 |
|
Jesus/Paul Chronology
|
|
|
This forum has moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 1 - 4 (9 total)
|
|
|
GeneStecher
10/10/2006 7:36 PM
|
1 out of 9 |
|
|
|
Is this is the best traditional argument for a Jesus/Paul chronology, or have I missed a few things?
Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (a territory N and W of Judea/Samaria on the west side of the Jordan River) under the Emperors Tiberius, 14-37 C.E. and Caligula, 37 C.E. to 41 C.E., and reigned from 4 B.C.E. to 39 C.E. Herod was married for a time to Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris, the same who assumed authority in Syria/Damascus under the Emperor Caligula. Aretas and Herod were embroiled in land and family disputes, and battles ensued along the west bank of the Jordan during the winter of 36/37 C.E.
The quarrel with Aretas is associated with the death of Herod’s brother Philip (34 C.E.). [Antiq 18.5.1 109; 18.4.6 106] Herod’s brother Agrippa had gone to Rome a year before (36 C.E.) the death of Tiberius. [Antiq 18.5.3 126] The Syrian Commander Vitellius learned of Tiberius’ death (March 16, 37 C.E.) perhaps a month later when in Jerusalem. The Parthian war occurred in 35/36 C.E., which is the testimony of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, and Herod gave assistance to Vitellius in the negotiations which followed. However, Josephus does not help us with clues to a date of when Herod married Herodias.
Josephus connects the Herod/Aretas conflict with the death of John the Baptist (Antiq 18.5.2 116; cf. Mk 6:14-29). “...Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him….”
If we assume that the gospels are correct that John died before Jesus, we must then consider a non-traditional later date for Jesus’ crucifixion: the last year or two of Pontius Pilate’s reign as Governor of Judea (36-37 C.E.) Mark has Jesus’ministry beginning after John’s arrest which would have been in 36 C.E. and Pilate’s last year as governor was 37 C.E.
Pontius Pilate served as Governor of Judea from 18 or 26 C.E. to 37 C.E. The EmperorCaligula, 37 C.E. to 41 C.E. placed Syria under the authority of the Nabataean King Aretas IV, 37 C.E. to 40 C.E., who appointed a Governor over Damascus. Damascus is approximately 60 miles NW of Galilee and 60 miles directly W of the Syrian coastal city of Sidon. Paul reports that he escaped from this unnamed governor who attempted to arrest him, but no reason for the governor’s actions is given (2 Cor 13:32-33).
Since Jesus was crucified under Pilate who was governor until 37 C.E., that would be the earliest year for Paul’s conversion, time in Arabia, and return to Damascus, and since Aretas IV ruled until 40 C.E. that would be the latest date for Paul’s conversion, time in Arabia, and return to Damascus. So the first trip to Jeruslaem “after 3 years”, as reported in Galatians, could refer to anytime from 40 C.E. to 43 C.E., and the second trip to Jerusalem ” after 14 years”, as reported in Galatians, could refer to anytime from 54 C.E. to 57 C.E. Given the inaccuracies of dating, the death of James the Brother of Jesus in 62 C.E. as reported by Josephus in Antiquities 20:9 would be the latest date for Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem.
“….This younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper….he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, (or, some of his companions)...he delivered them to be stoned:”
Supportive of the mid 1st century dates is Paul's reference to the temple employees and servers as if the temple were a present reality, rather than a post 70 C.E. destroyed institution (1 Cor 9:13).
Refer to:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm#Comment_DatingOfJohn
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html
http://doig.net/JA18.html
Gene
|
|
|
|
MisterC
10/10/2006 8:13 PM
|
2 out of 9 |
|
|
|
Let's just look at one of your statements, Gene S: "Supportive of the mid 1st century dates is Paul's reference to the temple employees and servers as if the temple were a present reality, rather than a post 70 C.E. destroyed institution (1 Cor 9:13). "
DDC: Not really. Chapter 8, though they weren't in "chapters" in earlier times, deals with "eating of food offered to idols," and even speaks of "eating in the temple of an idol" in verse 10. The author continues this "eating" theme into the next block (chapter 9), where he he states "Do we not have the right to our food and drink," and branches into "working for a living, continuing with "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar..." (the verse you mentioned). That block is no more about the Jerusalem temple than it is about the First Baptist Church of Podunk, Jawjuh! Nice try.
Dennis
|
|
|
|
GeneStecher
10/10/2006 9:36 PM
|
3 out of 9 |
|
|
|
Dennis,
Why must you be constantly on the attack, man? We all know that there is more than one argument against each of the points in the proposed chronology. The question was, "Is this the best traditional argument for a Jesus/Paul chronology, or have I missed a few things?"
Gene
|
|
|
|
chuckj
10/11/2006 12:24 PM
|
4 out of 9 |
|
|
|
Gene,
Your interpretation of I Cor 9:13 as referring to a still active temple in Jerusalem holds up very well when the verse is looked at in its context. Here is I Cor. 9:3-14 (my comments are below):
3 This is my defence to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?
8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever ploughs should plough in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
In these two paragraphs Paul presents four arguments for why he has the right to receive financial support for his ministry:
1. The precedent of other Xn missionaries (vv. 4-5)
2. Common sense from the world of commerce (v. 7)
3. The teachings of the law of Moses (vv. 8-13)
4. The command of the Lord (v. 14)
It is immediately evident that the example of temple workers is in the section in which Paul is arguing from the tanakh. And his summary of the rules for temple workers is in fact precisely what is in the Levitical code.
Also, it's worth noting that when in ch. 8 Paul referred to pagan temple worship, he used the phrase, "the temple of an idol." In the handful of places that Paul refers to "the temple," "the altar", etc. without modification, he is referring to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
Thanks,
Chuck
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
|
