Luke's date for the crucifixion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by andrewcriddle »

This thread is a response to interesting recent discussion's about Josephus Pilate Luke 3:1 ans other matters.

However I am trying to answer a specific point. Can we determine when Luke understood the crucifixion to have occurred without relying on either our present text of 3:1 or our present text of Josephus.

I think we probably can. The correct text and translation of Luke 23:45 is in all probability the sun was eclipsed
A solar eclipse cannot happen at Passover but if Luke is associating the crucifixion with an historical eclipse in Palestine it must be the eclipse of november 24 29 ad. This implies that Luke understood the crucifixion as occurring around 29-30 CE.

(This is not a claim about the actual date of the crucifixion merely about what Luke believed.)

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Joseph D. L. »

The only eclipse that Luke could have been aware of is that of 59 ad (which is the basis for Revelation, chapter six), and the eclipse of 118 ad. That there was one 29 ad is purely coincidental.

What's more is the the entire death/resurrection idea comes from the eclipse itself, and possibly the stone (moon?) rolling away from the tomb.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by maryhelena »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:33 am This thread is a response to interesting recent discussion's about Josephus Pilate Luke 3:1 ans other matters.

However I am trying to answer a specific point. Can we determine when Luke understood the crucifixion to have occurred without relying on either our present text of 3:1 or our present text of Josephus.

I think we probably can. The correct text and translation of Luke 23:45 is in all probability the sun was eclipsed
A solar eclipse cannot happen at Passover but if Luke is associating the crucifixion with an historical eclipse in Palestine it must be the eclipse of november 24 29 ad. This implies that Luke understood the crucifixion as occurring around 29-30 CE.

(This is not a claim about the actual date of the crucifixion merely about what Luke believed.)

Andrew Criddle
What Luke believed? That we don't know. All we have are the written words attributed to him....Hence, it's up to the reader of those words to interpret them.

As for an eclipse: Wikipedia details, in addition to the one mentioned above, two others. 18 March 33 and 1 July 37.

To take the 24 November 29 c.e. eclipse as indicating Luke believed a crucifixion around 29/30 c.e. is to deny other words attributed to Luke - his birth narrative set in the time of Quirinius, 6 c.e. - a birth more in tune with a crucifixion story set late in the time of Pilate, 36/37 c.e. Obviously, the problem with a late in the time of Pilate crucifixion story is that it becomes difficult, if one prefers Matthew's birth narrative to that of Luke, to maintain a young age for the Jesus figure. Dates for Matthew's birth narrative usually run from 12/11 b.c. to 4 b.c. The end result being a Jesus figure well into his 40s (gJohn's not yet fifty...).

Bottom line in all this - the gospel Jesus figure is not a historical flesh and blood man. Consequently, stories about a literary Jesus figure can be set in whatever context, time zone, that gospel writers so desire. Rather than attempting to cherry-pick, between the obvious contradictions between the gospel writers, is to allow all the stories their place in the developing gospel Jesus story. Old stories are of interest but its the Lukan update that has written the final chapter in the Jesus story: Birth narrative set around 6 c.e. and a crucifixion story set around 36/37 c.e.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:36 pm The only eclipse that Luke could have been aware of is that of 59 ad (which is the basis for Revelation, chapter six), and the eclipse of 118 ad. That there was one 29 ad is purely coincidental.
Why is this?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Secret Alias »

I think Andrew's point is worth considering. It is interesting that manuscripts of Luke changed. The wording changed away from describing the event as an eclipse.
The majority of manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke have the Greek phrase eskotisthe ho helios ("the sun was darkened"), but the earliest manuscripts say tou heliou eklipontos ("the sun's light failed" or "the sun was in eclipse") This earlier version is likely to have been the original one, amended by later scribes to correct what they assumed was an error, since they knew that an eclipse was impossible during Passover.
If an eclipse can't happen at Passover and Luke is later than other synoptic gospels the "eclipse" can't be used to date the crucifixion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe »

I think that ''Luke'' added the reference to the historical eclipse in virtue of the same reason to place John the Baptist in the incipit: to fix in the History the Christ-event, since in proto-Mark the latter was without chronological clues (even if placed on the earth) and without John the Baptist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:41 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:36 pm The only eclipse that Luke could have been aware of is that of 59 ad (which is the basis for Revelation, chapter six), and the eclipse of 118 ad. That there was one 29 ad is purely coincidental.
Why is this?
For one, that Luke was written at such a late date (late second, possibly early third century) means that he could not have accurate knowledge of this event. Pliny the Elder noted the eclipse of 59 ad, and Revelation six is itself a witness to it. John three is possibly a reference to the eclipse of 118 ad itself. The rub is that this eclipse occurred in a remote part of the empire, viewable only to those in northern Turkey, right where Sinope is. And I don't need to bring up the theory that Marcion's text preceded Luke, giving this event priority over the one in 29 ad.

Add to this the very real likelyhood that Pilate was actually prefect of Judea closer to 15-25 ad. This just shows how much the Gospel writes and editors were fudging it. So the author of Luke had zero knowledge of this eclipse. Indeed, not of any of them. He/they were just going off of previous works.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:59 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:41 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:36 pm The only eclipse that Luke could have been aware of is that of 59 ad (which is the basis for Revelation, chapter six), and the eclipse of 118 ad. That there was one 29 ad is purely coincidental.
Why is this?
For one, that Luke was written at such a late date (late second, possibly early third century) means that he could not have accurate knowledge of this event. Pliny the Elder noted the eclipse of 59 ad, and Revelation six is itself a witness to it. John three is possibly a reference to the eclipse of 118 ad itself. The rub is that this eclipse occurred in a remote part of the empire, viewable only to those in northern Turkey, right where Sinope is. And I don't need to bring up the theory that Marcion's text preceded Luke, giving this event priority over the one in 29 ad.
So are you saying that the Marcionite version of Luke, which preceded the canonical version, dated the crucifixion to AD 118?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:16 am So are you saying that the Marcionite version of Luke, which preceded the canonical version, dated the crucifixion to AD 118?
No, but that the reference to an eclipse could only have been derived from either the one from 59 ad (assuming that 1) the editor had Revelation at hand, and 2) knew that chapter six was based on it, which knowledge by that time would have been lost), or the eclipse of 118 ad.

The date for the crucifixion was never supposed to be well founded. It's why they had to have an ecumenical council to decide upon what date it occurred on. I mean, take away Pilate, who doesn't appear until Acts of Pilate, and Herod, who doesn't appear until Matthew, a couple other miscellaneous characters, and suddenly this story can take place at anytime. The Gospels were never meant to be histories, but mysteries. Rather, the eclipse of 59 ad was the revelation of the death and resurrection of Logos, the Light of the World (as what the Temple is called in the Talmud); the eclipse of 118 ad was a fundamental catalyst for Christianity, but I'm saving my findings for my book.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:34 amRather, the eclipse of 59 ad was the revelation of the death and resurrection of Logos, the Light of the World (as what the Temple is called in the Talmud); the eclipse of 118 ad was a fundamental catalyst for Christianity, but I'm saving my findings for my book.
Is it similar to Stuart Waugh's viewpoint? Link: http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... 18-ce.html.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply