Dealing with Nazareth - 8

With twenty-one posts so far in our faith-based historical investigation into Jesus' so-called "silent years", according to the Gospels... here's a rough sketch of what we can now put together:

Jesus’ life in Nazareth was pleasing to God. From a very early age, Jesus was aware that he had a special relationship to God as His Father, and Jesus cared a great deal about things that had to do with his Father. God's favor was on Jesus, and Jesus’ favor with God continued to grow.

Jesus attended Sabbath meetings faithfully and grew in favor with the Synagogue community but received no more than a typical public education for his day and age. He was not known in particular for being outstanding in studies but for being the son of a carpenter. As such, the members of his Synagogue never foresaw him becoming a teacher of Mosaic Law. Despite this, Jesus managed to memorize a great deal of scripture by hearing it read aloud and spending long hours remembering passages and reflecting on their deeper meanings.

By age 12, his ability to consider God-centered interpretation of the Law was world class and this wisdom continued increasing for years afterwards. Uniquely, Jesus was learning things at the Nazareth Synagogue that the Father was providing only to him. Perhaps most amazing of all, Jesus never left any memorable impressions on the Jews of Nazareth by speaking words of wisdom or favor about their common faith. Apparently, just as Mary treasured these things in her heart, her son also kept his insightful reflections about God as a secret devotion, just between himself and his Father.

Despite this unique and private devotional life, Jesus was far from a recluse. As an active part of the community, the young Lord was well known in his town. His obedience to his parents was only one reason his favor grew among the Nazarenes. He was gracious and social with his Nazarene neighbors, to the point that Mary and Joseph became accustomed to finding him in the company of friends and relatives. In general, the townspeople of Nazareth held good opinions of Jesus, even though they never thought he was anyone great in worldly terms or according to nomal Jewish conventions.

In his teens and twenties, Jesus continued to participate in the regular activities of his Synagogue community, but his predominant role in the town remained only that of a carpenter's son - and later, a carpenter in his own right. Jesus never married or became a parent, but he spent at least part of his teen years assisting Mary & Joseph with the household’s much younger children. Later, much of his twenties were spent taking over Joseph’s trade and becoming the man of the house.

Evidently, caring a lot about God, studying the scriptures and wanting to be involved in his Father's doings led Jesus into helping his parents, supporting his family and simply being part of his local community for about thirty years - from 4 BC until 28 AD.

**********

Seriously, now, why are these years called the “hidden years’? This is hardly a lack of information about Jesus' life in Nazareth. We have chronology, community life, family life and a strong measure of personal devotion to God (albeit not a well defined one, at this point in our study). All we are missing is specific personal characteristics and habitual behaviors. But if we can develop a careful, precise methodology for mirror reading the Gospels, then we might round out an actual biography here, albeit a brief one. Not too shabby, all things considered.

Granted, we have no major events (other than Archelaus’ exile in 6 AD allowing Joseph the peace of mind to bring Jesus to Passover in 7) but sometimes life is just like that. We cannot speculate or invent things that might have happened. Therefore, from this basic framework of his not so hidden early life, we now ask the central question that opened this series (on Aug.1st) once again. What personal deeds did Jesus actually do, before his baptism, that were pleasing to God?

I’ll begin working to answer that question, from the Gospels, with my very next post.

To be continued…

The Nazareth Synagogue - 12

For the sake of argument, let's assume Jesus ("Is this not the carpenter?") only had access to scripture on Saturdays, which happens to be all that we can say for certain. How can that account for the wisdom he displayed in Jerusalem at age 12? And how would that fit into the rest of what we know about his development?

First, do the math. By my calculation, Jesus passed over 500 Sabbaths from the day he saw Nazareth until his Passover visit at age twelve (in March of 7 AD, some months after Archelaus was exiled). Ten years of Sabbaths is enough time for a very small child to grow into a very impressive twelve year old, IF that child paid very close attention because of a deeply held passion for any and every thing that was of God. (Hold that thought briefly.)

What we see in the Lord's age twelve episode is an impressive degree of focus - we might even say fixation - on the "business" of God. As that business seemed to include listening and asking Rabbinical questions about God's Laws, we should expect that twelve year old was very much interested in the ways of the Synagogue. In fact, it becomes plainer and plainer that the only shockingly inconsistent fact here is that he kept all that insight to himself when he went back to Nazareth. (Hold that thought too, for a bit longer.)

The age twelve episode also reveals some awareness of a unique personal Sonship to God as his Father. It doesn't matter how we define this. A young Jewish boy considered God his personal Father in some unique way. That should be enough to convince us that this kid was passionately wrapped up in this whole God thing. His entire self-definition, sense of purpose, direction and identity, was completely summed up by one simple reference to his Father. (It was never about the "business". It was always about the Father.)

It is that focus, that healthy obsession - *(and it was healthy, because it was balanced, because he was able to obey his parents and leave Jerusalem immediately - which we should see as one more gracious provision of God for his Son, during his development)* - that genuine and utter worship of his Father that possessed and inspired Jesus to pay close attention each Sabbath day in the Nazareth Synagogue, focusing on each reading of Law and Prophets acutely in terms of what it had to do with the Father, above anything else. Furthermore, Jesus must have maintained this practice in earnest for many years before he became proficient in communing spiritually, mystically, with the One he already adored.

In that process of worshiping God, Jesus also learned scripture. But how did he learn the scriptures so well, just from Saturday meetings? At the risk of repeating a key point once too often - Jesus must have been paying attention.

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

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

Dealing with Nazareth - 7

This is the obligatory post on chronology, to establish some boundaries before we proceed. Support for the dates given here can be found on this blog via the index and search window.

Mary must have been 13 or more when betrothed, so she was closer to 14 when Jesus was born, which was 7 BC (most likely in April/May). Joseph was almost certainly a few years older, at least. They moved to Bethlehem, had the baby, fled to Egypt, and were back home in Nazareth for April of 4 BC, some weeks after King Herod's death.

Joseph was afraid to bring Jesus into Judea until Archelaus' exile, mid-6 AD. Jesus was still 12 years old at the Passover of 7 AD. By then, Mary was at least 26 and Joseph was closer to 30.

By the time Mary was 35, she'd had at least some (perhaps most if not all) of her other kids [six or more, besides Jesus - do the math and the biology]. Jesus would have been 21. With Joseph closer to 40, he was going to lean on Jesus more and more in the upcoming years. Given the average life expectancy for a common laborer, 40 was relatively old. (Also note: with the odds that Joseph was more than just a few years older than Mary, we are making the safer estimate, here.)

Altogether, those numbers give us two very solid historical facts. (1) The Lord got to be a big brother during his teen years and (2) he spent his 20's becoming the man of the house, a greater and greater source of the family's income. These are significant, fairly specific details of Jesus' life that should be included in any reconstruction based on the Gospels. It is worth pointing out that we are neither imaginging things nor judging by any special interpretations in order to say so much. Thus far, we have gone strictly by the numbers.

Jesus was 34 when John [and God] baptized him, in 28 AD. He'd been in Nazareth for 31 years and had been intently focused on finding and doing his Father's "business" since age 12. Evidently, that resulted in Jesus choosing to work for a living and take care of his family for another two decades. So Jesus worked with Joseph, did chores for Mary, and to some degree helped raise each of the children (James, Joseph, Simon, Jude and at least two little sisters). All in all, Jesus was living life. One might even say, abundantly.

This is a beautiful picture, of course, in so many ways. This is also the basic chronological framework for the life of Jesus in Nazareth. Furthermore, it sets our historical sights on a particular set of years about which we are going to attempt even more reconstruction.

To be continued...

Sabbatical Year Taxes in Roman Judea

Julius Caesar exempted Judea from tribute in sabbatical years but it's unclear whether or not Herod the Great continued under this policy. After Herod's death, his son Archelaus seemed to ignore the sabbatical altogether and we can only imagine what revenue he might have collected from any Jewish landowners who remained observant in 2 BC and AD 6.

When Rome took direct control they introduced a poll tax (tributum capitis) but did they continue the land tax (tributum soli)? Mary Smallwood presumes they did and also presumes Caesar's exemption was abolished at this point, but for all we know it was abolished earlier. Peter Richardson cites Josephus as strong evidence that Herod the Great was less than completely respectful of the tradition in 30 and 23 BC. So I ask, since the King evidently collected some tax in those years, wouldn't he also have shared with the Emperor?

We can only guess what the King did in 16 and 9 BC, but even if Caesar's policy was still good after Herod's death, the subjects of Archelaus didn't need the extra ammunition to get him removed. Since this is still a push, I question only the double presumption by Smallwood. If the land tax continued after 6 AD, how could the exemption be removed only then without any mention of complaint or compensation? The zealous rhetoric of Judas was far more anti-Rome than anti-tax. The 'galilean' also didn't need the extra ammunition.

To speculate for just a moment, it is possible the poll tax could have been a clever compromise if the land tax and exemption were abolished together. Quirinius' property assessment would then merely have told him the proper amount to assess 'per capita'. If it could be proven in fact, this would give the debate referenced in Mark 12 an additional depth - with one side arguing the poll tax was acceptable because non-agriculturally based, and the other side viewing all seven years of poll tax unlawfull as a deliberate runaround on the whole sabbatical tradition.

