Passion week

The passion week is dated from the time that Jesus arrives in Bethany. John tells us that this was 6 days before the Passover.

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. (Joh 11:55–12:2)

This raises several questions. What day does John mean by Passover? And is he using inclusive or exclusive reckoning?

We know that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, and was raised after the Sabbath, that is, on Sunday prior to dawn. It was likely that the Jewish new day began at dusk in the first century. The Last Supper was a Passover meal eaten on Thursday after dusk; the lambs were sacrificed on the Thursday afternoon.

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (Luk 22:7–15).

Now John also states that the washing of the disciples feet occurred during the time of the Last Supper. John writes,

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. (Joh 13:1–5).

I have previously argued that the feast on the Friday is distinct from the Passover meal on the Thursday. John also tells us that the Jews did not wish to defile themselves on Friday morning so that they could eat the Passover.

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (Joh 18:28)

Again John is referring to a Friday feast which follows the Passover meal that occurred the night before when they ate the lamb. Though this does not necessary tell us what day John is referring to in 12:1.

Luke says the day of Unleavened Bread (which is the Passover), when the lamb was sacrificed, was Thursday (Luk 22:7). Matthew and Mark say that this day (Thursday) is the first day of Unleavened Bread. When John refers to Passover in 12:1 he may be referring to this day, ie. the Wednesday-Thursday, but it is more likely that he is referring to the Thursday-Friday. If the feast were after sunset on the Friday then it would be the Friday-Saturday, though that is the Sabbath.

So the terminius ad quem for John's 6 days before Passover is probably the Jewish day beginning Thursday at sunset which goes through to Friday sunset; the middle columns in the table. A day later if John is referencing the Passover Feast and if this occurred after sunset; this seems less likely.

Day	Event	Inclusive days prior			Exclusive days prior
		# days	# days	# days	# days	# days	# days
Thursday-Friday					6
Friday-Saturday	Sabbath	6			5	6
Saturday-Sunday		5	6		4	5	6
Sunday-Monday		4	5	6	3	4	5
Monday-Tuesday		3	4	5	2	3	4
Tuesday-Wednesday		2	3	4	1	2	3
Wednesday-Thursday	Passover daytime	1	2	3	0	1	2
Thursday-Friday	Passover meal evening		1	2		0	1
Friday-Saturday	Sabbath, Unleavened Feast			1			0

If John is using inclusive reckoning, 6 days before Passover is from Saturday sunset to Sunday sunset. If exclusive reckoning then 1 day earlier.

Inclusive reckoning is more likely. The 3 days of Jesus in the grave are inclusive. Matthew and Mark both write that the Passover is in 2 days (Mat 26:2; Mar 14:1) though is is unclear whether they mean the following daytime (1 day), or the Passover meal after sunset the next day (2 days). So Jesus probably arrived in Bethany on the Sunday prior to sunset, 6 inclusive days before the Passover lambs were slaughtered on Thursday before sunset.

They gave a dinner for Jesus and Mary anointed him (Joh 12:2-3).

The next day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it. (Joh 12:12–14)

This is during daylight hours, thus would be the Monday. Though traditionally the church celebrates this as Palm Sunday.

Mark states that Jesus looked around the temple that day, but returned to Bethany because the hour was late (Mar 11:11).

The next day (Mar 11:12), the Tuesday, Jesus returned to Jerusalem. He cursed the fig tree as he departed Bethany. When he got to Jerusalem he entered the temple and threw out those buying and selling, overturning the tables of the money changers and sellers of doves.

Jesus returned to Bethany that evening and came back into Jerusalem on the Wednesday morning. At that time the disciples saw the cursed fig tree (Mar 11:20).

During his time in Jerusalem Jesus does a lot of teaching.

And he was teaching daily in the temple. (Luk 19:47).

The synoptic gospels do not lay out a strict chronology.

On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel (Luk 20:1 NASB).

John mentions events over these days without clear chronological references.

Events during these days include:

• Parables: Ten virgins; Talents; Tenant farmers in the vineyard; Wedding banquet; Sheep and goats;
• Interaction with leaders: Jesus' authority questioned; Marriage and the resurrection; Paying taxes to Caesar; Seven woes; Greatest commandment; Christ is David's son and Lord; Widow's offering
• Olivet Discourse

Thursday was the day that the lambs were being sacrificed for the Passover meal. Jesus sent his disciples into Jerusalem to meet a certain man and prepare the meal. That evening, the next day, Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples.

The following day was the Passover Feast, that is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This was the day that Jesus was crucified: Good Friday.

Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Israelites

The documentary Patterns of Evidence uses the principle of finding similarities between events which must be synchronous, rather than trying to patch events that historians happen to think occurred about the same time. Findings in Egypt and Canaan that match the biblical record are identified. The movie discusses the epoch of Joseph, of Moses, and Joshua; matching archeological discoveries in Avaris and Jericho to the events in Scripture. Much of the documentary follows the chronology of David Rohl.

Egyptian chronology is divided into

1. Old Kingdom
2. First Intermediate Period
3. Middle Kingdom
4. Second Intermediate Period
5. New Kingdom

Following Rohl, but using biblical dating we have

1. Pharaoh who Joseph served: Amenemhat III, Dynasty 12, c. 1675 BC
2. Vizier of Amenemhat: Joseph c. 1675
3. Joseph dies c. 1600 BC
4. King who did not know Joseph: Sobekhotep III, Dynasty 13, c. 1550 BC
5. Adoptive grandfather of Moses: Neferhotep I, Dynasty 13, c. 1530
6. Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian: Khanefere Sebekhotep IV (brother and successor of Neferhotep), Dynasty 13, c. 1490 BC
7. Pharaoh of the Exodus: Tutimaeus = Dedumose II, Dynasty 13, c. 1450 BC
8. Hyksos invasion and the beginning of the second Intermediate Period, c. 1450 BC

This compares to secular dating of these pharaohs c. 1850–1650 BC; a 200 year difference.

There have been a range of suggestions for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But it seems likely that the time that the Israelites were in Egypt corresponds to part or all of the Middle kingdom: Dynasties 11, 12 and 13. Dynasties 12 and 13 collapsed at the time of the Exodus and the Middle Kingdom came to an end. Then begins the rule of the Hyksos who rapidly conquered Egypt who had been bereft of her king and army.

The post-exilic chronology. Part 5: Other support for the sequential reconstruction of Ezra-Nehemiah

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

There are several other lines of evidence that point to the revised sequential reconstruction.

