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 Temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Temple. Show all posts
September 10, 2011
November 14, 2009
Augustus and Apollo and the Jews
In late 4 BC, 50 Judean Jews brought along 8,000 Roman Jews to witness Augustus' hearing of their complaints before Herod's will could be settled. I presume it was at least partly to accommodate this large crowd that the Emperor moved the location of the hearing. For one day, the Temple of Apollo became a large courtroom. Two questions are: (1) Where did the crowd stand (my guess: in the courtyard, with the Emperor presiding from the steps; I don't suspect the interior was large enough for so many) and more importantly (2) Why choose a Temple for the gathering? More specifically, why that particular Temple?
Maybe the occasion simply required more formality than a different venue, but Caesar may also have wanted to emphasize Rome's religious hegemony, which Herod himself had always been too happy to acknowledge. Still, why Apollo's Temple, of all places? Was it simply the site's proximity to the Trans-Tiber district where most Roman Jews lived? Or was Augustus subtly delivering a message? If so, what was that message? I have no idea.
A new book just out from Cambridge by Ovid Scholar John F. Miller is entitled Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets
. From the publisher's description:
but and I won't get to read it real soon, but my main question would be what might Augustus have expected the Jews of Rome and/or Palestine to understand about "the Augustan Apollo"? Unfortunately, this is way down there on my list of research topics these days. Maybe someone else will go read Miller and ask these kinds of questions. I hope so.
Maybe the occasion simply required more formality than a different venue, but Caesar may also have wanted to emphasize Rome's religious hegemony, which Herod himself had always been too happy to acknowledge. Still, why Apollo's Temple, of all places? Was it simply the site's proximity to the Trans-Tiber district where most Roman Jews lived? Or was Augustus subtly delivering a message? If so, what was that message? I have no idea.
A new book just out from Cambridge by Ovid Scholar John F. Miller is entitled Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets
. From the publisher's description:Apollo’s importance in the religion of the Roman state was markedly heightened by the emperor Augustus, who claimed a special affiliation with the god. Contemporary poets variously responded to this appropriation of Phoebus Apollo, both participating in the construction of an imperial symbolism and resisting that ideological project. This book offers a synoptic study of ‘Augustan’ Apollo in Augustan poetry...The book's index does cite Josephus on the 4 BC hearing
• The only comprehensive treatment of the reflections by Augustan poets on Apollo as an imperial icon • Discusses the presentation of Apollo and Augustus by all five major Augustan poets as well as minor poets • Carefully situates the literature about Augustan Apollo within the broader culture, as known from numismatic, epigraphical, artistic, and archaeological evidence
November 13, 2009
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.
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. ;-)
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.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.
Danny: It added a little something, don't you think?
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...
November 12, 2009
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!
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!
November 09, 2009
Dating the Crucifixion: Sadducees, Calendars and Festival Finances
Why did the Sadducees prefer to have Pentecost always on Sunday? The primary motivation had to be financial. If the one-day long festival starts Saturday night, then wealthier pilgrims who were staying in town (not the poorer ones who camped out in the countryside) had to stock up on supplies and be in their rented rooms before Friday at sundown. The Sadducees stayed in power chiefly by serving the needs of Jerusalem's upper class. For a one day festival, keeping Pentecost on Sunday doubles the minimum revenues that might be expected.
In contrast, the Pharisees wanted Pentecost on Sivan 6th because they cared more about arguing over disputable minutiae. It is this same Pharisaic attitude which characterizes much of the Rabbinic discussion found in the Mishnah and Talmud, and which brings us to the point of this post.
Roger Beckwith's impressive compendium
of chronological issues [especially on first century Jewish intercalation] concludes [in chapter 9] that Jesus' crucifixion could have occurred in any year between 30 and 36, except 34. However, Beckwith's conclusion relies heavily on assessments of rabbinic disputes about marking the new year, all of which seem to have come from 2nd century or later. At the very least, such legal perfectionism is more characteristic of the Pharisees, who rose to power after Jerusalem's destruction. And although Beckwith asserts it is "by no means impossible" that the "formula" for these citations may date to before 70 AD, it is very difficult to believe the ruling Sadducees would have cared as much, at the time.
Practically speaking, if Beckwith really expects us to believe his citations reflect standard practice before 70 AD, I have only one question - How could anyone ever have made plans to attend the spring festival? Granted, Jews far beyond Palestine could never set sail in time to make Passover anyway, but Alexandria and Antioch were three weeks from Jerusalem by foot, or two weeks by horse, and pilgrims like Simon of Cyrene might have traveled for over a month to arrive at the festival on any particular date. How would such pilgrims have known when to leave home, if the festival dates weren't solidified until just a month or two before the event?
Beckwith cites Rabban Gamaliel II (surely a Pharisee) who once advised that a particular new year needed to be delayed until the first grains were ripe, and the stocks of turtledoves and lambs were healthier. Beckwith is probably right to argue that the mention of turtledoves marks a principle passed down from before the destruction of Temple, but that itself does not mean the letter was written before 70 AD. Even if it was, we must note that the Rabban's advisement is unlikely to have influenced the Saducees, whose most-valued constituents could just as easily sell out undersized stocks to the captive pilgrims upon arrival. An extra month might fatten up profit margins a little, but not if they lost more on volume. The greater consideration, in order to maximize revenues, was to maximize the size of the customer base.
Since the Sadducees were in charge, earthly concerns must have ruled the calendar. Last minute scheduling would hardly encourage more pilgrims to schedule the journey - even Palestine Jews could lose a month from their schedules for two weeks of travel and two weeks in the city. The wealthier the pilgrim, the more at home responsibilities, the less they might appreciate being held up until the last minute. Besides, how would they have received the news? If a decision was made in mid-February to delay Passover until mid-April, instead of mid-March, some pilgrims would not have heard about it until they had already embarked. This could not have been standard.
If we assume along with Beckwith, for the sake of argument, that Rabban Gamaliel II was a pre-70 Pharisee, a strong likelihood of rejection would most likely NOT have dissuaded him from advising his political superiors anyway. Point being: whenever this citation dates to, it merely offers advice. There is no indication that it necessarily had any chance of being heeded, before 70 AD. In fact, it is more likely to reflect that a group of Pharisees merely made practice of marking their opinions as a matter of course, while patiently waiting until such time as they might finally gain power. Of course when they did gain power, after 70 AD, there were no more logistical obstacles against making intercalation as impractical as their Pharisaic hearts desired. At that point, the Diaspora's need-to-know notwithstanding, the practice of dating the New Year became purely academic.
