Biblical Evidence For 31 AD Crucifixion

[EclipseEventSigns]

When looking into the matter,
if that is becoming , was and/or is, looking for Truth; then Good.

There won't be unity nor agreement on internet forums open to the public or the churches.

Internet? You mean the modern version of reading a Bible verse and sharing "what it means to me"? It's all about the sources that are researched. Who is doing the talking? What background and agenda do they have? What biases have they done their learning from?
For example, if someone comes from a Roman Catholic or a NameItAndClaim or Charismatic background/learning, you can be safe in ignoring what they say.

 

[AFrazier]

True, the coin does not specify a 14 CE minting. But we know that when Tiberius became sole regent (officially Sept 17, 14 C.E.), he immediately appointed Gratus to replace the Augustus' appointee as prefect in Judea. This would be late 14 C.E. Upon arriving in Judea (late 14/early 15 C.E.), Gratus minted coins (as all new prefects/procurators did) showing it was the 2nd year of Tiberius. Gratus' rule as prefect of Judea is dated beginning in 15 C.E. That can only be reckoned as the 2nd year of Tiberius if one reckons from Tiberius' factual year beginning with his co-regency in A.D 12/13, not from his accession to sole power in A.D. 14/15. Another marker is that Gratus, upon taking over the reins of government in Judea, appointed Ishmael, Son of Fabus as High Priest. Again, the High Priesthood of Ishmael is dated to 15-16 C.E. Gratus ruled Judea for 11 years, being replaced by Pontius Pilate in 26 C.E., again, dating Gratus' first year to 15 which was the 2nd year of Tiberius.

I did make the point that even though this was obviously not the common Roman reckoning, Luke makes mention of the shared power of the High Priests, referring to Annanus as "High Priest" during the arrest and hearing of Jesus, even though Annanus had not officially held that office since Gratus had replaced him with Ishmael in 15 C.E. and Ishmael was followed by Eleazar in 16-17, Simon in 17-18, and finally Josephus Caiaphas in 18-36.

So all of these appointments occurred in the first year of Gratus' prefecture, 15 C.E., which according to the coinage minted when Gratus became Prefect, was the 2nd year of Tiberius.

That's not to say this is definitive, most things in this area of Bible study are not, but it does at least support the idea that Luke "could have" reckoned Tiberius' reign from his co-regency, a co-regency which is an historical fact, even if the Roman world did not. So as with so much of the history of this period, the best we can do is determine the possibilities, and then look at the weight of evidence. There are so very many things that are simply not definitive based on the available data we have, which in the end works to our favor in that it drives us to dig deep, do a lot of research and study, and draw honest and fair conclusions while realizing others may come to a different conclusion. But since these things are not a matter of soteriological import, I don't believe any of this chronological dating should become a matter of doctrine.
In Christ,
Deborah

Typically, Pilate’s term of office is dated according to the assumptions of Gratus’ government, whom we learn from Josephus began an eleven-year administration in Judaea, presumably, according to most modern authorities on the subject, at or about the time Tiberius succeeded Augustus, as early as August or September of 14 CE at the time of Tiberius’ succession, or as late as January or February of 15 CE at the start of the Roman civil new year (Joseph. AJ 18.35). Gratus’ term, by either of these reckonings, would have concluded in 25 CE or 26 CE respectively, depending on exactly when he arrived, and when he ultimately departed. At the conclusion of his administration, Pontius Pilate would have arrived to relieve him of his duty in 25 CE or 26 CE. This is the basis for the common conclusion that Pilate’s term of administration began in 26 CE, with additional supporting arguments concerning Vitellius’ attendance at certain key festivals near the time of his dismissal that allegedly corroborate the claim.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of this conclusion is dubious. While Pilate’s arrival in 26 CE can be made to “work,” the facts really don’t support it. After Pilate had been in Judaea for ten years, Vitellius sent Marcellus with orders for Pilate to return to Rome and answer to the emperor concerning some accusations that had been made against him by the Samaritans and the Jews, while Marcellus himself took control of the affairs of Judaea. Pilate complied and “made haste to Rome” (Joseph. AJ 18.89). However, as Josephus relates, Tiberius died before Pilate could get there, and Tiberius died on the 16th of March, 37 CE (Suet. Tib. 73). This is the pivotal landmark for this series of events, consequently ruling out any serious consideration for Pilate’s dismissal any earlier than very late 36 CE or early 37 CE. Pilate reached Rome after the emperor had already expired.

Unless Pilate walked to Rome from Judaea, or had a shipwreck like Paul, a three-month window prior to Tiberius’ death is the most that can be credibly argued. Roman law required someone of Pilate’s rank and position to return within three months of being dismissed from his post (Dio Cass. 53.15.6). Thus, the earliest Pilate could have departed Judaea was about the middle of December in 36 CE. While some consideration can be permitted for unforeseen circumstances, if he left Judaea much earlier than that, Tiberius would have still been alive when Pilate reached Rome. Thus, deducing Pilate’s administration backwards according to the acceptable point of termination, counting the years inclusively as Josephus would have done, Pilate’s praefecture in Judaea, beginning ten years earlier, very clearly runs from 27 CE to late 36 CE or very early 37 CE.

