I wrote this post two years ago, in late July 2009. I should probably rewrite it, but I'll let it stand as is, with this necessary explanation. At the time, biblioblogger Nick Norelli had challenged me with the big meme of that summer, which was to post about five Biblical Studies books that one wanted to like, or should have agreed with, but couldn't quite get fully behind. I blogged separate posts on my chosen books, One, Two, Three and Four, in that same month. This post was to be my fifth, but for reasons that will soon become obvious, I couldn't bring myself to post it at that time. Now, perhaps it's been long enough. We shall see.
Two years late, unaltered and for the first time... here it is:
---------------------------------------------------
It has scarcely been six months since we lost Dr. Harold Hoehner. Longtime blog readers know how much I value his work and how upset I was at his unexpected passing, even (especially) considering I never met the man. I kick myself even harder for that now, because after confessing to one of his students recently the main reason I never contacted him (I realized my main purpose was wanting to argue with him about what I considered to be flaws in his Chronological Aspects), I was told "Actually, he would have really enjoyed that." Yes, I had gathered as much from the many tributes I read after his death. So I will always regret never meeting him, unless perhaps it was somehow for the best.
As I said, it has not been long since his passing, but when I was recently challenged to write about "Biblical Studies" books I cheered for but felt some reservations about, I decided it could actually be the best time to go ahead and blog my critique of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by the great Dr. Hoehner. Hopefully, furthering that important conversation will be taken as another way of also furthering his memory. So here goes everything...
Chronological Aspects remains one of my most cherished academic books, because of its uniqueness and because of the same thorough scholarship poured into Hoehner's Herod Antipas. The footnotes alone are tremendous. I could quote the entire preface right here, cheering loudly. His treatment of the major points and their issues is comprehensive and arguably definitive. I have long since worn out the glue in the spine. (Making this the one book of my "5" that I actually did read every word of, and that several times over.) But... yes, I have a few problems with this book, and they are not minor.
Hoehner's arguments are arranged chronologically, on dating the birth, baptism, duration of ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus - in that order - but my gripe is not with the presentation. A proper argument should proceed by skipping forward and backward through time as necessary. Since Hoehner didn't do this, it was not always clear how each chapter depended on points previously (or yet to be) made. Dates for the (1) commencement, (2) duration and (3) consummation of Jesus' ministry are supported by seemingly independent arguments, when in fact, solid conclusions on any two of these points should automatically render the third set of arguments unnecessary. Instead, Hoehner admits (p.37) to his views on all three of these points early on and then argues each separately, as if none are dependent on each other. Of course the strongest arguments are those for dating the crucifixion year, which therefore ought to predominate the overall work, and yet it comes last.
This automatically makes his earlier arguments suspect. The chapter on duration, for example, consists mainly of objections to Johnston Cheney's 4 year view followed by arguments supporting the 3 year view. The fact that 30 and 33 AD have been presupposed as the boundaries of that duration is only mentioned in the chapter summary, and never acknowledged during the arguments. However, IMHO, a carefull reading of Hoehner's presentation shows that the 3 and 4 year arguments come off as equally inconclusive and I'm sorry to say his assertion that only one had "suppositions" was simply unfair.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that for all Hoehner's laudable and high view of the "grammatical-historical interpretation of the New Testament", an overall reading of the book suggests his primary mental orientation was not to reconstruct chronology but to defend the integrity of scripture on chronological points. That is also laudable, but the particular apologetic efforts Hoehner used to reconcile John 2:20 and Luke 3:1-3 & 3:23 with other historical data are the real reason - combined with 33 AD - why he HAD to argue for a three year ministry.
A holistic view of his arguments shows which ones really depend on certain others. The defense of scripture was more important than building a historically based chronology, leaving a work that I believe - for all its great qualities - was less than perfectly faithful to either. Academically, it would have been more accurate to say this much: Luke 3:1-3 cannot mean 26 AD, so 30 AD is out. Therefore, 33 AD is in. The 3 or 4 year views each have their challenges, and we could easily date Christ's baptism to 28 or 29 AD. For all our investigations, we may or may not know the best way to "break the tie".
In the end, nothing in Hoehner's book, other than his [somewhat contrived] interpretaion on John 2:20 (as compared with Josephus) gives an entirely unflexible resistance to 28 AD and the 4 year view. The argument for John 2:20 therefore becomes the central governing point, de facto, of the book's major argument, which is hardly fair.
The fact that we have no idea how long the prep work lasted (after Herod announced the Temple project in 20 BC) means we don't know what year construction actually began. Our ignorance of that prep time means John 2:20 is inconclusive - unless we wish to guess whether prep work began in 18 or 17 BC - for settling this one year difference in question.
Therefore, the de facto "tie breaker" of all Hoehner's arguments is actually irrelevant. Therefore, Cheney and the implications of his view deserve much greater attention. We desperately need a new tiebreaker. (Personally, I think it may be the death of Sejanus - which must fall either just before or after the death of John the Baptist - because the 4 year view (the 'after' view) better explains the timing of Jesus' final movements into Judea.)
Despite my strong critique, finding these flaws only increases the value of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, imho. The book remains a wonderfully comprehensive treatment of the key points, and Hoehner was certainly able to process more scholarship on the topic than I'll ever be able to review in my entire life. I'm a layman, like Cheney. I deal with the major points. So this book is a major influence in my life as much for its flaws as for its strengths. If I didn't care so greatly for it's subject matter, for which Hoehner obviously felt a great deal of passion as well, I would never spend so much of my life trying to improve on what it attempted to accomplish... nor could I ever have hoped to, probably.
As Samuel Johnson said in the preface to his first English Dictionary, "I have only failed at that which no human powers have hitherto completed." In that regard, Hoehner is even more a giant, in my estimation. What other book like his has ever gone to print? None so comprehensive, as far as I can tell, and certainly none since Chronological Aspects. To call it required reading in the field should be putting it lightly. I say again, I will always treasure my old, worn out copy.
I heard a rumor last May from someone who corresponded with him that Harold Hoehner had mentioned a desire to revise his book, if not also (?) his chronology. On the hopeful prospect of this, I began trying to make my arguments stronger and more worthy of his valuable time. Time, alas, we did not have.
If anyone reading this, today or in the future, was working with him on such a project, or had been hoping to, I would very much love to argue with you about it. In my experience, arguing is the sport of friends. Since I hear Dr. Hoehner liked arguing as well, and if you were his friends, I would look especially forward to meeting you. Perhaps soon... or at least soon enough, hopefully.
Thank you, Lord, for Harold Hoehner and his Giant work. From his shoulders, give us eyes to see farther. Amen.
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
Showing posts with label Herod the Great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herod the Great. Show all posts
September 10, 2011
November 11, 2009
Pauline Chronology
As of now, this is merely a rough sketch of where the most important key points in Pauline Chronology happen to lie. Someday I'll start writing this all out more appropriately, with supporting research and more sequential arguments. Until then, feel free to have a go at researching and publishing on this arrangement yourself. Just be sure to mention my name. :-)
The three points that will chiefly distinguish this chronology are as follows:
As a package, these points comprise my original contribution to the field of Pauline Chronology, which is simply a new set of boundaries for all other considerations. Based on solid historical judgments, those boundaries happen to be very tight. This is fortunate. The overarching framework of arguments and possibilities, of course, we all owe to many, many scholars and researchers who have gone before. Therefore, beyond the above points, all other evidence should be well established and easily locatable in standard reference manuals.
Note: In the rough sketch that now follows, many points are referred to ahead of time, and again after the fact. To anyone who has studied these issues, the overall argument should (hopefully) come across best if you read straight through this post, without skipping around at first.
========================================
Conversion - early 34 AD - No Roman Emperor ever "gave" Damascus to Nabatea but King Aretas sent the Ethnarch to get Paul at a time when Aretas was still active north of his own territory, which must have been before Tiberius died. It could not have been after. Among other reasons, we know this because the prefect Macro (successor to Sejanus) was essentially running the empire all year long in 37 AD, so Caligula was highly unlikely to reverse policy on Nabatea after Herod Antipas' letter. For more details, see here.
Antioch's relief commission - 44 AD - Because they could not have sent hundreds of ox carts with grain from the coast, especially in the middle of a famine, the church in Antioch must have sent Paul and Barnabas with money. That money was no good unless it came early enough that the church in Jerusalem could begin surreptitiously building a stockpile. (Even if they were going to give it away, the food bank had to built up in secret. Otherwise, what was the point?) Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not wait until the famine itself (46/47 AD) and therefore Acts 11:30 and 12:25 cannot be extracted from Acts 12. If we leave Acts 12 just as it is written, then the relief visit happens in 44 AD and thus Galatians 2 cannot apply to an inclusive 14 year difference between Paul's conversion and this visit. Therefore, Galatians 2 most likely refers to the Council of Acts 15, despite those who still attempt to suppose an additional visit before the Council. For more on famine relief logistics, see here.
[***UPDATE (7/31/10): If Agrippa died in March of 44, as holds the consensus, then the relief delivery and that traumatic Passover in which Luke sets it, both, belong to 43 AD. Since Galatians 2 cannot refer to any year that's actually before the famine, anyway, this update is a moot point chronologically speaking, as far as affecting the rest of this timeline. Update 2: Red color added to text in paragraph above. For more, see this post. ***]
Galatians - 50 AD - Writen to the four South Galatian churches of Acts; before the Epistle of James, but after the council; it was carried by Titus & Luke, who visited all four churches and went on to wait for Paul at Troas (the one city everyone knew how to find, in West Asia Minor); that Titus' circumcision *was even an issue* and *could have been* "compelled" strongly suggests that this visit was part of the council occasion and virtually confirms that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15. Further, the fact that Paul expects the Galatians to know who Titus is most likely means Titus himself was the letter carrier. As a witness to the events in Jerusalem, Titus was the perfect one to send, and he could easily have been holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve, as additional support for Paul's position. Thus, Paul had no need to mention the shorter letter because Titus was probably carrying it also - presumably on loan from missionally-minded Antioch. (For even more on Galatians and the Council, see here, here, here, and (again) here.)
1st & 2nd Thessalonians - 51 AD - standard view easily dated by Gallio's time in Corinth. We should note here, for later, that Timothy seems to have trouble sticking with his assignment, and keeps running to Paul for assistance. He's going to do this again, 6 years later, in Ephesus.
Departure from Corinth - 52 AD - Paul must have talked with Peter in Jerusalem, about Corinth, somewhere in the middle or the end of sailing season in 52. At least, that is necessary in order for Peter to have sailed to Corinth here in 53 and caused so much trouble (53/54) in unfortunate preparation for a summer of letters going back and forth between Corinth and Paul, in 54. (On which date, see note at top, and see below.) Incidentally, many of the controversies that arose in Corinth around the time of Peter's visit bear striking parallels to the letter of Jerusalem, which suggests Paul had not shown it to Corinth, but that Peter had. Controversies over tongues and healing are also, most likely, symptomatic of Peter's visit.
Epistle of James - c.52 or 51 AD - Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 52 also means James' letter had probably been written by 52, because there is no chance James and Paul did not see each other during this visit, and that makes this the first chance they had to sit down and iron out their perceived differences [over things they didn't really disagree about, except perhaps semantically]. Circumcision was not argued in James' Epistle, and we have no record that James ever heard Paul say the things written in Galatians, before Galatians was written. James must have been responding, in part, to things Paul wrote in his first letter. (Church Councils are not magic cure-alls. They just aren't.)
