The Three Year Ministry of Jesus

[John 1720]

There's plenty of reason to believe there was a break between the baptism and the start of his ministry. Simply put, his ministry didn't start until John the Baptist was arrested.

Hello Sir,
Yes but thanks to John we have a record of His earlier Baptismal ministry, as well as His travels into Jerusalem for the Feast days and the miracles that ensued while He was there. I agree with you that what began in Galilee was not the same as the other ministry which John mentions - see John 3:26
As I mentioned in the post, 'That ministry was not the same as the year of our Lord ministry, which He declared in Nazareth'.
However, what I was stating as a break would be ministry all together, which implies no mention of the Passover feasts, either in Jerusalem or in Galilee, or continuance of miracles. The ministry, which you refer to as starting with John the Baptist's death and which I claim its advent starting in Nazareth as Luke 4:18-21 attests to was the acceptable "Year" of the Lord. with one Passover in Galilee and the last in Jerusalem. However I don't believe there was any break in at least John's account from Jesus Baptism and His Baptism and His miracles leading up to the acceptable year of our Lord. As long as Jesus lived we would have continued to read testimonies of Passovers and miracles from disciples that would follow Him wherever He went. Where else would they go? As Peter had articulates so well, He had the words of eternal life.
May the Lord Bless, Patrick
John 17:20

 

[Greg Merrill]

There's plenty of reason to believe there was a break between the baptism and the start of his ministry. Simply put, his ministry didn't start until John the Baptist was arrested.

You say "his ministry didn't start until John the Baptist was arrested." If one reads Mark 6, Jesus has disciples, and Jesus is teaching in the synagogue, vs 1,2. "He went around about the villages, teaching.", V.6. His disciples are casting out demons in v. 13. In vv. 14-29 we read of the arrest and execution of John the Baptist.

 

[AFrazier]

You say "his ministry didn't start until John the Baptist was arrested." If one reads Mark 6, Jesus has disciples, and Jesus is teaching in the synagogue, vs 1,2. "He went around about the villages, teaching.", V.6. His disciples are casting out demons in v. 13. In vv. 14-29 we read of the arrest and execution of John the Baptist.

Yes, he had disciples prior to his ministry proper. In John at the wedding in Cana, John and James were already with him. Jesus tells his mother that his time was not yet. Then we see in Matthew 4:12-23 that it wasn't until he heard that John the Baptist had been thrown into prison that he left Nazareth for Galilee and collected his disciples, including James and John.

If these accounts are to be reconciled, there is obviously a lapse between his baptism and temptation and the start of his ministry proper. During that time, unspoken, but inferred, is Jesus going his separate way from John and James until the time that he returned to Galilee to collect them.

But let me look into Mark. I'm at work right now. I'll look at Luke, too, and see what the chronology looks like there.

Update:

Mark 1:12-15 Says the same thing.

"And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. And after John was arrested, he came into Galilee from Nazareth. He collected his disciples and started preaching.

 

[John 1720]

Yes, he had disciples prior to his ministry proper. In John at the wedding in Cana, John and James were already with him. Jesus tells his mother that his time was not yet. Then we see in Matthew 4:12-23 that it wasn't until he heard that John the Baptist had been thrown into prison that he left Nazareth for Galilee and collected his disciples, including James and John.

If these accounts are to be reconciled, there is obviously a lapse between his baptism and temptation and the start of his ministry proper. During that time, unspoken, but inferred, is Jesus going his separate way from John and James until the time that he returned to Galilee to collect them.

Yes, I agree there was a slight lapse between our Lord's baptism, as documented by the temptation in the wilderness which is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels Matthew 4:1 Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2 . However there is a much larger lapse between Jesus' baptismal ministry in the Jordan and His feast day visitations to Jerusalem that John so aptly records for us. The feasts recorded in John 2:20, John 3:22-36 John 5:1 John 7:2 John 8:12 - John 10:22, and John 10:23-42 are not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels and most likely all precede John 4 and John 6. This is most likely due to an early compilation error, perhaps in moving to codex form? I'm hoping we'll find an early copy to shed some light beyond the the early fragments we have as well as P66. Who was with Jesus, besides John the Apostle, during His baptismal ministry is unclear. No apostle's name is ever mentioned but clearly John himself is an eyewitness. Perhaps it was some of Jesus former disciples who later deserted Him? John 6:60-66. We're left to speculate but John is not shy about mentioning the names of others, except himself of course. So it is quite curious and leads one to believe there is perhaps something behind the omission that may be relevant.

