Monday, July 20, 2009

Need For Quite a New Approach to Chronology of Jesus Christ

We fully agree with
insofar as it asserts:


How do Biblical chronologists determine when events occurred during New Testament times? The main approach is to relate the dates of events in the life of Christ and in the early Church to dates of events in Roman and Jewish history. An Example: Christ was crucified when Pontius Pilate was ruler over Judea. According to Josephus, Pilate had a ten-year reign which ended about the time that Tiberius Caesar died (Ant. 18.89). If we can determine when Tiberius died, then we can determine the date range for Pilate's reign over Judea. The date of the Crucifixion must fall within that range of dates. The Problem: Most current theories about the date of the Crucifixion assume the generally-accepted dates for Tiberius' death and Pilate's reign over Judea. They do not prove or support this assumption with evidence. And they summarily dismiss any challenges to these generally-accepted dates on the grounds that the vast majority of scholars accept these dates. The same is true for nearly every theory or set of dates related to New Testament Biblical chronology. Biblical chronologists begin by assuming the generally-accepted dates for events in Roman history, especially the dates of the reigns of various Roman emperors. If those dates are incorrect, then the foundation of nearly every modern theory of New Testament Biblical chronology crumbles to the ground. Biblical chronologists realize their dependency on the generally-accepted dates in Roman history, and so, they shrewdly refuse to even consider any theory which, if proved correct, will cause their own theories to fall apart".

But as to the required methodology, the revision is probably far more radical [at least we think] than realises.
Stay tuned here (and see also previous posts) for a developing revision of late BC-early AD time - and beyond.

No comments: