Fifteenth Year - Christ's Baptism

 The Coming of  "māšîah nāgîd"

             With the mōşā^⊃ [the "starting point"] of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks having been concretely established to have fallen precisely in the seventh Jewish month of 457 B.C., we can now move forward in the prophecy and interpret the events that were predicted to follow in the chronological period of 70 weeks starting with the periods of ‘7 weeks and 62 weeks.’ This time period is mentioned in the statement:

           

“From the start of a 'judicial matter' for the purpose of restoring and thus then building Jerusalem until māšîah nāgîd there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.”  Dan 9:25

            Before we set out to find the historical fulfillment of the predictions in this chronological time period, there is a somewhat controversial issue that has to first be dealt with here. This is whether or not the time perio1d mentioned now is an uninterrupted time period of 69 prophetic weeks; or is it interrupted after the period of seven prophetic weeks with the fulfillment of the coming of māšîah nāgîd occurring at that time, as some interpreters^R1 have suggested.

            What has led these interpreters to make this conclusion is the presence of a Hebrew accent/punctuation mark called an athnach that was placed after the expression ‘seven weeks.’ These interpreters have concluded that this athnach here has a full disjunctive value and therefore functions as a full period. This would indeed cause a radical separation between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks and the statement here in Dan 9:25 would read as:

“....there shall be seven weeks. Then after the sixty-two weeks.....”

            Such a conclusion here would go on to lead to the prophetic prediction and interpretation that māšîah nāgîd would appear 49 years (7 weeks X 7 days) after the starting point of the prophecy and not 483 years (69 [7+62] weeks X 7 days) after this same starting point. So the question that needs to be answered here is: What is the value and function of this athnach marking in Dan 9:25? A brief overview of the use of accents marks in the Hebrew Bible will help to answer this question.

The athnach punctuation in Dan 9:25

            The general purpose of accent marks in the Hebrew Bible is best expressed by Israel Yeivin who notes that:

           

            "Their primary function . . . is to represent the musical motifs to which the Biblical

            text was chanted in the public reading. This chant enhanced the beauty and solemnity

            of the reading, but because the purpose of the reading was to present the text clearly

            and intelligibly to the hearers, the chant is dependent on the text, and emphasizes the

            logical relationships of the words. Consequently the second function of the accents is

            to indicate the interrelationship of the words in the text. The accents are thus a good

            guide to the syntax [punctuation] of the text; but . . . accentuation marks semantic

            units, [units that depend on the meaning of words] which are not always identical

            with syntactic units.^R2 [explanation supplied]      

            So what is clearly stated here is that Hebrew accent marks did not at first serve as syntactical punctuation mark, but rather as pausal markings that help regulate the chanting of the text during public reading. Therefore an accent marking that is present in the Hebrew text cannot automatically be considered to be a punctuation mark unless its position in the text also coincides with the position for a natural syntactical mark.

            Now when an accent mark is found in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible it can have two distinct values. One would be a disjunctive value and the other would be a conjunctive value. The purpose of a fully disjunctive marking is to “mark the length of pauses from full stops to various shades of shorter pauses.”^B3 According to W. Wickes’s study of Hebrew accents,^B4 the disjunctives were used to mark a division into two parts (a "dichotomy") of a verse. The end of the first part of the verse was marked off by an athnach accent and the second part was marked off by a silluq accent, but these verses were still not necessarily divided exactly at their halfway mark. A good example of this is found in the Hebrew Bible’s division of Genesis 1:7 where the first half of this 16-word verse is marked by an athnach accent after the fifteenth word of this verse!

            Now the two parts of a divided verse would then be further divided into “successively smaller half-units on a syntactic [ . . . ] basis”^B5 and this gradual division eventually led to the two halves of the verse becoming divisions comprising of very small groups of words; and even at times a single word. This is where conjunctives accents markings would come into the picture as they would serve to join together these smaller divisions leading up to the athnach marking in the first half of the verse, and then up to the silluq marking in the second half of the verse. As it was mentioned earlier, an athnach marking would at times have a full disjunctive value if its position in a verse coincided with the syntactical end of a phrase in a sentence.

            So based on this brief background information, we now have to determine if the athnach in Dan 9:25 has a full disjunctive value and therefore marks the end of a phrase, or if it has a lesser value and a different purpose.

            Dr. Owusu-Antwi has provided several Biblical examples of the varying uses and functions of the athnach punctuation^B6 which help to demonstrate how and why the athnach in Dan 9:25 is used. They will be briefly discussed here.

            1. The athnach can be used for emphatic purposes.^R7

            E.g. Gen 1:1- In the beginning God created [athnach] the heavens and the earth.

            Here the athnach is used to emphasize God as the Creator. If it had a full disjunctive value it would completely destroy the meaning of this sentence because the second phrase ‘the heavens and the earth’ cannot stand on its own. Another example of this emphatic function of the athnach is found in Gen 22:10 where it says:

            And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife [athnach] to slay his son.

           

            Here also, the athnach does not have a full disjunctive value.^S8

            2. The athnach can be used to indicate a pause similar to a comma

           

            E.g., Gen 35:9-  And God appeared to Jacob again when he returned from Padan Aram,                   [athnach] and he blessed him.

            This second example highlights the use of athnach to emphasize the speech itself, the command, or show where the weight of the meaning is.^S9

            3. The athnach can also be used as a pause equivalent to a colon or semicolon.

E.g.  Gen 6:15- This is how you are to build the ark: [athnach] the length of the ark, three  hundred cubits, its width, fifty cubits and its length, thirty cubits.^S10

            4. The athnach also is used in a sentence to introduce a parenthetical phrase.

E.g., 1 Kgs 8:42- For they will hear your great name and your mighty hand and your             outstretched arm-- [athnach] when he comes and prays toward this temple.^S11

            5. When an athnach is used in verses containing numbers, it also has the same               characteristics of the 4 previously mentioned functions of the athnach.

            a. It is used as a principal divider of a verse as in Gen 1:5.

            b. It has a pausal effect similar to a colon or semicolon.^S12  This function is also used when an explanation follows a list of items.^S13 In 1 Chr 7:9, the athnach divides before the numbers:

           

Their enrollment by their genealogies, according to their generations, heads of their fathers' house, mighty warriors: [athnach] twenty thousand and two hundred.

            Although the athnach is used as a divider before the numbers, the numerical phrase- “twenty thousand and two hundred”- must still be connected with the previous phrase -“mighty warriors.” In this example the athnach seems to have a disjunctive value and helps to introduce an explanation. This example also shows that the occurrence of the athnach does not necessarily demand that the clause after the athnach cannot be connected to the previous clause that comes before the athnach.  Instead it reveals that these clauses belong together.^S14

           

            c. In verses that involve numbers, the athnach can also be used to indicate a pause        similar to a comma. For example, Exod 38:29:

             And the bronze from the wave offering was seventy talents, [athnach] and two thousand      and four hundred shekels.

            Dr. Owusu-Antwi comments on the use of athnach in this verse by saying:

“In this case, the measure of units (talents and shekels) which are divided by the athnach describes the same entity-- "the bronze from the wave offering." While the athnach here distinguishes between the higher unit (talents) and the lower unit (shekels), it does not seem to have a full disjunctive value. If the athnach were to be taken as a full disjunctive, the first  part of seventy talents would have to be referred to the bronze while the "two thousand and four hundred shekels" would then have to stand by itself or be connected with the following clause (vs. 30). Neither is possible. The phrase "and two thousand and four hundred shekels" cannot stand by itself as a sentence and it cannot be connected with the next clause since they are separated by a silluq. Thus, the athnach  in vs. 29 cannot be taken as a full disjunctive. It is to be rendered as a comma.”^B15

            d. There are also cases in the use of athnach with numbers where it actually has no disjunctive value at all. This is seen in the enumeration of the children of Benjamin in Gen 46:21:

            And the sons of Benjamin: Bela and Beker, Ashbel and Gera, Ehi and Naaman, Rosh                       [athnach] and Muppim, and Huppim and Ard.

