I believe it’s interpolated from two more or less known data points. First, his birth year is somewhere about 6BC to year 0 with it more likely to be on the earlier end of that range. Second, Paul can be conclusively pinpointed to specific years for a small number of events in his life. By working backwards from those later points scholars get back to when he probably started his letter writing activity then something like 10 or 15 years (I forget which) is subtracted from that (because he wasn’t writing letters until later in his career) and then about max 2 years is subtracted from that because it’s believed that he converted no later than 2 years after the death of Jesus. Whatever year you come up with at that point you subtract X B.C from there to get an estimated age of “early 30s” for Jesus at his death.
Seems like Bart has either blogged about this or mentioned it, but I couldn’t find a post on it just now.
paulheeney said
I’m sure I’m missing something here, I’m not really getting where Jesus’ age of circa 30 at his death comes from. The consensus seems to be that he was born within a few years of zero, and that he died in around 30 AD, but where does this actually come from?
There are no precise time markers in the Gospels. In the highly legendary opening chapters of Mathew, he is born some time before the death of Herod the Great, who died in the spring of 4 BCE. In Luke Jesus is born shortly after John, who was conceived/announced during Herod’s rule. Luke most likely refers to a global Roman Census that took place in 8 BCE, but incorrectly applied it to Judea as part of his spin to make the birth of Jesus fit in with Roman rule. If so, he too thinks Jesus was born during the final years of Herod. The gospel legends may contain some grain of historical truth in this respect.
The year of death of Herod can be easily proven from Josephus’ works and with supporting information from various other independent ancient sources. The academic consensus is 4 BCE.
According to Luke Jesus was about thirty when he started his activities as a preacher and was baptized some time after the 15. year of the Rule of Tiberius. Is this counted from the death of Augustus (14 CE)? From the year he entered a kind of co-regency with Augustus (12 CE)? Did Luke count ruling years inclusively, like Josephus often did ? Difficult to tell.
If one accepts the chronology of John’s gospel and makes some assumptions on regularities in the contemporary Jewish Calendar, Jesus was executed in 30 CE. Mark’s chronology of the passion make a fit with 33 CE.
The temple incident story in John 2 seems to be placed around 26-27 CE, to make things worse, but that story is maybe not very reliable.
This is a pretty amusing topic, and no entirely convincing resolution of the chronology has be given so far.
So you think Paul’s appearance before Gallio is meaningless? Seems a fairly accurate estimate of the dating of events in his life can be derived from that single point depending on how you view the accuracy of Acts. I like the idea that Luke didn’t know Paul so who knows how accurate it is. Here’s what Bart said in a post on this very question:
And so the question is whether we can trust Acts 18:12 that Paul really did appear before Gallio.
Even with an absolute date in place, scholars debate the fine details. Heatedly. But a common view of the matter is this:
- Paul converted to be a follower of Jesus in possibly 32-33 CE
- His first letter was 1 Thessalonians, possibly in 49 CE
- His last letter was Romans, possibly in 60 or so CE
- The other undisputed letters (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon) were written between these two dates
- He was executed possibly in 64 CE
Yep – BIG question indeed – Can we trust Acts??? And if not – what then for it’s story of Christian origins?
Some interesting observations from Richard Pervo:
Table 6.1: Jesus and Paul: Some Examples (Page 107) The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo
|
Page 148
The purpose of Luke’s portrait is clear. Paul is certainly heroic, multi-cultural and omnicompetent, but Luke did not wish simply to paint a larger than life character. His “Renaissance man” is a universal figure, the all-but-perfect representative of an aspirating world religion that would clothe it’s Jewish message in Greek finery and conquer the Roman world. History would show that Luke was an insightful portrait painter.
…..Acts is replete with historical implausibility, an almost non-existent chronology, and a quite improbably characterization of its leading personality, none of which elements serve history and all of which serve the purpose of the author.
Page 151- 156
The accusation, bluntly put, is that Luke murdered the history of the early church…..
…..the text of Acts provides no convincing evidence that Luke was attempting to compose a history of the early church or that he wished himself to be placed in the company of professional historians.
…By our lights Luke is better regarded as a creative author than as an historian……..Luke has no interest in objectively.
…To fault Luke for his failure to detail conflict and diversity is fruitless. To pretend that he touched upon everything that is important is indefensible. Luke’s achievement is remarkable and deserves honor even though he utterly obscured the story of Christian origins. Luke was often able to have his cake and eat it too. That luxury is not available to modern historians, who must acknowledge the severe limitations of Acts and be very cautious about the attempt to pick historical fruit from its elegant and well-trimmed branches.
…Luke’s story was so cogent that it helped to create the perspective that would emerge victorious and enduring. That observation returns the argument to where it began: Luke fashioned “the foundation myth of Christian origins”.
…For my part, thirty-five years devoted largely to the study of Acts have brought changes of mind on many issues along with continual surprise…
….About one conviction, however, my mind has not changed. That is that the belief that a full appreciation of Acts is not possible until one has accepted its limitations as a work of history.
…Deriving history from Acts is an enterprise fraught with difficulty. I firmly maintain that Luke the Historian has very little to wear and have striven to demonstrate the point, but I shall not close without acknowledging my admiration (and even envy) for the splendid outfit worn by Luke the author. In that costume lurk mysteries galore, and because of it the story of Christian origins is more mysterious than ever.
Page 2 and 5
The author of Acts committed a nearly “perfect crime”. Critical study of Acts suffers from the book’s success. Luke, as the author of both the Third Gospel (Luke) and Acts is conveniently designated, told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest trace…..Luke’s nearly perfect ‘crime’ is not just what he neglected to mention, but his artistry in convincing readers that he has given them “the big picture” when what he has painted is merely a distored portrait of one (admittedly major) segment of the whole.
A NT scholar who took the step at which Pervo stumbled…
Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Ch.16. Paul: The Penny Finally Drops.
- The idea that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles portray. Under that person’s inspiration – or the inspiration of that person’s co-workers, the epistles portray a single individual, Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God’s work on earth.
