The Three Year Ministry of Jesus

[James Bejon]

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.

I wasn’t aware of these Papyrus references, or of Philo’s count of Tiberius’s reign: many thanks for the references! James.

 

[James Bejon]

@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.

Yes, that's me! Thanks.

 

[James Bejon]

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.

Dear AFrazier. Are you able to provide any further information or references on the Aramaic fragments you mention? Many thanks, James.

 

[AFrazier]

Dear AFrazier. Are you able to provide any further information or references on the Aramaic fragments you mention? Many thanks, James.

Off hand, the Wadi Murabba’at fragments. D.J. Harrington, “A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C. - Second Century A.D.).” Biblica et Orientalia 34, Biblical Institue Press. Rome, 1978. Mur 18, as you mentioned yourself on p. 21 in your Sabbatical Year paper, both in the body and in footnotes 94 and 96, is dated to the second year of Nero. I don't presently have the book on hand to double check the other fragments of the set, but I know that there are a couple of bills of sale, a couple of marriage contracts, and some other documents that may very well be dated. I'm sure there are also plenty of Greek documents floating around for the Palestinian region if you take the time to research it.

But do keep in mind, the point I was trying to make is that people in different regions were using the reign of the emperors to date documents, independent of any other year-denoting criteria, which means that there was a universal understanding of when his reign began. And it was an understanding that incorporated coins in the Palestinian region that dated Tiberius' first year of reign to 15 CE and his third year to 17 CE. It was an understanding that had Tacitus date his ninth year to 23 CE, and Suetonius his twenty-third to 37 CE.

Since the question on the table is whether Luke intended to specify a specific year in an ante-dated version of Tiberius' reign, or whether he was using a year of reign in a universally recognized point of accession, the use of a universal point of accession is important. And this brings us full circle back to the original point. We have no evidence of anyone else dating according to any other point of accession than the death of Augustus. So by what precedent do we determine that Luke even might have been doing such a thing, seeing that he's giving his reader dates to clarify, not enigmatize? And the answer is that we have no such precedent.

Ergo, the only true question to be answered, knowing that Luke, like everyone else in the empire, was dating from Tiberius' accession in late 14 CE, is which cultural method and calendar is he using? Is he dating it as a Greek, a Syrian, a Hebrew, an Egyptian, etc.? And even in the answer to this question, one will find that it only makes a difference of six months or so.

 

[AFrazier]

And in the overall treatment of this topic, don't let Pontius Pilate fall by the wayside. Do keep in mind that he was governing in Judea over the course of ten years. As you noted yourself on p. 14 of your Sabbatical Year paper, partial years at the beginning and end of a period of years, at least in generic calendar year counting, are counted as full years.

Since Pilate was dismissed within ninety days of Tiberius' death, his final calendar year in Judea was 36/37, which puts his arrival in 27 CE. That's a year later than the fifteenth year of Tiberius by an ante-dated reign from a presumed co-princeps in 12 CE. It's two years later if the co-princeps is figured from 11 CE instead.

Although, as already addressed, the only evidence for the co-princeps we actually have places it in 14 CE, coincident to the lustrum, in the consulship of the two Sextus.

 

[David Kent]

Jesus began his ministry when he was about 30, as already mentioned. It seems that three passovers were mentioned in the scriptures. In the prophecy in Dan 9 says he would cause the prophecy to cease in the middle of the 70th week. As Jesus was crucified at the passover in the spring, he must have been born in the autumn. Daniel's 69 weeks to the Messiah was to his baptism,

• Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What time could be fulfilled but Daniel's 69th week?