Hoehner's Chronological Aspects

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.

Was Agrippina Banished Twice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, a few observations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Some Things Happen Twice?

Tim asked yesterday, "Isn't it more likely that there weren't two instances of the fishermen calling, two homecomings, and two cleansings?" (emphasis mine) My answer yesterday was basically - maybe yes, maybe no, but the chronology of the Gospels doesn't really depend on those points anyway. I wrote a lot more in that comment you might want to take a look at too, and referenced my "Pre-Chronology" post from this past Sunday.

I do find it more likely there were two instances of these particular incidents. I hold the same position on Paul's escape(s?) from Damascus. In fact, the only thing that gives me pause at all is the fact that I find myself motivated to take this same strategy four times! Can they really all be more likely? Well, yes. For many different reasons in each of these four particular cases, I really think they are.

Of course, the reasons in each case will require individual treatment in the future. I'll get to it soon. (God willing, of course.) What's more interesting to me today is - why did I start the argument with those three assumptions, if they're not really necessary? And the answer is - because I think most people informed on the subject are more willing to accept the Synoptics as Chronological only if those three points were granted as being true. In fact, highly reputable conservative scholars have presented them as being make-or-break issues to show that there is no reliable chronology in the Synoptic Gospels, at least during the middle stage of each writers' account.

In that regard, starting yesterday's post the way I did was partly to engage with that thought being out there, but it was also a little bit like the trial scene in A Few Good Men, when Lt. Daniel Kaffee brought in the two airmen as witnesses to something they had absolutely no recollection of whatsoever.

Jack: Strong witnesses.
Danny: It added a little something, don't you think?

All kidding aside, I will happily admit having an apologists heart for a good story, and I happen to find the four points at issue here (including Paul & Damascus) increase the believability of the story (stories) in each case, for me personally. But it is also true that I happen to find good historical reasons for my position in each case. What are those reasons? Watch this space for future reports.

Today, I just want to emphasize again (and again, evidently) that any chronology of Jesus' ministry does not depend on preserving perfectly chronological sequencing within Mark and Luke's narrative. It depends on counting the number of Passovers. First, even without two fishermen callings and two Nazareth homecomings, the sheer amount of travel and activity that must be accounted for (during the Lord's Galilean itinerary) strongly suggests John the Baptist was in prison for an extra Passover, which is accounted for in the grain plucking incident. Second, even without two Temple cleansings, the first several chapters of John's Gospel revolve around the (more substantially historical) claims that Jesus made his first public appearance at a Passover in Jerusalem, and was with his disciples in Judea a while before returning to kick-start his Galilean period of ministry.

Therefore, the questions of two fishermen callings, two homecomings and two Temple cleansings must stand as isolated issues. If their historicity were to remain in doubt, we should still find a four year stretch between five Passovers of Jesus' ministry. Apologetics (for Faith or for Story) should not get in the way of proper historical judgment.

I will, however, put it high on my list to get back to these separate issues in the future. If the anti-historicist critics (who often tend to be christian theologians, just so we're clear) of the Gospel's chronology someday come to believe what I'm saying, maybe their academic descendants won't try so hard to deep-six these three non-doublets. Hey, I'm a hopeful guy!

Once more, a historical investigation of each incident (pair?) is absolutely warranted. Thanks again to Tim for asking the question. Hopefully the size of my response doesn't scare off more questioners. ;-)

Perhaps we shall see...

Chronology of the Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Event Synopsis/Timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

Antioch's relief gift had to be money (not grain) and so had to be early
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

Fixing 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.

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.

Foundations for 'Gospel Chronology'

According to John's Gospel, there were at least three Passovers during Jesus' ministry. We should not assume there were only three. All four Gospels report on Jesus' last Passover. Other major events in all four accounts include Jesus' Baptism, John the Baptist's arrest, the Baptist's beheading, and the feeding of the 5,000.

The Baptist's arrest comes shortly after Jesus' first public Passover. The beheading is reported just before he feeds the 5,000, which corresponds with the middle Passover of the fourth Gospel. Events before and after that Passover differ dramatically. John's death changed things for Jesus in major ways.

No two Gospel writers report the same Episode (events, not pericopes) in two different 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Events sequenced differently by Matthew or Luke as compared with Mark occur exclusively in the period before John's death, in all three Synoptic Gospels. Events from John's death through Palm Sunday never differ in sequence among the Synoptics.

