Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 30, 1999 at 05:47:25 {.Oe37V.qjQMRXA6xmpscboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: *COJ, TIBERIUS AND THE TEMPLE posted by COJ on March 30, 1999 at 04:35:08:
Hello Carl,
Summarizing your comments, then, you agree with me (1) that the 29 AD date is a secular date (the
dating of the reign of Tiberius being wholly based on secular documents),
I agree. But documents that are not in conflict.
and (2) that it is also a
questionable date, as there are several other alternative dates for Jesus' baptism.
I DO NOT AGREE. The reign of Tiberius is not
in question. No one is saying that he did not
begin
his sole rule in 14CE. Everybody agrees on
that that I know of. Now his co-rulership years
may have been referred to in some dating records
and is suspected to have been reflected by
Luke, but that's another issue. No one
is
contradicting when his co-rulership was. So
historically, the dating of Tiberius is
unchallenged. The date of Jesus' baptism is
what is debated.
These were exactly my points, Gary.
I understood that. And I
only offered an
ALTERNATIVE argument that's out there, as far
as Jesus' baptism and not as far the reign
of Tiberius.
When Anstey and others arrived at the 455 BC date, they retrocalcultated from 29
AD, which is a secular
and uncertain date.
Actually, it doesn't seem as though Anstey
did focus on 29CE, but as I recall dated the
Baptism in 27CE, thus he never really came up
with 455 per se. But the theory behind his
dating, that is, to
date the 1st of Cyrus from
27CE, giving a 1st-year Cyrus at 483 years
earlier is what is significant, thereby
presuming to dismiss the secular chronology as
unreliable.
This dating for the first of Cyrus then would
have
been 458BCE, but of note, as well, quite charmingly, he also accepted a literal 70-year
exile period for the Jews and thus came up with
528BCE as the fall of Jerusalem. So the dates
are not exact, but the theory is solid
and
consistent.
So I'm aware that many have decided to ignore
the 14CE chronology for the dating of the 15th
year of Tiberius, but nobody questions it. They
may dismiss it or reinterpret the Bible, but
nobody says
Tiberius' 15th year was in 27CE,
that is, is sole rule. Thus what I'm saying is,
uncharacteristically, you hae lots of opinions
on practically every date there is, from the
1st of Cyrus to the fall of Jerusalem. But
one
date that is not questioned is the rule
of Tiberius. So in my research, if I were
asked, what is the most undisputed DATE in
ancient chronology, I'd say the rule of Tiberius.
The rules of the Herod's were revised,
obviously
as well as the rule of some of the Caesar's, but
not that of Tiberius for some reason. Even
some of the revisions work around the dating
of his rule, so... I guess we're in agreement.
>>Your alternative attempt to arrive at your revised chronology by retrocalculating from 1992 AD (your date for the coming of the latest "pseudo-Messiah", whoever he is) needs no comments from me. >>>
Well then why did you comment? Actually, as I stated before, this is connected with my person view and opinion, which I'm entitled to, to date the 1290 day period, like many have, as ending in 1947 and thus others have arrived at 1992 as the 1335-day date. Thus this dating is not that uncommon.
Cheers,
Gary