In consideration of Pilate's tenure, and the overlap in an inclusive count, Gratus would have been replaced in the summer of 27 CE. Deducing this backwards, his eleven-year administration would have started in 17 CE. Furthermore, it is pure assumption that Gratus took over Judaea immediately. Under Augustus, officials had specified terms of office. No one considers that Annius Rufus likely had time left to his term of office.

Also, I wanted to point out that I also provided two other numismatic specimens that give dual dates for triangulation. These are also considered "Gratus" coins, and they give 15 CE as year 1 and 17 CE as year 3.

 

[Deborah~]

Typically, Pilate’s term of office is dated according to the assumptions of Gratus’ government, whom we learn from Josephus began an eleven-year administration in Judaea, presumably, according to most modern authorities on the subject, at or about the time Tiberius succeeded Augustus, as early as August or September of 14 CE at the time of Tiberius’ succession, or as late as January or February of 15 CE at the start of the Roman civil new year (Joseph. AJ 18.35). Gratus’ term, by either of these reckonings, would have concluded in 25 CE or 26 CE respectively, depending on exactly when he arrived, and when he ultimately departed. At the conclusion of his administration, Pontius Pilate would have arrived to relieve him of his duty in 25 CE or 26 CE. This is the basis for the common conclusion that Pilate’s term of administration began in 26 CE, with additional supporting arguments concerning Vitellius’ attendance at certain key festivals near the time of his dismissal that allegedly corroborate the claim.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of this conclusion is dubious. While Pilate’s arrival in 26 CE can be made to “work,” the facts really don’t support it. After Pilate had been in Judaea for ten years, Vitellius sent Marcellus with orders for Pilate to return to Rome and answer to the emperor concerning some accusations that had been made against him by the Samaritans and the Jews, while Marcellus himself took control of the affairs of Judaea. Pilate complied and “made haste to Rome” (Joseph. AJ 18.89). However, as Josephus relates, Tiberius died before Pilate could get there, and Tiberius died on the 16th of March, 37 CE (Suet. Tib. 73). This is the pivotal landmark for this series of events, consequently ruling out any serious consideration for Pilate’s dismissal any earlier than very late 36 CE or early 37 CE. Pilate reached Rome after the emperor had already expired.

Unless Pilate walked to Rome from Judaea, or had a shipwreck like Paul, a three-month window prior to Tiberius’ death is the most that can be credibly argued. Roman law required someone of Pilate’s rank and position to return within three months of being dismissed from his post (Dio Cass. 53.15.6). Thus, the earliest Pilate could have departed Judaea was about the middle of December in 36 CE. While some consideration can be permitted for unforeseen circumstances, if he left Judaea much earlier than that, Tiberius would have still been alive when Pilate reached Rome. Thus, deducing Pilate’s administration backwards according to the acceptable point of termination, counting the years inclusively as Josephus would have done, Pilate’s praefecture in Judaea, beginning ten years earlier, very clearly runs from 27 CE to late 36 CE or very early 37 CE.

In consideration of Pilate's tenure, and the overlap in an inclusive count, Gratus would have been replaced in the summer of 27 CE. Deducing this backwards, his eleven-year administration would have started in 17 CE. Furthermore, it is pure assumption that Gratus took over Judaea immediately. Under Augustus, officials had specified terms of office. No one considers that Annius Rufus likely had time left to his term of office.

Also, I wanted to point out that I also provided two other numismatic specimens that give dual dates for triangulation. These are also considered "Gratus" coins, and they give 15 CE as year 1 and 17 CE as year 3.

I haven't looked into the termination of Pilate's tenure, so I'll have to research it and see what I find. Thank you for pointing it out. But at first blush, I do know that the maritime traffic on the Mediterranean was closed from November 11 to March 10 due to sudden and violent storms at sea. So travel was either by land route which took 125 days or by the coastal route which was much faster (26 days) but also very risky, Paul was taking the coastal route, and they were still shipwrecked by a storm.

But as for the coinage, that's the problem with coins, there was no fixed method of reckoning, especially in the provinces. Even the Antiochene coins you referenced, which shows a double date of 45/1 (A.D. 14-15), and 47/3 (A.D. 16-17) are not conclusive, there is another Antiochene coin listed in the database of the Thesaurus Morellianus that shows a 43/1 (A.D. 12-13) double dating as well as another showing a 44/1 (A.D. 13-14) dating, so three separate coins with three different Actian dates but all showing year 1 of Tiberius, which just muddies the water even further. But the problem is those coins were minted in another province, not Judea, and with the various provinces using different calendars, and different dating systems, the only thing it really does is give evidence of how inconclusive coins can be in fixing dates, especially from one province to another. But at the same time, it does show that it is at least possible that Luke could have reckoned Tiberius' reign year 1 as Actian year 43 (A.D. 12-13).

And I don't believe it is by any means inconsequential that Luke included Annas in his reckoning of High Priests, even though Annas had been removed from that office 11 years earlier but continued to share power with Caiaphas even though he did not hold the official title, the same circumstances of Tiberius.

Unless archaeology discovers some new earth-shaking evidence, I suspect Christians will be discussing and debating all this another 2000 years from now ... if the Lord tarries that long.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I haven't looked into the termination of Pilate's tenure, so I'll have to research it and see what I find. Thank you for pointing it out. But at first blush, I do know that the maritime traffic on the Mediterranean was closed from November 11 to March 10 due to sudden and violent storms at sea. So travel was either by land route which took 125 days or by the coastal route which was much faster (26 days) but also very risky, Paul was taking the coastal route, and they were still shipwrecked by a storm.