1st Corinthians - 54 AD, before October - This is an especially critical point for aligning the rest of Paul's dates, and it is based on the fact that Paul talks about travel plans but does not include Rome. The Jews weren't allowed back in until Claudius died, and Paul's trip to Illyricum (Western Provincia Macedonia) must have been planned as part of preparations for going to Rome. Ephesus is also when Paul began speaking of Rome, according to Acts. Further, this letter must be 54, and could not be 53 because Claudius' death also best explains what interrupts Paul's stated plans to sail after Pentecost (which generally assured safe sailing weather; by the way, Paul's also had all of his first three shipwrecks by now).
2nd Corinthians - 56 AD, around November - Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater evidently knew how to get through the Greek hinterland (Acts 20:4a). This letter mentions Macedonians currently visiting Corinth and Paul sounds as if he is following them there shortly. This must be at the end of Paul's Macedonian trip, for two reasons. First, the trip to the Adriatic and back (Acts 20:1-2 & Romans 15:19) must have taken over a year, and second, Timothy must have intercepted Paul in Thessalonica on Paul's way back from Dyrrachium, before Paul headed to Corinth. Timothy, of course, had been struggling in Ephesus since Paul left him there to go into Macedonia, and must have spent the winter of 54/55 building up enough angst & frustration to make Timothy, desperately, flee Ephesus to go seek out Paul's help (just as Timothy had done at least twice before, in Thessalonica). All of this means 2nd Corinthians cannot have been written until after Paul's trip to Illyricum, probably only a month or two before Paul himself returned to Achaia. Timothy simply had to leave Ephesus in time to be in Macedonia with Paul, in time to co-sign this epistle. (See also discussion on 1st Timothy, below.)
Romans - 57 AD - the turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 (not 60) is made necessary here by one of our three key starting points (at top) - that Paul was most likely executed in connection with the great fire of Rome. Again, confirming this point removes the need for those often but ill-conceived (and certainly purely contrived) later itineraries of Paul, Timothy and Titus. In fact, scholarship through the ages has generally considered Paul's death in 64 to be the first and most likely option. The only real obstacle to this has been an over-rigidity of interpreting Titus 1:5, as if Paul himself shared the work of the Cretan mission. (On this point, see above and below.)
1st Timothy - 57 AD - handed off in person, in Troas, giving Timothy one week to appoint the Ephesian Elders Paul met at Miletus. This most natural conclusion has been frequently put off without justifiable cause, and only requires 2nd Corinthians to be written in late 56 AD. (Look again at the discussion of Illyricum, Timothy and 2nd Corinthians, above.) On the need to explain who qualified as elders, Paul had only now formed his own personal stance on the issue of how to appoint/recognize them, since his separation from Barnabas. Timothy had not seen Gentile Christian Elders since the Judaizers so easily overcame the "elders" appointed mainly by Barnabas, in Galatia. (For more on this point, see here.)
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians - 60 to 62 AD - The turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 puts Paul's arrival in Rome in early 60 and his release at 62. Somewhere during this imprisonment, these four "Prison Epistles" went out in two waves. Tychicus took the first three to cities near Ephesus because Colosse's own Epaphras came down with a serious illness. Then Epaphras (Epaphroditus) took Paul's thank you letter back to his new friends in Philippi. Most of this affects nothing else in Pauline Chronology, of course, but we note that after 11-ish years, Philippi now has elders. They were most likely appointed by Paul at his last visit, when Luke left, just while Paul was composing 1st Timothy, on his way to Troas.
Titus - 62 AD - This letter was probably written from Illyricum, which strongly suggests that Paul must have planted a church in Dyrrachium in 55/56, as a sort of a rest stop/half-way point for those from the churches who were heading to Rome after Claudius' death. (Again, see discussion on 2nd Corinthians above.) In any event, the cheapest and most efficient itinerary from Rome to Nicopolis was taking the Appian Way to one of the ferries at Brindisi (Brundisium) that sailed directly over to Dyrrachium. From there, the road south leads to Nicopolis. Later on, Titus winds up north of Dyrrachium, heading to Dalmatia. (A church in Dyrrachium is also attested by inscription, cited by the Jesuit scholar Farlati centuries ago - on which, look up Edwin E. Jacques.) Finally, a church in Dyrrachium could also explain where Erastus spent all his time after Acts 19:22, before heading to Corinth (2.Tim 4:20).
T.2. Titus, we presume, had remained on Crete since Paul left him there, at Fair Havens. The only question is, where had Titus been before? Obviously, considering this involves some conjecture, but it is probably necessary if we stick to the natural conclusion that Paul died in 64 AD. Besides, in what follows, only the details require conjecture, which is far more reasonable than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
T.3. We know Paul was at Crete at least once and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus at least once. Putting these two points together with Titus 1:5 suggests Titus was present at Fair Havens. He must therefore have been part of Paul's sailing party, and he must have abandoned that party - probably because Paul knew from experience that their odds of shipwreck were high, and so one of them had to survive so the churches could know what had happened in case Paul really did die at sea. Besides that, Titus had been on Crete recently, after which he must have visited Caesarea and gotten on board with Luke and Aristarchus.
T.4. Now, if Luke intended Acts at least partly as a defense of Paul for his trial at Rome, and if Paul's three companions were also somehow under the centurion's special jurisdiction (perhaps as witnesses being shipped in at state's expense?) then Titus disappearing at Fair Havens could also explain why Luke deleted Titus from the record. Since only citizens or their slaves were allowed to testify in Rome, Paul (seriously) could simply have 'enslaved' his three friends (a loophole that Roman Law could not have anticipated!) planning to 'free' them later.
T.5. In any event, we know Paul was at Fair Havens and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus. Somehow or another, Titus must have been at Fair Havens, at which point Paul told him to continue the work which he (Titus only, not Titus with Paul) had already begun. Paul also told Titus to appoint elders in every church before he left the island. This point evidently failed to get through to Titus, probably because the church in Antioch made crisis-level decisions without elders (Acts 15:2). Therefore, Paul had to explain to Titus what elders were because (like Timothy from 50 to 57 AD) Titus had never been part of a church that had elders. (As mentioned above, for more on Paul's evolving opinions about elders, see this post.)
T.6. It should be clear now what I meant that only the details require conjecture. The bottom line on dating Titus should be, in my humble opinion, that IF Paul died under Nero in 64 AD (which has always been the most natural conclusion to draw from Tacitus' report on the great fire and from Paul's second letter to Timothy) then Titus must have been at Fair Havens. It's the only time we know for certain that Paul was there, and educated guesswork to get Titus there with Paul is far more reasonable than inventing entirely new travels for both of them.
T.7. Note well: The only necessary conclusions on this point are that Titus was with Paul at Fair Havens, had previously begun the mission there without Paul's assistance, nevertheless received instructions from Paul at Fair Havens (about how to finish what Titus had begun), and remained on Crete when Paul sailed away. For all we know, Titus could have just wandered onto the beach at the right time, simply by divine providence - but of course, this is not my argument. This is only to make clear that all suppositional details in the previous paragraphs were included merely to show at least one very plausible scenario which might have occurred. Most of Titus' itinerary will simply have to remain a mystery, but again (for the last time) this is far better than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
2nd Timothy - early 64 AD - before the fire, and with enough time for Timothy to receive the letter and still have a chance to reach Rome "before winter". Tacitus' account of events in this year are a much more convincing explanation for the tradition that Paul was considered worthy of execution.
Spain - N/A - Paul's plans didn't always materialize. The trick is to realize, there is no Spain. ;-)
========================================
There you go. That's Pauline Chronology in a nutshell, according to me. Someday, of course, I really must write this up properly, supporting these dates and arguments to the strongest extent possible. Until then - or if I never get around to it - this is pretty much the basics of everything I've got to say on the subject.
If anyone wants to start working on this before I get to it, please feel free. I've got enough else to do for the next several years writing up everything that goes from 9 BC until 37 AD. I don't mind sharing at all.
Personal Observations: A lot of the difficulties that get ironed out in this treatment happen to reveal, I believe, strong institutional/religious biases in previous faith-based scholarship on Pauline Chronology. I deeply wish I didn't have to bring it up, but it really does need to be noticed. Certain aspects of the traditional, ecclesiastical dogmas about the Jerusalem Council and the lateness of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" seem to be partly responsible for what has kept Pauline Chronology in dispute for so long. If all three "Pastorals" get to occupy an extra four years of vague, non-contextual space-time, then Titus and Timothy look more like permanent local preachers. This may seem shocking, but it must be considered.
Since my own past experience and outspoken preference for house churches is well known, I must admit this sequence could alter (or cleanse) our view of Pauline ecclesiology somewhat. That may be debatable but Paul's ecclesiology does not have to be ours, at any rate. No christian assembly that I know of is currently following Paul's pattern precisely. Besides this, the "Descriptive/Prescriptive" argument is a much more impenetrable defense than pre-emptive gerrymandering of dates (whether or not that is even partly what has been going on).
In any event, the historian's (or exegete's) job is to judge based on facts in evidence, and not to consider potential relevance of any conclusions beforehand. Given the evidence (as laid out above) I would contend that Pauline Chronology seems to have been unfairly beset by institutional biases, although much of it is undoubtedly subconscious. Of course, if it is fully aware, such cheating simply must come to an end.
I would also contend - and here is why this all had to be said - that this mostly explains why no one has solved Pauline Chronology more efficiently or sufficiently than this, before now, and why I myself (an untrained, if unashamed amateur) managed to happen upon it. In any case, if I've put together the argument I think I have, it deserves to be looked at. And no matter who looks here, none of us should allow ourselves to manipulate the data to support our church government practices. Pauline ecclesiology was primitive.
It is a simple historical fact that nobody in the New Testament performed the job duties of a medieval priest or a protestant "pastor". That's really not a big deal, unless we feel the need to pretend otherwise. It's really not even a problem, unless we let tradition or dogma inhibit us from viewing the full context of Paul's letters, as they properly ought to be viewed.
I've been going over this and over this for five years, and unless I'm missing something very significant, I believe I can make the following statement with all confidence.
This really must be the most likely solution to Pauline Chronology, period.
Your comments, questions and challenges are warmly invited, as long as this post remains online.
The three points that will chiefly distinguish this chronology are as follows:
Antioch's relief gift had to be money (not grain) and so had to be earlyFixing those three points amidst all the other significant data requires essentially one specific alignment of all other major events. Furthermore, this process compels us to make only one creative decision - to put Titus at Fair Havens with Paul, thereby concluding Paul had no part in Titus' earlier mission on Crete. To be sure, this offers a reading of Titus 1:5 which is far more economical and less speculative, historically, than all other suggested reconstructions for Titus' travels.
Paul's plans changed to include Rome when the Emperor Claudius died
The best place to put Paul's execution is after the great fire of Rome
As a package, these points comprise my original contribution to the field of Pauline Chronology, which is simply a new set of boundaries for all other considerations. Based on solid historical judgments, those boundaries happen to be very tight. This is fortunate. The overarching framework of arguments and possibilities, of course, we all owe to many, many scholars and researchers who have gone before. Therefore, beyond the above points, all other evidence should be well established and easily locatable in standard reference manuals.
Note: In the rough sketch that now follows, many points are referred to ahead of time, and again after the fact. To anyone who has studied these issues, the overall argument should (hopefully) come across best if you read straight through this post, without skipping around at first.
