Posted by A closer look..``` [GLamotta] on March 29, 1999 at 22:03:05 {7nb3mCfGvUMRXA6xmpscboLUiPtahc}:
Of course, Carl is a brilliant debater but he
doesn't expect you to look too closely at his
arguments. Look what happens when we do.
Here's my reply, just for fun to a few of Carl's
statements, just to show you there is seldom
ever
any final word to any of these arguments:
DATING REFERENCES FOR 455 B.C.E.
The fact is, however, that it has been arrived
at simply by retrocalculating the "69 weeks" (483
years) from 29 AD, which is nothing but a
SECULAR
dating of the 15th year of Tiberius. Thus, whether
you like it or not, your 455 BC date is wholly
derived from a secular date.
This is no longer an accurate statement since there
ar many ways to come up with
455BCE, one of the
most recent being the advent of the Jews return to
Palestine in 1947 A.D. Therefore, I don't need
Greek history or Persian history of Neo-Babylonian
texts to establish a Biblically correct date for
the
1st year of Cyrus, I can use a modern event
occurring in 1947. That is, 1947 would end the
prophesied 1290 days/years when the trampling was
supposed to stop and the Jews returned to
Palestine. 45 years later would have
fulfilled the
1335 days and the coming of the Messiah. That
being the case, 1992 would be the correct date for
the end of the 1335 days. That date is linked to
the 2520 years and the "7 times" prophecy which
began the year
Jerusalem fell and the last
representative king was removed. Thus subtracting
1992 from 2520 gives us the date for the fall of
Jerusalem in 529BCE (2521-1992=529).
Based upon Josephus, my favorite, who claims that
there
was a 70-year "desert" period beginning not
from the 19th year but from 23rd year of
Nebuchadnezzar, completely consistent with the
Bible which dates the last deportation from the
23rd year, we can determine the Jews would
have
returned some 74 years later after 529BCE which
would correspond to the 1st year of Cyrus, which of
course is 455BCE. Based upon that dating, 483
years later would have the Messiah appearing in the
fall of 29CE, which
is consistent with the 15th
year of Tiberius beginning in 28CE and his 1st year
of record being in 14CE. So, sorry, COJ, but I have
to live with 455BCE based upon modern history not
ancient records.
455BCE COMPLETELY
CONFIRMED NOW BY VAT4956:
And, of course, the 455 BE date for the 1st year
of Cyrus is neither a Biblical nor a historical
date, as I pointed out in GTR-3, pp. 192-195, in a
section that you have repeatedly quoted in
a
misleading way to give the false impression that I
somehow support your counting the 70 weeks from the
1st year of Cyrus.
Carl, you absolutely do suggest this in your book.
I quoted you. You clearly state that Cyrus
should
fulfill this prophecy and quote Isaiah where it
says that Cyrus was supposed to rebuild Jerusalem
and the temple. That doesn't mean you ultimately
agree that we should date the 1st of Cyrus in
455BCE, but only that
Cyrus is implied to fulfill
the "70 weeks" prophecy. I just agree with you.
Cyrus should fulfill the prophecy. And if he does
and if the Messiah appeared in 29CE, then that
would require us to date the 1st of Cyrus
in
455BCE. That's basically the whole principle
behind Anstey's chronology; that is, having Cyrus
fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. So for those of
us who feel Cyrus must fulfill this prophecy, we're
stuck with 455BCE for
the 1st of Cyrus and 529BCE
for the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, there are a
lot of complications making this dating adjustment
per secular history which dates the return in
537BCE basically. But that has all been worked
out.
The 455 BC dating exists exclusively in your
imagination.
Yes, my imagination and that of Dr. Anstey who also
supports this interpretation. We're entitled to
our own beliefs.
It has nothing to do with the Bible.
(Comment ignored for obvious reasons...) More
handwaving, Carl?
DATING 29CE IN 15TH OF TIBERIUS:
Further, the 29 AD date for the 15th year of
Tiberius is far from sure, because Tiberius was a
co-ruler, or
co-caesar, with Augustus for a couple
of years before the latter died in August, 14 AD
(according to secular history).
This doesn't matter. It just means there is
another possible alternative dating for one aspect
of
his reign. That's okay, just as long as at
least one of them matches up with his 15th year in
29CE. But of note, what would generally be
considered his OFFICIAL reign is the one that began
in 14CE and that would have been the
reference for
the secular dating of the period. That is, while
the other Caesar was alive they used his rulership
years for dating reference. Then when Tiberius
began to reign, they would use his years for a
dating
reference based upon when he succeeded the
previous Caesar. The preferred default dating is
14CE which is consistent with his 15th year falling
in 29CE. So I'm not worried about 29CE, it's not a
WRONG date under any
circumstances whether or not
there is some other implied dating.
The actual reign of Tiberius, therefore, which
in the provinces was referred to as his "hegemonia"
(the word also used by Luke; the normal Greek word
for
reign was "basileia"), began in 11/12 AD. A
number of scholars, therefore, date the baptism of
Jesus to the autumn of 27 AD.
This is very interesting history and I thank you
for bringing this out.