This conjecture would fit perfectly if we had some reason to think Judea bucked precedent and gained exemption from the land tax altogether. It could fit the pattern of privleges issued by Rome, but without specific evidence it remains merely one of two presumptions. However, if we take the other one, Smallwood's, we should probably conclude sabbatical related outrage died down slowly through the reigns of Herod and Archelaus. And thus in turn, Smallwood's second presumption, that Caesar's exemption was still in place up to 6 AD, seems likely to be true only in an official sense. Practically speaking, it must have been virtually forgotten, made moot by decades of neglect.

Personally, the more I think about the poll tax as a compromise, the more I wonder why the trap question in Mark 12 is supposed to matter without sabbatical implications. (Even if they were merely fishing for zealot sentiments, were the Pharisees really so concerned about the image on the coin? Isn't that what they had the money changers for?) However, I don't normally find creative inference very convincing without additional support and I could be missing something here. Therefore, I'll be just as happy (for now) to stand with the conventional view that Judea probably continued to pay land taxes after 6 AD, including sabbatical years.

In conclusion, I have to say neither view affects our assessment of daily life anyway, as far as I can tell. Only wealthy landowners were directly affected by the land tax, however long it lasted, and the question may depend on how many of those were also devout enough to remain strictly observant. Since we're going to presume that those who let their land lie fallow were still going to be taxed on it, it seems simple enough to further presume they simply stored up extra money during the first six years to use for a tax payment while they lived off their stored grain and produce. This should only seem unnatural to anyone who ever said religious devotion comes at no cost. (!)

Birth Years of NT Era Figures

If you put these into a spreadsheet with 79 columns, it's an instant reference for how old they each were in any given year. That's what I did. Anyway, these are major historical figures who were active or born from 9 BC to 70 AD. The printed chart is much cooler, but too big to post as an image. Enjoy, my fellow history geeks. :-)

NAME & BIRTH YEAR:
Herod, -73; Salome I, -65; Strabo, -64; Augustus, 9/28/-63; Livia, -58 or -57*; H.Antipater, -45; Varus, ~43 (?); Tiberius, 11/16/-42; Julia 1, -39; Drusus I, -38; Antonia, -36; H.Alexander, -36; H.Aristobulus, -35; Aretas, King From -9; H.Archelaus, -23; H.Philip I, -22; H.Antipas, -21; Gaius I, -20; H.Philip II, -20; Julia 2, -19; Lucius, -17; Germanicus, 5/24/-16 or -15*; Agrippina I, -14; Drusus II, -13; H.Agrippa, -13; Livilla I, -13; Posthumous, -12; Claudius, 8/1/-10; JOHN, 11/-8; JESUS, 5*/-7; Galba, 12/24/-3; Nero-Julius, 6?; Drusus-Julius, 7; Vespasian, 11/17/9; Gaius II (=Caligula), 8/31/12; Salome III, 14 (?); Agrippina II, 11/6/15; L. Vitellius, 15; Julia Drusilla, 16; Julia Livilla, 18; V.Mesalina, 19; Gemellus, 19; Pliny the Elder, 23; Agrippa II, 27; Berenice, 28; Otho, 4/25/32; Mariamme (d.Agrippa), 34; Nero, 12/15/37; Josephus, 37 or 38*; Drusilla (d.Agrippa), 38; Titus Ves., 12/30/41; Domitian, 10/24/51; Tacitus, 56; Pliny the Younger, 61

KEY:
*questionable dates
(?) estimated dates
Kings, Emperors, Tetrarchs
BOLD - according to me!

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?

on Jesus' 13th Birthday

Another Archive Teaser: I've made it a point on this blog to say every month or three that I believe Matthew 2:22 explains Luke 2:42. Here's how I said it on December 8, 2008.

Since Joseph's irrational and personal fear of Archelaus was unlikely to dissipate while the ethnarch still ruled in Judea, I believe we must conclude that Jesus was twelve years old in March of 7 AD. That spring was the first Passover Joseph could bring his young charge safely into Judea after Archelaus had left (summer 6 AD). This means Jesus would have turned 13 any time in the twelve months after March, 7 AD. That same math also puts Jesus' birth anywhere in the twelve months prior to April of 6 BC - so as early as May of 7 BC.

For today, I'd also like to point out how this affects competition between the three-year and four-year chronologies of Jesus' ministry.

The 3-yr view puts Jesus' baptism in late 29 AD. If Jesus is born in May of 7 BC, he turns 35 in May of 29 AD, too late by most opinions to be called "about 30" at his baptism. The 4-yr view puts Jesus' baptism a year earlier, making him 34 (if born in early 7 BC). Aware of this distinction, some who take the 3-yr push Jesus' birth back as far as 6 BC, but there is no plausible way to posit a census in that year, as 6 BC was a transition year for the Syrian Governors.

This is a sample of what I was talking about last week, regarding Sudoku. Tomorrow, I'll get back to the Baptist and Sejanus...

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (2)

Herod the Great sent two emissaries to Rome in 8 BC. Determining what month they each saw the Emperor tells us not only which year Herod killed his sons, it also tells us how long the King remained a “subject” of Augustus instead of a friend.

Peter Swan says the funeral of Drusus in 9 BC was held in November or December. After my recent review of those events, I take early November. Since Augustus learns about Herod during the funeral week (or thereabouts) he might send his letter to Herod by mid-November, and the King can read its bad news as early as January 1st (ish). But then, even if Herod sent Nicolas of Damascus to Rome immediately, the ambassador couldn’t possibly arrive (overland including Asia Minor in Jan/Feb) any sooner than April 1st. The problem is that Augustus most likely left for Germany that April, and possibly as early as March. Further calculations make any overlap of these itineraries extremely unlikely. (If you trust me, skip the small print!)

In his commentary on Dio Cassius’ Year Book for 8 BC, Swan points out that Augustus left early enough to win an acclimation from his Legions “in the first half of the year”. (An inscription puts it in 9/8 BC.) That acclimation probably didn’t happen just because Caesar showed up, but Dio’s chronology and geography of German campaigns is sketchy to say the least, so it’s practically impossible to calculate the progress of the campaign itself. Still, the travel alone took at least a month, so we’d have to figure Augustus left Rome before mid-May at the absolute latest – and almost certainly sooner.

But how much sooner? Of course March was the traditional time for the start of campaigning, and Caesar could have left as soon as the Alps were passable so the German Legions could begin their campaign in March with him present. Then again, Augustus was 54, this particular campaign wasn’t necessarily the most urgent one he ever planned, and the Emperor might have simply preferred to leave in April. We just can’t say for sure.

In all, there’s a chance Nicolas saw Augustus in April. On the other hand, it’s more likely he did not. The odds may be even that Caesar left before or after April 1st, but there are plenty of factors which might have made Nicolas arrive late. It would have been characteristic of Augustus to sit on the news for a short time before writing the letter, and perhaps especially this year considering the funeral. Given the extra assumption (which I make unapologetically) that the demotion of Herod included ordering a census of Israel, the Emperor is even more likely to have weighed that decision for some days or weeks. The later Herod gets Augustus’ letter, the later Nicolas can depart – assuming Nicolas goes over land at all.

Also, once Herod sends Nicolas, many things can happen to delay the advisor’s trip. The mountains and snows of Turkey, crossing the Bosporous and the Adriatic in winter, built up fatigue, and the possibility that Nicolas himself was advancing in age – all these are possible factors which could easily cause the ambassador to reach Rome after April 1st. And none of this is to mention the other possibility that Herod allowed Nicolas to wait until sailing season. In that case, the ambassador absolutely misses the Emperor.

As a quick aside, when Herod sent Olympus to Rome the King was concerned that Nicolas might not have had a chance to see Augustus yet. But Olympus was sailing. That could mean that Nicolas sailed slightly earlier – but it could also mean merely that Herod knew how long it could sometimes take to get an audience with the Emperor. Either case is a point in the favor of time, not expedience.

There is more. Besides arriving before Caesar’s departure, Nicolas had to gain an audience, almost certainly by first securing an appointment. And Josephus’ narrative strongly implies Nicolas had some down time in Rome before seeing the Emperor. The Nabateans who turned against Syllaeus heard Nicolas was in town, found him and gave him not only ammunition for winning his case, but also the very excuse Nicolas needed before Augustus would even admit him. This meeting probably happened between setting and keeping an appointment with Caesar, but there’s a slight chance it means no appointment was granted until the stated purpose became agreeable.

At any rate, there was some downtime, so the window of opportunity had to be more than a few days. Nicolas can’t just catch Augustus on the way out of town! And we haven’t even begun to consider whether the Emperor even took new appointments in the weeks before a departure. (Not that I can think how to even begin researching that particular question!) The more factors we consider, the smaller the springtime window begins to look. And remember, the odds are greater that the Legions would acclaim Augustus after some length of time had gone into the campaign, not in the very first weeks of one.

Therefore, it seems far more likely that Nicolas did not see Augustus until after summer in 8 BC. Either way, we know Olympus definitely did not, because no matter how early his boat left Caesarea, it couldn’t possibly have arrived in Rome before June (especially not with a stop at Cilicia to go visit King Archelaus of Cappadocia).

