Maybe, "three nights and three days" ?

AFrazier said:

If I ever manage to get it finished, I'll give you a free copy and let you be one of the first to read and dissect it.

Click to expand...

Ok deal. BTW, I would still like you to explain your narrative here in this thread, I would like to hear others comments regarding it.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Ok deal. BTW, I would still like you to explain your narrative here in this thread, I would like to hear others comments regarding it.

Click to expand...

Don't worry. I intend to. A 15th crucifixion is the death knell of the 72-hour fiction. Without a 14th crucifixion, there can be no holiday sabbath the next day. If the sabbath follows the 15th, it must be a Saturday, because the 16th isn't a holy convocation. The holiday sabbath argument ceases to exist. And if the day after the crucifixion is a Saturday, then the day of the crucifixion, by default, has to be Friday. Since we know that Christ rose on the first day of the week, that about cinches it. The counting isn't inclusive to suit a theory. It is inclusive because the three days are definitively demonstrated to be Friday evening to Sunday morning.

AFrazier said:

Listen, I don't really have the patience to go round and round with someone who isn't going to consider what I've already addressed. There were multiple women. There were likely existing spices. Some of the women could have been preparing spices before the sabbath. Other women could have purchased other spices after the sabbath. The chain of events is simply not conclusive with regard to a double sabbath event. Please just go and read what I already posted on the subject. It's far too much to repeat, or to argue over and over again. If you have specific objections to some of my reasoning in the excerpt I gave you, I'm happy to address those objections on a case by case basis. But at least do me the courtesy of reading and considering what I've already had to say.

Click to expand...

I did read it and do not see what you are saying... the chances of other women being involved to the extent of purchases or making the burial is slim given that back then it was family and friends who came to do this. As scripture indicates these are the same women.

visionary said:

I did read it and do not see what you are saying... the chances of other women being involved to the extent of purchases or making the burial is slim given that back then it was family and friends who came to do this. As scripture indicates these are the same women.

Click to expand...

"Furthermore, there were, at the very least, five women involved in this scenario. Between Mark and Luke, we know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children, and at least one other woman according to the plural, “other women,” in Luke, were all present at the sepulcher.[7]"

There are also implications of other women, though only five can be demonstrated with surety.

These were all friends or family. Mary Magdalene (close personal friend who washed his feet and anointed his head), Joanna the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward (close enough personal friend that she was present at the tomb), Mary the mother of James the less and Joses (Jesus' mother), Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children (mother of James and John), and at least one other woman (close enough personal friend that she was present at the tomb). We don't know who bought what or who prepared what. When things need to get done, you delegate. This one does this while that one does that.

I don't see the difficulty. It's more plausible that multiple women took on the many necessary tasks than that they neglected his body for four days, allowing it to stink. According to the reconstructionist hypothesis, there was a day between the sabbaths. His body could have been dealt with then. It makes no sense that they would have waited for Sunday.

AbbaLove said:

​

Your objective to prove Christendom's timelline (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Protestantism); while attempting to disprove a 4th Day or 5th Day Messianic Jewish timeline is nothing new to Messianic Judaism. It would be well worth your time to first digest Alex Tennet's research, The Messianic Feast: Moving Beyond The Ritual ... The Messianic Feast by author T. Alex Tennent
Chapters (pdf) are available online: Chapter Samples - The Messianic Feast

In Part 2, The Template Challenge (pages 367-396 and specifically page 395) is his conclusion based on his extensive Jewish research as supported by scripture that the Crucifixion and burial actually happened on the 5th Day (Thursday not Friday) of the Jewish week. http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Template-Challenge.pdf

Even if you could disprove Alex Tennet's (Messianic Jewish Author) extensive research supporting a 5th Day Crucifixion you still may be unable to convince Jewish and non-Jewish members of this Messianic Judaism forum of what they may view as Christendom's Friday (6th Day) theory.

Click to expand...