Chronologies of the Gospels basically differ in how they treat the two 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Restricted by a few key dates, events from the Baptism to John's death must cover either one or two years, plus a few months. Likewise, events from John's death to Palm Sunday span either two or three total Passover (thus covering precisely one or two years). Chronologists of the Gospels normally disagree most in how they 'read' the 'clues' to arrive at a two, three or four year conclusion.

However, to combine a high view of scripture with a historical view of scripture's reported events, there are better ways to proceed than by exegesis alone.

Chronological study does not depend exclusively on chronological indicators found in a text. Travel time, Sabbath days, the festival schedule, contemporary historical events, and natural logistical limitations all come into play. Events themselves require significant amounts of time in which to occur. Additional space to allow for non-recorded events also must be considered. By any historical analysis (assuming reliability of information), the testimony of the Gospels contains less than everything that happened, but more than enough to reconstruct one plausible timeline of events which best accounts for all the evidence.

The two year chronology of Jesus' public ministry is positivist minimalism that requires the Lord to move constantly at a breakneck pace for most of that 24 months. It also speeds up political developments and the spread of news across various regions. Such a timeline is unrealistic because of the sheer amount of travel and activity accounted for in the Gospels as a whole, not to mention the intense personal, interpersonal and psychological needs and concerns of the major players. Furthermore, such efficiency with the data is not generally the outcome of a properly historical analysis.

We must remember, it is at least as likely that John has left out one or two Passovers. For this reason, the most thorough chronological studies of the Gospels usually posit three or four years for Jesus' ministry, from the Lord's first public Passover to his last. The question of that final difference (3 or 4 years) depends on events between John's death and Palm Sunday. We may or may not have arguable clues in Matthew's two-drachma tax and the parable of the fig tree's mercy year (see Cheney). Far better than 'clues', however, is history itself.

The 3 year view is more popular because it's traditional arguments include entrenched apologetic defenses for inerrancy. However, the 4 year view is more likely, for two reasons. First, both halves of Jesus' ministry fit better in two years than in one. Second, Roman History shows the overall sequence of events fits better from 29 to 33 than it does from 30 to 33. (By the way, none of it fits before 30 AD, although many neglect fleshing things out well enough to realize this.)

In the final analysis, it is the reconstructed chronology itself that elucidates the disputable 'clues' in the Gospels and reveals far more chronological reliability to each Gospel Testimony than could ever be fairly granted by an analysis of their own 'plain sense' alone.

There are several posts on this site supporting the four year chronology of Jesus' ministry.

There will be - no doubt - many more to come.

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.

Galatians goes AFTER Acts 15

It would be impolite and probably unjust to call this quote "complete idiocy", but it is more than fair to say I find it completely illogical.

Paul's silence in that letter to his converts in Galatia as to the decision of the Jerusalem Council forces the irreconcilable dilemma of saying either (1) that Luke’s account in Acts 15 of a decision reached in Paul’s favor at Jerusalem is pure fabrication, or (2) that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council.

OR (3) Luke's account is factual, Paul wrote Galatians after the Council, and Paul had his reasons for deliberately failing to mention the whole Jerusalem fiasco. Duh.

We cannot form historical judgments based on happy fantasies that James and Paul got everything all worked out nicely. By all accounts, they didn't. Acts 15 never says one word about Paul's feelings about Jerusalem's decision, so it gives us no reason to expect Paul was or was not a fan of their letter. The church in Antioch took it as an encouragement. Of course they did. Circumcision was officially out of contention and the church at Antioch was 16 years old, mature enough to know it didn't have to obey Jerusalem's three laws! But Galatia was not yet so wise.

We can tell that Paul never mentioned Jerusalem's letter to Corinth because it was not until after Peter's visit that the Corinthians developed all kinds of controversy and questions about food, idols and 'es-ee-ex'. The fact that Paul does not mention Jerusalem's letter does not mean it did not yet exist. It could just as easily mean that Paul did not like the letter. OR, Paul could have been keeping that letter in reserve.

How did the Galatians know who Titus was? The simplest solution is that Titus carried the letter (probably together with Luke). If Galatians 2 is about the Council, Titus was an eyewitness to everything Paul writes about it. Titus was also in Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter. Titus also could have been holding Jerusalem's letter, in which case Paul would have no need to mention it in his own writing.