Those are the basic conclusions. The ramifications for dating related events will come next...

The Baptist & Sejanus (3) - Political Risk

There are lots of reasons I continue to stand by Cheney’s four year Chronology of the Gospels. One side benefit, as I’ve perceived it, is that it shows Herod Antipas executing John the Baptist in early 31 AD, while Sejanus was still alive. I’ve long felt this is a more likely scenario, but I’ve been trying to see the other point of view and I have to admit – on this issue, they have a case.

The three year chronology requires that Sejanus be dead for several months before Salome does her dancing. But even if Antipas feared a public backlash over John’s death, the politics of 32 AD might make him more likely to go through with it anyway (as opposed to less likely, as I’d thought). The distinction depends on whether Herod would have more to fear from an unhappy rabble or an unhappy upper class.

After all, it was the upper classes of Judea, complaining to Rome, that eventually upended Herod’s brother Archelaus; the ethnarch’s guilt for 3,000 dead pilgrims in 4 BC had been forgiven immediately [by Rome]. With Sejanus dead, Antipas’ biggest fear wasn’t the odds of creating a riot, it was the odds of giving his upper classes any reason to smell weakness. The way Rome had been prosecuting accusations of disloyalty, Antipas had a lot to lose if a group of wealthy opportunists [who somehow uncovered his connection with the fallen prefect] had any sudden reasons to prefer direct Roman rule.

At least, that might be the case if the three year chronology were true. For now, I’ll still hold to Cheney, in which case Antipas can kill John in early 31 with little fear of political impact whatsoever. But I’m going to have to drop the argument that 32 is unlikely because of political risk. If the question is about going through with a regrettable promise, the risky season after Sejanus’ death could possibly have given Antipas more incentive to stick with it, instead of less.

I’ll continue to look at other aspects of this seemingly neglected distinction: was Sejanus dead or alive when Antipas killed John the Baptist? Stay tuned…

Which Star of Bethlehem?

Do a blog search on Star of Bethlehem around this time of year and you’ll find lots of amateurs with lots of theories. Like this one. *Ahem* Jack Finegan cataloged no less than six distinct “star candidates”, at least one in every year from 7 to 2 BC. Naturally, each constellation, comet or convergence comes with a leading interpretation to explain why IT could be the one that drew foreign, gentile Astrologers to see baby Jesus some time after his birth. Since I believe God almighty isn’t heavily into astrology, I say He would have been equally pleased to use any of these “stars” as his means of nudging those Astrologers all the way to Jerusalem. After Jerusalem, of course, the star seemed to turn south and stop at one house (!) – a supernatural event that has no satisfactory explanation among *any* of the leading “star” candidates. So it does seem God was still directly involved. :)

Of course the astronomy matters, but the gaggle of interpretative possibilities is precisely what tells us it *could* have been any of them. How, then, should we choose? My money’s on the triple convergence in 7 BC, but I didn’t pick that one because I liked its interpretative scenario better than other ones. I settled on the triple convergence only after I was convinced that a lot of significant historical data strongly suggests a census and birth in 7 BC. Without building arguments in this post, here are the key points of that data:

1) Herod the Great died after an eclipse on a festival day, Purim, in 4 BC
2) Tertullian cited Saturninus as the census taker at Christ's birth
3) Saturninus was Governor of Syria from 9 to 6 BC
4) Herod got in major trouble with Augustus late in 9 BC
5) Event planning for the bizarre logistics of this unusual census must have required significant lead time with advance notification given for local scheduling
6) This special registration did not evaluate property (unlike in 6 AD)
7) Joseph’s fear of Archelaus in 4 BC was irrational, centered on protecting Jesus, and thus unlikely to abate while the Ethnarch was in Judea
8) Any birth date between April 7 BC and March 6 BC makes Jesus 12 at the first Passover after Archelaus was exiled, 7 AD, allowing Joseph to feel safe taking Jesus into Jerusalem

Note: From these points we may conclude that Caesar must have told Saturninus to count Herod’s people, but not to value their property. To preserve the integrity of scripture, we must then also conclude that Luke 2:1 refers to Augustus' provincial registration decree in 27 BC; and that Luke 2:2 should be translated, “this was the census before [the one in which] Quirinius was governor”; and finally that Luke 2:3 refers only to this unique and isolated event, as opposed to all Roman censuses since 27 BC. (See Hoehner and Finegan for more on the greek text of Luke 2:2.)

If the historical data was more in favor of another year I’d have no problem changing my pick on the "star”, but we have to start with history. Herod’s deathday is the movst vital issue, though I’ve made the case that Archelaus’ exile is actually the best starting point. From those two points, the most important task is to identify specific evidence for the contextual details of a Roman-Herodian census. Historically speaking, the question of how, when and why hundreds or thousands of Roman soldiers were mobilized in Herod’s territory is infinitely more significant than the question of what esoteric particulars inspired the mobilization of a few wealthy, knowledge obsessed individuals.

In short, if we get the history right, the proper “star” should present itself. So this year, my Christmas Wish is that well meaning amateurs (and certain scholars) would spend less time going on about astronomy & astrology, and work a bit harder to learn classical history & geography. On these issues, we definitely need all the help we can get!

Matthew 2:22 explains Luke 2:42

Since Joseph's irrational and personal fear of Archelaus was unlikely to dissipate while the ethnarch still ruled in Judea, I believe we must conclude that Jesus was twelve years old in March of 7 AD. That spring was the first Passover Joseph could bring his young charge safely into Judea after Archelaus had left (summer 6 AD). This means Jesus would have turned 13 any time in the twelve months after March, 7 AD. That same math also puts Jesus' birth anywhere in the twelve months prior to April of 6 BC - so as early as May of 7 BC.

Without a doubt, there are plausible explanations to account for the many chronological ramifications of this conclusion. (Especially in 7 BC.) But it should be strongly considered that analysis of Luke 2:42 in the light of Matthew 2:22 grants us a historical basis for positing the age of Jesus during one actual point in time, which is a far sight better than basing estimates of the Lord's birth on pure speculation, sketchy astronomical interpretations or (the ever popular) "sometime before 4 BC".

If scholars come to consider this a solid historical connection, then it should prove helpful as an improved starting point for New Testament Chronology. The alternative is to continue working from "about 30" and the "fifteenth year of Tiberius", data about which (unfortunately) there is far too much 'wiggle room'. Theories on the census and star of bethlehem will always require speculation, but the only resistance from what we know of Jesus' ministry years will be some unnecessarily staunch definitions of the word "about". Surely, all christian doctrines and views of scripture are flexible enough to swallow a 4 to 6 year difference in Luke 3:23. (Also, we'll never know when the "46 years" of John 2:20 began, because we don't know how many years of prep-work was needed before the Jews would allow Herod to begin actual construction! See Josephus' Antiquities' 15:388-390.)

For all these reasons, I hope scholars will begin giving extra attention to the historical view of Luke 2:42 in connection with Matthew 2:22. Besides, May of 7 BC begins a count of forty years (inclusively) up to just before Pentecost of 33 AD. Not that numerology has anything to do with history, but I hope it might inspire some to take a closer look. ;)

March 20, 4 BC

Here's a rewrite of another old piece from the files, which I felt like posting on tonight:

In my reconstruction of 4 BC, which I worked on from Nov.'06 to June'07, I gave the day of Herod's death as March 20. Even though I might have been the first one to suggest a specific date of death, I am/was fairly confident about it, give or take 1-2 days. But someday I'd like to work with a team of scholars to help strengthen the corroborating details of my reasoning. Until that day, here's a very simple record of what I considered at the time:

1) PTOLEMY:First of all, Ptolemy has to ride from Jericho to Antioch and back to Jerusalem before April 12th, when he leaves Jerusalem with Archelaus. The typical reading of Joesphus' lines about Varus coming to Caesarea overlooks the overlapping nature of Joesphus' constant flashbacks, flashforwards and asides which run heavily through his accounting of events in this busy, busy year. Such readings also ignore the logistic and chronological requirements of other events that must culminate by Pentecost on June 3rd, requirements which make it impossible for Varus to arrive so late in Caesarea.

2) EGYPT:Josephy & Mary have to "hear" about Archelaus ruling in Judea in such a way that causes them to be afraid. And the fear came before God "warned" Joseph in his dreams. So Joseph, Mary & Jesus cannot arrive in Judea before the slaughter on April 11. (Before that, there was no reason to fear Archelaus.) And according to Matthew, Joseph, Mary & Jesus have to leave Egypt the same night Herod dies.

Considering the travel requirements of each point leaves us with similar, overlapping ranges of dates or "windows of time" during which Herod's death could fall. But a final consideration simplifies the process of combining it all together.

Herod has to die early enough for Ptolemy's travel to end before April 11th, but Herod has to die late enough for Joseph's travel to end after April 11th.

When I figured all plausible travel times against this last consideration, only four dates seemed possible, and I felt like March 20th was the most likely, of the four.