As Owusu-Antwi points out;

“The athnach  here is put in the middle of one of the five pairs of names listed. Unless the athnach is regarded as non-disjunctive, the parallelism in the citation of the names would be destroyed. Furthermore, the names that come after the athnach cannot be connected alone with the subsequent clause (vs. 22).”^B16

               Another example of this case is found in Num 1:46:

And they were a total number of six hundred and three thousand, [athnach] and five           hundred and fifty.

“In Num 1:46, the athnach is placed into one figure of 603,550, just as in English a comma marks thousands from hundreds. It cannot be taken as disjunctive, putting a period, colon, or semicolon within the number.”^B17

            All of these examples demonstrate that the presence of an athnach marking does not automatically indicate a full disjunctive accent in the Hebrew Bible. It is instead used with a wide range of functions that in some instances are closer to being conjunctive^R18 than disjunctive. This then means that the occurrence of an athnach in Dan 9:25 cannot automatically be given a full disjunctive value. Several points instead show that the inclusion of this athnach in Dan 9:25 was to emphasize the ‘sixty and two’ week period of the prophecy that followed the mention of ‘seven week’ period.

            First of all the presence of waw-copulative [conjunctive] "and" between the ‘seven weeks’ and the ‘sixty-two weeks’ statements should serve as an indicator that the athnach here does not have a full disjunctive value. The absence of the temporal preposition lamedh [l] which translates as "-for [a period of time]; until; etc"^R19 in the expression w^ešbu^⊂îm would contradict an interpretation that radically separates the ‘seven weeks’ from the ‘sixty-two weeks’ and therefore cause the Hebrew phrase w^ešābu^⊂îm šišîm ûš^enayim [which literally says “and sixty-two weeks”] to be translated as "and/then for sixty-two weeks." If this prepositional phrase -"and/then for"- was to be such an integral part in the text of the prophecy, as some modern interpreters have  suggested, then it surely would have been clearly indicated in the original text of the prophecy. Such a translation that arbitrarily inserts the preposition for^R20 into the text not only forces it into the text, but also makes a historically unsupportable prediction that would say that the restoration and building of Jerusalem would be done over an incredible period of 434 years (7 X 62)!  As John E. Goldingay says: such a lengthy building period “would be odd,”^B21 and as Owusu-Antwi has attested: “there is no historical support for it.”^B22 So based on this textual and historical contradiction, this athnach in Dan 9:25 should not be given a full disjunctive value here.

            An argument that further supports this conclusion is the fact that none of the other ancient texts and versions that relate to Dan 9:24-27, like: the Qumran text from the Dead Sea Scrolls; the LXX version (ca. 250 B.C.); the Peshitta in Syriac (ca. 50 A.D.); the Theodotion version (ca. 180 A.D.); the Latin Vulgate (ca. 400 A.D.); and also Rabbinic interpretations; do not support a full disjunctive value of the athnach in Dan 9:25.^R23 The mention of non-support in Rabbinic interpretations is probably the most significant because of the importance that the Jewish Rabbis (Teachers) would place on accentuation. This importance is reflected in the statement of twelfth century grammarian and commentator Abraham ibn Ezra who says:

“You should not listen to, or agree with, any interpretation which is not consistent with the accentuation.”^B24

           

            So, once again, based on all of this, it is clear that the athnach punctuation in Dan 9:25 does not have, and therefore should not be given, a full disjunctive value. The questions that could now be asked is: (1) Why then was an athnach placed between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks? and also (2) Why was this time period of 69 weeks ever divided into these two odd and unproportional periods in the first place? Why didn't the prophecy just say that there would be 69 weeks until the coming of māšîah nāgîd?

            There has not been a definite answer for this unproportional break up of the 69 weeks here, but over the years commentators have leaned towards two reasons. The first being that the seven-week period (49 years) were set apart as the period for the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem,^R25 but this interpretation does not hold up in the light of historical scrutiny and recorded developments as there is no Biblical or extra-biblical support for a conclusion that Jerusalem was fully restored and then physically rebuilt by the end of this prophetic 7 weeks (49 years; i.e., by 408 B.C.); and also no indication that this process even took that long. Since the work on the city was being carried out, as we have seen, back in about 454 B.C. (cf. Ezra 4:7-23),^N26 and the walls were completely rebuilt in 444 B.C. (Neh 6:15), then the physical rebuilding of Jerusalem could have actually been completely finished long before this suggested date of 408 B.C.

            The most likely explanation for this separated time period may be that it would help to reestablish among these Jewish returnees, the proper reckoning of the sabbatical year cycle of 7 X 7 years mentioned in their Law in Lev 25:1-8. The extended stay of these Jewish exiles in a foreign land may have caused them to lose track of this mandatory religious cycle, and since the ignorance of the “sabbath years” (Lev 25:2-4) in this sabbatical cycle had been the underlying reason why God sent them away as exiles to another land in the 70-year Babylonian captivity so that the land of Canaan could keep its “sabbaths”^N27 (see Lev 26:33-43 & 2 Chr 36:21), then it therefore seems that God here, in the restoration prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, had purposely expressed this prophetic time period to clearly mark out and this important forty-nine-year cycle. Just like He had pointedly instructed His people to “mark off” this period of “seven times seven years... namely forty-nine years” in Lev 25:8, He was thus starting them off in this important direction here. Interestingly enough, the Jewish reckoning of sabbatical years coincides with the starting point of the Seventy weeks of 457 B.C. as that year was a date in the sabbatical cycle of sabbatical years, followed by 408 B.C., and 359 B.C.; etc.^N28

            Another possible explanation for the presence and purpose of the athnach in Dan 9:25 is understood in the light of the comment by Israel Yeivin who says that:

“There is also a tendency to mark the main division before some important feature of the verse, so as to emphasize it.”^B29  [i.e.s]

           

            We have already noted this possible function with the athnach accent mark and since as we will now see, the sixty-two-week statement led up to the coming of a very important figure identified as "māšîah nāgîd," then this could very well be the reason (or an additional reason) why an athnach was placed here; namely to emphasize the coming of māšîah nāgîd at the end of the sixty-two prophetic weeks.

Chronology of the 70 Weeks  [408 B.C.]

The Identity of “māšîah nāgîd” in Dan 9:25

            Based on the various ways that the major English versions of the Bible have translated the expression māšîah nāgîd in Dan 9:25, interpreters and commentators have suggested various historical figures as the one that is identified here in the prophecy. So it is therefore necessary to first arrive at the exact translation of this expression here in order to then be able to accurately identify who fulfilled it historically.

            The RSV, NRSV, and NEB/REB have translated māšîah nāgîd as: “an anointed one, a prince;” “an anointed prince;” “one anointed, a prince;” respectively. The NIV has translated this expression more specifically by saying that it would be: “the Anointed One, the ruler.” The KJV, NKJV and the NASB have gone a step further by saying that this expression referred to the double title: “Messiah, the Prince.” Which one of these translations is the most accurate?

            The expression māšîah is a noun which comes from the root mšh which literally means "to smear, anoint."^R30 Māšîah is usually assigned the same meaning as the Qal passive participle "anointed" except when it is used as a noun, as it is here in Dan 9:25. At that time it is then assigned the meaning of : "an anointed one."^R31  

            Māšîah occurs 38 times in the Old Testament and is consistently used to refer generically to anyone who was anointed by God,^S32 but what is interesting about the mention of māšîah in Dan 9:25 (and also in Dan 9:26) is that these are the only time in the Old Testament that it occurs in an absolute form,^R33 meaning that it has neither an article nor a suffix attached to it to qualify it. Therefore, this absolute title here should be understood to be a title or a proper name.^R34 So as E. B. Pusey pointed out, māšîah here is not to be translated as "the Anointed of the Lord," "Thy Anointed," "His Anointed," "the Anointed of the God of Jacob," or "the anointed priest -but as the proper name Messiah: "Anointed."^B35  This is the understanding that the KJV, NKJV and NASB have also arrived at as reflected in their translation of māšîah as: “Messiah.”