The table below contrasts the common and the sequential reconstructions. The year is referenced to Cyrus' first year as king over Babylon.

Event	Common	Sequential	Reference
Jews return to Jerusalem	1	1	Ezr 1
Work begins on the temple. Foundation laid.	2	2	Ezr 3
Opposition to building	2	2	Ezr 4
Letter to Ahasuerus	53–75	?9–16	Ezr 4
Letter to Artaxerxes	75–116	?9–17	Ezr 4
Darius' 1st year	18	18
Temple building resumes (Darius' 2nd year)	19	19	Ezr 6
Temple completed (Darius' 6th year)	23	23	Ezr 6
Artaxerxes 1st year	75	(18)
Ezra returns to Jerusalem	81	24	Ezr 7
Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem (Artaxerxes 20th year)	94	37	Neh 2
Wall completed	94	?37–49	Neh 6
Nehemiah returns to Babylon (Artaxerxes 32nd year)	106	49	Neh 5, 13

The difference is significant. Note the variable sequences in the two reconstructions and the timeframes varying by up to 50 years. There is also disagreement over the identity of kings.

Other material from Ezra and Nehemiah fit the revised version better. This could also be said about parts of the book of Daniel.

The aspects I wish to cover here are

1. The people opposing rebuilding
2. The high priest line
3. The mention of Darius the Persian
4. Daniel's prophecy of the rebuilding

Rebuilding
People oppose the rebuilding on more than one occasion. That they are different times is seen by the names of the people conflicting with the Jews. There are different persons who are in opposition to the building or who send letters to the king.

In the time of Artaxerxes (Ezr 4) there is a letter written by Rehum and others objecting to the building of the city. In the 2nd year of Darius (Ezr 6) there is a request by Tattenai concerning Cyrus' decree. And in the 20th year or Artaxerxes—whom I identify as Darius—there is opposition from Sanballat and Tobiah. None of these names overlap which suggests that these are distinct events. This may not count as discriminatory evidence between the 2 reconstructions, though the lack of mention of Sanballat or Tobiah in the letter to Artaxerxes (Ezr 4) suggests that if the common reconstruction is followed, the letter was early in Artaxerxes reign.

King	Opponents	Reference
Artaxerxes	Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their associates. Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates.	Ezr 4
Darius	Tattenai the governor, Shethar-bozenai, and his associates.	Ezr 6
Artaxerxes	Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite servant. Geshem the Arab	Neh 2, 4

High priest genealogy
The high priest family line is helpful as it may give a rough indication of whether the times proposed by the various reconstructions are feasible. Jeshua (Joshua) son of Jehozadak was the high priest at the time of Ezra's return. Nehemiah gives a list of priests at the time of Zerrubbabel's return which includes Jeshua who returned with Zerubbabel (Erz 2:2). Nehemiah then gives a list of Levites and then he lists Jeshua's descendants.

Jeshua was the father of Joiakim, Joiakim the father of Eliashib, Eliashib the father of Joiada, Joiada the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan the father of Jaddua. (Neh 12:10–11)

That is

1. Jeshua
2. Joiakim
3. Eliashib
4. Joiada
5. Jonathan (?Johanan)
6. Jaddua

Nehemiah goes on to specify a list of priests during the time of Joiakim.

And in the days of Joiakim were priests, heads of fathers’ houses (Ne 12:12)

Among the list is Zechariah son of Iddo. Zechariah's first oracle was during the second year of Darius.

Nehemiah then states that

The family heads of the Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan and Jaddua, as well as those of the priests, were recorded in the reign of Darius the Persian. The family heads among the descendants of Levi up to the time of Johanan son of Eliashib were recorded in the book of the annals. And the leaders of the Levites were Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua son of Kadmiel, and their associates, who stood opposite them to give praise and thanksgiving, one section responding to the other, as prescribed by David the man of God. 

Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon and Akkub were gatekeepers who guarded the storerooms at the gates. They served in the days of Joiakim son of Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest, the teacher of the Law. (Neh 12:22–26 NIV).

So there was documentation of the Levites in the days of Eliashib and his descendants. And specifically in the Book of the Annals from Eliashib to Johanan.

And the gatekeepers served during the time of Joiakim, Nehemiah, and Ezra.

Further, Eliashib the high priest helped fix the wall in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:1).

So

1. Jeshua son of Jehozadak returns with Zerubbabel
2. Zechariah son of Iddo is the head of a priestly family during the time of Joiakim
3. Zechariah's first oracle is in second year of Darius
4. The gatekeepers serve in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua (Joiakim is possibly the high priest)
5. The gatekeepers serve in the time of Ezra
6. The gatekeepers serve in the time of Nehemiah
7. Eliashib son of Joiakim helps repair the Sheep gate in the time of Nehemiah.

We know from Zechariah that Jeshua was the high priest in the second year of Darius, year "19" of Cyrus. Zechariah was alive at the time of Joiakim at some time after that. The gatekeepers served at the time of Joiakim and Ezra and Nehemiah, and by implication, Zechariah. But also, that Eliashib was highpriest at the time the wall was being repaired.

Darius the Persian
In Nehemiah mention is made of Darius the Persian

In the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, the Levites were recorded as heads of fathers’ houses; and the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian. (Neh 12:22)

The structure of Nehemiah 12 is as follows

The time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua the highpriest, that is the time of the first return from Babylon. A list of priests then Levites.

Priests

These are the priests and the Levites who came up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: [list of priests]. These were the chiefs of the priests and of their brothers in the days of Jeshua.

Levites

And the Levites: [list of Levites].

Then there is the highpriest genealogy

And Jeshua was the father of Joiakim, Joiakim the father of Eliashib, Eliashib the father of Joiada, Joiada the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan the father of Jaddua.

Then there is the list of priests in the time of Joiakim the highpriest, the son of Jeshua who returned with Zerubbabel.

And in the days of Joiakim were priests, heads of fathers’ houses: [list of priests].

The Levites of the time of Joiakim are not yet mentioned, but it skips to the time of Eliashib the highpriest, and his descendants.

In the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, the Levites were recorded as heads of fathers’ houses; and the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian.

The Levites names were recorded during the time of these highpriests, but we are not given their names. But we are told that the names of the Levites during the first three of these highpriests are given elsewhere: Book of the Annals.

The sons of Levi, their heads of fathers’ houses were written in the Book of the Annals until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib.