Did his extensive Jewish research take into account the fact that a Thursday crucifixion results in Jesus riding an ass on the sabbath?

Here's the chronology of the ten days of the extended Passion week:

• [8th] On the first definable day, Jesus passed through Jericho and abode at the home of Zaccheus, somewhere beyond Jericho, but between Jericho and Bethany. (Luke 19:1-10; Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52)
• [9th - Six days before the passover, inclusive. After six days is the passover, inclusive] On the second definable day, he traveled to Bethany, six days before the Passover, where he resided until the next day. (Matthew 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29; Acts 1:12; John 11:18, 12:1)
• [10th - Five days before the passover, inclusive. After five days is the passover, inclusive] On the third definable day, Jesus sent two disciples to acquire the ass that he rode into the city. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke all give the impression that he proceeded directly to Jerusalem when he reached the area of Bethphage and Bethany, John is clear that it was the day following his arrival in Bethany. (Matt. 21:1-17; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-46; John 12:1, 12-16) After arriving at the temple and looking around, Jesus departed at eventide and returned to Bethany.(Mark 11:11. The separation of days in Mark occurs between Matt. 21:11 and 21:12)
• [11th - Four days before the passover, inclusive. After four days is the passover, inclusive] On the fourth definable day, Jesus came back to Jerusalem. It was the next morning. (Mark 11:12) He went into the Temple and drove out the moneychangers, and those who were buying and selling. (Matthew 21:2-12; Luke 19:28-45; Mark 11:11)
• [12th - Three days before the passover, inclusive. After three days is the passover, inclusive] On the fifth definable day, which was the following morning, Jesus returned to Jerusalem and taught in the temple. After which, he departed the temple and went to the Mount of Olives, where he revealed in his Olivet Discourse the things that were soon to come. (Matt. 21:18-25:46; Mark 11:20-13:37; Luke 19:45-21:37)
• [13th - Two days before the passover, inclusive, or pridie (the day before) as the Romans might call it. After two days is the passover, inclusive] On the sixth definable day, the next morning, people came to hear him in the temple. (Luke 21:37-38) Jesus was later invited to supper in Bethany at the house of Simon the Pharisee, who tended to the lepers. (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:36, 39-40)
• [14th - The day of the passover, or one day before the passover, inclusive, or after one day is the passover, also inclusive] On the seventh definable day, it was the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover lamb had to be slain. Jesus sent two disciples to prepare the Passover. He was arrested that night. (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7) The chronology of the previous days is confirmed here in the fact that Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before the passover, and this day is the sixth of six days, consistent with the inclusive counting method of the first century. It is in perfect harmony with the "after two days is the passover" statement in Matthew and Mark. Six days before the passover, the passover would have been after six days.
• [15th] On the eighth definable day, the morning following his arrest, Jesus was crucified.
• [16th] On the ninth definable day, it was the sabbath. The women rested. The priests conspired to guard the tomb.
• [17th] On the tenth definable day, it was the first day of the week. Jesus rose from the grave.

So all things considered, if the eighth day of this chain of events, when he was crucified, was a Thursday, that necessarily means that the third day, when he rode an ass into Jerusalem, was a Saturday. Furthermore, if we consider instead that the eighth day in the chain of events was a Wednesday, that necessarily means that the fourth day was a Saturday, when merchants and moneychangers were conducting commerce in the temple.

How does profaning the sabbath fit into that extensive Jewish research?

You might also like to read, as an objective counterpoint to your other literature, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias. The few genuine arguments that exist in the attempt to contradict the plainly stated scriptural fact that Jesus ate the passover are all addressed by Jeremias. I tried to find you a readable online copy, but no dice. Although, they at least have new copies now. When I bought mine, the best I could find was a beat up used copy.

AbbaLove said:

​

Thank goodness as the LORD knew it is based on RCC religious interpretation. Less reason to read RCC literature supporting a 'good friday' after you used the expression "but no dice" (as not thrown in favor of RCC interpretation) ...

dice: any game involving chance in which dice are thrown​

Mr. Tennet's very knowledgeable Biblical research supports a 5th Jewish Day (not a Roman friday) for the Crucifixion and burial. Tennet's detailed research is online for you to examine for your own benefit.

