Re: Crucifixion/Resurrection to Chris


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forum at www.eliyah.com/forum/ ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chris Lingle on March 14, 1998 at 23:07:14:

In Reply to: Re: Crucifixion/Resurrection to Chris posted by Daniel on March 14, 1998 at 19:53:55:

:
: Chris,

: Perhaps, I overreacted to "discussion partner."

: "1) The 15th year of Tiberius is 28 CE Julian Reckoning but it could be 27 CE Tishri reckoning."

: According to Roman Historians the 15th year is 8/19/28 c.e. to 8/18/29 c.e. John's ministry thus begins in the fall of 28 c.e. to late summer 29. The most likely tishri conversion is 9/9/28 to 9/28/29. I suppose you take the backward Tishri conversion, fall 27 to fall 28th, right? But I take the normal Roman reckoning of Tiberius' regin, and place the beginning of John's ministry in the late summer of 29. The Passover of John 2:13 is 30 c.e.; Luke 6:1 is 31 c.e.; John 6:4 = Passover 32 c.e.; Luke 13:1-9 refers to the Passover of 33 c.e. (and gives the length of Yayshua's ministry); John 11:55 = Passover of 34.

:
: 29 (late summer): John immerses Yayshua.
: 30 Passover of John 2:13
: 31 Passover of Luke 6:1
: 32 Passover of John 6:4
: 33 Passover of Luke 13:1-9
: 34 Passover of John 11:55

: Luke 13:1-9: Length of ministry:

: First Year Nisan 30 c.e. to Nisan 31
: Second Year Nisan 31, to Nisan 32
: Third Year Nisan 32 to Nisan 33.
: Fourth Year Nisan 33 to Nisan 34.

I have:

1st year of John's ministry = Lk.3:1 = Fall 27 CE
1st year of Yahushua's ministry = early 28 CE
John 2:13 = Purim 28 CE
John 3:24 = Pentecost 28 CE
John 4:45 = Atonement 28 CE
John 5 = Tabernacles 28 CE
Mt.5:14 = Chanukkah 28 CE
Mt. 6:39 = around Purim 29 CE
Lk. 6:1, John 6 = Immediately after Passover 29 CE
John 8 = Sukkot/LGD 29 CE
Lk. 13:1-9 = Winter/Spring of 30 CE
John 11:55 = Passover 30 CE

Accordingly, I have Yahushua's ministry at around 2 1/4 years versus your 4 3/4 years.

John 6:4 = Passover 29 CE
: "The 46th year of the Temple had to be well after (probably a year after) the 15th year of Tiberius by context. This 46th year is established at 27-28 CE by Josephus Ant. 15:11:1. Since 37 BCE is well established as Herod's acension year then 19 BCE would have had to be his first year of Temple refurbishment. This brings the 46th year to 27-28 CE. Apparently you were unaware of this because you had the 46th year in like 31 or so. Read the Josephus passage and check it out - it's right."

: I could give you a lot more detail on this, but I think a quote from Harold Hoehner will do, "Since the temple reconstruction began in 20/19 B.C. and the temple edifice was completed in 18/17 B.C.., forty-six years later would bring the date to the year A.D. 29/30. This means, then, that Jesus' first Passover was the spring of A.D. 30." (pg. 42-43, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ).
: Now I suppose you begin the calculation in 20/19 b.c.e. omitting the year and six months it took to complete the main part of the temple (Jos. Ant. xvi. xi. 6.) by the priests. I, and many others, start the 46 years after the 1.5 years so that the 46 years refers to the ongoing work on in the outer precints of the Temple.
: I assure you that I have read the Josephus passage before this, and have not been unaware of it.

All you have to do is count from 37-36 BCE to Herod's 18th year which brings you to 19-18 BCE as per Josephus' text. The 46th year locks with 28 CE. You need to artificially drop 1.5 years from the count which in effect makes you add these years. Highly unnatural yourself don't you think?