The names of the priests are also recorded: the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian.

Then we return to the Levites (and gatekeepers) and what they were doing during the time of Joiakim. 

And the heads of the Levites: [list of Levites] to praise and to give thanks... watch by watch. [List of gatekeepers] were gatekeepers standing guard at the storehouses of the gates.

 This was during the time of Joiakim, the highpriest during the time of Nehemiah and Ezra.

These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra, the priest and scribe.

The highpriest at the time of the return was Jeshua. The next highpriest was Joiakim and he was contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah.

In summary Nehemiah 12 gives us a list of the priests and Levites at the time of Jeshua the highpriest at the time of the return. We then get a list of priests at the time of Joiakim and subsequently a list of Levites during his time. We get no list of priests or Levites for any subsequent highpriest. But the names of the heads of the father's houses, are recorded. Specifically the names of the Levites during the time of the 4 highpriests: Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua. And the names of the priests during the time of Darius the Persian.

This list demonstrates that Joiakim the highpriest after the return from exile was contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah. It is also suggestive there was a Darius the Persian who was reigning at the time of Eliashib the highpriest.

Daniel's prophecy of the rebuilding

During prayer Gabriel appeared to Daniel and said,

70 sevens are decreed for your people and for your holy city: to finish the transgression and to seal up sin and to atone for guilt and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal vision and prophet and to anoint a holy of holies. Now know and understand: from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince—7 sevens and 62 sevens; it will be built again with streets and a moat, but in troubled times. And after the 62 sevens an anointed one shall be cut off, and he shall have nothing, and the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of the coming prince, and its end will be with the flood and to the end there shall be war; these desolations are determined. (Dan 9:24-26)

Now there is some difficulty translating this. Options include

from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince—7 sevens and 62 sevens; it will be built again with streets and a moat, but in troubled times. And after the 62 sevens...

and

from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince—7 sevens. And [during] 62 sevens it will be built again with streets and a moat, but in troubled times. And after the 62 sevens...

The first option suggests that the 7 sevens is the time until Jerusalem is rebuilt: that is 49 years, and the anointed one appears after a further 434 years. The second option implies that the anointed one comes after 49 years and Jerusalem would be built in the subsequent 434 years.

The Masoretic text implies a break between 7 sevens and 62 sevens which would favour the second translation. The problem with this is that Jerusalem would not start to be built until nearly 50 years after the decree. And also the the anointed one is cut off 434 years after he arrives.

If the first translation is more accurate then it takes 49 years from the decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Then 434 years until the anointed one. This is more in keeping with the fact that building the temple and restoring the city occurred soon after the decree of Cyrus to return to Jerusalem.

In the common reconstruction we have work beginning on the temple within 2 years of the decree (Ezra 3:8). Opposition to the building of the city ~80 years after the decree and the completion of the wall within 100 years. In the sequential reconstruction we have work beginning on the temple within 2 years and the city shortly after. Opposition to the building of the city occurs and there is a decree to cease. The Jews start further work on the temple and send a request to continue. Subsequent to the temple completion the city is rebuilt and Nehemiah returns to rebuild the walls. Nehemiah finishes the wall by 49 years after the decree and returns to Babylon in the 49th year after the initial decree. Gabriel's word to Daniel is more consistent with the sequential chronology of Ezra/ Nehemiah.

Referencing day counts in Acts

Acts gives a good example of inclusive reckoning of days when reporting Peter's visit to Cornelius. After Cornelius's vision of an angel he sends messengers to Peter who returns with them to preach the gospel. Note the day count in Acts 10.

Day	A	B	C	D
Event	Cornelius's vision	Peter's vision	Leave Joppa	Arrive Caesarea
Comment	About the 9th hour of the day	The next day	The next day	the following day
Reference	10:3	10:9	10:23	10:24
Exclusive reckoning	0	1	2	3
Inclusive reckoning	1	2	3	4
Example	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday

All the days are accounted for from the time Cornelius first saw the vision. Peter talks with Cornelius about the same time of day as when Cornelius first saw the vision—the 9th hour.

About the 9th hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius."

"4 days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the 9th hour, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing..."

Our culture uses exclusive reckoning. Let's say Day A was a Monday. When referencing Monday we would say

• on Tuesday: yesterday or 1 day ago;
• on Wednesday: the other day (though this is non-specific) or 2 days ago; and
• on Thursday: 3 days ago.

But Cornelius says 4 days ago. This means the counting starts with 1 not 0 in this instance. Presumably the use of "next day" and "following day" allows for "previous day" ie. yesterday. Referencing Monday we have

• on Tuesday: previous day;
• on Wednesday: 3 days ago; and
• on Thursday: 4 days ago.

This is a legitimate way of numbering days. However I am not certain that this is a consistent feature when referencing days, months and years throughout the Bible. Compare Mark and Luke.

And after 6 days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. (Mark 9:2)

Now about 8 days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. (Luke 9:28)

The important thing is to be aware of it and allow for variable accounting of time in Scripture.

Jude and 2 Peter

The similarities in content between the letters of Jude and 2 Peter are well known.

Further, some dispute that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the same individual due to differences in vocabulary, grammar, and style.

In his Redating the New Testament Robinson makes an argument that Peter's comment about his departure (2Pe 1:15) references a literal departure from a region rather than his impending death. He also notes that Jude takes off from writing another letter to mention other urgent issues (Jud 1:3). Further 2 Peter makes mention of an earlier letter. Johnson argues that if Jude was Peter's agent in writing the letter of 2 Peter then the "I" of 2 Peter 3:1 refers to Jude and not Peter; and the letter Jude left off to write the Epistle of Jude was the letter he was writing for Peter. Consequently he dates both Jude and 2 Peter early and makes 2 Peter antedate 1 Peter!

I think the reconstruction by Robinson is faulty. The ESV translates Jude 1:3 thus,

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

This does not require leaving off another actual letter, rather that the circumstances require that Jude's original topic needs to be deferred by reason of more urgent matters.

Further, Peter's departure is clearly his death,

Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. (2Pe 1:12-15)

But if the similarity of style between Jude and 2 Peter remains strong this could have authorship implications. There is clearly similarity of topic such that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude or vice versa (or both dependent on a common source). But there are enough differences to suggest borrowing of concepts rather than a quotation. If the same author wrote both Jude and 2 Peter this would both explain the similarity and allow for the variation of a person writing about the same topic on different occasions.