- On that May morning in 2008 in the library the idea that the figure of Paul is literary rather than historical hit me with a shock. It also hit me quite simply as the truth.
So, birth narratives are legends and Acts is not history – trust? In such a situation trust is misplaced…
paulheeney said
I’m sure I’m missing something here, I’m not really getting where Jesus’ age of circa 30 at his death comes from. The consensus seems to be that he was born within a few years of zero, and that he died in around 30 AD, but where does this actually come from?
There are many pieces to this consensus dating – as outlined by some posters. One point not mentioned that challenges the 30 year old idea is in John 8: 57. ‘Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old…”. The gospel of John being noted for no birth narrative leaves open both the beginning and end of these ‘not yet fifty’ years….
What works with the gJohn ‘not yet fifty years’ is a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod I (Slavonic Josephus) and an early date for Pilate – as in the 7th year of Tiberius of the Acts of Pilate (19 or 21 c.e.) (And yes, there is scholarly debate over the start date for Pilate – see Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20. – and incidentally, the Acts of Pilate dating of the crucifixion works better with the TF than a gLuke dating…)
” Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.”
Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, runs with gJohn’s not yet fifty years. Using the consensus birth date at the end of the rule of Herod I – then a crucifixion date would come in the time of Claudius Caesar (41 – 51 c.e.) but no Pilate at that time…)
If one views gLuke as a late gospel then other crucifixion scenarios can be put on the table. Once gLuke was written earlier scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of ‘forgery’ – or dismissal, as is currently the case with the accounts in Slavonic Josephus and the Toledot Yeshu. Thus, stories related to birth and crucifixion can run from around 90 b.c.e. to 51 c.e. Around 140 years…..
In other words: the Jesus story is a developing story. A story long in the telling and which accumulated updates along the way…The gMatthew birth narrative is removed from connection with the Slavonic Josephus early Herod I birth narrative by the simple addition of having Jesus a young child under the rule of Archelaus. i.e. without mention of Archelaus gMatthew’s birth narrative can be placed, like Slavonic Josephus, in the early rule of Herod 1.
So – take your pick of birth and crucifixion stories – all of which demonstrate a literary not a historical Jesus figure 😉
maryhelena said
paulheeney said
I’m sure I’m missing something here, I’m not really getting where Jesus’ age of circa 30 at his death comes from. The consensus seems to be that he was born within a few years of zero, and that he died in around 30 AD, but where does this actually come from?There are many pieces to this consensus dating – as outlined by some posters. One point not mentioned that challenges the 30 year old idea is in John 8: 57. ‘Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old…”. The gospel of John being noted for no birth narrative leaves open both the beginning and end of these ‘not yet fifty’ years….
What works with the gJohn ‘not yet fifty years’ is a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod I (Slavonic Josephus) and an early date for Pilate – as in the 7th year of Tiberius of the Acts of Pilate (19 or 21 c.e.) (And yes, there is scholarly debate over the start date for Pilate – see Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20. – and incidentally, the Acts of Pilate dating of the crucifixion works better with the TF than a gLuke dating…)
” Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.”
Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, runs with gJohn’s not yet fifty years. Using the consensus birth date at the end of the rule of Herod I – then a crucifixion date would come in the time of Claudius Caesar (41 – 51 c.e.) but no Pilate at that time…)
If one views gLuke as a late gospel then other crucifixion scenarios can be put on the table. Once gLuke was written earlier scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of ‘forgery’ – or dismissal, as is currently the case with the accounts in Slavonic Josephus and the Toledot Yeshu. Thus, stories related to birth and crucifixion can run from around 90 b.c.e. to 51 c.e. Around 140 years…..
In other words: the Jesus story is a developing story. A story long in the telling and which accumulated updates along the way…The gMatthew birth narrative is removed from connection with the Slavonic Josephus early Herod I birth narrative by the simple addition of having Jesus a young child under the rule of Archelaus. i.e. without mention of Archelaus gMatthew’s birth narrative can be placed, like Slavonic Josephus, in the early rule of Herod 1.
So – take your pick of birth and crucifixion stories – all of which demonstrate a literary not a historical Jesus figure 😉
It is very hard to move the rule of Pilate out of the consensus period of 26-36/7 CE. If you do that, it will cause a landslide of date revisions of most other important historical figures in this area and period. You have to at least come up with some substantial arguments showing why Josephus is wrong. A surviving coin minted by Pilate bears the year 29/30, so Josephus cannot be far off.
The “not yet 50” of gJohn taken in isolation could mean anything. It could mean that he was in his forties. But the context makes it reasonably clear what it means. The claim is given as a Jewish polemical statement by the Jews , who are mocking Jesus for not being even half a century old, when Jesus is claiming accept from Abraham from many centuries back. Therefor, the “not yet fifty” have no other function than characterizing Jewish opposition to gJohns’ high christology. It should be dismissed when looking for precise time markers of the life of the historical Jesus.
gavriel said
maryhelena said
paulheeney said
I’m sure I’m missing something here, I’m not really getting where Jesus’ age of circa 30 at his death comes from. The consensus seems to be that he was born within a few years of zero, and that he died in around 30 AD, but where does this actually come from?There are many pieces to this consensus dating – as outlined by some posters. One point not mentioned that challenges the 30 year old idea is in John 8: 57. ‘Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old…”. The gospel of John being noted for no birth narrative leaves open both the beginning and end of these ‘not yet fifty’ years….
What works with the gJohn ‘not yet fifty years’ is a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod I (Slavonic Josephus) and an early date for Pilate – as in the 7th year of Tiberius of the Acts of Pilate (19 or 21 c.e.) (And yes, there is scholarly debate over the start date for Pilate – see Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20. – and incidentally, the Acts of Pilate dating of the crucifixion works better with the TF than a gLuke dating…)
” Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.”
Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, runs with gJohn’s not yet fifty years. Using the consensus birth date at the end of the rule of Herod I – then a crucifixion date would come in the time of Claudius Caesar (41 – 51 c.e.) but no Pilate at that time…)
If one views gLuke as a late gospel then other crucifixion scenarios can be put on the table. Once gLuke was written earlier scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of ‘forgery’ – or dismissal, as is currently the case with the accounts in Slavonic Josephus and the Toledot Yeshu. Thus, stories related to birth and crucifixion can run from around 90 b.c.e. to 51 c.e. Around 140 years…..
In other words: the Jesus story is a developing story. A story long in the telling and which accumulated updates along the way…The gMatthew birth narrative is removed from connection with the Slavonic Josephus early Herod I birth narrative by the simple addition of having Jesus a young child under the rule of Archelaus. i.e. without mention of Archelaus gMatthew’s birth narrative can be placed, like Slavonic Josephus, in the early rule of Herod 1.
So – take your pick of birth and crucifixion stories – all of which demonstrate a literary not a historical Jesus figure 😉
It is very hard to move the rule of Pilate out of the consensus period of 26-36/7 CE. If you do that, it will cause a landslide of date revisions of most other important historical figures in this area and period. You have to at least come up with some substantial arguments showing why Josephus is wrong. A surviving coin minted by Pilate bears the year 29/30, so Josephus cannot be far off.
The “not yet 50” of gJohn taken in isolation could mean anything. It could mean that he was in his forties. But the context makes it reasonably clear what it means. The claim is given as a Jewish polemical statement by the Jews , who are mocking Jesus for not being even half a century old, when Jesus is claiming accept from Abraham from many centuries back. Therefor, the “not yet fifty” have no other function than characterizing Jewish opposition to gJohns’ high christology. It should be dismissed when looking for precise time markers of the life of the historical Jesus.
I’ve not seen any rebuttal to Daniel Schwartz re dating Pilate earlier than the consensus. If Pilate was in Judea in the 7th year of Tiberius – either 19 or 21 c.e. (his co-regency dating taken into account for the earlier date) then Pilate’s 11 years in Judea would run at least to 30 or 33 c.e.
Using a 12 c.e. co-regency for Tiberius – then gLuke and it’s 15th year would be about 26 c.e. Thus, allowing an early start date for Pilate in Judea – and an early crucifixion date re the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius – 19 or 21 ce.
With regard to our specific question, the year Pilate was appointed, we have
suggested that the location of Josephus’ notice concerning the appointment,
before the foundation of Tiberias (19-20 C.E.) and before the narrative
culminating in Germanicus’ death (19 C.E.), indicates that it too is to be
placed ca. 19 C.E. The same is also implied, apparently, by the inclusion of the
Roman scandals of 19 within the chapter on Pilate. Moreover, this suggestion
is also based upon a few specific considerations — the impression given by the
narrative of Gratus’ term, the cessation that year of annual minting and annual
appointments of high priests, and Eusebius’ report about fourth-century
forgers — and upon an analysis of the relationship of structure and chronology
in the last three books of the Antiquities. To my mind, all of these
considerations carry enough weight to overcome the presumption of authenticity of the specific numerical data in our texts of Josephus {Ant. 18.35,
89), which so smoothly give 26 or 27 C.E. as the year in which Pilate succeeded
Gratus. Especially in light of the exceptional nature of Josephus’ numerical
data here, and the presence of Germanicus with a mandate to do something in
Judaea, it seems to us that the question, so long considered closed, should now
at least be considered open, and that the weight of evidence points to the
earlier dating.
Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20.
As to gJohn’s not yet fifty years – it’s in the text…and, as you say, could mean anything. Irenaeus thought it meant that Jesus was not yet fifty years old:
Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book 2 ch.22.
- But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? John 8:56-57 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old. For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.
gmatthews said
So you think Paul’s appearance before Gallio is meaningless? Seems a fairly accurate estimate of the dating of events in his life can be derived from that single point depending on how you view the accuracy of Acts. I like the idea that Luke didn’t know Paul so who knows how accurate it is. Here’s what Bart said in a post on this very question:
And so the question is whether we can trust Acts 18:12 that Paul really did appear before Gallio.
Even with an absolute date in place, scholars debate the fine details. Heatedly. But a common view of the matter is this:
- Paul converted to be a follower of Jesus in possibly 32-33 CE
- His first letter was 1 Thessalonians, possibly in 49 CE
- His last letter was Romans, possibly in 60 or so CE
- The other undisputed letters (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon) were written between these two dates
- He was executed possibly in 64 CE
If we accept this version of Pauline chronology, it seems to confirm the passion narrative chronology of gJohn, implying a year of death of 30 CE or 33CE, so that Mark had it wrong when Jesus is said to be executed after the passover. Mathematical deductions on the rules for the Jewish calendar, assuming a year where the 14. of Nisan fell on a Friday give the candidate years 30 and 33. Ruling out 33 as too late to fit in with Pauline chronology, the answer should be 30. But since the administration of the Jewish calendar was influenced by human observation of moon phases, one cannot rely on such calculations. 29 is probably too early and 33 probably too late.
I’ve not seen any rebuttal to Daniel Schwartz re dating Pilate earlier than the consensus. If Pilate was in Judea in the 7th year of Tiberius – either 19 or 21 c.e. (his co-regency dating taken into account for the earlier date) then Pilate’s 11 years in Judea would run at least to 30 or 33 c.e.
Using a 12 c.e. co-regency for Tiberius – then gLuke and it’s 15th year would be about 26 c.e. Thus, allowing an early start date for Pilate in Judea – and an early crucifixion date re the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius – 19 or 21 ce.