========================================
Conversion - early 34 AD - No Roman Emperor ever "gave" Damascus to Nabatea but King Aretas sent the Ethnarch to get Paul at a time when Aretas was still active north of his own territory, which must have been before Tiberius died. It could not have been after. Among other reasons, we know this because the prefect Macro (successor to Sejanus) was essentially running the empire all year long in 37 AD, so Caligula was highly unlikely to reverse policy on Nabatea after Herod Antipas' letter. For more details, see here.
Antioch's relief commission - 44 AD - Because they could not have sent hundreds of ox carts with grain from the coast, especially in the middle of a famine, the church in Antioch must have sent Paul and Barnabas with money. That money was no good unless it came early enough that the church in Jerusalem could begin surreptitiously building a stockpile. (Even if they were going to give it away, the food bank had to built up in secret. Otherwise, what was the point?) Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not wait until the famine itself (46/47 AD) and therefore Acts 11:30 and 12:25 cannot be extracted from Acts 12. If we leave Acts 12 just as it is written, then the relief visit happens in 44 AD and thus Galatians 2 cannot apply to an inclusive 14 year difference between Paul's conversion and this visit. Therefore, Galatians 2 most likely refers to the Council of Acts 15, despite those who still attempt to suppose an additional visit before the Council. For more on famine relief logistics, see here.
[***UPDATE (7/31/10): If Agrippa died in March of 44, as holds the consensus, then the relief delivery and that traumatic Passover in which Luke sets it, both, belong to 43 AD. Since Galatians 2 cannot refer to any year that's actually before the famine, anyway, this update is a moot point chronologically speaking, as far as affecting the rest of this timeline. Update 2: Red color added to text in paragraph above. For more, see this post. ***]
Galatians - 50 AD - Writen to the four South Galatian churches of Acts; before the Epistle of James, but after the council; it was carried by Titus & Luke, who visited all four churches and went on to wait for Paul at Troas (the one city everyone knew how to find, in West Asia Minor); that Titus' circumcision *was even an issue* and *could have been* "compelled" strongly suggests that this visit was part of the council occasion and virtually confirms that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15. Further, the fact that Paul expects the Galatians to know who Titus is most likely means Titus himself was the letter carrier. As a witness to the events in Jerusalem, Titus was the perfect one to send, and he could easily have been holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve, as additional support for Paul's position. Thus, Paul had no need to mention the shorter letter because Titus was probably carrying it also - presumably on loan from missionally-minded Antioch. (For even more on Galatians and the Council, see here, here, here, and (again) here.)
1st & 2nd Thessalonians - 51 AD - standard view easily dated by Gallio's time in Corinth. We should note here, for later, that Timothy seems to have trouble sticking with his assignment, and keeps running to Paul for assistance. He's going to do this again, 6 years later, in Ephesus.
Departure from Corinth - 52 AD - Paul must have talked with Peter in Jerusalem, about Corinth, somewhere in the middle or the end of sailing season in 52. At least, that is necessary in order for Peter to have sailed to Corinth here in 53 and caused so much trouble (53/54) in unfortunate preparation for a summer of letters going back and forth between Corinth and Paul, in 54. (On which date, see note at top, and see below.) Incidentally, many of the controversies that arose in Corinth around the time of Peter's visit bear striking parallels to the letter of Jerusalem, which suggests Paul had not shown it to Corinth, but that Peter had. Controversies over tongues and healing are also, most likely, symptomatic of Peter's visit.
Epistle of James - c.52 or 51 AD - Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 52 also means James' letter had probably been written by 52, because there is no chance James and Paul did not see each other during this visit, and that makes this the first chance they had to sit down and iron out their perceived differences [over things they didn't really disagree about, except perhaps semantically]. Circumcision was not argued in James' Epistle, and we have no record that James ever heard Paul say the things written in Galatians, before Galatians was written. James must have been responding, in part, to things Paul wrote in his first letter. (Church Councils are not magic cure-alls. They just aren't.)
1st Corinthians - 54 AD, before October - This is an especially critical point for aligning the rest of Paul's dates, and it is based on the fact that Paul talks about travel plans but does not include Rome. The Jews weren't allowed back in until Claudius died, and Paul's trip to Illyricum (Western Provincia Macedonia) must have been planned as part of preparations for going to Rome. Ephesus is also when Paul began speaking of Rome, according to Acts. Further, this letter must be 54, and could not be 53 because Claudius' death also best explains what interrupts Paul's stated plans to sail after Pentecost (which generally assured safe sailing weather; by the way, Paul's also had all of his first three shipwrecks by now).
2nd Corinthians - 56 AD, around November - Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater evidently knew how to get through the Greek hinterland (Acts 20:4a). This letter mentions Macedonians currently visiting Corinth and Paul sounds as if he is following them there shortly. This must be at the end of Paul's Macedonian trip, for two reasons. First, the trip to the Adriatic and back (Acts 20:1-2 & Romans 15:19) must have taken over a year, and second, Timothy must have intercepted Paul in Thessalonica on Paul's way back from Dyrrachium, before Paul headed to Corinth. Timothy, of course, had been struggling in Ephesus since Paul left him there to go into Macedonia, and must have spent the winter of 54/55 building up enough angst & frustration to make Timothy, desperately, flee Ephesus to go seek out Paul's help (just as Timothy had done at least twice before, in Thessalonica). All of this means 2nd Corinthians cannot have been written until after Paul's trip to Illyricum, probably only a month or two before Paul himself returned to Achaia. Timothy simply had to leave Ephesus in time to be in Macedonia with Paul, in time to co-sign this epistle. (See also discussion on 1st Timothy, below.)
Romans - 57 AD - the turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 (not 60) is made necessary here by one of our three key starting points (at top) - that Paul was most likely executed in connection with the great fire of Rome. Again, confirming this point removes the need for those often but ill-conceived (and certainly purely contrived) later itineraries of Paul, Timothy and Titus. In fact, scholarship through the ages has generally considered Paul's death in 64 to be the first and most likely option. The only real obstacle to this has been an over-rigidity of interpreting Titus 1:5, as if Paul himself shared the work of the Cretan mission. (On this point, see above and below.)
1st Timothy - 57 AD - handed off in person, in Troas, giving Timothy one week to appoint the Ephesian Elders Paul met at Miletus. This most natural conclusion has been frequently put off without justifiable cause, and only requires 2nd Corinthians to be written in late 56 AD. (Look again at the discussion of Illyricum, Timothy and 2nd Corinthians, above.) On the need to explain who qualified as elders, Paul had only now formed his own personal stance on the issue of how to appoint/recognize them, since his separation from Barnabas. Timothy had not seen Gentile Christian Elders since the Judaizers so easily overcame the "elders" appointed mainly by Barnabas, in Galatia. (For more on this point, see here.)
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians - 60 to 62 AD - The turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 puts Paul's arrival in Rome in early 60 and his release at 62. Somewhere during this imprisonment, these four "Prison Epistles" went out in two waves. Tychicus took the first three to cities near Ephesus because Colosse's own Epaphras came down with a serious illness. Then Epaphras (Epaphroditus) took Paul's thank you letter back to his new friends in Philippi. Most of this affects nothing else in Pauline Chronology, of course, but we note that after 11-ish years, Philippi now has elders. They were most likely appointed by Paul at his last visit, when Luke left, just while Paul was composing 1st Timothy, on his way to Troas.
Titus - 62 AD - This letter was probably written from Illyricum, which strongly suggests that Paul must have planted a church in Dyrrachium in 55/56, as a sort of a rest stop/half-way point for those from the churches who were heading to Rome after Claudius' death. (Again, see discussion on 2nd Corinthians above.) In any event, the cheapest and most efficient itinerary from Rome to Nicopolis was taking the Appian Way to one of the ferries at Brindisi (Brundisium) that sailed directly over to Dyrrachium. From there, the road south leads to Nicopolis. Later on, Titus winds up north of Dyrrachium, heading to Dalmatia. (A church in Dyrrachium is also attested by inscription, cited by the Jesuit scholar Farlati centuries ago - on which, look up Edwin E. Jacques.) Finally, a church in Dyrrachium could also explain where Erastus spent all his time after Acts 19:22, before heading to Corinth (2.Tim 4:20).
T.2. Titus, we presume, had remained on Crete since Paul left him there, at Fair Havens. The only question is, where had Titus been before? Obviously, considering this involves some conjecture, but it is probably necessary if we stick to the natural conclusion that Paul died in 64 AD. Besides, in what follows, only the details require conjecture, which is far more reasonable than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
T.3. We know Paul was at Crete at least once and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus at least once. Putting these two points together with Titus 1:5 suggests Titus was present at Fair Havens. He must therefore have been part of Paul's sailing party, and he must have abandoned that party - probably because Paul knew from experience that their odds of shipwreck were high, and so one of them had to survive so the churches could know what had happened in case Paul really did die at sea. Besides that, Titus had been on Crete recently, after which he must have visited Caesarea and gotten on board with Luke and Aristarchus.
T.4. Now, if Luke intended Acts at least partly as a defense of Paul for his trial at Rome, and if Paul's three companions were also somehow under the centurion's special jurisdiction (perhaps as witnesses being shipped in at state's expense?) then Titus disappearing at Fair Havens could also explain why Luke deleted Titus from the record. Since only citizens or their slaves were allowed to testify in Rome, Paul (seriously) could simply have 'enslaved' his three friends (a loophole that Roman Law could not have anticipated!) planning to 'free' them later.
T.5. In any event, we know Paul was at Fair Havens and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus. Somehow or another, Titus must have been at Fair Havens, at which point Paul told him to continue the work which he (Titus only, not Titus with Paul) had already begun. Paul also told Titus to appoint elders in every church before he left the island. This point evidently failed to get through to Titus, probably because the church in Antioch made crisis-level decisions without elders (Acts 15:2). Therefore, Paul had to explain to Titus what elders were because (like Timothy from 50 to 57 AD) Titus had never been part of a church that had elders. (As mentioned above, for more on Paul's evolving opinions about elders, see this post.)
T.6. It should be clear now what I meant that only the details require conjecture. The bottom line on dating Titus should be, in my humble opinion, that IF Paul died under Nero in 64 AD (which has always been the most natural conclusion to draw from Tacitus' report on the great fire and from Paul's second letter to Timothy) then Titus must have been at Fair Havens. It's the only time we know for certain that Paul was there, and educated guesswork to get Titus there with Paul is far more reasonable than inventing entirely new travels for both of them.
T.7. Note well: The only necessary conclusions on this point are that Titus was with Paul at Fair Havens, had previously begun the mission there without Paul's assistance, nevertheless received instructions from Paul at Fair Havens (about how to finish what Titus had begun), and remained on Crete when Paul sailed away. For all we know, Titus could have just wandered onto the beach at the right time, simply by divine providence - but of course, this is not my argument. This is only to make clear that all suppositional details in the previous paragraphs were included merely to show at least one very plausible scenario which might have occurred. Most of Titus' itinerary will simply have to remain a mystery, but again (for the last time) this is far better than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
2nd Timothy - early 64 AD - before the fire, and with enough time for Timothy to receive the letter and still have a chance to reach Rome "before winter". Tacitus' account of events in this year are a much more convincing explanation for the tradition that Paul was considered worthy of execution.