Put yourself in Galatia's shoes. Paul & Barnabas told you things about Jerusalem. The local Jews (in 2 of 4 cities) told you things about Jerusalem. Then the Judaizers told you things about Jerusalem. How confused would you then be about "the mother church" right up until the day Paul's letter shows up? Now put yourself in Paul's shoes. If you knew the Galatians were that confused about who and what Jerusalem really is, would you really expect them to believe "Jerusalem" agrees with you - and not with the Judaizers - about circumcision? That's why Titus holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve makes good strategy. Still doubting, Galatians? Okay. So now look at this.

Finally, put yourself in the historian's shoes. If we assume Galatians was written after the Council, what would that tell us about Paul's feelings for Jerusalem? Nothing that would be at all inconsistent with the rest of Paul's letters or his next two trips to Judea.

I don't know who Richard Longenecker is, but if I assume he's not an idiot, should I not then assume he's desperately fudging things on purpose? Or blindly following others who once made the same arguments? I don't know. You tell me.

Who benefits if we present a view of Paul submitting to the will of the established "mother church"? Who benefits if we present a church that became at peace politically after theological conflicts (James/Galatians) got ironed out? Who benefits if we present the high assembly of elders and apostles as an effective end to all dispute and division? Who benefits? You know who, saints. You know who.

The Jerusalem above is our mother. Come out of the slave woman.

FAVOR, not "grace"

Luke & Paul love to use the noun charis. Matthew & Mark never did. John's Gospel only uses the word four times, all in one paragraph. I'm pretty sure John had read Paul, and probably also Luke - AND I believe God inspired and spoke through each writer - BUT that doesn't mean we should come into John with a highly conceptualized synopsis of Paul's "thought" on charis. For starters, at least, we ought to come in linguistically fresh. For that matter, Paul didn't necessarily think like theologians think he thought, either...

In pagan, heathen Greek, the word charis means FAVOR. It's a good, simple ancient concept that basically means someone is pleased with somebody else. The person doling out FAVOR is usually an important somebody, or else their FAVOR wouldn't be worth discussing. By the way, "merit" or "unmerit" often has nothing to do with it. Xerxes was pleased with a dinner. Herod was pleased with a dance. That's not merit, that's just royal preference. Esther and Salome did one pleasing thing, one time. No points. No credit account. Just likability.

In the ancient world, you can earn favor by doing one good thing, or by doing many things OR just because somebody likes you. However, to earn ROYAL FAVOR you generally have to be "in" to begin with. That's why New Testament "Grace" is so amazing. It's not something we could never have earned. It's something we could never have gotten, at all, anyway. Period. Peons don't get the chance to present themselves before Kings, much less manage to prove themselves royally likable.

Re-read Luke and Paul with this understanding - substitute FAVOR for "grace". The difference is often astounding (not to mention inspiring). Instead of a conceptual principle God himself must adhere to, you get something that is inherently relational, something saturated by the personal pleasure of God. God's FAVOR is now upon believers, sometimes also upon our endeavors. Not that we pleased Him ourselves, of course. Christ did. On which point, now we can go back to John.

Wait. First let's do one other thing. For a functional understanding, let's define the Law, all the Hebrew laws, God's commandments, as things that God wanted people to do. If people fulfill God's commands, that would please Him, would it not? Therefore, practically speaking, we may define the Law as the Hebrew way of earning God's FAVOR. [or at least trying to]

Okay. Now, re-read John 1:14-17 with FAVOR instead of "grace". Instead of the oft quoted caricature of "grace" and "law" as polar opposites, we see John summing up all of History, from pre-existence through Israel's heritage until Christ. There may still be a subtext of conflict, if some of John's readers were still too tightly bound to the Law, but in John's actual piece, Moses and Jesus are presented as a progressive dynamic of God's contract with Man.

God gave Moses the Law. [Understood: Christ fulfilled the Law, which pleased God. Therefore, God's] FAVOR came through Jesus Christ.

Moses ==> Law ==> Christ ==> Charis

I don't know if this is a totally new reading of John, but I do think it blows away the theological insertion of "unmerited". If my reading between the lines here is correct, then God's favor was hardly unmerited. Jesus earned it.

