1st Peter could have been written before 41 AD.

So people insisting Babylon can't be Babylon in 1 Peter and Revelation like to talk about Josephus account in Antiquities Of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 9 of the Jewish community in Babylon being forced to leave for Seleucia in 41 AD as evidence Peter wouldn't have gone there with no Jewish population left.

One website mistakenly says 41 BC, I think that's just a typo though.  This event is the end of Book 18, it follows the entire reign of Tiberius and all or most of the reign of Caligula, so it happened in 40 AD at the soonest.

Now I've responded to this in a few ways in the past.  First Trajan's account clearly has Babylon still existing and populated in the teens of the second century.  Lots of sites online insist on talking about this account as if it says Babylon was nothing but a ruin, they are just over emphasizing Trajan's disappointment at it's decline, but it's also clear people were still living there as at least one Temple was till operating as Trajan offered sacrifices to Alexander in the room where he died.  Therodoret of Cyrus refers to Babylon still being inhabited in the fifth century.

And I've also argued that Peter could mean Babylon as in the region of Babylonia, not just the individual city of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar.  The Babylonian Talmud is called the Babylonian Talmud for a reason.  I agree with those who say the Babel of Genesis 11 was probably Eridu.  And in Seleucia both the Gentile and Jewish population were of people who were moved there from Babylon, they may well have called themselves Babylon in some sense.  The Jewish Population of Seleucia got involved in the Kitos War during the reign of Trajan.   The Assyrian Orthodox Church had a Bishopric in Babylonia till well after the Muslin Conquest, often based in Seleucia.

 However I also feel it's highly possible 1 Peter was written before 40 AD.  I place the Crucifixion in 30 AD, and the events of Acts chapters 6 through most of 11 in 36/37 AD, maybe getting into early 38 at the latest.  By then Believers were being called Christians at Antioch and Peter was done with his affairs in Joppa and Caesarea.

The Death of Herod Agrippa recorded in Acts 12 was in 44 AD.  We tend to assume the Passover season when James was martyred and Peter imprisoned was the one of that same year, and if true it perfectly leaves room for Peter to have been in Babylon during that gap.  But it's also possible the narrative of Acts 12 after verse 19 jumps forward to record his death.  It might be the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 is supposed to be at the very start of the reign of Claudius, Herod Agrippa didn't become King of Judea till Claidus came to power.  I think it's possible Peter and James were in Jerusalem for this Passover because it was Pilgrimage festival, their being here isn't evidence no one left Judea yet.

Don't get deluded by any notion it'd take a long time for Christian Communities to emerge in the places Peter wrote to.  Pentecost of Acts 2 included Jews from those same parts of Asia and Mesopotamia.  The communities Paul started later were the primarily Gentile ones, 1 Peter is specifically addressed to Jewish Believers of the Diaspora.

Paul said Peter was in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision in Galatians 2:7-8, and for over 600 years by this time Babylonia had the most important Jewish community outside of Israel.  Rome had a Jewish population (also represented at Pentecost) but it was much smaller and less significant.  So Peter would be remiss in his duties if he didn't go to Babylonia.

The idea that Peter would use Babylon as code for Rome to hide what he's talking about from the Roman authorities is absurd.  Besides negative assumptions we make about the name Babylon, Peter isn't saying anything bad about this city, just that it's is where he is, and presumably so is Marcus.  And if any authorities had intercepted the letter they could easily have known where it as mailed from and so using a derogatory code name could only be counter productive to that presumed goal.

Now all that said, I have been contemplating the Babylon in Egypt theory, and may make a post on that soon, though frankly my thoughts there are more about that being The Babylon of Revelation.

The oldest traditions do not assume every Mark or Marcus of The New Testament was the same person.  And I unlike most don't even think every John Mark was the same, fact is among Romanized Jews of the first century John Mark was likely the equivalent of John Smith.  The John Mark associated with Paul and Barnabas is probably the cousin of Barnabus mentioned in the Epistles.  The John Mark son of Mary of Acts 12 I think is the one Peter mentions in his Epistle and who wrote the Gospel According to Mark.

I believe The Gospel According to Mark was based on what Peter preached in Babylonia, and I agree with the arguments for it and Matthew both being written already before the events of Acts 12.

Biblical Prophets were not cowards, when Babylon was the current world power Old Testament Prophets didn't use Nineveh as code, no in the Old Testament Nineveh is Nineveh and Babylon is Babylon.  So I'm tired of people saying that Revelation's "Old Testament imagery" proves Babylon is Rome.