Spain - N/A - Paul's plans didn't always materialize. The trick is to realize, there is no Spain. ;-)
========================================
There you go. That's Pauline Chronology in a nutshell, according to me. Someday, of course, I really must write this up properly, supporting these dates and arguments to the strongest extent possible. Until then - or if I never get around to it - this is pretty much the basics of everything I've got to say on the subject.
If anyone wants to start working on this before I get to it, please feel free. I've got enough else to do for the next several years writing up everything that goes from 9 BC until 37 AD. I don't mind sharing at all.
Personal Observations: A lot of the difficulties that get ironed out in this treatment happen to reveal, I believe, strong institutional/religious biases in previous faith-based scholarship on Pauline Chronology. I deeply wish I didn't have to bring it up, but it really does need to be noticed. Certain aspects of the traditional, ecclesiastical dogmas about the Jerusalem Council and the lateness of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" seem to be partly responsible for what has kept Pauline Chronology in dispute for so long. If all three "Pastorals" get to occupy an extra four years of vague, non-contextual space-time, then Titus and Timothy look more like permanent local preachers. This may seem shocking, but it must be considered.
Since my own past experience and outspoken preference for house churches is well known, I must admit this sequence could alter (or cleanse) our view of Pauline ecclesiology somewhat. That may be debatable but Paul's ecclesiology does not have to be ours, at any rate. No christian assembly that I know of is currently following Paul's pattern precisely. Besides this, the "Descriptive/Prescriptive" argument is a much more impenetrable defense than pre-emptive gerrymandering of dates (whether or not that is even partly what has been going on).
In any event, the historian's (or exegete's) job is to judge based on facts in evidence, and not to consider potential relevance of any conclusions beforehand. Given the evidence (as laid out above) I would contend that Pauline Chronology seems to have been unfairly beset by institutional biases, although much of it is undoubtedly subconscious. Of course, if it is fully aware, such cheating simply must come to an end.
I would also contend - and here is why this all had to be said - that this mostly explains why no one has solved Pauline Chronology more efficiently or sufficiently than this, before now, and why I myself (an untrained, if unashamed amateur) managed to happen upon it. In any case, if I've put together the argument I think I have, it deserves to be looked at. And no matter who looks here, none of us should allow ourselves to manipulate the data to support our church government practices. Pauline ecclesiology was primitive.
It is a simple historical fact that nobody in the New Testament performed the job duties of a medieval priest or a protestant "pastor". That's really not a big deal, unless we feel the need to pretend otherwise. It's really not even a problem, unless we let tradition or dogma inhibit us from viewing the full context of Paul's letters, as they properly ought to be viewed.
I've been going over this and over this for five years, and unless I'm missing something very significant, I believe I can make the following statement with all confidence.
This really must be the most likely solution to Pauline Chronology, period.
Your comments, questions and challenges are warmly invited, as long as this post remains online.
November 05, 2009
Quirinius, Again
It is my great joy to draw your attention to this journal article by Jared M. Compton who does a thorough job of summarizing current scholarship on Luke's dubious reference to the Roman Proconsul Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. (H/T Charles Savelle at Bible X) For those most interested, I recommend printing the whole page, because the footnotes are twice as long as the arguments. Anyone unfamiliar with the problem can follow the author's footnotes, which are comprehensive for all major relevant opinions on the issue.
The article's conclusion takes a straightforward reading of Luke 2:2 and posits that Quirinius held an "otherwise unattested office" under some Syrian Legate prior to 4 BC. For grammatical reasons I couldn't sum up if I wanted to, Compton prefers this to the solution of F.F. Bruce, Harold Hoehner and others (that Luke 2:2 refers to the census "before" Quirinius was Governor). Personally, I still prefer a strained syntax over inventing history, but I have to admit it is plausible and it does make more curious to learn more about Luke's grammar. To Compton's credit, if his arguments about grammar are solid, the posited solution is probably necessary.
In the end, I'm thrilled about Compton's argument because - imho - the article successfully demonstrated that (1) the best explanations for Luke 2:2 all favor a birth date for Jesus before 4 BC and (2) in every explanation, Luke 2:2 offers no further help in pinpointing that date, chronologically. This is correct and needs to be acknowledged more often.
Therefore, whether we take the solution of Bruce and Hoehner or the one suggested by Compton, Luke 2:2 should no longer dominate or inhibit historical investigation about this Luke-attested registration that occurred under Augustus and Herod the Great.
The article's conclusion takes a straightforward reading of Luke 2:2 and posits that Quirinius held an "otherwise unattested office" under some Syrian Legate prior to 4 BC. For grammatical reasons I couldn't sum up if I wanted to, Compton prefers this to the solution of F.F. Bruce, Harold Hoehner and others (that Luke 2:2 refers to the census "before" Quirinius was Governor). Personally, I still prefer a strained syntax over inventing history, but I have to admit it is plausible and it does make more curious to learn more about Luke's grammar. To Compton's credit, if his arguments about grammar are solid, the posited solution is probably necessary.
In the end, I'm thrilled about Compton's argument because - imho - the article successfully demonstrated that (1) the best explanations for Luke 2:2 all favor a birth date for Jesus before 4 BC and (2) in every explanation, Luke 2:2 offers no further help in pinpointing that date, chronologically. This is correct and needs to be acknowledged more often.
Therefore, whether we take the solution of Bruce and Hoehner or the one suggested by Compton, Luke 2:2 should no longer dominate or inhibit historical investigation about this Luke-attested registration that occurred under Augustus and Herod the Great.
November 04, 2009
Give up on 1 BC
I continue to be shocked at how much peer reviewed ink continues to be spilled by really intelligent scholars who try to claim Herod the Great died in 1 BC. One of the most impressive arguments, to be fair, is that Josephus' report that Philip the Tetrarch died in the 20th year of Tiberius (Antiquities 18.106) is given as "the twenty-second year of Tiberius" in the earliest manuscripts. If Philip died in 35/36 instead of 33/34, it could indeed imply a later death for his father, King Herod.
This point was the lynch pin of W.E. Filmer's argument and David Beyer's presentation of evidence at SBL in 1995 seems to be what persuaded Finegan. However, Beyer's knowledge of contextual Roman events is severely lacking. (For example, he cites Syme that there was no war from 7 BC until 2 BC, but Syme himself dated the Homanadensian War to 4/3 BC.) The bottom line is this: if "twenty-second" is indeed what Josephus originally wrote, it doesn't mean his number is accurate. It would only mean that he contradicts himself... more than once.
First, Beyer did not mention Gaius. At the midsummer hearing in Rome, in the year Herod died, Josephus explicitly places young Gaius Caesar (grandson of Augustus) prominently in attendance. (Antiquities 17.229) But if the teenage Caesar was truly present, this meeting to read Herod's will could not have taken place in 1 BC. Dio Cassius, Suetonius and Velleius combine to assure us that Gaius received the Tribunican power in 1 BC and departed for Syria shortly after his mother Julia was exiled (2/1 BC). Gaius took a leisurely tour around the Agean, finding his way to Samos by late summer of 1 BC, where he saw Tiberius 'the exile'. (Cf. Swan's commentary on Dio 55.10ff.)
If Beyer is right, Gaius' itnerary does not fit, unless Josephus is wrong. So, pick your error.
Second, Beyer did not mention Julias. Josephus also declares that Philip renamed Bethsaida in honor of Julia, Augustus' daughter. (Antiquities 18.28) But if Philip had not become Tetrarch until 1 BC, he would absolutely have known better. As just mentioned, Julia was disgraced in 2 BC, which explains why the designation didn't last very long. It's a wonder Josephus even mentions it, but it only makes sense in 3 or 2 BC.
Again, if "twenty-second year of Tiberius" is true, then Josephus' report about Julias must absolutely be false. Error pickers are now weighing two against one.
There are other examples but these successfully illustrate the point. Josephus may indeed have said that Philip died in Tiberius' twenty-second year. If so, he simply must have been wrong - either about that or about a host of other facts. Since Josephus is elsewhere known to be a bit off in his counting of reigns - an unfortunate trend, we must sadly admit - we have solid precedent for doubting the earlier manuscripts. Even if they are authentic, that number cannot be accurate.
Josephus has to be wrong in at least one of these places. The orthodox solution is also the most economical. Herod died in 4 BC. The occasional and Quixotic attempts to dispute this (as recently as this year, in Novum Testamentum!) really need to be put out of our misery.
November 03, 2009
The Eclipse of Purim, 4 BC
I have never seen in print, aside from Josephus' own statement, that the famous eclipse of 4 BC happened on a festival night. There are other issues, of course, but this point deserves more consideration in the (amazingly, still active) debate about which eclipse (in which year) marked the death of Herod the Great.
those present said... that the perpetrators should not be exempted from punishment. Herod therefore dealt rather mildly with these others but removed the high priest Matthias from his priestly office as being partly to blame for what had happened, and in his stead appointed his wife's brother Joazar as high priest. Now it happened during this Matthias' term as high priest that another high priest was appointed for a single day - that which the Jews observe as a fast - for the following reason. While serving as priest during the night preceeding the day on which the fast occurred, Matthias seemed in a dream to have intercourse with a woman, and since he was unable to serve as priest because of that experience, a relative of his, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, served as priest in his place. Herod then deposed Matthias from the high priesthood. As for the other Matthias, who had stirred up the sedition, he burnt him alive along with some of his companions. And on that same night there was an eclipse of the moon. (Antiquities 17.164ff, emphasis mine)The Loeb footnote is almost certainly justified to identify this as the Fast of Esther, which evidently began at sundown on March 12th, several hours before the eclipse that took place after midnight on March 13th. Josephus' language leaves little room for doubt about this. Although it is not unlike Josephus to include random information in an aside, or to render flashbacks with unspecific chronology, his asides are never completely random and their details are usually significant to the surrounding narrative. In this particular passage, the details strongly suggest a very tight correlation of events.
Here is what must have happened. Around dawn on the morning of March 12th, the chief men of Jerusalem were gathering to depart for the meeting Herod had called at Jericho. With good horses, they could easily arrive by noon. But the word must have already spread that the high priest had recused himself. The scandal itself would not have been so outrageous, but only the King could legally appoint new high priests. So when Matthias chose his own replacement, even a temporary one, the chief men were obligated to report it to Herod.
But Matthias must have had both friends and enemies in the Jerusalem embassy. His political opponents would take any opportunity to replace him as high priest, while his friends would be bound by their own safety not to withhold the facts from King Herod. As it turned out, the friends and enemies of Matthias may have compromised. Josephus does not tell us that Herod knew about Matthias' offense, but the high priest has suddenly and somehow, implausibly, come to be "partly to blame" for what happened with the golden eagle some days or weeks before.
So far as we know, Matthias had nothing to do with the two rabbis and their overzealous students. He was not arrested, bound or executed with the others whom Josephus specifically names as responsible for the assault on the eagle. If Josephus' story about the rabbis is accurate, then Matthias was innocent, and therefore someone at the Jericho assembly must have come up with their own reasons to name Matthias "as partly to blame" (ws aition tou merous).
This scenario makes Josephus' flashback/aside perfectly relevant to the content and chronology of the burning. The mention together of a fast and an eclipse naturally evokes Purim, which always occurred at the full moon one month before Passover. Josephus' strong suggestion, therefore, is that this eclipse occurred at the time of that festival - which puts Herod's death solidly in 4 BC.