But we do indeed see in John 4:1-4 that His fame had spread throughout Jerusalem and Judea. No doubt the baptismal ministry was also becoming dangerous after John was arrested. He most likely came back to Galilee through Samaria in January, according to Jesus' attestation of 4 months until the harvest. John 4:35 The Baptist would have been imprisoned at least a few weeks to a month before Jesus left for Galilee, probably when Jesus was at the feast of the dedication John 10:22. Christ would once again come near to Cana of Galilee, where He would perform only His 2nd miracle within the domain of Galilee. The miracle was healing a nobleman's son as recorded in John 4:54. After that the Synoptics record Him at Nazareth announcing His Year of the Lord ministry according to Matthew 4:11-12 Luke 4:14-19 . And from His rejection there our Lord was on to Capernaum, where I agree with you that He picked up the others and started His year plus ministry that we find in the Synoptic Gospels.

So after announcing the year of the Lord in Nazareth. He would initiate a plethora of miracles before choosing His Apostles and Disciples. This would have occurred in the subsequent months right before the Passover. We believe John the Baptist was executed during the feast of Purim which fell about 4 weeks before Passover. The Synoptic all report the execution just prior to the feeding of the 5000 Matthew 14:9-21 Mark 6:26-44 Luke 9:7-14 and we know some of the Baptist's disciples were there at Tabgha. The Apostle John also attests to the fact that the feeding of the 5000 men was just before Passover John 6:3-12; and this would have been about a year before the Lord's execution. Of course this means some of John's Gospel is not in chronological sequence but that is not a new revelation.

In Christ, Patrick aka John 17:20

 

[AFrazier]

@John 1720

I see the approximate timeline thusly:

April, 28 CE: John came baptizing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. Given Luke's nomenclature and constant references to other Jewish-specific rites, rituals, holidays, etc., his audience is clearly Jewish, despite any Hellenistic name, which many Jews adopted in that time period.

By Jewish regnal counting, any part of the first year is considered a full year of reign when the calendar reaches the 1st of Nisan. Additional years are only considered completed years of reign when the 1st of Nisan following comes to pass. So from his succession in 14 CE, Tiberius' fifteenth year began on the 1st of Nisan, 28 CE, which is late March or early April.

John the Baptist, being the return of Elijah, would have had his "coming out" at the time of the passover. Jewish tradition was that Elijah would come at the passover. John would have also been recently turned thirty years old in January.

June, 28 CE: Jesus comes to be baptized around the time of his own thirtieth birthday. Given Gabriel's announcement of Mary's conception in the sixth month, and a forty-week gestation period, Jesus should have been born in the vicinity of June.

February-April, 29 CE: Jesus is seen in the vicinity of John the Baptist. And we can infer the timing by two factors.

When the two disciples go to meet him after John the Baptist's announcement, Jesus did not go into the wilderness for forty days. He was with several disciples in Cana three days later at a wedding. Shortly thereafter — still without going into the wilderness for forty days — the passover is at hand, and Jesus and the others go to Jerusalem for the passover. That puts John's announcement in John 1:29-37 well after Jesus' baptism and temptation in the wilderness, because John's account never even mentions it. The temptation in the wilderness had clearly passed already.

The second factor is the temple. We know from Josephus that it was completed in August of 19 BCE. From 18 BCE to 28 CE, inclusively, there are forty-six full years of a completed temple, just as the priests claimed. Furthermore, this fixes the year and rules out the likelihood of the account being misplaced in the chronology.

Time Lapse, April, 29 CE - January, 33 CE: Beginning in John 3:22, Jesus "tarried" in the land of Judea, where he baptized more than John (though his disciples did the actual baptizing). John the Baptist declared that Jesus needed to increase while he himself decreased. The bride is for the bridegroom. By John 4:43, John the Baptist had already been arrested. We know this because there is mention of "a feast of the Jews" in John 5:1, the passover in John 6:4, which would be the passover of 33 CE, and then the "feast of tabernacles" in John 7:2, which is the feast of tabernacles preceding his final passover.

