Luke's date for the crucifixion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by DCHindley »

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
Hmmm ...

Perhaps the copyists were not sure whether this eclipse was intended to be a dating circumstance, or a miracle (outside of natural phenomenon). If you are right and the original reading in Luke was "the sun was eclipsed" then it may have simply been intended as a miracle.

Alternatively, if the author of this passage in Luke is assumed to have drawn from legend, we cannot really assume that the author would *surely* have *known* that a solar eclipse cannot happen at Passover, and conflated two accounts, one related to Passover and another presenting the event as a miraculous portent.

DCH
Steven Avery
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Luke 23:45 - and the sun was darkened - no eclipse

Post by Steven Avery »

Steven Avery wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:20 pm "you should ask yourself what are the only naturally occurring phenomena that can cause such a thing?"
On a Passover time, of the full moon, only a storm, or volcano.
Or the supernatural, which of course is the very theme of the book.
Luke 23:44-45 (AV)
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Matthew 27:45
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.


Burgon covered the overwhelming evidence for the non-eclipse text.. Wilkinson covers Burgon and a few others.

Answers to Objections (1931)
Benjamin Wilkinson
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/An ... s2-6-B.htm

Revision Revised - p. 64-65
John William Burgon
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA64
...all the Versions (with the single exception of the Coptic*),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are all against them.—They cannot advance the claim of ‘ clearly preponderating evidence ; ’ for they have but a single Version,—not a single father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.— ... (continues)

The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels Considered in Its Bearings Upon the Record of Our Lord's Words and of Incidents in His Life (1882)
Frederic Charles Cook
https://books.google.com/books?id=B3Y_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11o
"For the alteration the responsibility lies with Aleph, B, and L (C is marked by Tischendorf as doubtful), and some few cursives, against all other MSS., nine uncial, nearly all cursives, the best Italic MSS, the Vulgate, the Syraic of Cureton, and others, followed by Tregelles."

Laparola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php ... rif2=23:45

The Matthew reference makes it clear that it not an eclipse. They do not happen in Passover and only last a few minutes. This is simple.

Plus Luke was a super-accurate historian. And the sun being darkened, does not mean eclipse in many Bible usages, Luke's usage is consistent and accurate.

Granted, Burgon likely oversimplified the ECW, especially Origen, but the ms evidence is so overwhelming in Greek, Latin and Syriac and most all other lines that it is clear . .

It is just Westcott-Hort recension silliness that makes this any type of issue. Those against the accuracy and purity of the Bible will naturally gravitate to the absurd corruptions in the Westcott-Hort recension.

Afaik, nobody has done a good job yet on documenting the early references.

Steven
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Phlegon reportedly did compared the darkness to an eclipse, so there is attestation in the ancient witnesses for such an idea.

Καὶ ἦν ἤδη ὡσεὶ ὥρα ἕκτη καὶ σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον.

Luke was a super-accurate historian, despite being a nobody who lifted from other sources, and even getting his facts wrong for when Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian, were active?

You are a fool. Simple as that.

Also, why do some feel it necessary to sign their posts? Does it give you greater since of importance? We can see who you are because your name is already posted with your comment.
perseusomega9
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Luke 23:45 - and the sun was darkened - no eclipse

Post by perseusomega9 »

Steven Avery wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:48 pm Plus Luke was a super-accurate historian.

:lol:
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Steven Avery
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Steven Avery »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:11 am Phlegon reportedly did compared the darkness to an eclipse, so there is attestation in the ancient witnesses for such an idea.
And I agree that there was a mixed ECW history, and I pointed out that nobody that I know has put together a good summary, and that of Burgon should only be used as a starting point. The manuscripts, however, in Greek, Latin, Syriac and virtually every versional language support the non-eclipse view.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:11 amLuke was a super-accurate historian, despite being a nobody who lifted from other sources, and even getting his facts wrong for when Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian, were active?.
This is generally circular to your late dating of Luke and other false presumptions. Luke at 40 AD was much closer to earlier events than Josephus decades later.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:11 amYou are a fool. Simple as that.
Wow. What a clever argument.

Steven
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:07 am It would be interesting to check if there was an eclipse 19 years or so later too given what Irenaeus thinks.
There was an eclipse 1st August 45 CE apparently known beforehand by Claudius.
History of Astronomy

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Steven Avery wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:03 am And I agree that there was a mixed ECW history, and I pointed out that nobody that I know has put together a good summary, and that of Burgon should only be used as a starting point. The manuscripts, however, in Greek, Latin, Syriac and virtually every versional language support the non-eclipse view.
The eclipse is a theological issue, not a textual issue.