If you respect Tradition so much, the Assyrian Orthodox Church traditionally holds that Peter was exactly where he says he was when he wrote that Epistle.

Did Pilate's Governorship actually begin in 17 or 18 AD?

Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.
http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist

There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included.  Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common AD 26 date.

In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18. the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in 17 AD.  The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome.  Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in AD 19 (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.

Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in AD 30.

However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down.  It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC or 25-22 BC) even more plausible.

Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  Which points us to AD 18.

What about the 15th Year of Tiberius?  Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion.  And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir and given the Tribunician power in AD 4 which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.

As far as the 70 Weeks goes.  The same chronology for Artaxerxes that has 483 years from his 20th year be the Nisan of 30 AD, could bring us to 17 or 18 if we used the Decree of Ezra 7 which was his 7th year.  However I still strongly feel only the Nehemiah Decree can fit the requirements of Daniel 9, so I shall remain favoring an AD 30 Crucifixion.

But regardless of my Crucifixion model, I am interested in this theory about Pilate.

Update March 2024: The Article is behind a Paywall now and it's older versions wasn't properly archived.  

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

[Update July 2023: The better version of this argument is here.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2023/09/i-dont-think-nero-persecuted-christians.html]

Eden may have been in Yemen

I have to agree with the position that the Tigris and Euphrates aren't useful for identifying Eden, since things changed at the Flood.  Rob Skiba likes to say the text of Genesis is present tense, but I think that's because Moses simply edited together older sources.  I believe Genesis 2-4 were written by Adam and Eve themselves.  The fact is, the relationship between the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis 2 is literally the exact opposite of the Post-Flood rivers we now call by those names.

That doesn't mean I think it's hopeless to identify Eden's location.  Because there are Post-Flood references to it.

I had in the past fixated on ways to read the references in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 37 and Amos 1 as placing Eden in Mesopotamia.  But those verses contain qualifiers like "Scepter of" and "sons of" that may mean we're dealing with references to Eden that are not geographically useful.

What's interesting however is Ezekiel 27:23, which mentions Eden right before Sheba.

Genesis 2 says the Garden was "Eastward in Eden".  Which has been debated between whether it means the Garden was in an Eastern part of Eden, or that Eden was East of where Yahuah first created Adam.  What's interesting is Genesis 10 says the children of Joktan settled at mount Sephar (Zafar), a mountain known to be in Yemen, and calls it a Mountain of the East.  A fact I also noted when arguing the Magi came from Arabia not Persia.

There is a region in Yemen called Aden.  And their local tradition is that it's as old as Humanity and Cain and Able were buried there.

Ezekiel goes on in Chapter 28 when addressing the Melek of Tyre to say the Mountain of God was in Eden.  And elsewhere in Scripture "Mountain of God" is a title used only of Sinai/Horeb, never of Zion or Moriah.  I noted this once before when trying to place Sinai in Iraq.

But now this Eden/Sinai connection is perfectly compatible with my past argument that Sinai was in Yemen and is the tallest Mountain in Arabia.

In that context this post is a companion piece to the one I made earlier today.  As well as this post.

Now it might be possible to make this argument compatible with connecting all the Genesis 2 names to their Post-Flood usage.  After all the first river mentioned is associated with Havilah, a name that is in Yemen near Sheba and Ophir post Flood.  But I'm gonna leave that to someone else to figure out since I don't find it necessary.

Israel did wander in the Sinai Peninsula

[Update Ocotber 2020: I'm semi retracting this post, if Hor and Kadesh-Meribah are both in the area of Petra then the Israelites were right be the modern border of Israel and Jordan and so this detail of Numbers doesn't mean as much as I thought.]

I just read an article saying Joktan never went to Arabia

http://www.eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm

[Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20230208105643/http://eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm]

I've talked about descent from Joktan before.  On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia.  And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia.  But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.

This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and it's not the only place where Genesis isn't strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25.  But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.

Some Bible scholars have offered an opinion that Joktan migrated into Arabia
because two of his sons, Sheba and Havilah, have the same names as two tribes
in Arabia.  But those Arabian tribes are of Cushite descent in the lineage of Ham
and are not in the lineage of Shem at all (see Gen. 10:6-7).  Arabia is part of the
migration route to Africa, the land of Cush; therefore the first peoples in Arabia
were Cushite, in the lineage of Ham. 

(Many Biblical names may occur multiple times in the different genealogies but
that does not confirm a genealogical kinship; only the context can indicate that.)