Furthermore, the contentions of Pharisees were not necessarily on significant matters. To begin with, the Sadducees would never have scheduled Passover for February, and probably not for early March. Beckwith supposes an early spring could have sometimes demanded a schedule change, but the harshness of winter has as much if not more to do with the springtime readiness of crops and livestock. The dates on which new moons happened to fall would dictate what choices were available for the Passover month, and in most years the decision should have been obvious far in advance. A Passover in mid-march might have been debatable, but very early March would be too soon to trust and late April would be too late in any year.
A first century objector, holding Gamaliel's opinion, could not have been writing against a February Passover, because the Sadducees would never have risked making such a ridiculous schedule far in advance. More likely, the letter would stand to oppose a mid to late March Passover, in which case, the financial considerations of the landed classes still favored maximizing the customer base over increasing portion sizes.
An early or mid March Passover could arguably have been scheduled. However, while granting (to Beckwith) that the equinox was not yet an official guideline, the Sadducees would still have preferred scheduling Passover to fall on the warmer of full moons available, as long as that was not too late. Again, practical concerns favored scheduling for late March to mid April, equinox or no equinox. And again, under the ruling class, Pharisaic meticulousness need not have been more than a formality.
Beckwith's major argument boils down to supposing that a first century objector could have argued in 30 AD against a March 8th Passover, or in 31 AD against March 27th, or in 32 AD against March 15th, or in 33 AD against March 5th, or in 34 against March 23rd, or in 35 against March 12th, or in 36 against March 1st. Perhaps he could have, but look again at those dates.
As discussed, March 1st, 5th or 8th are highly unlikely to have been scheduled in the first place. March 23rd or 27th would be highly unlikely to have been postponed. March 12th and 15th might perhaps have been scheduled, as being near to but not after the Equinox, but still the Saduccees would most likely have refused to postpone. [On the contrary, the Saducees would probably have preferred an April 14th to a March 15th (in 32 AD) and an April 11th to the March 12th (in 35).]
Once more, the major point is that the Sadducees would be unlikely to have postponed what was doubtless already expected across mideast Asia. Adhering to legal perfectionism at the last possible minute simply would have been bad business. Just as bad for business would have been scheduling a Passover for February or early March. Late winter was simply too risky, and mid-April was far preferable to mid-March, even apart from the equinox. These considerations drastically reduces the variability of Beckwith's conclusion, brining the balance of questions about intercalation (basically) back to daily record keeping and nightly lunar observation.
On this last point, we should expect the Sadducees would at least bow to tradition whenever expedient (tradition surely enhancing the pull for more pilgrims, and thus for more revenues) and the festival traditionally began on a full moon. Therefore - assuming all other intercalation procedures revolved around making sure that Nissan began on a new moon and that Passover began on a full moon, we are probably justified in following the basic metonic cycles to determine when Jesus was most likely crucified.
Since the only years left in question (32 or 35) do not affect this consideration, the chief options must remain 30 and 33 AD. From there, a chronological study of Christ's public ministry (compared with the start of John the Baptist's ministry) should settle the crucifixion firmly in early April of 33 AD.
---------------
One further note, of potential importance: according to astronomical reckoning, 26, 33 and 36 AD are the only years under Pontius Pilate in which the most likely reckoning of Sivan 6th naturally fell on a Sunday. The presence of the crowds in Acts chapter 2 confirms that this Pentecost fell on a Sunday, but - as the Pharisees probably had the proper interpretation of God's instructions to Moses about dating Pentecost - the double occasion of Pentecost falling on Sivan 6th could be seen (by some) as a more appropriate date for the typological "baking of the loaf" that corresponds with the first church's "birth".
Obviously, this last point is theological, circumstantial and potentially meaningless. On the other hand, it may be deeply meaningful. Either way, it is worth noting. At most, however, theologians should only consider it as potential confirmation of a sound historical conclusion. It does not count as support.
In contrast, the Pharisees wanted Pentecost on Sivan 6th because they cared more about arguing over disputable minutiae. It is this same Pharisaic attitude which characterizes much of the Rabbinic discussion found in the Mishnah and Talmud, and which brings us to the point of this post.
Roger Beckwith's impressive compendium
of chronological issues [especially on first century Jewish intercalation] concludes [in chapter 9] that Jesus' crucifixion could have occurred in any year between 30 and 36, except 34. However, Beckwith's conclusion relies heavily on assessments of rabbinic disputes about marking the new year, all of which seem to have come from 2nd century or later. At the very least, such legal perfectionism is more characteristic of the Pharisees, who rose to power after Jerusalem's destruction. And although Beckwith asserts it is "by no means impossible" that the "formula" for these citations may date to before 70 AD, it is very difficult to believe the ruling Sadducees would have cared as much, at the time.Practically speaking, if Beckwith really expects us to believe his citations reflect standard practice before 70 AD, I have only one question - How could anyone ever have made plans to attend the spring festival? Granted, Jews far beyond Palestine could never set sail in time to make Passover anyway, but Alexandria and Antioch were three weeks from Jerusalem by foot, or two weeks by horse, and pilgrims like Simon of Cyrene might have traveled for over a month to arrive at the festival on any particular date. How would such pilgrims have known when to leave home, if the festival dates weren't solidified until just a month or two before the event?
Beckwith cites Rabban Gamaliel II (surely a Pharisee) who once advised that a particular new year needed to be delayed until the first grains were ripe, and the stocks of turtledoves and lambs were healthier. Beckwith is probably right to argue that the mention of turtledoves marks a principle passed down from before the destruction of Temple, but that itself does not mean the letter was written before 70 AD. Even if it was, we must note that the Rabban's advisement is unlikely to have influenced the Saducees, whose most-valued constituents could just as easily sell out undersized stocks to the captive pilgrims upon arrival. An extra month might fatten up profit margins a little, but not if they lost more on volume. The greater consideration, in order to maximize revenues, was to maximize the size of the customer base.
Since the Sadducees were in charge, earthly concerns must have ruled the calendar. Last minute scheduling would hardly encourage more pilgrims to schedule the journey - even Palestine Jews could lose a month from their schedules for two weeks of travel and two weeks in the city. The wealthier the pilgrim, the more at home responsibilities, the less they might appreciate being held up until the last minute. Besides, how would they have received the news? If a decision was made in mid-February to delay Passover until mid-April, instead of mid-March, some pilgrims would not have heard about it until they had already embarked. This could not have been standard.