The Messianic Feast by author T. Alex Tennent
​

The Messianic Feast was awarded a gold medal by the prestigious 2014 Independent Publisher (IPPY) awards. Out of some 5,500 entries there were only about 90 gold medals awarded.

A fair-minded researcher should be willing to examine other definable research even if it calls into question the RCCs pedagogical dogma. Just one of many examples of the RCCs complicity in the wrongful act of eliminating the 2nd Commandment and changing the wording and order of GOD's Ten Commandments. The following is the RCCs change of the Ten Commandments from the original in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:7-21 to that of their man-made Catechism ...

1. I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (NOTE: The RCC likes to place graven images in prominent places in their church edifices so they removed GOD's 2nd Commandment)
   
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day. (NOTE: Changed to the Roman sunday instead of the original Sabbath being the 7th Day of the Hebrew week.
   
4. Honor thy Father and Mother.
   
5. Thou shalt not kill.
   
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
   
7. Thou shalt not steal.
   
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.
   
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods. (NOTE: The RCC divided the original 10th Commandment into two parts in order to again arrive at their ten commandments having removed GOD's 2nd Commandment).

Original Order As Ordained By GOD ...

1. “You shall have no other gods before me."
2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God and only worthy of worship, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
3. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
4. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
5. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
6. “You shall not murder."
7. “You shall not commit adultery."
8. “You shall not steal."
9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
10. “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

You come across as if GOD has chosen the RCC to be the world's religious order and everyone including Messianic Jews should fall inline to the Crucifixion and burial occurring on a Roman friday as if whatever the RCC mandates is ordained by GOD.

​

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that because I used an expression that means, "couldn't do it," my whole post is to be ignored, and I am to be labeled a RCC sycophant?

First, I'll have you know that my conclusions are based on years of independent research, not RCC catechisis.

Second, my argument stands, unless you want to rebut it.

Third, I don't care what awards have been won, or by whom. You didn't answer the question put to you. How does profaning the sabbath fit into Tennent's extensive Jewish research, because a fifth day crucifixion has Jesus profaning the sabbath by riding a donkey on Saturday?

Why I picked 30 AD? 455 BC the command to rebuild Jerusalem’s Temple was given [69 weeks] Daniel 9:25-26 Day=Year… [x 7 week of years] works out to be 483 years which ends up at 30 AD when you do not count 0 as a year. It is also estimated that Yeshua was born somewhere between 4 and 6 BC. Add 30 years [Luke 3:23 said His ministry stated at age 30(Numbers 4:47)] add 3 ½ years of ministry and you end up at the Passover in 30 AD.

March 0030
10th of Adar, 3790
11th of Adar, 3790 Shabbat Zachor
12th of Adar, 3790
13th of Adar, 3790 Ta'anit Esther Erev Purim
14th of Adar, 3790 Purim
15th of Adar, 3790 Shushan Purim
16th of Adar, 3790
17th of Adar, 3790
18th of Adar, 3790 Shabbat Parah
19th of Adar, 3790
20th of Adar, 3790
21st of Adar, 3790
22nd of Adar, 3790
23rd of Adar, 3790
24th of Adar, 3790
25th of Adar, 3790 Shabbat HaChodesh
26th of Adar, 3790
27th of Adar, 3790
28th of Adar, 3790
29th of Adar, 3790
1st of Nisan, 3790 Rosh Chodesh Nisan
2nd of Nisan, 3790
3rd of Nisan, 3790
4th of Nisan, 3790
5th of Nisan, 3790
6th of Nisan, 3790
7th of Nisan, 3790
8th of Nisan, 3790
9th of Nisan, 3790
10th of Nisan, 3790 Shabbat HaGadol
Yeshua’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem ahead of the High Priest bringing in the Passover Lamb
11th of Nisan, 3790
Temple casting out the money exchangers in the Temple.
12th of Nisan, 3790
Yeshua ministers in Temple The Blemish Check interrogated by Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees.
13th of Nisan, 3790
Third day of the inspection of the Korban “Pesach” lamb [the Lamb of God]
Evening starts Nisan 14
Last Supper in the House with the Upper Room
14th of Nisan, 3790
Fast of the First Born Ta'anit Bechorot
Yeshua on the cross – Passover Lamb is sacrificed in temple Erev Pesach
Yeshua is put into the grave sunset Nisan 15th starts Feast of Unleavened Bread
15th of Nisan, 3790 Pesach I
First day resting in the grave
16th of Nisan, 3790 Pesach II
Second day resting in grave
Weekly Sabbath starts at sunset
17th of Nisan, 3790 Pesach III (CH''M)
Sabbath Rest
Third day resting in grave
After the weekly Sabbath Yeshua resurrects
18th of Nisan, 3790 Pesach IV (CH''M)
Yeshua has risen First Fruits / Wave Sheaf

