Was Agrippina Banished Twice?

In Anthony Barrett's 2002 biography of the Empress Livia, on pages 335 and 336, the author's nineteenth appendix is devoted to a controversy over apparent contradictions in the ancient record. Just to get you up to speed, here's a cast of characters, their interrelations, and their ages on January 1st, 29 AD:

Tiberius (69) - still Emperor of Rome, unofficially retired at Capri
Livia (85) - Tiberius' mom, Augustus' widow, Agrippina's step-grandmother but Germanicus' biological grandmother, and so also great-grandmother of Agrippina's children
Germanicus (dead ten years) - Tib's nephew and adopted son, Liv's grandson, Agrippina's husband (the couple themselves were of no blood relation)
Agrippina (41) - 'Agrippina the elder' - widow of Germanicus, Aug's granddaughter, Livia's step-granddaughter, Tiberius' neice-in-law (formerly also daughter-in-law), mother of Nero (22, not the future Emperor) and Caligula (16, yes the future emperor)
Sejanus (40's?) - Tiberius' Praetorian Prefect and all around proxy ruler in Rome

Got all that? Great! Now, the list of ancient sources: Tacitus' Annals 4.68-70 & 5.3.1, Suetonius' Caligula 10.1, Dio Cassius 58.1.1-3, Pliny's Natural History 8.145, and Velleius Paterculus 2.130.4-5, plus a couple of inscriptions. Barrett also lists an extensive bibliography of scholarship on the controversy, which we might say essentially boils down to one question - When was Agrippina banished?

As a last point of reference, understand that Sejanus was not necessarily trying to become Emperor himself, but his immediate aim was definitely to remain as the power behind the throne. That, precisely, is why Agrippina herself was Sejanus' chief obstacle. Obviously, at least one of her children was poised to succeed the rapidly aging Tiberius. Livia and Agrippina were hardly close allies, but both women supported the children. That's the thick of the plot.

Okay, now to the sources... and thus to the controversy.

Tacitus says that when Livia died, Sejanus took that opportunity to publicly denounce Agrippina and Nero (her oldest; a middle son, the 3rd Drusus of this era, now age 21, was supporting Sejanus' attack on his mother and brother). The Senate responded by banishing them to the island of Pandateria. Note well: this puts Agrippina's banishment firmly after Livia's death.

Suetonius, however, says that Caligula went to live with his great-grandmother Livia after Agrippina's banishment. Thus, how could Livia be dead before this banishment? The simplest solution is that there were two banishments. But is this at all likely? Fortunately, we don't have to judge. We have further evidence.

Pliny speaks of the trial of one Titius Sabinus, a friend of Germanicus' family. Sabinus was convicted and executed of something treasonous, but that's not the story here. Pliny mentions that Sabinus' trial "came about ex causa Neronis - as a consequence of Nero's case". Barrett continues:

Because the trial of Sabinus belongs to 28, Nero must have been charged at least by that date and thus before Livia died... the most satisfactory explanation is probably [that] Sejanus' attack was broken into two stages...

Barrett concludes the 'banishment' (ea relegata) mentioned by Suetonius must be a phrase used loosely to refer to a house arrest at Herculaneum, probably in 28, before the final banishment from the mainland was pronounced in 29. Suetonius' narrative, says Barrett, "is very condensed at this point" and "events might well have been telescoped". (A phrase that reminds me emphatically of Luke 2:1-5, but now I digress.) Finally, we also note that Velleius Paterculus, whose work was published in 30 AD, mentions on his last page the grief of the Emperor at the loss of his daughter-in-law and grandson, the sorrow of which Velleius then says "was crowned by the loss of his mother". Velleius' flattery aside, he would have no reason to twist the sequence of these three references against such a recent and well known chronology.

In summary, Agrippina was "banished" before she was actually banished.

Now, a few observations.

Barrett's two-page appendix is incredibly tight, and a masterful illustration of how to deal with such a seeming contradiction in sources. As a historian, Barrett inclines to trust his sources as far as he reasonably can. There may seem to be a trace of apologetic for Suetonius, but I would argue that Barrett's focus remains strictly on the facts. It is more likely Caligula would have needed a matron at age 15 than at any time afterward. The toga of manhood could be presented as early as age 15. (Caligula's birth date: Aug.31.0012) Suteonius has that much going for his claim, at the very least.

On a separate note, it may seem at first that Barrett has a great advantage here in his number of sources. Of course this is relatively true. At least: "One witness is no witness." On the other hand, we should note that nowhere does Barrett's argument actually appeal to or depend on the number of witnesses. It is the sheer number of facts in this case which prove most helpful to straightening out the necessary details. Had Suetonius provided the information that Pliny provided, the same conclusion should have been reached, assuming we have cause to believe Suetonius' report is trustworthy.

Finally, why am I posting all this? For two reasons.

Secondly, the story about Agrippina's fall and Livia's death helps to enhance a suggestion I made in my post on the Chronology of the Gospels. This is only a guess, but if GOD needed Herod Antipas to get out of Galilee just before Jesus began to gain serious fame, and if Livia's death (and thus the Tetrarch's need to get face time with Sejanus during the ensuing power shift) was indeed the occasion that drew Herod to Rome, then I don't mind speculating on one point. Did you notice how OLD Livia was? Queens in Antiquity often lived even longer than Kings, but 85 is getting way on up there for that day and age. Not to be superstitious - especially because it probably cannot be proven that Antipas even left Galilee at all - but if GOD was involved in the historical details around Christ's public years, it sure looks like Livia could be a female Methuselah. It's worth noting, at least.

But firstly, of course, this is a further step in my preliminary response to Tim's question on Thursday, about Nazareth, fishermen and money changers. As I then said on Friday, these are sidebar issues on which Gospel Chronology does not depend. That said, the question of their historicity is still important - though I may not get to covering these points right away. Whenever I do, however, I want it to be known that Barrett's investigation of facts and details in his sources will be my model for looking at whether it "seems likely" that Jesus had two Nazareth homecomings, had to call Peter twice (three times, actually), and whether he cleansed the Jerusalem Temple twice.

If I was a better general historian, I could probably name more examples of things that may or may not have "happened twice". I'm only guessing there are some, but in so vast a field as history, there simply must be. Barrett's happens to be one that I know of, and I daresay it's a good one.

Hopefully, this was worth putting online for many reasons. Enjoy. And stay tuned...

Chronology of the Gospels

First of all, forget harmonizing the entire text. I'm talking about reconstructing the Gospels' events into historical sequence. Succinctly, here's how that can be reasonably done.

If we posit two Nazareth homecomings and two fishermen callings, the sequence of major events in Mark and Luke suddenly finds complete harmony, even if minor details continue to diverge. Matthew's sequence differs only between chapters 5 and 13. After John the Baptist's beheading, Matthew's narrative sequence shows no contradictions with Mark and Luke. If we also posit two Temple cleansings, the sequence in John's Gospel also blends perfectly with the rest. (**There are other ways around this little problem, but for time's sake, at the moment, we begin by simply assuming those three points.** Update: see my response to Tim's question in the comments.**) So stipulated, we begin.

The first event to harmonize is Jesus feeding the 5,000. This dates JTB's beheading to the middle Passover of John's Gospel. The first Passover of John's Gospel comes just before JTB's arrest. Jesus left Judea when he heard about that arrest, and that the Pharisees were now more concerned about Jesus than about John. This brings us to a critical point of consideration.