Assuming this solution, which was written first? It seems to me that the better style would reflect the later version and I will need to defer to Greek readers as to whether Jude or 2 Peter is more polished (at least in the parts of the letters that overlap). If, however, Jude was writing 2 Peter very near the end of Peter's life, were Jude to write a second letter to another church in the months following Peter's martyrdom to warn of the same dangers, he would write in his own name.

Further, Jude's reference to being James' brother means Jude was likely written prior to James' death c. 69*.

Interestingly, Jude is thought to be less likely to be pseudonymous than 2 Peter because why would an anonymous author attach the name "Jude" of all options? Only Jude would use Jude. However, if Jude also wrote 2 Peter as an amanuensis it would increase the authenticity of 2 Peter as Jude had no reason to attach Peter's name unless Peter were the author. Were Jude to falsely add Peter's name to 2 Peter then why would he write a different letter in his own name?

If we accept that Jude was the amanuensis for 2 Peter then he subsequently wrote his letter after Peter's death, then 2 Peter and Jude would be written c. 64†.

---

*This is dispute concerning when James was put to death. It may have been as early as 62.
†Peter was put to death during Nero's reign 54–68. Exact date is uncertain but c. 64–67.

Kings of the divided kingdom

When Rehoboam became king of Israel the northern tribes rebelled and followed Jeroboam. The kingdom remained split. The northern kingdom was subsequently exiled to Assyria. The southern kingdom was exiled to Babylon about 150 years later.

The southern kingdom is referred to as Judah and it included the tribe of Benjamin and some of Levi. Through the book of Chronicles it is often referred to as Israel.

The northern kingdom incorporated the other tribes and was referred to as Israel or Ephraim after the largest tribe. Ephraim is a half tribe of Joseph.

#	King of Judah	King of Israel
1	Rehoboam	Jeroboam
2	Abijah	Nadab
3	Asa	Baasha
4	Jehoshaphat	Elah
5	Jehoram	Zimri
6	Ahaziah	Tibni/ Omri
7	Athaliah	Omri
8	Joash	Ahab
9	Amaziah	Ahaziah
10	Azariah (Uzziah)	Joram
11	Jotham	Jehu
12	Ahaz	Jehoahaz
13	Hezekiah	Jehoash
14	Manasseh	Jeroboam
15	Amon	Zechariah
16	Josiah	Shallum
17	Jehoahaz	Menahem
18	Jehoiakim	Pekahiah
19	Jehoiachin	Pekah
20	Zedekiah	Hoshea

The list above does note correspond chronologically between Judah and Israel.

Judah had 19 kings. They were all sons or relatives of the previous king. Athaliah the queen mother usurped the throne and declared herself queen.

Israel had 20 (or 19) kings. There were several different dynasties. Note that Tibni and Omri ruled different regions of Israel until Omri defeated Tibni.

Israel lasted ~250 years until exile, Judah lasted ~400 years.

Passover Feast

John and the synoptic gospels discuss the death and resurrection of Jesus which occurred at the time of the Passover. The chronology around these events can be difficult to work out in part due to the use of the terms Passover, Passover Feast, and Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread was instituted at the time of Passover during the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Luke clearly states that the festivals are celebrated together

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. (Lk 22:1).

Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly state that the Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed on the (first) day of Unleavened Bread (Mat 26:17; Mar 14:12; Luk 22:7). The disciples asked Jesus where they were to eat the Passover during that same day and Jesus instructed them on his plans. The disciples prepared the Passover (Mar 14:16; Luk 22:13) and Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples that evening (Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17). This Passover meal that Jesus ate with his disciples became known as the Last Supper.

I have previously discussed the days of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The eating of the Passover with the disciples occurred on Thursday evening after sunset. It is thought that during the first century the Jews started a new day at sunset. This means that the Passover lamb is sacrificed during the day, and the Passover meal occurs after sunset which is the next day.

John uses different terminology to the synoptics. John mentions the Passover (pascha) several times in his gospel, though John never mentions the festival of Unleavened Bread (azymos).

Here are John's uses of the word "Passover" during Passion Week.

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. (Joh 11:55–12:2)

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. (Joh 13:1–5)

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (Joh 18:28)

After he [Pilate] had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” (Joh 18:38–39)

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” (Joh 19:14–15)

In describing the Last Supper John says, "Before the Feast of the Passover" (Joh 13:1).  It is not immediately clear what the Feast of the Passover refers to here. John may just mean that Jesus washed his disciples feet before the meal, though it appears that the washing occurred during the meal (Joh 13:4). It is interesting that John adds the word "feast" here. The synoptics referring to the Last Supper just say Passover. John says Passover elsewhere, but he uses the word "feast" in this context: that is they eat the Passover lamb before the feast. This suggests that John is referring to a separate meal.

In Leviticus God lists the feasts for the Israelites. Concerning Passover and Unleavened Bread we read,

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.” (Lev 23:5–8).

And in Numbers we read,

On the fourteenth day of the first month is the LORD’s Passover, and on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast. Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD. (Num 28:16–19).

Both Leviticus and Numbers specify a feast on the 15th day which is distinct from the Passover meal. There is a distinction in Leviticus between Passover and Unleavened Bread; yet they are both part of the same festival. And even though Numbers was written only several years later, by that time the phraseology had already become less distinct than Leviticus.

So it is likely that the Jews of the first century ate the Passover Lamb on the first day and had a feast on the next day, the day after the Passover lamb was eaten. And this latter meal is what John means by the term Passover Feast. This is especially so as the Passover meal was not a feast. It was a remembrance meal, a meal where God had specified a fixed menu.

At the time of Jesus' crucifixion the Passover meal was eaten on Thursday evening (after sunset) and there was to be a feast on Friday.

What day was Jesus crucified?

Exodus specifies when the passover lamb was to be eaten.

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.

“Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Exo 12:5-8)

And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever. In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening (Exo 12:17-18)

Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 likewise instruct the Hebrews concerning Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were intimately connected. Passover refers to the angel passing over the Israelite dwellings. Yet the lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread from the first day. God gave instructions about the passover lamb and the unleavened bread but the festival was a single festival. As such both the term "Passover" and the term "Feast of Unleavened Bread" were somewhat synonymous.

The synoptic gospels make it clear that the Passover was celebrated by Jesus and his disciples on Thursday evening which would have been Nisan 14. He was crucified on the Friday which was still Nisan 14 (sunset to sunset reckoning). The only difficulties with this position concern John's chronology and the term 3 days and 3 nights. I have argued that the latter phrase is an idiom. Were we to take this as a literal time frame of 72 hours we are left with the problem of Jesus rising on the third day.