January, 33 CE - December 33 CE: There was a feast of the Jews in John 5:1, whether the Feast of Lights or Purim, it is unclear, but it occurred between December and March, because of the reference of "four months until the harvest." This is followed by the passover in John 6:4. And then the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:2. And then we have winter and the Feast of the Dedication, or Hanukkah, in John 10:22.

April, 34 CE: The final passover begins in John 12:1.

The Synoptic representation begins in January of 33 CE after the arrest of John the Baptist. As you might note, there are two passovers following January of 33 CE in the chronology I've given, which is precisely what the Synoptics list. You will also find that there are plenty of correlating scriptures to confirm the chronology here.

Now, there are some who would argue with 34 CE being the final year. I understand and accept that in the absence of an explanation. But explaining why this is the right year is far too complicated for a forum post. I would ask you to simply indulge me on this with the understanding that I have been earnestly researching this topic for almost two decades. Or if it pleases you, shift the timeline back a year if it works in your own head better that way. Make the time lapse from April 29 CE to January 32 CE, with the final passover in April of 33 CE.

Either way, it all began with his baptism in 28 CE, followed by a passover the next year, and there is a time lapse from that point of either three or four years, depending on whether you accept 34 CE as the final year or 33 CE as is more traditional. But overall, I see a total of six or seven inclusive years of his ministry, both informal and formal. I then see approximately seventeen months of his formal ministry, overlapping three Jewish years, or two Roman years.

 

[James Bejon]

How many times have you heard the term "the three year ministry of Jesus" or "the three and a half year ministry of Jesus" or that Jesus was 33 years old? If you have been a Christian for as long as I have (57 years), you have probably heard all of these quite a number of times. Ever ask where these terms came from? I know why people have used them, and I know why people have believed them, but are they accurate? If you know me at all, you know that I don't usually ask such a question if the answer is obvious. So what are YOUR answers and thoughts on this subject?

Dear Greg--Not sure if you're still in search of an answer here. I became interested in similar issues myself a while back. In the end, I found a Jan. 26 - Apr. 28 ministry to fit best with the relevant evidence. I have a write-up of my thoughts here in case you're interested: A Chronology of Jesus’ Ministry. God bless, James.

 

[AFrazier]

Dear Greg--Not sure if you're still in search of an answer here. I became interested in similar issues myself a while back. In the end, I found a Jan. 26 - Apr. 28 ministry to fit best with the relevant evidence. I have a write-up of my thoughts here in case you're interested: A Chronology of Jesus’ Ministry. God bless, James.

I suspected as much, but I did take the time to go read what you posted.

On pg. 3, you state: "Luke’s reference to Tiberius’s 15th year is reckoned not on the basis of Tiberius’s sole reign (as is often claimed), but on the basis of Tiberius’s co-regency with Augustus, which began in 11 AD."

Since your hypothesis is built on the foundation of an earlier starting point for the reign of Tiberius, let me stop you there and give you a tidbit of the section from my own chapter dealing with that specific subject.

-----
Now, it should be said up front that we need to dismiss hypotheses like the earlier reign of Tiberius on the base principle that Luke was not likely speaking to Theophilus in code language. The fact is, we have no evidence of anyone counting the reign of Tiberius from his co-princeps with Augustus, and no precedent to believe that Luke was using a secret alternative dating paradigm. Tiberius’ reign was counted how it was counted, differing in the particulars only as it concerned the geographical regions and cultures. If you were in Egypt, you might count the reign of Tiberius from September of 14 CE. If you were in Rome, you 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, and Luke isn’t either.