October 29, 2009
A Common Error - Dating Herod's Temple
In John 2:20, Jerusalem's elders cite 46 years for the building of Herod's Temple. That number is not in dispute here, but in calculating its significance to history and chronology, scholars often claim Josephus tells us precisely when Herod began to build. The common statement is something to the effect that "Josephus tells us the rebuilding began in Herod's eighteenth year, 20/19 BC." All such statements are inaccurate, because Josephus nowhere tells us any such thing.
Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.
---------------------------------------
A related "common error", the notion that Herod's Temple was continuously under construction for eight decades, will have to wait for some future post. And until someone publishes Jona's new book in English, go check out his blog posts. I recommend starting with this one about Pontius Pilate.
Everyone catches the revision of "fifteenth" to "eighteenth" from Josephus' Jewish War (1.401) to his Antiquities (15.380). No one seems to catch the significance of the other revisions. In War, Josephus literally said Herod restored (epeskeuasen) the Temple that year. Obviously no one thought that was true, but in correcting himself, Josephus also takes pains to convey a more nuanced process. Now he says Herod "undertook (epebaleto) an extraordinary work, (namely) the reconstructing (kataskeuasasthai) of the temple of God".
Note that Wikgren's Loeb translation made an infinitive into a gerund. Interestingly, Whiston did not: "undertook a very great work, that is, to build". If we isolate this sentence, Whiston seems awkward and Wikgren's decision is justifiable, but in the larger context, Whiston underscores a key point, and Wikgren, although inadvertently, has misled us.
The other critical detail here is that "undertook" does not exactly mean "began". The verb (imperfect passive form of epiballw, taking the accusitive case) more literally means Herod had it thrown upon him, which suggests something like Liddel & Scott's alternate glosses for "undertook", which are, "took (or put) it upon himself". Essentially, the desire has taken firm root, but there is no implication that the intended action has necessarily been embarked upon, as of yet.
In the War, Josephus told us one year in which Herod built. In the Antiquities, Josephus corrects this with exacting qualification. He now tells us only what year Herod devoted himself to the building project. Every detail of the narrative following bears this out. Herod's offer to begin the project was met with skepticism by Jews who feared he might tear down and not build up again. So the King promised "he would not pull down the temple before having ready all the materials" (15.390) and Josephus concludes that Herod indeed, "began the construction [note the same root in kataskeuhs] only after all these preparations had diligently been made by him."
The materials included "a thousand wagons to carry the stones" and the preparations included the training of "a thousand priests" as masons and builders. There is no telling how long it took to train a thousand priests into skillful laborers. There is no telling how many trips the thousand stone wagons took, before enough stone was piled up at the site to begin tearing down... which tearing itself may not even have been considered as the beginning of "reconstruction".
The only thing we can date to 20/19 BC, according to Joesphus, is the speech in which Herod promised to build. The actual building must have begun quite some time later. One or two or even three years is not an unthinkable amount of time for the immense amount of preparations that had to take place before reconstruction could begin. The tearing down would probably have been very quick, so the rebuilding could have begun in 19, 18, or perhaps early 17 BC.
Josephus later says the Temple sanctuary was completed in "a year and six months" (15.421) but this by itself does not contradict anything else. We still do not know how much time passed after the speech before work on that new sanctuary was actually begun. However, we also know that shortly after this eighteen month period Herod visited Caesar in Rome (16.6). Since Caesar went north into Gaul in 16 BC, Herod can only have sailed to Italy in 18, 17 or early 16. The latest possible date for sanctuary construction to begin would therefore be winter of 18/17 BC. The earliest, we should think, not before 19. Most feasibly, it could have been anywhere in the 24 month window of 19 to 18 BC.
The point of all this - for New Testament chronologists - is that these references from Josephus are not enough, by themselves, to inform us precisely about what year the Jerusalemites were speaking in when they told Jesus, "This Temple was under construction (oikodomhthe) for forty-six years". Without inventing a time span for the prep-work, that "46 years" could have ended in 27, 28, 29 or even early 30 AD (counting strictly or inclusively).
Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.
---------------------------------------
*Post title partly in homage and congratulations to Jona Lendering for his forthcoming publication (in Dutch) about Common Errors in scholarship.
A related "common error", the notion that Herod's Temple was continuously under construction for eight decades, will have to wait for some future post. And until someone publishes Jona's new book in English, go check out his blog posts. I recommend starting with this one about Pontius Pilate.
September 09, 2009
Dating Paul's "Conversion"
IF the Arabian (Nabatean) King Aretas ever occupied Damascus, it would have been before 37 AD. It could not have been after. Ogg missed this. Jewett missed this. Bowersock pointed it out in 1983 and few have acknowledged it since. The historical context is vital to Pauline chronology AND to the chronology of the earliest church in Jerusalem.
Here's the very-skinny. In 20 BC, the Kingdom of Zenodorus was granted to Herod the Great even though it had been promised to Nabatea. The Nabateans made trouble in Trachonitis until Aretas betrothed his daughter to Antipas (c.1 BC/1 AD) and Philip managed to forge good relations with the Nabateans in his Tetrarchy. But Antipas broke the treaty when he married Herodias (28/29 AD) and Philip's death (33/34 AD) filled the old Kingdom of Zenodorus with an absolute power vacuum.
Tiberius (undoubtedly with, through or by proxy of Macro, the new Praetorian Prefect after Sejanus) officially annexed Philip's Tetrarchy into Provincia Syria. But Syria had been suffering from a power vacuum of its own. The Proconsul Lamia was an absentee Governor for ten years until Pomponius Flaccus [not to be confused with the Egyptian Prefect hated by Philo] arrived in 32. But Flaccus died in office in 33 and Tiberius (and/or Macro) sent L. Vitellius in 35, more than a whole year after Philip and Flaccus had both died.
Presumably, Vitellius was to establish the new status of Philip's Tetrarchy, but Vitellius had his hands full immediately with conflict on all sides. Dealing with the Parthian invasion of Armenia occupied Vitellius' first two summers while the Governor also sent one of his four Legions to help Cappadocia against a mountain tribe of Cilicians. Meanwhile, Herod Antipas had taken the liberty of sending his own small army to occupy the strategic fortress-city of Gamala in the Golan Heights. But while Antipas was at the Euphrates making peace with the Parthian King Artabanus, the Nabatean army took Gamala and crushed Herod's army.
By early 37, Vitellius was marching south, but purposely dawdled, resenting Antipas for taking credit about the Euphrates treaty in a letter to the Emperor. Tiberius (and/or Macro) had ordered Vitellius to avenge Antipas, but Vitellius lingered in Jerusalem after Passover until news arrived of Tiberius' death. At that, the Governor took his Legions back north. Gamala had already been reclaimed (officially for Syria) and Aretas had long since retreated. And just by coincidence, almost simultaneously, in Rome, the new Emperor Caligula (and his chief advisor, Macro) were appointing Antipas' nephew, Herod Agrippa, as the new King of the old Kingdom/Tetrarchy.
According to our records, Aretas did not attack or press through Trachonitis under Agrippa. It is extremely doubtful that Aretas could have managed possessions from the other side of Agrippa. And Aretas was somewhere in his 60's already, at least. He had been king since 9/8 BC. Two years after Caligula made Agrippa King of Trachonitis and the Golan, Aretas died, in 39 AD.
That's the whole skinny. Now here's the point.
It had long been assumed, by a very poor reading of 2nd Corinthians 11:32, that Aretas must have been granted Damascus by Rome, and the next argument went that since Tiberius sent Vitellius after Aretas, it must have been the nutsy Caligula. These arguments required skepticism of Josephus on Gamala as the point of battle, since the Golan was not an official "boundary" between Antipas and Aretas. But Josephus said Gamala, so the territorial issues must go back to the old grudge over Zenodorus. Only Bowersock (Roman Arabia, 1983) makes complete sense out of Tacitus, Josephus and Paul on this issue.
My own tiny contribution to this conversation is that Macro alone should be enough to debunk the old argument that Caligula suddenly did an about face from Tiberian policy. For all practical purposes, Macro was running the Empire in all twelve months of 37 AD, besides which Caligula never showed any interest in foriegn policy, except for the Temple worship fiasco in 39/40. Caligula merely gave his 'uncle Herod' a Kingdom as a reward for his friendship in recent years. Herod's Kingship, of course, is another issue the old arguments failed to deal with. If Caligula had wanted to give Damascus to anyone, it should have been Agrippa.
The Conclusion: Paul's "three years" in Arabia must end before winter of 36/37 and therefore his conversion must be dated to 33/34.
The Challenge: If we also take 33 as the year of Christ's Passion and Pentecost, what does that do to our view of the earliest church in Jerusalem? Tentatively clinging to 30 AD, which has become increasingly difficult to defend in recent decades except by appeal to tradition, seems to be motivated in some cases by a bias towards keeping Acts 1-8 in a long stretch of years. I think it was less than four months, but that's a story for some other time...
Here's the very-skinny. In 20 BC, the Kingdom of Zenodorus was granted to Herod the Great even though it had been promised to Nabatea. The Nabateans made trouble in Trachonitis until Aretas betrothed his daughter to Antipas (c.1 BC/1 AD) and Philip managed to forge good relations with the Nabateans in his Tetrarchy. But Antipas broke the treaty when he married Herodias (28/29 AD) and Philip's death (33/34 AD) filled the old Kingdom of Zenodorus with an absolute power vacuum.
Tiberius (undoubtedly with, through or by proxy of Macro, the new Praetorian Prefect after Sejanus) officially annexed Philip's Tetrarchy into Provincia Syria. But Syria had been suffering from a power vacuum of its own. The Proconsul Lamia was an absentee Governor for ten years until Pomponius Flaccus [not to be confused with the Egyptian Prefect hated by Philo] arrived in 32. But Flaccus died in office in 33 and Tiberius (and/or Macro) sent L. Vitellius in 35, more than a whole year after Philip and Flaccus had both died.
Presumably, Vitellius was to establish the new status of Philip's Tetrarchy, but Vitellius had his hands full immediately with conflict on all sides. Dealing with the Parthian invasion of Armenia occupied Vitellius' first two summers while the Governor also sent one of his four Legions to help Cappadocia against a mountain tribe of Cilicians. Meanwhile, Herod Antipas had taken the liberty of sending his own small army to occupy the strategic fortress-city of Gamala in the Golan Heights. But while Antipas was at the Euphrates making peace with the Parthian King Artabanus, the Nabatean army took Gamala and crushed Herod's army.
By early 37, Vitellius was marching south, but purposely dawdled, resenting Antipas for taking credit about the Euphrates treaty in a letter to the Emperor. Tiberius (and/or Macro) had ordered Vitellius to avenge Antipas, but Vitellius lingered in Jerusalem after Passover until news arrived of Tiberius' death. At that, the Governor took his Legions back north. Gamala had already been reclaimed (officially for Syria) and Aretas had long since retreated. And just by coincidence, almost simultaneously, in Rome, the new Emperor Caligula (and his chief advisor, Macro) were appointing Antipas' nephew, Herod Agrippa, as the new King of the old Kingdom/Tetrarchy.
According to our records, Aretas did not attack or press through Trachonitis under Agrippa. It is extremely doubtful that Aretas could have managed possessions from the other side of Agrippa. And Aretas was somewhere in his 60's already, at least. He had been king since 9/8 BC. Two years after Caligula made Agrippa King of Trachonitis and the Golan, Aretas died, in 39 AD.
That's the whole skinny. Now here's the point.
