The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:23 pm

I would like to collect here as many true variants on the time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus as possible. The default is the gospel account, wherein Jesus dies just outside of Jerusalem sometime during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate and the rule of Tiberius Caesar. I would not count a general statement that Jesus died in Jerusalem as a variant unless the context seems to specify that the crucifixion occurred inside the walls of Jerusalem.

What follows is what I have so far. (I am adding ideas as they are suggested in the thread.)

The time of the crucifixion.

The synoptic gospels depict Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples during the evening and then getting crucified on the day of Passover (Jewish days running from evening to evening). John, however, does not depict the last supper as a Passover, and also has Jesus being crucified on its eve.

From Irenaeus, Demonstration 74:

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.

Claudius ruled from 41 to 54; this statement by Irenaeus can be taken as agreeing, then, with his assessment in Against Heresies 2.22.5 that Jesus lived to about 50 years of age. The so-called Acts of Pilate (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ilate.html) begins with the words: Pontius Pilate unto Claudius, greeting.

And maryhelena points to what Eusebius says in History of the Church 1.9.2-3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm):

2 Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Savior 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 Savior 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.

The seventh year of Tiberius is around 20 AD.

Tertullian has this to say:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19.10: Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus eius inquirere potuissent. / But it is established also that censuses had now been enacted under Augustus in Judea through Sentius Saturninus, about which they could have inquired of his race.

Saturninus served as legatus Augusti pro praetore in Syria from around 9 to 6 BC; if Jesus had been born during his rule and crucified at around age 30, then the crucifixion would have taken place sometime between 20 and 23 AD.

Robert J. adds the following:
robert j wrote:Clement of Alexandria provided what appears to be a direct quotation from what he called the Preaching of Peter. Eschewing apologetic translations and emendations, the passage reads --- (emphasis mine) ---
Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says, “But having opened the books of the prophets which we had, we found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words the name Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded, all these things that had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we gained knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.” (Stromata 6.15.128).
Note: This translation is by J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, and is used by Bart Ehrman in his, Lost Scriptures --- Books That Did Not Make It Into The New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.238.
Even where Tiberius or Pilate is named, other rulers whose reigns do not appropriately overlap may also come into play, as Tenorikuma points out:
Tenorikuma wrote:Epiphanius has a confused account of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says was in "the twentieth year of Agrippa called the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archaelaus". The 20th year of Agrippa I is about 60 CE. (Anacephalaeosis VII §78 9.6f)

According to the Epistula Apostolorum, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus. (So before 6 CE?)
The Talmud has also been taken to refer to Jesus in a chronological context about 100 years before the usual time frame. I have Tractate Sotah for this claim so far: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html. But it does not mention the crucifixion; are there other parts of the Talmud that concur with Sotah? Any that mention the crucifixion?

Also, the medieval Toledoth Yeshu speaks of the entire life and death of Jesus as having occurred during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

In two medieval Latin fragments discussed by John Chapman in 1907, Jesus is said to have been born in AD 9, baptized in AD 46, and slain in AD 58.

The place of the crucifixion.

Revelation 11.8 (on the assumption that the great city is Rome, not Jerusalem; NASB):

And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Possibly relevant: the reference in Suetonius, Claudius 25.1-5, to troubles instigated by Chrestus.

Testament of Benjamin 9.1-5 (R. H. Charles translation):

1 And I believe that there will be also evil-doings among you, from the words of Enoch the righteous: that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom, and shall perish, all save a few, and shall renew wanton deeds with women; and the kingdom of the Lord shall not be among, you, for straightway He shall take it away. 2 Nevertheless the temple of God shall be in your portion, and the last (temple) shall be more glorious than the first. And the twelve tribes shall be gathered together there, and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send forth His salvation in the visitation of an only 3 begotten prophet. [And He shall enter into the (first) temple, and there shall the Lord be treated with outrage, and He shall be lifted up upon 4 a tree. And the veil of the temple shall be rent, and the Spirit of God shall pass on to the Gentiles 5 as fire poured forth. And He shall ascend from Hades and shall pass from earth into heaven. And I know how lowly He shall be upon earth, and how glorious in heaven.]

This seems to imply (by way of prophetic utterance) that Jesus will be crucified in the temple itself.

Not a crucifixion at all?