            As for the expression nāgîd, since it is in a juxtaposed position to the absolute form expression māšîah, it should then be understood as being used in an absolute sense and should therefore also be considered as a title, but one that is separate and distinct from the title māšîah. While nāgîd is used in the Old Testament to refer to someone who rules over others, or over something,^S36 or someone who is in a position of command,^S37 or the “ruler” in the house of God,^S38 the use of nāgîd in Dan 9:25 should be interpreted in the light of its use with the title māšîah,. This  means that it should be translated according to the use of nāgîd in the Old Testament that refers to someone who has been chosen or “anointed” to become a “ruler” over a people or a nation, and such a person was actually: "a King."^S39

            Now since the actual Hebrew word for "prince" is not nāgîd but nāśîy^⊃/nāśî^⊃, ^S40 then this cannot be the translation and meaning of nāgîd in Dan 9:25 as some have suggested. Also since the Hebrew expression for a military "prince" is śar,^S41 and since it is this expression śar that is consistently used in the book of Daniel as such,^S42 then it can also be concluded here that if this was the function of this historical figure in Dan 9:25, then surely it would be this clear expression -śar that would have been used here instead of nāgîd.

            Furthermore, the two titles māšîah nāgîd cannot be translated as a descriptive phrase "an anointed prince" with the expression “anointed” functioning as an attributive adjective since this translation would go against the rules of Hebrew Grammar. If that was to be the translation here then these expressions in the Hebrew text would be reversed, i.e., nāgîd māšîah for an attributive adjective in Hebrew (unlike English) normally follows the noun it modifies,^R43 with the exception to this rule being when numerical terms like (esp.) “many” (Hebrew: rab -not in the sense of ‘great’), “little” (Heb.-m^e⊂aţ) or “all”(Heb.-kôl) are the adjectives.^R44 So māšîah is indeed here functioning as an absolute noun/title.

            These grammatical analyses of this double title in Dan 9:25 is important because, as we have already mentioned, some interpreters have suggested various historical figures as the predicted māšîah nāgîd of Dan 9:25 based on grammatically incorrect translations. These are figures such as Cyrus,^R45 Zerubbabel,^R46 Joshua, the high priest,^R47 Onias III, the high priest,^R48 the Hasmonaean Aristobulus I,^R49 but these interpretation do not hold up under exegetical scrutiny and also for chronological reasons;^R50 but based upon all of the above mentioned linguistic, reasons, the expression māšîah nāgîd would be most accurately translated here as "Messiah, Ruler" or "Messiah, the Ruler" and since, as we have already pointed out, a "ruler" who was anointed was usually a King,^S51 then māšîah nāgîd in Dan 9:25 would be more precisely translated as: "Messiah, the King."

            Now based on this translation of "Messiah, the King," it should now become easy to pinpoint the historical figure that fulfills this specific part of the prophecy as there is only one Person in human history that rightfully fulfilled this double absolute title of "Messiah" and "King" and that of course was none other than Jesus Christ, the “King of Kings” (cf. 1 Tim 6:15, 16),^S52 for not only was Jesus prophesied as the Messiah, but He was also prophesied to be the One who would come from the tribe of Judah and be a ruler over Israel (Micah 5:2).^S53  

            It would now be somewhat interesting to take a more specific look into the gospel narratives and see specifically how Jesus did indeed fulfill these two titles as Messiah and King.

            In the "Annunciation" of Christ’s birth to Mary, (Luke1:26-38), the Angel Gabriel (the same messenger for the Seventy Week Prophecy) had told Mary that her Child would (originally) be known as Jesus (vs. 31) (cf. Luke 2:21),but later on, Jesus became publicly known as Jesus Christ, after began His ministry, which, as it is known, literally means: Jesus, the Messiah (cf. Matt 1:16; 16:16; 27:18, 22; Luke 4:41, 42). This is also how He referred to Himself (Matt 16:20; cf. 22:42; John 4:25, 29).^N54

            The Angel Gabriel had also announced to Mary that this special Child would be given “the throne of His father David,” (Luke 1:32) and that He would “reign over the house of Jacob forever” (vs. 33).^S55  It had been this understanding that the Messiah of the Jews would also be a King that made the Magi travel from the East (ca. Babylon?) to Palestine in order to worship this New Born King in person. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem they forthrightly asked the Jewish religious leaders: “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?” (Matt 2:2).^N56  While Jesus repeatedly refused to be publicly heralded and crowned as the King of Israel during His public ministry (cf. John 6:15), He still left no doubt in the mind of the people that He did consider Himself to be the King of the Jews. When He was asked by Pilate during His trial: “Are You the King of the Jews?” He replied by saying: “It is as you say.” (Luke 23:3). Also when Pilate went on to make an inscription that said that Jesus was "The King of the Jews,"^N57 the only objection that the chief priests could make was that they felt it should rather read: “He said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’” (John 19:21 [i.e.s]). Similarly, when Jesus was asked by the Jewish religious leader if He was “the Christ, the Son of God,” He also replied by saying: “It is as you say.” (Matt 26:63, 64).^N58 Obviously Jesus had revealed His actual prophesied identity quite explicitly and clearly.

            The double title of Jesus as "Messiah" and "King" was also explicitly alluded to by the chief priests and the scribes when, in their ignorant arrogance, they challenged Jesus at Calvary by saying: “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, descend now from the cross that we may see and believe.” Mark 15:32 [i.e.s]. (If only they had realized the great truth in their words).

            So now if we turn to the chronological time period that is associated with this coming of māšîah nāgîd -Jesus Christ; we see that the 69 prophetic weeks convert to 483 literal years and if we then count off these years from the starting point of the prophecy in the fall of 457 B.C., we end up in the fall of 27 A.D.^N59 So then: What significant historical event took place that would signal the official coming of Messiah, the King at the end of the 62 weeks period, in the fall of 27 A.D.?

The Anointing of “Messiah, the King”

            It was a required rite in Israel’s religious economy that any person who was going to take on a public function/office (i.e., ministry) be anointed with oil, and that by the person that he would be succeeding, or acting under, or in continuance of. Usually that predecessor themselves was also a previously anointed person. In this way personal figures such as kings,^S60 priests,^S61 and prophets^S62 were officially anointed for public function.

            The expectation for someone who had been anointed was that from then on he would act, think, and make decisions that would reflect the mind and will of God. (E.g., 1 Sam 16:13; cf. 10:6, 7) In this way this person was consider to now have the Spirit of God strongly guiding, and working in, him. This was what the symbolism of the pouring of oil upon the head of this anointed person entailed. They would similarly be imbued with the Spirit of God, and unlike water that was meant to naturally dissipate, oil was instead meant to literally stick to the person. (It was probably not expressedly washed off once the ceremony was completed).

            Many people engaged in official public ministry in Israel during the 69 prophetic weeks/483 years from the start of this chronological period, and thus were so anointed, but there is one that stands out amongst all of them for its wide reaching and unprecedented miraculous acts and impact, as thus notably recorded in Scripture, and which ended up having many “separated” followers, and this was the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth in Israel. The question then is, was Jesus of Nazareth anointed for this grand ministry.

            In retelling the events that had recently transpired in the public ministry of Jesus, the Apostle Peter in Acts 10:37, 38 spoke of:

“The word which He [God] sent to the sons of Israel, preaching [the gospel of] peace through Jesus Christ . . .  which was proclaimed throughout all Judea and starting from Galilee after the baptism which John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power . . .” Acts 10:36-38.[i.e.s.].