Why I picked 30 AD … Daniel 9:27 - “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD minus 40 years equals 30 AD. "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26. There are many ways this is calculated - In Nehemiah 2:1 we see the decree to rebuild, issued in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes, (about 445 B.C.) Messiah comes 483 years after the decree to rebuild is issued [Calculated by adding 7 weeks (49 years) + 62 weeks (434 years)] this arrives at about the time of Yeshua's triumphant entry in Jerusalem. Messiah comes 434 years after rebuilding, or 483 years after decree is first issued giving permission to rebuild -- hence 483 years (7 weeks + 62 weeks). The other factor is that in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed. Minus the forty years = 30 AD.

God chose the 4 days before Passover as the time to exam the Lamb. During the time of the exodus, the lamb is taken into dwellings to be examined for 4 days to see if it is without spot or blemish. During the temple times the Lamb was led through Jerusalem to Temple and examined by the High Priest and chief priests for 4 days looking for spots or blemishes that would disqualify it from being THE Passover Lamb. Yeshua enters Jerusalem on donkey and teaches in the Temple for 4 days after He cleansed the temple.

God instructed each family to take an unblemished year-old male lamb into their home on the tenth day of the first month. They were to examine the lamb for four days to see that it was perfect. On the evening of the fourth day, they were to kill the lamb and take some of the lamb’s blood and place it on the two doorposts and the lintel of their house. On this first Passover, the avenging angel of God killed every first born male throughout the land, from Pharaoh, to slave, to camel. The angel of death would pass over those homes which the homeowners believers protected themselves by placing the blood of a lamb on their doorposts and lintels. So are you today to place the blood of the lamb on the doorposts of our heart and mind to protect you from the final plagues that will be meted out in the end of earth’s history.[1]

In the chronology of the time calculations that Yeshua made His made His famous entry back into Jerusalem on the donkey, it was the time for Israel to choose their Lamb of God.[1] “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”[2] They were claiming him to be the long awaited Messiah with their shouting. God instructed the people to choose an unblemished lamb. The people chose Yeshua as their Messiah. Unwittingly, they chose Yeshua as their Passover lamb on the day the lambs were to be chosen.

Yeshua spent the next four days teaching in the temple. During the time of the exodus, the lamb is taken into dwellings to be examined for four days to see if it is without spot or blemish. During the temple times the Lamb was led through Jerusalem to Temple and examined by the High Priest and chief priests for four days looking for spots or blemishes that would disqualify it from being THE Passover Lamb, as many other lambs would be sacrificed for various reasons, but there was only one Temple Passover Lamb. Yeshua enters Jerusalem on donkey and teaches in the Temple for four days after He cleansed the temple.