Peter has suggested that the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 43a, indicates stoning followed by the hanging of the corpse:

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

From the Apocalypse of Peter (http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html):

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

From Hippolytus, Against All Heresies 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm):

Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. .... Christ, moreover, he affirms to have been sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon.

Also, it is worth mentioning that the gospel of Peter depicts the Jews as crucifying Jesus at the command of Herod (1.2; 2.5), not the Roman soldiers crucifying him at the command of Pilate.

What other potential variants are out there?

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:15 pm, edited 10 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5377
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:41 pm

The Talmud implies that Jesus was being stoned and hanged, after 40 days, on the eve of Passover. Does that count?

Baraitha Bab. Sanhedrin 43a
On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

Related to the "Rome" thing, there is a statement in Suetonius about a certain _Chrestus_ under Claudius (who may not be our guy).

(Technically I suppose someone could string together Suetonius, Irenaeus, and Revelation to get a Christ executed under Claudius in Rome... but to do so is to ignore the various more probable explanations of each reference.)

The Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Luke feature Herod (Antipas?) in some way, which always seemed a bit odd.

Historically it might not be implausible that the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Luke are harmonizing a "theological" account of the death of someone in Jerusalem (chosen for symbolic value) and the less-ceremonious execution of a troublemaker/preacher within the borders of the local ruler (i.e., the execution of a Jesus the Galilean... by Herod).

If you see that as somewhat plausible, then I suppose Herod/Galilee can be added to the survey somehow. Related to this, the Gospel of Mark emphasizes that Jesus is "going before" the disciples to Galilee (also a little bit odd, right? Guignebert and others have noted as much... like the author is trying to harmonize his account with a different tradition regarding the location of the appearances).

I don't know if we want to catalog all the references where we really have no idea where/when it's being placed...

PS -- I'm sure I wrote something before on this whole topic: "Jesus Variants."

http://www.christianorigins.com/variants.html

There I also cite Apocalypse of Peter and Basilides, saying that Jesus wasn't crucified at all (but perhaps another, e.g. Simon, was).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

maryhelena
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by maryhelena » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:34 pm


2. 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.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.

Josephus, in Antiquities, placing his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated to around 19 c.e.

For dating Pilate's appointment in Judea:

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18-20.

If one goes with gLuke being a late gospel then it becomes obvious that the crucifixion can be dated prior to the 15th year of Tiberius. Without the dating of gLuke other crucifixion scenarios become possible - as in the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius - as in gJohn and it's Jesus not yet fifty years old. And then, of course, one would need to take on board the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus prior to the 15th year of Herod 1. A birth date that would allow the Acts of Pilate crucifixion dating to have been acceptable prior to the writing of gLuke. Once gLuke was on the table prior dating scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of 'forgery' - or 'ridicule' for the Toledot Yeshu.

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 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.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

robert j
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by robert j » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:46 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:I would like to collect here as many true variants on the time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus as possible ... What other potential variants are out there?
Clement of Alexandria provided what appears to be a direct quotation from what he called the Preaching of Peter. Eschewing apologetic translations and emendations, the passage reads --- (emphasis mine) ---
Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says, “But having opened the books of the prophets which we had, we found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words the name Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded, all these things that had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we gained knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.” (Stromata 6.15.128).
Note: This translation is by J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, and is used by Bart Ehrman in his, Lost Scriptures --- Books That Did Not Make It Into The New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.238.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:27 am

Peter Kirby wrote:The Talmud implies that Jesus was being stoned and hanged, after 40 days, on the eve of Passover. Does that count?
Possibly. I read it as saying that Jesus was charged with a crime that was punishable by stoning, but in reality he was executed by hanging (not that he was actually stoned and then his corpse hanged). However, I am fuzzy on the whole issue of hanging being a word for crucifixion, so this could potentially be a variant in mode of execution.

The issue concerning how the crucifixion relates to the Passover and to the sabbath should be considered a variant of time, one I had temporarily forgotten about when I composed the OP.
Related to the "Rome" thing, there is a statement in Suetonius about a certain _Chrestus_ under Claudius (who may not be our guy).