Now I do agree about there being Cushites in Arabia.  The problem here is they ignore Ophir, there is no Ophir among the descendants of Cush, and Arabain traditions frequently linked Ophir to Sheba and Havilah.  And The Bible does the same.

It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba).  In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire.  The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah.  In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.

The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled.  The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.

The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.

Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes.  Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen.  The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.

Joktan had 13 sons.  So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah.  And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula. 

Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan.  I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names.  The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon however.  What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska.  I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.

So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are.  Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few.  And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.

The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.

Biblical Synecdoches and the Canaanites

 Synechdoche according to Wikipedia.

 "A synecdoche (/sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, si-NEK-də-kee; from Greek συνεκδοχή, synekdoche, lit. "simultaneous understanding")^[1] is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa.^[2] A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts. Examples from common English expressions include "bread and butter" (for "livelihood"), "suits" (for "businessmen"), and "boots" (for "soldiers") (pars pro toto), or conversely "America" (for "the United States of America") (totum pro parte).^[3]"

The most well known Biblical example of one is Paul using "Greeks" in certain contexts where he clearly means all of the Gentiles.   Chuck Missler likes to show off his knowing this term on that subject.

I want to purpose a possible example most people aren't likely to think of.

Genesis 10:15-18 lists 13 sons or tribes of Canaan.

 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.

The last five of them never really appear as a Tribe later in The Bible, not even during the Conquest of Canaan.  A few are echoed in place names, Arvad, Hammath, the wilderness of Sin.  And even of the first six, the two that are named here as individuals rather then tribes are mentioned the most.  The remaining four don't seem to be factors much anymore after David finally subdues all of the promised land.

1 Kings 11 mentions only The Sidonians and the Hittites (Sidon and Heth).  I wonder if they have become Synechdoches for all the Canaanites.  Sidon the northern ones (Phoenicians as the Greek knew them) and the Hittites the southern ones, particularly those based in the Negev.  Not unlike how for the Israelites of the region, Ephraim represents the Northern tribes and Judah the south.

This is a good time for me to talk about how the "Hittites" of Anatolia who are a common subject of Archeology, I do not believe are the Biblical Hittites.  The Anatolians were Indo-Europeans who did not worship the Canaanite pantheon.  1 Kings 11 kind of implies the Hittites were closer to Solomon then the Sidonians, not further.  Which would agree with other Biblical passages associating them with the area of Hebron, and also seemingly close to Edom.  The "Hittites" of Anatolia may have come from Chittim son of Javan son of Japheth.

Oldest Synagogues, They go back to the Hasmonean era

"The earliest archeological remains of a synagogue building on the island of Delos in the Aegean indicate a late second-century or possibly mid-first century BC date of construction, while earlier inscriptions and papyri have been discovered in Egypt, commencing with the third century BC."- Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10628-9.

"A number of very early synagogues date from the 1st-century AD. A synagogue dating from between 75 and 50 BC has been uncovered at a Hasmonean-era winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.archaeology.org/9807/newsbriefs/israel.html, 
Israel's Oldest Synagogue. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/modul...y/story_id/8390/edition_id/159/format/html/displaystory.html

"More than a dozen Second Temple era synagogues have been identified by archaeologists."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/index.html 2010-09-08. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest Samaritan synagogue, the Delos Synagogue dates from between 150 and 128 BC, or earlier and is located on the island of Delos."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/delos.html Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The Jericho Synagogue, the oldest, securely dated, mainstream Jewish synagogue in the world was built between 70 and 50 BC at a royal winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/jericho.html 1998-03-29. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest synagogue fragments are stone synagogue dedication inscriptions stones found in middle and lower Egypt and dating from the 3rd century BC"-http://www.pohick.org/sts/egypt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migdal_Synagogue
This one was discovered in 2009, also once a city skeptics insisted didn't exist till the 2nd century, like Nazareth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Qelt_Synagogue

The Wadi Qelt Synagogue located in Wadi Qelt a mile southwest of Jericho, is the oldest synagogue found to date. It dates from between 70 and 50 BC, and was built as part of the Hasmonean royal winter palaces complex in the desert oasis of Jericho.