The first passover
after this event, referred to
at John 2:13ff., would then have fallen in the
Spring of 28 AD.
Okay, that would be correct IF the reference to the
15th year was for his total co-rulership years
rather than his
sole-rulership years. But 29CE is
still a credible date and the most standard dating
for the 15th year of his reign. The co-rulership
dating is the EXCEPTION.
THE 46 YEARS FOR THE TEMPLE BUILDINGS...
This date is
supported by John 2:20, which gives
the information that the rebuilding of the temple
by Herod had been started 46 years previously.
According to your favourite Josephus, that work
began in the 18th year of Herod (Ant.
15.380),
which corresponds to 20/19 BC. Counting 46 years
from 20/19 BC you arrive exactly at 28 AD (instead
of 30 AD). This is just an example.
Well, that's a nice argument, but there is another
way to calculate the 46
years to arrive at 30CE.
That's because, as you failed to mention, Josephus
in his previous work says that the temple began to
be built not in the 18th year of Herod, but in the
15th year of Herod (Wars, I:22:1) where he
says:
"Accordingly, in the fifteenth year of his reign,
Herod rebuilt the temple." So there is a possible
conflict of three years here. Besides that, you
also failed to note that Herod also counted his
rule from two
different dates, either 40CE or 37CE.
Furthermore the "Aid" Book and I'm sure the
"Insight" address this. (See under "Temple" or
"Herod") The Aid Book says "The courtyards and so
forth were under construction for eight years.
When certain Jews approached Jesus in 30CE saying,
"This temple was built in forty-six years" (John
2:20), these Jews were apparently talking about the
work that continued on the complex of courts and
buildings up until
then. The work was not finished
until about six years before the destruction of the
temple in 70CE."(page 1584).
Thus according to the Society it works out for
30CE. That's because if you date the beginning of
the temple
in the 18th year per the 40BCE
chronology or the 15th year per the 37CE
chronology, you still end up with the same date for
the beginning of the temple which would be 23CE.
If the main work was completed during the
eighth
year and the additional building work referred to
by the disciples began about then, that is, around
16BCE, then the work would have been in its 46th
year by 30CE.
One interesting note as far as the dating
of
Herod's reign is concerned, and that is it is
obvious that his rulership was changed between time
that Josephus wrote Wars (which he wrote
first) and the time he wrote Antiquities.
With that in mind it
would be appropriate to
presume that the original 37 years of his reign
began in 37CE and ended in 1AD, with his death on
Shebat 2, 1BCE. That would be completely
consistent with Jesus being born in 2BCE.
That being
presumed, it is interesting that with
reference to an eclipse which occurred shortly
before his death that there was an eclipse on Tebet
14 which is just 4 days after the Jewish annual
fast of Tebet 10. This fits Josephus'
description
of the high priest having his brother substitute
for him during this fast. That would mean the
eclipse took place about 18 days before Herod's
death on Shebat 2nd.
On the other hand, the eclipse in 4BCE which
is
said to date Herod's death in 4BCE happened on
March 13/14 which is about six weeks AFTER Herod's
death on Shebat 2, making that eclipse inconsistent
with the facts. Furthermore, March 13/14 is just
one month away from
Passover and the events
immediately after the eclipse leading up to Herod's
death as well as immediately after Herod's death
take much longer than just a month. It took nearly
a full month to bury him (7 days of mourning,
and
25 days to march the body out to Herodotium where
he was buried). So in no way does this eclipse
help date Herod's death in 4BCE.
On the other hand, the 1BC eclipse on Tebet 14 fits
this history perfectly and agrees
totally with the
Bible as well. And most importantly, this eclipse
requires you to relocate Jerusalem an hour out of
Honolulu! It doesn't work with the current delta-T
which proves the delta-T is 12-16 hours off,
just
like many critical the ancient records do as well.
Anyway, as I noted, I can arrive at 455BCE without
any ancient references even though now there are
plenty that support the 455BCE dating, which
certainly is strictly
BIBLICAL based upon your own
statement in the GTR which says that Cyrus should
fulfill this prophecy.
Here is your quote:
"..different views are held regarding when and by
whom this "word" was sent forth.
If we "just stick
to the Bible," it seem to point
to the Persian king Cyrus. At Isaiah 44:28 Jehovah
"saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall
perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem,
She shall be built, and of the temple,
Thy
foundation shall be laid" (ASV). And further, in
chapter 45, verse 13: "I myself have roused up
someone in righteousness [Cyrus], and all his ways
I shall straighten out. He is the one that will
built my city, and
those of mine in exile he will
let go, not for a price nor for bribery." (NW).
Thus it would seem clear that according to the
Bible itself the "word to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem" was issued by Cyrus....If this
period
ended at the baptism of Christ, usually dated
somewhere in the period 26-29 C.E., Cyrus' first
year as king of Babylon would have to be dated in
the period 458-455 B.C.E., instead of 538, the
historically acknowledged
date."
That's your quote. And I agree with you 100%!!!
Of course, now the VAT4956 references to 511BCE for
the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar completely confirms
this dating.
Cheers,
Gary