With regard to our specific question, the year Pilate was appointed, we have
suggested that the location of Josephus’ notice concerning the appointment,
before the foundation of Tiberias (19-20 C.E.) and before the narrative
culminating in Germanicus’ death (19 C.E.), indicates that it too is to be
placed ca. 19 C.E. The same is also implied, apparently, by the inclusion of the
Roman scandals of 19 within the chapter on Pilate. Moreover, this suggestion
is also based upon a few specific considerations — the impression given by the
narrative of Gratus’ term, the cessation that year of annual minting and annual
appointments of high priests, and Eusebius’ report about fourth-century
forgers — and upon an analysis of the relationship of structure and chronology
in the last three books of the Antiquities. To my mind, all of these
considerations carry enough weight to overcome the presumption of authenticity of the specific numerical data in our texts of Josephus {Ant. 18.35,
89), which so smoothly give 26 or 27 C.E. as the year in which Pilate succeeded
Gratus. Especially in light of the exceptional nature of Josephus’ numerical
data here, and the presence of Germanicus with a mandate to do something in
Judaea, it seems to us that the question, so long considered closed, should now
at least be considered open, and that the weight of evidence points to the
earlier dating.Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20.
As to gJohn’s not yet fifty years – it’s in the text…and, as you say, could mean anything. Irenaeus thought it meant that Jesus was not yet fifty years old:
Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book 2 ch.22.
- But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? John 8:56-57 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old. For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.
The problem with the chronology of the narratives in the first half of the first century in Josephus’ works is that the individual stories are not always given in chronological order, and that conclusions on dating drawn from this, are precarious. For instance the death of Philip, known to be around 33/34, is given after the dismissal of Pilate which almost certainly took place in 36-37.
There are scores of competent scientists/historians with fringe views, but as the years pass, they fail to make them into consensus views. They often make a good read, however.
Pushing the start year of Pilate backwards does not change the end year, which rests heavily on the Syrian legate-ship of Lucius Vitellius (35-39). The resulting very long ruling period is not very likely for a man of equestrian rank, who ultimately got sacked for cruelty and misconduct.
Using the co-regency of Tiberius is a possibility that cannot be ruled out, but is not very likely. It depends on the date of gLuke. If it was written near 100 CE, it increases the possibility that he used “official” numbers, i.e. 14 CE as a starting point. Someone writing closer to the events could be suspected of using 12 CE.
I do not think that the Irenaeus’ comment is relevant. Today we know much more about the background of gJohn while early and later church fathers simply assumed that it was the real words of the John the Apostle. Today we know that the passage is heavily steeped in the high christology of an anonymous, learned author, and this should be the primary interpretative perspective if we are looking for chronological clues.
gavriel said
gmatthews said
If we accept this version of Pauline chronology, it seems to confirm the passion narrative chronology of gJohn, implying a year of death of 30 CE or 33CE, so that Mark had it wrong when Jesus is said to be executed after the passover. Mathematical deductions on the rules for the Jewish calendar, assuming a year where the 14. of Nisan fell on a Friday give the candidate years 30 and 33. Ruling out 33 as too late to fit in with Pauline chronology, the answer should be 30. But since the administration of the Jewish calendar was influenced by human observation of moon phases, one cannot rely on such calculations. 29 is probably too early and 33 probably too late.
So in the end I was sort of right from the beginning 
OP asked if Jesus was 30 when he was crucified and and I said “early 30s”. However you choose to interpret the various years in your reply, if Jesus was born as far back as 6BC then he could have been in his mid 30s so I was only off by a couple of years. 
Personally, I’m more interested in the time between events in Paul’s life than how old Jesus was when he was crucified.
maryhelena said
gmatthews said
Secular discussion of this topic disregards the Gospels as being the least historically reliable of the NT books. I just wanted to point that out.OK – which of the NT books would you suggest is historically reliable?
I said “least historically reliable”, not complete historically unreliable. I think Mark was closest to what really happened and John was in la la land.
gavriel said
I’ve not seen any rebuttal to Daniel Schwartz re dating Pilate earlier than the consensus. If Pilate was in Judea in the 7th year of Tiberius – either 19 or 21 c.e. (his co-regency dating taken into account for the earlier date) then Pilate’s 11 years in Judea would run at least to 30 or 33 c.e.
Using a 12 c.e. co-regency for Tiberius – then gLuke and it’s 15th year would be about 26 c.e. Thus, allowing an early start date for Pilate in Judea – and an early crucifixion date re the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius – 19 or 21 ce.
With regard to our specific question, the year Pilate was appointed, we have
suggested that the location of Josephus’ notice concerning the appointment,
before the foundation of Tiberias (19-20 C.E.) and before the narrative
culminating in Germanicus’ death (19 C.E.), indicates that it too is to be
placed ca. 19 C.E. The same is also implied, apparently, by the inclusion of the
Roman scandals of 19 within the chapter on Pilate. Moreover, this suggestion
is also based upon a few specific considerations — the impression given by the
narrative of Gratus’ term, the cessation that year of annual minting and annual
appointments of high priests, and Eusebius’ report about fourth-century
forgers — and upon an analysis of the relationship of structure and chronology
in the last three books of the Antiquities. To my mind, all of these
considerations carry enough weight to overcome the presumption of authenticity of the specific numerical data in our texts of Josephus {Ant. 18.35,
89), which so smoothly give 26 or 27 C.E. as the year in which Pilate succeeded
Gratus. Especially in light of the exceptional nature of Josephus’ numerical
data here, and the presence of Germanicus with a mandate to do something in
Judaea, it seems to us that the question, so long considered closed, should now
at least be considered open, and that the weight of evidence points to the
earlier dating.Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20.
As to gJohn’s not yet fifty years – it’s in the text…and, as you say, could mean anything. Irenaeus thought it meant that Jesus was not yet fifty years old:
Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book 2 ch.22.
- But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? John 8:56-57 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old. For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.
The problem with the chronology of the narratives in the first half of the first century in Josephus’ works is that the individual stories are not always given in chronological order, and that conclusions on dating drawn from this, are precarious. For instance the death of Philip, known to be around 33/34, is given after the dismissal of Pilate which almost certainly took place in 36-37.
There are scores of competent scientists/historians with fringe views, but as the years pass, they fail to make them into consensus views. They often make a good read, however.
Pushing the start year of Pilate backwards does not change the end year, which rests heavily on the Syrian legate-ship of Lucius Vitellius (35-39). The resulting very long ruling period is not very likely for a man of equestrian rank, who ultimately got sacked for cruelty and misconduct.
