tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post3611844886994561953..comments2023-06-15T09:41:19.355-05:00Comments on NT/History Blog: Chronology of the GospelsBill Heromanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-26881260313165659532013-03-22T10:47:15.175-05:002013-03-22T10:47:15.175-05:00Good question and great suggestion, Paul. As it ha...Good question and great suggestion, Paul. As it happened, I was never a big fan of harmonies in general. Cheney's was recommended to me in '96 and his appendix on the chronology made a big impact on me. Aside from Cheney, however, I've not noted any published harmonies that appended anything similar. As I said in the top line of this post, I don't think harmonies are particularly helpful in this regard. Cheney's particular insight appears to be highly anomalous.<br /><br />At any rate, no, I am not aware of any such exhaustive comparisons, but something like that would certainly help instigate what I've discussed doing with "<a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2010/07/four-jesus-timelines.html" rel="nofollow">The Four Jesus Timelines</a>". It probably wouldn't come from any harmonies, however, but from specifically chronological studies (few as they are).<br /><br />You're more than welcome to have at it. Tremendous energy is what's called for, among other things...Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-59147180301887933242013-03-22T09:20:16.766-05:002013-03-22T09:20:16.766-05:00Bill,
Doing some research in some areas your arti...Bill,<br /><br />Doing some research in some areas your article is focusing on. Are you aware of any studies showing all major published gospel harmonies timelines in reference to each other? I am envisioning a spreadsheet presentation of some sort with a large table. Something like this it seems would add value in research as a composite of hundreds of hours of research by some very smart people.<br /><br />Thank you in advance,<br /><br />PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-4533060759026579642010-04-07T21:40:25.052-05:002010-04-07T21:40:25.052-05:00Well thanks for the clarification, Johannes. As t...Well thanks for the clarification, Johannes. As to the articles you link, I shared my thoughts on those details to some extent <a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2009/11/dating-crucifixion-possible-friday.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />As to your rephrased question - within which I'm still sensing a fixation on this 36 years theory - all I can say is that my conclusions for each came independently, so I couldn't really compare my own feelings about those two dates. I'd also have trouble comparing the evidence and arguments in each case, because they're so different. Sorry.<br /><br />If it was just up to which one I like best, I think the cross matters a bit more because that brings us into Acts, and we need to see stronger connections between Jesus' and Paul's stories.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-2567177232947750222010-04-07T21:07:44.130-05:002010-04-07T21:07:44.130-05:00BTW, the "someone" in the previous comme...BTW, the "someone" in the previous comment was for Jesus from the perspective of the Magi.<br /><br />Also BTW, my question in the other comment "Also, assume for a moment that the Lord appears to you and says..." was an unhappy way of asking this: What are you more sure about at this point of your work: the date of birth in 7 BC or the date of crucifixion in 33 AD?Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-8604529740044894402010-04-07T21:03:47.997-05:002010-04-07T21:03:47.997-05:00Bill, thank you for your concern. And don't w...Bill, thank you for your concern. And don't worry, I have just finished working on the subject. It was for me like the star for the Magi: not a big deal in itself but a motive to go and see something (actually someone) worth the trouble. E.g., this week I became aware of the papers <br /><br />Humphreys, Colin J. & Waddington, W. G. (1985). "The Date of the Crucifixion". At: <br />http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1985/JASA3-85Humphreys.html<br /><br />Schaefer, Bradley E.(1990). "Lunar Visibility and the Crucifixion". At:<br />http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/QJRAS/0031/0000053.000.html<br /><br />which independently demonstrate that Fridays 7 April 30 AD and 3 April 33 AD were 14 Nisan (with 15 Nisan starting at sunset). As I say in my paper:<br /><br />This result is extremely important (infinitely more so than our original interest in alpha), because it validates with hard science the factuality of the account in John's Gospel.Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-10356496147684997952010-04-07T00:23:19.091-05:002010-04-07T00:23:19.091-05:00Okay, Johannes. You've officially worried me ...Okay, Johannes. You've officially worried me now. I just read your mathematical theory about circumcision and crucifixion.<br /><br />It's completely random. If you want my honest advice, I say drop it.<br /><br />If I thought the Lord gave me a number, I'd check myself in for professional help.<br /><br />E-mail me personally if this really bothers you. Maybe we can talk it out more helpfully in private...Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-80841645421579061922010-04-06T17:07:33.973-05:002010-04-06T17:07:33.973-05:00Bill, are you aware of other scholars (yes, I cons...Bill, are you aware of other scholars (yes, I consider you one)posing a duration of 5 years for Jesus' public ministry? All I have read from go for 2 or 3 years.<br /><br />Also, assume for a moment that the Lord appears to you and says "Good job so far Bill, but I will give you a hint: I lived about 36 years." Would you rethink your view of the beginning or of the end of Jesus' life? (My guess is that you would bring his death to 30 AD but I am really interested in hearing your response.)Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-33447096065751356152009-11-12T17:52:04.052-06:002009-11-12T17:52:04.052-06:00I'm flattered, Tim. Thank you. Besides that, e...I'm flattered, Tim. Thank you. Besides that, excellent question.<br /><br />I've been trying to look at these things in three layers. There's History, which depends on Chronology, and then there's Pre-Chronology, which is fundamental for doing Chronology. In other words, how do we know what counts as chronological data? Some exegetes stick purely with words that refer clearly to time passing. Harold Hoehner said, "No. Look. The grain grew."<br /><br />To be honest, I'm still working out how the logic 'flows' best, and where the bedrock really lies. However, the post I blogged a few days ago called <a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2009/11/pre-chronology-for-chronological-study.html" rel="nofollow">Foundations of 'Gospel Chronology'</a> was my most recent attempt to work around the very problem you bring up.<br /><br />If we trust all the data, there's really a lot of it. It turns out in this case there's a fairly limited number of options for how it could all fit. Not to seem positivistic - but the data we have, we do have.<br /><br />Sorry, I'm rambling. <br /><br />The question is, do Mark and Luke follow a basic chronology in their narratives, overall. And then, how can we tell?<br /><br />This is what I'm working on nowadays. There are critical junctures in each Gospel narrative where the status quo changes. If everything before and after those junctures reflects a consistency (pre/post status quo) in that regard, then we have more evidence of chronological sensibility in the narrative at large.<br /><br />For example, someone should do a study of Luke's gospel alone and ask, how many elements in each story-episode would not fit if we 'moved' this episode further backwards or forwards in his narrative. There's a few stories that could slide quite a ways, but there are many more that could only go so far.<br /><br />I realize that doesn't fully solve the problem (as of yet) and it may never be 'air tight'. Then again, consider this: If we show (see <a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2009/11/pre-chronology-for-chronological-study.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> again) that Mark and Luke's narratives are chronologicaly tight, but we're still not convinced about fishermen callings and homecomings, everything else in today's post still works out the same way.<br /><br />The real lynch pin is John's first Passover. I do think John is after the Synoptics, so if there was only one cleansing, it would be hard to argue John's was the one. However, Bauckham and others have recently shown that John is more historically (savvy?) than all three Synoptic writers - which is not to argue that John's cleansing is "the real one", but the detail he offers (46 years) could be considered as too close to be arbitrary. If John's only calculated that number to throw us off, he did a really good job in his research! <br /><br />However - even if we believed that particular temple cleansing didn't happen, honestly, that still wouldn't throw out the historicity of John's first Passover itself, around which his first several chapters rotate.<br /><br />Really, I just put that paragraph at the top of this post because it was easier. As I said. In the end, the historicity of the "two... two... and two..." view probably boils down to a judgment call. What I've tried to express in this book length comment is merely that the three points themselves don't necessarily inhibit anything else in today's post.<br /><br />I hope I didn't repeat myself too much, in all this.<br /><br />I'll shut up now and let you respond with more challenging questions. Or maybe we just need to schedule a study group sometime soon. I'll buy the hot wings!Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-51902363608408628972009-11-12T14:19:08.044-06:002009-11-12T14:19:08.044-06:00Bill,
Thanks for both this and the Pauline chrono...Bill,<br /><br />Thanks for both this and the Pauline chronology earlier. They both look like time (a lot of it!) well-spent. I wonder, though, about your assumptions at the top of the gospel chronology. Isn't it more likely that there weren't two instances of the fishermen calling, two homecomings, and two cleansings? I know you mentioned there are other ways around the problem, and perhaps you plan to take that up in another of these fantastic posts...Tim Ricchuitihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438981322009430784noreply@blogger.com