It is interesting that Yeshua cleansed the temple twice, once at the start of his ministry and once again at the end of His ministry. What is unique about the second cleansing is that he also didn’t allow the temple services to continue, He stopped them from carrying about their temple service duties.[3] If you want to really get in trouble, stop people from performing their sacred duty. You have to understand what is in those ritual vessels. These were the offerings of sacrificial blood, first fruits, grain offering of thanksgiving and so much more. He was literally shutting down the temple services and they were indignant to the point of seriously considering murder. [4]

Blemish check was an important aspect in the Passover lamb choosing. Levitical instructions are that the lamb must be checked for blemishes as only a perfect, spotless and unblemished lamb would suffice for the Passover Lamb. At this time, the Lamb of God was inspected for His theological and Torah observance purity according to the Law of Moses. While in the temple teaching, He is approached by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and various other groups, each with different and difficult questions, all were trying to trap him in his words.

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodias, saying, Master, we know that you art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither cares you for any man: for you regard not the prestige or status of men. Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Yeshua perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why tempt you me, you hypocrites? Show me the tribute money.” And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, “whose is this image and inscription?” They say unto him, “Caesar's.” Then said he unto them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.[1]

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her.

Yeshua answered and said unto them, “You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.[2]

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Yeshua said unto him, “you shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, you shalt love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” While the Pharisees were gathered together, Yeshua asked them, saying, “What think you of the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They say unto him, “The son of David.” He said unto them, “How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit you on my right hand, till I make yours enemies your footstool? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no man was able to answer him a word; neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. [3]

They were looking for any blemish, theological, or otherwise, which might disqualify him as the Messiah. They could not find fault. He meets each question soundly, and no one can find fault with him. He is without blemish.[4] When they found no fault with this “Lamb of God” they didn’t even realize they had “chosen” Him because he was without blemish. Since He was perfect they decided He should be killed or as the High Priest that year said, “Die for the nation.”[5]

It all accumulates into His final words to them. It includes the seven woes that will fall upon them. It is all recorded as He cries out, “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem” you will not see me again until you say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”[6] It is a sad prophecy utterance out of His mouth that day, when He turns away. He knew that they would not receive His blessings until that fateful day in the near future, when it all comes back to them and they cry out “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” And they will, because prophetically it will have to get to the abomination of desolation before they realize that they have made the wrong choice and Yeshua prophecy comes true. “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.” And with utter abhorrence of their grievous sins, they repent as a nation.”[7]

[1] Matt 22:15
[2] Matt 22:23
[3] Matt 22:35-40
[4] Matthew 26:4
[5] John 11:51
[6] Matt 23
[7] John 5:43
[1] Matthew 21:1-16
[2] Zechariah 9:9
[3] Mark 11:16
[4] Mark 11:18
[1] Isaiah 53:7

visionary said:

Why I picked 30 AD … Daniel 9:27 - “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD minus 40 years equals 30 AD. "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26. There are many ways this is calculated - In Nehemiah 2:1 we see the decree to rebuild, issued in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes, (about 445 B.C.) Messiah comes 483 years after the decree to rebuild is issued [Calculated by adding 7 weeks (49 years) + 62 weeks (434 years)] this arrives at about the time of Yeshua's triumphant entry in Jerusalem. Messiah comes 434 years after rebuilding, or 483 years after decree is first issued giving permission to rebuild -- hence 483 years (7 weeks + 62 weeks). The other factor is that in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed. Minus the forty years = 30 AD.

Click to expand...

There's just one issue with this. John the Baptist didn't come onto the scene until the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius is either 28 CE or 29 CE, depending on whether you count it in a Jewish regnal manner, or a Roman regnal manner. With Jesus' ministry beginning after John came out, and with three listed passovers throughout the gospels following Christ's baptism, 31 CE or 32 are the earliest the crucifixion could have occurred, though other evidence points to a later year; viz. Jesus didn't begin his ministry until after John the Baptist was arrested.

Prophecy doesn't dictate chronology. The historical facts don't agree with the interpretation you've provided.