But as for the coinage, that's the problem with coins, there was no fixed method of reckoning, especially in the provinces. Even the Antiochene coins you referenced, which shows a double date of 45/1 (A.D. 14-15), and 47/3 (A.D. 16-17) are not conclusive, there is another Antiochene coin listed in the database of the Thesaurus Morellianus that shows a 43/1 (A.D. 12-13) double dating as well as another showing a 44/1 (A.D. 13-14) dating, so three separate coins with three different Actian dates but all showing year 1 of Tiberius, which just muddies the water even further. But the problem is those coins were minted in another province, not Judea, and with the various provinces using different calendars, and different dating systems, the only thing it really does is give evidence of how inconclusive coins can be in fixing dates, especially from one province to another. But at the same time, it does show that it is at least possible that Luke could have reckoned Tiberius' reign year 1 as Actian year 43 (A.D. 12-13).

And I don't believe it is by any means inconsequential that Luke included Annas in his reckoning of High Priests, even though Annas had been removed from that office 11 years earlier but continued to share power with Caiaphas even though he did not hold the official title, the same circumstances of Tiberius.

Unless archaeology discovers some new earth-shaking evidence, I suspect Christians will be discussing and debating all this another 2000 years from now ... if the Lord tarries that long.

In Christ,
Deborah

Actually, no. There should be no more debate. There is absolute evidence of exactly which year was the year of crucifixion. I have proven it mathematically and shown exactly how anyone can check it out for themselves. There is no more guessing.

 

[AFrazier]

I haven't looked into the termination of Pilate's tenure, so I'll have to research it and see what I find. Thank you for pointing it out. But at first blush, I do know that the maritime traffic on the Mediterranean was closed from November 11 to March 10 due to sudden and violent storms at sea. So travel was either by land route which took 125 days or by the coastal route which was much faster (26 days) but also very risky, Paul was taking the coastal route, and they were still shipwrecked by a storm.

But as for the coinage, that's the problem with coins, there was no fixed method of reckoning, especially in the provinces. Even the Antiochene coins you referenced, which shows a double date of 45/1 (A.D. 14-15), and 47/3 (A.D. 16-17) are not conclusive, there is another Antiochene coin listed in the database of the Thesaurus Morellianus that shows a 43/1 (A.D. 12-13) double dating as well as another showing a 44/1 (A.D. 13-14) dating, so three separate coins with three different Actian dates but all showing year 1 of Tiberius, which just muddies the water even further. But the problem is those coins were minted in another province, not Judea, and with the various provinces using different calendars, and different dating systems, the only thing it really does is give evidence of how inconclusive coins can be in fixing dates, especially from one province to another. But at the same time, it does show that it is at least possible that Luke could have reckoned Tiberius' reign year 1 as Actian year 43 (A.D. 12-13).

And I don't believe it is by any means inconsequential that Luke included Annas in his reckoning of High Priests, even though Annas had been removed from that office 11 years earlier but continued to share power with Caiaphas even though he did not hold the official title, the same circumstances of Tiberius.

Unless archaeology discovers some new earth-shaking evidence, I suspect Christians will be discussing and debating all this another 2000 years from now ... if the Lord tarries that long.

In Christ,
Deborah

According to W. M. Ramsay, it was approximately a forty-six day journey for the Imperial Post by land from Rome to Caesarea, or about a month and a half.[1] By sea, at a rate of approximately eighty miles per day, with thirteen to fifteen days by land from Brundisium to Rome, the same journey is roughly thirty-two days, give or take a few.[2] I'm not exactly sure where you're getting 125 days from. Please elaborate if you're taking that from a source.

The two alternate coins . . . I'd be interested in seeing them. If you have citation information, I'd be much obliged. Preferably RPC numbers if available. As it happens, I'm working on some research into the Actian/Victory epoch. If such coins exist, they would be of great interest to me for reasons beyond this discussion. I'm toying with the possibility that the Victory years ought to be properly reckoned according to the Julian year beginning in January of 30 BCE rather than September of 31 BCE. The battle of Actium was fought and won on September 2nd of 31 BCE, but Octavian didn't actually conquer Egypt until August 1st of 30 BCE (8 Mesore). Relative to Octavian establishing the legitimate start of his reign in Egypt as 1 Thoth (August 29th) of 30 BCE, and the practical use of the Victory epoch favoring the half of the year that aligns with the posterior common era year, I have my doubts about whether the Victory years should be counted from September to September rather than January to January. Apart from one coin I've come across, which has a reasonable explanation, everything else supports the hypothesis so far. I'd like to see where those coins might fit in the mix.

As for the calendars used in Antioch, I'll be honest . . . I'm having a difficult time determining the specifics of that. Per secondary sources, which I have much less faith in, the calendar runs from September to September, approximately. Autumn to autumn would be more precise. However, most of my research to date indicates that Syria used the Babylonian calendar, or an equivalent, with the Metonic cycle, counting from spring to spring according to the astronomical almanacs. I haven't been able to discern a clear answer on that.