Using the co-regency of Tiberius is a possibility that cannot be ruled out, but is not very likely. It depends on the date of gLuke. If it was written near 100 CE, it increases the possibility that he used “official” numbers, i.e. 14 CE as a starting point. Someone writing closer to the events could be suspected of using 12 CE.
I do not think that the Irenaeus’ comment is relevant. Today we know much more about the background of gJohn while early and later church fathers simply assumed that it was the real words of the John the Apostle. Today we know that the passage is heavily steeped in the high christology of an anonymous, learned author, and this should be the primary interpretative perspective if we are looking for chronological clues.
Indeed, Josephus is not any easy author to get to grips with. In his new book, Daniel Schwartz attempts to tackle Josephus and his account of the history of the first century: (Reading the First Century).
Yes, lots of fringe views of the gospel story – and really, could it be anything else when there is so much contradictory elements to that story? That there is a consensus view – that there was a historical Jesus – is probably the only real consensus view. From that assumption there are lots of theories about that assumed figure. That the consensus dating for Pilate is around 26 – 36/37 c.e. can be challenged, as Daniel Schwartz has done. Nothing is secure, nothing is settled.
The view of Irenaeus that Jesus was not yet fifty years old can be accommodated with a crucifixion in Pilate’s rule and a birth narrative early, not late, in the rule of Herod I.
The old story, gJohn, has a Jesus not yet 50 years old. The new story, gLuke, has a Jesus around 30 years old. Obviously, Jesus can’t be both not yet 50 years old and 30 years. The historical Jesus position has to choice one age and goes with gLuke and his about 30 years old. gJohn has the not yet 50 years because that gospel can have an earlier starting point than gLuke. gLuke with its 6 c.e. birth narrative and the end of Pilate’s rule in 36/37 c.e. is restricted to his about 30 years. The not yet 50 years and the about 30 years are allowed to indicate that the gospel Jesus is a literary construct not a historical figure. A literary construct, a symbol that reflects the gospel’s political allegory.
Scholars do attempt to harmonize the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke. However, by doing so they side-step the real issue here – gLuke is telling a different story than gMatthew – just as gJohn is telling a different story than gLuke….Rather than attempting to harmonize what cannot be harmonized – allow the contradictions to stand. That way the contradictions can tell their own story. And that story is a story in development – rather like updates from Microsoft 😉
The Jesus historicists are allowing gLuke’s about 30 years to trump gJohn’s not yet 50 years. Ironic really considering the contradiction already in evidence between gLuke’s nativity story and that of gMatthew – a contradiction they seek to harmonize!. (However, the gMatthew birth narrative is in full swing every xmas time – allowing it to trump the nativity story in gLuke that takes the birth narrative away from Herod I….)
(I very much doubt that Pilate ruled from 19/21 to 36/37 c.e. Perhaps an early and a later period in Judea – or Josephus is simply leaving his whole Pilate chronology ambiguous for reasons of his own. Whatever – at least his ambiguity allows the gospel story to have three options re it’s crucifixion story. 19 – 21 c.e., 29/30/33 c.e., or 36/37 c.e…….and thus many chronologies for a birth narrative…..It’s only a literary Jesus that can handle, and make sense, out of the gospel’s ambiguity….)
maryhelena said
Indeed, Josephus is not any easy author to get to grips with. In his new book, Daniel Schwartz attempts to tackle Josephus and his account of the history of the first century: (Reading the First Century).
Yes, lots of fringe views of the gospel story – and really, could it be anything else when there is so much contradictory elements to that story? That there is a consensus view – that there was a historical Jesus – is probably the only real consensus view. From that assumption there are lots of theories about that assumed figure. That the consensus dating for Pilate is around 26 – 36/37 c.e. can be challenged, as Daniel Schwartz has done. Nothing is secure, nothing is settled.
The view of Irenaeus that Jesus was not yet fifty years old can be accommodated with a crucifixion in Pilate’s rule and a birth narrative early, not late, in the rule of Herod I.
The old story, gJohn, has a Jesus not yet 50 years old. The new story, gLuke, has a Jesus around 30 years old. Obviously, Jesus can’t be both not yet 50 years old and 30 years. The historical Jesus position has to choice one age and goes with gLuke and his about 30 years old. gJohn has the not yet 50 years because that gospel can have an earlier starting point than gLuke. gLuke with its 6 c.e. birth narrative and the end of Pilate’s rule in 36/37 c.e. is restricted to his about 30 years. The not yet 50 years and the about 30 years are allowed to indicate that the gospel Jesus is a literary construct not a historical figure. A literary construct, a symbol that reflects the gospel’s political allegory.
Scholars do attempt to harmonize the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke. However, by doing so they side-step the real issue here – gLuke is telling a different story than gMatthew – just as gJohn is telling a different story than gLuke….Rather than attempting to harmonize what cannot be harmonized – allow the contradictions to stand. That way the contradictions can tell their own story. And that story is a story in development – rather like updates from Microsoft 😉
The Jesus historicists are allowing gLuke’s about 30 years to trump gJohn’s not yet 50 years. Ironic really considering the contradiction already in evidence between gLuke’s nativity story and that of gMatthew – a contradiction they seek to harmonize!. (However, the gMatthew birth narrative is in full swing every xmas time – allowing it to trump the nativity story in gLuke that takes the birth narrative away from Herod I….)
(I very much doubt that Pilate ruled from 19/21 to 36/37 c.e. Perhaps an early and a later period in Judea – or Josephus is simply leaving his whole Pilate chronology ambiguous for reasons of his own. Whatever – at least his ambiguity allows the gospel story to have three options re it’s crucifixion story. 19 – 21 c.e., 29/30/33 c.e., or 36/37 c.e…….and thus many chronologies for a birth narrative…..It’s only a literary Jesus that can handle, and make sense, out of the gospel’s ambiguity….)