If we assume along with Beckwith, for the sake of argument, that Rabban Gamaliel II was a pre-70 Pharisee, a strong likelihood of rejection would most likely NOT have dissuaded him from advising his political superiors anyway. Point being: whenever this citation dates to, it merely offers advice. There is no indication that it necessarily had any chance of being heeded, before 70 AD. In fact, it is more likely to reflect that a group of Pharisees merely made practice of marking their opinions as a matter of course, while patiently waiting until such time as they might finally gain power. Of course when they did gain power, after 70 AD, there were no more logistical obstacles against making intercalation as impractical as their Pharisaic hearts desired. At that point, the Diaspora's need-to-know notwithstanding, the practice of dating the New Year became purely academic.
Furthermore, the contentions of Pharisees were not necessarily on significant matters. To begin with, the Sadducees would never have scheduled Passover for February, and probably not for early March. Beckwith supposes an early spring could have sometimes demanded a schedule change, but the harshness of winter has as much if not more to do with the springtime readiness of crops and livestock. The dates on which new moons happened to fall would dictate what choices were available for the Passover month, and in most years the decision should have been obvious far in advance. A Passover in mid-march might have been debatable, but very early March would be too soon to trust and late April would be too late in any year.
A first century objector, holding Gamaliel's opinion, could not have been writing against a February Passover, because the Sadducees would never have risked making such a ridiculous schedule far in advance. More likely, the letter would stand to oppose a mid to late March Passover, in which case, the financial considerations of the landed classes still favored maximizing the customer base over increasing portion sizes.
An early or mid March Passover could arguably have been scheduled. However, while granting (to Beckwith) that the equinox was not yet an official guideline, the Sadducees would still have preferred scheduling Passover to fall on the warmer of full moons available, as long as that was not too late. Again, practical concerns favored scheduling for late March to mid April, equinox or no equinox. And again, under the ruling class, Pharisaic meticulousness need not have been more than a formality.
Beckwith's major argument boils down to supposing that a first century objector could have argued in 30 AD against a March 8th Passover, or in 31 AD against March 27th, or in 32 AD against March 15th, or in 33 AD against March 5th, or in 34 against March 23rd, or in 35 against March 12th, or in 36 against March 1st. Perhaps he could have, but look again at those dates.
As discussed, March 1st, 5th or 8th are highly unlikely to have been scheduled in the first place. March 23rd or 27th would be highly unlikely to have been postponed. March 12th and 15th might perhaps have been scheduled, as being near to but not after the Equinox, but still the Saduccees would most likely have refused to postpone. [On the contrary, the Saducees would probably have preferred an April 14th to a March 15th (in 32 AD) and an April 11th to the March 12th (in 35).]
Once more, the major point is that the Sadducees would be unlikely to have postponed what was doubtless already expected across mideast Asia. Adhering to legal perfectionism at the last possible minute simply would have been bad business. Just as bad for business would have been scheduling a Passover for February or early March. Late winter was simply too risky, and mid-April was far preferable to mid-March, even apart from the equinox. These considerations drastically reduces the variability of Beckwith's conclusion, brining the balance of questions about intercalation (basically) back to daily record keeping and nightly lunar observation.
On this last point, we should expect the Sadducees would at least bow to tradition whenever expedient (tradition surely enhancing the pull for more pilgrims, and thus for more revenues) and the festival traditionally began on a full moon. Therefore - assuming all other intercalation procedures revolved around making sure that Nissan began on a new moon and that Passover began on a full moon, we are probably justified in following the basic metonic cycles to determine when Jesus was most likely crucified.
Since the only years left in question (32 or 35) do not affect this consideration, the chief options must remain 30 and 33 AD. From there, a chronological study of Christ's public ministry (compared with the start of John the Baptist's ministry) should settle the crucifixion firmly in early April of 33 AD.
---------------
One further note, of potential importance: according to astronomical reckoning, 26, 33 and 36 AD are the only years under Pontius Pilate in which the most likely reckoning of Sivan 6th naturally fell on a Sunday. The presence of the crowds in Acts chapter 2 confirms that this Pentecost fell on a Sunday, but - as the Pharisees probably had the proper interpretation of God's instructions to Moses about dating Pentecost - the double occasion of Pentecost falling on Sivan 6th could be seen (by some) as a more appropriate date for the typological "baking of the loaf" that corresponds with the first church's "birth".
Obviously, this last point is theological, circumstantial and potentially meaningless. On the other hand, it may be deeply meaningful. Either way, it is worth noting. At most, however, theologians should only consider it as potential confirmation of a sound historical conclusion. It does not count as support.
October 30, 2009
The Ideal Church...
Might not look just like this, but this might be pretty close. TC challenged me to describe it. Ideal being ideal, remember this is something to shoot for. It also happens to be what I see consistently modeled in the NT, from John the Baptist and Jesus to Timothy and Titus. The first aspect you might want to notice, which people tend to leave out of their church models, is the passage of TIME. Life is not static. Anyway...
***********************
Pick a town in the world. Any culture. Two or more gifted believers, called and sent by God, gather a group of believers and train them to function as the church.
Over a period of perhaps 1 to 8 years, the planters teach brothers and sisters how to provide ALL the needs of the body. At the same time, these instigators are working for the day when they will no longer be there. The instigators must gradually decrease so that Christ in the body may increase.
In the initial phases, different members of the group will naturally and gradually begin to display certain aptitudes, including teaching and oversight. With the workers' help, the body will learn to recognize, appreciate and share these gifts for the good of the church. However, the most gifted individuals do not necessarily become overseers/elders/shepherds. Also, as the o/e/s's gain experience, they do not necessarily "lead" more often than anyone else. Elders are not necessarily teachers and teachers are not necessarily leaders. The body learns how to provide for its own needs, and everyone's contribution is considered a part of God's building-up process.
The elders, in a way, eventually become the most necessary, but also the least visibly active. These "supervisors" are servants, like everyone else, offering their giftedness when called upon moreso than at their own discretion. A chief role of the church workers (planters, trainers) is to coach the group into interdependency. Settling into ruts will be avoided by openness to fresh suggestions. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to challenge each other to love and to good works in Him.
Meeting styles will vary. Everyone is free to suggest and provide direction for group activities, including meetings. The body decides, with patient oversight, what activities to pursue more often than others, but reserves times for other ways of gathering as well. Trial and error ensues, but some reliable standards emerge. All the while, learning continues. Our main goal is not to set things in stone that will stand for a thousand years like Solomon's Temple. The Lord's house on Earth is a Tent that can Move! (That's what he said to Moses, anyway.)