(Technically I suppose someone could string together Suetonius, Irenaeus, and Revelation to get a Christ executed under Claudius in Rome... but to do so is to ignore the various more probable explanations of each reference.)
Hmmm....
The Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Luke feature Herod (Antipas?) in some way, which always seemed a bit odd.
Agreed, and this is one I did think about while composing the OP, but I ultimately decided to focus on the time and place of the crucifixion to see what else might crop up in those regards before branching out into other kinds of variants.
Historically it might not be implausible that the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Luke are harmonizing a "theological" account of the death of someone in Jerusalem (chosen for symbolic value) and the less-ceremonious execution of a troublemaker/preacher within the borders of the local ruler (i.e., the execution of a Jesus the Galilean... by Herod).
That is a very interesting point, probably worth branching out already. I have been interested lately in the possibility that other lives or concepts were confused or conflated with those of Jesus. The case of Jesus ben Ananias is one such instance; it has occurred to me that the evangelists, having (for whatever reason) little to no information about the last days of Jesus of Nazareth, may have filled some spots in from Jesus ben Ananias; it has also occurred to me that the overlap in name may have led to some actual confusion, rather than just to using ben Ananias as a handy template. Perhaps, for example, some allusions of Jesus to Jeremiah actually came from Jesus ben Ananias quoting Jeremiah.
If you see that as somewhat plausible, then I suppose Herod/Galilee can be added to the survey somehow. Related to this, the Gospel of Mark emphasizes that Jesus is "going before" the disciples to Galilee (also a little bit odd, right? Guignebert and others have noted as much... like the author is trying to harmonize his account with a different tradition regarding the location of the appearances).
I would have to read more about what is being said. At the moment, I am not seeing what is so odd about Jesus potentially appearing to the disciples in Galilee.
Very nice. Thanks!
There I also cite Apocalypse of Peter and Basilides, saying that Jesus wasn't crucified at all (but perhaps another, e.g. Simon, was).
Good point.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:42 am

maryhelena wrote:
2. 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.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.

Josephus, in Antiquities, placing his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated to around 19 c.e.

For dating Pilate's appointment in Judea:

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18-20.

If one goes with gLuke being a late gospel then it becomes obvious that the crucifixion can be dated prior to the 15th year of Tiberius. Without the dating of gLuke other crucifixion scenarios become possible - as in the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius - as in gJohn and it's Jesus not yet fifty years old. And then, of course, one would need to take on board the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus prior to the 15th year of Herod 1. A birth date that would allow the Acts of Pilate crucifixion dating to have been acceptable prior to the writing of gLuke. Once gLuke was on the table prior dating scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of 'forgery' - or 'ridicule' for the Toledot Yeshu.

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 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.
Nice one, maryhelena. I find that passage in Eusebius, History of the Church 1.9.2-3.

Perhaps a crucifixion under Tiberius but before Pilate came into power goes hand in glove with a crucifixion by or under Herod Antipas, which the gospels of Peter and Luke are harmonizing with a date under Pilate?

Also, that quotation from Daniel Schwartz mentions the dating of the crucifixion in the Acts of Pilate: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ilate.html. Another reference to Claudius! I think this issue of Claudius being named as the emperor was handled by many past scholars by noting that the full name of Tiberius is Tiberius Claudius Nero. Not sure how convincing that explanation might be, though, especially given a Johannine time line in which Jesus was at least in his forties when he was crucified, which would agree with Claudius being emperor at the time.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:45 am

robert j wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would like to collect here as many true variants on the time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus as possible ... What other potential variants are out there?
Clement of Alexandria provided what appears to be a direct quotation from what he called the Preaching of Peter. Eschewing apologetic translations and emendations, the passage reads --- (emphasis mine) ---
Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says, “But having opened the books of the prophets which we had, we found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words the name Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded, all these things that had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we gained knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.” (Stromata 6.15.128).
Note: This translation is by J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, and is used by Bart Ehrman in his, Lost Scriptures --- Books That Did Not Make It Into The New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.238.
Good one. Thanks. I note that Schaff translates the line in question as:

...previous to the capture of Jerusalem....

He is perhaps assuming textual corruption here, since the word is κτισθηναι, which definitely means creation.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

robert j
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by robert j » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:29 am

robert j wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would like to collect here as many true variants on the time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus as possible ... What other potential variants are out there?
Clement of Alexandria provided what appears to be a direct quotation from what he called the Preaching of Peter. Eschewing apologetic translations and emendations, the passage reads --- (emphasis mine) ---
Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says, “But having opened the books of the prophets which we had, we found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words the name Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded, all these things that had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we gained knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.” (Stromata 6.15.128).
Note: This translation is by J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, and is used by Bart Ehrman in his, Lost Scriptures --- Books That Did Not Make It Into The New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.238.
Hoping not to sidetrack your thread Ben (by triggering arguments over interpolations, etc.) with this aside ---

Regarding the quotation above from the Preaching of Peter, Paul relates very much the same story in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, though not providing a time reference ---

Christ died, was buried, and was resurrected “according to the scriptures”, and this first “appeared” to Cephas.

maryhelena
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by maryhelena » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:58 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
2. 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.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.