If any scholars or graduate students want to research this further, my laptop holds dozens more pages of notes, calculations, worksheets and personal thoughts about these paramaters. I'd love to discuss the possibilities for further scholarship with someone who's interested. In fact, there is much more to say about Sabinus, Varus, Ptolemy & Caesarea alone. As far as I can tell, the year Four BC had never been reconstructed month-by-month and event-by-event before I did it. I stand by my efforts, but I'm sure they could use refinement. It's a complicated year. It deserves fuller scholarly treatment. And YOU, dear reader, may be or become the person who can do it. And I hope my work helps... so contact me, please! :)

Without help in this area, my online reconstruction may be as far as I can go... for now.

Check it out!

And yes, hopefully it will also be in print... someday. :)

Antipas and Sejanus

I've been going thru Tacitus & Dio backwards, looking for two things. One, I feel like I get a better view of developing trends with the benefit of hindsight. So the first 'thing' I'm looking for is just that - development in the situation. Ongoing 'plotlines' so to speak. The second thing I'm looking for is anything that could have affected Herod Antipas' level of confidence or apprehension about his own position. Here are my conclusions, so far:
----------------------------------------------

Generally, I'm finding there were lots of reasons for powerful people to fear Tiberius. Even knowing that Tacitus pumps up the negativity on such things, the overall train of events is fairly overwhelming. Under Augustus, most powerful people weren't stupid enough to cross him. But under Tiberius, the Emperor's entire attitude, actions and style gave every Roman person of status a serious reason to fear for their lives - though of course, at times, some had more cause to fear than did others.

Even an eastern 'client ruler' like Antipas had to take serious notice, especially when Tiberius took over Cappadocia and Commagene (17/18 AD) and continued raising Rome's influence over Armenia & Thrace (18/19 AD). Antipas knew the history of the region and could see the general trend was ongoing assimilation, usually leading to takeover. The general trend in Rome seemed to be that Tiberius could put men down for any excuse whatsoever, and the sources are in agreement that people of that day - with few exceptions - saw no consistent way to assess whose position would or would not remain secure. Away from Rome, apparently, it was the same.

This brings me to my first simple conclusion, purposely understated (for now). If everyone of status was cautious about Tiberius to some degree, then Herod Antipas was cautious about Tiberius to some degree. The only real room for debate here should be the question of whether we can tell, practically speaking, just how cautious Antipas was - or should have been. This issue will require some work, to say the least.

The next important question is this: was there a change in the 'caution level' displayed by Herod Antipas during the rise to power of Aelius Sejanus? This question, of course, is similar (perhaps related) to studies of Pontius Pilate in the past 60 years to the point - was there a change in Pilate's governing behavior over Israel after Sejanus' fall? (Scholars generally agree that there was, but differ as to the details of why.) Now, asking this same question of Antipas is similar in some ways, but free from the debate about accusations of antisemitism leveled at Pilate & Sejanus since 1948. (For more, see the wonderful Introduction to Helen Bond's work on Pilate.) Either way one judges Pilate on antisemitism, he does seem to be more cautious after Sejanus' fall. (This is based largely, but not totally, on his behavior during the trial of Jesus in 33 AD.)

So Pilate gets more cautious after October, 31 AD. In my personal opinion, so does Antipas.

Therefore, the next series of questions must review scrutiny about Antipas' alleged relationship with Sejanus. Harold Hoehner (who wrote Herod Antipas) credited the accusations by Agrippa, but Dieter Hennig (who wrote in German on Aelius Seianus) gave them extremely slight regard. Of course, Hennig gave the complex system of allegations extremely slight attention, as well. So I'm inclined to feel that much more study should be done. (I can't read German, but I can read his index and scan the page, which shows that Antipas gets barely one whole paragraph in Hennig's entire book! A friend translated that paragraph for me, and I'm hoping to get a professional rendering soon. But without knowing German, I'll have to forgo saying much more on Hennig. Any help here, from folks "out there" would be hugely appreciated.)

The issues surrounding Agrippa's accusations (against Antipas, regarding Sejanus, reported to Caligula, in 39 AD, for personal gain, all of which is told by Josephus) are indeed complicated. They may defy mastery, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The fact that Antipas couldn't deny one part of it suggests that it may not have been all false, at least. For now, my only strong suggestion on this important topic is that it absolutely deserves much more attention by serious scholars - hopefully those much more qualified than myself to make valid assessments on the matter. But I'll definitely continue trying to spark their interest with my personal ideas! ;)

Because I'm just blogging here (and because of the obvious difficulties just mentioned), I'm going to also forgo further discussion of Agrippa's accusations (for now) and just introduce my own big thought on the larger issue at hand. I'm not even going to try and make this next statement well-refined, either. This is my gut.

Herod Antipas had to have some kind of alliance or personal agreement with Sejanus at least by 27/28 AD, because otherwise he never would have made such a boneheaded move as to break his marriage alliance with Nabatea at the risk of creating an instability which could infuriate Tiberius - and all merely for a newer or a younger wife!

No way. Instead, Antipas had to believe he was safe from whatever vindictive entreaties King Aretas would surely have sent to Rome on behalf of his poor rejected daughter. Why else could Antipas possibly decide this was a good, wise or safe move unless he believed Sejanus would protect him from Tiberius and put off any complaints from Aretas?

That is my basic hypothesis. There are yet more considerations.

What were the specific benefits or political advantages for Antipas in his decision to marry Herodias? It wasn't just so John the Baptist could have something else to yell about! It wasn't only (though I personally believe it was partly) so that God Almighty could manipulate Herod into getting John off the stage. And most of all, it can't possibly have been pure lust. That's the most ignorant idea of all. Antipas surely would not have switched marriages simply for physical passion, unless she held some special power to excite an old tetrarch, just pushing 50 in those years (which is conceivable, but unlikely). Herod wasn't that stupid, and as even the worst chauvinist would probably say, nobody's that good in bed, to throw away your whole kingdom. So the lust argument doesn't add up. Rather, since Herod Antipas' first marriage had been for political advantage, we should expect his second marriage to include the same consideration. To say the least, marriage to Herodias must have held some greater promise for the aging Antipas than a merely physical entanglement.

Far more likely, the motivation to wed Herodias must have been motivated at least partly because of Herodias' strong family connection to Antonia [through her mother, Bereniece]. Of Roman women at the time, none were more well connected at the very highest levels, and it could be argued no man either, including Sejanus, had a more secure position than Antonia's, given that Antonia was Augustus' niece, Tiberius' sister-in-law and mother of the widely beloved, departed Germanicus. Her grandsons were still greatly favored by the people of Rome, and even if their mother Agrippina ('the elder') was in jeopardy, Antonia herself remained above reproach regarding her daughter-in-law's various personal offenses.

Now, it's a bit odd to think someone in 27/28 AD could ally themselves with both Sejanus AND Antonia, especially as many already suspected that Tiberius' prefect was plotting to kill the royal matron's grandsons [Caligula's older brothers, who lasted until 30 and 33]. But despite the unlikelihood that anyone in Rome could forge both alliances, Antipas was based overseas! And the method of arranging one alliance by marriage and the other by the promise of mutual benefit was a uniquely crafty strategy, especially if the alliance with Sejanus was kept a secret (as Agrippa's revelation suggests that it was).

There is plenty of evidence to suggest Antipas was just cagey enough to pull this off.

The rest of Herod Antipas' political record is spotlessly impressive, and his 42 year rule holds no consequential mistakes. (None, that is, other than alienating his brother-in-law/nephew Agrippa in 32 AD. In fact, asking Caligula for the title of "King" is not what brought Antipas down - it was the letter from Agrippa that just happened to show up when Antipas was there with the Emperor.) Antipas' fatal error only came by underestimating a mooching, down-on-his-luck nephew, who was probably fighting depression and seeming very unimpressive - and this error took seven years to bear its bad fruit. There are no other mistakes in Antipas' entire career that came at any significant cost. To the point, Herod Antipas was very good at what he did, ruling longer even than his Great father. He would never have divorced the Nabatean without some insurance.

There is much more to say to extend Antipas' great credit as a governor. The tetrarch's major decisions and actions known to us through history show us a man who knew how to play the game of maintaining stability AND staying on the Emperor's good side. Two strong examples of cultivated stability are Antipas' constructions at Sepphoris and Tiberias, which were built as cosmopolitan enlargements to appease, keep occupied and make proud his own landed gentry - not merely for Antipas' pride or imperial flattery. Antipas knew unhappy upper class citizens were the downfall of his brother Archelaus and that happy, busy ones produced a good, steady tax flow and earned positive favor from Rome. In terms of Imperial favor, Antipas' later efforts to earn Tiberius' praise (in 36 AD) were set to pay dividends at the minor cost of losing Vitellius' good will - and that cost was only delay, until Tiberius suddenly died. [The Syrian Governor was dallying at Jerusalem just before Pentecost - not Passover - when word came of Tiberius' death, releiving Vitellius of his duty to attack Nabatea for Antipas, as ordered by Tiberius.] In perfect fact, Antipas would still have gotten his way perfectly, if slowly, if Tiberius had only lived a bit longer. So the point remains. Antipas knew how to manipulate things well enough at the highest levels to help ensure his own position.

