A Case for AD 27 Part 1

It's interesting to me, how the deep thinkers (or the relatively so),  on and the people who hardly consider or research a subject but only know the ‘gist’ of it can align so closely in their conclusions. It makes me wonder then if all the deep thinking or relatively deep thinking is worth it at all, I mean if you often end up at the same conclusion from where you started. And thus is it better to not think so much as we may? Or perhaps only here and there?

Take for example the year of Our Lords’ Crucifixion. Most ordinary people may not have considered much at all in their estimating otherwise, if asked that it did occur in the year 33. They would maybe say, since He, being born in the year 1 and lived to the age of 33, would likely make it AD 33. Coincidentally or no, modern scholarship through all sorts of complex calculation and reasonings seems now to favor this year as the most likely as well. 

(And as you may have noticed that if Jesus was born in AD 1 and died in 33 he would have by technically, or by modern reasoning be only 32. Although I've had it explained that in these olden times it was with inclusive counting that they counted, so one would be 33 if in their thirty third year, just as for His Temple to have been rebuilt in three days, one  would count Good Friday as Day 1.)

But to all the gist-ism and common sense thinkers,  I say ‘nay’! I say nay to the   idea of common sense and deep thinking  being are so closely align as my mind seems to believe. Research and scholarship aren’t dead or unworthwhile. And i  even suspect that after some amount of time spent researching, the more experience one has in a specific filed the more one likely can go beyond what is now the accepted common thinking. 

And I plan to defend the idea of scholarship by taking on the modern scholars herein with my own scholarship and that of a minority view. Not that I believe otherwise, but I don't like how they're so sure of themselves! (Although, the more I’ve researched this, the more I might argue that this theory aligns in some ways better with Christian theology.)

An argument for AD 27

Here I lay out the case for the Crucifixion being in the year 27, which is one of the three ‘possible’ years you often hear, if you read these sort of things, that it could be. It is called ‘possible’ along with the other two, 30 and 33 for several reasons but mostly due to the likelihood that Passover those years fell on a Friday. Of the other years it is possible that this occurred, but these are the most frequently proposed. As far as I can deduce, the calculation of passover is a somewhat complex system, mostly to do with determining the first full moon after the spring equinox. That is when it is typically, but when the equinox was set is another issue. How accurate people of that time could determine a new moon and also adjustment for the length of the crops factor into the calculation and thus could throw off the day of Passover a day or so. 

The Crucifixion most likely happened no earlier than 26 nor later than 36 (give or take a year) and as mentioned in the gospels and inferred via Josephus that Pilate was prefect within that date range, of Judea, and that he oversaw/handed the event as such, in that capacity. The life of Jesus likely spanned the reign of two emperors Augustus and Tiberius and then four Jewish kings within Judea specifically; Herod the Great, Philip, Archelaus, and Herod Antipas. Philip got the northeast territories (Iturea & Trachonitis) (and thus irrelevant here) and Herod the Great and Archelaus ruled Judea, Archelaus inherited Judea, Samaria, and Idumea Herod Antipas got Galilee and Perea (tetrarch).

Archelaus was recalled by Augustus due to multiple complaints from the Jews in Jerusalem of his heavy-handed tactics and overall harsh rule. So while Antipas was still ruler of Galilee and Perea, the overseeing of Jerusalem was then taken over by Roman Prefects starting with Coponius of that same year (AD 6 which is explicitly stated in Josephus)

After Coponius, there was Marcus Ambivulus, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus and then Pontius Pilate in AD 26. Of these we are rather ambivalent on these facts and only mention here to show thatPilate came into power that year.

‘So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome…’ Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.2

However to further complicate the issue, any year from what I gather, from the 26 to 37 candidates could technically be the year of Crucifixion, and here are the boring reasons why:

The gospels do not mention that the Crucifixion occurred on a Friday only that it occurred relative to a special sabbath.

“Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath“ John 19:31

A special Sabbath, such as a Passover, could occur on any day, separate from an ordinary Sabbath, thus the preparation as well.  And the synoptics could have meant simply a preparation for passover by “paraskue”.

And even if we are convinced it was the Saturday Sabbath the Evangelists are referring to, even if the moon was full on a Friday in 27, 30 or 33 AD it doesn't prove that that was what was counted as Passover. They could have figured it a day earlier or later based on, as I say the height of the crop, the barley wheat which if not at a certain level cold delay spring.

It's funny how one almost has to lean on certain verses of the synoptics or John to argue for a specific year and then explain away others of the same author that seem to contradict the point. For two examples, first look at Luke: in order to determine the year of the Crucifixion, we must consider the timeline of Pilate’s rule specifically because, of course the mention of him in the gospels but also in conjunction with the dates of Tiberius’s, because of the assertion in Luke 3:1 that:

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—”.  Luke 3:1

Which now essentially means the Crucifixion, if overseen by Pilate, couldn't have occurred before AD 26  since that was when he evidently began his office, and it would have to be after or during the fifteenth year of Tiberius’s being emperor (or co-emperor).

Which brings us to ‘what were the dates of Tiberius’s own rule?. Those dates, or at least the start date, are also debatable. Some scholars, as I’ve discovered (Schaff for example), prefer to count his rule as beginning two years earlier than the more accepted 14 AD start year. His co-rule with Augustus was during this time and due to various reasons, as noticed by Suetonius via parades for him and also due to old Roman coins suggesting the earlier year, one could argue that this could be whence Luke was counting. This would make the year of 26 AD the year that Jesus’ ministry commenced -

And yet with Luke we have to assume Jesus was born before AD 1 due to his asserting that Jesus was a contemporary of Herod the Great and also because of the flight to Egypt during the census of Quirinius.