Josephus, in Antiquities, placing his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated to around 19 c.e.

For dating Pilate's appointment in Judea:

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18-20.

If one goes with gLuke being a late gospel then it becomes obvious that the crucifixion can be dated prior to the 15th year of Tiberius. Without the dating of gLuke other crucifixion scenarios become possible - as in the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius - as in gJohn and it's Jesus not yet fifty years old. And then, of course, one would need to take on board the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus prior to the 15th year of Herod 1. A birth date that would allow the Acts of Pilate crucifixion dating to have been acceptable prior to the writing of gLuke. Once gLuke was on the table prior dating scenarios for birth and crucifixion would face the charge of 'forgery' - or 'ridicule' for the Toledot Yeshu.

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 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.
Nice one, maryhelena. I find that passage in Eusebius, History of the Church 1.9.2-3.

Perhaps a crucifixion under Tiberius but before Pilate came into power goes hand in glove with a crucifixion by or under Herod Antipas, which the gospels of Peter and Luke are harmonizing with a date under Pilate?
But it's Pilate, whether early or late dating for the crucifixion, that is relevant to the gospel story - so dating Pilate is central not dates for Antipas. And, as Schwartz has shown in his book - dating Pilate is not straightforward.

gLuke overturned the applecart......prior to that gospel an early birth date and an early crucifixion date would be able to function for the Jesus story. A dating system that fits the Antiquities position of the TF. i.e. prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Tiberius.

Also, that quotation from Daniel Schwartz mentions the dating of the crucifixion in the Acts of Pilate: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ilate.html. Another reference to Claudius! I think this issue of Claudius being named as the emperor was handled by many past scholars by noting that the full name of Tiberius is Tiberius Claudius Nero. Not sure how convincing that explanation might be, though, especially given a Johannine time line in which Jesus was at least in his forties when he was crucified, which would agree with Claudius being emperor at the time.

Ben.
Tiberius Claudius Nero or Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus...... :)

If JC was not yet fifty - lets say 49 years old - he would have been born around 20 b.c. (counting 29 c.e. as 15th year of Tiberius.) That dating does not work with a late in the rule of Herod I birth narrative interpreted from gMatthew. Early christian writers had a problem with attempting to harmonize the early Jesus stories with gLuke. Reading a late birth narrative in gMatthew (4/3/1 b.c.)would run to a crucifixion under Claudius between the years 41 - 54 c.e. Unfortunately, no Pilate.....

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 7th year of Tiberius of the Acts of Pilate (19 or 21 c.e.)

Or getting away from chronological years altogether - the 'not yet fifty' could be interpreted as 7 x 7 years = 49 years. i.e. either a prophetic allusion or a jubilee allusion.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

John2
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

Post by John2 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:16 am

Robert J wrote:

"Christ died, was buried, and was resurrected “according to the scriptures”, and this first “appeared” to Cephas."

My take on 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is that it doesn't just say that "Christ died" according to the scriptures but that he died "for the sins of us according to the scriptures." I think this is because it would not be remarkable if someone died because everyone dies, but it would be if they died "for the sins of us," and this is what was "according to the scriptures." Likewise It doesn't say that he was buried
"according to the scriptures" either, it just says that he was buried (again because there's nothing remarkable about someone being buried), then after this ("and") "he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures."

I don't think this second reference to "according to the scriptures" applies to the "buried" part, first because someone being buried is not remarkable either, and if it does apply to it then it would also cover the "died for the sins of us" part and make the first reference to "according to the scriptures" redundant (ie., he could have just said "Christ died for the sins of us and was buried and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures." But he says that "Christ died *for the sins of us* according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures." What was "according the scriptures" was that "Christ died for the sins of us" and that "he was raised on the third day," both of which are remarkable things that could only be said to be "according to the scriptures," unlike dying and being buried, which happens to everyone.
I come in from Memphis where I learned to talk the jive.

Post Reply