by Bobcat 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
In my own research I've found that scholars are divided as to when Jesus was baptised. 26 and 29 AD seem to be the most reccomended dates. I was wondering if anyone could offer info on the points of difference between the two or links to further discussion on the reasons for holding to either date.
Thanks in advance.
Does it matter?
Doug
There are variables in the historical accounts, so no one can be sure. Luke 3:1-2 states:
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Luke says Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptized, and Matthew and Mark say he was born during the reign of Herod the Great who is deemed to have died about 4 BCE, although some scholars say it could have been as late as 2 BCE and others as early as 6 BCE. If Herod died in 4-3 BC that could lend to a baptism date of AD26-27 AD if he was 30 years old (or about). There is also no certainty whether his ministry was 1 year or 3 years. John's Gospel suggests a ministry of about a year, and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) suggest about 3 years. So it really cannot be certain.
There's a quite good article on this whole subject in Wikipedia on the subject of Chronology of Jesus at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus
~Binadub
binadub...Actually it was the Fourth Gospel that had a lengthy ministry on account of the festivals mentioned, although it is likely that some of this is due to disorder in the text. I also have my own ideas (though drawing on earlier views) about the presumed chronology in Luke, which is at variance with the Matthean infancy narrative (in which "King Herod" refers to Herod the Great instead of Herod Archelaus). I believe that the author of Luke has a particular chronological framework in mind: (1) Jesus and John were born in AD 6, (2) John started his ministry in AD 29, (3) John was imprisoned by Antipas in AD 35, then shortly afterward Jesus was baptized and started his ministry (drawing on the movement already started by John), (4) then John was executed, possibly in August of that year, (4) and then Jesus was crucified in the spring of AD 36. This dovetails very well with the data in Josephus. The other gospels have different ideas about when Jesus was born and conducted his ministry.
Thank you.
After posting the question I did some research on JWN. Half of my question was already answered there. In fact I learned a bit more than I bargained for. I guess I should have searched before asking.
Probably the real focus of my question was on 26 AD. With the detailed dating given in Luke 3:1, 2, I was wondering why many scholars would prefer 26 over 29. A footnote in the BECNT commentary on Acts refers to 30 AD as "the more common" date for the crucifixion, as opposed to 33 AD. I was assuming a 3.5 year ministry for Jesus, which would calculate back to 26 for a 30 AD crucifixion.
One of the unexpected things I "learned" was the dating in Luke 3:1, 2 was for 'God's declaration that came to John.' (As opposed to Jesus' baptism.) Of course, it states that there plainly, but over the years you 'learn things' that you later find out don't actually read that way. (Not sure if that makes sense or not. I suspect it does since this is JWN.)
I also did not realize that there was some question about the length of Jesus' ministry, another factor making the question a bit more complex than originally assumed.
I will check out the link. Thanks.
Doug:
A question that has been sitting around for me was pertaining to the 70 weeks of Dan 9. I've since learned about the 455/445 problem with the dating of Artaxerxes 20th year. The WT insulates a person from these sort of "inconvenient truths." I've also seen some of the arguments about the explanation of the prophecy itself. When I saw the 26 AD date, that raised the mathematical possibility of dating the start of the 70 weeks to Ezra (458 BC). At least the math would look nice. Still it appears to be more complicated than just that.
What can I say? I have see these things for myself I guess.
One of the unexpected things I "learned" was the dating in Luke 3:1, 2 was for 'God's declaration that came to John.' (As opposed to Jesus' baptism.) Of course, it states that there plainly, but over the years you 'learn things' that you later find out don't actually read that way.
Yes, yes, exactly!! I don't know why so many misread the text. The very precise dating is for the start of John's ministry, NOT Jesus' baptism. John must have carried out his ministry for some time BEFORE Jesus started his own ministry, if he were indeed a forerunner. And we know from the references in Josephus and Acts that John started a very large movement. There was just no time for this to happen if John started his ministry and Jesus started his the same year, particularly if we note that the author of Luke seems to construe John as already imprisoned by the time Jesus started his ministry (cf. Luke 3:19-23, 7:18-23, compare Matthew 11:2-6).
Once we take into account that the author dated the births of John and Jesus to AD 6 (the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2 and Acts 5:37 was the one that occurred in AD 6), then it is simply arithmetic to see that the ministry of John lasted some six years before Jesus was baptized. And Jesus being baptized in AD 35 fits exactly with what Luke 3:19 and Josephus wrote about the execution of John the Baptist (which had to have occurred sometime between AD 34 and 36).
A question that has been sitting around for me was pertaining to the 70 weeks of Dan 9. I've since learned about the 455/445 problem with the dating of Artaxerxes 20th year. The WT insulates a person from these sort of "inconvenient truths." I've also seen some of the arguments about the explanation of the prophecy itself. When I saw the 26 AD date, that raised the mathematical possibility of dating the start of the 70 weeks to Ezra (458 BC). At least the math would look nice. Still it appears to be more complicated than just that.
The seventy weeks survey of history in Daniel 9 has nothing to do with the chronology of Jesus.
Bobcat,
You answered my question when I asked why the date matters. As Leo correctly points out, Jesus' chronology is not related to Daniel 9. Get that firmly fixed in. A piece I wrote on the subject:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_GM_on_Daniel_9.pdf
The assumed longer period of Jesus' ministry comes from interpretations of John's Gospel. Other Gospels imply a ministry of only a few months. I suggest that the structures of the various Gospels suited the religious liturgy of the community that wrote each account. They are not literal historical records; they are religious accounts. They were written decades after the described events, likely outside Palestine, likely by educated Greek-speakers, not by the lowly illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews whose names are ascribed to each account.
Why did Jesus decide to become a follower of his cousin John, being baptised of him?
Where did John get the idea of baptising? (The location would give a clue, I suppose.)
Doug
Doug, Leolaia, and binadub (hey, that's clever):
Thank you all for your replies and links and info. Now the research begins (or continues) ...
I'm still a working stiff so it took a day or two to get back to this thread. Amazingly, it was already 10 pages or so from the top active page.