It had long been assumed, by a very poor reading of 2nd Corinthians 11:32, that Aretas must have been granted Damascus by Rome, and the next argument went that since Tiberius sent Vitellius after Aretas, it must have been the nutsy Caligula. These arguments required skepticism of Josephus on Gamala as the point of battle, since the Golan was not an official "boundary" between Antipas and Aretas. But Josephus said Gamala, so the territorial issues must go back to the old grudge over Zenodorus. Only Bowersock (Roman Arabia, 1983) makes complete sense out of Tacitus, Josephus and Paul on this issue.
My own tiny contribution to this conversation is that Macro alone should be enough to debunk the old argument that Caligula suddenly did an about face from Tiberian policy. For all practical purposes, Macro was running the Empire in all twelve months of 37 AD, besides which Caligula never showed any interest in foriegn policy, except for the Temple worship fiasco in 39/40. Caligula merely gave his 'uncle Herod' a Kingdom as a reward for his friendship in recent years. Herod's Kingship, of course, is another issue the old arguments failed to deal with. If Caligula had wanted to give Damascus to anyone, it should have been Agrippa.
The Conclusion: Paul's "three years" in Arabia must end before winter of 36/37 and therefore his conversion must be dated to 33/34.
The Challenge: If we also take 33 as the year of Christ's Passion and Pentecost, what does that do to our view of the earliest church in Jerusalem? Tentatively clinging to 30 AD, which has become increasingly difficult to defend in recent decades except by appeal to tradition, seems to be motivated in some cases by a bias towards keeping Acts 1-8 in a long stretch of years. I think it was less than four months, but that's a story for some other time...
August 28, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 8
An awful lot of what we know about Synagogue practice is based on evidence that dates after 70 AD. Obviously, when Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed the local communities in Palestine and the Diaspora had to adapt in many ways. One of the significant changes that scholars believe must have taken place was an increased need for and emphasis on the formal education of Jewish children.
Obviously, practices varied and we don't know for certain precisely what went on anywhere, let alone everywhere. But Solomon's vision - renewed by Zerubbabel and co-opted by Herod the Great - was that God would always be with Israel via Jerusalem. So as long as the religious aspects of life were secure in what seemed to be their everlasting institutions at Jerusalem, local Synagogues were less vital to Jewish identity and their members were more free to concentrate personal and family resources as necessary on what was always the primary activity of anyone in the ancient world - raw survival. Thus, there was less emphasis in general on childhood education in Synagogues before 70 AD.
This makes Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" seem upside down, but Maslow (aside from generalizing) was focused on individuals. As all of European History shows, the survival of the Jews has always been a community effort. Most human beings are hard pressed to help certain ones among their own kin, but Jews everywhere have traditionally been helpful to each others' relatives. Over time, that positive interdependence helped generate wealth in their communities, which in turn helped inspire resentment, but it was never all about the wealth. In effect, they were hated because they were beautiful.
By the way, this always reminds me of Tacitus accusing the Christians in Rome of anti-social tendencies (Penguin; or, in the Loeb translation, "hatred of the human race"). An enclave of foreigners always stands out when they band together, and early christians were foreigners anywhere in the world. It is sometimes when the foriegners seem to prefer their community that the locals begin to dislike feeling like outsiders. Well, oh well.
My point is that Maslow claims basic survival should be the top priority, but Jewish economics depended on the survival of the community. So when community survival required universal childhood education, individual economic needs actually became less of a priority. Or maybe the Synagogue distributed welfare. Either way, the top, bottom and middle of Maslow's triangle seem bound together in Jewish motivation after Jerusalem fell, because of community, not to mention because of their faith (another Maslow blind spot). After 70 AD, it became more intensely true on a local level that Jewish survival depended on survival as Jews.
So, after 70, education of Jewish children in every community became vitally necessary. But before 70 AD, a random carpenter's son may or may not have been able - or perhaps even allowed - to attend school during the work week. Until it became a vital necessity, Jewish education of the general public was more like education in the rest of the world. All Jews learned on the Sabbath, but work day chores were demanding if not all consuming. By and large, families that could not afford servants needed all hands pitching in.
As I said above, the picture we get is a little unclear, but this is solid in general. Next we can consider these principles more specifically, and other facts about Synagogues (pre and post 70) as they all pertain to the probable education activities of Jesus in Nazareth.
To be continued...
Obviously, practices varied and we don't know for certain precisely what went on anywhere, let alone everywhere. But Solomon's vision - renewed by Zerubbabel and co-opted by Herod the Great - was that God would always be with Israel via Jerusalem. So as long as the religious aspects of life were secure in what seemed to be their everlasting institutions at Jerusalem, local Synagogues were less vital to Jewish identity and their members were more free to concentrate personal and family resources as necessary on what was always the primary activity of anyone in the ancient world - raw survival. Thus, there was less emphasis in general on childhood education in Synagogues before 70 AD.
This makes Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" seem upside down, but Maslow (aside from generalizing) was focused on individuals. As all of European History shows, the survival of the Jews has always been a community effort. Most human beings are hard pressed to help certain ones among their own kin, but Jews everywhere have traditionally been helpful to each others' relatives. Over time, that positive interdependence helped generate wealth in their communities, which in turn helped inspire resentment, but it was never all about the wealth. In effect, they were hated because they were beautiful.
By the way, this always reminds me of Tacitus accusing the Christians in Rome of anti-social tendencies (Penguin; or, in the Loeb translation, "hatred of the human race"). An enclave of foreigners always stands out when they band together, and early christians were foreigners anywhere in the world. It is sometimes when the foriegners seem to prefer their community that the locals begin to dislike feeling like outsiders. Well, oh well.
My point is that Maslow claims basic survival should be the top priority, but Jewish economics depended on the survival of the community. So when community survival required universal childhood education, individual economic needs actually became less of a priority. Or maybe the Synagogue distributed welfare. Either way, the top, bottom and middle of Maslow's triangle seem bound together in Jewish motivation after Jerusalem fell, because of community, not to mention because of their faith (another Maslow blind spot). After 70 AD, it became more intensely true on a local level that Jewish survival depended on survival as Jews.
So, after 70, education of Jewish children in every community became vitally necessary. But before 70 AD, a random carpenter's son may or may not have been able - or perhaps even allowed - to attend school during the work week. Until it became a vital necessity, Jewish education of the general public was more like education in the rest of the world. All Jews learned on the Sabbath, but work day chores were demanding if not all consuming. By and large, families that could not afford servants needed all hands pitching in.
As I said above, the picture we get is a little unclear, but this is solid in general. Next we can consider these principles more specifically, and other facts about Synagogues (pre and post 70) as they all pertain to the probable education activities of Jesus in Nazareth.
To be continued...
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 17, 2009
How Jewish was Galilee?
The Galileans began converting to Judaism under the Hasmoneans before or by 103 BC - possibly at the point of a sword, definitely at the point of a knife. One hundred years later, Herod the Great died and Joseph & Mary brought Jesus from Egypt to Nazareth. How Jewish were the Galileans, one century after conversion? I'm not going to try answering that one today, but I just thought of an interesting comparison.
Black slaves in America were freed by Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. One hundred years later, Martin Luther King stood at the Lincoln Memorial and said "I have a dream..." How much had changed in that century? In some ways, very much. In other ways, not so much.
Forty-six years after MLK, the USA has a black president. Thirty-three years after Herod died, Capernaum was proud of a new Synagogue building, that was probably less than twenty years old, that was largely financed by a gentile. Things change more quickly in the 21st century, but things have always changed more quickly in some places than others.
It's still an interesting comparison. How free were African-Americans in 1963? Totally free. How Jewish were Jewish-Galileans in 0033? Totally Jewish. And yet not the same kind of free, not the same kind of Jewish, as others.
Change has as much to do with location, economics and political connectedness as it does with time and it sure seems like the Judean Jews had a somewhat aggressive program of integration for their Galilean recruits over the course of that century. That's a huge, shameful difference that adds greater contrast to this comparison. People assimilate much faster when they're actually wanted and when their connectedness is actively nurtured. But then again, the Galileans never had to integrate geographically with the Judeans.
Just some things to think about...
Black slaves in America were freed by Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. One hundred years later, Martin Luther King stood at the Lincoln Memorial and said "I have a dream..." How much had changed in that century? In some ways, very much. In other ways, not so much.
Forty-six years after MLK, the USA has a black president. Thirty-three years after Herod died, Capernaum was proud of a new Synagogue building, that was probably less than twenty years old, that was largely financed by a gentile. Things change more quickly in the 21st century, but things have always changed more quickly in some places than others.
It's still an interesting comparison. How free were African-Americans in 1963? Totally free. How Jewish were Jewish-Galileans in 0033? Totally Jewish. And yet not the same kind of free, not the same kind of Jewish, as others.
Change has as much to do with location, economics and political connectedness as it does with time and it sure seems like the Judean Jews had a somewhat aggressive program of integration for their Galilean recruits over the course of that century. That's a huge, shameful difference that adds greater contrast to this comparison. People assimilate much faster when they're actually wanted and when their connectedness is actively nurtured. But then again, the Galileans never had to integrate geographically with the Judeans.
Just some things to think about...
August 10, 2009
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...
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...
August 09, 2009
Ancient Journalism - Speeches and Sound Bytes
Ancient historians often put long speeches into the mouths of historical figures. Generally, we take the gist of these speeches as informative in an accurate way, but of course the entire speech was not recorded with a tape recorder. Short sayings, however, are often taken verbatim. I don't think anyone doubts Suetonius' assertion that Augustus liked to say "make haste slowly" or Dio Cassius' claim that the Emperor said, "I would rather be Herod's pig than his son." Such quotable sound bytes are memorable for obvious reasons, and thus inherently trustable. If the so-called 'telephone game' had affected those statements much, they would never have been so notable. Besides, both lines befit the people involved and line up with the facts.
Now what about the Gospels? Jesus makes long speeches in all of them. Luke's version of the "sermon on the mount" is much abbriged from Matthew's. Yet within all Jesus' speeches are a great many "quotable soundbytes". Also, the content was usually much more dramatic and impactful than legal arguments or political appeals. We shouldn't be too quick to doubt them as being accurate to a fairly high degree, if not absolutely verbatim.
In addition, it is not necessary to believe the first written versions came decades later (as scholars generally assume). As I have argued here repeatedly, the Jewish culture was a highly literary one, if not a highly literate one. Writings and readings were an enormous part of the Jewish identity and daily experience. Since Jesus' followers undoubtedly considered Moses and the Prophets to have been traveling writers, as well as speakers, it is highly plausible to suppose the disciples would have worked as a group to make sure at least one educated man among themselves was updating a written account, along the way. (As should be well known by now, I believe that man was probably Matthew.)
With all of that, I do not think christians need to (or should) believe that every "red letter" word in the Gospels was spoken by the Lord precisely as recorded. Honestly, I stand with those who say that if the ancients themselves didn't expect verbatim accounts, we should accept that and understand the historical limitations of ancient speech recording.
And now with that balancing remark, I certainly believe christians should take all the "red letter" words as if they were spoken verbaitm. On the other hand, how do we determine what to take from Jesus' speeches for the purposes of historical reconstruction? How much can (or should) we consider as verbaitm? I gonna take a stab now, even though I know I'll keep percolating on this for a long time to come... [Update: I am essentially done percolating on John. The Synoptics, however, are my focus in this post.]