Furthermore, the argument itself is based on the idea that Tiberius received the co-princeps in 12 CE, when in actual fact, we don’t know for certain when Tiberius actually received this honor. Velleius Paterculus and Tacitus mention the event, but without any reference to a specific date or year.[1] Dio Cassius doesn’t comment on it at all. Suetonius gives us the best information we have on the subject, saying that Tiberius was given this joint authority so he could conduct the census with Augustus. Tiberius subsequently set out for Illyricum following the census and its accompanying ceremonies specifically because the consuls caused this law to be passed granting him joint governance over the provinces.[2] We otherwise have no evidence of Tiberius attempting to exercise any such authority prior to this point. Thus, the closest indication we have of the year he received the co-princeps is 14 CE, the same year as the lustrum.[3]

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.[4]

The truest argument rightly rests with the co-princeps, which was passed into law under the consuls Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius in 14 CE, giving Tiberius joint reign of the provinces.[5] Thus, the idea of an earlier reign of Tiberius, particularly based on a joint administration with Augustus, is entirely without merit.

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

[2]. Suet. Tib. 21.1.

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

[4]. Dio Cass. 56.28.1, 55.9.1-4, 55.13.1a; Vell. Pat. 2.103; cf. Inscrip. It. 13.2, Fasti Amiternini (=CIL 1², p. 320).

[5]. Suet. Tib. 21.1; Vel Pat. 2.121.1-2.

 

[AFrazier]

Dear Greg--Not sure if you're still in search of an answer here. I became interested in similar issues myself a while back. In the end, I found a Jan. 26 - Apr. 28 ministry to fit best with the relevant evidence. I have a write-up of my thoughts here in case you're interested: A Chronology of Jesus’ Ministry. God bless, James.

And for the record, I have the utmost respect for the work you've put into what you've written. I'm afraid I just have to disagree with you. I don't think the evidence supports it. Tiberius himself dates his own reign from 15 CE, as numismatic evidence demonstrates, synchronizing his first year with the forty-fifth of Actium, and his third year with the forty-seventh of Actium.[1] Tacitus and Suetonius date his reign the same. Tacitus correlates the ninth year of Tiberius with the consuls Gaius Asinius and Gaius Antistius in 23 CE, while Suetonius says that Tiberius died in the twenty-third year of his reign, which he correlates to the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus in 37 CE.[2]


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

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

 

[James Bejon]

Dear AFrazier. Thank you for you kind reply. If you go down to footnotes 7 and 10, you’ll see the evidence I cite for the possibility of a co-regency-based calculation (namely the testimonies of Clement and Tiberius). I agree that, in the absence of any other information, 15 AD would be the most natural year on which to base the reign of Tiberius. But, as I’m sure you’ll be aware, there are generally a large number of different data-points to consider when it comes to the interpretation of chronological statements. To be too rigid about the interpretation of any particular one--and to dismiss a range of other data-points on the basis of it--is, in my view, a common source of error in such matters. We need to consider the full range of evidence as a whole. In my note, I cite 19 distinct data-points. If we start Tiberius’s reign in 15 AD, then we have to dismiss a large number of them (or interpret in very creative ways), while, if we begin it in 12 AD, many if not all of these data-points fall neatly into place. I therefore see 12 AD as the more likely option. I guess we just disagree on that. Most historical claims are statements of probability rather than fact; perhaps further evidence will come to light in the near future to make matters clearer. Who knows? James.

 

[AFrazier]

@James Bejon

There are a few aspects I think you are neglecting to consider.

1) Evidence. There is no evidence of Tiberius' reign, or governorship (hēgemon), being portrayed as beginning in any year other than 14 or 15 CE contemporaneously with the reign itself. In other words, neither Tiberius, nor any historians contemporary to him, ever mentioned his reign from an earlier starting point. Neither do these historians give a date other than 14 CE for the co-princeps. All the contemporary physical evidence we have shows his reign portrayed as beginning in 15 CE. And this even rules out ante-dating, which was a practice instigated by the rulers themselves to extend their reign to an earlier point for some sort of political advantage. Tiberius didn't do any such thing. There's just no evidence to suggest that his reign should be counted from an earlier point.

2) Intent. Recognize that even the early church fathers you mention, though they have Jesus showing up at different points in Tiberius' reign, they are still counting Tiberius' reign from his succession from Augustus. Ergo, they are counting his reign as anyone would count his reign, differing only in the calendar system they are using. There is no reason to believe Luke is doing otherwise. Luke was trying to make clear the date, not obscure it with cryptic dating. When he said the fifteenth year of his reign, he meant the fifteenth year of his reign. He did not mean the obscure version of his reign from three years earlier that no one else in the Roman Empire counted from.