Remember, during these years, the original workers are still with the group, guiding, directing and training... but also pulling back as appropriate, and as possible. After the training wheels are completely off, the 'apostles' continue meeting with the church for a year or so, without functioning in any leadership or decision making capacities whatsoever. Their passive presence encourages the church to shed its last vestige of 'adolescence'. The 'apostles' themselves might rest during this phasing-out period or they might use the time to plan and prepare their next 'mission' field (not too close to this one). In this final year, the planters also keep a sharper eye than ever on the church, which finally stands on the verge of being left alone.
In years to come, after the planters depart, the church has two (or more) outside resources to call upon who can visit, provide long distance encouragement. A young adult leaving home still needs help from "mom and dad", but not so often and not so much. On occasion, the church planters might return if the church and its elders are stymied by some difficult matter. An outside perspective can be helpful, especially if the 'apostles' aren't compromised by salary, because - I forgot to mention - they've been supporting themselves with careers all this time!
The brothers and sisters have learned how to keep one another fixed on Jesus Christ, and to lean on, wait on, and stand in Him during all seasons of life. This is what they've been trained for. They have top-down oversight, bottom-up leadership, they've been trained to listen for God's voice to potentially come from any member of Christ's body, and they still have recourse to their founders, when necessary.
That, in a nutshell, is my ideal church. That's what I see in Ephesians 4.
************
On top of that, if I could really daydream for a minute, everyone in the church ought to be less than 3 minutes from each others' houses by car, if not bike, if not foot. Ancient cities were less than one mile square, and urban sprawl is incredibly recent, historically speaking.
Remember, Ideal being Ideal... we should take what we can get. But I think this is what we should shoot for. Scratch that. Work towards and prepare for. Most of us aren't ready to go for it yet, but I believe we can get there.
Any Questions?
***********************
Pick a town in the world. Any culture. Two or more gifted believers, called and sent by God, gather a group of believers and train them to function as the church.
Over a period of perhaps 1 to 8 years, the planters teach brothers and sisters how to provide ALL the needs of the body. At the same time, these instigators are working for the day when they will no longer be there. The instigators must gradually decrease so that Christ in the body may increase.
In the initial phases, different members of the group will naturally and gradually begin to display certain aptitudes, including teaching and oversight. With the workers' help, the body will learn to recognize, appreciate and share these gifts for the good of the church. However, the most gifted individuals do not necessarily become overseers/elders/shepherds. Also, as the o/e/s's gain experience, they do not necessarily "lead" more often than anyone else. Elders are not necessarily teachers and teachers are not necessarily leaders. The body learns how to provide for its own needs, and everyone's contribution is considered a part of God's building-up process.
The elders, in a way, eventually become the most necessary, but also the least visibly active. These "supervisors" are servants, like everyone else, offering their giftedness when called upon moreso than at their own discretion. A chief role of the church workers (planters, trainers) is to coach the group into interdependency. Settling into ruts will be avoided by openness to fresh suggestions. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to challenge each other to love and to good works in Him.
Meeting styles will vary. Everyone is free to suggest and provide direction for group activities, including meetings. The body decides, with patient oversight, what activities to pursue more often than others, but reserves times for other ways of gathering as well. Trial and error ensues, but some reliable standards emerge. All the while, learning continues. Our main goal is not to set things in stone that will stand for a thousand years like Solomon's Temple. The Lord's house on Earth is a Tent that can Move! (That's what he said to Moses, anyway.)
Remember, during these years, the original workers are still with the group, guiding, directing and training... but also pulling back as appropriate, and as possible. After the training wheels are completely off, the 'apostles' continue meeting with the church for a year or so, without functioning in any leadership or decision making capacities whatsoever. Their passive presence encourages the church to shed its last vestige of 'adolescence'. The 'apostles' themselves might rest during this phasing-out period or they might use the time to plan and prepare their next 'mission' field (not too close to this one). In this final year, the planters also keep a sharper eye than ever on the church, which finally stands on the verge of being left alone.
In years to come, after the planters depart, the church has two (or more) outside resources to call upon who can visit, provide long distance encouragement. A young adult leaving home still needs help from "mom and dad", but not so often and not so much. On occasion, the church planters might return if the church and its elders are stymied by some difficult matter. An outside perspective can be helpful, especially if the 'apostles' aren't compromised by salary, because - I forgot to mention - they've been supporting themselves with careers all this time!
The brothers and sisters have learned how to keep one another fixed on Jesus Christ, and to lean on, wait on, and stand in Him during all seasons of life. This is what they've been trained for. They have top-down oversight, bottom-up leadership, they've been trained to listen for God's voice to potentially come from any member of Christ's body, and they still have recourse to their founders, when necessary.
That, in a nutshell, is my ideal church. That's what I see in Ephesians 4.
************
On top of that, if I could really daydream for a minute, everyone in the church ought to be less than 3 minutes from each others' houses by car, if not bike, if not foot. Ancient cities were less than one mile square, and urban sprawl is incredibly recent, historically speaking.
Remember, Ideal being Ideal... we should take what we can get. But I think this is what we should shoot for. Scratch that. Work towards and prepare for. Most of us aren't ready to go for it yet, but I believe we can get there.
Any Questions?
October 29, 2009
two corrections and notes
First, in my last post I said Caesar sailed for Gaul in 16 AD. Of course it's possible to sail from Italy to France, but Caesar probably went over the Alps. I must have been thinking of the Gauls in Galatia because Caesar went to Asia in 19 AD. Oops.
Second, near the end of that same post I inadvertently left off 30 AD as a possible date for John 2:20. By strict chronological reckoning, 46 years back from Passover of 30 AD would seem to put the Temple construction beginning in early 17 BC. That date is just beyond the realm of possibility, but late 18 BC is acceptable, and the Jews could have been rounding down from 46 years and a few months.
Both points have been fixed in the previous post.
By the way, that second correction is not for my sake, but in fairness to those who take 33 AD for the crucifixion and posit a three year long ministry for Jesus. Personally, I date John 2:20 to the Passover of 29 AD because I find a four year ministry more suitable to the evidence overall. Again, the point of my post is that John 2:20 itself is somewhat imprecise, even based on Josephus.
As it so happens, the previous (erroneous) efforts to date John 2:20 more precisely have been one long standing reason (evidently) why leading apologists felt constrained to defend the three year view against the four year view. I believe I have demonstrated why that was not necessary, and naturally I hope these efforts will encourage many to give the four year ministry more careful consideration.
However, I just as fervently want to be clear that anyone who wishes to stick with their established views can still adopt my explanation on this one detail. As detailed in the previous post, the evidence on Herod's Temple construction allows dates as early as 27 AD for the citation of John 2:20.