Where Simon was from
http://www.pohick.org/sts/cyrenaica.html 


http://www.pohick.org/sts/jerusalem.html

the pre-70 dating of the inscription has been firmly established through both paleography and an analysis of the find's archaeological context. Not only do the inscription's letter-forms closely match those of other inscriptions dated to the Second Temple period, but all of the pottery and artifacts discovered with the dedication also date to this era.

http://www.pohick.org/sts/capernaum.html

Most recent excavations have revealed two synagogues, a white limestone synagogue dating from the fourth to fifth centuries CE, and a black basalt synagogue dating from the first half of the first century CE. Only foundation walls, gray marble column fragments and a cobblestone floor remain from the earlier structure, which measured 24.5 by 18.7 meters on the exterior and possessed walls over a meter thick.

View of the IV-V century Limestone synagogue, looking north. This structure was built on top of an earlier synagogue that was founded in the first century CE and constructed out of basalt. Only the foundation walls and cobblestone floor remain from this earlier building (see below). (Column drums made out of gray marble have also been discovered in a lower stratum of fill material.) It is thus the basalt synagogue which is referred to in the four Gospels.

Upon taking office in Caesarea, Florus began a practice of favoring the local Greek population of the city over the Jewish population. The local Greek population noticed Florus' policies and took advantage of the circumstances to denigrate the local Jewish population. One notable instance of provocation occurred while the Jews were worshiping at their local synagogue and a Hellenist sacrificed several birds on top of an earthenware container at the entrance of the synagogue, an act that rendered the building ritually unclean. In response to this action, the Jews sent a group of men to petition Florus for redress. Despite accepting a payment of eight talents to hear the case, Florus refused to listen to the complaints and instead had the petitioners imprisoned.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 5

Not Synagogue related, but evidence for Nazareth.
Nazareth Archeology

Links on the Authenticity of Daniel

There going to some details in these I don't agree with.  In the future I hope to post my my own thoughts on the related issues.

DanielHistoricity
DanielChapter5
HerodotusDanielNitocris
AddaGuppi
Belshazzar
PublicationFile
DatingDaniel
BelshazzarDariusTheMede
DanielPapers
TheIdentityOfDariusTheMede
DefendingTheBookOfDaniel
Wilson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaxares_II

Cyaxares II was said to be a king of the Medes whose reign is described by the Greek historian Xenophon. Some theories have equated this figure with the "Darius the Mede" named in the Book of Daniel. However, the fact that he is not mentioned at all in the history of Herodotus, nor in the very different history of Ctesias, has caused many scholars to debate whether such a king ever actually existed.

According to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Cyaxares II followed king Astyages to the throne of the Mede Empire, and was also brother of Mandane, Cyrus the Great's mother. He describes the Persian Cyrus as cooperating with his uncle, Cyaxares, in order to conquer Babylon in 539 BC. However Cyaxares was by then an old man, and because Cyrus was in command of the campaign, the army came to regard Cyrus as king. Cyrus thus received not only the king's daughter (his first cousin), but his kingdom, as dowry, and the aged Cyaxares became Cyrus' viceroy in Babylon for two years until his death, when Cyrus seized that kingdom as well.

