Paul's 4th Missionary Journey (to Spain)

[kenisyes]

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar

That's not a 28. Tiberius became sole emperor in 14, but had co-ruling power already in 13. (see Tib.htm par. 8). If you read par. 7-9, it seems clear that Tiberius held some ruling power from a couple of years earlier. The Augustus page states: "In any case, Tiberius had been installed as his successor and, by AD 13, was virtually emperor already." Remember, Scripture gives us God's interpretation, and there is reason to conclude that due to advancing old age of Augustus, Tiberius may well have been running the empire even by 9 AD. The year is thus not definite.

 

[Widdekind]

Yes, there is some "play" in the numbers, of a year or so

But, the Crucifixion was circa 30 AD +/- 1. If 30 AD, then Paul converted in 31 AD; and then was martyred in 66 AD. Paul's last letter as a free man = Titus, written from Nicopolis in western Greece, where he was wintering. And, in the winter of 66 AD, emperor Nero arrived near to Nicopolis, en route to Greek Olympic-style games. If Nero had "dropped in on" Paul, practically; then Nero would have claimed that Paul was an arsonist, complicit or accomplice to the fire of Rome; and that Paul had betrayed Nero's clemency granted in 62 AD, to burn Rome in 64 AD. Nero would have summarily dismissed Paul to execution in Rome.

The martyrdoms of Peter & Paul are traditionally associated with June 29. So, dating Paul's martyrdom to summer 67 AD, a few months after being arrested in winter 66 AD (and during which few months Paul would have written 2 Timothy), seems plausible. So, maybe Paul was martyred in 67 AD... converted in 32 AD... Crucifixion in 31 AD...

somehow Sejanus is involved; Philo wrote about Sejanus, implying that Jews feared whilst he was in power, which fear could account for the desire of Ananias & Caiaphas to placate Rome. Sejanus fell from power in late 31 AD, so being the latest date for the Crucifixion, after which Tiberias had removed & executed Sejanus, and issued a decree for toleration of Jews.

That's not a 28. Tiberius became sole emperor in 14, but had co-ruling power already in 13. (see Tib.htm par. 8). If you read par. 7-9, it seems clear that Tiberius held some ruling power from a couple of years earlier. The Augustus page states: "In any case, Tiberius had been installed as his successor and, by AD 13, was virtually emperor already." Remember, Scripture gives us God's interpretation, and there is reason to conclude that due to advancing old age of Augustus, Tiberius may well have been running the empire even by 9 AD. The year is thus not definite.

 

[kenisyes]

Yes, there is some "play" in the numbers, of a year or so

But, the Crucifixion was circa 30 AD +/- 1. If 30 AD, then Paul converted in 31 AD; and then was martyred in 66 AD. Paul's last letter as a free man = Titus, written from Nicopolis in western Greece, where he was wintering. And, in the winter of 66 AD, emperor Nero arrived near to Nicopolis, en route to Greek Olympic-style games. If Nero had "dropped in on" Paul, practically; then Nero would have claimed that Paul was an arsonist, complicit or accomplice to the fire of Rome; and that Paul had betrayed Nero's clemency granted in 62 AD, to burn Rome in 64 AD. Nero would have summarily dismissed Paul to execution in Rome.

The martyrdoms of Peter & Paul are traditionally associated with June 29. So, dating Paul's martyrdom to summer 67 AD, a few months after being arrested in winter 66 AD (and during which few months Paul would have written 2 Timothy), seems plausible. So, maybe Paul was martyred in 67 AD... converted in 32 AD... Crucifixion in 31 AD...

somehow Sejanus is involved; Philo wrote about Sejanus, implying that Jews feared whilst he was in power, which fear could account for the desire of Ananias & Caiaphas to placate Rome. Sejanus fell from power in late 31 AD, so being the latest date for the Crucifixion, after which Tiberias had removed & executed Sejanus, and issued a decree for toleration of Jews.