In practice, it's like me dating something to 2003, but because you have some theory you want to prove, you go on some long explanation as to how I actually meant 2000, due to the fact that Jesus was born in 3 BCE, so our calendar is actually behind by three years. But I assure you, if I dated something to 2003, I would mean 2003, with a full expectation of people knowing that I meant 2003, and not, secretly for the well-learned, 2000 due to a calendrical misalignment.

You understand where I'm coming from?

3) Practice and cultural colloquialisms. Understand that Jewish documents were dated according to the year of reign of the current monarch. And there was a very specific method for doing so. Given Luke's constant use of colloquial phrases that would have been readily familiar to a Jew, but not to a Greek or Roman, there's every reason to believe Luke was dating this history in a Jewish manner. And the Jews don't work by ante-dating. Tiberius' reign would have begun at the point of ascension, or 14 CE. For Luke to date the document by the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius is a very Jewish way of dating the document.

4) Most of the sources you are citing are two or more centuries removed from the events, and they are making their statements using the scriptures as their source, and their own logic to fill in the blanks.

5) Concerning many of those sources, it is worth informing you that they were also using a displaced calendar system themselves. Please note that the year of the Geminis is not the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad. Nor is the year ab urb condita 753 equivalent to 1 CE, though the Chronographer of 354, Orosius, Augustine, the Venerable Bede, and a few others all place Christ's birth in that year, for that reason. These writers have their consuls, olympiads, auc years, etc. all out of sync.

So when Christ is crucified when C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus were consuls in 29 CE, which was the fifteenth year of Tiberius, AUC 782, and OL 201.4, these same sources are calling the year of the Gemini the 18th year of Tiberius, the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, and by deduction, the 780th year from the founding of the city. And so, relative to the question at hand, what year are they actually intending to portray? If Christ's birth is off by two years, then so is everything else. Are they determining the start of Tiberius' reign relative to Olympiads, as Jerome and Africanus are wont to do? Are they using consuls and AUC years according to the Catonian standard rather than the Varronian?

I just don't think your source material is as cut and dry as you think it is. That's why I haven't finished that section yet. I'm still researching those aspects. The dates are all sorts of messed up with the ante-Nicene fathers.

 

[James Bejon]

Hi AFrazier. A few quick comments in case they help to clarify/focus.

(1). I agree; as far as I know, contemporary historians and coins don’t employ co-regency-based figures. That, I think, is the strongest and best evidence for a 14 AD start date. The Romans had a set method. (2). I don’t think the church fathers I cite are simply employing a different calendrical system. Clement, for instance, cites the standard figure for Tiberius’s reign as “22 years”, and then says ‘some’ writers make it “26 years 6 months 19 days” (Str. 1.21). That difference can’t be explained simply by the employment of a different calendrical year. (3). Which Jewish documents do you have in mind when you say ‘the Jews don’t work by ante-dating’ and talk about ‘a Jewish way of dating’? The OT frequently employs co-regency-related figures (as Thiele, McFall, Young, etc. have shown). (4). Clement’s source isn’t Scripture, nor is Tertullian’s, Hippolytus’s, etc. Clement says ‘some’ provide a figure of c. 26 years for Tiberius’s reign. Whatever sources he has in mind, they’re not Scripture. (5). Not 100% sure what your point is here. Hippolytus seems happy to have a ref. to locate Tiberius’s 18th year in c. 29 AD.

Blessings, James.

 

[James Bejon]

@James Bejon

There are a few aspects I think you are neglecting to consider.

1) Evidence. There is no evidence of Tiberius' reign, or governorship (hēgemon), being portrayed as beginning in any year other than 14 or 15 CE contemporaneously with the reign itself. In other words, neither Tiberius, nor any historians contemporary to him, ever mentioned his reign from an earlier starting point. Neither do these historians give a date other than 14 CE for the co-princeps. All the contemporary physical evidence we have shows his reign portrayed as beginning in 15 CE. And this even rules out ante-dating, which was a practice instigated by the rulers themselves to extend their reign to an earlier point for some sort of political advantage. Tiberius didn't do any such thing. There's just no evidence to suggest that his reign should be counted from an earlier point.