Faith Based Historiography

Christian believers read the scriptures by faith. Historians reconstruct events based on probability. Apologists explain away difficulties. And critics simply challenge everything. These four approaches each have weaknesses matching their strengths. Things did not happen a certain way just because we like to think so. Strict probability cannot accept miraculous events. Faith is limited by the reliability of its object. But even the most confirmed skeptics have to trust someone, eventually.

One central aspect of attempting historical reconstruction, from scripture, is that even a faith based approach must proceed at some point according to probabilities and completely abandon the desire for absolute proof. (For one example, we may accept Luke’s testimony that there was a census, but unless we wish to call it a mythical census we must endeavor do reconstruct an historical census – which is to say, a most likely one. For another, people may have different ideas about Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth, but we should all acknowledge that he grew up as a part of a Synagogue and begin reconstruction from there.) Some details of our conclusions may be less than perfectly certain, but what scripture does tell us should help comfort us against what it does not.

If my goal was the conversion of skeptics, I might be tempted to overstate my case. Instead, I begin from the standpoint of faith. If my goal was defense of the scriptures, I might focus completely on the problem areas and miss the whole forest for those few crooked trees. Instead, I suspend judgment on what seems confusing and work at all times primarily from what seems most clear. My goal is to encourage believers by reconstructing one, most likely chronology and thus grant Bible readers a broader historical context of events in the New Testament era. If I succeed in that goal, with whatever qualification, the result could be worth an awful lot, don't you think?

My sincere hope is that a more objective historiography can still preference the scriptures without preferencing any religious philosophies or doctrinal interpretations of any particular traditions. Theologies supported by that which the scripture itself does not necessarily and clearly state are suspect anyway, in my humble opinion. Institutional doctrines have defended the faith adequately for centuries, but the faithful are less and less content to be socially or intellectually cloistered by parochial dogmas.

Therefore, it is my secondary hope that we focus on reconstructing events, instead of ideological truths, the bedrock of our faith may be held more securely by those who feel compelled to wander outside institutional walls into God's wilderness. Like parents caring for willfully wayward children, I would hope ecclesiastical authorities get behind such an idea more quickly than not. We have many brothers and sisters adrift, who need truly non-denominational support for their faith. We cannot keep them at home where they were raised, but we can equip them more ably for wherever the journey might lead them.

Getting back to the point: God can never be proven to those with a non-divine standard of proof, but since the Church is called to make disciples, we should attempt a faith based historiography that is profitable for instilling the people of God with a more contextual view of the New Testament. Whatever we do, the best witness to scripture’s reliability will always be the spirit of God, which speaks and has spoken through the church throughout the centuries. At least, so we believe.

Believers, keep trusting the scriptures. Historians, keep dealing with likelihoods. Apologists, keep on defending beliefs. And critics, please keep on challenging everyone. We all want to be as accurate as possible and we all need to admit that we’ll never know everything. All I am suggesting is that we may proceed from a simple, conditional challenge: Assuming that details found in the scriptures are both true and factual, so far as we can tell, how do those facts fit together, historically, with each other, and with their own contemporary events?

Event Sequencing: John's Beheading

John tells us Jesus fed 5,000 just before Passover. Matthew tells us Jesus had just heard about John's beheading earlier in that day. Mark tells us that Herod Antipas made a reference to Purim when his stepdaughter tricked him. This really can't be a coincidence, because Purim always falls about a month before Passover. Therefore, if all three writers are to be trusted on these points, the reconstructed event sequence should absolutely be taken as historical.

[Dating these events is another matter, but in 31 AD, while Sejanus was still alive, the Feast of Purim was Saturday night, February 24th, and the Passover night was Tuesday, March 26th.]

With this added perspective, we should approximate that Antipas' birthday celebration was held around or shortly after Purim. Most likely, Antipas invited the same guests from the earlier Feast of Purim, guests who would undoubtedly have expected a recitation of the Esther story by a professional or court speaker, in keeping with the Tetrarch's high status. In any such context, Antipas' birthday promise, "Whatever you ask... up to half my kingdom" can be recognized as an artful nod to the recent event's entertainment, with a clever wink to his guests.