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 16, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 2
As a man, Jesus always attended the festivals at their peak, to reach (and be protected by) the crowds at their fullest. But as a boy, it was the opposite. At age 12, in 7 AD, Jesus did not set forth to do his Father's 'business' in the Temple until after the crowds of pilgrims had all gone home. The specific timing and other details of that early event serve to inform us that no one from Nazareth, other than Joseph or Mary, knew what Jesus had done in Jerusalem.
(Even if the traveling party containing their relatives and acquaintances wasn't the entire contingent from their small village, as it very well may have been, any other travelling groups would almost certainly have been gone by that time, as well. -- Please note, I am arguing this point completely on top of the fact that it already seems to be Luke's clear implication.)
In Luke's Gospel it's a short span (Baptism - Geneaology - Temptation) between that childhood episode and Jesus' first return to Nazareth. With the above episode still fresh in his reader's mind, Luke tells us the grown up Jesus surprises his family and old friends primarily because of his words. To that, Luke immediately adds 'their graciousness', but the emphasis is on the words themselves. Primarily, they were surprised by his [public] speaking. Evidently - all things considered - the natural conclusion here feels pretty strong. The Nazarenes had never heard him speak publicly in the Synagogue, before that day.
How solid a conclusion is this? Luke tells us they'd heard Jesus had been speaking in Synagogues, recently. This explains why they were not surprised to see him stand and read, or to imagine that he was about to speak, but only after the words themselves came out. Still, most translations avoid the NASB's italicized "began teaching in the Synagogues" - because it's not in the text and I suppose also because, technically, we can't we can't absolutely prove that he had never taught in any Synagogues anywhere, before... not that the ultra-cautious won't admit their strong leanings when pressed.
In deference to that traditional caution, we must admit that no evidence explicitly states such a thing. However, very few historical conclusions are ever 100% airtight and christian scholarship should not eschew probabilities of very strong liklihood. Instead, I believe we must begin to find profit in acknowledging them for what they are - probabilities of very strong liklihood.
We are neither adding to nor taking away from the words of scripture - certainly not any more than theologians have been doing for centuries - we are reconstruting the most likely course of events. Probability is simply how History works. So I'll say it again, and qualify the statement historically.
Luke's strong implication is that Jesus had never spoken publicly in the Nazareth Synagogue before this occasion and his collection of facts, put together and judged on their own merit, shows this is most likely true. At the very least, he had never spoken anything of significance or consequence, so as to leave a memorable impression.
Now I'll say it more plainly.
It seems Jesus never spoke any memorable words in the Synagogue, while growing up in Nazareth.
Why am I taking such pains for what seems like the obvious conclusion? First, because I am trying very hard not to make any 'easy' assumptions. Second, because I'm trying to make a point of acknowledging the aspect of probability. And third, because we actually do need to be pretty sure this view is solid before we stake any further claims about Jesus' time in Nazareth during the so-called "silent years"... which we absolutely should attempt to do.
If we truly believe the Gospels are historically reliable, it feels irresponsible and possibly two-faced not to analyze them historically. (Oh, okay. Perhaps it is merely being "ultra-cautious". But I think that caution comes from a misguided and unnecessarily defensive mindset.)
That said, don't think I'm trying to go way out on any limbs, here. My goal is only to say what seems perfectly reasonable - but not until we've exhausted all the available evidence on the Nazareth Synagogue.
To be continued...
(Even if the traveling party containing their relatives and acquaintances wasn't the entire contingent from their small village, as it very well may have been, any other travelling groups would almost certainly have been gone by that time, as well. -- Please note, I am arguing this point completely on top of the fact that it already seems to be Luke's clear implication.)
In Luke's Gospel it's a short span (Baptism - Geneaology - Temptation) between that childhood episode and Jesus' first return to Nazareth. With the above episode still fresh in his reader's mind, Luke tells us the grown up Jesus surprises his family and old friends primarily because of his words. To that, Luke immediately adds 'their graciousness', but the emphasis is on the words themselves. Primarily, they were surprised by his [public] speaking. Evidently - all things considered - the natural conclusion here feels pretty strong. The Nazarenes had never heard him speak publicly in the Synagogue, before that day.
How solid a conclusion is this? Luke tells us they'd heard Jesus had been speaking in Synagogues, recently. This explains why they were not surprised to see him stand and read, or to imagine that he was about to speak, but only after the words themselves came out. Still, most translations avoid the NASB's italicized "began teaching in the Synagogues" - because it's not in the text and I suppose also because, technically, we can't we can't absolutely prove that he had never taught in any Synagogues anywhere, before... not that the ultra-cautious won't admit their strong leanings when pressed.
In deference to that traditional caution, we must admit that no evidence explicitly states such a thing. However, very few historical conclusions are ever 100% airtight and christian scholarship should not eschew probabilities of very strong liklihood. Instead, I believe we must begin to find profit in acknowledging them for what they are - probabilities of very strong liklihood.
We are neither adding to nor taking away from the words of scripture - certainly not any more than theologians have been doing for centuries - we are reconstruting the most likely course of events. Probability is simply how History works. So I'll say it again, and qualify the statement historically.
Luke's strong implication is that Jesus had never spoken publicly in the Nazareth Synagogue before this occasion and his collection of facts, put together and judged on their own merit, shows this is most likely true. At the very least, he had never spoken anything of significance or consequence, so as to leave a memorable impression.
Now I'll say it more plainly.
It seems Jesus never spoke any memorable words in the Synagogue, while growing up in Nazareth.
Why am I taking such pains for what seems like the obvious conclusion? First, because I am trying very hard not to make any 'easy' assumptions. Second, because I'm trying to make a point of acknowledging the aspect of probability. And third, because we actually do need to be pretty sure this view is solid before we stake any further claims about Jesus' time in Nazareth during the so-called "silent years"... which we absolutely should attempt to do.
If we truly believe the Gospels are historically reliable, it feels irresponsible and possibly two-faced not to analyze them historically. (Oh, okay. Perhaps it is merely being "ultra-cautious". But I think that caution comes from a misguided and unnecessarily defensive mindset.)
That said, don't think I'm trying to go way out on any limbs, here. My goal is only to say what seems perfectly reasonable - but not until we've exhausted all the available evidence on the Nazareth Synagogue.
To be continued...
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 09, 2009
Johannine Historiography
'Everyone' notices - even though most believers don't think about it much - that Jesus' speeches in John sound a lot like John in John's Epistles. (See my earlier post for general thoughts about speeches in ancient historiography.) That may not bother believers (and certainly shouldn't, in my opinion), but what does it do to our chances of doing historical reconstruction from John's Gospel?