:
: "Luke 4:16-18 fits 28 CE astronmically on Atonement - a weekly sabbath that year and a sabbath year"

: Yeshua indeed came to proclaim the year of Yahweh's favor, and his proclaiming of it is a fulfillment of that prophecy, but that does not mean that the sabbatical or Jubilee year was at that momement any more than you might think that "Christ our Passover," means he was slain at the legal time for slaying the lambs.

Atonement of 28 was a Sabbath year so this does fit.

: "Luke 6:1 fits 29 CE as there is back to back Passover Systems with a conflagrance about picking barley. I mention this one on my web site somewhere."

: But this theory does not fit Luke 13:1-9.

: "You have way too long of a ministry for Yahushua. There are not nearly enough Passovers or seasons to accomodate your 6 or 7 year construct."

: See above. His ministry was four years. 1) 30/31, 2) 31/32, 3) 32/33, 4) 33/34.

There are quite a few other Holy Days that you miss to fit your construct.

: "I gave you a good possibility on the reign of Artaxerxes that you might do well to reconsider."

: The possibility you gave me makes too many gratuitous assumptions, is not normal, and is not necessary to explain any scriptural text. I did come accross this view at the Qodesh L'Yahweh site in the Sabbatical Cycle Paper.

Yes, and as Herman Hoeh put it - Clover nails it. I think his work on this was outstanding.

: "I gave you a viable interpretation of Sabbaton that you might do well to reconsider"

: Why should I. You view is not literal. It is not needed to explain any biblical text, and is contradicted by the Greek examples of "day of unleavened bread," "first day of unleavened bread," and "day of unleavend bread." "day of the sabbaths," and "first day of the sabbaths," both mean a sabbath day. The only difference is that the sabbath is enumerated in the resurrection passages. Once again, you have departed from normal language and history.

You know full well that I did not depart from normal language and history with regard to sabbaton. This word can and does mean sabbaths.

: "I gave you an apparently weak position on "opse" but I still have a great possibility of being right. In fact, this word ONLY presents a problem in Greek. If you look at Hebrew Matthew this problem does not exist."

: The Hebrew Matthew we have is not the one Matthew wrote. It is a late translation of the Greek Matthew after the second century.

Remember that my interpretation of opse as late can still be argued in Greek albeit it is not the common interpretation. You are dead wrong about Hebrew Matthew.

:
: "I could argue favorably that the Greek is just flawed. If you are a Textual Criticism buff I would highly suggest that you order the book that I did with Trimm called "The Semitic Origin of the N.T." at www.nazarene.net In it you will see that Greek is only a translation and that our current Hebrew/Aramaic texts are therefore equal or superior in every way."

: I don't disagree with the theory that Matthew was written in Hebrew. We just don't have the Hebrew Matthew. Any reconstruction of the Hebrew must be by backtranslation from the Greek, that is, until we dig up the real Hebrew Matthew.

You are not aware of Textual Criticism much are you. Hebrew Matthew has been demonstrated in dozens of places to have more viability than the Greek. For instance, how did the Name get into an antithetical treatise preserved by the Jews!? There are many ways to demonstrate that our present Hebrew Matthew is a direct descendent from the original. Collation happened in all of our texts between the 2nd and 5th centuries so a superioir text must be identified on a reading per reading basis. Your blanket dismissal of Hebrew Matthew is, I assure you, unwarranted.

Unlike, you I have never needed the emmend the Greek text where there is no textual support. If you want to emmend Mt. 28:1 without textual support, then you will open all of the gospels to question where the text is not in dispute.
: Furthermore, emmending Mt. 28;1, as you suggest, is merely dismissing a piece of valid history. By doing so, then you will have to allow me to dismiss a few pieces of non-Biblical history as spurious (particularly some of the so called extra-biblical evidence for the timing of the sabbatical year).

No one is dismissing anything here but you. Am I to take it that you disagree with Clover's work on the Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle?