Herod Antipas probably captured the Baptist somewhere in the Transjordan region, which Antipas controlled. Why, then, did Jesus leave JUDEA when he heard about this arrest? The only possible danger for Jesus was if he suspected the Sanhedrin might begin to consider arresting him for extradition to Galilee. At this point, it seems, the Pharisees just wanted Jesus to go back to 'Hicksville'. Wisely, he obliged their desire before they could hatch any plans.

For all of John's imprisonment, Jesus stays in Galilee (except briefly, in Jn.5). After Herod Antipas notices Jesus, the Lord withdraws from Galilee repeatedly, slipping into every neighboring country at some point except in the direction of Judea. After some period of these 'withdrawals' had passed, Jesus made plans to go back south. What had changed? The Pharisees would still want to extradite Jesus back to Antipas, and now the Tetrarch was actually looking for him! Why was it suddenly safe?

Sejanus must have died. Antipas must have had some kind of agreement with Sejanus for the Tetrarch to divorce his Arabian wife, effectively ending the treaty with King Aretas and jeopardizing peace in the region while Tiberius entered his 70's. Herod Antipas would not have risked everything for Herodias, unless he really did have a deal with Sejanus. So the caution Antipas [and Pilate also] displayed at Jesus' trial really must have been because of the climate in Rome. Heads of Sejanus' old allies were still rolling with the slightest provocation.

The point at the moment is that Antipas' caution did not begin at Jesus' trial in early 33. Antipas' caution began at Sejanus' death in late 31. Therefore, if the period of Jesus' withdrawals reflects a time after John's death when Judea was still unsafe to enter, then John must have died before Passover of 31. That makes the second 'half' of Jesus' ministry two years long. The missing Passover of 32 is most likely locatable around the time of the Temple Tax (Matthew's coin in-the-fish episode).

Incidentally, Jesus' visit to Tabernacles and Hanukkah could arguably go in 32 because that was after Sejanus had died, but 31 is not impossible, because Tiberius spread rumors all year long in 31 that Sejanus' life could be in danger. If Antipas got wind of what was coming, the Father - yes, we're getting spiritual now - could have told Jesus it was safe. That is a valid spiritual-historical consideration, especially if we take the word "sent" in its most immediate sense (Jn. 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; in contrast, Jn.10:36, "sent into the world", reads very differently.) The dubious level of safety could partly explain why the disciples do not join Jesus on this trip. However, it remains less than perfectly clear at the moment whether John 7-10 could belong in 31 or 32. The earlier date fits better with the overall structure of events and even with the development of Jesus' public discourse, but it requires Jesus to have special confidence that he would remain safe. However, this does fall several months into his period of withdrawals, and on the balance of all considerations the timing does seem to work. Cautiously, then, we should prefer 31 for these two months in Judea.

The last major question is whether John's imprisonment lasted the better part of one year, or two. The sabbath grain plucking incident occurs well in the middle of John's imprisonment in all three Synoptic Gospels. The fact that grain was ripe points to another missing Passover. Therefore, the first Passover mentioned in John's Gospel belongs in 29 AD, and the sabbath grain plucking must have occurred in 30. (Incidentally, the "harvest" Jesus mentioned in Samaria must have been the fall harvest. His reference to "white fields" was merely a mixed metaphor - not so uncommon for him, really!)

We now see a total of five Passovers - 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 AD. Jesus' ministry in-between those Passovers was four years long. John was in prison for most of the first two years, and Sejanus died in the third autumn. This completely aligns most of the historical landscape for Gospel events. The rest falls into place very quickly.

One other incidental issue, first, is to consider that the death of the Empress Livia in 29 (most likely late winter in early 29) could have called Herod Antipas out of the country to pay his respects in Rome (and most likely also to firm up his relations, whatever they were, with Sejanus, because Livia's death was the start of the Prefect's big power play, and that fact was apparently obvious to everyone but Tiberius at the time). In any event, if Antipas did leave for Rome in 29 it would explain perfectly why Jesus gained fame all over Palestine without Herod noticing, and why the Pharisees went "to the Herodians" in Mark 3:6 instead of "to Herod". (That Antipas was in Rome has been suggested before, but considered implausible because there was no cause for the trip in 30 AD, in Hoehner's chronology.)

Our final task here is to work backwards from the first Passover. We need to account for at least 40 days after the Lord's baptism, plus some recovery time after such an ordeal, plus even more. There had to be some travel time - another trip to and from Transjordan and then to Cana and Capernaum - all before the Passover of 29 AD.

Regarding John's ministry, Luke tells us that "all the people were baptized" before Jesus came to be baptized. Of course we assume Luke means all the ones who-were-going-to-be-baptized, and obviously not every solitary soul in the land, but his phrase still suggests that everyone in Israel had a chance to hear about John that year, and to go to him. Because the 15th year of Tiberius can plausibly refer to all of 28 AD (by more than one method of reckoning, and we must admit we have no way to know which method Luke 'should' have preferred), it seems likely that John preached and baptized through all three festival seasons of that year.

Altogether, this means Jesus most likely came to be baptized around the turn of October in 28 AD. His wilderness trial filled out the rest of 28, leaving three months for recovery, recruiting, moving his family to Capernaum, and final personal preparation before his first public Passover, at which he essentially declared himself the Messiah by cleansing the Temple.

That concludes the entire skeleton of what I contend must be the one, most likely, most plausible reconstruction of the Gospels' events, in chronological order and with full historical context.

================================

Event Synopsis/Timeline:

28 AD - In the fifteenth year of Tiberius' rule, John the Baptist begins his ministry in the wilderness. John baptizes all spring and summer, preparing the way for Jesus. In Autumn, Jesus comes to be baptized. He is 33 years old. (Luke says "about" 30.) Jesus spends the first half of winter alone, fasting and being temped in the wilderness.

29 AD - Jesus recovers from his testing at home in Nazareth. John begins baptizing again in early Spring. Jesus’ disciples begin to follow him. Passover: Jesus visits Jerusalem and clears the temple. Herod Antipas divorces his Nabatean wife (the daughter of King Aretes). John the Baptist is imprisoned by Herod for criticizing the divorce. Herod (possibly) sails for Rome after hearing of Livia's death. Jesus and his disciples flee Judea after John's arrest. Briefly, they visit Samaria on their way back to Galilee. Peter and Jesus' disciples go back to normal life after their trip, as anyone would. Jesus calls the fishermen the first time and invites Peter to go to other towns, but Peter stays in Bethsaida. Jesus travels alone the rest of the year, and rests for some time during winter.

30 AD - Spring: Jesus calls the fishermen the second time and they begin follow him. Jesus calls Matthew. The disciples pick grain on a sabbath. Jesus officially selects his twelve apostles, some weeks before Passover. They travel all over Galilee together, living on fishing profits and free heads of grain. Jesus' fame spreads far and wide. Soon, a few wealthy women begin to travel with the group, providing for their needs financially. Jesus stays in Galilee all year - he does not go down to Judea. Before autumn, Jesus takes his disciples along on his second Nazareth homecoming. As the fall harvest approaches, Jesus sends his disciples out in pairs to many cities. Herod Antipas (possibly) sails back from Rome by October. Again, Jesus appears to be less active during the winter. He is probably resting.

31 AD - Herod Antipas has John the Baptist beheaded sometime before Passover. Shortly after, Herod realizes the reports he's been catching up on are about Jesus, not old news about John. Herd begins trying to see Jesus. Jesus' disciples, having traveled through the winter, find Jesus in some town (Tiberias or Capernaum?) just before Passover. Jesus feeds the 5,000. The people in Judea hail John as a martyr, and condemn Herod for his death. In Autumn, Jesus finally visits Jerusalem again, and stays through December. In October, Sejanus is finally killed, in Rome. This news is confirmed in all Palestine some weeks later. Antipas and Pilate begin ruling with additional caution. Jesus remains safe in Judea for two months, from mid-October to mid-December. He does not seem to rest much this particular winter.

32 AD - Jesus travels up towards Syria, near Tyre and Sidon. On their journey, Jesus begins preparing his disciples for his death. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is transfigured on a mountain with Moses and Elijah. Around Passover time, Peter obligates Jesus to paying the Temple-Tax. After Passover, Jesus leaves Galilee and begins a year-long tour around Judea. They visit at least 35 cities all over Judea. Jesus repeats teachings in Judea which he'd been giving in Galilee since two and three years ago. Jesus and his disciples find a second home in Bethany, with their friends Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Three things prevent the Jews from laying hands on Jesus all year long: He keeps avoiding Jerusalem, the people are still upset about John's martyrdom, and Herod Antipas refuses to allow extradition. Because of the current political climate, Antipas cannot risk causing more unrest in his kingdom/tetrarchy.

33 AD - Jesus has become so popular the Jews have no choice but to plot against him. At what is only the second Jerusalem Passover of his five Passovers in public activity, Jesus cleanses the Temple again. The Pharisees and Herodians try to trap him with a coin, but the Sadducees finally have to strong arm Pontius Pilate into using Rome's garrison to arrest Jesus. Jesus is tried, crucified, buried and ascends. Then he appears to the disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit... and THAT is only the beginning of the next chapter in Jesus' Story!

The Nazareth Synagogue - 10

Luke tells us the Nazarene Synagogue had at least one scroll with the latter portions of Isaiah, or possibly all of Isaiah. After that, we are technically speculating. But with that said...

The Gospels do tell us that Jesus could quote from all of the following: all five books of Moses, some History and Psalms of David, every major Prophet and about half of the minor ones. Jesus also made claims about "all the Law and the Prophets" which may or may not imply that he'd read the entire "Old Testament" and possibly then some. We must acknowledge that Jesus visited Jerusalem and that Pharisees who visited Nazareth could carry scrolls on their journey, but it is most likely that Jesus learned all these scriptures in Nazareth, at his local Synagogue.

There is no question that all Synagogues valued the scriptures and undoubtedly desired to have at least one copy of all their traditionally sacred writings. But did they? The question boils down to three things - time, money, and manpower. To illustrate:

Individual Jews and Christians in antiquity simply did not possess personal copies of "the Bible". Even if a very wealthy person paid a group of scribes to transcribe a collection of scrolls, full time access to any (probably far away) scriptorium was not commonly available. You needed connections. Even then, the financier would still have to cover the costs for countless man-hours, expensive specialty item materials (let's not even get into that, please), access fees for time spent with the master copies, and perhaps even security for the documents' protection.

Without instigating such operations, wealth alone was not typically sufficient for such a procurement because - functional literacy being as low as it was - sacred writings were certainly not being peddled at Jewish street markets across Palestine. These economics of publishing, especially publishing of the sacred word, remained fairly consistent until the 16th century AD.

In first century Palestine, it was simply unheard of for individuals to have personal copies of the scriptures. The fact that it took so much trouble means we should actually be fairly amazed to think a small town in Galilee could afford it. But Synagogue costs were corporately defrayed, and their connections ran straight through Jerusalem. Also, the Nazarene scroll collection probably took several decades to grow, possibly subsidized by wealthy Jerusalemites who stayed involved in bringing along the "new" converts, since about 104 BC.

The Nazareth community may or may not date back that far, but it's probable because their location was good (hidden from three sides on semi-high ground with at least one natural spring, and close to good farmland and other resources). However many decades the Synagogue had been building their scroll collection before 4 BC, that expense should have been a priority, over a building. So whatever the odds that the word "Synagogue" in the gospels refers to a free standing purpose built structure, instead of merely whatever place the community held their gatherings (see post #3), such are the odds that their scroll collection was most likely complete, or at least sufficient enough by the standards of their peers to proceed.

If they had a building, they probably had a large scroll collection. If they had no building yet, they'd still had decades to build up that collection. Either way, the Gospels account of what Jesus could cite is not at all an unreasonable estimate of what Nazareth actually held in their 'library'. But we should definitely NOT imagine Jesus had his own copy of the same scriptures.

We may now return from the question of resources, to the question of how much time Jesus might have been able to spend accessing them.

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

The Nazareth Synagogue - 9

Jesus was the son of a carpenter before he became a carpenter. It was his custom to attend Synagogue services on the Sabbath, beginning from childhood. But did he have time to attend some ancient version of "Hebrew School" during the week? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't want to make assumptions, but there are several things worth considering here.

Joseph was skilled but he was still a laborer. The term "lower middle class" is completely anachronistic, but something like that is probably close to the right idea. Their household undoubtedly had many needs with extended family around, but they doubtless could not afford servants. And we know kids from working class families are always less likely to have time for school, especially before modern times. (And in this case, before 70 AD.)

What about rich kids? Some Nazarenes must have been landlords or landowners, or at least local property managers. Wealth being relative, Nazareth no doubt had some Jews who were richer than others. We may also note that Jesus spent a lot of time talking about wealth and the wealthy during his public ministry. The odds are therefore fairly high that he knew rich folks during his three decades in Nazareth. (To be fair, Jesus probably visited Sepphoris from time to time, which had more money, and was probably home to some villages' absentee property owners.)

If Nazareth had some rich folks then they probably had some education. The more wealthy Synagogue members in town, the more likely it is that their Synagogue hired (full or part time) a children's tutor for the betterment of their whole community. In later antiquity, children's training was typically held in the mornings, and sometimes perhaps for adults in the evenings. In Jesus' day, we can only guess whether Nazareth had such a tutor on staff, but a local Rabbi could also have volunteered time when he was able. These are both definite possibilities.

Now, even though we may find it likely that the Synagogue probably did offer some teaching sessions, we still don't know whether Jesus was able to attend any of them. However, we should expect that a carpenter's son was unlikely to make all of them. Some of us may want to suppose Joseph made special provisions so that he could, but it may be more likely that Jesus attended when work days were slow. However, again, we are not trying to speculate. These are simply the potential options. At the moment, we are only trying to narrow things down.

Beyond regular 'school', it is very likely that visiting Pharisees would give lessons when they were in town. If there were no children learning, there would be no future disciples to train up as future Rabbis (who visiting Pharisees naturally hoped would side with the Pharisee party). It is true that the Sanhedrin did not expect Prophets to come out of Galilee - or probably anyone else of educational consequence - but the Pharisees were far more bound to the common folk than the dominant Sadducee Party of Annas & Caiaphas. Besides, any good recruiter hits even the coldest spots once in a while, and Jerusalemites had been developing Galilean Judaism for a hundred years when little Jesus was first brought to Nazareth. All things considered, some traveling Law teachers must have come through at some times. However often it happened, these were more opportunities for Him to hear scripture read out loud at the Synagogue, and (less often) to see and to hold it.