First of all, John regularly inserts biographical and chronological details into dialogue. Philip tells us Jesus is from Nazareth. The Capernaum Jews later confirm Joseph is his father. Jerusalemites cite "Forty-six years" for the Temple's construction. John's disciples tell us Jesus is becoming more popular. Jesus tells us "it is four months until the harvest". The narrator takes on more exposition as the Gospel progresses, especially at transitional points and during the passion week, but the pattern does not fade completely. During the trial, Jesus, Pilate and the Sanhedrin all continue to provide exclusive narrative and contextual details the reader does not learn at other points.
The writer's method of including factual exposition within dialogue is consistent, so the issue of whether Jesus' speeches are verbatim is irrelevant. Any Johannine Historiography that analyzes the historical details in the fourth Gospel does so by extracting some of those elements from passages of dialogue. And that is my entire point.
If there is any basis at all for doing historical work from the Gospel of John, then there is no good justification for dividing between "historical" and "theological" content. Jesus tells us with equal plainness that, "I have preached regularly in the synagogues and the Temple" and that "the Father is in me". Although historical-critical scholars are welcome to throw out supernatural and metaphysical (spiritual) details on the basis of anti-faith, a faith-based historiography must accept that John is giving us both statements of Jesus as plain facts.
Therefore, the verbatim quality of Jesus' speeches does not necessarily matter. IF we accept John's testimony, IF we believe his deeper spiritual claims are the product of spiritual experience and/or divine revelation, and IF we consider historical details from dialogue as freely as from the narration, THEN, to be consistent, we should also treat particular details of a metaphysical nature as historical, even if they come from long speeches.
In doing actual reconstruction, of course, we had best judge the apparent meaning of each statement in a strictly practical sense. As much as possible, statements should be taken as spiritual facts, instead of being reinterpreted metaphorically or merely as 'spiritual truth'. Additionally, if a detail is unclear without philosophical interpretation, or if it is unclear how a predictive statement was or was not fulfilled, then we will do best not to rely as heavily upon such a detail in reconstructing events. Again, we are focused on events from a historical perspective, not on forming theological interpretations of meaning.
In short, if the Gospel writer tells us anything that plainly rings of supernatural spiritual activity, we will stand on faith to claim that spiritual event as historical.
First of all, John regularly inserts biographical and chronological details into dialogue. Philip tells us Jesus is from Nazareth. The Capernaum Jews later confirm Joseph is his father. Jerusalemites cite "Forty-six years" for the Temple's construction. John's disciples tell us Jesus is becoming more popular. Jesus tells us "it is four months until the harvest". The narrator takes on more exposition as the Gospel progresses, especially at transitional points and during the passion week, but the pattern does not fade completely. During the trial, Jesus, Pilate and the Sanhedrin all continue to provide exclusive narrative and contextual details the reader does not learn at other points.
The writer's method of including factual exposition within dialogue is consistent, so the issue of whether Jesus' speeches are verbatim is irrelevant. Any Johannine Historiography that analyzes the historical details in the fourth Gospel does so by extracting some of those elements from passages of dialogue. And that is my entire point.
If there is any basis at all for doing historical work from the Gospel of John, then there is no good justification for dividing between "historical" and "theological" content. Jesus tells us with equal plainness that, "I have preached regularly in the synagogues and the Temple" and that "the Father is in me". Although historical-critical scholars are welcome to throw out supernatural and metaphysical (spiritual) details on the basis of anti-faith, a faith-based historiography must accept that John is giving us both statements of Jesus as plain facts.
Therefore, the verbatim quality of Jesus' speeches does not necessarily matter. IF we accept John's testimony, IF we believe his deeper spiritual claims are the product of spiritual experience and/or divine revelation, and IF we consider historical details from dialogue as freely as from the narration, THEN, to be consistent, we should also treat particular details of a metaphysical nature as historical, even if they come from long speeches.
In doing actual reconstruction, of course, we had best judge the apparent meaning of each statement in a strictly practical sense. As much as possible, statements should be taken as spiritual facts, instead of being reinterpreted metaphorically or merely as 'spiritual truth'. Additionally, if a detail is unclear without philosophical interpretation, or if it is unclear how a predictive statement was or was not fulfilled, then we will do best not to rely as heavily upon such a detail in reconstructing events. Again, we are focused on events from a historical perspective, not on forming theological interpretations of meaning.
In short, if the Gospel writer tells us anything that plainly rings of supernatural spiritual activity, we will stand on faith to claim that spiritual event as historical.
August 06, 2009
"The ____ of my Father" - House, Things or People?
'Sacred space' is fine and may as well be a regular location. I think congregations of believers are supposed to claim the land and be built up as God's house on Earth for a time. But I think it's wrong for anyone to expect the Spirit of God to meet them in the same spot for decades or centuries to come. God may be pleased to blow in and out from time to time. Or he may honor constant humility with constant revival. But if you build an edifice without an exit strategy, you're expecting that building to outlast God, because given enough time, it will and it does.
I didn't bring this up just to rant but to say that I blame christendom's institutionalized mindset for the (bad) translating tradition of making twelve year old Jesus say, "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?".
Simply put, there is no good reason whatsoever for inserting the word house. "About my Father's business" isn't perfect, but it's infinitely better by comparison. And while it's nice that recent major translations put this in as a footnote, isn't that backwards? Seriously, why should the editorial content go into the text? If they're so set on respecting tradition, couldn't the footnote say, "Traditional rendering: 'in my Father's house'"? But then they'd have to consider the best option - leaving it out completely.
The Greek literaly says, "Didn't you know I had to be in the [things] of my Father?" (OR "in thes of my Father" if English had a plural "the"). But I have a suggestion. Since the articleis plural and can mean "among", couldn't the verse just as easily read, "Didn't you know I had to be among the people of my Father?" Maybe. Maybe "business" is safer, but it's still worth asking - if you've got to insert a word anyway, why did the translators see a building here? Why not a people? (Besides, "house" isn't even plural. The empty modifier is plural.)
Not even the Vulgate says "house"!
Quick story:
Jesus' question does imply his parents were surprised to find him there, and they could have found him before sunset on the second day, after walking back, if they'd gone straight to the temple. The Temple was the last place they looked. Now, they'd been in Jerusalem together for at least a week and Jesus had chances to go see the Temple, if he'd wanted Joseph to take him. Apparently, Joseph & Mary didn't think he was much of a fan.