            Peter goes on to speak of how Jesus engaged in a ministry towards the poor, sick, needy and variously oppressed. Indeed, as it will be seen, the Gospel accounts testify to this precise development.         

            When Jesus was baptized with water (Luke 3:16a) by John in the Jordan,^S63 the baptism itself did not come to anoint Jesus, but an incident immediately following this, as Jesus went on to pray on the banks of the Jordan river, did. It is then that the heavens were opened, literally “as a result” of Christ’s prayer (Luke 3:21) and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a Dove and thus anointed Him directly, i.e., without the use of the symbolism of oil, and that by God Himself, thus further indicating that Jesus had received His commission directly from God. Indeed God the Father had said almost 700 years before the advent of Jesus:

“Behold! My Servant whom I  uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him.” (Isaiah 42:1^S64)

Then when the event officially manifesting this occurred in this Baptism, God then announced  that:

             “This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:16, 17; cf. John 1:32).

                                                                                   

            As John the Baptist later declared, it was in order for the Messiah to be revealed to Israel that he had come baptizing with water. (John 1:31). Later on, Andrew went to find his brother Simon Peter and said to him: “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ) (John 1:35-37, 40, 41). And also, as Jesus had reminded John at the time of the baptism: ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness’ (i.e. all "right doing" or "all what is right in God’ eyes") Matt 3:15 [i.e.s.]. Indeed in carrying out this act they would also be fulfilling what had been prophesied centuries before.

            The pivotal and “empowering” significance of this baptism event is seen in statements and actions such as: Luke 4:1 which goes on to mention that Jesus returned from the Jordan “full of the Spirit.” Jesus Himself highlighted and emphasized the importance of His special anointing with God’s Spirit in His first recorded public sermon in Luke 4:18-21ff, as he read from Isa 61:1 which begins with : ‘The Spirit of the Lord God (lit. Yawheh) is upon me,...’ This passage then goes on to detail the reason why it would be manifest that this “Servant” had indeed been anointed with God’s Spirit through the good works that he would engage in. This was indeed the impetus and central message of Christ’s ministry (Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 10:38; cf. Matt 11:5).

                       

            Kilian McDonnell has summarized the important Messianic fulfillment found in Christ’s baptism by saying that:

“When Christians confess that Jesus is the Christ, they confess their belief that he is the Messiah, the Anointed One whom the prophets foretold. This cannot be considered a secondary title. Rather it defines who he is by becoming part of his personal name, Jesus Christ. Jesus is anointed with the Spirit at his baptism, thus becoming the Christ. Anointing and the baptism of Jesus are inextricably linked. And in the Gospels, the baptism is linked to the Title of Christ.”^B65

           

            So clearly, Jesus officially appeared on the scene as the “Messiah, the “Anointed One” at His Baptism in the Jordan, and subsequent, immediate anointing directly by God’s Spirit.^N66 Thus the prophesied coming of the "Messiah," who was born "King of the Jews," was fulfilled in this baptism of Jesus. The important question that now needs to be answered is: Does the historical date of Christ's baptism harmonize with the chronological specification in Dan 9:25; i.e., in 27 A.D.?

            Because various dates for Christ's baptism have been suggested by commentators ranging mainly from 26 A.D.-29 A.D., it is therefore important to make here a somewhat fresh and in-depth analysis of the date of this event.

The Date of Christ’s Baptism

            Following a brief account of Christ’s birth and growing up years (Luke 1 & 2), Luke, in his gospel account, goes on to discuss the circumstances that surrounded the beginnings of Christ’s public ministry (Luke 3) by first mentioning that “in the fifteenth of the ‘reign’ of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1) that John the Baptist “went into all the regions around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance the remission of sins,” (Luke 3:3) and that as the other Gospels indicate, that “at that time, Jerusalem and all of Judea and all the region around the Jordan was going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan.” (See Matt 3:5 & Mark 1:5). Now the Gospel accounts are also clear in pointing out that it was specifically during these times of baptisms that Jesus also went to the Jordan to be baptized by John (Matt 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21). So now if we can figure out in what calender year this “fifteenth year of the ‘reign’ of Tiberius Caesar” fell in, then we would  have the historical year in which Jesus was baptized.^N67 This can indeed be done by determining exactly how this fifteenth year’ was being reckoned by Luke, but this question cannot actually be easily resolved here without an in-depth investigation, due to the fact that there were various methods and calenders that were used during the days of Luke, by varying people groups, to reckon the regnal years of the ruling Roman Emperors.

                                                                                   

When was the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar?

            In reckoning the regnal years of Tiberius Caesar, Luke could either have been using: (1) the dating system of his native land of Syria^N68 -the Syrian-Macedonian method; (2) the Jewish method; (3) the typical/official Roman method; or (4) he could have been reckoning these years from the time when Tiberius had become a co-regent with Augustus Caesar.

            Since Luke’s gospel is specifically addressed to a Roman official -a certain “Most Excellent [Gk.-kratiste^N69], Theophilus^N70,” it is therefore very unlikely that he would have been using either his native Syrian-Macedonian system or the Jewish system since they were both mostly only known, and used by only the local people, and with them being based on exclusive calenders.^N71 This conclusion is further supported by the fact that throughout his gospel, Luke often tries to avoid using Jewish terms/expressions that Theophilus may not comprehend.^S72 This approach of Luke is also highlighted by its contrast with Mark’s approach, who, although he was (also) writing to a Roman "audience," he chose to translate or explain some of the Jewish expressions and customs after mentioning them rather than simply avoiding them altogether, or rewording them.^{N73 74}

            Now because Luke was indeed writing to a Roman official, some have then automatically concluded that he was using the official Roman method and calender to reckon the years of Tiberius here, and that, based on this method, Jesus’s baptism took place sometime in the regnal year of Tiberius which fell between August 19, A.D. 28 and August 19, A.D. 29,^R75 since Tiberius’s sole rule began on August 19, 14 A.D., when Augustus died.^R76 However, this view does not hold up for two reasons. First of all, there is no contextual evidence that Luke was using the official Roman method as he showed no sign of using the official Roman formula in stating this date in Luke 3:1. It was the custom of the Romans to date the year of an event after the names of the two consuls (the joint chief magistrates of the Roman republic) who were in office that year.^R77

 According to this formula, Luke would have dated the year of the baptism by saying that it took place: “In the consulship of                       and                   ,” with the names of the two consuls of that year filling in the blanks.^R78  In the years that fell in the believed range for Christ’s baptism of 26-29 A.D., the Roman consuls who were in office were:

                                          26 A.D.  Getulico and Sabino

                                             27 A.D.  Grasso and Pisone

                                             28 A.D.  Silano and Nerva

                                             29 A.D.  Gemino and Gemino^R79

      but Luke makes absolutely no reference to them, even in his lengthy and specific list of people who were in office when John began his ministry. He instead mentions to his friend Theophilus as 'additional circumstances' some of the other notable rulers who were in office during that. He (literally) said:

           ‘Pontius Pilate, had been ruling in the area of Judea as a prefect^N80; [ A.D. 27-37]^N81

            Herod had been ruling in the area of Galilee as a tetrach^E82; [4 B.C. - 39 A.D.]^R83

            and Philip, his brother had been ruling as a tetrach in the district of Iturea                                                     and Tranchonitis; [4 B.C. - 33/34 A.D.]

            and (also) while Lysanias had been ruling in the area of Abilene as a tetrach;’^N84

 and that this was also:

           ‘during the high priesthood of Annas [6-14+ A.D.] and Caiaphas;’[18-36 A.D.]^N85

            As it turns out, the key to determining the exact way in which Luke was counting these  regnal years of Tiberius is indicated by the interesting Greek word that he uses here- hēgemonias (which is conveniently, though inaccurately, translated as: "reign"^N86). This word is classified in the Greek vocabulary of the New Testament as a hapax legomenon ("lone mention") as it occurs only once. However its occurrence in a number of other Greek writings, such as Classical Greek [480],^R87 Greek & Roman Papyri [156],^R88 the Septuagint [7],^R89 the writings of Josephus [148],^R90 etc., is indeed ample, totaling at least 1536 uses, in its various related forms. These ample examples are helpful to arrive at its specific meaning in this text.