In all this, we should emphasize that we still have no precise idea about what went on mid-week at the Nazareth Synagogue. We cannot reasonably estimate how many regular or special opportunities Jesus had in his upbringing and later life to enhance the educational input he was receiving on Sabbath days. However, we should think there were some. The high probability of some such opportunities is something we definitely should keep in mind, even though we have no reason, as of yet, to say whether the Lord actually took advantage of any of them.

In the end, his only Synagogue lessons may have come on Saturdays. Soon, therefore, we must ask the question - could Sabbaths alone have given Jesus enough input to account for whatever he meant when he said, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me?" Naturally, in keeping with the rest of this series, we will attempt to answer this question with direct evidence from the Gospels, and not with interpretative theo-logic.

But before we finish our considerations about educational opportunity, we need to focus for one brief post on educational resources. To the best of our knowledge, what scrolls were actually kept in the Nazareth Synagogue? And were there other copies of scripture, around town?

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

The Nazareth Synagogue - 6

In all four Gospels, Jesus expressed some ironic attitudes to education. He frequently teased the Pharisees. Haven't you read the scriptures? He flat out embarrassed them. Go and learn what this means. The Lord quoted scripture from all five books of Moses, every major Prophet and most of the minor ones. He cited both History and Psalms of David. He'd obviously learned how to read and could handle a scroll, but he was considered uneducated. He also recruited uneducated men.

The Nazarene Jews weren't surprised to see him locate and read from a passage in Isaiah, but when he came back a year later, teaching, they were astounded. This guy's a carpenter. Where'd he get this wisdom? In one of his trips to Jerusalem, according to John, the local Jews asked a similar question. How does this man know so much without having been taught? So Jesus answered. My teaching is not mine but His who sent me.

There's a lot to consider about that response. Let's take God Himself, first of all. Does divine revelation fully explain Jesus' lack of formal education? Conceivably, it could - and it may, at least partly - but that still wouldn't be the whole story. The scriptures do not tell us precisely when Jesus began hearing the voice of his Father internally, but we do know that same Father sent his Son to grow up in a Jewish Synagogue community. Therefore, we should probably look for some balance on this question, to say the least.

Next, even though we may accept, as historical, John's testimony about spiritual phenomena [which is very consistent with his method of inserting factual details into dialogue] we have an additional problem. What does Jesus' response here actually mean? My teaching is not mine but His who sent me. In addition to divine revelation (which I certainly do affirm is the strong implication when considering the rest of John's testimony) the statement could also mean Jesus is simply giving God credit for everything he'd learned in his life, including every scripture he'd heard being read in the Synagogue, since his childhood.

The shema, for instance, was no doubt repeated at least once a week in every prayer house and Hebrew gathering from Egypt to Galilee. It was probably the first and most frequent scripture Jesus ever heard from a very young age, and it famously became "the Greatest Commandment" of His adult ministry. Those are facts. On top of them, it would be thoroughly consistent with everything we know about Jesus for him to credit the shema as God's teaching, instead of his own. Therefore, Jesus' response in Jerusalem plays on two levels. My teaching is not mine but His who sent me. Well of course it was. His teaching summed up the entire Law and the Prophets.

In his whole life in Egypt and Nazareth, Jesus was listening to (weekly, at least), reading (less often) and handling (perhaps much less often) the scriptures. Somehow, Jesus was gaining a much greater depth of understanding through that experience than any other Nazarene Jew at the time, including the leaders. And for this learning experience, among others, Jesus gave all the credit and glory to God.

Thus, Jesus was learning from God in the Nazareth Synagogue even before he was learning from God by divine revelation. Thus, we are finally starting to put together some concrete details about his experience in the Synagogue during the so-called "hidden years". But there is still much more to consider.

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

How Jewish was Galilee?

The Galileans began converting to Judaism under the Hasmoneans before or by 103 BC - possibly at the point of a sword, definitely at the point of a knife. One hundred years later, Herod the Great died and Joseph & Mary brought Jesus from Egypt to Nazareth. How Jewish were the Galileans, one century after conversion? I'm not going to try answering that one today, but I just thought of an interesting comparison.

Black slaves in America were freed by Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. One hundred years later, Martin Luther King stood at the Lincoln Memorial and said "I have a dream..." How much had changed in that century? In some ways, very much. In other ways, not so much.

Forty-six years after MLK, the USA has a black president. Thirty-three years after Herod died, Capernaum was proud of a new Synagogue building, that was probably less than twenty years old, that was largely financed by a gentile. Things change more quickly in the 21st century, but things have always changed more quickly in some places than others.

It's still an interesting comparison. How free were African-Americans in 1963? Totally free. How Jewish were Jewish-Galileans in 0033? Totally Jewish. And yet not the same kind of free, not the same kind of Jewish, as others.

Change has as much to do with location, economics and political connectedness as it does with time and it sure seems like the Judean Jews had a somewhat aggressive program of integration for their Galilean recruits over the course of that century. That's a huge, shameful difference that adds greater contrast to this comparison. People assimilate much faster when they're actually wanted and when their connectedness is actively nurtured. But then again, the Galileans never had to integrate geographically with the Judeans.

Just some things to think about...

The Nazareth Synagogue - 1

Around late summer of 29 AD, near the start of his public ministry in Galilee, Jesus went home to Nazareth. Only Luke records this particular visit, which is clearly a different event from the (far less dramatic) occasion recorded by Matthew & Mark. According to Luke, the Jews at the Nazareth Synagogue had recently heard about Jesus' time in Capernaum, including some miracles he'd performed, and that Jesus had begun teaching in Synagogues.

So Jesus comes into the Nazareth Synagogue one Saturday, as had been his custom, and then he stood up to read. Public reading is not necessarily described as having been his custom but he does seem familiar enough with the scroll to handle it easily. Impressively, he unrolls it to locate a particular passage [about 91% of the way through, if Nazareth owned a complete copy of Isaiah in one scroll]. Then he reads it. Significantly, it does not appear that any of this was surprising to the Nazarenes, based on what happens next.

Luke says the Nazarenes were amazed at his words, specifically, that his words had such grace. This obviously suggests that Jesus had never spoken in the Nazareth Synagogue before now. [I mean, that he'd never been the featured speaker.] Again, they'd heard he'd been speaking in Synagogues, but apparently they'd not had the experience.

However, whereas those other engagements are characterized as instructive, this episode lacks any similar aspect, at least, as rendered. Instead of teaching the Nazarenes, Jesus seems to be merely talking. Luke draws quite a contrast between this episode and the age 12 Passover trip. Whereas the Jerusalemites were impressed with Jesus' sagacity and ability to dialogue with them, the Nazarenes react to very different, more personal aspects of Jesus' presentation.

Regardless of whether Jesus was 'teaching' the Nazarenes per se, the key point is that they were amazed with the grace (charis) of his words. This itself should be surprising, because Luke has just said Jesus grew in favor (charis) with the people of Nazareth for about thirty years. If the Nazarenes knew Jesus to be a person of graciousness, why would they be surprised to hear gracious words coming out of his mouth? That probably tells us as much about the regular speakers at the Nazarene Synagogue as it does about Jesus. [It may also tell us something about 1st century Rabbinic teaching in general, but that's beside the point at the moment.]

The oddness of that grace was probably one aspect making it difficult for the Nazarenes to accept his words. Of course, the major cause of their resistance has got to be his personal claim to stand there fulfilling Isaiah, which naturally leads to the "Joseph's kid!?" and "hometown prophet" exchange. But you, dear readers, already know I'm reviewing this topic in order to ask a simple, but fairly challenging question:

What does this tell us about Jesus life in Nazareth, during the "silent years"?