There is a good argument that Revelation, chapter six, was predominantly inspired by the eclipse of 59 ad. The Johannine emphasis on Light and Darkness, then, would be an extension of this event. The death and resurrection of Logos, was the eclipse, which foretold the death and resurrection of the Light of the World, the Temple.
This is generally circular to your late dating of Luke and other false presumptions. Luke at 40 AD was much closer to earlier events than Josephus decades later.
This is such a nothing argument. Luke-Acts takes many liberties with Josephus's works, meaning that Luke came after Josephus.

Notice, also, how you failed to address the issues of textual chronology. Theophilus ben Ananus died 41 ad, yet Luke wrote about events that didn't happen until some ten years later. But we should take Luke's vague testimony over the detailed account in Josephus?

Luke mentions other narratives being written prior to him, so what were these other texts, written within ten years of Jesus's death?

Why would Theophilus ben Ananus give a good God damn about Jesus or his followers, when he was a High priest? And Luke's presentation of Jews in Acts of the Apostles is not at all earning ben Ananus's favour.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? You're a joke.
Wow. What a clever argument.
Likewise.

Any further comment from you will be henceforth ignored.
moses
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by moses »

"Plus Luke was a super-accurate historian. "

are you saying that he did not always believe what jesus' disciples told him and weighed the evidence like accurate historian?
but the word "investigate" means the following :
The word is παρακολουθέω (parakaloutheo), which means "to follow after." The Greek of Luke 1:3 literally says, "...having exactly [akribos - exactly, thoroughly, perfectly, carefully"] followed after everything from the beginning...

Parakaloutheo means literally "follow after," but "having followed after" is also away to say, "having an understanding, having familiarized oneself."

Luke is not imply a critical investigation or a weeding out of anything, just saying that's he's read everything.
Steven Avery
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Lukes superb historicity and the Prologue eyewitnesses

Post by Steven Avery »

moses wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:57 am "Plus Luke was a super-accurate historian. "

are you saying ...
My reference was first simply to what we learn from the historical studies of scholars who looked closely at the history, including William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), Colin J. Hemer (1930-1987) and Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White (1913-1993).

Henry Joel Cadbury (1883-1974) was especially involved in the Preface studies. And even from a somewhat liberal position, he helps understand that Luke was close to the events, he also emphasizes the Luke-Acts distinctives.

The Knowledge Gained in Luke's Preface (1922)
Henry Joel Cadbury
https://archive.org/stream/s8expositor2 ... 6/mode/2up
Henry Joel Cadbury wrote:Whether it implies an eyewitness or merely a contemporary, such a claim of intimate personal knowledge in the preface of Luke has an important bearing on the questions of date and authorship. Fifty out of the fifty-two chapters in the work go back no earlier than the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. With much if not all the period from this date to the end of Acts, that is, about three decades, the author claims contemporary information. Many scholars will find here a fresh confirmation of the early date of composition recently urged by Professors A. von Hamack and C. C. Torrey.

To many who have cherished the belief that the two books to Theophilus were written by Paul’s doctor''friend and associate, the suggestion will come as a welcome surprise that the preface not only may, but perhaps must, be understood to claim contemporary and first-hand knowledge. p. 417

Both parties, however, whether arguing for or against early date and Lucan authorship, will do well to eschew the conventional habits of settled exegetical conformity. Whether we believe him or not, the possibility must be left open that the author is claiming in the very beginning of his work to have been long in such close contact with the series of events which he unfolds as to be possessed of first-hand contemporary knowledge about them, and that perhaps he means to claim the knowledge of an actual eyewitness. At any rate he says nothing of research. p. 419-420
And this is even with the error of Theophilus as a Christian (p. 413). Understanding that he is the high priest of 40-41 AD simplifies the expositon.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14730
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke's date for the crucifixion

Post by Secret Alias »

My reference was first simply to what we learn from the historical studies of scholars who looked closely at the history, including William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), Colin J. Hemer (1930-1987) and Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White (1913-1993).

Henry Joel Cadbury (1883-1974) was especially involved in the Preface studies. And even from a somewhat liberal position, he helps understand that Luke was close to the events, he also emphasizes the Luke-Acts distinctives.
But do you have any examples of individuals from what we might call the post-Christian era - the era we now live - who have the same trust and respect for Luke as a historian? I don't think so. Acts is a fictitious work. No better or worse likely than the Acts of Paul. The fact that you believe in the Christian tradition that was set forth by those who formed the canon already explains your high estimation of Luke as a historian. But really, what do you know about Paul or Peter or any of the other cast of characters from outside of the very canon that you believe in? As a result we certainly can't know whether or not the details in question are accurately reported on or not. The fact that some Christians thought Acts was a fiction and more over didn't accept Luke as a witness for anything makes any reasonable person question Luke's legitimacy. After all they don't say the same things about the gospel. So on the one hand 'ALL CHRISTIANS' accepted the gospel, only some - likely a very small minority in the early second century - accepted Luke and Acts.
“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
Post Reply