The trickier part of the 27 AD Crucifixion theory, one may think, as I had thought, would be explaining how  Jesus’ ministry would have to have lasted only one year (or bipaschal), as it would have to if it began in AD 26.

Secondly, we look at John and  here, one has to, for my theory to logistically work,  in a manner of speaking, ‘explain’ away the  pascales mentioned of John .

So too do we do with Schaff; we  lean on him (or I do) for a lot of the background information and so forth, such as which specific biblical verses are relevant to this subject and which scholars agreed with my theory and which didn't, also regarding the counting of co-emperorship as the beginning of Tiberius, and for reasons  I’ll mention in a moment, yet we almost ‘laugh at Schaff’ for some of his preposterously seeming explanations on the subject.

 Let me break it down thusly:

The relevant verses in John are 13:1,19:14, 19:31. All can be looked up but for the most part they are relevant due to their mentioning that the Passover having not occurred before Jesus’ arrest, and thus to the casual observer like I, point to Nisan 14 (the day of preparation) as the day of Crucifixion. The way Schaff tries to harmonize these with the synoptics, especially 18:28 which says ‘Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.’, in his annotations or liner notes or whatever you call them, explains that this must have been an unfinished or not yet started meal from the previous evening is somewhat preposterous! As if people normally ate or finished already started meals in the early morning. Ergo, I don't believe it was Nisan 15.

I don’t mean to pick on him but  it's the only book I have here at the moment. And we don't actually laugh i was just trying to rhyme there).Besides  it is he, Schaff, who mentions and helped  me dispel the trickiness of a bipascal ministry. He points out several church fathers seemed to think this was the case: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and “perhaps by Origen and Augustine (who express themselves doubtfully).” 

In the second part of the essay I will further cover this but quickly, only the gospel of John mentions multiple passovers occurring within Jesus ministry. The synoptics have no issue textually either. With the bipaschal, which is called that because the related verses, (John 2:13-23, John 5:1)in this conjuration are respectively expected to be referencing the same and only passover witnessed by Jesus during his ministry, not counting of course  the one of the Passion, and referencing another festival entirely in the latter verse.

John 6:4 would then be referring tot the Passion Passover (since there isn't any verse later that says anything like ‘after that…’. . I then lean on Tertullian a little here, as he has already come up with explanation. Essentially it is what I’ve said and too the idea that they aren't necessarily in chronological order.  It also suggests John was incredibly redundant in mentioning how the same Passover was nearing, unfortunately. As in, why keep mentioning the same passover is nearing five times? However to dispel that argument look no further than the redundancy of Mark often removed from English translations. Ok it is a little tricky I suppose but Tertullian believed it

This idea of a one year ministry  also aligns, as mentioned in The History of the Christian Church, with Exodus 12:5, that a lamb chosen for sacrifice must be ‘year-old males without defect’. So too, I should mention, does the Crucifixion in John align with the slaughter of the lambs on Nisan 14.

(There is also verse in the book of DanCel by the way that I should mention, as it does into all this tie, but that will be mentioned in the second part of this essay.)

Yet it is John for whom we base the precise day of Nisan 14 (or the Day of Preparation) as the actual calendrical date of the Crucifixion. So while we gloss over the mentions of multiple Passovers, paying hardly any heed to them we now must shift attitude  and do the opposite when it comes to the dating of the ‘second’ also known as the Passion Passover. At least in my defense those verses are much more specific. 

The AD 33 crowds have their own issues anyway. They agree Jesus to be born before BC 4, with  many historians, due to Luke’s aligning with Herod and the flight to Egypt during the Census of  Quirinius. But that is a tad queer to me; Jesus would if crucified in AD 33 be more likely in his 37th or 38th year). If he was born in 4 AD, inclusive counting would make Him so. That doesn't seem to jive with Luke 3:1’s assertion he was ‘around the age of thirty’ when he was baptized and began his ministry.

(The second issue has to do with something I’ll cover in the second par of this essay.)

Thus if we look, as I have, to the church fathers, Clement, Tertullian, possibly Origen, and perhaps Augustine  (citing Schaff) for example and factor in the that they for the most part accepted a one year ministry as possible at the very least, AD 27 is a feasible candidate and in some ways a more likely one than 33. It is a tight timeline to fit everything in, and everything would have to occur rather simultaneously, such as Pilate coming into office just as Jesus began preaching, though even there, in my view one could make a strong case that that is the more likely as Pilate in his appeals to Herod and the crowds assembled comes off as more of a novice ruler, befitting one just newly appointed. Jesus wold have been busy but a year is a long time. And one might argue after a year some of his notoriety may have ebbed from its most extreme apices. I mean with all the  

There isn't  is a way to prove it one way or another and these are all opinions really. And I suppose that is where common sense derives from anyway. I'm not sure if I solved anything in my mind or not but I don't see really why AD 27 is so less accepted. And whatever year is ‘more likely’ doesn't mean it was in fact the actual year. I just wanted to throw it out there that this year should not be scoffed at nor dismissed as it seems it has been while reading the readings I have read.

In the second part of this paper I will further explain the one year time frame, and also why the 27 AD more closely aligns with Christiian theology as well. 

Bibliography

Humphreys, Colin J., and W.?G. Waddington. “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion.” Tyndale Bulletin?43:2 (1992).

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem* IV.36.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity, A.D.?1–100.