There are a lot of "ifs" either way. Nero did not need to drop in on Paul in Greece in 67. Paul ended the book of Acts in Rome, and was thus quite close to Nero as soon as the man stepped on the throne. Also, there is no reason to consider that the Christian claim that Paul was executed in the persecutions of Nero is proved. Being executed in Nero's time, would have been enough for Christians to claim that.

Here is my evidence. I performed the study for the fifth time this morning. It's as good a time as any to put it online. The Online Bible Program has an "Astral calculator" which computes moon dates, and thus festival dates for any year you choose. It has been checked against NASA data, and is accurate to within minutes. Nasa data is accurate back to 720BC, since our scientists do not accept that the sun retrograded for King Hezekiah. I verified the weekday of occurrence of every full moon of March-April from 24-36AD (and thus the occurrence of Passover).

There are two possibilities. Some hold Passover was on Friday (thus beginning Thursday evening) as this is the traditional Christian day for the Last Supper. Others hold the traditional day is wrong, as Jesus must have spent three days and three NIGHTS in the tomb, because of the "sign of Jonah". This logic places Passover on Thursday (thus beginning Wednesday evening).

Here is an exhaustive list of such possibilities (Jerusalem time): Full moon, dusk Wed. through daytime Thursday: 4-7-27-1848(6:48PM) Wednesday; 4-23-31-2222 Wed.; 3-3-33-1713 Thur.; 4-20-32-0046 Thur. Here are full moon, dusk Thurs. through daytime Friday. 3-19-26-2351Thurs; 3-28-36-1637 Fri. The list is exhaustive for the years claimed. in 13 years, there would be 27 full moons expected in the two month period. 2/7 of that number is just under 8, which is about what we have.

The eclipse mentioned in Matt. requires us to accept 4-7-27. That is why I reinterpret the date of the "rulership" not the "emperorship" of Tiberius, as I do. He was probably running the empire from about 11 anyway, due to Augustus' declining ability with age, and this fact was undoubtedly mentioned sarcastically by many Jews, thus causing them to add years when they spoke of his "rulership". God would agree, and so there is no problem with this date being used by Luke.

Jesus was 29 (in Jewish nomencalture, 28 by our way of counting) when He was baptized by John just after Tabernacles 25AD, which was also near His birthday). Jesus' ministry lasted 490 days partaking of three (different) Jewish years, changing at two weeks before Passover each time. Scripture does not say He was 30, merely that He was "as if" 30, meaning He was prematurely ready for ministry. John started his ministry a few weeks earlier, when John was 30, being one year older than Jesus. This is the reconciliation of astronomy, Scripture, and history derived by myself and wolfinoxhide in these forums some months ago.

 

[Widdekind]

Josephus, and the Apostle John-Mark, both left Rome in 65 AD, about when Nero's persecutions began. Josephus returned to Judaea, and rebelled vs. Rome the next year; Mark returned to north Africa's pentapolis of Cyrene, before being directed by Holy Spirit to evangelize Alexandria, from where he fled back to the pentapolis, returning to Alexandria two years later, where he was martyred in April of 68 AD.

So, if prominent Jews were fleeing Rome in 65 AD, as Nero began persecuting Christians, then that would seem to be about when Peter & Paul were martyred. Perhaps the Crucifixion occurred in circa 29 AD.

 

[iamsoandso]

so the math is roughly 20 years too old for Christ Crucifixion at 32-34,,,,so Christ would need to be around 50 for the scripture to match?

 

[kenisyes]

Josephus, and the Apostle John-Mark, both left Rome in 65 AD, about when Nero's persecutions began. Josephus returned to Judaea, and rebelled vs. Rome the next year; Mark returned to north Africa's pentapolis of Cyrene, before being directed by Holy Spirit to evangelize Alexandria, from where he fled back to the pentapolis, returning to Alexandria two years later, where he was martyred in April of 68 AD.

So, if prominent Jews were fleeing Rome in 65 AD, as Nero began persecuting Christians, then that would seem to be about when Peter & Paul were martyred. Perhaps the Crucifixion occurred in circa 29 AD.