"4. That Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. Compare the statements in (Prophets and Kings 523, 556, 557) concerning Cyrus as the nephew and general of Darius with Xenophon’s claim that (1) Cyrus, Astyages’ grandson through his mother Mandane, had become acquainted with his uncle Cyaxares during the years Cyrus spent at the court of his Median grandfather (Cyropaedia i. 3. 1; 4. 1, 6–9, 20–22; 5. 2) ; (2) that Cyaxares followed his father on the throne as king of Media, after the latter’s death (i. 5. 2); (3) that when Cyrus had conquered Babylon he visited his uncle with gifts and offered him a palace in Babylon; that Cyaxares accepted the presents, and gave Cyrus his daughter as well as the kingdom (viii. 5. 17–20). Although the details of the story as given by Xenophon cannot be accepted, it is possible that the Greek writer preserves correctly the tradition that Cyaxares was the last Median ruler, and that he was Cyrus’ father-in-law as well as an intimate friend of the great Persian. If these points can be accepted as historical facts, it can be assumed that Cyrus, upon rebelling against Astyages, permitted Cyaxares to rule as a shadow king to please the Medes. At the same time everyone in the kingdom would know that the actual sovereign was Cyrus, and that Cyaxares was a mere figurehead. In that case Darius the Mede may be identified with Cyaxares II, who, presumably, had come to Babylon at Cyrus’ invitation to act in an honorary capacity as king. That Cyaxares II was advanced in age at the time of the fall of Babylon can be shown as follows, assuming Xenophon to be correct: Cyaxares II was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Cyrus himself was most likely at least 40 years old at the time, as is evident from the fact that his son, Cambyses, was mature enough to represent him in an official position during the next New Year’s Day activities. Hence Cyaxares II could have been 62 years old at the fall of Babylon, the age Daniel assigned to Darius the Mede. His comparatively advanced age—in a time when most people died young—may have been responsible for the fact that he did not survive the fall of Babylon very long. This would explain why Daniel mentions only his first regnal year. Xenophon reports nothing further concerning Cyaxares shortly after the conquest of Babylon. Daniel’s statement that Darius was the “son” of Ahasuerus should probably be understood as meaning that he was the “grandson” of Ahasuerus. That the Hebrew word for “son” may mean “grandson,” or an even more remote descendant, can be abundantly demonstrated (see on 2 Kings 8:26). The English form Ahasuerus is from the Heb. ’Achashwerosh, which might possibly be a rendering of Uvaxshtrah, the Old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, but not of Astyages. If after his arrival at Babylon, Darius became a special friend of Daniel’s, it is understandable that the prophet would date the visions received during this brief reign in terms of Darius’ regnal years ( Daniel chs. 9:1; 11:1), rather than of the regnal years of Cyrus. However, after the one year credited to Darius, Daniel dated events in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign (Daniel chs. 1:21; 10:1). Contemporary evidence that might shed light on this reconstruction of the history of Cyaxares II is ambiguous and meager. There is a possible reference to Cyaxares in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Since it is certain that Gubaru lived for many years after the conquest of Babylon, whereas Ugbaru died soon after, and a state mourning was provided for some high personage during the same month, it may be possible to see Cyaxares II in the Ugbaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Or, the name of Cyaxares may have been in the broken line which speaks about the death of a distinguished individual for whom a nationwide mourning was held. However, there seems to be an error in the first mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Either the name Ugbaru is a scribal error for Gubaru, or the title “governor of Gutium” was by mistake transferred by the author of the tablet from Gubaru to Ugbaru. A second possible piece of contemporary evidence may lie in the double mention of a Cyaxares in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (on the Behistun inscription see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110). Among the several pretenders to the throne against whom Darius I fought were two who claimed to be of the family of Cyaxares. The Cyaxares in question may have been either Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, or possibly Cyaxares II, the father-in-law of Cyrus, and last shadow king of Media. The foregoing summary makes evident that there are still many obscure factors in the solution of the problem of identifying Darius the Mede from historical and archeological sources. All things considered, however, this commentary favors the fouth view."

Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series),

Historia Augusta, Hadrian refrences Christians, In a letter

I'm not even gonna go into the fact that the Historia Augusta's historical reliability is questionable.

The following passage is about a letter written by the Emperor Hadrian which certain Atheistic scholars use to make a certain point, please read it in context.

For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen, boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, en [sic] in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

       From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

Again, make sure you've read this without any preconceived notions before I go on.
.
.
.
.


Now, here is how this is used by many modern Skeptics.

"Followers of Serapis were called Christians as demonstrated in a letter from Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, 134. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)".

The implied message being that before Christianity even existed the word "Christian" was a term for worshipers of Serapis in Alexandria, and how that becomes a term for followers of a Jewish Messiah varies but you get the point, it's another one of those Christ Myth theories.

Now, how many people reading the above citation without any bias or preconceived notions got that from the letter itself?????

If even one person did I'd be genuinely shocked.

Hadrian is clearly criticizing the way in Alexandria various distinct Religious traditions become mixed up together. Serapians act like Christians and Christians act like Serapians. And Christians are clearly placed with the Jews and Samaritans as people whose religious laws are supposed to be against the kinds of occult activities they were engaging it.

Does it contradict what the Bible implies about our History that Christians in Alexandria were doing this? No, The Bible warms about bad doctrines already popping up before it was even finished. And the problem of Christians engaging in Pagan rites they shouldn't be is addressed in Jesus message to the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamos.  Pergamos interestingly also had a Temple to Serapis as I noted here.

I'm sure there was a remnant of good Christians in Alexandria not doing this that Hadrian wasn't aware of, but that's besides the point, it shouldn't surprise Christians at all that this went on.

The alleged silence of Theophilus of Antioch

Atheists sometimes say that "Theophilus of Antioch wrote a

History of the Wold from Adam to Marcus Aurelius and failed to mention Jesus" and they do this as evidence of Jesus not being historical.

All this is manipulative, his history isn't "Detailed" as sometimes described at all, it's not even a historical work, it makes up part of Volume 3 of Apologia ad Autolycum. You can read it online here.