BUT, when the festival ended and the crowds started leaving, Jesus made a bee line for the Temple courts. I'm guessing something (or Someone) told Jesus he'd find more devout folks there after the hubub was over. When you think about it, this is all as plain as day. Jesus going to the Temple one day after the festival is like going to First Baptist downtown one week after Easter. There may still be phonies but you're more likely to find real devotion.
After all, there's nothing wrong with having a regular, sacred space. ;-)
But timing can be just as important.
I didn't bring this up just to rant but to say that I blame christendom's institutionalized mindset for the (bad) translating tradition of making twelve year old Jesus say, "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?".
Simply put, there is no good reason whatsoever for inserting the word house. "About my Father's business" isn't perfect, but it's infinitely better by comparison. And while it's nice that recent major translations put this in as a footnote, isn't that backwards? Seriously, why should the editorial content go into the text? If they're so set on respecting tradition, couldn't the footnote say, "Traditional rendering: 'in my Father's house'"? But then they'd have to consider the best option - leaving it out completely.
The Greek literaly says, "Didn't you know I had to be in the [things] of my Father?" (OR "in thes of my Father" if English had a plural "the"). But I have a suggestion. Since the article
Not even the Vulgate says "house"!
et ait ad illos quid est quod me quaerebatis nesciebatis quia in his quae Patris mei sunt oportet me esse(My Latin's much worse than my Greek, but I know it doesn't say house! I think the end of it says, "I had to be among these who are my Father's." But if someone could check me on that, I'd be grateful.)
Quick story:
Jesus' question does imply his parents were surprised to find him there, and they could have found him before sunset on the second day, after walking back, if they'd gone straight to the temple. The Temple was the last place they looked. Now, they'd been in Jerusalem together for at least a week and Jesus had chances to go see the Temple, if he'd wanted Joseph to take him. Apparently, Joseph & Mary didn't think he was much of a fan.
BUT, when the festival ended and the crowds started leaving, Jesus made a bee line for the Temple courts. I'm guessing something (or Someone) told Jesus he'd find more devout folks there after the hubub was over. When you think about it, this is all as plain as day. Jesus going to the Temple one day after the festival is like going to First Baptist downtown one week after Easter. There may still be phonies but you're more likely to find real devotion.
After all, there's nothing wrong with having a regular, sacred space. ;-)
But timing can be just as important.
July 25, 2009
Eden... Nazareth... Thessalonica...
Jesus Christ was God's second Adam - God's second chance to have a man live the way He'd always wanted, on Earth. Of course, the baby Jesus was not omnipotent in that manger. He had emptied himself before coming into his creation. He had to learn, grow, increase and be filled up again with G0d's righteousness.
In Him was Life. He was in very nature God. But that Life had to Grow. His divine nature developed along with his human body and soul. He grew. By the time he was "about thirty", he was grown. But before he was grown, he was growing. While growing, he was also - very significantly - living.
Nazareth was God's second Eden. Christ had to learn, as a man, how to walk with God in a spiritual way. Jesus lived by every word from the mouth of his Father. Those words were Life, so Jesus ate Life. He bore the image of God - he WAS the image of God. When he walked around living by God's spirit inside him, people were seeing what God looked like. But I'm not talking about Jesus' ministry years. I'm talking about his carpenter, good son, good neighbor and big brother years.
In Nazareth, God's Man was doing what God always wanted. He was fulfilling the law by loving his Father and everyone else. He was choosing each day to do everything only in ways that were pleasing to the Father. He wasn't only growing. He was living. He didn't only come to die. He came to live. Life. Abundantly.
Nazareth was the prototype for Joppa, Lystra, Berea, Thyatyra, and all the other first century churches. What God did with Jesus in Nazareth he wanted to do again and again with men and women who would ingest his divine nature, become one with him, partake of his spirit, and learn how to incorporate Life into life. The brothers and sisters in Thessalonica had to do what Jesus did in Nazareth. Learn. Grow. Increase. Be filled. Submit. Live by God's spirit. Have Life. Abundantly.
Eden was eventually built over with stones - Living Stones - that God himself cut, hammered, polished and built (together) into streets, gates and a wall - but no temple. His glory filled all of them. The Tree and the River were still in the center. The Root and the Flow of His Life were now, finally, surrounded by more than simply one Adam, one Cornerstone. God's New Man had multiplied, filled the earth, surrounded it, and kept out the creeping thing.
There was no progression of strategy here. It was always the same. God kept his deal with Israel, but he started a new deal when Jesus came into the world. The old deal had been a one realm arrangement. The new deal was going to be two-realms at once. Just like Eden. Sticking out of heaven. Sticking around for a while. In various places on earth.
Where I'm from, we called this "the church".
My point today? Nazareth is as significant. Nazareth needs more attention.
In Him was Life. He was in very nature God. But that Life had to Grow. His divine nature developed along with his human body and soul. He grew. By the time he was "about thirty", he was grown. But before he was grown, he was growing. While growing, he was also - very significantly - living.
Nazareth was God's second Eden. Christ had to learn, as a man, how to walk with God in a spiritual way. Jesus lived by every word from the mouth of his Father. Those words were Life, so Jesus ate Life. He bore the image of God - he WAS the image of God. When he walked around living by God's spirit inside him, people were seeing what God looked like. But I'm not talking about Jesus' ministry years. I'm talking about his carpenter, good son, good neighbor and big brother years.
In Nazareth, God's Man was doing what God always wanted. He was fulfilling the law by loving his Father and everyone else. He was choosing each day to do everything only in ways that were pleasing to the Father. He wasn't only growing. He was living. He didn't only come to die. He came to live. Life. Abundantly.
Nazareth was the prototype for Joppa, Lystra, Berea, Thyatyra, and all the other first century churches. What God did with Jesus in Nazareth he wanted to do again and again with men and women who would ingest his divine nature, become one with him, partake of his spirit, and learn how to incorporate Life into life. The brothers and sisters in Thessalonica had to do what Jesus did in Nazareth. Learn. Grow. Increase. Be filled. Submit. Live by God's spirit. Have Life. Abundantly.
Eden was eventually built over with stones - Living Stones - that God himself cut, hammered, polished and built (together) into streets, gates and a wall - but no temple. His glory filled all of them. The Tree and the River were still in the center. The Root and the Flow of His Life were now, finally, surrounded by more than simply one Adam, one Cornerstone. God's New Man had multiplied, filled the earth, surrounded it, and kept out the creeping thing.