I would be willing to accept that PseudoH's 35 year figure for Paul is wrong. That is the simplest solution. I prefer to believe that Paul being beheaded during the persecutions of Nero is wrong, for the reasons in the website I gave you. My preference is for the accuracty of the astronomy, even over the historian's long-held list of dates for Roman history.

Three years after 2000 is an error of .15%, and any engineer would be hard pressed to do as well, as the historians have done. PseudoH would be off by at least 2 years after 100 when he wrote, that is a 2% error.

 

[Widdekind]

Abgar V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legends of Abgar of Edessa date the Crucifixion to 29 AD, or 32 AD

 

[kenisyes]

Abgar V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legends of Abgar of Edessa date the Crucifixion to 29 AD, or 32 AD

The original we have is from Eusebius, which is quite late compared to pseudoH. The whole tradition is suspect, as it is used to support the shroud of Turin in later renditions. In any event, you'll have to show me where the date is. I don't see it. Apocrypha: Abgarus : Interfaith

 

[Widdekind]

the seemingly-important morsel of information, is located in Eusebius' first book, 13th chapter, which closes with the words "These things were done in the three hundred and fortieth year" = 30 AD. Elsewhere, Eusebius & Jerome date the Crucifixion to the 18th / 19th year of Tiberias; and Tertullian dates the same to Roman year 783 AUC = 30 AD. Adopting an "everybody is correct" mentality, Tiberias' first year was reckoned to circa 12 AD. Now, Tiberias only became sole emperor, in 14 AD, but Jewish kings in the OT always extended their reigns, by accounting to themselves, their co-regencies with the previous ruler. So, if "officially" Tiberias was accredited reigning from 12 AD; then the Crucifixion = 30 AD = 783 AUC of Rome = 18/19th year of Tiberias = 340th year of Edessa.

you, too, would be correct according to that interpretation, in attributing extra years to Tiberias' reign.

Luke 3 = 15th year of Tiberias = 26/27 AD; i.e. about the time Pilate appeared on scene, then John began baptizing. That has Christian-ly plausible Supra-natural implications, i.e. Pilate was an important part, of Prophetic Plan; his installation by Sejanus triggered the Crucifixion Clock.

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

According to the ​

Chronicle of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, II. p. 116) the Edessenes dated their era from the year of Abraham 1706 (b.c. 310), which corresponded with the second year of the one hundred and seventeenth Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian, to the third year of the same Olympiad), the time when Seleucus Nicanor began to rule in Syria. According to this reckoning the 340th year of the Edessenes would correspond with the year of Abraham 2046, the reign of Tiberius 16 (a.d.30); that is, the second year of the two hundred and second Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian, the third year of the same). According to theChronicle of Eusebius, Jesus was crucified in the nineteenth year of Tiberius (year of Abraham 2048 = a.d. 32), according to Jerome’s version in the eighteenth year (year of Abraham 2047 = a.d. 31). Thus, as compared with these authorities, the 340th year of the Edessenes falls too early. But Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, and others put Christ’s death in 783 U.C., that is in 30 a.d., and this corresponds with the Edessene reckoning as given by Eusebius.

The original we have is from Eusebius, which is quite late compared to pseudoH. The whole tradition is suspect, as it is used to support the shroud of Turin in later renditions. In any event, you'll have to show me where the date is. I don't see it. Apocrypha: Abgarus : Interfaith

 

[kenisyes]

My problem is the same as many have with Eusebius. He wrote for Constantine, and rather late at that (actually as did Jerome). The first clue that something has been revised since 70AD, is that Jesus spent three days and two nights in the tomb on the usual Christian interpretation, not three and three as He predicts for the sign of Jonah. If you start following that trail, you get a whole bunch of Jewish prophecies that fit the 27 crucifixion date, and problems with the 30. It makes perfect sense that the Constantine Christianity had suppressed the Jewish, lost this knowledge, and so proposed a new date of 30. Then Eusebius, again working from Constantine's perspective, adjusted the rest of the OT to the Roman calendar and that's what we are looking at. Jerome simply followed Eusebius. I too was taught 30 AD for the crucifixion, based on Eusebius. The astronomy programs were not around at that time, and the Jews have only started returning to Jesus in massive numbers in the last generation. With these two resources now available, I feel we must seriously question anything written after about 250, when social ostracism was passed against Christians associating with Jews in many parts of the empire.