            The 628+ uses in Classical Greek and the writings of Josephus can be, less than more, somewhat loosely^E91 grouped into the following 15 major categories ([##] = number of uses): 1. Share of Power [27];^R92 2. General Leadership [33];^R93 3. Office Leadership [82];^R94 4. Supremacy [86];^R95 5. Hegemony [National] [110];^R96 6. Kingly Power [48];^R97 7. Military Command [110];^R98 8. Roman Emperor [32];^R99 9. Empire/Dominion [23];^R100 10. Authority [7];^R101 11. Roman Empire/Dominion [38];^R102 12. Greece National Leadership [4];^R103 13. Israel’s Kingdom [2];^R104 14. Government [7];^R105 and 15. various miscellaneous uses [19];^R106

            From these uses, several are notable examples of these categories as sampled here below:^E107

1. Share of Power^R108

[#7] - The leadership in the Roman goverment being shared by three leaders (Lepidus, Antony and Octavius) in a triumvirate.

[#80] - One part of a full command of an allied power between two peoples (the Argives and Lacedaemonians).

[#163] - Two states dividing the supremacy between them.

[#281] - Sharing in a military command.

[#286] - The Persians and the Greeks theoretically not being seen as capable of peacefully sharing in world dominion.

[#309] - The Lacedaemonians and Athenians sharing in the hegemony by yielding the dominance of land and of sea to the other.

[#323] - Cities equally dividing the command when in a joint military expedition.

                       

2. General Leadership^R109

[#85] -  The city of Argives being selected to hold the position of leader from a large number of joined cities.

[#87] -  The tribe of Judah being committed with the government of Israel after the death of Joshua and Eleazar the priest in the period of the Judges.

[#122] -  Ishmael being brought up to succeed in the leadership of Abraham’s household.

[#269] -  The successors of Joshua in the government of Israel.

[#368] -  Jair the Gileadite, of the tribe of Manasseh, taking the government of the tribe.

3. Office Leadership^R110

[#60] -  Laying down the office of leading the Achaeans as it had been predetermined and being succeeded in this command.

[#146] -  Pontius Pilate being the successor of Gratus in the Roman government of the Jewish nation/province.

[#361] -  The Roman command of their provinces.

[#447] -  Public officers who hold the presidencies of court.

                                   

4. Supremacy^R111

[#388] -  Laconians being deprived of their previous hegemony/supremacy on land and sea first by the Thebans, and immediately after them by the Macedonians.

[#413] -  The Ionians getting rid of the empire and supremacy of the Lacedaemonians.

[#431] -  A third nation making claims to the leadership then shared by the Lacedaemonians and Athenians.

5. Hegemony (National)^R112

[#42] -  Speaking of the cause of the destruction of the Medes as their inhumane and brutal leadership and supremacy which its subject people did not seek to aid in strenghtening.

[#46] -  The Persian supremacy that Alexander was about to overthrow.

[#83] -  A distribution of the hegemony of Roman provinces.

[#129] - A country being naturally well suited to hegemony.

[#271] -  The kings in Sparta preserving the hegemony in Greece for their country just so long as they faithfully obeyed the ephors (a body of five magistrates) and were content to reign jointly with them.

[#349] -  A dual land and sea leadership becoming “lame” if one of these two leaderships were lost.

[#473] -  A city entitlement to the hegemony being questioned by their impeacheable record since being sovereign at sea.

[#553] -  Italy being well-suited for the hegemony because of its natural and geographical features and the valor of its people.

6. Kingly Power^R113

[#15] -  Saul, as king, having dominion over the tribes.

[#94] -  God having consented that David and his posterity should be Israel’s rulers for all time.

[#212] -  Artaxerxes, Darius’s eldest son succeeding him to the leadership of Medo-Persia.

[#273] -  David having received the government of Israel from God.

[#330] -  Aeropus, king of the Macedonians being succeeded in the sovereignty by his son Pausanias

[#363] -  Satyrus, king of the Bosporus being succeeded in the rulership by his son Leucon.

[#411] -  Quarrel among Darius’ sons concerning the chief power in land of Persia as to the rightful heir to this kingship.

[#500] -  Lacedaemonians have conferred upon his descendants the kingship and [or that is?] the power of command for all time.

[#565] -  Spartacus, king of the Pontus being succeeded in the rulership by his brother Paerisades.

                                                                       

7. Military Command^R114

[#5] -  Persian king Darius entrusting Memnon with the supreme military command.

[#26] -  Lacedaemonians having the command in a war expedition of the Greeks, with their king Agis having the position of commander in chief.

[#311] -  A meeting being called for all who had been charged with a military command.

[#320] -  The officers of the barbarians, in minor commands, being Persians with Cyrus himself being the commander-in-chief of the whole army.

[#471] -  Tissaphernes, a Persian noble, succeeding stricken Cyrus to the supreme military command.

           

8. Roman Emperor^R115

[#34] -  Josephus’ book Antiquities being from the Creation to the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.

[#315] -  Roman defeat occurring in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.

[#348] -  Josephus being born in the first year of the reign of Nero, with his three sons being born in the fourth, seventh and ninth years of the reign of Vespasian.

           

9. Empire/Dominion^R116

[#200] -  The Roman government being considered to be at its best when the leader is leading and not reigning.

10. Authority^R117

[#474] -  Extending the sway or authority of the Romans throughout the world.

11. Roman Empire/Dominion^R118

[#438] -  The vast Roman Empire having been brought about by the divine assistance of God.

[#608] -  Augustus Caesar having caused the Romans to have a great dominion since he assumed the absolute authority (Gk. autotelê) now being passed on to, and modelled by Tiberius.

           

12. Greece National Leadership^R119

[#179] -  The vigorous and rapid Alexander having secured the leadership of all of Greece.

                       

13. Israel’s Kingdom^R120

[#427] -  Rulers in Israel under king David.

           

14. Government^R121

[#317] -  The Athenian government being headed by Archons.

           

15. Miscellaneous^R122

[#9] -  In nature, female fishes taking over the lead from the males in a return trip.

           

            Among lexical works, the word hēgemonias has been defined by as: "authority, command, rule, office of a superior, preeminence;"^B123 "leading the way, going first;"^B124 "chief command direction, management of any high office."^B125 What the above examples, and these summary definitions rightly show in regards to this present study is that hēgemonias is not limited to the office of a Roman Emperor, but refers to anything that is given, or exercises, a position of (relatively) supreme/determinating authority.                                                          

hēgemonias vs. archēs

            The specific meaning of the word hēgemonias as referering to a “power” or “authority” can be further seen in its repeated related use in the same context with another similar but distinct word, namely archēs (ca. 44 times). The word archēs itself is defined as one that “always signifies primacy. whether in time: "beginning," principium, or in rank: "power," "dominion," "office."”^B126 However several examples use these two distinct expressions to refer to: (1) a head of state’s established/past and/or ongoing rule or his “government” in general (archēs), and  the (obtainable/possessed) power (hēgemonias) aspect in that position/office;^R127 (2) a position of which required some discretionary decision making such as an ‘emperor’ and a ‘governor of Roman province,’ (hēgemonias)  vs. someone who, effectively, simply has to apply the existing law like a ‘magistrate’ (archēs).^R128 There are also other examples of (archēs) which demonstrate its inherent/underlying meaning as something that has authority due to its “agedness/ancientness”^R129 or in some way, being “established”^R130; among other related miscellaneous uses.^R131 All of the uses show that the term archēs, while being in certain contexts somewhat a cognate of hēgemonias, specifically, tersely,  refers to a ‘government’ in general while the latter term refers to the particular ‘power’ within, or for, such a government.