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

NT Historical Math

The purpose of chronology is not so we can put the right number in the right check box and be proud of ourselves. The purpose of chronology is to provide the proper perspective for looking at events in the order they most likely happened.

The numbers matter for two reasons. We have to get the story straight. And we need to feel confident that the story is straight. We aren't trying to get the context of a verse here or there. We're setting our sights on the whole panorama. Bethlehem. Nazareth. Galilee. Jerusalem. Antioch. Galatia. Greece. Asia. Crete. Italy.

The new testament is a story that needs to be put into sequence. It's sentences do not need to be numbered. It's events do.

Dealing with Nazareth - 2

Before moving ahead, I need to acknowledge three assumptions inherent in the question posed last time. First, we assumed the historicity of the Jordan event. Second, the voice of God is assumed to belong to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Jews. Third, we assume God's pleasure depended at least partly on things Jesus did. It is this third assumption that requires a bit of discussion, I think, because technically, this is a theological point.

It is one thing to accept God's existence and verbal proclamation as historical events, but once we cross the line into evaluating why God is pleased, we have entered the realm of theo-logic. No mater how scriptural, and no matter how true to real, christian, spiritual experience, any meaningful statement about what pleases God is, technically, an interpretative conclusion based on the scripture (and spirit). Obviously, this causes problems for academic historical inquiry.

For example: Christians can rightly say God was pleased with Jesus of Nazareth for many reasons. We take it as factual that the Father enjoyed seeing his eternally begotten Son reflecting His divine image as a Man on the Earth. We also believe God approved of the way Jesus lived his life in Galilee. So it is good christian theology to say God was pleased with Jesus both because of his eternal position in God and also because of things Jesus had done. We christians can even call these things spiritual facts and believe that they are, but theology can go much farther, which is a problem when our interest is history. At some point, we include too many extra assumptions, or we make different assumptions than others would make. At some point, early on, we start reconstructing events based on ideas, rather than facts. This obvious problem is why cautious scholars generally keep history and theology far apart from one another.

On the other hand, historians make assumptions all the time. What's important is not to assume anything unless absolutely necessary, and even then to do so at a bare minimum. Therefore, while I'm certainly not suggesting theology needs to become a bigger part of historiography in general, I am saying that since the analysis of historical evidence sometimes proceeds on the condition of filling in one or two blanks, simple assumptions about God should not necessarily be excluded from such consideration any more so than other unknowable properties - such as, for example, whether Caligula was completely insane and how he became that way.

Therefore, a few metaphysical assumptions may become necessary as we attempt to analyze what Jesus most likely did that was pleasing to God. However, as these points present themselves, our goal will be to keep "theo-logic" to an absolute minimum. We will not include ideas that we happen to prefer, or from any particular traditions. Instead, we will analyze the historical question at hand and consider only that which it demands.

With that said, here is what we have so far: God was pleased with Jesus at least partly because of things Jesus did. Christian belief certainly agrees with this statement and agnostics who accepted our first two assumptions (for the sake of argument) can tack this one on along with those. Or not. Either way, we continue to proceed with as little philosophical judgment as possible, and no more than necessary to consider the question at hand: What did Jesus actually do that was pleasing to God?

As I say, this will not be a purely non-theological inquiry, but let's see how close we can keep to that ideal. In the end, I think some folks may wind up pleasantly surprised. (I sure hope so, anyway!)

To be continued...

Reconstructing Nazareth

Here's an exploration I did a month ago. How much of this is 'theological assumption' and how much can be called 'spiritual events attested by scripture'? I'm still trying to decide, so if you care to judge, please do let me know:

The Father sent the Son into the world. Jesus lived in Nazareth. He grew in wisdom and stature and favor with God and with man. In him was life. And that life was the light of the world.

The law had come through Moses, but He came to fulfil the whole law. In the course of his life, Jesus of Nazareth filled up all righteousness. For over three decades, the Father loved the Son, right there in the hills of Galilee. As he grew up, the Son loved the Father right back. And when grown, this Nazarene man loved his God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. Jesus also loved his neighbors as himself, and he cared for the least of them as if he was loving His Father.

He was born to save what had been lost - that a Man might live life to the fullest. As he grew, Jesus learned to hear his Father's voice and follow Him like a sheep does its shepherd. His righteousness far outclassed that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The son of Man obeyed his heavenly Father because he cared about Him more than anything else in the world. The Nazarene denied his own self daily, and went where his Father wanted him to go. This was his life. He was THE life, like a resurrection, like God's "second Adam". The son of man restored God's hope of glory in what Man could be like, full of Life, on the Earth.

The Nazarene, Jesus, spent decades in a small hill town, living life to its fullest. The Son was beloved by his Father, and the Father was pleased with his Son. This life was not just spent preparing. This life was a joy to the Father, a big part of the reason he came.

Okay, so what do you think? Is this a theological reconstruction? Or are these spiritual-historical events, testified to by scripture?

A New Take on John 21 (1)

I'm going to be blunt. I've never thought much of the typical interpretation about the "love conversation" in John 21. Jesus and Peter weren’t still hung up on Good Friday and it wasn’t all about restoring their personal relationship with each other. Also, Jesus wasn’t Aristotle, so it’s not about categorizing “agape love” as being better than “phileo love”. The tender aspects of Jesus talking with Peter are still all there – we’ve just messed up the understanding of what one of the words meant.

Before I give the new view, here are four problems I have with the old view:

First, the typical view is anachronistic by roughly two weeks! Cleopas left Emmaus on Easter day and told the other disciples that Jesus had already appeared to Peter. Such an implied one-on-one meeting - although not recorded in scripture - must have included the emotional reconciliation between Peter and Jesus, which probably also explains why the details of their personal time were kept private. Whatever it was like, Cleopas’ report shows that the fish fry in Galilee was two weeks too late to be Peter's personal reconciliation with Jesus over the rooster incident.

Second, the typical view ignores the context of the conversation. Jesus says, "Do you love me?" Seriously, married people all know what this means. "Will you do me a favor?" The favor, of course, is the point. Feed my sheep. Stretch out your arms and sacrifice yourself for my flock. Go back to Jerusalem and stay there so I can build my church. The context is corporate, so how can the interplay be merely individual? Jesus is after something else in the conversation, and Peter would have picked up on that.

Third, I never liked the idea that certain greek words were more “Christian” than others. I also don’t think "phileo" and "agape" were so frozen in meanings that one was always *better* than the other. I admit linguistics isn’t my forte, but the typical view of John 21 makes translating scripture seem like using a cereal box decoder ring. It’s not so simplistic. Something else has got to be going on, here.

Finally, I never bought into the idea that Peter knowingly offered some blatantly inferior response. Didn’t he just jump out of the boat with excitement? And if Peter was being mealy-mouthed, wouldn’t it make perfect sense that Jesus should challenge such a weak response? So why was he surprised at the challenge? For that matter, why wasn’t he already grieved at his own lukewarm response? Where’s the big shift? Either way, something doesn’t add up.

So what actually IS going on in John 21?

(To be continued…)

Series Update:

A New Take on John 21
preface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 summary

Did Jesus Speak Greek in John 21?

I'm planning to start a blog series (any day now) in which I challenge the traditional view of Jesus & Peter's "agape/phileo" conversation. Before I do that, I want to say this.