2) Intent. Recognize that even the early church fathers you mention, though they have Jesus showing up at different points in Tiberius' reign, they are still counting Tiberius' reign from his succession from Augustus. Ergo, they are counting his reign as anyone would count his reign, differing only in the calendar system they are using. There is no reason to believe Luke is doing otherwise. Luke was trying to make clear the date, not obscure it with cryptic dating. When he said the fifteenth year of his reign, he meant the fifteenth year of his reign. He did not mean the obscure version of his reign from three years earlier that no one else in the Roman Empire counted from.

In practice, it's like me dating something to 2003, but because you have some theory you want to prove, you go on some long explanation as to how I actually meant 2000, due to the fact that Jesus was born in 3 BCE, so our calendar is actually behind by three years. But I assure you, if I dated something to 2003, I would mean 2003, with a full expectation of people knowing that I meant 2003, and not, secretly for the well-learned, 2000 due to a calendrical misalignment.

You understand where I'm coming from?

3) Practice and cultural colloquialisms. Understand that Jewish documents were dated according to the year of reign of the current monarch. And there was a very specific method for doing so. Given Luke's constant use of colloquial phrases that would have been readily familiar to a Jew, but not to a Greek or Roman, there's every reason to believe Luke was dating this history in a Jewish manner. And the Jews don't work by ante-dating. Tiberius' reign would have begun at the point of ascension, or 14 CE. For Luke to date the document by the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius is a very Jewish way of dating the document.

4) Most of the sources you are citing are two or more centuries removed from the events, and they are making their statements using the scriptures as their source, and their own logic to fill in the blanks.

5) Concerning many of those sources, it is worth informing you that they were also using a displaced calendar system themselves. Please note that the year of the Geminis is not the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad. Nor is the year ab urb condita 753 equivalent to 1 CE, though the Chronographer of 354, Orosius, Augustine, the Venerable Bede, and a few others all place Christ's birth in that year, for that reason. These writers have their consuls, olympiads, auc years, etc. all out of sync.

So when Christ is crucified when C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus were consuls in 29 CE, which was the fifteenth year of Tiberius, AUC 782, and OL 201.4, these same sources are calling the year of the Gemini the 18th year of Tiberius, the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, and by deduction, the 780th year from the founding of the city. And so, relative to the question at hand, what year are they actually intending to portray? If Christ's birth is off by two years, then so is everything else. Are they determining the start of Tiberius' reign relative to Olympiads, as Jerome and Africanus are wont to do? Are they using consuls and AUC years according to the Catonian standard rather than the Varronian?

I just don't think your source material is as cut and dry as you think it is. That's why I haven't finished that section yet. I'm still researching those aspects. The dates are all sorts of messed up with the ante-Nicene fathers.

Hi AFrazier. A few quick comments in case they help to clarify/focus.

(1). I agree; as far as I know, contemporary historians and coins don’t employ co-regency-based figures. That, I think, is the strongest and best evidence for a 14 AD start date. The Romans had a set method. (2). I don’t think the church fathers I cite are simply employing a different calendrical system. Clement, for instance, cites the standard figure for Tiberius’s reign as “22 years”, and then says ‘some’ writers make it “26 years 6 months 19 days” (Str. 1.21). That difference can’t be explained simply by the employment of a different calendrical year. (3). Which Jewish documents do you have in mind when you say ‘the Jews don’t work by ante-dating’ and talk about ‘a Jewish way of dating’? The OT frequently employs co-regency-related figures (as Thiele, McFall, Young, etc. have shown). (4). Clement’s source isn’t Scripture, nor is Tertullian’s, Hippolytus’s, etc. Clement says ‘some’ provide a figure of c. 26 years for Tiberius’s reign. Whatever sources he has in mind, they’re not Scripture. (5). Not 100% sure what your point is here. Hippolytus seems happy to have a ref. to locate Tiberius’s 18th year in c. 29 AD.