            As some examples, in retelling of his life, Josephus speaks of the favors that the Roman Empire granted him by saying that Emperor Vespasian gave him a pension, honored him with the privilege of Roman citizenship, and also gave him a lodging in the house which he had occupied ‘before his leadership [hēgemonias] (of the Roman Empire) came to be.’^B132 Here it can be seen that he was referring to  the authority that had been bestowed upon Vespasian which then elevated him to the position of Emperor. On the other hand, Roman historian Dio Cassius, speaking of first ‘the tenth year,’^B133 and then ‘the twentieth year’^B134 of the "reign" of Tiberius, twice uses the word archēs and not hēgemonias. He even demonstrates a comprehension of the distinction between these two words by saying later in one passage that upon the 20^th year anniversary celebration of “Tiberius’s primacy/rule” (archēs) the Senate once again granted to Tiberius the “leadership [hēgemonias] of the State.”^B135 However since he places Tiberius’s 20^th year in 34 A.D.,^R136 he then was counting this “primacy/rule” of Tiberius from his sole rulership which started, as we have seen, on August 19 of 14 A.D.^N137

            This understanding of Dio Cassius of the distinction between these two words is also seen in an interesting statement he makes in regards to the commencement of Tiberius’s rule as he says:

Now when no further news of any rebellious moves came and the whole Roman world had acquiesced securely in his leadership [hēgemonias], Tiberius accepted the rule [archēs] without further dissimulation, and exercised it....^B138

            This statement clearly showed that Tiberius was considered to have had, and made use of his possessed hēgemonias (“leadership/power”), and that within his now more formally accepted archēs “rule”.

            Josephus also demonstrates a comprehension of the distinction between these two words. He uses the word archēs to speak of’ the 20^th year the “primacy/rule” rule Tiberius,’^B139 but then says that Gaius was chosen by Tiberius to be “the successor of the leadership [hēgemonias] [of the Roman Empire].^N140 Since he adds that Tiberius had had a “primacy/rule” [archēn] of 22 years, 5 months and 3 days,^B141 it then indicates, that he was also reckoning the “primacy/rule” of Tiberius from after the death Augustus in August (19) of 14 A.D.^N142

            Based on all of these points, it can be concluded that since Luke uses the term hēgemonias instead of the quite possible archēs this strongly suggest that he predominantly here had the “power” that Tiberius possessed as Emperor in mind, instead of strictly/generally his government/rule as a whole. At the very least, the use of hēgemonias here certainly, overtly leaves this possibility open whereas the use of archēs would not so.

Military Uses

            What is further quite interesting and significant about the use of the word hēgemonia, to our present inquiry of Luke’s use of this word in reference to an Emperor, is that it is repeatedly used in a military setting; that is in reference to things pertaining to war or the army. This is seen in further examples in addition to the ones cited above in subsection #7 such as the following:

           

            - Hēgemonias is used in the LXX version of Gen 36:15ff, in first of all, the related forms: hēgemōn and hēgemones, to refer to the individual military chief(s) in the ancient nation of Edom (Esau’s descendants). Then in verse 30, the summary statement is made in reference to the ‘chiefs of the Horites’ with another form of hēgemonias as it is said that:

     “These are the chiefs of the Horites, according to their “positions of command.”^N143

            Hēgemonias is also found in another similar military-arrangement-setting, in Num 1:52 and 2:17 LXX, but this time it is in relation to the nation of Israel and their own military census (Num 1 & 2). Hēgemonias is used there to refer to the military standards (or banners) that each tribe had to position themselves behind when they arranged themselves in set ranks, as they were about to migrate to another location.

            -Hēgemonias is also used in the Apocryphal book 4^th Maccabees in a passage dealing with a figurative battle between the "reason" and "passion." This passage sums up this "conflict" by saying:                                                                    

“But now, since reasoning conquered the passions, we befittingly award it the authority of first place.”  4 Macc 6:33.^N144

           

            - Also, in telling about a siege that Romans had placed on the Gauls, the Roman author Plutarch says:

                                                                                               

“The siege lasted a long time, and the Gauls began to lack provisions. They therefore divided their forces. Some remained with their king and watched the Capitol, others ravaged the country round about, falling upon the villages and sacking them, not all together in one body, but scattered about by commands [i.e. under their military divisions/commanders].”^B145                  

            - The word hēgemonias is also repeatedly used in reference to the commander-in-chief of an army:

            For example, Greek philosopher Plato says:

                                                                       

“Take the case of an army, . . . given a right leader, his men will win victory in war,”^N146

            - Also, Greek historian Thucydides, describes a military officer by the name of Pagondas, as being in “chief command” in a war between the Boeotians and the Athenians;^B147

            -and Strabo, the Geographer, uses hēgemonias to say that:

Augustus Caesar “native land committed to him the foremost place of authority and he became established as lord for life of war and peace,”[i.e.s]^B148

            It has already been stated that hēgemonias was repeatedly used to refer to the rule of  Roman prefects and also that this office many times included military powers,^N149 but it should also be mentioned here that the commander-in-chief of the Praetorian Guard (the 9000 member elite corps of the Emperor), was also referred to as a: "Prefect."^R150

            The significance of this particular meaning of the word hēgemonias, as a militaristic authority is seen in the fact pointed out by W. T. Arnold in his book on Roman Imperialism as he says that:

           

 “the Emperor was many things, but before and above all he was commander-in-chief of the Roman army.”^B151

           

            Arnold goes on to point out that, the "military" function of the Roman Emperor “was, in fact, the historical result of the conquest of provinces, and of the great military commands which had been rendered necessary.”^B152 This position of military command was called the Imperium, which is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word hēgemonias;^R153 and in fact, the Latin Vulgate has, apparently based on such an equivocation, translated this Greek word as: “imperii.”

            In speaking of this Imperial power, Arnold also states that:

“It was the kernel of the new Imperial authority, and to have it was in fact to be Emperor. Other component parts of the Imperial authority-even so important a part as the Tribunician power might be added later; they might even never be held at all; but the proconsular imperium^N154 and the Emperor were inseparable . . .  For the Senate to give a man the proconsular imperium was to formally to hand over to him the entire army and the provinces which it garrisoned, together of course with the revenues of those provinces-in other words to put the state at his disposal.”^B155

           

            Thus the title Imperator indicated “supreme military victoriousness”^B156 and therefore had the literal meaning of a "victorious commander."

            The "Tribunician power" which Arnold says could be added to the Emperor’s imperium power, would then make him the chief-magistrate of Rome. This would mean that he would also have supreme judicial power and would therefore have the unlimited veto power and the unlimited power of interfering to protect anyone who was being unjustly treated or wronged by other magistrates.^R157 Therefore it was the bestowal of these two powers, and particularly that of the (proconsular) imperium that made a Roman Citizen become the Roman Emperor.

            All of these facts about these two important powers of the Emperor come to play a very significant role in understanding how Luke was reckoning the years of Tiberius when the historical circumstances surrounding the accession of  Tiberius are considered here.