I think extreme skepticism to solidly founded consensus views does not bring us any further. We can doubt almost any historical fact by cherry-picking isolated fringe-views from notable scholars. Your last attempt, that Pilate had two periods is even less probable, since a person with a reputation for cruelty and misconduct simply would not receive two individual appointments to the same administrative unit. The idea is too contrived to be probable.
Matthew/Luke was written before gJohn – you seem to be unaware of that? The “not yet 50” is a further un-historical development within the high christology framework of gJohn.
Historicists do not try to harmonize the birth narratives of Luke/Matthew, fundamentalists do that. Most historicists think that since both the legends about the birth of J. are placed near the death of Herod, it is likely that this was the historical ground the legends were built on. Almost everyone think that Luke made a blunder when he put the 6CE census into the story. He probably knew about a Roman global census (which actually took place around 8 BCE), and mixed it with the local census of 6CE, inspired by his interest in connecting Jesus with the Roman world. The only possible historical fact to dig out of it, is a probable date of birth close to Herod’s death. To put it from a different angle: If the creators of the birth narratives had known about another and much earlier probable year of birth, they would have constructed the plots differently. When two legend-makers both independently assume a year of birth within the same time-frame there may be a reason for it.
The bottom line , when considering all the chronological hints given in the Gospels as well as Pauline chronology, is that it is extremely difficult to push the year of death beyond the range 28 – 33 CE.
gavriel said
maryhelena said
Indeed, Josephus is not any easy author to get to grips with. In his new book, Daniel Schwartz attempts to tackle Josephus and his account of the history of the first century: (Reading the First Century).
Yes, lots of fringe views of the gospel story – and really, could it be anything else when there is so much contradictory elements to that story? That there is a consensus view – that there was a historical Jesus – is probably the only real consensus view. From that assumption there are lots of theories about that assumed figure. That the consensus dating for Pilate is around 26 – 36/37 c.e. can be challenged, as Daniel Schwartz has done. Nothing is secure, nothing is settled.
The view of Irenaeus that Jesus was not yet fifty years old can be accommodated with a crucifixion in Pilate’s rule and a birth narrative early, not late, in the rule of Herod I.
The old story, gJohn, has a Jesus not yet 50 years old. The new story, gLuke, has a Jesus around 30 years old. Obviously, Jesus can’t be both not yet 50 years old and 30 years. The historical Jesus position has to choice one age and goes with gLuke and his about 30 years old. gJohn has the not yet 50 years because that gospel can have an earlier starting point than gLuke. gLuke with its 6 c.e. birth narrative and the end of Pilate’s rule in 36/37 c.e. is restricted to his about 30 years. The not yet 50 years and the about 30 years are allowed to indicate that the gospel Jesus is a literary construct not a historical figure. A literary construct, a symbol that reflects the gospel’s political allegory.
Scholars do attempt to harmonize the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke. However, by doing so they side-step the real issue here – gLuke is telling a different story than gMatthew – just as gJohn is telling a different story than gLuke….Rather than attempting to harmonize what cannot be harmonized – allow the contradictions to stand. That way the contradictions can tell their own story. And that story is a story in development – rather like updates from Microsoft 😉
The Jesus historicists are allowing gLuke’s about 30 years to trump gJohn’s not yet 50 years. Ironic really considering the contradiction already in evidence between gLuke’s nativity story and that of gMatthew – a contradiction they seek to harmonize!. (However, the gMatthew birth narrative is in full swing every xmas time – allowing it to trump the nativity story in gLuke that takes the birth narrative away from Herod I….)
(I very much doubt that Pilate ruled from 19/21 to 36/37 c.e. Perhaps an early and a later period in Judea – or Josephus is simply leaving his whole Pilate chronology ambiguous for reasons of his own. Whatever – at least his ambiguity allows the gospel story to have three options re it’s crucifixion story. 19 – 21 c.e., 29/30/33 c.e., or 36/37 c.e…….and thus many chronologies for a birth narrative…..It’s only a literary Jesus that can handle, and make sense, out of the gospel’s ambiguity….)
I think extreme skepticism to solidly founded consensus views does not bring us any further. We can doubt almost any historical fact by cherry-picking isolated fringe-views from notable scholars. Your last attempt, that Pilate had two periods is even less probable, since a person with a reputation for cruelty and misconduct simply would not receive two individual appointments to the same administrative unit. The idea is too contrived to be probable.
Matthew/Luke was written before gJohn – you seem to be unaware of that? The “not yet 50” is a further un-historical development within the high christology framework of gJohn.
Historicists do not try to harmonize the birth narratives of Luke/Matthew, fundamentalists do that. Most historicists think that since both the legends about the birth of J. are placed near the death of Herod, it is likely that this was the historical ground the legends were built on. Almost everyone think that Luke made a blunder when he put the 6CE census into the story. He probably knew about a Roman global census (which actually took place around 8 BCE), and mixed it with the local census of 6CE, inspired by his interest in connecting Jesus with the Roman world. The only possible historical fact to dig out of it, is a probable date of birth close to Herod’s death. To put it from a different angle: If the creators of the birth narratives had known about another and much earlier probable year of birth, they would have constructed the plots differently. When two legend-makers both independently assume a year of birth within the same time-frame there may be a reason for it.
The bottom line , when considering all the chronological hints given in the Gospels as well as Pauline chronology, is that it is extremely difficult to push the year of death beyond the range 28 – 33 CE.
I have no problem if people want to go with the consensus view – that’s their intellectual right as mine is to challenge consensus opinion. Intellectual freedom is a hallmark of Western society…. That does not make the consensus view right. Majority opinion has never been a marker of ‘truth’. And, of course, intellectual advancement does not work via consensus. Paradigm shifts are shifts that move away from a consensus, that break the consensus. That’s how science works – that’s how our minds work. Heresy can be the first step on a road towards a new world view.
(As to Pilate having two terms in Judea – that’s only one option – and an option that I don’t think has much going for it. I suggested it simply because a long rule in Judea is not likely – and because options need to be sought to explain the ambiguity regarding the chronology of Pilate in Josephus.)