Blessings, James.

 

[JohannineScholar]

I have benefited from following this discussion. I am still inclined to the view that Luke was dating from the coregency; another possibility is that Jesus' ministry only spanned about two years from his baptism to his death. Both would arrive at a death in AD 30.

 

[James Bejon]

Dear Johannine Scholar--those are certainly possibilities (in my view at least). Indeed, I personally think Jesus' ministry only lasted for c. 2 years 4 months. Glad the discussion has been of some use to you. James.

 

[AFrazier]

Hi AFrazier. A few quick comments in case they help to clarify/focus.

(1). I agree; as far as I know, contemporary historians and coins don’t employ co-regency-based figures. That, I think, is the strongest and best evidence for a 14 AD start date. The Romans had a set method. (2). I don’t think the church fathers I cite are simply employing a different calendrical system. Clement, for instance, cites the standard figure for Tiberius’s reign as “22 years”, and then says ‘some’ writers make it “26 years 6 months 19 days” (Str. 1.21). That difference can’t be explained simply by the employment of a different calendrical year. (3). Which Jewish documents do you have in mind when you say ‘the Jews don’t work by ante-dating’ and talk about ‘a Jewish way of dating’? The OT frequently employs co-regency-related figures (as Thiele, McFall, Young, etc. have shown). (4). Clement’s source isn’t Scripture, nor is Tertullian’s, Hippolytus’s, etc. Clement says ‘some’ provide a figure of c. 26 years for Tiberius’s reign. Whatever sources he has in mind, they’re not Scripture. (5). Not 100% sure what your point is here. Hippolytus seems happy to have a ref. to locate Tiberius’s 18th year in c. 29 AD.

Blessings, James.

For question 3: Talmud, Rosh Hashana 1a. —

The first of Nissan is New Year for (the ascension of) Kings and for (the regular rotation of) festivals. [...] "For kings." Why is it necessary to appoint such a day? (Let every king count the day of his ascension to the throne as the beginning of his year.) Said R. Hisda: "On account of documents." So that in the case of mortgages, one may know which is the first and which is the second by means of the year of the king's reign mentioned in the documents. The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year. From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan, although he may have been elected in Adar. The Boraitha teaches this lest one say that the year should be reckoned from the day of election, and therefore the king would begin his second year (on the first of Nissan following).

The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the (last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king. If a king die in Nissan, and his successor ascend the throne in Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and his successor does not ascend the throne until Nissan, then the year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the dead king, and from Nissan it should be referred to as that of his successor.
--------------

This method is the reason Josephus gives two lengths for the reign of Herod. Although he was made king by the Romans in 40 BCE, the Jews didn't recognize his reign until the deposition of the previous Jewish king. So when Herod conquered Jerusalem in 37 BCE and displaced Antigonus, his reign, from a Jewish perspective, properly began. From 40-38 BCE, the Jews considered Antigonus king, not Herod. So Herod kept the tradition of his original coronation in 40 BCE, as Josephus mentions (Joseph AJ 15.423), but his reign, legally, counts from 37 BCE.

Your point (2), I agree that a reign of 26 years, 6 months and 19 days can hardly be explained by a mere difference in calendars. But, just because "some" writers count it thusly does not make it a credible figure. We have no reference to any critical text of their day and age. Remember that the same people using such figures are also using incorrect Olympiads, AUC years, and are counting by the Catonian epoch in many cases. Without knowing who "some" writers are and where they are getting their information, we can't take the information seriously without corroboration, which we don't have.

Your point (4) is precisely the point I was making. They are using scripture as a base. There are no other contemporary documents dating the gospel events. All other dating is a matter of individual logic and extrapolation. The source we all have is the scripture. The extra-biblical information we have is consistent with Tiberius' reign beginning in 15 CE. All other dates outside of these sources is inferred by the individual.

 

[James Bejon]

Hi AFrazier. Just a brief remark on your first point. What you cite from Rosh Hashana is a prescription of how Jewish documents should reckon the reigns of Jewish rulers, namely in non-accessional Nisan-years; it’s likely to have been composed/compiled in 5th cent. AD and isn’t followed in the OT (so Thiele, McFall, etc.). To go from there a view of how a 1st cent. AD author of a Gospel would have reckoned a Roman Emperor’s reign strikes me as quite a jump.