He uses this chronology to prove that Moses and the other Hebrew prophets preceded the philosophers. The leading chronological epochs correspond to the Old Testament prophets. It's OT figures he's primarily concerned with. Only reason it can be said to go to Marcus Aurelius is because of the dating information he uses in chapters 27&28

CHAP. XXVII.--ROMAN CHRONOLOGY TO THE DEATH OF M. AURELIUS.

    When Cyrus, then, had reigned twenty-nine years, and had been slain by Tomyris in the country of the Massagetae, this being in the 62d Olympiad, then the Romans began to increase in power, God strengthening them, Rome having been rounded by Romulus, the reputed child of Mars and Ilia, in the 7th Olympiad, on the 21st day of April, the year being then reckoned as consisting of ten months. Cyrus, then, having died, as we have already said, in the 62d Olympiad, this date falls 220 A.V.C., in which year also Tarquinius, surnamed Superbus, reigned over the Romans, who was the first who banished Romans and corrupted the youth, and made eunuchs of the citizens, and, moreover, first defiled virgins, and then gave them in

marriage. On this account he was fitly called Superbus in the Roman language, and that is translated "the Proud." For he first decreed that those who saluted him should have their salute acknowledged by some one else. He reigned twenty-five years. After him yearly consuls were introduced, tribunes also and ediles for 453 years, whose names we consider it long and superfluous to recount. For if any one is anxious to learn them, he will ascertain them from the tables which Chryserus the nomenclator compiled: he was a freedman of Aurelius Verus, who composed a very lucid record of all things, both names and dates, from the rounding of Rome to the death of his own patron, the Emperor Verus. The annual magistrates ruled the Romans, as we say, for 453 years. Afterwards those who are called emperors began in this order: first, Caius Julius, who reigned 3 years 4 months 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years 4 months 1 day; Tiberius, 22 years; then another Caius, 3 years 8 months 7 days; Claudius, 23 years 8 months 24 days; Nero, 13 years 6 months 58 days; Galba, 2 years 7 months 6 days; Otho, 3 months 5 days; Vitellius, 6 months 52 days; Vespasian, 9 years 11 months 55 days; Titus, 2 years 22 days; Domitian, 15 years 5 months 6 days; Nerva, 1 year 4 months 10 days; Trajan, 19 years 6 months 16 days; Adrian, 20 years 10 months 28 days; Antoninus, 22 years 7 months 6 days; Verus, 19 years 10 days. The time therefore of the Caesars to the death of the Emperor Verus is 237 years 5 days. From the death of Cyrus, therefore, and the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, to the death of the Emperor Verus, the whole time amounts to 744 years.     CHAP. XXVIII.--LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS.     And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

 (He disagrees with most sources on the Reign of Galba interestingly.)

So they describe it as though it's a comprehensive History like Jospehus, but it's really only a brief discussion designed to tie OT history to then contemporary historical dates.

Yet the simple fact that he didn't stop and give any little footnotes for the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius saying "This is when Jesus lived", is taken as proof he was unfamiliar with a Historical Jesus.  Kind of ridiculous don't ya think?

Now elsewhere in this same work, in Volume II Chapter 22 he says.

CHAP. XXII.--WHY GOD IS SAID TO HAVE WALKED.

    You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

 He quotes John's Gospel, so he clearly wasn't ignorant of the historical person of Jesus.

More Wikipedia BS attacking The Bible

Though from the point of view of an increasing majority of archaeologists, there were always two distinct cultures in Canaan, a strong and prosperous northern kingdom and a weaker and poorer southern one,  in the Biblical account the Israelite tribes were initially united in a single kingdom, and only later fractured into the northern and southern kingdoms; this fracture is blamed by the Bible on the jealousy of Ephraim over the growing power of Judah.

This is a massive over simplification of the Biblical Narrative.  It ignores the Judges period where the various Northern Tribes and Judah are all very distinct.  As well as the division between north and south during the first 7 years of David’s reign.  The Judges period also tended to have the dominant leaders be northern, coming from Ephraim or Manasseh.

The Census of Luke 2

Is a problem to chronology only if you forget Luke was written in Greek not Latin.  Syria in classical Greek writings often refers to more then just the Roman province given that name, same as Asia, Africa and Libya did.  It often included modern Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and parts of Modern Turkey like Commenge and Cilicia specifically.