As for Luke, the logic is simply this . . . 1) The entire Roman empire reckoned Tiberius' reign from the death of Augustus in 14 CE. The official start of his reign, according to the primary source historians, is January of 15 CE. And this includes Velleius Paterculus, who was a Tiberius groupie of sorts, and a man under his command. He gives plenty of explicit details. Tacitus gives his year of reign in one or two instances by which it can be back-dated. There are also plenty of epigraphic proofs. 2) Logically, Luke was trying to clarify the when, not confuse it. It makes no sense for him to use some obscure enumeration that no one else used. The argument is literally the same as if I said that President Obama was elected in 2008, and someone someday came up with this radical notion that since we use the Dionysian calendar system that was actually off by as much as three to five years, I didn't actually mean 2008. I actually meant 2004, but was calling 2004 2008 because I, and only I, throughout the entire civilized world, was actually using a correct version of the calendar. If you choose to be objective about this, you'll acknowledge this as true. 3) The greatest likelihood is that Luke was actually using a Jewish regnal year. The Jews dated documents, contracts, etc. by the regnal year of the current king. The first year of a king, however short, was considered a full year of reign once the first of Nisan came. Each successive first of Nisan would be another completed regnal year, and the start of a new year. By this reckoning, Tiberius' first year would have been from Tishri of 14 CE to Nisan of 15 CE. Counting forward, his fifteenth year would have begun on the first of Nisan in 28 CE. This is also consistent with Josephus, a Jew from Jerusalem, who gives Tiberius a total reign of twenty-two years. Contrary to the assertions that Luke wasn't Jewish, his conspicuous Jewish nomenclature makes it obvious that he was. He dated things according to the day of preparation, the day the passover was killed, the days of unleavened bread, the course of Abijah, the high priests in office, etc. His dating is very Jewish. There's no reason to suppose he was using something other than Jewish regnal years for Tiberius.

Concerning the priests . . . I have, myself, made a serious effort to date the priesthoods. It can't be done. There's just not enough information. You can date certain specific ones, but you can't establish a definitive timeline of the priesthood during this era outside of specific instances. So, I don't think the priests in power are germane to the discussion. Anyone who has spent any time on this subject knows that there is something hinky about the Annas/Caiaphas circumstance that isn't quite up to snuff.

Unless archaeology discovers some new earth-shaking evidence, I suspect Christians will be discussing and debating all this another 2000 years from now ... if the Lord tarries that long.

I'm going to agree with this statement, but not because I believe the answer is difficult or enigmatic. I agree with it because there are people out there who, no matter how much fact you show them, refuse to be moved.

---

[1]. W. M. Ramsay, "Roads and Travel in the New Testament," in A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5, 387.
[2]. Strabo 13.1.63; Acts 20:14-5, 20:15, 21:1; Kirkland, Horace: Satires and Epistles, 158-159. Strabo does not make mention in this instance about nighttime voyages. However, via Strabo in this particular case, as well as the voyages in Acts, it can be readily seen that a “day’s voyage” does not mean a twenty-four-hour period, but the distance one can reasonably travel in a sunrise to sunset “day.” Kirkland provides a daily analysis of the journey from Rome to Brundisium, demonstrating a thirteen to fifteen day period at a leisurely pace.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

As for the calendars used in Antioch, I'll be honest . . . I'm having a difficult time determining the specifics of that. Per secondary sources, which I have much less faith in, the calendar runs from September to September, approximately. Autumn to autumn would be more precise. However, most of my research to date indicates that Syria used the Babylonian calendar, or an equivalent, with the Metonic cycle, counting from spring to spring according to the astronomical almanacs. I haven't been able to discern a clear answer on that.

Syria's calendar was based on the Babylonian calendar system. However, the pantheon of gods that it was tied to was different. Babylon, Syria and Judea were all similar in that their year began in the spring. However, how they determined the start of the year was different. Babylon began their year at the sighting of the first light after the first new moon after the spring equinox. This resulted in a particular metonic cycle.
Judea, on the other hand, based the start of their year on the observation of the ripeness of the winter barley and tied that to the sighting of the first light of the new moon at that point. This resulted in a particular metonic cycle.
Both used the metonic cycle system. However, the particular pattern of that cycle was different. It seems I am the only one in modern times who has discovered that and has proven that mathematically.
This leads to the discovery that all modern dating methods of specific dates during Biblical times are in error. One can NOT use the current Jewish calendar system based on its metonic cycle pattern to determine ancient dates. The particular pattern of the modern metonic cycle is different once again. The metonic cycle can have 3 different patterns. And that is something no one has realized. I suppose because almost all supposed experts aren't interested or are ignorant of mathematics.

 

[AFrazier]

Syria's calendar was based on the Babylonian calendar system. However, the pantheon of gods that it was tied to was different. Babylon, Syria and Judea were all similar in that their year began in the spring. However, how they determined the start of the year was different. Babylon began their year at the sighting of the first light after the first new moon after the spring equinox. This resulted in a particular metonic cycle.
Judea, on the other hand, based the start of their year on the observation of the ripeness of the winter barley and tied that to the sighting of the first light of the new moon at that point. This resulted in a particular metonic cycle.
Both used the metonic cycle system. However, the particular pattern of that cycle was different. It seems I am the only one in modern times who has discovered that and has proven that mathematically.
This leads to the discovery that all modern dating methods of specific dates during Biblical times are in error. One can NOT use the current Jewish calendar system based on its metonic cycle pattern to determine ancient dates. The particular pattern of the modern metonic cycle is different once again. The metonic cycle can have 3 different patterns. And that is something no one has realized. I suppose because almost all supposed experts aren't interested or are ignorant of mathematics.