Concerning John's chronology he writes

Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the governor’s residence. Now it was early, and they did not enter into the governor’s residence so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (Joh 18:28)

Now it was the day of preparation of the Passover (Joh 19:14)

Previously I have suggested that Day of Preparation is 6th day of the week, the day that the Jews prepare for the Sabbath. The phraseology sounds like it is a day for preparing for the Passover. However Passover is a synonymous with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Note how Luke says,

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover, was drawing near. (Luk 22:1)

It appears that John is using Passover to refer to the week long feast. Day of Preparation is our Friday. To paraphrase, John is saying that it was about the 6th hour on Friday of Passover week.

Is the Bible historical?

Modern history as a discipline makes certain demands on the source material although this is also somewhat dependant on the underlying philosophy that one subscribes to. As a word "history" refers to the events that antedate us.

Fundamentally history can be considered as a question of truth concerning the events of the past. Now all narrative is flavoured by the author, even if it is just that way certain events are placed adjacent or separate in the story which may suggest that a correlation is or is not causative. Further, as various histories differ, or change over time, some postmoderns have argued that we cannot know history at all.

Ignoring the epistemological question, the change over time reflects some aspects of history more than others. Consider World War 1. Various histories could debate what they thought were the predominant causes for that war depending on underlying presuppositions, and how they weigh the significance of various events; but all histories would agree that there was a war throughout Europe between 1914 and 1918.

So while historians are interested in the why, the events and dates of history often stand on firmer ground. As often stated, chronology is the backbone of history.

A couple of problems that one could have in analysing Scripture is the lack of corroborating material for some events, and the way that certain events are narrated.

As a question of truth, the narrative portions of the Bible are presented as historical fact. It is history in that sense, and it is unreasonable to ask tho ancients to write in a format that moderns have come to prefer.

As to the way events are narrated and God's involvement in history, many moderns have an anti-supernatural bias which may lead them to minimise or discount biblical narrative.

This brings us to the corroboration question. In many ways this is just a question of certainty: the more (independent) people who discuss an event, the greater our confidence in it. Though true, we can only work with what we have. It is faulty to think that lack of further sources call into question a source. Rather we can hold something tentatively or securely depending on what knowledge is to be had.

That said, there are some considerations with Scripture that speak to its veracity. Firstly, there are some corroborations external to Scripture that confirm what Scripture says; both written sources and archaeological reconstructions. Secondly, when an author is shown to be reliable in one area it is reasonable to think him reliable elsewhere. Thirdly, negative features suggest reliability. It is one thing to diss the foreigners, another to reveal the warts of your own people. The frank honesty of the authors of Scripture with regard to the failures of both the leaders and the citizens of Israel is unusual.

Was Revelation written under Domitian?

Domitian

Nero died in 68 and there were 3 contenders for the throne in quick succession. First Galba, then Otho. After Otho's suicide in April 69 supporters of Vitellius proclaimed him emperor and supporters of Vespasian in the Eastern provinces proclaimed him emperor. The Senate in Rome accepted Vitellius as emperor initially in mid 69 and conferred Vespasian as emperor in December 69. About that time Vespasian was in Egypt securing food for Rome and his son Titus was fighting the Roman-Jewish war. Vespasian's other son Domitian ruled in Rome and was aided by the general Mucianus after the general arrived in Rome. Domitian was 18 at the time and ruled for 6 months until Vespasian arrived in June 70. Domitian had full consular authority. Josephus writes

[Mucianus] then produced Domitian, and recommended him to the multitude, until his father [Vespasian] should come himself; so the people being now freed from their fears, made acclamations of joy for Vespasian, as for their emperor, and kept festival days for his confirmation, and for the destruction of Vitellius. (War of the Jews, book 4, chapter 11.4)

Cassius in his Roman History notes that both Domitian and Mucianus acted like they were emperors. The sarcastic letter from Vespasian to his son Domitian is amusing.

Thus Vespasian, like some others, had been born for the throne. While he was still absent in Egypt, Mucianus administered all the details of government with the help of Domitian. For Mucianus, who claimed that he had bestowed the sovereignty upon Vespasian, plumed himself greatly upon his honours, and especially because he was called brother by him, and had authority to transact any business that he wished without the emperor's express direction, and could issue written orders by merely adding the other's name. And for this purpose he wore a ring, that had been sent him so that he might impress the imperial seal upon documents requiring authorization. In fact, he and Domitian gave governorships and procuratorships to many and appointed prefect after prefect and even consuls. In short, they acted in every way so much like absolute rulers that Vespasian once sent the following message to Domitian: "I thank you, my son, for permitting me to hold office and that you have not yet dethroned me." (Roman History, book 75, chapter 2. Emphasis added.)

There is a tradition that Domitian exiled John to Patmos and that he was freed by Nerva. Domitian was emperor from 81 to 96 and was succeeded by Nerva. This implies that Revelation was authored during Domitian's reign which is a common belief. If, however, he was exiled by Domitian when he was consul for his father Vespasian in the first half of 70, he could have subsequently been released by Nerva who was made consul in 71.

Vespasian took as his colleague in the consulship in 71 A.D. M. Cocceius Nerva. Now Nerva—the future emperor—was the representative of a family distinguished for three generations as jurists, and no doubt his appointment at this particular time was due to Vespasian's desire to have a skilled lawyer at his side for dealing with the mass of sentences of exile and of confiscation which were the legacy of the successive revolutions. Nerva held office during the first nundinum of 71 A.D., and it is permissible to believe that in accordance with tradition one of the sentences quashed by him was that which sent John to Patmos. If by an order of Nerva he were now released, his exile would have lasted almost exactly one year. (Edmundson, Church in Rome in the First Century, lecture 6)

Edmundson links a passage in Revelation to these Caesars. John sees a woman riding a scarlet beast with blasphemous names, 7 heads, and 10 horns. The angel explains this mystery,

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. (Revelation 17)

The 7 hills or mountains are usually identified with Rome. The 7 kings are sometimes identified as Caesars. Others have identified them as kingdoms. The beasts seem to be identified as kingdoms in Daniel. In Revelation beast may represent the Roman Empire. Earlier in Revelation John says that the number of the beast is a number of a man. I think the number likely refers to Nero. So is Nero the beast? Or does the number represent Nero and Nero identifies the beast as Rome? In the passage above a beast is linked to the kings. It is a beast that was, and is not, it is an eighth, but belongs to the 7.