The word translated Governor here (Hegemoneuo Strongs#2230) is first NOT whatever his actual Roman title was, but a Greek word, and 2nd it’s not even a Noun hence not even a title, it’s a Verb which means “to rule, command”.  A more accurate translation could conceivably be “Was Governing in Syria”.  The word is used in Luke and Acts for Pilate (Who was Prefect, never a title Quirinus held) and other latter Roman Procurators.

Josephus mentioned that actually there were “governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus.  (Josephus, Antiquities XVI.280, 285, 357, 361.)  While during the governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus, Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), (Josephus, Antiquities XVII.89.) but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural “governors”?

From about 5-3 BC or 12-1 BC Quirinus was leading a military campaign in Galatia and Cilicia against the Homonadenses, we’re not certain what title he held while doing this, but either way he would have qualified as a “Governing in Syria” at this time.  Quirinus was rector or adviser to Gaius Caesar when holding Armenia (Tacitus, Ann. 3:48).  The nearness of Syria to Armenia was probably a reason for choosing Qurinus, Syria’s governor, to be the young prince’s adviser.

Based on what Josephus says of the History surrounding Herod’s death, the Legate of Syria at the time I date the Nativity was Saturninus (Agreeing with Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, ch.8.) And Varus at the time The Magi came to Jerusalem.  Quirinius’ war against the Homonadenses, for which Tacitus singled him out for praise, has been called a “special command.” ( Hugh Last, quoted by Rice Holmes in “Architect of the Roman Empire,” II.89, note 1.)  This status is also reflected in an inscription which mentions Quirinius “as holding an honorary municipal office at Antioch-by-Pisidia.” (Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 165.) And it was certainly a special command for Quirinius when he became rector of the young Gaius Caesar when Gaius acquired residential authority at Antioch over the eastern provinces in A.D. 1. (Tacitus, Annals, III.48.)  Gaius was probably not strictly called the governor of Syria at the time (C.E. 1 to 4) and it may well be that Quirinius was responsible for running the everyday affairs of government.

Tacitus said that Quirinius was one having “considerable talents for business.” This could account for his selection as being “guardian” of Gaius who was the heir to the Empire.  Quirinius already had experience in Syria by administering the censuses Tertullian talked about in 3/2 B.C. which took place during the time when Saturninus was governor. All these references indicate special commands for Quirinius throughout his entire governmental career. There are other historical records about Quirinius which show his special assignments.

Luke mentions Herod at this time just like Matthew does, if Luke had the 6 AD Census in mind he’d have also mentioned Coponius who was appointed at that same time and was far more relevant to Judea directly. 

Census is another example of a term often used more loosely by some then others, none of the normal Roman Censuses happen in 3 or 2 BC when I date the Nativity, but isn’t the context Luke implies itself Abnormal?  Luke implies an Empire wide event, the 6 AD Census was Local only.

2 BC marked the 750th Anniversary of Rome’s founding according to Roman Tradition, as well as the 25th Anniversary of Octavian being proclaimed Augustus.  On February 5, 2BC, the Senate and the people of Rome awarded him the highest of all decorations: Pater Patriae (Father of the Country).  In preparation for this the previous year an “Oath of Obedience” to Augustus was carried out.  Such an Oath could have by some fit the basic definition of a Census.

Josephus mentioned that an oath of allegiance was demanded by Augustus about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod [Antiquities, XVII, 41-45 “There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women {of Herod’s court}. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear. The king laid a fine upon them. Pheroras’ wife {Herod’s sister-in-law} paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness {for they were supposed, by their great intimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of prophecy}, prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her and Pheroras and their children. Salome {Herod’s sister}, who was aware of all that was being said, came and told the king of them. She also told him that many of the court {of Herod} were corrupted by them. Then the king put to death the most guilty of the Pharisees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, the most beautiful young man about the court, and the great instrument in the king’s unlawful pleasures. He {Herod} likewise slew everyone in his own family, who adhered to those things which were said by the Pharisee. But Bagoas had been elevated by them and was told that he should someday be called father and benefactor of the {new} king, who was to be appointed according to their prediction, for this king would have all things in his power, and that he {the king} would give him {Bogoas} the capacity of marriage, and of having children of his own”].

Herod's Death is often miss-dated, I’m not go into that in detail here, but he died in January of 1 BC, not in 4 BC.  4 B.C. is the year his killed his Eldest son and his remaining Sons where appointed their various Tetrachies, causing the confusion since their reigns are dated from then.