 

[nathan3]

Spain and England

 

[Widdekind]

Spain and England

do any early Apostolic fathers explicitly state, that Paul also visited Britain ? if so, then he would have visited Gaul; but Lyons, the center of Christianity in that land, only received a Bishop, circa 150 AD.

not trying to dampen enthusiasm, per se, yet i know of no evidence, for Paul in Britain, as strong as for Paul in Spain

 

[Widdekind]

what would a 30 AD Crucifixion imply, that seems so offensive ? you're going against Gospels (Luke, John) & Church fathers (Eusebius); who or what has higher authority, than they, from a Christian perspective ? Astrology > Christianity ?

My problem is the same as many have with Eusebius. He wrote for Constantine, and rather late at that (actually as did Jerome). The first clue that something has been revised since 70AD, is that Jesus spent three days and two nights in the tomb on the usual Christian interpretation, not three and three as He predicts for the sign of Jonah. If you start following that trail, you get a whole bunch of Jewish prophecies that fit the 27 crucifixion date, and problems with the 30. It makes perfect sense that the Constantine Christianity had suppressed the Jewish, lost this knowledge, and so proposed a new date of 30. Then Eusebius, again working from Constantine's perspective, adjusted the rest of the OT to the Roman calendar and that's what we are looking at. Jerome simply followed Eusebius. I too was taught 30 AD for the crucifixion, based on Eusebius. The astronomy programs were not around at that time, and the Jews have only started returning to Jesus in massive numbers in the last generation. With these two resources now available, I feel we must seriously question anything written after about 250, when social ostracism was passed against Christians associating with Jews in many parts of the empire.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

it is very unlikely that paul ever visited england...

 

[Widdekind]

Mary of Bethany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supposedly, Mary & Martha & Lazarus fled from Jerusalem, when Saint Stephen was stoned, circa 31 AD. They eventually went to Cyprus, where Lazarus became a Bishop. If so, then perhaps the Apostle Paul stayed with them, on his first missionary journey, through Cyprus (Acts 13)

 

[kenisyes]

what would a 30 AD Crucifixion imply, that seems so offensive ? you're going against Gospels (Luke, John) & Church fathers (Eusebius); who or what has higher authority, than they, from a Christian perspective ? Astrology > Christianity ?

The gospels do not give a precise date in our, or the Roman, calendar. Every argument for 30 or 33 AD is based on Eusebius, the first church historian whose work we have saved. But he was part of the change from Jewish to Roman Christianity. It's fairly easy to prove that the Roman empire Christians had suppressed Jewish Christianity by this point. We are doing many things wrong based on Roman thinking, and the return of Jews to Jesus is pointing this out. The astronomy suggests that we have this date wrong. This is the same kind of a conceptual issue as whether Jesus was born on Dec. 25. It works fine, as long as you do not have a highly educated congregation, and the resources to really look at it closely.

The specific difference appears to be that Eusebius took the 30 years for the private ministry (Luke 3:23 says "about" 30, using a word that implies He was ready early), and added it to the 3 years of public ministry. Adding 33 to 4BC produces the date of 30. Then Eusebius simply went back and equated the rest of Biblical history to the Roman calendar based on this date, and then drew the conclusion that Paul died under the Nero persecutions of 66-67. Then, everyone repeated this story. If Jewish Christianity had not been suppressed in the empire, it would have been realized that the correct counts are what we would call 28+2=30, so three years earlier. The problem is the eclipse, the earthquake, and the date of Passover. They just don't work for 30. They can almost be made to work for 33, but that requires not knowing the 4BC date of the Christmas star, which was in fact unknown during the late middle ages. They require a stretch to get them to work for 31, and that is as close as we can come, if we reject 27, for which they work perfectly in every detail.