Far more importantly, this all goes to show that the sequence of events in all four Gospels, at least at this stage of their narratives, was very much non-arbitrary. Three different Gospels offer three separate details that allign perfectly into one historical sequence. Luke's Gospel confirms the sequence and adds that the 5,000 were fed at Bethsaida. Point: all four writers had a stronger historical sense for relating events than they are sometimes given credit for.

John's beheading is clearly the most significant event during Jesus' ministry, so it makes sense that each writers' event sequence would sharpen in focus around that point in each narrative. The same holds true for the Lord's Passion week. So while there are many other challenges for Event Sequencing the content of the Gospels, this particular chain of events is encouraging because it shows the need for (and the validity of) using all four Gospels in reconstruction.

Sequence is the first step in chronology, providing perspective to history.

Event sequencing in the Gospels is vital to any historical view of Jesus' ministry years.

The Promise of Nazareth - 1

Jesus himself testified, according to John, that his teaching came from the Father and we must conclude those lessons began of providence in the Nazareth Synagogue. Yet Jesus did no teaching in his hometown before his baptism and we have no reason to think he went anywhere else to do any teaching. So what did he do with all that learning for thirty years, besides sit on it?

Did Jesus live by the lessons he was learning in Nazareth? It would be absurdly hypocritical to imagine he did not. Did Jesus teach lessons he'd spent three decades practicing? Again, if the Gospels' high opinion of this man is reliable, we must assume that he did. The lessons Jesus taught, which eventually came from his Father in ways mystical as well as providential, were entirely focused on interpreting the Law of God and applying it to situations of daily life.

The commandments of God expressed to the Hebrew Nation those things that God wants, that he desires, that he in fact commands. Therefore, sucessfully fulfilling those commandments, one would have to assume, should naturally bring God some divine manner of satisfaction. Thus, in a manner of speaking, fulfilling the Law would be the way to please God.

Matthew, Mark & Luke all profess near the beginning of their Gospels that God was indeed pleased with Jesus. Matthew adds, more pointedly, that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness and fulfilled the Law. The entire Law? Or His own interpretation of the Law? It doesn't matter. Matthew's testimony is that Jesus' life in Nazareth was pleasing to God, and Matthew's account of Jesus' teaching is the Lord passing on ways the rest of us may also become pleasing to God.

Are we therefore also required to fulfill the Law? The Law no longer needs to be fulfilled. Are we required to earn our salvation? Of course not. Jesus already did that for us, too. With such mercies, are we expected to live up to Jesus' standard? With such mercies, we trust that God knows our very human limitations. But with such mercies as we have from God, who among us would not desire to please Him?

To be continued...

Dealing with Nazareth - 9

Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that God was pleased with Jesus at his baptism. Our functional definition (in this series) is that you please someone by doing what they like, what they want, and/or what they tell you to do. Given that understanding, our next question is: What do Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us about God's preferences, desires and commands?

Whatever they say about those topics they must also have intended their readers to understand as a reflection of Christ's life in Nazareth, before his baptism. Furthermore, if the details of their testimony are historically accurate, then such direct implications should also be considered historically accurate. The only question is, can we effectively distinguish between that which the authors clearly meant to imply on this topic and that which our own interpretative leanings might have us infer? In short, can we determine what Matthew, Mark and Luke are telling us, implicitly, about how Jesus was pleasing to God, in his behaviors?

I think we can, although it may take a little trial and error to work out a careful and proper procedure.

To be continued...

Appointing Elders: Barnabas vs. Paul

Barnabas was the senior member of their partnership. Barnabas had been a wealthy landowner. Barnabas had received the spirit and the gospel directly from the apostles in Jerusalem. Barnabas had been selected by thousands of people to be in charge of their food. Barnabas had been an apostle of Peter, before he was an apostle of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas had the deeper resume. Barnabas had more experience. Barnabas had Paul's admiration and respect.

Barnabas helped send Paul away from Jerusalem, retrieved Paul from Tarsus and led Paul to Antioch. Barnabas is mentioned before Paul in Acts until Paul becomes the chief speaker at Antioch Pisidia. From that point on Luke rotates their name order, but it was still Barnabas whom the Lycaonians pegged as Zeus. Barnabas and Paul went to Barnabas' homeland of Cyprus but Paul and Barnabas turned back after Derbe instead of going through the Lion's Gate into Paul's homeland of Cilicia. In their final act as co-workers, Barnabas and Paul appointed elders in all three (or four?) churches on that return trip.