In fact, the very beginnings of Herod Antipas' career - in the year's worth of events surrounding his father's death (5/4 BC) - required subtle and deft manipulation of tenuous and constantly changing dynamics. That Antipas in time proved to be vastly more successful than his brother Archelaus is not only foreseeable by Herod the Great's initial decision (6/5 BC) to give Antipas all Israel, but the talents and strategies Anitpas would use to effect his 42 years of success were already on display in the interplay of events between Jericho and Caesar's final audience in October of 4 BC. The fact that Antipas played his cards not only well but masterfully, and to maximum possible effect, is clearly evident if one but looks carefully.

In all these ways, Antipas proved himself again and again to be a wise, capable ruler, totally in control during all stages of his career. Barring that final surprise by the constantly unsatisfied Agrippa (whose rise to status was of such complex circumstances as to be unforseable), Antipas literally never made a single wrong move, spanning five decades of considerable change, both in Rome and the east. That no other ruler west of Parthia save Tiberius himself accomplished even nearly such a feat is incredibly impressive.

To even consider that such a man made one huge mistake by thinking with his groin - this not only defies all reasonable expectations, it may also betray a lack of focus on the situation. True, many writers assume Antipas and Sejanus were allied, but serious scholarly justification has yet to be produced, since Hoehner. And given Hennig's near dismissal of the relationship, further treatment seems to be very necessary. As far as I can tell, it has not been done. But if any reader has access to articles or other works I've somehow overlooked, please let me know.

It should also be noted that the argument attempted here, which advances beyond the conclusions of Hoehner's essential volume, is based primarily on the assumption that Antipas' first marriage was in fact an alliance with Nabatea, but this should be undeniable. How often does the ruler of a country marry the neighboring king's daughter and NOT forge a treaty from such an alliance, unless the action sparks a war instead?

My whole contention, then, is that there is no other reasonable way to explain Antipas' divorce of his longtime Arabian bride UNLESS the tetrarch has assurances from Sejanus that King Aretas would have no success in prosecuting the divorce and breach of treaty in Rome. Whether or not Aretas DID make such attempts [which of course, we have no record of] or MIGHT have made such attempts is not actually within the question. The only pertinent fact is that Aretas COULD have made such attempts, and so Antipas would have known to be prepared for that eventuality - especially during the political turmoil of those years, when Tiberius absolutely COULD have been expected to use any complaint as a pretext for claiming all of Galilee. We've already seen that the times were extremely dangerous for Roman nobles and foreign client rulers, equally. Without a deal before his divorce, Herod Antipas would have risked everything against the very large probability that Tiberius - sooner or later - WOULD take it from him.

Simply put, Herod Antipas was not such a man to take such a risk. Therefore, he must have felt there was no risk. Naturally, the only reliable barrier to any complaints from Aretas would have been Sejanus.

That is why Antipas simply must have made a deal with Sejanus.

The question of what Sejanus expected to get out of that deal is another issue for further study, but it may have something to do with (1) the military situation in the East [Tiberius was already keeping Lamia from the Syrian Legions and would not have allowed Sejanus anywhere near the Egyptian ones], (2) the proximity of Galilee to Rome's breadbasket (Egypt) and (3) the enormous cache of armor and weaponry Agrippa cited. So this armor - which Antipas did not deny the existence of, which Agrippa had the greatest opportunity to observe during his 'mooching' years from 29 to 32 AD, and which no one of Antipas' meager resources could have assembled (secretly) in any short period of time - may be precisely what Sejanus expected to receive from Antipas.

Of course, this final question must rest until a fuller treatment may be given. In fact, it may not be possible to conclude what, if anything, Sejanus would have expected from Antipas. It's even possible Sejanus would make such an alliance merely for unspecified favors to be named at some future time. But the armor creation as one step toward a military contingency plan is not entirely implausible, showing at least one reason why that the whole alliance is far from implausible from Sejanus' perspective.

Again, we may never know entirely all the reasons WHY Sejanus or Antipas made their alliance, but for all the reasons discussed here above, they simply must have done so.
----------------------------------------------

Now, hopefully, someone more qualified than Bill Heroman will eventually level their scholarly efforts towards examining these claims and considerations with more academic rigor. But this is my contribution.

In the meantime, I will of course continue striving to improve my own efforts...

Quirinius and my U-Haul

Today, U-Haul made me think of the censuses in Israel. Here's how:

We're moving Friday. Our truck is going to pull out of here in about 50 hours. And we haven't fully packed yet. Bankers boxes are everywhere, but they still need lids. Little stacks of books and clothes and plates still need packing. At a glance, it seems like we've got as much left to do as we've already done. But we're old pros at this.

My wife and I have been through six moves in ten years. We also helped others pack & load (or unload & unpack) a dozen or two dozen times, when we lived in community. It's amazing how much SPEED experience can bring. More than anything, it just helps so much when you know what you're doing!

We don't label boxes. If it's books, you can tell. If it's plates, you can tell. If it's anything else it's going to sit in the living room for a few hours anyway! It takes about two seconds to lift a box lid and declare which room the box goes to. Ten years ago we taped and wrote five times on every box. I'm looking at a box right now that says "paper reams" and it's full of kids DVD's. Through experience, we've found that it just doesn't matter.

We still haven't packed anything we might want, need or use in the next 24 hours. We know we can pack and load what's left in about 24 hours. We're both off tomorrow. So we'll hit it all day on thursday and finish Friday morning. That's comfortable pacing.

Everything in life is like that. You find out what matters and what doesn't.

And now I have a point to make about Bible/History!

In 6 AD, the Roman Proconsul Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was an experienced Governor. He'd already Governed the Province of Galatia and practically co-Governed Syria with Augustus' grandson Gaius. He'd also managed exactly one war in each province! Quirinius was impressive enough to win the lifelong respect and loyalty of Tiberius Caesar (a man with very few friends). Quirinius earned enough clout that he may have once received special matchmaking assistance from Augustus' wife Livia.

In short, Quirinius knew what he was doing. He knew, in life, how to get things done.

So in 6 AD, when Augustus decided to exile Herod's son Archelaus and annex Judea as a Province, he knew he needed to upgrade the old census rolls. Israel had never had a registration of property before. (In fact, the wealthiest Jews were going to get very upset about that new detail, this time.) The Emperor knew he needed a man who could do the job well, so he picked Quirinius. But this detail is important: Augustus knew the census was part of the job before he chose Quirinius for the job. It was already early summer. The whole property registration of Judea, Samaria and Idumea had to be finished before spring tax tax season.

Augustus chose Quirinius for just such a task. That alone says quite a bit.

Now, compare that man (and his task) to another, less famous, less impressive man who had a much greater task (Israel's first census) to perform.

Back in the Autumn of 9 BC, a less experienced Proconsul, Gaius Sentius Saturninus, was already governing Syria when Augustus - rashly - decided to punish Herod the Great for invading Nabatea. Augustus had ordered censuses in the provinces since 27 BC and this was the only justifiable cause for him to register a client-kingdom. So it must have been about the turn of 9/8 BC when Saturninus got a message to prepare a census of Herod's kingdom. (Since it took a whole year to plan and set-up, the census itself began in 7 BC.)

We'll never know WHY Saturninus decided to make Israel's men go back to their families' hometowns. (Aside from divine intervention, to get Joseph & Mary to Bethlehem... what a dumbheaded move!) However, we can at least be absolutely sure that decision created an enormous logistical nightmare! Thus, he needed extra time for extra planning and carefully coreographed preparation.

Granted, Saturninus was not the most impressive Proconsul who ever governed. He spent a quiet year or two managing Carthage, North Africa. Then 4-5 years later, Saturninus went to Syria, also very quiet at the time. He'd been consul ten years before that second appointment, to Syria. But Saturninus never took on any military duties until Tiberius went to Germany in 4 AD (22 years into his career). And it may not matter (or it may) to add that Saturninus had once been related to Augustus by marriage - although his relative Scribonia's marriage ended 20 years before Saturninus first became Consul, the union may have been what started him slowly up the path to advancement (cursus honorum). The timing would fit especially well if the advancement was slow.

Saturninus was a patrician by birth, eligible for consul at age 33, but apparently a bit soft from fine breeding. He was solid, but not very dynamic. In his mid to late 50's, he finally commanded Legions in West Germany, under Tiberius. To be fair, he ended his career by winning an Ornamental Triumph. But then again, that reward was for leading an attack (on Bohemia) that got called off when revolt broke out (in Illyricum). Saturninus' celebration may have been one way for Augustus to save face on the loss of Bohemia... if not even (perhaps) a way to nudge Saturninus into a respectable retirement (at precisely the time when the allies of Scribonia's bloodline were causing significant political trouble for the Emperor).

Let's say it again: Saturninus was not the most impressive Proconsul who ever governed.