 

[nathan3]

do any early Apostolic fathers explicitly state, that Paul also visited Britain ? if so, then he would have visited Gaul; but Lyons, the center of Christianity in that land, only received a Bishop, circa 150 AD.

not trying to dampen enthusiasm, per se, yet i know of no evidence, for Paul in Britain, as strong as for Paul in Spain

Acts 29 and then you got the oral traditions of the area.

 

[john832]

There is no historical proof of any of these dates. Without that they could have been 3 years earlier across the board. The astronomy supports three years earlier.

I call it psudeo-Hippolytus since that's what everyone else calls it. Among scholars, it is consider the name of the text, based on the "supposed" suthor. We don't know for certain who wrote a lot of things. People even argue about Revelation and Hebrews, and Shakespeare and Bach.

Hmmm, the decree of Artaxerxes was in 457BC. Now, let's see here...

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

So 49 years and 434 years = 483 years. Happens when we add 483 years to 457BC? We get 26AD, but that is not correct because there is no year zero. To account for this we must add 1 and then we come to 27AD. Christ began His ministry in the fall of 27AD and was crucified 3-1/2 years later in the spring of 31AD. Incidentally, Passover in 31AD was on a Wednesday, the only day that works for 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb.

 

[kenisyes]

Hmmm, the decree of Artaxerxes was in 457BC. Now, let's see here...

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

So 49 years and 434 years = 483 years. Happens when we add 483 years to 457BC? We get 26AD, but that is not correct because there is no year zero. To account for this we must add 1 and then we come to 27AD. Christ began His ministry in the fall of 27AD and was crucified 3-1/2 years later in the spring of 31AD. Incidentally, Passover in 31AD was on a Wednesday, the only day that works for 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb.

Thanks for getting involved. There is a one-year fudge factor Artaxerxes I Timeline based on Jewish vs. our years beginning dates (3 calendars are runing, with New Years, being Jan. 1, for us, Tabernacles for many gentiles, but March for the Jews). Also, the Jews count both beginning and end of a series, giving one more year. Allowing 2 years brings us to fall of 25 to be led into the desert. The three years of public ministry are then end of Jewish year 25-26, all of Jewish 26-27 and the first two weeks of 27-28 culminating at Passover 27, which is Wednesday night 4-7-27 Julian, (4-5-27 Gregorian) by the new moon of 6:48PM that night Jerusalem time. See this thread http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/51496-three-days-three-nights.html The eclipse is the problem, as that was in 27, not in 30. (Matt. 27:45, 51)

Your interpretation raises an interesting point. What happened in either 34 AD or in 31 AD to complete the 490 years? I know of nothing.

 

[Widdekind]

Every argument for 30 or 33 AD is based on Eusebius

stop -- a hundred years before Eusebius, Tertullian said AUC 783 = 30 AD

Roman empire Christians had suppressed Jewish Christianity by this point. We are doing many things wrong based on Roman thinking, and the return of Jews to Jesus is pointing this out. The astronomy suggests

the Gospels suggest John Baptized Jesus in 27 AD, and Jesus had a three-year ministry = 30 AD

the eclipse, the earthquake, and the date of Passover. They just don't work for 30. They can almost be made to work for 33, but that requires not knowing the 4BC date of the Christmas star, which was in fact unknown during the late middle ages. They require a stretch to get them to work for 31, and that is as close as we can come, if we reject 27, for which they work perfectly in every detail.

so, arcane calculations trump the Gospels ? If you say Luke was wrong about John = 15th year of Tiberias, or requires re-interpretation, in one place; then why could we then be confident, about other details in other places, being so accurate, as to support Astrology ?

Gospels, Tertullian, Eusebius, all cluster around 30 AD.