It seems fair to analyze the text of John 21 as if Jesus and Peter spoke in greek, whether or not the two men were actually speaking in greek on that day. Personally, I'd be happy enough to assume the agape/phileo wordplay is simply a faithful retelling of whatever Jesus & Peter actually said in some other language. However, since the words are significant here, we have to wonder. Are there any grounds for supposing that Peter & Jesus would have been talking to each other in Greek, on this particular occasion? I think, perhaps there are.

It's possible that the timing and location give us a clue here. Most likely sitting by the shore near Tiberias, the most hellenistic city of Galilee, Jesus was nearing the point where he was about to stop hinting about outreach to the gentiles, and about to start getting explicit. For four years of ministry, Jesus never pushed his disciples too quickly towards accepting what Peter wound up needing another 20 years to publicly affirm. On the other hand, there were subtle hints along the way. The gentiles had been on Jesus' mind for some time, and the dwindling time left - there were only two or three weeks before His command to preach and baptize in all nations - suggests Jesus may have been looking for a few extra teachable moments, before the big send off.

One thing we can say for sure is that it was Jesus who initiated the "love" sequence of the conversation. Now, since it's natural for foreign-language teachers to spontaneously ask questions of their students in the target language, and if we infer that Jesus [while not an instructor of greek] was hoping to nudge Peter into feeling more comfort with the greek world in general, it makes perfect sense to imagine this is where the greek began: a simple [and clearly elementary level] conversational exercise between master and disciple, set up at the perfect moment and chosen for more than one purpose. There are layers of brilliance in how appropriate this would have been - depending on our view of how Jesus set up the conversation.

Yes, that's a teaser for the upcoming series. What I have to say about agape/phileo is new, and I think it's significant. The case, when made, may provide even more reason to suspect Jesus & Peter did speak greek to each other, that day on the beach. That case, however, does not depend on any assumption that they did.

Obviously, I lean hard towards believing the agape/phileo conversation was actually held in greek - all nine sentences of it! (It's actually simple enough to be easily and fairly verbaitm as well.) I just want to be extra clear about separating these issues. Language, accuracy and interpretation are three different investigations to be held; if complimentary conclusions arise, that does not mean they stand or fall together. The picture I painted here offers a plausible scenario for putting the tri-fold exchange of John 21 in greek terms, historically. It's not at all conclusive, but it's definitely something to consider.

More on John 21 soon...

Locating the Events of John's 21st Chapter

This is more warm-up for my upcoming series. Location matters in a story, as in history, and I believe John 21 is both. However, this post won’t belong in the middle of the series I’m preparing. So let’s get it out of the way. Here goes:

What is the location of the conversation between Jesus and Peter in John 21? Most likely, it seems, this dramatic event took place on a beach near the city of Tiberias.

In John 6:1, apparently having just come from Jerusalem, Jesus sails across the Sea of Galilee. This is the first of three references to Herod Antipas’ city of Tiberias on the southern point of the Lake. It is also natural that Jesus heading north would sail across from Tiberias to Bethsaida, which is where the synoptics place the next event, feeding 5,000. Further, Cheney’s blended chronology of all four gospels shows Jesus laying low during the winter (as he almost always did in winter) between Tabernacles in autumn of 30 AD (Jn.5) and the execution of John the Baptist by early spring of 31 AD (the only other event recorded before the sailing to Bethsaida – that news also coming when his disciples found him after their winter spent going out in pairs, after which Jesus left the place he had been).

Assuming all details are historical, the natural blending together of data suggests Jesus just as likely laid low in Tiberias during that winter and then sailed from there in the spring. And if Jesus wintered [incognito] at Tiberias, then the text of John 6:1 chose no random moment to rename the Sea “of Tiberias”. In fact, 22 verses later, John says boats from Tiberias traced Jesus to Bethsaida, and then further traced his steps from there west to Capernaum. With the double reference to the city in this chapter, it seems more likely the boats followed Jesus from Tiberias, than to be sailing from a random location. In conclusion, John does not ever specifically say Jesus was IN Tiberias, but it seems strongly suggested by all the circumstances just related.

Of course, none of this touches John 21 directly. However, it may set a precedent for a similar inference of the third and final reference to Tiberias in scripture, which comes at John 21:1. Once again, there are also sequential story elements favoring Tiberias as the location, mainly stemming from the fact that Peter left Jerusalem over a week after Resurrection Sunday, eager to go fishing. With no notable sense of direction as yet for his own future, Peter would likely not prefer to go all the way home. More significantly, the distance to Tiberias was closest, near the southernmost point of the Lake. Finally, the likelihood of Peter finding a boat and fishing gear to rent would be best if he went near the city, as opposed to some random point down the southern coastline.

All of this strongly suggests the events of John 21 took place near the shores of Tiberias.

The Judean War of 4 BC and Two Small Boys, Whose Names You Know

The summer of 4 BC saw revolt all over Judea. The Herodian family had sailed for Italy by May, at which point a Legion of Rome put down one rebellion but sparked two more by their mere presence. The recent memory of 3,000 trampled at Passover was replaced by thousands more killed in the streets during Pentecost, by Roman swords. The Legion burned down the Temple Complex and left hundreds of corpses there in the Courtyards. Retreating to its fortified camp, just outside Jerusalem, the Legion was besieged by a partly spontaneous army of up to 10,000, which declared itself to be fighting for Israel's independence.

Essentially, chaos now ruled Judea. Mob rule set in to the south and the east. The Sanhedrin was temporarily powerless. So the Roman Proconsul Quinctillius Varus brought down two more Legions from Syria, obliterated Emmaus, routed Israel's army and reclaimed Jerusalem. Then the Governor sent out his cohorts to scour Judea's villages for rebel instigators. Before it was all done, Varus crucified 2,000 instigators and sent dozens more in chains to Augustus. The Pax Romana reasserted itself in Judea with some weeks left before the autumn festivals.

Varus did his work so well, Judea would not revolt again for 69 more years. But for that summer, thousands of men all over Judea were joining the rebellion - either swept along in the fury of the moment, being coerced to by their neighbors. Thirty-seven years under King Herod the Great stored up a lot of hostility that erupted for one summer, killing many thousands of Judean men.

So what of the Judeans whom we know by name, from the Gospels?

Somewhere in the hill country of Judea at that time was a very small boy named John. We don't know for sure how long his parents lived, but Zechariah & Elizabeth probably had several years left in them when their only son was born - the one God charged them to take care of. If we assume they lived until John was at least ten to thirteen, because God wanted them to, then what I'm about to say is still an interesting footnote. In a way, it's even a special grace.

One of the factors keeping John's family safe during that horribly dangerous summer was simply that his father was elderly. No one was likely to drag an old man into the fighting, a priest, whose only son was so small. I like to think this is one way God used to make sure John could grow up with a dad.

It's a nice little touch, in my opinion. With a war coming soon, John was born to an elderly priest. Say "praise the lord" if you want to.

Now, this next part is fairly certain, historically.

We also know three special, displaced Judeans, who came home this same year. Since Joseph, Mary & Jesus left Egypt the night King Herod died - according to Matthew, whose testimony I simply accept - then the Lord's family would not quite have reached Bethlehem when the news went out about the Passover massacre, caused by Herod-Archelaus. Joseph's natural fear of the younger Herod began that day, but God's instructions came that night. Move to Galilee.

If Joseph & Mary kept a steady pace, resting at least on the Sabbaths, then they reached Nazareth about the same time Rome's Legion was making camp outside Jerusalem's walls - some weeks between Passover and Pentecost. In other words, the Lord's family landed safely in Galilee just before Judea erupted.