The Jews didn't use the Metonic cycle until around the third century CE. Prior to that, their calendar was based on observation of the new moon, with minor caveats for intercalary months to accommodate sabbatical years, leap days to keep the Day of Atonement at the proper time of the week, etc. I don't have any difficulties with the Jewish calendar. I don't try to use the current version for ancient dating.

The issue with the Syrian calendar is that the Caesarean era appears to run from September, relative to the battle of Pharsalus. But the Babylonian almanacs clearly demonstrate a spring new year and adherence to the actual Metonic Cycle, and the region still uses a spring new year to this day. So, there is a bit of uncertainty on my part where the Antiochian calendar should cycle. It's the current thing on my list of research.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The Jews didn't use the Metonic cycle until around the third century CE. Prior to that, their calendar was based on observation of the new moon, with minor caveats for intercalary months to accommodate sabbatical years, leap days to keep the Day of Atonement at the proper time of the week, etc. I don't have any difficulties with the Jewish calendar. I don't try to use the current version for ancient dating.

The issue with the Syrian calendar is that the Caesarean era appears to run from September, relative to the battle of Pharsalus. But the Babylonian almanacs clearly demonstrate a spring new year and adherence to the actual Metonic Cycle, and the region still uses a spring new year to this day. So, there is a bit of uncertainty on my part where the Antiochian calendar should cycle. It's the current thing on my list of research.

Some false assertions in your comment. While the biblical era Jewish calendar was not BASED on the metonic cycle (that is, it was not a calculated calendar), it was most definitely known and used as corroboration of the observational method. The Sanhedrin used it to confirm the witnesses that reported to them. The calendar was based on BOTH the observation of the first light after the new moon AND the observation of the ripeness of the winter barley.

The modern Jewish calendar is purely calculated. It also uses the exact time of conjunction. It also has various rules for postponement which were not present in the biblical era.

You should have great difficulties with the modern Jewish calendar. It is NOT the same calendar used during the biblical era. And it IS used for ancient dating whether you realize it or not.

There is no "actual metonic cycle". There is the generalized pattern of 2 or 3 year gaps that keep the years in sync with the seasons. But the ACTUAL year it is anchored to can be one of 3 different choices. That is the issue. That is the discovery. And that is what I have proved mathematically and have rediscovered the ACTUAL Jewish calendar used during the biblical era. Something no one has yet realized during the modern era.

 

[AFrazier]

Some false assertions in your comment. While the biblical era Jewish calendar was not BASED on the metonic cycle (that is, it was not a calculated calendar), it was most definitely known and used as corroboration of the observational method. The Sanhedrin used it to confirm the witnesses that reported to them. The calendar was based on BOTH the observation of the first light after the new moon AND the observation of the ripeness of the winter barley.

The modern Jewish calendar is purely calculated. It also uses the exact time of conjunction. It also has various rules for postponement which were not present in the biblical era.

You should have great difficulties with the modern Jewish calendar. It is NOT the same calendar used during the biblical era. And it IS used for ancient dating whether you realize it or not.

There is no "actual metonic cycle". There is the generalized pattern of 2 or 3 year gaps that keep the years in sync with the seasons. But the ACTUAL year it is anchored to can be one of 3 different choices. That is the issue. That is the discovery. And that is what I have proved mathematically and have rediscovered the ACTUAL Jewish calendar used during the biblical era. Something no one has yet realized during the modern era.

Listen, you are talking a lot, but not providing any sources to back up what I know to be incorrect. There is no evidence that the Jews used the Metonic cycle in the first centuries BCE/CE. The "actual" Metonic Cycle, proposed by Meton, did and does exist, and had a definite start point. It is known to have been used in the Antikythera Mechanism. The Jews started their months according to crescent visibility. And intercalations were based on a combination of factors, including the new moon appearing too early before the spring equinox, the relevant crops not being ripe, etc. They also intercalated in years prior to sabbatical years to keep the years in step with intercalation absent in sabbatical years.

I'm honestly not up for debating this. I already did my homework on all this stuff over the last thirty years. I'm plenty familiar with the material, and the facts.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Listen, you are talking a lot, but not providing any sources to back up what I know to be incorrect. There is no evidence that the Jews used the Metonic cycle in the first centuries BCE/CE. The "actual" Metonic Cycle, proposed by Meton, did and does exist, and had a definite start point. It is known to have been used in the Antikythera Mechanism. The Jews started their months according to crescent visibility. And intercalations were based on a combination of factors, including the new moon appearing too early before the spring equinox, the relevant crops not being ripe, etc. They also intercalated in years prior to sabbatical years to keep the years in step with intercalation absent in sabbatical years.

I'm honestly not up for debating this. I already did my homework on all this stuff over the last thirty years. I'm plenty familiar with the material, and the facts.

You are most likely familiar with the facts as is known with the modern Jewish calendar. You are NOT familiar with my discovery of the ACTUAL method of the biblical era calendar and the PROPER metonic cycle. That is the ground breaking discovery. Check out the videos in my youtube channel. All the sources are there for anyone to verify for themselves. That's always been the request. Verify. Verify. Verify. Check out the sources. Sources that hardly anyone knows exist. Check out the math. Math that no one has done in the modern era. It is such a ground breaking discovery that almost all problems with prophetic passages now can be solved and have been.