            After August had essentially created a new office in the Roman Republic in the  "Emperor," he greatly feared that, upon his death, it would be done away with by the powerful Senate,^R158 so he took it into his hands, during the last years of his life/reign, to assure its survival and continuity by selecting the most competent person to be his successor in this position. Augustus originally had hoped that either one of his

Statue of Tiberius (+37AD)

youthful grandchildren, Gaius or Lucius, would succeed him to this position, but in 6 B.C., their arrogance exasperated him and he lost hope in them. He therefore turned his attention to the more promising Tiberius. Augustus went on to bestow upon Tiberius the tribunician power for the next 5 years, but at the conclusion of this term, the reserved Tiberius took an unauthorized 5-year leave of absence from Rome. Upon Tiberius’s return to Rome in 4 A.D., Augustus, who was still eager to see him become the next Emperor, renewed his tribunician power for the next ten years and also adopted the then 45 year-old Tiberius^R159 to doubly ensure that nothing would hinder his future accession to the office of Emperor.^R|N160 Then Augustus went a significant step further as he wanted to leave no doubt as to who he wanted his successor to be and had the Senate pass a consular law to bestow upon Tiberius a proconsular imperium that was equal to his own throughout the Empire.^R161 This superior power of Tiberius was called the Imperium Maius.^R162 Augustus also went on to renew the Tribunician power of Tiberius, but this time for life. (Year)

            The Imperium Maius power thus granted Tiberius “military powers that were fully equal to those of the then ruling Emperor Augustus [over the provinces and the armies],”^B163 and this, in effect, made Tiberius a co-ruling Emperor with Augustus. He therefore assumed the full prerogatives of an Emperor such as sitting next to^N164 Augustus in the Senate and conducting a census with him in early 14 A.D.^R165 (which numbered 4,937,000 Roman citizens^R166). Also, immediately following August’s death, Tiberius gave the "watchword" to the praetorian cohorts, as Roman historian Tacitus says, as “commander-in-chief,”^B167 and also appointed a new leader to rule over it,^R168 since he already had the Imperial power to do so. Also, by virtue of his tribunician power, he went on to convoke the Senate to discuss funeral arrangements for Augustus.^R169

            A statement by Tacitus in his Roman Annals shows that Tiberius indeed now possessed all of the external attributes and powers needed to be recognized as an (co-)Emperor saying that [enumeration emphasis supplied]:

“... in him [Tiberius (Nero)] everything tended to centre. He was [1] adopted as a son, as [2] a colleague in empire and [3] a partner in the tribunitian power, and [4] paraded through all the armies,...”^B|N170

            The close approximate date of this event can be determined based upon a entry in a Roman Almanac (know in Latin as a Fasti) of that time. In the entry for the day October 23 a mention is made of Tiberius celebrating a Triumph. This was a triumph to commemorate his subduing of a revolt in Germany sometime in late 12 A.D., soon after October 23,^R171 (almost surely by January (13 A.D.)-the start of the Roman New Year). In fact by April 3^rd of 13 A.D.^R172 Augustus was concretizing the factual certainty of being succeeded by Tiberius by naming in his will Tiberius and his wife, Livia, as his first-degree heirs of his entire estate, and also ‘ordering^E173 them to bear his Imperial titular name,’ as “Augustus” and “Augusta”, respectively.^N174.

            Additional concrete evidence for the widely known and recognized co-regency of Tiberius with Augustus was seen in the fact that gold coins struck at Lugdunum, Gaul^E175 in the last year of Augustus’s life (13/14 A.D.) were stamped with the head of Augustus Caesar appearing on one side, and that of Tiberius on the other: 

Augustus & Tiberius Coin 13/14 AD

with the inscriptions being: on Augustus’s side (left):

                         “CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F[ilius] PATER PATRIAE”

                                (The Divine Son Augustus Caesar-Father of the Land)

and on Tiberius’s side (right):

                        “TI. CAESAR AVG[usti] F[ilius] TR[ibunicia] POT[estate] XV”

                       (Tiberius Caesar, Son of Augustus, Tribunician Power for the 15^th time)^R176

            Two other (key) coins from Antioch in Syria of the regnal years 12/13 and 13/14 A.D.,^N177 were struck with the head of Tiberius appearing on them along with the Imperial title Kaisar Sebastos.^R178 Also an inscription from Samaria referring to both Augustus and Tiberius as Emperors, provided a direct reference to them being emperors together.^R179      

            So based on all of these concrete evidences, Tiberius effectively and officially indeed became Emperor of Rome in the year 13 A.D. and while he may have been hailed with "Imperial Salutations" as early as 11 A.D., due to his great military exploits,^R180 he was not necessarily an Imperial co-regent at that time because, as W.T. Arnold points outs, "to call a man imperator and to give him the imperium were by no means one and the same thing."^B181  This is seen in the fact that Augustus Caesar himself had once been hailed as "imperator" back in 40 B.C., but he did not get the necessary proconsular imperium until 27 B.C.^N182 Also in A.D. 22, a certain Junius Blaesus was saluted as Imperator, but he never became an Emperor; ^R183 and similarly, later on, in A.D. 70, the Roman General Flavius Titus would also be hailed as Imperator following his conquest of Judea and Jerusalem,^N184 but he did not become Emperor until 79 A.D.^R185

            It must be elaborated on here that concerning the date of A.D.13 for the consular law that made Tiberius a co-regent with Augustus, modern-day historians have had to choose whether to go by the account of Roman historians Velleius Paterculus or Gaius Suetonius because Paterculus seems to imply that this consular law was passed before the celebration of Tiberius’s triumph over Pannonia and Dalmatia^R186 (that is in either A.D. 11 or 12) while Gaius Suetonius indicates that this consular law was passed after this triumphal celebration^N187 (in A.D. 13). There are three possible ways that this apparent contradiction can actually be resolved.

            First of all, as we have seen already, most modern-day historians have opted here for the storyline of Suetonius and the date of 13 A.D.^R188 this is despite the fact that Paterculus was a contemporary of Tiberius as he served in various military positions during Tiberius’s campaigns in Germany, Pannonia and Dalmatia,^R189 and also despite the fact that Paterculus wrote his Compendium (of Roman History) in 30 A.D.^R190 while Suetonius wrote his history of Tiberius sometime between the years 98-117 A.D.^R191 What has apparently given Suetonius’s account more credibility and reliability here is the fact that around the time when was writing his account (of at least Augustus) he was a minor secretary and the director of the imperial libraries^R192 and also had access to official Roman documents such as record of the transactions of the Senate.^R193 He therefore more than likely, had had access to Paterculus’s Compendium, but obviously he did not subscribe to it. It therefore seems that he made a correction of Paterculus’s account here. The official Roman documents probably clearly indicated that the consular law was passed in 13 A.D. This would not be the first time that Suetonius would have corrected an earlier historical account while compiling his own “official” historical account. For example, while writing on the life of Emperor Gaius Caligula, Suetonius pointed out that historian Lentulus Gaetulicus, who was a contemporary of Emperor Gaius,^R194 was mistaken about the place of birth of Gaius.^R195 He then goes on to quote a couple of other Roman historical sources to further validate his correction.^R196 Also in quoting the work of Roman encyclopedist “Pliny the Elder” (23. A.D.-79 A.D.),^N197 he further pointed out that:

 “Pliny has erred in his chronology; for the historians of Augustus agree that Germanicus [Gaius’s father] was not sent to Germany until the close of his consulship, when Gaius was already born.”^B198 

            What all of this shows is that even though a Roman historian was a contemporary of a Roman figure, he could still be liable to make a mistake while retelling the history of that person and even misplace events historically as Suetonius’s correction of Pliny shows.  It has also been said of Paterculus’s work that although he generally displayed “impartiality and love of truth” it was a different case when it came to speak of Augustus and Tiberius.^R199  It is said that:

           

“Upon them [Augustus and Tiberius], and especially upon the latter [Tiberius], he [Paterculus] lavishes the most indiscriminate praises and fulsome [excessive] flattery. There is, however, some extenuation [an acceptable “excuse”] for his conduct in the fact that Tiberius had been his patron, and had advanced him to the honors he had enjoyed, and also from the circumstance that it would have been dangerous for a writer at that time to have expressed himself with frankness and sincerity.” [explanations supplied]^B200

            It may very well have been this natural partiality towards Tiberius that led Paterculus to conflate, or mistake, the event of Tiberius being hailed as Imperator in 11 or 12 A.D. with him officially receiving the hegemonia in 13 A.D. by the passing of a consular law. This “error” is all the more possible when one considers that Paterculus wrote his Compendium about 20 years after this event had taken place.