We know all of this because King Herod died about three weeks or so before Passover. The timing is virtually certain... not to mention absolutely perfect. Since Herod the Great died a week or so after Purim, Joseph, Mary & little Jesus just missed the massacre and the revolt.

How about that? Yeah. Say praise the Lord on that one.

That's Bible/History.

Word. :-)

Condensed Gospel Chronology

The crucifixion of Jesus was either 30 or 33 AD. The 15th year of Tiberius was either 29 or 28 AD. The public ministry of Jesus lasted either 3 or 4 years. Taken all together, these points eliminate 30 AD for the cross. Thefore, the crucifixion was in 33. Our interpretation [of Luke's interpretation] of the 15th year of Tiberius may now depend on the duration of the Lord's public ministry.

John’s Gospel lists three Passovers; the Synoptics include a fourth; Matthew & Luke strongly suggest a 5th Passover, between John’s 2nd & 3rd. Five Passovers contain a 4 year chronology of Jesus' public ministry, which dates Herod Antipas' beheading of John (and Jesus' subsequent withdrawals from Galilee) more fittingly prior to the fall of Sejanus (ie, John died in early 31 AD, not 32). This circumstancial evidence explains much which the alternative view leaves in doubt, providing further weight for accepting the 5th Passover, and thus, the four year chronology.

The four year chronology begins with Jesus' baptism in 28 AD, which allows us to date the Lord's birth as early as 7 BC, keeping strictly to Luke 3:23. Indeed, 28 AD falls 34.5 chronological years after the spring of 7 BC, which fits two other plausible theories on dating the nativity - 12 years prior to Archelaus' exile and two years after Herod's punishment in 9 BC. (In this view, the census must have been organized during Herod's year of disfavor in 8 BC and completed by 7 BC.)

Two incidental points remain. First, astronomical data for the initial "star" of the Magi fits as well in 7 BC as for any other year. And finally, arguments from John 2:20 are unfortunately irrelevant because the amount of time spent on the pre-construction phase of Herods Temple project is completely unknown.

Therefore, it seems most likely Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, baptized in 28 AD, and born in 7 BC.

********************

That's my effort, today, to be succinct. It's not airtight "proof" but it's internally consistent and might be the most comprehensive view yet presented of all the data. After three years of working on this chronology of the gospels, I can't find any problems with it. Can you?

The Baptist & Sejanus - 6

Series History: Posts 1, 2 & 3 were late last year. Post #'s 4 and 5 were earlier this month.

If the three-year chronology of Jesus’ ministry were correct, we would probably have to suppose (as did Harold Hoehner, rather astutely) that Herod Antipas was essentially trying to chase Jesus out of Galilee after John's death - and all the more urgently because Sejanus was already dead. I admit, that's a plausible argument, assuming a three-year chronology. But after much examination, I do see a couple of problems with this scenario.

Forgetting chronology for a moment, the key point is Judea. When John got arrested by Antipas, Jesus prudently fled into Galilee. That only makes sense if the Judeans were planning to arrest Jesus and extradite him to Antipas. (And Jesus somehow heard, knew, sensed or guessed it - take your pick!) At the start of his ministry, Jesus had Jerusalem enemies, but it was their hearing of Herod's involvement with John that ran Jesus out of Judea.

Now, fast-forward to Sejanus’ death. All of a sudden, the Judeans can’t extradite Jesus to Antipas anymore. With Sejanus dead, the cagey tetrarch doesn’t want anything to do with condemning a popular messianic figure - not if he could avoid it. December 31 was no different than April 33. In those dangerous times, Antipas could not be too careful.

Yet the three-year chronology shows Herod acting dramatically – one might argue recklessly – by killing John and hunting for Jesus after Sejanus was dead. Still, that’s not the key point. Much more problematic is that the three-year chronology shows Jesus ignoring Judea for over nine months after Sejanus was dead! That is, the three-year chronology shows Jesus trying to stay away from Herod for seven months while also keeping far away from Judea. If Sejanus was dead, that just doesn’t line up.

Though we definitely should believe Jesus went where his Father led - which may only have happened to include the Decapolis, Syro-Phoenicia, and the northwestern limits of Philip's lands, during this time - the periodic withdrawals after John’s death still give the impression that Jesus was heading for safety in places Antipas could not get to him. If Sejanus was dead, then Judea would have already been such a safe zone. But Jesus doesn't go down until Tabernacles that September, suggesting Sejanus was not dead yet.

The Gospel of John shows Jesus gets some support from the crowd because of John's recent martyrdom. The threats of certain Jerusalem authorities shows Jesus needed that support. It is during this same trip to Judea that Jesus stays nearby (probably laying low, most likely in Bethany) for most of two months, until Chanukah. In the four year-chronology, this is early December, of 31 AD, about which time everyone learned that Sejanus was dead. That was the game changer.

I'll pause for reaction, if any. Is this sounding at all clear so far?

The Baptist and Sejanus - 5

Series History: Posts 1, 2 & 3 were 2 to 4 months ago. Post # 4 was last week.

Judea & Galilee learned about Sejanus' death by December of 31 AD. What was Jesus doing at that point? And what do the Gospels tell us about Antipas' activities at that time?

The three-year chronology of Jesus' ministry says Jesus was laying low. His disciples were out spreading good news. John the Baptist was rotting in prison. Three months later, John was dead and Jesus began moving frequently in and out of Galilee because Antipas was trying to find him, too. Nine months after that December, Jesus was back in Judea for a seven month tour, leading up to the Cross. If the three-year chronology is correct, this sequence must be historical.

In contrast, the four-year chronology says Jesus was at Chanukah in Judea in early December of 31 AD. His disciples were home in Galilee for their last normal winter. John the Baptist had been dead almost a year. Jesus himself would scarcely see Galilee again, and Herod Antipas will not appear again (in the Gospels) until Good Friday. In this chronology, Jesus leaves Galilee forever about five months after Sejanus' death (just after squeezing in his only visit north of Galilee) and thus begins an eleven month tour of Judea, leading up to the Cross.

The question I've been wrangling with for some time now is this - can we observe anything in either of these competing sequences that stands out clearly as seeming consistent or inconsistent with the effect Sejanus' death evidently had on Herod Antipas? I'm getting closer to firm on my own answer, I think.

But first, I'd love to know - if anyone's game - what's your quick impression, based on the above?

Location, Location, Location (and Time?)

I love, love, LOVE this quote from Matthew Montonini's interview with Gary Burge about his new book, The New Testament in Antiquity, I just found from last month. (I'm hoping Michael Halcomb makes good on his threat to blog through the book, also.) The quote:

...everyone living in Jesus' world knew the difference between someplace like Galilee and Judea. The Decapolis east of Galilee was Greek; lands west of Galilee were Jewish. To live in Sepphoris meant one thing; to live in Caesarea meant another. To understand Jesus' world, we must also understand the many geographical assumptions he and his followers lived with day after day. And when we do, new insights emerge.

Yes! Understanding geography is just like selling real estate or opening a deli - the most important rule is location, location, location! But what about time? Burge also said, in the embedded video interview:

...each of [the book's] sidebars illustrates some fascinating aspect of life in the ancient world or perhaps in rabbinic Judaism and this once again reminds the student that they are travelling to a new country when they begin to read the New Testament."