There was no progression of strategy here. It was always the same. God kept his deal with Israel, but he started a new deal when Jesus came into the world. The old deal had been a one realm arrangement. The new deal was going to be two-realms at once. Just like Eden. Sticking out of heaven. Sticking around for a while. In various places on earth.
Where I'm from, we called this "the church".
My point today? Nazareth is as significant. Nazareth needs more attention.
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!)
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 27, 2009
Who Was The First Christian Writer?
Common people might not think about writing things down until the eyewitnesses are nearing their death. However, as I've said before, it only takes ONE GUY to be forward thinking enough to beat those commoners by several decades. However, he had to be more than literate. He also had to be literarily minded. Personally, I think that ONE GUY was Matthew the publican-scribe. Here's why:
Imagine you're Matthew the tax collector. You carry around some simple writing tools that you use for book keeping when you have to travel, which is often. When somebody pays you, you unroll your satchel and scroll, set your tools on their table, make a record of the transaction, and put everything away again. You'd keep a small jar of ink, and you'd know in which towns to buy more ink when you were running low. As a tax-collector, you are in small part a travelling scribe.
Now Jesus calls you. And you want to serve him. And writing is not only a skill, it's a part of your practiced profession. But one more important detail is... you're Jewish! You grew up hearing people read the scriptures out loud. You've spent many hours rolling and unrolling scrolls, just like you saw done in the synagogue every Sabbath, so writing isn't a mystery to you. In fact, writing is part of your daily mindset.
But there's more. In the synagogues, among other things, you had sometimes heard that God told Moses to write, God told Isaiah to write, God told Jeremiah and other prophets to write... and apparently some of them wrote without being told to. You see Jesus go into the Synagogues, and they read the scrolls, and at least one time you think, "They should hear what Jesus said the other day!"
To birth writing, literary capability needs to meet literary mindedness. One simple thought only had to cross Matthew's mind one time. He already had the skills and the tools. He just needed the spark. "I could write something!" And writing itself was abundantly extant.
By the time of Hillel, famous Rabbis had people who wrote down their sayings. Pharisees commonly put writings on their foreheads or sleeves, so common people could see it and want to know what it said. Herod's Temple had inscriptions written on it by those who donated materials. The average person might not see writing all day long, but they might see it daily. And pages of writings - for synagogue attenders - would be seen at least weekly.
Maybe Jesus himself made a remark one day that got Matthew to thinking about the potential. Maybe Matthew offered to sell his writing tools for food money, and someone suggested he keep them for future use instead. It doesn't matter how it happened - the point is that all of these possibilities are extremely plausible or common scenarios that could have nudged Matthew into thinking about recording some speeches and current events.
But what if it wasn't Matthew?
The odds of that thought coming at least once [at least to some writer] seem as certain as anything. And my whole point - again - is that the thought only had to come once. In a purely oral culture, maybe writing would never occur until the eyewitnesses were about to die. But in a partly literate culture? If the task only had to occur to one literate person? If it only took one guy to decide to write down what he knew? More likely than not, somebody would write.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend there were two hundred literate christians out of the thousands in Palestine. With those numbers, what are the odds that just one of them compiled an account? Those odds would be the inverse of 200 to 1. Those odds would be 200 in 1. That's two hundred chances for one guy to do it. Those are pretty good odds.
By the way, written testimony doesn't merely back up an eyewitness who might leave or die - it also backs up that witness' own memory while they're still around! Again, this only increases the odds that the earliest christians would not have waited so long to make written records about Jesus' ministry years.
So, after all that... my faithful blog reader... if YOU had to pick the most likely New Testament person to put down written records more early than others, who would you choose?
So far, I'm sticking with Matthew.
Do you have a better (specific) suggestion?
Imagine you're Matthew the tax collector. You carry around some simple writing tools that you use for book keeping when you have to travel, which is often. When somebody pays you, you unroll your satchel and scroll, set your tools on their table, make a record of the transaction, and put everything away again. You'd keep a small jar of ink, and you'd know in which towns to buy more ink when you were running low. As a tax-collector, you are in small part a travelling scribe.
Now Jesus calls you. And you want to serve him. And writing is not only a skill, it's a part of your practiced profession. But one more important detail is... you're Jewish! You grew up hearing people read the scriptures out loud. You've spent many hours rolling and unrolling scrolls, just like you saw done in the synagogue every Sabbath, so writing isn't a mystery to you. In fact, writing is part of your daily mindset.
But there's more. In the synagogues, among other things, you had sometimes heard that God told Moses to write, God told Isaiah to write, God told Jeremiah and other prophets to write... and apparently some of them wrote without being told to. You see Jesus go into the Synagogues, and they read the scrolls, and at least one time you think, "They should hear what Jesus said the other day!"
To birth writing, literary capability needs to meet literary mindedness. One simple thought only had to cross Matthew's mind one time. He already had the skills and the tools. He just needed the spark. "I could write something!" And writing itself was abundantly extant.
By the time of Hillel, famous Rabbis had people who wrote down their sayings. Pharisees commonly put writings on their foreheads or sleeves, so common people could see it and want to know what it said. Herod's Temple had inscriptions written on it by those who donated materials. The average person might not see writing all day long, but they might see it daily. And pages of writings - for synagogue attenders - would be seen at least weekly.
Maybe Jesus himself made a remark one day that got Matthew to thinking about the potential. Maybe Matthew offered to sell his writing tools for food money, and someone suggested he keep them for future use instead. It doesn't matter how it happened - the point is that all of these possibilities are extremely plausible or common scenarios that could have nudged Matthew into thinking about recording some speeches and current events.
But what if it wasn't Matthew?
The odds of that thought coming at least once [at least to some writer] seem as certain as anything. And my whole point - again - is that the thought only had to come once. In a purely oral culture, maybe writing would never occur until the eyewitnesses were about to die. But in a partly literate culture? If the task only had to occur to one literate person? If it only took one guy to decide to write down what he knew? More likely than not, somebody would write.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend there were two hundred literate christians out of the thousands in Palestine. With those numbers, what are the odds that just one of them compiled an account? Those odds would be the inverse of 200 to 1. Those odds would be 200 in 1. That's two hundred chances for one guy to do it. Those are pretty good odds.
By the way, written testimony doesn't merely back up an eyewitness who might leave or die - it also backs up that witness' own memory while they're still around! Again, this only increases the odds that the earliest christians would not have waited so long to make written records about Jesus' ministry years.
So, after all that... my faithful blog reader... if YOU had to pick the most likely New Testament person to put down written records more early than others, who would you choose?
So far, I'm sticking with Matthew.
Do you have a better (specific) suggestion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)