As to the gospel of John being later than gLuke. Compilation does not dictate an origin date for the content. Paul Anderson has been involved in the John, Jesus, and History Project and has a number of articles on the Bible and Interpretation site:
”In lecturing on a Bi-Optic Hypothesis in a variety of settings around Europe this summer, the most common questions related to the Johannine-Lukan relationship. Because the Fourth Gospel was finalized last among the canonical Gospels (I believe 100 CE is a plausible inference), it is assumed that John borrowed from Luke rather than Luke’s drawing from the oral stages of the Johannine tradition. This view, however, is highly problematic. Just because John may have been finalized late, its tradition did not originate late. John contains a good deal of primitive material, and thus the Johannine tradition would have been available to Luke as a gatherer of gospel material long before the finalization of either Gospel”.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to Luke making a ‘blunder’ with his 6 c.e. Quirinius birth narrative for Jesus – nice try to avoid the obvious but no cigar 😉
As to there being no crucifixion later than 30 -33 c.e: Since Pilate was, re the consensus, still in Judea until 36/37 c.e. a late crucifixion story can’t be ruled out. One scholar that has taken that approach is Nikos Kokkinos. (author of The Herodian Dynasty). He has an article in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies in which he argues for a 36 c.e. crucifixion date.
So what have we – two more scholars not subscribing to the consensus view…Methinks its the fringes of the consensus that will provide the impetus to a paradigm shift in NT studies….
For myself – I’d rather be where there is movement – however dirty the water might sometimes be….who knows what the turbulence will throw up 😉
maryhelena said
I have no problem if people want to go with the consensus view – that’s their intellectual right as mine is to challenge consensus opinion. Intellectual freedom is a hallmark of Western society…. That does not make the consensus view right. Majority opinion has never been a marker of ‘truth’. And, of course, intellectual advancement does not work via consensus. Paradigm shifts are shifts that move away from a consensus, that break the consensus. That’s how science works – that’s how our minds work. Heresy can be the first step on a road towards a new world view.(As to Pilate having two terms in Judea – that’s only one option – and an option that I don’t think has much going for it. I suggested it simply because a long rule in Judea is not likely – and because options need to be sought to explain the ambiguity regarding the chronology of Pilate in Josephus.)
As to the gospel of John being later than gLuke. Compilation does not dictate an origin date for the content. Paul Anderson has been involved in the John, Jesus, and History Project and has a number of articles on the Bible and Interpretation site:
”In lecturing on a Bi-Optic Hypothesis in a variety of settings around Europe this summer, the most common questions related to the Johannine-Lukan relationship. Because the Fourth Gospel was finalized last among the canonical Gospels (I believe 100 CE is a plausible inference), it is assumed that John borrowed from Luke rather than Luke’s drawing from the oral stages of the Johannine tradition. This view, however, is highly problematic. Just because John may have been finalized late, its tradition did not originate late. John contains a good deal of primitive material, and thus the Johannine tradition would have been available to Luke as a gatherer of gospel material long before the finalization of either Gospel”.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to Luke making a ‘blunder’ with his 6 c.e. Quirinius birth narrative for Jesus – nice try to avoid the obvious but no cigar 😉
As to there being no crucifixion later than 30 -33 c.e: Since Pilate was, re the consensus, still in Judea until 36/37 c.e. a late crucifixion story can’t be ruled out. One scholar that has taken that approach is Nikos Kokkinos. (author of The Herodian Dynasty). He has an article in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies in which he argues for a 36 c.e. crucifixion date.
So what have we – two more scholars not subscribing to the consensus view…Methinks its the fringes of the consensus that will provide the impetus to a paradigm shift in NT studies….
For myself – I’d rather be where there is movement – however dirty the water might sometimes be….who knows what the turbulence will throw up 😉
To a layman, the consensus view, if it is overwhelming and has persisted for a long time, simply is more plausible than very marginal dissenting views. If one consistently sticks to minority views, the implausibilities tend to multiply and give a false overall view. 23 years have passed since your source suggested the revision of Pilate’s rule, and it has still not moved into the standard textbooks. I completely agree that a reference to majority views, even if overwhelming, in itself is no proof. So are references to minority views. It is just solid cartography when one starts reading.
When it comes to the dating of gJohn, everybody knows that it rests partly on written sources that has been edited (the literary seams are clearly visible) , and some of those sources may be old. Some of these sources may have a history going far back. What matters, however is that the final edition of the source material puts words on the lips of Jesus that he never said. He never had a dispute involving “not yet 50”. The community behind gJohn had probably something like this, in the face of its Jewish hostile environment, so they simply extrapolated back and assigned the polemics to Jesus and his adversaries. Therefor, as a dating clue, it has no value. It serves a purpose within the youngest tradition within gJohn.
gLuke also has this problem. The birth narrative, including the census-story, is a late add-on, written perhaps by another person, or may be authorized by an aging Luke. The primary datum “about 30” is therefore the oldest time clue, and the add-on is most likely an attempt to flesh out the circumstances behind this. To add to what I said, it is also quite possible that the author behind this add-on confused the political tumults arising after Herod’s death i 4 BCE with the tumults resulting from the local census in 6 CE. The author got it all wrong and had insufficient sources. The purpose, however, is quite clear: Jesus’ birth is seated in a Roman framework by a gentile Luke, who wants to facilitate missionary work within Roman political spheres. This is unlike Matthew, who sets the birth in a framework of the “wisdom of the east”, the three Magi. In conclusion , the “about 30” is a much older and more relevant clue than the christological “not yet 50”.
gavriel said
maryhelena said
I have no problem if people want to go with the consensus view – that’s their intellectual right as mine is to challenge consensus opinion. Intellectual freedom is a hallmark of Western society…. That does not make the consensus view right. Majority opinion has never been a marker of ‘truth’. And, of course, intellectual advancement does not work via consensus. Paradigm shifts are shifts that move away from a consensus, that break the consensus. That’s how science works – that’s how our minds work. Heresy can be the first step on a road towards a new world view.(As to Pilate having two terms in Judea – that’s only one option – and an option that I don’t think has much going for it. I suggested it simply because a long rule in Judea is not likely – and because options need to be sought to explain the ambiguity regarding the chronology of Pilate in Josephus.)