AFrazier said:

There's just one issue with this. John the Baptist didn't come onto the scene until the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius is either 28 CE or 29 CE, depending on whether you count it in a Jewish regnal manner, or a Roman regnal manner. With Jesus' ministry beginning after John came out, and with three listed passovers throughout the gospels following Christ's baptism, 31 CE or 32 are the earliest the crucifixion could have occurred, though other evidence points to a later year; viz. Jesus didn't begin his ministry until after John the Baptist was arrested.

Prophecy doesn't dictate chronology. The historical facts don't agree with the interpretation you've provided.

Click to expand...

How the Passover Illuminates the Date of the Crucifixion
How Acts and Galatians Indicate the Date of the Crucifixion
Foundations: Studies in Bible Theology
Tiberius celebrated his triumph in October, AD 12. Co-princeps power was then granted him in the first half of AD 13; the census-taking and lustral ceremonies occupied the latter half of AD 13; then early AD 14 saw his trip to Illyricum, followed by a quick recall home for Augustus’ final illness. Highly-respected scholar Theodor Mommsen views the situation that way, noting in A History of Rome under the Emperors (online at https://web.archive.org/web/20110930110717/https://www.scribd.com/doc/42999229/A-History-of-Rome-Under-the-Emperors) that “Only months prior to the death of Augustus the same powers that were invested in the Emperor were conferred on him in all the provinces.” “Only months prior” implies less than a year, seemingly making AD 12 too. 12+15=29[30] early.What was the “Fifteenth Year of Tiberius”?

visionary said:

How the Passover Illuminates the Date of the Crucifixion
How Acts and Galatians Indicate the Date of the Crucifixion
Foundations: Studies in Bible Theology
Tiberius celebrated his triumph in October, AD 12. Co-princeps power was then granted him in the first half of AD 13; the census-taking and lustral ceremonies occupied the latter half of AD 13; then early AD 14 saw his trip to Illyricum, followed by a quick recall home for Augustus’ final illness. Highly-respected scholar Theodor Mommsen views the situation that way, noting in A History of Rome under the Emperors (online at https://web.archive.org/web/20110930110717/https://www.scribd.com/doc/42999229/A-History-of-Rome-Under-the-Emperors) that “Only months prior to the death of Augustus the same powers that were invested in the Emperor were conferred on him in all the provinces.” “Only months prior” implies less than a year, seemingly making AD 12 too. 12+15=29[30] early.What was the “Fifteenth Year of Tiberius”?

Click to expand...

1) Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 illuminate the dating of the crucifixion just fine, without all the speculative theological mess.

2) Neither Acts, nor Galatians, give any definitive dating criteria by which we can date the crucifixion.

3) What you've written here contradicts itself. You seem to be defending an early reign paradigm for Tiberius, but you quote/cite Mommsen, who confirms that Tiberius received the co-princeps months before the death of Augustus, which was in the fall of 14 CE.

Here's what I had to say about the earlier reign of Tiberius in my book. All the source material is included.

-----------

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 the position is both casually and plainly stated by Edersheim.

“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.”[4]

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.”[5]

I have long since agreed with this point of view. The notion of an earlier reckoning for the reign of Tiberius is founded in the conspicuous need to bring Tiberius’ fifteenth year of reign into harmony with a thirty-year-old Jesus who was born in 5 BCE or earlier. Apart from this need, there would be no valid reason to shift Tiberius’ reign as described. We have no evidence of anyone counting the reign of Tiberius from his co-regency with Augustus, and no precedent to believe that Luke was using 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. Someone in Alexandria might count his reign from September of 14 CE. A Roman might count it from January of 15 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. Although this evidence has already been given [in a previous section of the same chapter not presented here], let me restate that we have numismatic evidence of coins found in the region of Judea that give us Tiberius’ first year of reign coincident to the 45th year of the Actian Era, and his third to the 47th year.[6] 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.[7] There are also numerous examples in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri of creditor’s claims, complaints, leases, loans, tax collections, etc., all dated to the then-current Egyptian month, and the year of reign of the emperor in power, without additional criteria to clarify further, meaning that no clarification was necessary.[8] We see the same in one of the papyri of the Wadi Murabba‘at collection, dated to the second year of Nero, with, again, no additional criteria for clarification.[9]