Have an open mind. People need to get over their own egos and become familiar with facts that have been obscured for centuries. In this case it is a quite true that you do NOT know what you don't know.

Here is a taste to prove I know what I'm talking about:

 

[Deborah~]

According to W. M. Ramsay, it was approximately a forty-six day journey for the Imperial Post by land from Rome to Caesarea, or about a month and a half.[1] By sea, at a rate of approximately eighty miles per day, with thirteen to fifteen days by land from Brundisium to Rome, the same journey is roughly thirty-two days, give or take a few.[2] I'm not exactly sure where you're getting 125 days from. Please elaborate if you're taking that from a source.

The two alternate coins . . . I'd be interested in seeing them. If you have citation information, I'd be much obliged. Preferably RPC numbers if available. As it happens, I'm working on some research into the Actian/Victory epoch. If such coins exist, they would be of great interest to me for reasons beyond this discussion. I'm toying with the possibility that the Victory years ought to be properly reckoned according to the Julian year beginning in January of 30 BCE rather than September of 31 BCE. The battle of Actium was fought and won on September 2nd of 31 BCE, but Octavian didn't actually conquer Egypt until August 1st of 30 BCE (8 Mesore). Relative to Octavian establishing the legitimate start of his reign in Egypt as 1 Thoth (August 29th) of 30 BCE, and the practical use of the Victory epoch favoring the half of the year that aligns with the posterior common era year, I have my doubts about whether the Victory years should be counted from September to September rather than January to January. Apart from one coin I've come across, which has a reasonable explanation, everything else supports the hypothesis so far. I'd like to see where those coins might fit in the mix.

As for the calendars used in Antioch, I'll be honest . . . I'm having a difficult time determining the specifics of that. Per secondary sources, which I have much less faith in, the calendar runs from September to September, approximately. Autumn to autumn would be more precise. However, most of my research to date indicates that Syria used the Babylonian calendar, or an equivalent, with the Metonic cycle, counting from spring to spring according to the astronomical almanacs. I haven't been able to discern a clear answer on that.

As for Luke, the logic is simply this . . . 1) The entire Roman empire reckoned Tiberius' reign from the death of Augustus in 14 CE. The official start of his reign, according to the primary source historians, is January of 15 CE. And this includes Velleius Paterculus, who was a Tiberius groupie of sorts, and a man under his command. He gives plenty of explicit details. Tacitus gives his year of reign in one or two instances by which it can be back-dated. There are also plenty of epigraphic proofs. 2) Logically, Luke was trying to clarify the when, not confuse it. It makes no sense for him to use some obscure enumeration that no one else used. The argument is literally the same as if I said that President Obama was elected in 2008, and someone someday came up with this radical notion that since we use the Dionysian calendar system that was actually off by as much as three to five years, I didn't actually mean 2008. I actually meant 2004, but was calling 2004 2008 because I, and only I, throughout the entire civilized world, was actually using a correct version of the calendar. If you choose to be objective about this, you'll acknowledge this as true. 3) The greatest likelihood is that Luke was actually using a Jewish regnal year. The Jews dated documents, contracts, etc. by the regnal year of the current king. The first year of a king, however short, was considered a full year of reign once the first of Nisan came. Each successive first of Nisan would be another completed regnal year, and the start of a new year. By this reckoning, Tiberius' first year would have been from Tishri of 14 CE to Nisan of 15 CE. Counting forward, his fifteenth year would have begun on the first of Nisan in 28 CE. This is also consistent with Josephus, a Jew from Jerusalem, who gives Tiberius a total reign of twenty-two years. Contrary to the assertions that Luke wasn't Jewish, his conspicuous Jewish nomenclature makes it obvious that he was. He dated things according to the day of preparation, the day the passover was killed, the days of unleavened bread, the course of Abijah, the high priests in office, etc. His dating is very Jewish. There's no reason to suppose he was using something other than Jewish regnal years for Tiberius.

Concerning the priests . . . I have, myself, made a serious effort to date the priesthoods. It can't be done. There's just not enough information. You can date certain specific ones, but you can't establish a definitive timeline of the priesthood during this era outside of specific instances. So, I don't think the priests in power are germane to the discussion. Anyone who has spent any time on this subject knows that there is something hinky about the Annas/Caiaphas circumstance that isn't quite up to snuff.



I'm going to agree with this statement, but not because I believe the answer is difficult or enigmatic. I agree with it because there are people out there who, no matter how much fact you show them, refuse to be moved.

---

[1]. W. M. Ramsay, "Roads and Travel in the New Testament," in A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5, 387.
[2]. Strabo 13.1.63; Acts 20:14-5, 20:15, 21:1; Kirkland, Horace: Satires and Epistles, 158-159. Strabo does not make mention in this instance about nighttime voyages. However, via Strabo in this particular case, as well as the voyages in Acts, it can be readily seen that a “day’s voyage” does not mean a twenty-four-hour period, but the distance one can reasonably travel in a sunrise to sunset “day.” Kirkland provides a daily analysis of the journey from Rome to Brundisium, demonstrating a thirteen to fifteen day period at a leisurely pace.

I used up my writing time this morning to respond to a personal note, so please forgive my brevity here, but I did want to quickly comment.