Barnabas had known christian elders in Jerusalem. Paul never lived in Jerusalem as a believer. But Antioch was the first gentile church in the world, and Luke shows us that congregation could handle crisis level decisions without reference to elders, which suggests the church in Antioch may never have recognized any such officers. Given all of the above, we should emphasize that it was most likely Barnabas (with Paul) who decided to appoint "elders" in four brand new Galatian churches.

Unfortunately, however, those elders weren't worth a whole lot of practical help when the Judiazers wreaked havoc in South Galatia. Barnabas never saw that aftermath, so far as we know. Paul went through each town some time after the crisis (and after his letter) and it was Paul who laid eyes on the state of the peoples whose brand new, possibly too quickly appointed elders had been impotent to prevent such catastrophe.

There is one sentence in 1st Thessalonians that some say is about elders, but it more likely refers to Silas and Timothy. If that's true, then we have no evidence Paul appointed elders in Greece during all of his second church planting journey. And why should he have done so, after Galatia? The strong suggestion of all this evidence is that Barnabas was behind the elder appointments in Galatia and Paul sought the Lord about improving the arrangement for a number of years, before appointing (recognizing) who was qualified, a few years later on.

Philippi looks like the next place Paul appointed elders, on his way to Illyricum or else right before Luke left, at the Passover of 57 AD, six and a half years into the life of that church! Paul probably handed the letter we call "1st Timothy" to Timothy in person, one week after that Passover, in Troas. And at that moment, Timothy read about a topic he'd not been exposed to for almost a decade. No wonder Paul needed to be so explicit with his instructions on how to select them.

Paul's instructions to Timothy (and later, to his old colleague Titus) demonstrate that a group of new believers needed time to get to know one another before the whole congregation could recognize who was or was not qualified to be responsible for oversight. By the way, just for the record, and in case you're wondering, I like Elders. But I prefer good ones. ;-)

To sum up: It seems Barnabas was the primary voice in the decision to appoint elders so early in Galatia. And it very much looks like Paul rejected that 'early appointment' approach for the rest of his ministry. This does not necessarily mean Paul temporarily rejected the concept or practice of elders at all. This only suggests Paul somehow determined that "old men" needed to be old in the church.

It is also possible Paul spent those years reflecting before the Lord about what christian eldership was really supposed to be like (or for that matter, gentile christian eldership).

The Nazareth Synagogue - 14

It seems appropriate to end this series with the Nazarenes' geographical question from Jesus' second homecoming, in Matthew 13 & Mark 6. Where did he get this wisdom? By now we have formed an answer.

He got it in Nazareth. We know this because he had it by age twelve. Luke and Matthew together inform us that during the decade between leaving Egypt and attending his first Jerusalem Passover, Jesus' parents attended the spring festival every single year. That means Jesus was living there. If he had not traveled elsewhere before age twelve, and he had such wisdom from paying attention in something like 500 Sabbath meetings, then no one should think Jesus had to travel anywhere else for the next 1100 Sabbath meetings, or so, before his baptism by John.

John tells us that Jesus said he got all his teaching from the Father. Before that became directly mystical, it happened on Saturdays in the Synagogue. It happened because of a focus and an obsession that, evidently, he managed to keep totally private from the rest of the Jewish community in Nazareth. (That thought, again, needs to be held onto for some future post. For now we have merely accepted it, without attempting to explain it.)

This can probably all be accounted for by recalling the one scripture Jesus most certainly learned early in life, and the one he most certainly heard more often than all others. Hear, O Israel. The Lord your God is One. You should Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might. An historical view of Jesus at age twelve, filtered through all that we can possibly reconstruct about the Nazareth Synagogue, tells us Jesus must have taken this scripture greatly to heart when he was still very young.

In our modern age of leisure, some kids give their entire self to a TV show, or to a baseball team, or to a friend, or to a famous musician. In first century Nazareth, ever since Jesus was a boy, He must have genuinely cared about his Father, God, more than he cared about anything else. He was not trying hard not to sin. He was simply, sincerely, in all of his ways, worshiping Him.

I'll say it again. The historical explanation of Jesus' life before age twelve must be that this common Jew cared about God to an uncommon degree.

Everything after age twelve until age thirty-four is a question for another series.

Maybe. :-)

The End (for now)

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

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