Edmundson argues that these 7 Caesars are fallen so must have died violent and not natural deaths. He says that Domitian is the sixth king (acting for Vespasian).

"The one who is" signifies the man for the moment invested with imperial power, Domitian, the acting Emperor, who banished the writer.

Thus, as per Edmundson, the kings are

1. Claudius
2. Nero
3. Galba
4. Otho
5. Vitellius
6. Domitian
7. Vespasian

But the eighth is unclear—presumably Titus. And why start at Claudius? Caligula was murdered and Tiberius may have been (Tacitus states he was smothered by Caligula).

Julius is sometimes named the first emperor and Suetonius (c. 120) starts his count of the 12 Caesars from Julius, however Julius was involved in a civil war (which he won) and there was further civil war after his death. It was Octavian (Augustus) who won the subsequent wars and the form of government was changed. Although Julius was instrumental in the development of the Roman Empire, it may be preferable label Augustus the first emperor.

#	#	#	Name	Start	End	Reign	Born	Died	Age	Death
1			Julius	49 BC	44 BC	5	100 BC	44 BC	53	Murder
2	1	1	Augustus	27 BC	14 AD	40	63 BC	14 AD	75	Natural
3	2	2	Tiberius	14	37	22	42 BC	37 AD	77	Uncertain
4	3	3	Caligula	37	41	4	12 AD	41 AD	28	Murder
5	4	4	Claudius	41	54	13	10 BC	54 AD	63	Murder
6	5	5	Nero	54	68	13	37 AD	68 AD	30	Suicide
7	6		Galba	68	69	7 m	3 BC	69 AD	70	Murder
8	7		Otho	69	69	3 m	32 AD	69 AD	36	Suicide
9	8		Vitellius	69	69	8 m	15 AD	69 AD	54	Murder
10	9	6	Vespasian	69	79	10	9 AD	79 AD	69	Natural
11	10	7	Titus	79	81	2	39 AD	81 AD	41	Natural
12	11	8	Domitian	81	96	15	51 AD	96 AD	44	Murder
13	12		Nerva	96	98	2	30 AD	98 AD	67	Natural

After the suicide of Nero there were several contenders for the throne, each murdering his predecessor. It was a period of civil war with Galba killing supporters of Nero and in turn being killed by Otho, a friend of Nero. Otho went to war against Vitellius and those who supported Vitellius for Emperor, taking his own life when defeat was inevitable. And as noted above, the Eastern provinces threw their support behind Vespasian for Emperor mid 69 even though he wasn't recognised as such by the Senate until December. The 18 months civil war with factional support of differing claims to Emperor make it difficult to accept Edmundson's ascription of Galba, Otho, or Vitellius as emperors of the Roman Empire. Likewise, it is also difficult to accept his comment calling Domitian Emperor because he was ruling in his father's absence.

Thus we have as Roman Emperors

1. Augustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero
6. Vespasian
7. Titus
8. Domitian

If this corresponds to John's 7 kings then

• five of whom have fallen: Augustus to Nero
• one is: Vespasian
• the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while: Titus

Note that Titus only ruled for 2 years.

And the beast?

The beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven. (Rev 17)

Domitian was in the sense he had been acting emperor. He is not at the time of Vespasian. He is an eighth in that he became the eighth emperor. And he belongs to the seven in that he ruled during the time of the seven: specifically during the beginning of the sixth reign. (One of the seven may also allude to him being related to Vespasian.)

This interpretation of Revelation 17 of being written early in Vespasian's reign but while Domitian was a proxy emperor makes sense of much of the internal and external data around the dating of Revelation. Internally Revelation was written in the late 60s, and externally it was written under Domitian; though when he was acting emperor for his father in 70 rather than during his emperorship from 81–96. If correct this would suggest Revelation was written in early 70 but prior to the final razing of Jerusalem.

When was Revelation written? Internal evidence

Revelation was written by John (Revelation 1:1). We know the fourth Gospel and letters were written by John the apostle. There are similarities between the Gospel and Revelation which would indicate shared authorship. Differences in language would be explained by topical differences as well as John probably writing Revelation directly though possibly using an amanuensis for his gospel. A different John also seems unlikely as the author does not qualify himself further. Thus the book of Revelation would need to be written prior to John's death and therefore probably before the end of the first century.

References to the temple are not definitive. The temple is mentioned 10 times in the book of Revelation. Most of these are to God's temple in heaven. The reference in chapter 11 (twice) appears to be the earthly temple but the context could allow for a future temple in Jerusalem. If the temple was still standing this would mean the date of writing was prior to 70.

Revelation 13 gives the number of the beast as 666. This almost certainly refers to Nero for reasons I give here. Now Revelation 13 could be also referencing the state (via Nero), and perhaps it has a meaning at the time of Jesus' return as yet to be determined. Nevertheless, it is likely that it refers to at least Nero. Nero was emperor from c. 54–68 AD which narrows the date of Revelation to this period. John was exiled to Patmos. This would seem likely to be latter in Nero's reign rather than earlier.

Later in Revelation we read about 7 kings,

I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. (Revelation 17:7-12)

The 7 mountains are Rome The 7 kings could be Roman kings or perhaps the kings could represent kingdoms. The 6th king or kingdom being current at the time of writing Revelation, or at the time the vision refers to.

For the 7 kingdoms theory the following kingdoms are often suggested.

1. Egypt
2. Nineveh
3. Babylon
4. Medo-Persia
5. Greece
6. Rome
7. ?

The 7 kings theory is more difficult; where do we start and who do we include?

• Julius 
• Augustus
• Tiberius
• Caligula
• Claudius
• Nero
• (Galba, Otho, Vitellius)
• Vespasian
• Titus
• Domitian

If we go with the kingdom interpretation it does not help us with the dating as we already know that Revelation was written during the Roman Empire.

If we go with the king interpretation do we start the emperor count with Julius or Augustus? Do we include the short reigning emperors even though they fought and murdered each other during what was a civil war? Starting with Julius the sixth king is Nero (54–68). Starting with Augustus the sixth king is Galba (68–69) if we include the civil war emperors, and Vespasian (69–79) if we do not. It could also mean Vespasian during the time between when Nero took his life and when Vespasian was made emperor, i.e. between June 68 and 69.