 

[AFrazier]

Hi AFrazier. Just a brief remark on your first point. What you cite from Rosh Hashana is a prescription of how Jewish documents should reckon the reigns of Jewish rulers, namely in non-accessional Nisan-years; it’s likely to have been composed/compiled in 5th cent. AD and isn’t followed in the OT (so Thiele, McFall, etc.). To go from there a view of how a 1st cent. AD author of a Gospel would have reckoned a Roman Emperor’s reign strikes me as quite a jump.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence of it in use in the OT. Josephus also gives numerous examples of different reigns of emperors, kings, etc., where he is clearly using the method. And the Talmud, regardless of when it was compiled, was still a collection of Jewish oral law and practices. They were written down for the sake of preservation with the destruction of the temple.

In the case of Tiberius, since we happen to be discussing that very thing, Josephus records that Tiberius reigned twenty-two years (Joseph AJ 18.177), whereas Philo remarks that Tiberius was emperor during three and twenty years (Philo Leg. 298). On the one hand, Philo is commenting on inclusive Jewish calendar years (14 CE through 36/37 CE, pre-Nisan 1). On the other, Josephus is referring to his regnal years, from 14 CE (Nisan 1 in 15 CE would be the completion of his first year) through Nisan 1 in 36 CE (Tiberius never reached Nisan 1 in 37 CE, rendering that year incomplete). Thus, he reigned twenty-two regnal years over the span of twenty-three Jewish calendar years.

You can see similar in the reigns of Caligula and Agrippa I.

Furthermore, there are plenty of fragments of papyrus that incorporate the use of emperors' reigns for dating purposes, just as the Talmud suggests for the Jewish culture. See P. Oxy. 239-253. The practice of dating by the reign of an emperor was pretty standard. And there are no additional dating criteria to triangulate the year beyond the mere mention of the year of reign. Ergo, everyone was using the same standard relative to their own region. In the case of the Jews, they dated their documents the same way (there are Aramaic fragments extent as well) as everyone else, but according to their own way of dating an emperor's reign. For the Egyptians, the calendar year ran from autumn to autumn. Their dates are given in Egyptian months with the current year of reign for the emperor.

So I don't personally have an issue with the credibility of the Talmud's explanation of the Jewish practices of regnal dating. It was common practice to date documents by the reign of the emperor throughout the empire, the Jewish practice is documented in the Talmud, and a Jewish historian shows the documented method in action.

I sincerely believe this trumps "some writers" mentioned in Clement's Stromata.

 

[AFrazier]

Furthermore, given Josephus' documented use of the Jewish method of regnal counting, who was himself contemporary to Luke and his gospel, that lends a great deal of credence to the proposition that Luke was doing the same, particularly given his wide range of Jewish colloquialisms. Luke was writing to a Jew, talking like a Jew, and expecting to be understood by a Jew, using dating criteria familiar to a Jew. I don't think it's a stretch at all.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Dear Johannine Scholar--those are certainly possibilities (in my view at least). Indeed, I personally think Jesus' ministry only lasted for c. 2 years 4 months. Glad the discussion has been of some use to you. James.

Yes, I don't see any absolute need for the three and a half year ministry, unless Daniel's seventy weeks makes reference to it. On the other hand, the particular terminology with respect to Tiberius suggests to me that his regal years were not in view, and the historians (Durant, Gibbon) seem to assume that he basically took over as ruler of the provinces when he became co-ruler.
But for me, what is striking is that all the early sources, whether Syriac, Greek, Latin or Coptic, all seem to only work if it is assumed that the crucifixion was in AD 30. It would be too much to demonstrate that in this forum, but to me this is striking. There is also the uncanny (i.e. prophetic) forty year gap between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[AFrazier]

@James Bejon

Are you, by chance, the same James Bejon who wrote an article on Sabbatical Years at academia.edu? If so, good paper. Can't say that I agree with all of your conclusions. But good paper all the same. Well thought out.