By contrast, Quirinius was consul 17 years before governing Syria, his third joint military-administrative appointment. Quirinius was deliberately chosen to perform a relatively difficult task in a fairly short period of time. As a "new man" (novus homo) without noble family connections, Quirinius had to earn every single office he held. Eligible for consul not before age 38, Quirinius had previously fought one war already - evidently as a mere Propraetor, no less - in Cyrene (Northeast Africa) at about the same time Saturninus was governing from Carthage. Then as Proconsul, Quirinius was sent to make war in Galatia, sent to make war in Syria/Armenia, and sent to the census of Judea to keep war from breaking out - which Quirinius successfully did. (Josephus says in his Antiquities - of Judas the Galilean's "revolt" - only that the plot to revolt made great progress, not that the revolt made progress. In the Antiquities, Josephus never says the revolt actually got underway.)

Quirinius was sent to fight four wars! The guy could flat out get things done.

So P. S. Quirinius was a great man who knew how to do things. That's one big reason his census went faster than the first census of Israel. And by that same token, one of the reasons Israel's first census took much longer, under Saturninus, is because the noble, younger, less experienced, less capable governor had no idea what he was doing.

Quirinius was over 55 years old with 20 years of practical military and logistical experience at the 6 AD census. But Saturninus was as young as 43 when he got his orders for the first census. And Saturninus at that time had NO military or logistical training or experience to speak of.

Sometimes, capable efficient performance isn't even a matter of knowing how to do a particular task. Sometimes, it's just a matter of knowing how to do things, period.

To complete the picture, however, and to be fair, two final factors have to be pointed out. They are not at all insignificant. Firstly, the censuses of 7 BC and 6 AD had vastly different parameters in geographic scope. Secondly, there were also great differences in the nature and substance of each registration.

Quirinius' registration took place in Judea, roughly half the size of Herod's old kingdom. So Saturninus' task covered twice as much geography! And Quirinius was only taking a census of land (which didn't move around at all) and other more liquid assets of the wealthy (who were easy to find in their nice large town homes and ranches). But quite to the opposite extreme in both respects, Saturninus was taking a census of people, who had to be scheduled and 'herded', a time consuming task. Saturninus also had to verify their identities, prevent/detect attempts at fraud, and account that each man had been counted once but only once. (Wphew!)

So from 9/8 to 7 BC, a lesser man, by far, took on a greater task, by far. Saturninus needed almost two years to complete his census. But in 6 AD, a far greater man accomplished a far simpler task (not accounting for the military concerns, which came to nothing). So Quirinius was done in six months.

But it wasn't only the fact that Quirinius took on an easier job, that made it go faster.

In every basic, logistically practical way, Quirinius knew what he was doing.

-----------------------------------------
So much for that. Time to go call the power and cable companies! :)

Jesus was born in 7 BC

Let me see how succinct I can be:

Matthew says Joseph was afraid to take Jesus into Judea because of Archelaus. Luke says Joseph left Jesus in Galilee every year at Passover time, until he was 12. I say these two things have got to be related! Archelaus left Judea forever in the middle of 6 AD. Therefore, Joseph took Jesus to Passover in March, 7 AD. Jesus might have turned 13 the day they got back from that trip, but he was "12" while they stayed at the festival.

This is a new place to start all chronological work on the Lord's life... If true, then Jesus was born somewhere between April of 7 BC and April of 6 BC. The year 7 BC is also when Saturninus governed Syria (and held a census, according to Tertullian). The year 7 BC also fits Kepler's theory on the star of Bethlehem. AND, if 7 BC is Jesus' first calendar year on the planet as a human being, then 33 AD was his 40th! Finally, if Jesus was born in May of 7 BC, then it's possible the ascension took place very near his 39th birthday, which of course would be the very first day of his 40th year. (Not to put too much weight on numerology, of course!) ;)

I get emotional thinking that God needed to "prove" his Son's humanity for 40 years, but the Father brought him home at the start of that 40th year. Enough was enough. One day of that year counted as much as the whole year. ("Part of an omer is all of an omer.")

In May of 33 AD, after 39 years and at least one more day, the Father simply couldn't stand to be that apart from his son any longer.

Now, that's deeply touching to me. But numerology isn't why I believe this is true. I believe it because of the Math. If Matthew 2:22 explains Luke 2:41-42, then that puts Luke 2:41-51 in 7 AD, which puts Jesus' birth sometime less than 12 months prior to March of 6 BC. So Jesus was born as early as April of May of 7 BC. And then, yeah, his 40th year started as early as April or May of 33 AD.

I still can't believe nobody else ever said this before... but I'm saying it now.

I believe this gives us a new beginning for chronological work on the Lord's life, and perhaps the entire New Testament.

Now, somebody...

Ask me a question! :)

The Temple Courtyard

Herod’s Temple was nearly finished in 4 BC, when it burned (mostly) down - though it seems clear that Jerusalem finished rebuilding that Temple by Jesus’ day. Obviously, he walked in it and talked about it. But some books say it wasn't finished until 30 years later. I disagree. Strongly! Well, sortof. :)

I believe the Temple was completed by 29 AD and Jesus saw the same Temple Josephus saw 30 years later... only with one key exception. In Jesus' day the Courtyard was made completely of dirt.

That is, I believe the Temple courts weren't PAVED until King Agrippa II sent workmen to do it in the late 50's to early 60's AD. That final upgrade was "completed" about 62/63 AD – which explains how writers can say the whole project took over 80 years to "complete". (And of course, we know the whole thing came down for good when Rome burned it down a second time in 70 AD.)

Now, that’s my reconstruction. Here’s the evidence and thought process that led me to it:

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

Major second-hand sources on Herod’s Temple sometimes point out it took 83 years to finish the [entire] project, but they don’t go into details. Yes, Josephus says it was “completed” in the 60’s AD under Agrippa II, but how could construction work on an unfinished temple have remained ongoing for 83 years? That never seemed right.

For one thing, the gospel accounts all read just as if Jesus was walking around in a completed Temple complex. For another, Josephus also says the covered walkways (porticos) all burned down in 4 BC, along with (most likely) the inner-court structures as well. Burned down in 4 BC, finished around 29 AD, but not “finished” until 62/63? Something just doesn’t add up.

The common sense solution seems (to me) that the later work under Agrippa II was only a project to put paving stones down in the courtyard. In fact, those same lines in Josephus say that Agrippa’s workmen wanted more work, so he let them pave the main street through Jerusalem. So they were pavers. And that is probably all they were.

My reconstruction starts by supposing that Temple reconstruction began in 4/3 BC on the comparatively shoestring budget of the Sanhedrin. Archelaus’ likely refusal to help (which I strongly suspect because all of his actions were selfish, because his main pastime seemed to be feasting and because Caesar cut his initial revenues by more than half) was just another reason the Jews tried so hard to get rid of him. Their construction speed must have been about half that of Herod (whose resources enabled him to be virtually finished in less than 16 years) because the Sanhderin seems to have just finished about the same time as Jesus walked into town, in 29 AD. Otherwise, how could he threaten to tear down what was only half-way built?

Back to paving. Easily 99% of the ancient world (apart from carved or tiered, layed steps) remained unpaved in those days. The fact that it was Jerusalem’s main street getting paved proves the novelty of it. But there are more specific clues that the Temple itself stayed unpaved before Agrippa. When Jesus “drew in the dirt”, doesn’t that show the court was a courtyard? And the pilgrims of 4 BC threw stones at Archelaus’ troops (who tried to enter the temple at that Passover). Doesn’t that show the courtyard was unpaved? You can easily kick stones loose out of packed earth, but who would let hundreds of loose stones remain on a smooth, paved surface? Especially on their busiest day? What a hazard! It must have been dirt.

By the way, even if the project had gone on continuously for 83 years, wouldn’t paving just naturally have been about the last priority that could possibly make the list? So the court was a courtyard for all that time, either way! But it seems far more likely that the finished Temple Complex merely remained unpaved for 30 years.

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

Now, with all of that said... I can think of just three possible applications, of Biblical interest.

First, this is important simply for the sake of our general attention to detail. All those pictures of Jesus walking on paved stones in the courtyard now need to be changed. Boo! Old books are inaccurate. Yea! New jobs for the illustrators! ;)

Second, someone whose Greek grammar is far beyond mine should go look at John 2:20 again, with this reconstruction in mind. I'd love to know if their verbiage suggests at all that work was just recently completed: “has taken… to build” – hmmm. And some translations say "was in building" using "was" - may I presume - as strictly past tense? Again, hmmm.)

Third, if those Jewish elders said what I think they were saying... then that means the Sanhedrin finished rebuilding their Temple just in time for God's Living Temple (Jesus) to walk into it. Wow! Personally, I think that's remarkable just from a coincidental point of view, but it may be even more significant from God’s own viewpoint. Yes, perhaps even the timing. No, I can't guess at God's reasons (yet) but I'm sure HE had at least one.

Anyway, please note that I don't have a theory right now driving this whole thing. This all started for me when I was working on 4 BC and at the Passover fight scene I said to myself, "Where'd they get all the stones?" Because I had my image of all the story-bible art with the smooth pavers, see? :)

A fourth point: sometimes, this is just so much fun! ;)

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

So this is my work on the subject to date. But I need scholars to chime in…

Anyone? Please?

For all I know, this has been pointed out long ago. I hope it’s just a detail that editors have chosen to gloss over for simplicity’s sake. But then again, most readers & writers value such attention to detail…

Is it possible this has simply been overlooked?