: "You need to take a closer look at the Sabbath Iruvin for the Nazarenes. When the men were on the road to Emmaus it is very plain that they in fact did travel from Jerusalem after witnessing the events they describe."

: The men started from Bethany (I now stand corrected; it is 2 miles from Jerusalem). They got to Bethany before the Sabbath. How far from Bethany Emmaus was, no one knows, because no one knows where the real Emmaus was. The Sabbath limit is arbitary. If Emmaus was only 2 miles from Bethany, then that is a 40 minute walk, which may be unrabbinic, but not ungalilean or unbiblical.

Several of my maps show the location of Emmaus and the text in Luke gives its distance from Jerusalem. I would say that you are just a wishful thinker on this one.

: "Olives was where the altar outside of the camp was as Dr. Martin has recently proven. You would do well to look into this further."

: I read Martin's work on this years ago, and disagreed with 30 c.e. when I read it, but the rest of the book is good. If you read his other work, you will know that Yayshua was born in 3 b.c.e., and that his 30th year would be Tishri 1, 28 to Tishri 1 29, which fits what I said about the beginning of his ministry.

I just can't see how you justify your math! 30th year from 3 BCE brings you to 27 CE!

: "Histories do not support 34 CE that is what I meant when I said "no one supports 34 CE".

: When all the wrong theories are eliminated, what remains must be the truth. Nothing else stacks up with Daniel's prophecy or normal historical chronologies.

Man, I give a very brief but a way better theory of Daniel 9/11Q Melchisedec in my paper then you have which arrives at 30 Ce quite naturally unlike your manufactured conclusion to 34..

Solinsky allows for 34, but he is wrong on the equinox.

Amen to that, I have been trying to get him to see that for years. Lots of folks have been really messed up by his error on this. Glad to see you have it right. I perceived you did.

Ernest L. Martin may not realize it, but when he proved that Yayshua was born in 2/3 b.c.e., he also proved that the moon nearest to the equinox is the correct Aviv new moon.

Yes.

:
: "Your new moon info turns out to dovetail with my own after all! I have urged Solinsky to adjust Schoch's tables 1.25 degrees downward now for years."

: I have compared the results of my program with Solinsky's modern tables, and found that the new moons agree, and that the same ones are marked "ambiguous." I have not seen his ancient data.

I have and I have worked with it some. The Elephantine material is Babylonian in nature and not Biblical. But the visible quantities for new moons show an occasional 2nd day new moon being used because of a lack of visibility. This agrres with the proper understanding of "ha-chodesh ha-shaynee" in I Sam. 20:27,34 which means "the new moon the second" not the second day of the month. So, some of this stuff dovetails nicely. Qadesh L'Yahweh really blows it on this. If you have looked at their published calendars you will see what I mean.

: "This is precisely what you say must be done to acquire proper altitudes. You say that it can be up to 2.48 degrees (so this is an average) - this is what I have also found."

: The correction of delta T for 34 c.e. is 2.48 hours. Using an average of 12 degrees/day for lunar motion, this gives an average correction of 1.24 degrees to agree with Universal Time.
: By the way, David Rohl fails to take this into account with disasterous results for Egyptian chronology.

Is this so? Wow, Rohl has a great argument in general. Where is this error?

: "After adjusting Schoch's Tables 1.24 degrees downward I show that the Thursday 30 CE construct is viable. Your quantities are in fact correct after all. You just came at it on your adjustment from a different angle than I did. You, like Goldstine, also admit that the 30 CE New moon as I have it could in fact be viable. It is accepted that all astronomers note that it was extremely borderline and even iffy,"

: Very iffy though. The slightest haze, the smallest wisp of cloud ...

Nevertheless, 30 Ce is still there as a possible astronimically and in every other way. Emmaeus and Bikkurim have hurt your argument. Your math on some of your dates and festivals in the N.T. also seem somewhat superfluous. Seems like you have been somewhat influenced by Peter Michas.

:
: Shalom, Daniel
Shalom, Chris



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forum at www.eliyah.com/forum/ ] [ FAQ ]