In the case of Tiberius, 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.[10] 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 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 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 an alternate dating paradigm. There’s no proof that he’s doing it, as there is 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 in 12 CE, when in actual fact, we don’t know for certain when Tiberius actually received this honor.[11] Velleius Paterculus and Tacitus both mention the event, but as part of a broad list of honors or accomplishments relating to Tiberius, and without any reference to a specific date or year.[12] Dio Cassius doesn’t comment on the co-regency at all. The best pseudo-chronological information we have on the subject is Suetonius. Seemingly in context of Tiberius’ return from Germany, Suetonius says that the consuls caused the law for his co-regency to be passed “soon after,” which is the foundation of the 12 CE deduction. If the consuls passed this law “soon after” he returned from Germany, then it is not unreasonable to argue that it occurred in the vicinity of 11 CE or 12 CE.

However, in its more direct and immediate context, Suetonius also said that Tiberius was given this joint authority so he could conduct the census with Augustus and have joint governance over the provinces. For this reason — because the consuls caused this law to be passed granting him joint governance over the provinces — Tiberius set out for Illyricum following the census and its accompanying ceremonies.[13] We have no other evidence of Tiberius attempting to exercise any such authority prior to this point. Based, therefore, on the motive behind the law, rather than an implied chronological relationship, the closest indication we have of the year he received the co-regency is 14 CE, coincident to the lustrum rather than his triumphal celebration two years earlier.[14]

[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, Inscr. Ital. 13.2, 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.

[5]. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 31-32.

[6]. McAlee 214; RPC I 4270, 4330; BMC Galatia 33, 150; SNG Cop 402. The specimens are respectively dated A / EM and Γ / ZM.

[7]. Tac. Ann. 4.1; Suet. Tib. 73.

[8]. P. Oxy. 239-253. These are just a small sample. There are numerous examples of the same.

[9]. Mur 18, Harrington, “A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts.” Biblica et Orientalia 34. Pp. 136-137.

[10]. Joseph AJ 18.177; Philo Leg. 298.

[11]. Swan, The Augustan Succession, 248; Finegan, §570, in Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 330.

[12]. Tac. Ann. 1.3; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1.

[13]. Suet. Tib. 21.1.

[14]. Suet. Tib. 21.1; Dio Cass. 56.29.2; Aug. Res Ges. 8; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1-2.

@AbbaLove

You're a real piece of work. First you ignore me because I said "no dice." Then you accuse me of being a Roman Catholic Church sycophant. Then you discredit me solely on the basis me not being a Messianic Jew.

But I've given my sources. I've made proper arguments. What I've said is biblical. You always have the option of rebutting my arguments with facts of your own.

If all you have for me are insults, based on anti-gentile RCC hatred, then you need to stop talking to me. And I don't mean that as a passing hypothetical. You're insulting. I'll report you if you can't behave like a Christian human being. I don't want any more of these posts from you.

AbbaLove said:

It's becoming obvious that the real reason you're posting on this MJ forum is to learn if your own research lacks credibility within the Messianic community. Any serious researcher will carefully examine other available acclaimed research that may expose any inconsistencies in their own research. Members of this MJ forum may likely view your research as just another non-Jewish bias similar to that perpetuated for centuries, such as by the RCC.

Click to expand...

I actually invited Mr Frazier to this thread because I wanted to get comments here regarding his theory. We had quite a debate in the other thread.
Shabbat Shalom!

For the record, I followed the link to Tennent's work last night and read what was there. I do view the subject objectively. And I was honestly not all that impressed.

@Yeshua HaDerekh. Thanks for having my back. I can hold my own in a discussion, but his comments are more of an attack than a conversation. I might as well have not said anything.