The Roman post was similar to the American "pony express." The post was taken from station to station by a rider who was able to travel much faster than the average traveler. Endurance horses can travel 100 miles in a single day. At each station, the post was transferred to another rider on a fresh horse. So the time it took for the Imperial Post to travel long distances was much faster than other travelers who walk at an average speed of 3 miles per hour and can only travel so many hours per day with breaks at night. For a good interactive map of travel time calculation in 1st Century Roman Empire, Stanford University has developed "ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World."

I will return later to respond more fully.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[AFrazier]

I used up my writing time this morning to respond to a personal note, so please forgive my brevity here, but I did want to quickly comment.

The Roman post was similar to the American "pony express." The post was taken from station to station by a rider who was able to travel much faster than the average traveler. Endurance horses can travel 100 miles in a single day. At each station, the post was transferred to another rider on a fresh horse. So the time it took for the Imperial Post to travel long distances was much faster than other travelers who walk at an average speed of 3 miles per hour and can only travel so many hours per day with breaks at night. For a good interactive map of travel time calculation in 1st Century Roman Empire, Stanford University has developed "ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World."

I will return later to respond more fully.
In Christ,
Deborah

Do keep in mind that Pontius Pilate was not merely, "other travelers." He was an official of rank. I have every confidence that fresh horses were available to him in his travels.

 

[Deborah~]

Do keep in mind that Pontius Pilate was not merely, "other travelers." He was an official of rank. I have every confidence that fresh horses were available to him in his travels.

That would be the logical conclusion, and I agree with you. However, to consider further; unlike the Imperial Post, which could pass the mail on to a fresh rider and horse to keep the mail moving 24/7, Pilate would need to rest along the way. I assume Stanford's Orbis takes into account required rest breaks. Of course, those distances are based on an average. A young, healthy male traveling alone could make much faster progress (such as Antipater's clueless and ignominious return home from Rome during the winter of early 4 B.C.) than a court official with an entourage, or a merchant with a load of wares, or a family with women and children. I do find it fascinating how God engineered history so that Rome built one of the most advanced road systems in the ancient world, allowing travel and commerce, and of particular benefit, allowing much faster and easier spread of the Gospel, which I have no doubt was His purpose.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

You are NOT familiar with my discovery of the ACTUAL method of the biblical era calendar and the PROPER metonic cycle. That is the ground breaking discovery.

AFraizer has shared some historical facts with you, but allow me to add a few more. The Jews did not adopt the Metonic Cycle until Hillel II began the transition in the A.D. 350's, later codified by Maimonides in the 12th century A.D. Before that, the earliest record of any Jewish use of the Metonic cycle was by the Babylonian Jewish scholar Samuel of Nehardia (A.D. 165 - 254), a first generation Jewish Amora. To date, there is no known evidence that anyone seems to be aware of that the Metonic cycle was being used in Jerusalem in any capacity during 2nd Temple period.

The beginning of days and months were strictly based on a number of observations. The first visible sighting of the new moons (which alone determined the beginning of months) generated a flurry of activity to spread the word, especially the beginning of Nisan, which determined when the festivals would be observed. The problem with this observation based reckoning was that the Jews of the Diaspora (living in distant provinces and even other countries) could not receive word in time for when Nisan 1 officially occurred and therefore were not sure when to observe Passover, which fell only 15 days later. The observation of the crescent new moon could occur 1 - 2 days after the Molad. To solve this problem, the Jews of the Diaspora began observing the Passover on 2 days, to be sure that one of those 2 days would be the correct day.

Up until the Council of Nicea, this also presented a problem for Christians in the far-flung Roman Empire. The calculation of Easter also relied on the Jewish new year and the calculation of Passover based on observations in Jerusalem, which again, with the delay of transmission over long distances, Christians could not be sure when Passover would occur and therefore when to officially observe Easter. The Christian leaders from all over the world who had gathered at Nicea to address two other very important matters of doctrine, voted to move to a Metonic Cycle based calendar so that the "paschal new moon" could be calculated in advance and churches throughout the world could be notified when Easter would occur and could thus all celebrate together. Contrary to the popular theory, there was nothing anti-Semitic about this decision, even the Jews within a few years began to move to the Metonic Cycle for the very same reason.

The problem with your "discovery" is a very common failing I see all the time. You have come up with an opinion, based I'm sure on very thorough and probably fascinating calculations, on how you think the Jews should have been calculating the months and, without any actual historical or archaeological evidence, insist that is in fact the way the Jews actually were calculating the months. But it really doesn't matter how mathematically correct your calculations may be. What matters is whether or not there is historical evidence that the Jews were in fact using those calculations during 2nd Temple period. And until you can provide actual evidence of that, your calculations don't "prove" anything.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

AFraizer has shared some historical facts with you, but allow me to add a few more. The Jews did not adopt the Metonic Cycle until Hillel II began the transition in the A.D. 350's, later codified by Maimonides in the 12th century A.D. Before that, the earliest record of any Jewish use of the Metonic cycle was by the Babylonian Jewish scholar Samuel of Nehardia (A.D. 165 - 254), a first generation Jewish Amora. To date, there is no known evidence that anyone seems to be aware of that the Metonic cycle was being used in Jerusalem in any capacity during 2nd Temple period.