Ironically, those who say the Gospel writers added "theological" content of their own may actually give us a way to believe Jesus' speeches have MORE historical reliability... that is, IF those "theological" insertions were actually, honest-to-goodness, divine revelations of God. But I'm not saying the writers were given dictation as if God was the tape recorder during the speeches. I'm saying that if the writings are truly inspired, then we should confidently consider them virtually accurate.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that "close counts" in horseshoes and holy scripture. ;-)
Now what about the Gospels? Jesus makes long speeches in all of them. Luke's version of the "sermon on the mount" is much abbriged from Matthew's. Yet within all Jesus' speeches are a great many "quotable soundbytes". Also, the content was usually much more dramatic and impactful than legal arguments or political appeals. We shouldn't be too quick to doubt them as being accurate to a fairly high degree, if not absolutely verbatim.
In addition, it is not necessary to believe the first written versions came decades later (as scholars generally assume). As I have argued here repeatedly, the Jewish culture was a highly literary one, if not a highly literate one. Writings and readings were an enormous part of the Jewish identity and daily experience. Since Jesus' followers undoubtedly considered Moses and the Prophets to have been traveling writers, as well as speakers, it is highly plausible to suppose the disciples would have worked as a group to make sure at least one educated man among themselves was updating a written account, along the way. (As should be well known by now, I believe that man was probably Matthew.)
With all of that, I do not think christians need to (or should) believe that every "red letter" word in the Gospels was spoken by the Lord precisely as recorded. Honestly, I stand with those who say that if the ancients themselves didn't expect verbatim accounts, we should accept that and understand the historical limitations of ancient speech recording.
And now with that balancing remark, I certainly believe christians should take all the "red letter" words as if they were spoken verbaitm. On the other hand, how do we determine what to take from Jesus' speeches for the purposes of historical reconstruction? How much can (or should) we consider as verbaitm? I gonna take a stab now, even though I know I'll keep percolating on this for a long time to come... [Update: I am essentially done percolating on John. The Synoptics, however, are my focus in this post.]
Ironically, those who say the Gospel writers added "theological" content of their own may actually give us a way to believe Jesus' speeches have MORE historical reliability... that is, IF those "theological" insertions were actually, honest-to-goodness, divine revelations of God. But I'm not saying the writers were given dictation as if God was the tape recorder during the speeches. I'm saying that if the writings are truly inspired, then we should confidently consider them virtually accurate.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that "close counts" in horseshoes and holy scripture. ;-)
July 06, 2009
Quarry Time on Herod's Temple
Apparently the Israel Antiquities Authority has uncovered another Herodian quarry. (h/t RC, natch) Here's the beautiful and surprising part of the quote from Dr. Ofer Sion: "...before Herod built the Temple he prepared the infrastructure for it: the quarrying of the Temple's stones lasted eight whole years. The Temple itself was built in a relatively short time of two years."
I'm thrilled to see somebody counting out years of prep work, but is he citing actual research or are these unpublished conclusions? For his statement to be accurate he must mean quarrying for the whole complex was done in eight years and the sanctuary building went up during two of those early years. Otherwise, if he means the sanctuary stones took eight years to quarry, how did they quarry and build all the rest in time for the Battle of Pentecost in 4 BC, at which time Josephus describes how the collonades and courtyard structures collapsed in a fire set by Varus' Legion.
At any rate, it's great to see a public piece that goes into construction time without the common generalism, "Herod's Temple took about 80 years to complete." I also hope Sion is also right that "Herod began quarrying closest to the Temple and worked away from it". Now I'll wait eagerly to see how far away they find quarrying for the pavement - that being what most likely accounts for the fact there was any work yet to be done under Agrippa II.
If anybody knows what research Sion was citing, please let me know.
Click Herod's Temple in the index below for my old posts on this topic.
UPDATE: Apparently he's just extrapolating from Josephus' Antiquities 15:420 that the porticos and outer courts were built in 8 years. That doesn't mean the corresponding quarrying hadn't been going on for 9 or 10 years or more, but I guess I'm quibbling now. (h/t David Meadows again!)
I'm thrilled to see somebody counting out years of prep work, but is he citing actual research or are these unpublished conclusions? For his statement to be accurate he must mean quarrying for the whole complex was done in eight years and the sanctuary building went up during two of those early years. Otherwise, if he means the sanctuary stones took eight years to quarry, how did they quarry and build all the rest in time for the Battle of Pentecost in 4 BC, at which time Josephus describes how the collonades and courtyard structures collapsed in a fire set by Varus' Legion.
At any rate, it's great to see a public piece that goes into construction time without the common generalism, "Herod's Temple took about 80 years to complete." I also hope Sion is also right that "Herod began quarrying closest to the Temple and worked away from it". Now I'll wait eagerly to see how far away they find quarrying for the pavement - that being what most likely accounts for the fact there was any work yet to be done under Agrippa II.
If anybody knows what research Sion was citing, please let me know.
Click Herod's Temple in the index below for my old posts on this topic.
UPDATE: Apparently he's just extrapolating from Josephus' Antiquities 15:420 that the porticos and outer courts were built in 8 years. That doesn't mean the corresponding quarrying hadn't been going on for 9 or 10 years or more, but I guess I'm quibbling now. (h/t David Meadows again!)
July 03, 2009
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. (!)
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. (!)
June 01, 2009
Locating the Events of John's 21st Chapter
This is more warm-up for my upcoming series. Location matters in a story, as in history, and I believe John 21 is both. However, this post won’t belong in the middle of the series I’m preparing. So let’s get it out of the way. Here goes:
What is the location of the conversation between Jesus and Peter in John 21? Most likely, it seems, this dramatic event took place on a beach near the city of Tiberias.
In John 6:1, apparently having just come from Jerusalem, Jesus sails across the Sea of Galilee. This is the first of three references to Herod Antipas’ city of Tiberias on the southern point of the Lake. It is also natural that Jesus heading north would sail across from Tiberias to Bethsaida, which is where the synoptics place the next event, feeding 5,000. Further, Cheney’s blended chronology of all four gospels shows Jesus laying low during the winter (as he almost always did in winter) between Tabernacles in autumn of 30 AD (Jn.5) and the execution of John the Baptist by early spring of 31 AD (the only other event recorded before the sailing to Bethsaida – that news also coming when his disciples found him after their winter spent going out in pairs, after which Jesus left the place he had been).
Assuming all details are historical, the natural blending together of data suggests Jesus just as likely laid low in Tiberias during that winter and then sailed from there in the spring. And if Jesus wintered [incognito] at Tiberias, then the text of John 6:1 chose no random moment to rename the Sea “of Tiberias”. In fact, 22 verses later, John says boats from Tiberias traced Jesus to Bethsaida, and then further traced his steps from there west to Capernaum. With the double reference to the city in this chapter, it seems more likely the boats followed Jesus from Tiberias, than to be sailing from a random location. In conclusion, John does not ever specifically say Jesus was IN Tiberias, but it seems strongly suggested by all the circumstances just related.
Of course, none of this touches John 21 directly. However, it may set a precedent for a similar inference of the third and final reference to Tiberias in scripture, which comes at John 21:1. Once again, there are also sequential story elements favoring Tiberias as the location, mainly stemming from the fact that Peter left Jerusalem over a week after Resurrection Sunday, eager to go fishing. With no notable sense of direction as yet for his own future, Peter would likely not prefer to go all the way home. More significantly, the distance to Tiberias was closest, near the southernmost point of the Lake. Finally, the likelihood of Peter finding a boat and fishing gear to rent would be best if he went near the city, as opposed to some random point down the southern coastline.
All of this strongly suggests the events of John 21 took place near the shores of Tiberias.
What is the location of the conversation between Jesus and Peter in John 21? Most likely, it seems, this dramatic event took place on a beach near the city of Tiberias.
In John 6:1, apparently having just come from Jerusalem, Jesus sails across the Sea of Galilee. This is the first of three references to Herod Antipas’ city of Tiberias on the southern point of the Lake. It is also natural that Jesus heading north would sail across from Tiberias to Bethsaida, which is where the synoptics place the next event, feeding 5,000. Further, Cheney’s blended chronology of all four gospels shows Jesus laying low during the winter (as he almost always did in winter) between Tabernacles in autumn of 30 AD (Jn.5) and the execution of John the Baptist by early spring of 31 AD (the only other event recorded before the sailing to Bethsaida – that news also coming when his disciples found him after their winter spent going out in pairs, after which Jesus left the place he had been).
Assuming all details are historical, the natural blending together of data suggests Jesus just as likely laid low in Tiberias during that winter and then sailed from there in the spring. And if Jesus wintered [incognito] at Tiberias, then the text of John 6:1 chose no random moment to rename the Sea “of Tiberias”. In fact, 22 verses later, John says boats from Tiberias traced Jesus to Bethsaida, and then further traced his steps from there west to Capernaum. With the double reference to the city in this chapter, it seems more likely the boats followed Jesus from Tiberias, than to be sailing from a random location. In conclusion, John does not ever specifically say Jesus was IN Tiberias, but it seems strongly suggested by all the circumstances just related.
Of course, none of this touches John 21 directly. However, it may set a precedent for a similar inference of the third and final reference to Tiberias in scripture, which comes at John 21:1. Once again, there are also sequential story elements favoring Tiberias as the location, mainly stemming from the fact that Peter left Jerusalem over a week after Resurrection Sunday, eager to go fishing. With no notable sense of direction as yet for his own future, Peter would likely not prefer to go all the way home. More significantly, the distance to Tiberias was closest, near the southernmost point of the Lake. Finally, the likelihood of Peter finding a boat and fishing gear to rent would be best if he went near the city, as opposed to some random point down the southern coastline.
All of this strongly suggests the events of John 21 took place near the shores of Tiberias.
May 18, 2009
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!
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!
May 17, 2009
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. :-)
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. :-)
May 09, 2009
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.
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?
March 23, 2009
Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (4)
I posted recently that it was probably in November of 9 BC when Augustus "became still more angry and wrote to Herod in a harsh tone... that whereas formerly he had treated him as a friend, he would now treat him as a subject." (Josephus' Antiquities 16.290) What I would like to know more precisely is how many months passed before "Caesar's attitude underwent such a change that he condemned Syllaeus to death and became reconciled with Herod..." (Josephus' Antiquities 16.352)
Twelve pages of greek (Loeb edition) stand between those two lines of text. This alone tells us nothing about time, but the limits of travel and Dio Cassius' account of the Emperor's campaign in Germany - together - suggest the second event most likely occurred no sooner than August of 8 BC. (See previous posts.) That gives us at least a nine month long demotion. Skip the small print below if you don't want the details. ;)
Scholarship on this event sequence typically neglects to work out chronology in this much detail. Peter Richardson makes Augustus linger in Rome until Nicolas arrives but is vague about the timing of that visit and does not discuss the German campaign itself. Based on Peter Swan's
analysis of Dio, Richardson's assumption is highly unlikely, more so because Josephus tells us that Olympus went to see Augustus as soon as he heard about Nicolas’ success. Since Olympus sailed to Italy from Palestine, he could hardly have arrived before June. But Augustus was hailed imperator by the German Legions in June at the latest. Therefore, it seems almost certain that Nicolas must not have been able to meet with Caesar until after the Emperor’s return – some time between August and October. Adding seven weeks for imperial couriers to reach Herod with news about each change in status, King Herod probably got the good news between mid-October and December of 8 BC, having previously received the demotion somewhere around the turn of January that year.
