, but this was not the first time Tiberius had been given such authority. If such were the standard for counting his reign, we could go back as far as 6 BCE when he was first given the tribunician authority, or a little later in 4 CE, when he not only received said authority for an additional ten years, but was also adopted by Augustus.[15]

Vardaman, in fact, makes an argument for this very year, based upon these same points of fact. He offers both the 4 CE solution, beginning with Tiberius’ adoption and proconsular imperium, as well as a speculation on the possibility of an epigraphic misreading of eta iota for beta, B being mistaken for an EI, suggesting that Luke originally wrote, “year 2.”[16]

Nevertheless, we still have no precedent to assume that Luke is counting from some point other than the rest of the Roman empire. Despite how clever one argument or another may be, there has to be a precedent. Luke’s intent is to give his reader an intelligible date. Given this logical fact, it’s unreasonable to conclude that he was counting from any point other than the rest of the civilized world at the time. Thus, the idea of an earlier reign of Tiberius, particularly based on a joint administration with Augustus, is entirely without merit.

Furthermore, any notions of antedating, as some would speculate to have taken place, are likewise robbed of any credibility relative to the evidence. Rulers were directly responsible for the antedating of their reigns, and often did it for political gain or advantage. The numismatic evidence contradicts any such practice where Tiberius is concerned.

Therefore, all things considered, the hypothesis for an earlier reign of Tiberius should be dismissed.


[1]. Suet. Tib. 21; Tac. Ann. 1.3; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1.
[2]. Suet. Tib. 20-21.
[3]. Suet. Tib. 20. The celebration of Tiberius’ triumph is properly in the context of 11 CE, not 12 CE (Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 2.2, 1101, n. 2, 1877 edn.). Tiberius celebrated his triumph on October 23rd, prior to Germanicus’ consulship in 12 CE (Fasti Praenestini, in Inscr. Ital. 13.2 17, 134-135; Dio Cass. 56.25.2, 56.26.1). Given the time of year, if the Senate voted him this authority in the vicinity of his triumph, it’s debatable whether it happened before the end of that current year, or whether it happened at the beginning of the new year, giving us the leeway of 11 CE or 12 CE for the granting of the co-regency under these suggested circumstances.
[4]. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183, 193.
[5]. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183.
[6]. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 31-2.
[7]. McAlee 214; RPC I 4270, 4330; BMC Galatia 33, 150; SNG Cop 402. The specimens are respectively dated A / EM and Γ / ZM.
[8]. Tac. Ann. 4.1; Suet. Tib. 73.
[9]. Joseph. AJ 18.177; Philo Leg. 298.
[10]. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 330; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183.
[11]. Suet. Tib. 20-21; Fasti Praenestini, in Inscr. Ital. 13.2 17, 134-135; Dio Cass. 56.25.2, 56.26.1.
[12]. Suet. Tib. 21.1.
[13]. Mon. Anc. 8.
[14]. Lk. 3:1.
[15]. Dio Cass. 56.28.1, 55.9.1-4, 55.13.1a; Vell. Pat. 2.103; cf. Inscr. Ital. 13.2, Fasti Amiternini (= CIL 1², p. 320).
[16]. Vardaman, Jesus’ Life: A New Chronology, in CKC, 58-60.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've just released a new video that goes through all the evidence that Messiah Jesus began His ministry in 29 AD, preached and performed miracles for just over 2 years and was crucified April 25, 31 AD and resurrected exactly 3 days and 3 nights later.

The challenge still stands for anyone to show anything that is inaccurate or false about any content. It's been over 7 years now since I released this information to the public and no one has been able to find fault with anything. It's been over 15 years since I started contacting well-known Bible teachers, pastors and prophecy experts. No one has responded with any issues so far.

I have this to say . . . The conclusions you've reached are easily refutable. That part isn't in question. What's in question is whether you're objective enough to accept the evidence when it's presented to you. I've had many debates with people on this forum, and on others, concerning the topics of New Testament chronology. And what I usually find is stubborn people who won't acknowledge even the simplest statements of fact.

For example:

Mark and Luke both explicitly state that the morning/afternoon preceding the last supper was the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover. Without question, it is the 14th day of Nisan. It's not debatable. Two gospels say it directly, and third alludes to it, saying that it was the protos of unleavened, or the very first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th, since all leaven had to be removed and burned by noon, before the sacrifices in the early afternoon. Jesus sent two disciples, Peter and John, to secure a room, prepare the passover, and make ready for them. The two disciples "made ready the passover," and at evening, Jesus and the rest joined them.

Given this direct evidence, we have three gospels telling us that the last supper was on the evening of the 14th, on the passover, necessarily placing the crucifixion on the 15th. John's gospel, which appears to place the crucifixion on the 14th, is actually referring to the hagigah when it says the priests wanted to eat the passover.

The notion of a Wednesday crucifixion hinges on the proposition that the "sabbath" following the crucifixion was of the holiday variety; viz., the holiday sabbath of the 15th of Nisan. Ergo, a Wednesday crucifixion hypothesis requires a Nisan 14th crucifixion in order to have any validity. If the crucifixion occurred on the 15th, the only possible sabbath that could follow the crucifixion is Saturday, making the crucifixion a Friday.