Volume One Summary

[1/21/08; NOTE: This is NOT the planned summary of Volume One, but it'll do for now. ;)]

The passing of time is part of how God works, but its easy to miss TIME when reading the Bible.

Jesus Christ was born in the days of Augustus Caesar and Herod the Great. About thirty years later - 34 to be exact - Jesus was baptized and began preaching all over Israel. Those decades in-between didn't just happen overnight! The opening chapters of the Gospels cover 37 years!

Here's a short survey of what happened in that time:

Gabriel appeared to Zechariah in the autumn of 9 BC. For a while, the doubting, pouting, mute old priest couldn't or wouldn't explain things to his wife... until her barren womb suddenly began menstruating! The miracle kicked them into action. Within weeks, Elizabeth was pregnant. John the Baptist was conceived around late February or early March of 8 BC. Over five months later, Gabriel made his next and final earthly appearance. That August, in 8 BC, the Holy Spirit entered Mary and she conceived a child.

Jesus was born in late May of 7 BC. These were the days of Augustus Caesar and Herod the Great. Herod was supposed to be an independent King who paid "tribute" to Rome once a year. (Only Roman Provinces were registered for "tax".) But Herod got into trouble with the Arabs of Nabatea (in 9 BC). As punishment, Caesar ordered a census of Herod's Kingdom. The Governor of Syria in 8 and 7 BC was a man named Saturninus. This Governor Saturninus organized the first Roman census of Israel, that happened when Jesus was born.

(As Luke's gospel originally said, this was "before" the famous census when Quirinius was Governor. We'll get to that one, in 6 AD. This one, the census of 7 BC, was almost forgotten to the pages of history. But Josephus wrote of Saturninus, and Tertullian said he made the census.)

Astrologers from Babylon saw signs in the heavens that drew them to Israel. They arrived in early December, 7 BC, looking for a King they thought was nearly a year old. King Herod heard this and ordered all young babies (in Bethlehem) killed. To be safe, Herod told his soldiers to double the age according to what the star gazers had said. He figured a divine messiah-baby might be walking at 7 months old - and might look like a 2 year old!

Joseph & Mary fled to Egypt and lived there until March of 4 BC, when King Herod finally died just a few days after a lunar eclipse. (The eclipse just happened to fall on the night of the Jewish holiday, Purim.) The night Herod died, an angel told Joseph it was safe to go back to Israel.

The new King of Israel was Herod's son, Archelaus. Barely three weeks into his new reign, Archelaus caused the death of 3,000 pilgrims at the Passover Festival in Jerusalem. At that time, Joseph & Mary were almost to Jerusalem themselves, having travelled for about three weeks from Alexandria, Egypt.

When Joseph heard the news about Archelaus and Passover, he was afraid to take Jesus back into Judea. Again, an angel appeared to Joseph and said, go to Galilee. They reached Nazareth safely, before May. A month or so before his third birthday, Jesus finally met his mother's parents.

Then war broke out all over Israel!

From April until September, the new Governor Varus used three Roman Legions to end four seperate rebellions in Judea and Galilee. By late summer, the worst rebels were being crucified outside Jerusalem. After several weeks of crucifixions, Varus had executed 2,000 Jews. Rocks and trees by the roadside were still blood stained as the pilgrims came up, early that Autumn, for the high holy season. This made an impression! (No major rebellion takes place in Judea for another 69 years!)

The year 4 BC was that busy! Then history reset to a more normal speed...

For ten years, Joseph kept Jesus out of Judea. Every year, Joseph took Mary down to Jerusalem for Passover, but as long as Archelaus was ruling Judea, they left Jesus at home with family.

There was drama elsewhere during this decade. Wars broke out everywhere. Macedonia and Galatia were threatened. An Arabian Princess married the tetrarch of Galilee. Caesar's oldest grandsons died, and his step-son Tiberius became heir to the Empire.

For this decade, from 4 BC to 6 AD, Archelaus ruled Judea both harshly and poorly. He hoarded their wealth, defied their religious laws and ignored their requests. The Pharisees, Saducees and Essenes were ALL upset with Archelaus. Even the Judeans and Samaritans were willing to work together to get rid of him! In 4, 5 and 6 AD, they worked on a plan... mainly, the plan was to tattle on Archelaus to Augustus in Rome!

Meanwhile, all these years, Jesus was just a little kid in Nazareth. He was getting to know his heavenly Father, bit by bit. Over time, he was finding out (remembering) who he really was.

Then, in May of 6 AD, Jesus turned twelve.

That summer, Augustus Caesar called Archelaus to Rome. When Archelaus left, the, the new Roman Governor of Syria - the famous one, Quirinius - came into Israel. Governor Quirinius held the second Roman census of Israel, but the first one to register property, not just men's names.

There was a major plot to revolt. The leader, Judas the Galilean, taught philosophies that didn't catch on at this time, in 6 AD. But Judas' teachings get remembered when his infant sons grow up - in the 40's and 50's AD this man's teachings will help found the Zealot party! But at this time, Judas was just a schemer, destined to fail.

The plot to rebel made a lot of progress, but Judas' plans were snuffed out. Somehow, Quirinius and others put an end to the rebellion before it began. This was one reason the Governor Quirinius was so famous in Israel - he kept perfect peace during the takeover. And of course, the takeover itself was the other reason for this Governor's fame.

Quirinius was the man who began direct Roman control over Judea.

That next spring, in 7 AD, Jesus was still 12 years old. Since Archelaus was gone, Joseph was no longer afraid to take Jesus into Judea. For the first time in a decade, Jesus wasn't going to get left at home during the Passover! And so, weeks away from his own bar-mitzvah, Jesus finally got to visit Jerusalem for the second time in his life.

What happened there, for two and a half weeks, is an amazing story!

After Jesus came home and turned 13, he was a man in the eyes of his people.

That was 7 AD. Seven years later, Tiberius Caesar was ruling the world as Emperor. Fourteen years after that, Jesus' cousin John began preaching in the desert. John had some new ideas about the (post-exilic) Jewish custom of Baptism. John was preparing a way for the Lord.

But in 7 AD, that was still 21 years away! Those 21 years were Jesus' chance to grow up. Yes, Jesus had to mature. But this time was for far more than that.

Most of all, those 21 years were Jesus' chance to LIVE! Year by year, the Father was more and more pleased! Year by year, His Son filled up all He expected - to the fullest degree! And Jesus not only lived up to the level of righteousness God desired... Jesus actually also lived WITH God. They lived together. They talked all the time. God lived inside of his Son! At last, God had a house on the earth!

Those 21 years were a chance for God the Father to have what he'd wanted since Eden. At last, there was a man on God's Earth, showing people what God was like, showing GOD what His Man could be like!!! Jesus was born to be King over all the earth - just not in a way people would understand. He wasn't ready to rule, and he wasn't ready to multiply, but he LIVED!

Now... those 21 years, while Jesus just lived unto God... those years were also filled with many other events... and those other events affect future events...

Most of the New Testament records events that happened from 28 to 70 AD. The passing of time is one part of that story.

God could have done things all in one weekend! But that isn't his way. That's not how he works.

There is much more to tell...

Year-by-Year: 14 AD (a)

Jesus turns 20. Augustus dies. The first year of Tiberius’ rule as Emperor.
***************

At the start of 14 AD, Jesus of Nazareth was 19 years old, going on 20. The final months of the Lord’s second decade on Earth were over in May. And by the look of things, he had nothing to show for it.

God’s own son was here, in the prime of life. He was the world’s Savior, but he was not a great man.

The greatest men were world beaters by this age.

Seriously…

Alexander the Great turned 20 in 336 BC. That year, Alexander became King of Macedonia. Right away he began preparing his invasion and conquest of all Asia. Likewise, Augustus Caesar was only 18 when his uncle Julius died, in 44 BC. And in 42 BC, “Octavian” (as he was then called) ended the civil wars and started ruling the Empire![1]

But here’s Jesus, turning 20 and doing nothing… it seemed.

Sons of Kings always made their mark by age 20. Herod’s son Archelaus was King of Israel at age 19 (4 BC). His younger brother Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, forged a marriage alliance with King Aretas of Nabatea the year he turned 20 (1 BC). Even Herod’s son Philip was only 18 as he secured peace ruling mostly Arab peoples (2 BC).

All the young Herods we’ve seen were taking on great challenges at young ages. In Italy, the young Caesars were no different at all.

Augustus Caesar sent his grandson, Gaius, off to far away battles, leading over 20,000 men… when Gaius was just 19 (1 BC). And when Caesar’s great-grand-nephew Germanicus turned 19, Augustus made that young man second-in-line to rule the world (4 AD). Even the difficult Posthumous Agrippa (Caesar’s 3rd grandson) became a big enough threat to be exiled… you guessed it… at age 19 (8 AD).

Nineteen. This is not a small observation. At that age, if you’re going to rule any decent sized Kingdom, you’d better get around to it. Or at least start acting like it!

But here was Jesus. God’s Son, the Messiah. The one born to be King of the Jews… even the King of all Kings! And what was he doing?

The same things as always.

Jesus was living in Nazareth. He was pulling saws with Joseph, doing chores for Mary, watching out for little James, and taking care of his aging grandparents. He was earning his daily bread and forgiving bad customers’ debts. He was calling on his Father’s holy name.

To earthly eyes, this was nothing. No one could see what a great Man this Jesus was. No one could tell he was perfectly blameless. No one imagined he’d NOT been overcome by the darkness of the evil one. No one else knew where to find such protection.

No one thought Jesus was anything like a great man.

No. The glory of this one, holy life was as yet unseen.

No one heard him when he called his Father’s name, or when they talked to each other. No one heard when Jesus asked his Father for things. And no one was aware enough to be amazed by this fact, either… but when Jesus prayed, he asked for things that God wanted!

To heaven’s eyes, this was glorious. Jesus was doing what no one else had the power to do! The Lord, as a Man, was showing his Father what it could look like for an earth man to live like God was in charge.

So that’s what Jesus was doing at age 19 and 20. That was all. He was not some “great man”. He was God’s man.

In 14 AD, Jesus the King was not yet in his kingdom…

But he knew it would come.

The Kings of the earth kept on ruling. The world kept on turning. And God’s Son kept praying…

Year after year.

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

Once again, 14 AD brought no news from Israel.

Rufus was still Procurator at Caesarea. Annas was still High Priest at Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin was over half-way done re-building Herod’s Temple.[2]

There was certainly no trouble in Judea, at all.

The people of Israel seemed to like this new Roman “Kingdom”!

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

At the start of 14 AD, the “King” of the Roman Empire was 75 years old. Augustus Caesar would not reach his 76th birthday. Here’s what happened.

The Emperor’s heir, Tiberius Caesar, had been over Italy during the winter, taking a census. It was also a tour to let Italy see the face of her new ruler-to-be.

By spring, Tiberius and his census teams were all done. Augustus and his “imperial colleague” held a ceremony on May 14th – to celebrate completing the census.[3]

Shortly after their reunion, Augustus made Tiberius leave again!

This was critical. Since the census began, the two Caesars had shared equal powers, at least officially. For nearly a year, Rome had two masters… at least, technically.

In fact, Augustus was still fully in charge and Tiberius was still below him. That’s what was still happening, in practice. The official “equality” in power was just so Tiberius could begin ruling, legally, the moment Augustus was dead.

But things had to look proper. Technically, Rome had two masters, and it just wasn’t wise to keep two masters in town together. They had to have separate duties, somehow. Besides, at the very least, they didn’t want to set a bad example for future generations!

So Tiberius had to go on a new mission. It had to be close, because Augustus could die anytime. And it had to be an easy mission, so Tiberius could return when called for.

Augustus was sending Tiberius to North Illyricum. There were no uprisings, of course. Everything had been at peace there, in Pannonia, since 9 AD. So the only task the future Emperor had to do there was oversee the ongoing improvements in the new province.[4]

But the mission didn’t have to start right away. Augustus still had lots of things left to tell Tiberius.

The two Caesars spent the rest of May together in the city. And June. And July.[5]

By late July, Tiberius got ready to go. But Augustus wanted to make a trip into the country for a while. Augustus had also been invited to attend some games in his honor, that would be on their way.

So they left Rome together.

Somewhere around late July, the two Caesars headed south, down the coast, towards Campania. They went very slowly, because of the Emperor’s age.

Augustus and Tiberius were carried in a litter down the coast, but changed their minds after a few days and took a ship, to make the trip faster. The August northwesterlies were just kicking up and the breeze was strong, blowing them southeast, down the coast of Italy.

But traveling by ship meant spending a couple of nights at sea. Somewhere in those strong gusts of salty night air, Augustus caught a stomach virus. So now he was on a boat, at night, dealing with diarrhea… at age 75!

The Emperor was getting pretty weak by the time they reached his villa on the Island of Capri. Willpower and the island stay kept him in a happy mood. After four days on Capri, Augustus and Tiberius took their traveling party across the Bay to Naples. The Emperor was still dealing with illness, but wanted to make his appointment. Then, the first day after the games, the two Caesars went inland, heading East.

The whole party went about 50 miles to Beneventum, on the Appian way. There, Tiberius said good bye and Augustus turned back towards Rome. But these extra days of travel had weakened Augustus and made him sicker. The Emperor didn’t think he had the strength to make it back to Rome, or even to Naples or Capri.

About 35 miles after Beneventum, Augustus stopped at the closest spot he could take a long rest at. The old country house of his father, Octavius Caesar was on the road back to Capri, at the town of Nola.

Augustus knew his own father had died in that very house. He had to know it was his time as well.

The Emperor didn’t last long at Nola.

On his last day, he kept asking whether there were any uprisings around Italy. Augustus was afraid of trouble because he knew he was dying.

His wife, Livia, was there with him and a few friends. The Emperor had some last words. He told them he found Rome as weak as clay bricks, but now left it to them as strong as stone or marble. Then Augustus asked them all to applaud because he was an actor who had played his part well, and now had to leave the stage.

That afternoon, Caesar kissed his wife, reminded her to be faithful to him, and died – quietly and suddenly.

The official day of death was given as August 19th, 14 AD.

The Emperor, Augustus Caesar, had lived 75 years, 10 months and 26 days on planet earth. He died just shy of his 76th birthday, which made this his 77th calendar year.[6]

The Emperor was dead.

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

The Emperor was very much alive.

Tiberius was barely in his province when he got the news that Augustus was dying. It took him just a few days to sail and ride quickly to Nola. Once there, Tiberius’ mother Livia, the Emperess, had already taken charge in the house.

Tiberius and Livia went in to see Augustus together.

But we do not know if Augustus was still alive at that time.

Later on, Tiberius and Livia both said that Augustus held on until his son arrived. The new Emperor and his mother told everyone that father and son had gotten one final day to visit and say goodbye. They told some that Augustus had died in Tiberius’ arms.

We don’t know for sure.

We do know that other stories and rumors got started soon after this.[7] There were many in Rome who believed Livia had set up the murder of the princes, Gaius & Lucius, because that was when Tiberius came back into Rome (see 4 AD).

In fact, since that time, another rumor had started that Livia sent someone to poison her own son, Drusus, when Drusus was lying wounded in Germany (9 BC). So it wouldn’t be long until new rumors popped up that said Livia had poisoned Augustus, now, too! (And it gets wilder than that! But those stories will come soon enough.)

Did Tiberius see Augustus alive?

Rumor says that Livia kept the death a secret until Tiberius reached Nola. Then – maybe – she lied about the death date to hide her cover up. And that might be true.

All we know for sure, right now, is this.

On August 19th, 14 AD, Tiberius and his widowed mother Livia were at Nola, near Mount Vesuvius. Augustus Caesar was dead. Tiberius was now the new Roman Emperor.

At age 54, Tiberius Caesar began his final mission – ruling the world!

The new Emperor probably didn’t get much sleep that night.

Suddenly, there was a lot to take care of…

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

END OF VOLUME I – JESUS IN THE EMPIRE OF AUGUSTUS CAESAR

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

BEGIN VOLUME II – JESUS IN THE EMPIRE OF TIBERIUS CAESAR


14 AD, Part Two…

COMING SOON!

Begin Footnotes:

[1] Albeit with two partners, Antony & Lepidus, the “second triumvirate”.

[2] It sure seems complete when Jesus walked through it, but the Temple Courtyard won’t be paved (the final phase of work that Josephus called totally finished) until the early 60’s AD.

[3] This was a traditional event called the “Lustrum”. For Tiberius’ official position as “colleague in imperium”, see footnotes to 12 and 13 AD.

[4] Armies were building roads and prep-work was being done for the founding of colonies. These years in Illyricum (the two new provinces of Dalmatia & Pannonia) were like the years in Galatia after 25 BC – which was discussed in the footnotes of 6, 5 and 3 BC.)

These ongoing efforts mean that Dalmatia will be fairly civilized and safe when the apostle Titus goes there in 63/64 AD.

[5] No one could criticize them for staying together, since they had already made official plans to separate again. This was the point things had come to – keeping up appearances and satisfying technicalities. But the reality was whatever the Emperor wanted, happened.
[6] I mention this specifically to illustrate a point made in previous Year Books about the methods of counting someone’s age. I mention it now because the Jewish Historian Josephus says Augustus was “77 years old” when he died. This is a perfect example of “inclusive” counting, typical of Jewish thought.

Jesus Christ is going to be 38 years, 10 months and some days old at his crucifixion. He will ascend into heaven at least a week shy of his 39th birthday (Roman Calendar) but it may have been exactly on the day of his 39th birthday (Jewish Calendar). So it might have been, chronologically, the first day of his 40th year when he rose into the sky, leaving Earth. (Forty is the biblical time of testing, and by the Hebrew laws, part of a year counted as all of a year.) Either way, Jesus spent forty calendar years on Earth, by the Roman AND by the Hebrew calendars.

(See footnotes to 9, 8 & 7 BC, and bonus sections.)

[7] By that point, they’d just had three months together; surely, Augustus had as many chances as he wanted to talk to Tiberius. If Livia and Tiberius lied about the last day’s instructions, it was only for dramatic effect of the timing. We aren’t sure about the timing, but we’re absolutely certain there WERE final instructions!