Regrettably, I have not yet found this much attention to detail, on this matter, in scholarly books about Herod. At least Richardson acknowledged the German campaign and considered the issue of time. Stewart Perowne
skipped backwards and forwards during the late period of Herod’s life with scant chronological detail at all. Emil Schurer did not even bring Nicolas all the way into Italy! Surveys of the period tend to cover the whole affair in a sentence or two, and it is notable that Fergus Millar
chose this moment at which to point out, "Problems of time and distance, often very important to the role of the near east within the empire, do not play any visible part." (emphasis mine) In fact, Millar himself had just skipped over one whole year of action in less than a paragraph. (To be fair, his survey was not aimed at events in strict sequence. Sadly, among scholars, too few are.)
In their defense, we can easily point out these world class scholars were simply following Josephus himself in neglecting to tease out much detailed chronology around Herod’s demotion. Still, solid historiography requires logistical outworking, at least for double checking. On this issue, we owe these past scholars our efforts to make some improvement. Thanks mainly to Swan, this post is now my contribution. Hopefully, they would all approve.
It seems Herod the Great remained in disfavor for the first nine to eleven months of the year 8 BC. This is a significant amount of time and offers a new perspective for reconsidering other pertinent facts. For instance, now see my next point:
The extended duration of Herod’s demotion makes it less likely to have been insignificant, punishment wise. It is fine to say Herod lost certain perks of imperial friendship, but that is now likely less than the least we should assume. Eleven months is a long time to believe Caesar made no active efforts to “treat” Herod as a “subject”, as he promised to actively do. Three months of winter could perhaps allow an as yet unfulfilled threat to remain unfulfilled. That's conceivable. But nine months with a summer makes that threat, retroactively, implicitly empty. That does not at all fit what we know of Augustus.
This gives us a new problem. Why does Josephus list no punishments? For that matter, what would they have been? I already admitted my own suspicion, back in post #2. But to back up, the most basic question at this moment is: did Augustus take any particular actions to treat Herod as a subject, or not?
This question deserves more attention. Time is but one of the issues.
Stay tuned...
Twelve pages of greek (Loeb edition) stand between those two lines of text. This alone tells us nothing about time, but the limits of travel and Dio Cassius' account of the Emperor's campaign in Germany - together - suggest the second event most likely occurred no sooner than August of 8 BC. (See previous posts.) That gives us at least a nine month long demotion. Skip the small print below if you don't want the details. ;)
Scholarship on this event sequence typically neglects to work out chronology in this much detail. Peter Richardson
makes Augustus linger in Rome until Nicolas arrives but is vague about the timing of that visit and does not discuss the German campaign itself. Based on Peter Swan's analysis of Dio, Richardson's assumption is highly unlikely, more so because Josephus tells us that Olympus went to see Augustus as soon as he heard about Nicolas’ success. Since Olympus sailed to Italy from Palestine, he could hardly have arrived before June. But Augustus was hailed imperator by the German Legions in June at the latest. Therefore, it seems almost certain that Nicolas must not have been able to meet with Caesar until after the Emperor’s return – some time between August and October. Adding seven weeks for imperial couriers to reach Herod with news about each change in status, King Herod probably got the good news between mid-October and December of 8 BC, having previously received the demotion somewhere around the turn of January that year.Regrettably, I have not yet found this much attention to detail, on this matter, in scholarly books about Herod. At least Richardson acknowledged the German campaign and considered the issue of time. Stewart Perowne
skipped backwards and forwards during the late period of Herod’s life with scant chronological detail at all. Emil Schurer did not even bring Nicolas all the way into Italy! Surveys of the period tend to cover the whole affair in a sentence or two, and it is notable that Fergus Millar chose this moment at which to point out, "Problems of time and distance, often very important to the role of the near east within the empire, do not play any visible part." (emphasis mine) In fact, Millar himself had just skipped over one whole year of action in less than a paragraph. (To be fair, his survey was not aimed at events in strict sequence. Sadly, among scholars, too few are.)In their defense, we can easily point out these world class scholars were simply following Josephus himself in neglecting to tease out much detailed chronology around Herod’s demotion. Still, solid historiography requires logistical outworking, at least for double checking. On this issue, we owe these past scholars our efforts to make some improvement. Thanks mainly to Swan, this post is now my contribution. Hopefully, they would all approve.
It seems Herod the Great remained in disfavor for the first nine to eleven months of the year 8 BC. This is a significant amount of time and offers a new perspective for reconsidering other pertinent facts. For instance, now see my next point:
The extended duration of Herod’s demotion makes it less likely to have been insignificant, punishment wise. It is fine to say Herod lost certain perks of imperial friendship, but that is now likely less than the least we should assume. Eleven months is a long time to believe Caesar made no active efforts to “treat” Herod as a “subject”, as he promised to actively do. Three months of winter could perhaps allow an as yet unfulfilled threat to remain unfulfilled. That's conceivable. But nine months with a summer makes that threat, retroactively, implicitly empty. That does not at all fit what we know of Augustus.
This gives us a new problem. Why does Josephus list no punishments? For that matter, what would they have been? I already admitted my own suspicion, back in post #2. But to back up, the most basic question at this moment is: did Augustus take any particular actions to treat Herod as a subject, or not?
This question deserves more attention. Time is but one of the issues.
Stay tuned...
March 16, 2009
Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (3.5)
This post is a bridge between the first and last halves of this series.
Post #1: Traditional scholarship on the date of Alexander & Aristobulus' execution (by their father, Herod the Great) has been rightly held up as accurate but perhaps without stringent examination. A face value reading of Josephus' Antiquities shows events during the Governorship of Saturninus (mid-9 to mid-6 BC) are difficult to date with precision. Working on this issue may also help us determine how long Herod the great remained a "subject" of Augustus Caesar, after the accusation of Syllaeus the Nabatean (which occured about November of 9 BC).
Post #2: A review of events in Dio Cassius shows Augustus moving back and forth between Rome and Germany in 9 and 8 BC. The logistics of communication between Caesar and Herod (including the weight of Caesar's decision and the travel itinerary for Nicolaus of Damascus) must be weighed against various factors, including the possible lengths and end points of the Emperor's 8 BC campaign. On balance, Nicolaus probably missed Augustus in the spring and had to wait until Autumn. Herod's other envoy, Olympus, absolutely waited in Rome for Caesar's return because Olympus sailed. (Whereas Nicolaus may have gone over land.)
Post #3: A generous attempt to put the execution of Alexander and Aristobulus at the end of 8 BC is shown to stretch the limits of plausibility to a very high degree. It would also require Nicolas to sail back to Palestine during October-November. Without other evidence to demand further consideration of this scenario, it must be abandoned. The only alternative is to show that Nicolaus and Olympus both stayed in Rome over the winter of 8/7 BC. Therefore, Herod does not execute Alexander and Aristobulus until shortly after Nicolaus sails home from Italy in 7 BC.
Point One: The traditional date holds up - with a strengthened position, if I have examined these things fairly enough. This was worth investigating thoroughly and great exercise for me, besides.
Point Two: My ulterior motive in all this is to more closely consider what I believe are solid grounds for the plausible reconstruction of an actual Roman Census in Judea under Governor Saturninus in 7 BC.
Preview of Future Posts in this Series: If Nicolas did in fact miss Caesar in the spring of 8 BC, as seems likely, then Augustus remained cold to Herod for nearly one full year - and Herod remained a "subject" of Caesar (and thus essentially of Rome as well) for the same span of time, plus a seven week courrier delay. Herod's demotion in status is usually not addressed as such an extended situation, partly because Josephus scholars don't necessarily include Dio Cassius' accounts of the same time period among their published considerations. It leads to an important consideration, namely - Which is more difficult? To imagine Augustus making an empty threat with no consequences that lingered for almost one full year? Or to speculate on what significance the demotion to "subject" had in practical matters, and to what extent it was able to take effect during the (almost entire) year 8 BC?
Preview of my Conclusion: Herod's punishment in late 9 BC is often treated as both brief and trivial. It was almost certainly not brief. Examination of other evidence will strongly suggest it was also very far from being trivial.
Related Topics also to be Covered: (1) The confusing details of Luke's testimony about this census and the extent to which those details may or may not be used as a source for Roman history. (2) Reconstruction for the sake of argument - assuming Saturninus did receive that order. (3) Examining the date and provenance of the oath of loyalty to Caesar and Herod. (4) Josephus' use of the term "subject" and similar usage in Strabo and elsewhere. (5) Others - TBA.
Post #1: Traditional scholarship on the date of Alexander & Aristobulus' execution (by their father, Herod the Great) has been rightly held up as accurate but perhaps without stringent examination. A face value reading of Josephus' Antiquities shows events during the Governorship of Saturninus (mid-9 to mid-6 BC) are difficult to date with precision. Working on this issue may also help us determine how long Herod the great remained a "subject" of Augustus Caesar, after the accusation of Syllaeus the Nabatean (which occured about November of 9 BC).
Post #2: A review of events in Dio Cassius shows Augustus moving back and forth between Rome and Germany in 9 and 8 BC. The logistics of communication between Caesar and Herod (including the weight of Caesar's decision and the travel itinerary for Nicolaus of Damascus) must be weighed against various factors, including the possible lengths and end points of the Emperor's 8 BC campaign. On balance, Nicolaus probably missed Augustus in the spring and had to wait until Autumn. Herod's other envoy, Olympus, absolutely waited in Rome for Caesar's return because Olympus sailed. (Whereas Nicolaus may have gone over land.)
Post #3: A generous attempt to put the execution of Alexander and Aristobulus at the end of 8 BC is shown to stretch the limits of plausibility to a very high degree. It would also require Nicolas to sail back to Palestine during October-November. Without other evidence to demand further consideration of this scenario, it must be abandoned. The only alternative is to show that Nicolaus and Olympus both stayed in Rome over the winter of 8/7 BC. Therefore, Herod does not execute Alexander and Aristobulus until shortly after Nicolaus sails home from Italy in 7 BC.
Point One: The traditional date holds up - with a strengthened position, if I have examined these things fairly enough. This was worth investigating thoroughly and great exercise for me, besides.
Point Two: My ulterior motive in all this is to more closely consider what I believe are solid grounds for the plausible reconstruction of an actual Roman Census in Judea under Governor Saturninus in 7 BC.
Preview of Future Posts in this Series: If Nicolas did in fact miss Caesar in the spring of 8 BC, as seems likely, then Augustus remained cold to Herod for nearly one full year - and Herod remained a "subject" of Caesar (and thus essentially of Rome as well) for the same span of time, plus a seven week courrier delay. Herod's demotion in status is usually not addressed as such an extended situation, partly because Josephus scholars don't necessarily include Dio Cassius' accounts of the same time period among their published considerations. It leads to an important consideration, namely - Which is more difficult? To imagine Augustus making an empty threat with no consequences that lingered for almost one full year? Or to speculate on what significance the demotion to "subject" had in practical matters, and to what extent it was able to take effect during the (almost entire) year 8 BC?
Preview of my Conclusion: Herod's punishment in late 9 BC is often treated as both brief and trivial. It was almost certainly not brief. Examination of other evidence will strongly suggest it was also very far from being trivial.
Related Topics also to be Covered: (1) The confusing details of Luke's testimony about this census and the extent to which those details may or may not be used as a source for Roman history. (2) Reconstruction for the sake of argument - assuming Saturninus did receive that order. (3) Examining the date and provenance of the oath of loyalty to Caesar and Herod. (4) Josephus' use of the term "subject" and similar usage in Strabo and elsewhere. (5) Others - TBA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)