15 months before gives us October of 3 BC, since people would have been given advance warning, it’s easy to see this putting Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem on September 11th 3 BC, the 1st of Tishri that year and thus the day I believe Jesus was born.  And on that day Jupiter was in Conjunction in Regulus the brightest Star of the Constellation Leo The Lion, a very rare Astronomical event, that Astrologers would easily have interpreted as making the Birth of a King, since both that Planet and that Constellation are affiliated with Kingship, and in Hebrew terms The Lion is Judah.

*A breviarium of the empire was ordered by Augustus (Tacitus, Annals 1:11), giving a return of its population and resources.
*An inscription with such an oath of obedience has been found in Paphlagonia, and is clearly dated to 3BC [Lewis & Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. II, pps. 34 and 35, Harper Torchbooks Edition has these words, “taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them”, and importantly, the whole of the population were required to swear it: “The same oath was sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts”].
*Augustus received his most prestigious title, the Pater Patriae, on February 5, 2BC, and wrote of it in his Res Gestae: “While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country” [VI, 35].
*Official censuses involving taxation took place every 20 years (in 28BC and 8BC), but the next official census was in 14AD, which was 21 years after 8BC and not 20 as one would expect. Could it be that 2BC was dropped out of the yearly taxation in celebration of Augustus’ Silver Jubilee?
*The year 2BC, however, was reckoned so glorious a new beginning for Augustus and Rome that the imperial taxation and evaluation ceased during that year if people would give their oath of allegiance to Augustus as their Pater Patriae and universal lord. This could well be the case and explain the 1-year discrepancy (by the way, every five years there was a registration which updated individual Roman citizenship, and these archives were kept in their own native cities or other important “Roman centers” throughout the Empire [see Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pps. 147ff]).
*  Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 BC.
 *The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Osroene (3BC), the census brought Roman agents “to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple” [History of the Armenians, trans. R.W. Thomson, Book II, 26].

The Crucifixion happened in 30 AD

30 AD I believe is the year of the Death and Resurrection of Yeshua of Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ. At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Vinicius and Longinus (or, less frequently, year 783 Ab urbe condita). I'm aware 33 AD is a more common date to cite, so I'm going to explain all the reasons I favor 30 AD. I won't bring Daniel's 70 weeks into it, in order for the Prophetic significance of that to be impressive we must prove independently that it points to the same date, so I'll do address that in a separate study.

The first chronological mistake made in dealing with the time of Jesus is how people read Luke 3. It does not date when Jesus "Began to be about 30 years old" to the 15th year of Tiberius, it dates his Baptism and 40 days in the Wilderness to when he was "about 30". And it dates the beginning of John The Baptist's ministry to the "15th year of Tiberius". People tend to assume those two events were very close to each other, but Acts 13 says John "completed his course" before Jesus came to be Baptized. The 15th year of Tiberius is usually assumed to be dating from the death of Augustus in August of 14 AD. But Augustus had effectively made Tiberius co-ruler in 12 AD after his return from Germania. If we count from that then 26-27 AD was the 15th year of Tiberius.

The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last being the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.

So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptics Gospels do not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus' Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.

John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's presented as his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period of time.

What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the Scribes Pharisees Pharisees and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2 or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days) in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it, but my point here is it's presented as something He said recently.

So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less.  And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself.

"Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovations of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D.  Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.

Even John 6 might actually have the same Passover season in mind, since the preparation for Passover in a sense begins an entire 30 days before in Rabbinic custom, around Purim. And in John 6 they're not in Jerusalem yer.  But that could go either way for my current theory to work.  John 6 is either the 30 or 29 AD Passover.

--Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero". Nero became Emperor in 55 A.D.

What else can give further support to 30 AD? In the Talmud Yoma 39b it says

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

40 years before The Temple's destruction takes us to 30 AD The reference to Johanan ben Zakkai confirms this is the second destruction, not the first.  Why link the beginning of this period to the Crucifixion?  Because the Veil was torn when Jesus died.

On the Roman calendar calendaryears were always named after the Consuls at the year's start. The solider who pierced the side of Christ came to be named Longinus in extra Biblical tradition. It is often explained as only a pun on the Greek word for spear John used, Logche (long'-khay). But Longinus was a real Roman name, as a family name of the Cassius who killed Caesar, so that Longinus's feast day in Catholic tradition becomes the 15th of March is interesting. The Longinus who was Consul for 30 AD was a great Nephew of the killer of Caesar, however a direct descentent of him became Suffect Consul later in the year. Perhaps the name became linked to the Crucifixion because it was linked to the year it happened.