There are further internal clues. The letter to the church of Pergamum warns against the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:14). Peter also warned against this teaching (2Pe 2:15). This may reflect a common heresy at the time, and 2 Peter was written prior to Peter's death c. 68. Others see Jesus' rebuke to the Laodiceans concerning their boasting: "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Rev 3:17) as alluding to the city's boast that they rebuilt the city after the earthquake of 60 without help from Rome.

Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources. (Tacitus, Annals, Book 14)

 Most of these dates suggest Revelation was written some time in the late 60s.

When did Hammurabi live?

One of my most viewed posts is Dating of the Hammurabi Code. In it I propose a revised dating of the code based on the premise that many dates are tied to Egyptian dating which I think is incorrect. My reasoning was as follows

• The very earliest date for the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties is c. 2200 BC
• Moses led the exodus of the Israelites out from Egypt around the time of the 12th and 13th dynasties (which may also correspond to the 6th dynasty)
• The 18th Egyptian dynasty was of some duration. The beginnings of which are possibly about the time of Samuel and Saul
• 1750 BC in traditional Egyptian chronology corresponds to the 12th and 13th Egyptians dynasties
• The first Babylonian dynasty ended with the fall of Babylon is dated c. 1500–1600 BC and corresponds to the beginning of the 18th Egyptian dynasty 

Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt c. 1450 BC. Saul began his reign c. 1050 BC. Thus I believe end of the 12th and 13th Egyptian dynasty to be out by ~300 years and the beginning of the the 18th dynasty out by ~500 years.

Hammurabi is dated variously to 1700, 1800 and 2000 BC. Shorting this by 300 to 500 years gives a range of 1200 to 1700 BC. Thus he could be contemporary to or even post-date Moses.

It is more complicated in that the 6th Egyptian dynasty may be contemporary with the 12th and 13th, and the assigned Babylonian dates may not completely rely on Egyptian synchronisms (as per my assumption).

Since writing this I have come across a discussion of Abraham's war with the northern kings. In Genesis 14 we read that

At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

Shinar is the plain where the tower of Babel was built and the location of Babylon. Amraphel was the king of Babylon. Amraphel has been identified with Hammurabi for over a century. Phonetically we have

• (a)-m-r-(a)-ph[p, b]-(e)-l
• (ha)-m(m)-(u)-r-(a)-b[p]-i

That is mrp-l and mrp. The same name other than the final el, Hebrew for God. A designation he likely used as Hammurabi was deified.

Abraham's battle with the kings occurred between his departure from Haran and the birth of Ishmael. Thus the time of Hammurabi is c. 1850 BC.

When did John's ministry begin

Jesus' ministry commenced shortly after John's ministry. The dating of John's ministry is given by Luke.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. (Luke 3:1-2)

We have several persons occupying various offices mentioned here that can specify this date: Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias, high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. They ruled as follows.

Name	Office	Region	Begin	End
Tiberius Caesar	Emperor	Rome	(12 or) 14 AD	37 AD
Pontius Pilate	Governor	Judea	26 AD	36 AD
Herod	Tetrarch	Galilee	1 BC	37 AD
Philip	Tetrarch	Ituraea and Trachonitis	1 BC	34 AD
Lysanias	Tetrarch	Abilene		37 AD
Caiaphas	High priest	Israel	18 AD	36 AD

Annas was deposed as high priest in 15 AD but continued to have some influence.

The dates above confine the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry to between 26 and 34 AD. Tiberius became the emperor in 14 AD. He may have been co-emperor with Augustus from 12 AD. Depending on whether his reign is considered as starting from 12 or 14 AD and depending on whether Luke was using ascension or non-ascension reckoning, John the Baptist's ministry began between 26 and 29 AD.

If Jesus started his ministry when he was about 30 (or about to turn 30) and he was born between 3 and 1 BC then the dates narrow to 27 to 29 AD.

Authors of the New Testament

A significant amount of the New Testament was written by Luke and Paul. This is what I think the best evidence points to concerning authorship, and approximate date.

Author	Book	Date	Comments
The apostle Matthew, also called Levi	Matthew	42
(John) Mark, assistant to Barnabas, Paul and Peter	Mark	45	Possibly at the behest of Peter
Luke the physician, associate of Paul.	Luke	55
	Acts	62
	Hebrews	67	Possibly the author of Hebrews. If so, likely the scribe. Co-authored, possibly with Paul.
The apostle John	John
	1 John
	2 John
	3 John
	Revelation		From Patmos
The apostle Peter	1 Peter
	2 Peter	64	Jude possibly the amanuensis
The apostle Paul	Romans	57	Tertius amanuensis
	1 Corinthians	55
	2 Corinthians	56
	Galatians	48
	Ephesians	60
	Philippians	60
	Colossians	60
	1 Thessalonians	50
	2 Thessalonians	50
	Philemon	60
	1 Timothy	57	Luke possibly the amanuensis
	Titus	57	Luke possibly the amanuensis
	2 Timothy	60	Luke possibly the amanuensis
James, the brother of Jesus	James	44
Jude, the brother of Jesus	Jude	64

Chronology of the Flood

Genesis specifies several dates during the year of the Flood. Noah and his family entered the Ark in the 600th year of Noah's life: year 1656 Anno Mundi.

They entered on the 17th day of the second month and the waters prevailed 150 days until the 17th day of the 7th month; thus making 5 months equal to 150 days therefore each month 30 days in length*.

Here is the chronology of the Flood taken from Genesis 7–8.

Event	Month	Day	Day count
			Exclusive	Inclusive
Enter the Ark	2	17	0	1
1 month	3	17	30	31
Rain ceases (inclusive)	3	26		40
Rain ceases (exclusive)	3	27	40
2 months	4	17	60	61
3 months	5	17	90	91
4 months	6	17	120	121
Ark rests	7	17	150	151
6 months	8	17	180	181
7 months	9	17	210	211
Mountains visible	10	1	224	225
8 months	10	17	240	241
Send raven	11	11	264	265
9 months	11	17	270	271
10 months	12	17	300	301
Waters dried up	1	1	314	315
11 months	1	17	330	331
12 months	2	17	360	361
Earth dry, leave Ark	2	27	370	371

It seems that the Bible more frequently uses inclusive reckoning, either way they spend 371 days inside the Ark. While I have known of this number for some years, I noticed it coincided with the duration of a solar year based on a 30-day month with an altered earth spin as per my previous calculations. This seems a little more than coincidental. If this were the case perhaps the Noadhic calendar was a lunar-solar calendar similar to the Hebrew calendar and various other calendars.