The beginning of days and months were strictly based on a number of observations. The first visible sighting of the new moons (which alone determined the beginning of months) generated a flurry of activity to spread the word, especially the beginning of Nisan, which determined when the festivals would be observed. The problem with this observation based reckoning was that the Jews of the Diaspora (living in distant provinces and even other countries) could not receive word in time for when Nisan 1 officially occurred and therefore were not sure when to observe Passover, which fell only 15 days later. The observation of the crescent new moon could occur 1 - 2 days after the Molad. To solve this problem, the Jews of the Diaspora began observing the Passover on 2 days, to be sure that one of those 2 days would be the correct day.

Up until the Council of Nicea, this also presented a problem for Christians in the far-flung Roman Empire. The calculation of Easter also relied on the Jewish new year and the calculation of Passover based on observations in Jerusalem, which again, with the delay of transmission over long distances, Christians could not be sure when Passover would occur and therefore when to officially observe Easter. The Christian leaders from all over the world who had gathered at Nicea to address two other very important matters of doctrine, voted to move to a Metonic Cycle based calendar so that the "paschal new moon" could be calculated in advance and churches throughout the world could be notified when Easter would occur and could thus all celebrate together. Contrary to the popular theory, there was nothing anti-Semitic about this decision, even the Jews within a few years began to move to the Metonic Cycle for the very same reason.

The problem with your "discovery" is a very common failing I see all the time. You have come up with an opinion, based I'm sure on very thorough and probably fascinating calculations, on how you think the Jews should have been calculating the months and, without any actual historical or archaeological evidence, insist that is in fact the way the Jews actually were calculating the months. But it really doesn't matter how mathematically correct your calculations may be. What matters is whether or not there is historical evidence that the Jews were in fact using those calculations during 2nd Temple period. And until you can provide actual evidence of that, your calculations don't "prove" anything.

In Christ,
Deborah

How about actually WATCHING and then RESEARCHING what my ground-breaking discovery actually is. Everything you wrote is what I have taken into account, verified and provided sources for. You are not telling me anything I have not already known for decades. You do not know what you don't know.

Your comments display a complete state of ignorance about the issues that you talk about. You are displaying such arrogance and a lack of a teachable spirit.

Especially telling is your statement: "Contrary to the popular theory, there was nothing anti-Semitic about this decision," Utter and complete hogwash. There are written documents from the Roman Church which express violent and serious consequences for following the system of setting dates like the Jews. They were very much anti-semitic. And that you try to white-wash history is just one example of the lack of your knowledge.

 

[Deborah~]

How about actually WATCHING and then RESEARCHING what my ground-breaking discovery actually is. Everything you wrote is what I have taken into account, verified and provided sources for. You are not telling me anything I have not already known for decades. You do not know what you don't know.

Your comments display a complete state of ignorance about the issues that you talk about. You are displaying such arrogance and a lack of a teachable spirit.

Especially telling is your statement: "Contrary to the popular theory, there was nothing anti-Semitic about this decision," Utter and complete hogwash. There are written documents from the Roman Church which express violent and serious consequences for following the system of setting dates like the Jews. They were very much anti-semitic. And that you try to white-wash history is just one example of the lack of your knowledge.

How about actually WATCHING and then RESEARCHING what my ground-breaking discovery actually is. Everything you wrote is what I have taken into account, verified and provided sources for. You are not telling me anything I have not already known for decades. You do not know what you don't know.

Your comments display a complete state of ignorance about the issues that you talk about. You are displaying such arrogance and a lack of a teachable spirit.

Especially telling is your statement: "Contrary to the popular theory, there was nothing anti-Semitic about this decision," Utter and complete hogwash. There are written documents from the Roman Church which express violent and serious consequences for following the system of setting dates like the Jews. They were very much anti-semitic. And that you try to white-wash history is just one example of the lack of your knowledge.

Insults are no substitute for arguments. Cite your source.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Insults are no substitute for arguments. Cite your source.

Watch the videos for ALL sources. I'm not going to post the whole research in a comment. And if you want to get the complete list of sources, read my book. It's all there for anyone who has an open mind.

There were no insults. It's just the truth and facts being presented.

 

[Deborah~]

No one asked you to post all your research. I asked you to cite an historical source that gives evidence that 2nd Temple Jews were using your calculations. If you can, I will not only watch your video and buy your book, but I'll study them and probably pepper you with questions. But unless you can show that Jews were actually using those calculations, they really don't matter.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

No one asked you to post all your research. I asked you to cite an historical source that gives evidence that 2nd Temple Jews were using your calculations. If you can, I will not only watch your video and buy your book, but I'll study them and probably pepper you with questions. But unless you can show that Jews were actually using those calculations, they really don't matter.

In Christ,
Deborah

See post #50. That is the result of the math based on the historical evidences that have been discovered. And it's not "my calculations". It is the math that proves the biblical-era calendar was based on the observational method and the metonic cycle was discovered from it.

You are asking the wrong question. Watch the presentation and do the research and you will understand why that is.

 

[Deborah~]

See post #50. That is the result of the math based on the historical evidences that have been discovered. And it's not "my calculations". It is the math that proves the biblical-era calendar was based on the observational method and the metonic cycle was discovered from it.

You are asking the wrong question. Watch the presentation and do the research and you will understand why that is.

Again, please cite just one historical source that proves 2nd Temple Jews were using the Metonic cycle in their calculations.

In Christ,
Deborah