Notice how the word "ancient" is transferred out of a temporal and into a geographic-slash-cultural frame of reference: "travelling to a new country". The emphasis shifts immediately from the historical term "ancient" to the cultural-geographic "world". Maybe I shouldn't fuss about marketing and we'll see what the book's really like. But I've seen other examples where writers use the word "background" for a sense and flavor of history, when they're really just talking about culture.

Where's the real history? What about events and their sequence? That "ancient" world was not static in time. Things changed almost constantly! Wars and rumors of wars actually came and went within particular time windows. When Emperors, Governors, Prefects, Procurators, Kings, High Priests and Ethnarchs die or get replaced, the whole political environment shifts. Sometimes that matters a lot.

Caesarea was a day from Sepphoris by horse or carriage. If 35 miles really matters so much, and it absolutely does, just imagine what a difference a year can make. To piggyback on Burge himself, I'd say that to understand the events in Jesus' world, we must also line up the chronological sequence he and his followers lived out, year by year. And when we do, new insights emerge. Indeed, believe you me, they do.

Will the "Antiquity" of the New Testament come out in The New Testament in Antiquity? Probably in general. But I'll be shocked (and yet thrilled) if it even attempts to outline, flesh out and string together several decades worth of sequentially temporal details. We shall see...

The Baptist and Sejanus - 4

Note: This is an intermittent series that began last year - see Part 1 (November 3rd), Part 2 (December 6th) and Part 3 (December 29). A synopsis of the whole idea is also here.

In the year that John the Baptist died - which was 31, not 32 AD - Jesus spent several months darting in and out of Galilee, because Herod was looking for him. That period of "withdrawals" ran thru September, followed by two months in Judea. It was the first time Jesus had ventured back to Judea since John's arrest. Fittingly, one thing keeping Him safe at that time seems to have been the people's strong opinion of John as a martyr. (John 11:39-42)

Skip forward to Good Friday, April 3rd, 33 AD. John's death isn't so fresh anymore, but Pilate and Antipas still play "jurisdiction hot potato" over having to decide the Lord's fate. At this point, their political caution is due to a different death - that of Rome's prefect Sejanus, who died in October 31, being allied (to some degree, at least) with Pilate and Antipas. Note that some of Sejanus' allies were still being persecuted as late as 35 AD. (Suetonius, Vitellius 2.3)

One good question is - how far back does Herod Antipas' political caution go? In history, probably to December 31 AD, when news likely reached Israel of Sejanus' fall. In scripture, we don't see it until Good Friday. Or do we?

To be continued...

Antipas' "Birthday" after Purim

The Gospels strongly suggest Herod Antipas’ birthday party fell one to three weeks before the third Passover of Jesus’ ministry. In Cheney’s chronology this was 31 AD, which may mean Antipas was born sometime in early March. That much alone is worth considering, for what it’s worth. But that’s not the interesting part of this post. This is:

At that party, Antipas quoted the Old Testament! When Salome pleased him with her dancing, the tetrarch of Galilee offered her anything she wanted “up to half my kingdom”. As I was recently reminded, these were the words of Xerxes to Esther. Was the old, Hellenized, Arabian/Idumean/Samaritan tetrarch really quoting Hebrew Scripture? How likely is that?

Hoehner thinks it must have become a proverbial saying by then, but Hoehner also discounts the timeline at this point with an uncharacteristically a-historical view of the passages in question. I think the timeline of Mark 6 (and parallels) is clear at this point. (See note at bottom.) More importantly, preserving the obvious timeline here gives us a much better, perfectly reasonable explanation for Herod’s sudden expertise at Old Testament citation.

Nothing we know about Herod Antipas suggests the old Fox was much given to quoting scripture. But a party two weeks before Passover was a party held two weeks after Purim! Surely Herod had also taken the excuse to throw a similar party on the second night of Purim, which was the Feast of Esther, and surely that night’s entertainment would have included a professional oration on the dramatic tale of Esther in Persia. Furthermore, not only is the quotation at issue the climax of that story, but the exact wording gets repeated three times.

Not only does that quotation make a memorable part of the story, but Antipas and all his guests would have been extremely familiar with the story, having heard it once a year for all their lives. As a parallel example, modern secular people who may or may not care much for Christ still know the Christmas story. And while that story may not come to their minds a whole lot in April or June, they find their memories refreshed throughout the month of December. Many people, especially upper class folks, pay respectful attention to official holiday traditions, and it's common for Christmas references to linger on up to a week or two later. (In many places, Baby Jesus gets put inside “King Cakes” until at least February.) In this same kind of way, I believe Herod Antipas was unlikely to be thinking of Xerxes and Esther at any time other than the weeks before and after the Purim holiday.

So then, one to three weeks after Purim, Antipas throws another party. He probably threw it in the same palace, with many of the same guests, with some of the preparations being the same and some different. Attending two parties like this, upper class guests would no doubt have in mind the previous one, looking forward to a repeat of certain delights while anticipating some changes as well. In this case, it seems, that feeling must have extended to the entertainment.

At Herod’s birthday feast, Salome probably danced during a certain part of the evening, at which his guests would expect entertainment. The most natural time for this would have been the same part of the evening the Purim storyteller filled with his speech just a week or two before. In that case, not only would the words of Xerxes be fresh in everyone’s mind, the timing of Herod’s quoting them would have paralleled the recent party. This gives Herod even more reasons to reference the memorable quotation. Given this extra context, it seems the tetrarch was simply playing to the crowd and reminding them pleasantly of his last party. Quoting scripture had nothing to do with it, and the timing of the seasonal citation would have perfectly underscored the sense that his exact wording wasn't meant at all literally.

For a complementary twist, it has been suggested that Herod’s party wasn’t about his birthday at all. The Greek word in Mark & Matthew can refer to the birth of his rule over Galilee. The earliest Antipas could possibly claim to have begun that rule was on the death day of his father, Herod the Great. By the Hebrew calendar, that day (in 4 BC) fell not less than five days after Purim and not less than 16 days before Passover. (That last figure is by my own calculation of Ptolemy’s ride to Antioch and back. See this post.) In other words, Herod died about one or two weeks after Purim. Obviously, that fits perfectly into our range.

So – whether to celebrate his birthday or the birth of his rule – it seems extremely certain that Herod Antipas held this party a week or two after Purim. The following two or three weeks gives just enough time for the events of Mark 6:27-44, Luke 9:7-17, Matthew 14:10-21 and John 6:1-14.


-------------------------------


A few final notes, for the record: The timeline of these passages is not compared to the sequence of text, but the sequence of events. Herod sends the executioner to Machaerus. John’s disciples receive a headless corpse, bury it, walk up to Galilee, find Jesus and tell him the news. Then Jesus withdraws, finds his disciples, relocates to a grassy slope outside Bethsaida, and the crowds find him there. That unbroken chain of action must take place in-between the party and a time which was still not yet Passover. By all reasonable estimates, those logistics require one to three weeks. Obviously, that fits perfectly into our range.

This is another example of what I mean by text centered versus event centered. Biblical Scholars have discussed the textual parallels at length. We ought to discuss things like WHY Herod Antipas was thinking about Xerxes & Esther at that event, or even – and here’s a thought for another day – whether Herodias was inspired by Esther’s story to come up with her plan in the time in-between these two parties!

Generally, Classical Historians seem more balanced at this – they critique the text, but they keep in mind the overall goal is to reconstruct actual events. Indeed, why Christian and Biblical scholars have been so purely text driven may be a historical question of a whole other sort. But I’m way over my word quota for this post… ;)