A lunar-solar calendar aligns the months with the moon (new moon to new moon) and has a variable number a months to keep the seasons aligned. That is 12 months each year with an extra month approximately every 3 years (both antediluvian and postdiluvian solar years have a surplus of ~11 days over the lunar year).

The antediluvian lunar-solar calendar would have 12 30-day months for a 360-day year. The postdiluvian lunar-solar calendar has ~29.5-day months, thus alternating between 29- and 30-day months, but depending on when the new moon appears, for a 354-day year.

---

*This seems to be the most likely interpretation but the weather may have precluded accurate visualisation of the moon and 30-day months may have been used until adequate moon sighting allowed resetting of the calendar. The second option raises the question as to why not use alternating 29 and 30 day months until the calendar could be corrected.

Unravelling the period of the Judges

The time of the Judges is perhaps the most difficult chronological period to unravel. We are helped in that there is a summary statement in Kings that gives us the duration from the Exodus to the first temple.

In the 480th year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD. (1 Kings 6)

Identifying the time of the specific judges however proves more difficult.

We have times where Israel is under self rule and times where they are subjugated due to God's judgment for their disobedience. While a continuous sequence seems reasonable at first, fitting all the events in the allotted period is somewhat difficult. Here are the periods during the times of Moses, the Judges and the early kings.

Time of the Judges
Israelite leader	Duration	Duration	Oppressor
Moses	40
Joshua	7+ (?)
		8	Cushan-Rishathaim, Aram Naharaim
Othniel	40
		18	Eglon, Moab
Ehud	80
Shamgur	–
		20	Jabin, Canaan
Deborah/ Barak	40
		7	Midianites and Amalekites
Gideon	40
Abimelech	3
Tola	23
Jair	22
		18	Philistines and Ammonites
Jephthar	6
Ibzan	7
Elon	10
Abdon	8
		40	Philistines
Samson	20
Eli	40
Samuel	20 (?)
Saul	40
David	40
Solomon till the temple	4
Total	490+	111	= 601*

There is a known duration of 480 years from the time of the Exodus until the building of the temple commences (440 according to the Septuagint) and 600+ years if we consider duration of each ruler separately. And this is without taking into account the full duration of Joshua's leadership which is not specified.

Now there are several caveats to my table. It is known that

1. Samson judged during the 40 year Philistine oppression.
2. Samuel judged for an unknown length of time. The 20 years is based on the comment,

From the day that the ark was lodged at Kiriath-jearim, a long time passed, some 20 years, and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD. (1 Samuel 7)

3. The duration of Saul's kingship is specified in Acts

Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for 40 years. (Acts 13)

What the passage in #2 actually means and how it relates to Samuel and David is difficult to ascertain.

Taylor has suggested #3 is a summary statement including the judgeship of Samuel. Though Saul's son Ishbosheth is 40 when he becomes king so ascribing the full 40 years to Saul seems reasonable.

But even with these considerations it is still hard to see how all the events can occur in 480 years. Several approaches to this problem have been proposed.

Hall suggests that the Philistine oppression and Saul's kingship are contemporary with Samson judging for 20 years within that timeframe. I do not think this is viable because Samuel is generally regarded as the last judge and the advent of Israelite kings seems to be the end of the judges.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. (1 Samuel 8)

A common suggestion is that the judges overlapped in time. Various different proposals for which judgeships overlapped and how long for have been made. There is some merit to this view. We know that at least Samson judged during the Philistine oppression. Shamgur judged during the peace of Ehud. Eli likely acted as a judge during the time of other judges; he was a priest but it is also commented that he judged, but he was not necessarily the only one at that time. Judges were also from different regions and perhaps they may have led within those regions with various overlap.

What makes this proposal difficult, however, is that the early judges are said to judge "Israel" (cf. Othniel, Judges 3) and "Israel" serves the oppressors (cf. Cushan-rishathaim, Judges 3) and the land has rest during the time following deliverance. So for the early judges we have what appears to be a judgeship over all Israel with sequential not overlapping judges.

Another option is to consider a manuscript error. Of all the things that get corrupted in manuscripts, Haley tells us that numbers frequently do. This was probably more likely in the early manuscripts when letters were also used for numerical values. I believe the Masoretic text spells out numbers thus this latter method is less prone to error. Different manuscripts frequently have different numbers in chronological references (although the antediluvian and postdiluvian discrepancies seem deliberate). A candidate for a numerical transcriptional error would be Ehud as the duration of peace for 80 years seems long compared to the other judges. Nevertheless, proposing errors where there is no manuscript evidence of divergence seems a dangerous precedent and I am not really willing to go there. It seems to me that this would led to a multiplication of proposals to fit preconceived ideas. We must submit ourselves to Scripture, not it to us.

The current option I favour is interpreting the duration to include the period of oppression and rest. Note that the period (of rest) given is always longer than the oppression. The phrase,

So the land had rest 40 years.

Is usually interpreted (or translated as),

So the land had rest for 40 years.

However I am informed that the Hebrew allows,

So the land had rest—40 years.

That is, the time period given is a summary period of the preceding events, oppression and deliverance.

With this proposal and the documented overlapping events, a reasonable chronology can be elucidated for this chaotic time in Israel's history.

There is a further statement that can help us anchor dates. Jephthah rebukes the Ammonites who sought to reclaim ancient territory. They had not originally owned the specific territory as Israel was commanded not to take land from the Edomites, Moabites, or Ammonites. Jephthah's response was to Ask Ammon why they did not try and reclaim the land in the last 300 years: this being the time of the claimed Israelite "occupation." The time from the conquest to the Ammonites equals the time of Joshua and the Elders plus 319 years, if the oppression is counted separately; or plus 266 years if the oppression is included in a summary duration. Jephthah's 300 years is probably a round number. Even so, the time of Joshua and the Elders would be several years and this may favour the shorter duration.

Time of the Judges
Israelite leader	Duration	Duration	Oppressor
Joshua	?, 7+
		8	Cushan-Rishathaim, Aram Naharaim
Othniel deliverance and rest	32
Total	40
		18	Eglon, Moab
Ehud deliverance and rest	62
Total	80
Shamgur	–
		20	Jabin, Canaan
Deborah/ Barak deliverance and rest	20
Total	40
		7	Midianites and Amalekites
Gideon deliverance and rest	33
Total	40
Total	207+