As to the gospel of John being later than gLuke. Compilation does not dictate an origin date for the content. Paul Anderson has been involved in the John, Jesus, and History Project and has a number of articles on the Bible and Interpretation site:
”In lecturing on a Bi-Optic Hypothesis in a variety of settings around Europe this summer, the most common questions related to the Johannine-Lukan relationship. Because the Fourth Gospel was finalized last among the canonical Gospels (I believe 100 CE is a plausible inference), it is assumed that John borrowed from Luke rather than Luke’s drawing from the oral stages of the Johannine tradition. This view, however, is highly problematic. Just because John may have been finalized late, its tradition did not originate late. John contains a good deal of primitive material, and thus the Johannine tradition would have been available to Luke as a gatherer of gospel material long before the finalization of either Gospel”.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to Luke making a ‘blunder’ with his 6 c.e. Quirinius birth narrative for Jesus – nice try to avoid the obvious but no cigar 😉
As to there being no crucifixion later than 30 -33 c.e: Since Pilate was, re the consensus, still in Judea until 36/37 c.e. a late crucifixion story can’t be ruled out. One scholar that has taken that approach is Nikos Kokkinos. (author of The Herodian Dynasty). He has an article in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies in which he argues for a 36 c.e. crucifixion date.
So what have we – two more scholars not subscribing to the consensus view…Methinks its the fringes of the consensus that will provide the impetus to a paradigm shift in NT studies….
For myself – I’d rather be where there is movement – however dirty the water might sometimes be….who knows what the turbulence will throw up 😉
To a layman, the consensus view, if it is overwhelming and has persisted for a long time, simply is more plausible than very marginal dissenting views. If one consistently sticks to minority views, the implausibilities tend to multiply and give a false overall view. 23 years have passed since your source suggested the revision of Pilate’s rule, and it has still not moved into the standard textbooks. I completely agree that a reference to majority views, even if overwhelming, in itself is no proof. So are references to minority views. It is just solid cartography when one starts reading.
When it comes to the dating of gJohn, everybody knows that it rests partly on written sources that has been edited (the literary seams are clearly visible) , and some of those sources may be old. Some of these sources may have a history going far back. What matters, however is that the final edition of the source material puts words on the lips of Jesus that he never said. He never had a dispute involving “not yet 50”. The community behind gJohn had probably something like this, in the face of its Jewish hostile environment, so they simply extrapolated back and assigned the polemics to Jesus and his adversaries. Therefor, as a dating clue, it has no value. It serves a purpose within the youngest tradition within gJohn.
gLuke also has this problem. The birth narrative, including the census-story, is a late add-on, written perhaps by another person, or may be authorized by an aging Luke. The primary datum “about 30” is therefore the oldest time clue, and the add-on is most likely an attempt to flesh out the circumstances behind this. To add to what I said, it is also quite possible that the author behind this add-on confused the political tumults arising after Herod’s death i 4 BCE with the tumults resulting from the local census in 6 CE. The author got it all wrong and had insufficient sources. The purpose, however, is quite clear: Jesus’ birth is seated in a Roman framework by a gentile Luke, who wants to facilitate missionary work within Roman political spheres. This is unlike Matthew, who sets the birth in a framework of the “wisdom of the east”, the three Magi. In conclusion , the “about 30” is a much older and more relevant clue than the christological “not yet 50”.
Regarding Daniel Schwartz and his early dating for Pilate in Judea. His latest book, Reading the First Century (2014) supports his earlier argument (1992). Has Schwartz made any headway with his early dating for Pilate. Indeed he has.
The Josephan scholar Steve Mason:
“We also have enough independent and multiform evidence, it seems to me, to declare it more probable that he took up office in 18 than in the accepted year, 26 C. E.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Kenneth Lonnqvist has an argument based on lead in coins…..an argument that supports early dating for Pilate in Judea.
Pontius Pilate – An Aqueduct Builder? – Recent Findings and New Suggestions
** you do not have permission to see this link **
While not yet a consensus position – an early dating for Pilate seems well on its way….
Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century:
”The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
five years before Pilate in fact entered into office, according to Josephus.
However, since it is difficult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution of creative Christian copyists.
We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument. In the present context, where the focus is upon methodology, suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus
that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into office, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts”.
On gJohn’s not yet 50 years old – it’s in the text and it’s up to each of us to make of it what we will…
maryhelena said
Regarding Daniel Schwartz and his early dating for Pilate in Judea. His latest book, Reading the First Century (2014) supports his earlier argument (1992). Has Schwartz made any headway with his early dating for Pilate. Indeed he has.
The Josephan scholar Steve Mason:
“We also have enough independent and multiform evidence, it seems to me, to declare it more probable that he took up office in 18 than in the accepted year, 26 C. E.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Kenneth Lonnqvist has an argument based on lead in coins…..an argument that supports early dating for Pilate in Judea.
Pontius Pilate – An Aqueduct Builder? – Recent Findings and New Suggestions
** you do not have permission to see this link **
While not yet a consensus position – an early dating for Pilate seems well on its way….
Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century:
”The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
five years before Pilate in fact entered into office, according to Josephus.
However, since it is difficult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution of creative Christian copyists.We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument. In the present context, where the focus is upon methodology, suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus
that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into office, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts”.On gJohn’s not yet 50 years old – it’s in the text and it’s up to each of us to make of it what we will…
I think you have to reproduce the arguments, rather than referring to books that are not available online. That Schwartz himself thinks that his original proposition is strengthened , is not surprising.
The argument you quote from Schwartz taken in isolation is weak. The Acts of Pilate is some work of a forger, and much later than Josephus. Whatever Eusebius is referring to, that forger may simply have lifted his assumptions from Josephus, committing the same interpretation error from the Josephan order of narratives. Not convincing.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)