It's also worth noting that if you chronicle the days of Passion week, knowing what events transpired over the course of the specific days, if we merely shift that paradigm so that the days begin on a different weekday to allow the eighth day (when he was crucified) to fall on Wednesday instead of Friday, a certain absurdity becomes readily apparent. Regardless of the weekdays, or even the dates, the physical days and their corresponding events occurred in a specific order. He rode through Jericho on the first day. He arrived in Bethany on the second day. He rode into Jerusalem the third day. He drove out the money-changers and merchants on the fourth day. He delivered the infamous woes, and later the Olivet Discourse on the fifth day. He had supper at the house of Simon on the sixth day. He had his Last Supper on the seventh day. Then he was crucified on the eighth day. These events and their chronology are not disputable.

If we shift the events to synchronize the eighth day, when he was crucified, with Wednesday, Nisan 14th according to a Reconstructionist view, we encounter the following problem:

A Wednesday crucifixion would have had Jesus driving out the merchants and money-changers on Saturday, who would have been engaged in commerce in the temple complex on the Sabbath. This had been strictly prohibited since the time of Nehemiah.[1] The Sabbath laws were so strict that when the Passover fell on the Sabbath, the people wouldn’t even carry the knife they intended to use for the sacrifice. They would stick it through the wool of the lamb. The idea that commerce was taking place on the Sabbath in the temple complex is just ridiculous. If one reads enough Jewish literature, it becomes abundantly clear just how ludicrous such a notion really is.

You say, "no one has been able to find fault with anything," but is that actually true? Or have you been presented with evidence you've simply ignored? I've given you evidence. What are you going to do with it? Ignore it? Try and argue it away? Or will you be objective, like a proper academic would be, and reevaluate your position?

[1]. Nehemiah 13:15-22; Shabbath 148b.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I would like to offer some historical information that helps in constructing a chronology of the life of Jesus. While it is true that Augustus died in A.D. 14, Tiberius actually began his reign as co-regent in A.D. 12. This has been known and taken into consideration by historians and used to calculate the traditional A.D. 30 date for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

It has only been in recent years, with the advent of the new science of archaeology, that coins have been discovered that support this traditional view and show that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned from his co-regency with Augustus beginning September A.D. 12.

Augustus died in August A.D. 14 as you noted, and Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee), and in the same year Gratus minted coins with Tiberius' image that have the LB inscription, meaning the second year of Tiberius' reign. (Front and reverse of Gratus LB coin: minted A.D. 14, LB=Year 2 of Tiberius)

View attachment 331815

The chart below shows, according to the numismatic evidence, that the 15th year of Tiberius would have fallen from September A.D. 26 to September A.D. 27, historically held as the year Jesus began his ministry. This would place the Crucifixion of Jesus in the 18th year of Tiberius, A.D. 30.

View attachment 331816

I hope this will be helpful.
In Christ,
Deborah~
I know this is an old post, but if anyone is still watching it, this coin does not specify a 14 CE minting. It only designates it to the second year of TIB KAICAP, or Tiberius Caesar. There are other coins that give us the information to properly triangulate the dating. RPC 4270 and RPC 4330 both give the year of reign and the Actian year, A EM and Γ ZM respectively, placing Tiberius' first year of reign in 15 CE and his third in 17 CE.

RPC 4270 - 4 (Tiberius A EM).jpg

RPC I 4330 - 1 (Tiberius G ZM).jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I would like to offer some historical information that helps in constructing a chronology of the life of Jesus. While it is true that Augustus died in A.D. 14, Tiberius actually began his reign as co-regent in A.D. 12. This has been known and taken into consideration by historians and used to calculate the traditional A.D. 30 date for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

It has only been in recent years, with the advent of the new science of archaeology, that coins have been discovered that support this traditional view and show that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned from his co-regency with Augustus beginning September A.D. 12.

Augustus died in August A.D. 14 as you noted, and Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee), and in the same year Gratus minted coins with Tiberius' image that have the LB inscription, meaning the second year of Tiberius' reign. (Front and reverse of Gratus LB coin: minted A.D. 14, LB=Year 2 of Tiberius)

View attachment 331815

The chart below shows, according to the numismatic evidence, that the 15th year of Tiberius would have fallen from September A.D. 26 to September A.D. 27, historically held as the year Jesus began his ministry. This would place the Crucifixion of Jesus in the 18th year of Tiberius, A.D. 30.

View attachment 331816

I hope this will be helpful.
In Christ,
Deborah~

That is helpful, thank you!
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Not sure what your point actually is. But nothing about tradition turns out to be correct. NOTHING. Not a thing. It's very important to know the truth because Messiah Jesus fulfilled prophecy spoken in the Old Testament. If you can't verify the facts about His life, then prophecy does not prove anything. It is very relevant.

So what New Testament books are canonical, then? You can’t use the 27 book canon since that is Tradition, having been introduced in the Egyptian church by St. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria around 360 AD, and subsequently accepted by the other ancient churches. The New Testament lacks a table of contents.

For that matter, so does the Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0