            A second way in which this discrepancy could be resolved is that there is also the very likely possibility that the statement of Paterculus has been "wrongly" read or understood by modern-day historians, but not due to a fault of theirs, but because of Paterculus’s at-times unorthodox "chronological" style. In his writings Paterculus is often guilty of mentioning future events out of their future context in anticipation. For example, B. Levick has pointed out concerning Paterculus’s report about the scope of Tiberius’s military missions in ca. 20 B.C.  that they were: “not as wide as Velleius [Paterculus] would have us believe.”^B201 She then points out in a note that Velleius was anticipating here Tiberius’s later position in the East.^B202 So, in a would be similar way, Paterculus, in retelling of Tiberius’s re-establishment of order in Gaul, would have also mentioned at that time, but actually in anticipation, the later event when Tiberius received the proconsular imperium from the Senate which then gave him control over these province that he had now preserved for the Rome.^R203

            However a third and most convincing resolution of this apparent contradiction has been brought forward by A. J. Woodman in his textually critical commentary of the Latin work of Velleius Paterculus.^B204 He says that:

           

“Velleius nowhere states when Tiberius actually received the imperium; he merely implies that the voting of imperium preceded the celebration of the triumph (senatus... decreto complexus est) [‘the senate effected by decree that...’]. Since the triumph was almost certainly celebrated in October A.D. 12, it follows that the senate’s decree preceded that date. Suetonius does not contradict this, provided we assume that his phrase ac non multo post [not long after this] refers not to lege per consules lata [a law being passed] but to in Illyricum profectus est [he set off for Illyricum]: ‘and not long after his triumph, a law having <earlier> been passed that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus, he set off for Illyricum”

            So what Woodman is showing here is that the original latin in Suetonius’ text fully allows for his main emphasis to have been on ‘Tiberius setting off for Illyricum not long after the celebration of his triumph,’ while he inserted in parenthetical passing that ‘a consular law had already been passed earlier to all of this, that gave Tiberius an Imperium equal to that of Augustus.’ So then both Paterculus and Suetonius would have indicated that a consular law was passed some time around, or after, Tiberius returned to Rome, but before he actually celebrate his triumph = a ‘Germany, imperium, triumph’ order of events.

            Now despite the fact that Tiberius officially already had the Imperial power for a while before Augustus’s death, he  was still somewhat reluctant to fully assume the title of  "Emperor," when the time came, but as Suetonius pointed out:

“Though Tiberius did not hesitate at once to assume and to exercise the imperial authority, surrounding himself with a guard of soldiers, that is, with the actual power and the outward sign of sovereignty, yet he refused the title for a long time, with barefaced hypocrisy now upbraiding [reproaching] his friends who urged him to accept it, saying that they did not realize what a monster the empire was, and now by evasive answers and calculating hesitancy keeping the senators in suspense when they implored him to yield, and fell at his feet. Finally, some lost patience, and one man cried out in the confusion: “Let him take it or leave it.” Another openly voiced the taunt that others were slow in doing what they promised, but he was slow to promise what he was already doing.”[explanation supplied].^B205

            Suetonius goes on to say that Tiberius was not hesitant because he was not entitled to be the acting Emperor at that time, but because he was in:

           

 “fear of the dangers which threatened him on every hand, and often led him to say that he was ‘holding a wolf by the ears.’”^B206

            So based on all of this, we can see that Tiberius Caesar was indeed Emperor as of 13 A.D. The question that still needs to be answered is: Was Luke reckoning Tiberius’s Imperial years from that point.

           

However despite all of this substantial/supporting evidence for a co-regency view here,

because:

            (1) Josephus, in another passage does make the statement that “the leadership

[hēgemonias] of the Romans was passed on to Tiberius upon the death of Augustus;”^B207

            (2) As seen in some of the examples cited, or referenced, above in subsection #8, a similar formulation as the one that is found in Luke 3:1 to mention Tiberius’ regnal year is also used for other Roman Emperors, especially by Josephus;

            but, on the other hand, as it been established that:

            (1) Hēgemonias refers specifically to the “authority” that, in this case, made someone emperor;

            (2) Tiberius’s co-regency was a unique development, and “arranged” situation, in the early years of the Imperial system in Rome;^N208

            (3) It is also concretely seen from Roman History that Tiberius was officially given this widely recognized “hēgemonias” in 13 A.D.,

            (4) Because of Dio Cassius’ significant statement^R209 discussed above;

            it therefore now must be determined if Luke himself had considered that Tiberius had the hēgemonias in 13 or 14 A.D.?   

           

            Based on the evidence of two coins from Antioch in Syria which officially recognized the Emperor status of Tiberius in 13 A.D., and that this Syrian city of Antioch was the actual city where Luke himself was from^N210 then this would greatly suggests that he also would have been quite familiar with Tiberius’s promotion to Imperial power during Augustus’s last year and his official recognition in 13 A.D. Also, since this co-regency event was one that was pertinent to the Roman Empire, it then would have been one that a Roman official like Theophilus would also have been quite familiar with. It could also be that Theophilus at that time had been functioning as a Roman official in Luke’s hometown, and therefore would further have no problem in understanding such  a reckoning formula here.

            Now if Luke's chronological statement in Luke 3:1 is reckoned from the time of Tiberius’s co-regency official start in early January 13 A.D., as this historical study suggests, then the “fifteenth year of the authority of Tiberius” falls between January, 27 A.D. to January 28 A.D. ; as the following table demonstrates:

                                                # ---  Year              # ---  Year

                                                    1 - 13-14 A.D.            8 - 20-21 A.D.      

                                                    2 - 14-15 A.D.            9 - 21-22 A.D.

                                                    3 - 15-16 A.D.           10 - 22-23 A.D.

                                                    4 - 16-17 A.D.           11 - 23-24 A.D.

                                                    5 - 17-18 A.D.           12 - 24-25 A.D.

                                                    6 - 18-19 A.D.           13 - 25-26 A.D.

                                                    7 - 19-20 A.D.           14 - 26-27 A.D.

                                                                   15 - 27-28 A.D.

                                     

            And, of course, if Luke had been reckoning these years from 14 A.D. then Tiberius’ fifteenth year would have fallen in 28 as the following table demonstrates, and, as mentioned earlier, would be officially reckoned from August 19, 28 A.D. to August 19, 29 A.D.

                                                # ---  Year              # ---  Year

                                                    1 - 14-15 A.D.            8 - 21-22 A.D.      

                                                    2 - 15-16 A.D.            9 - 22-23 A.D.

                                                    3 - 16-17 A.D.           10 - 23-24 A.D.

                                                    4 - 17-18 A.D.           11 - 24-25 A.D.

                                                    5 - 18-19 A.D.           12 - 25-26 A.D.

                                                    6 - 19-20 A.D.           13 - 26-27 A.D.

                                                    7 - 20-21 A.D.           14 - 27-28 A.D.

                                                                   15 - 28-29 A.D.

                                     

            Realistically, only an outside, independent determinative dating can resolve this dilemma here and, frankly, Providentially enough, when John wrote his Gospel years later, his mention of a date for an event in Christ’s early ministry does provide this determinative evidence. This is in relation to the event of Christ’s first Passover visit mentioned in John 2.

                       

The Date of Christ’s First Passover Visit

            In John 2:13-20, the apostle John recorded the account of a pilgrimage trip that Jesus made to Jerusalem in order to attend the Jewish feast of Passover. During this visit, Jesus performed His first of two cleansing of the temple ^S211 and in the discussion that ensued between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders, He was asked by them to give them a sign that would validate the authoritative actions that He had just taken. (Jn 2:18).  Jesus answered them by referring to His inherent superiority over the standing, but limited Jewish Temple by saying:

                                    "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

            To this strange statement, the spiritually-blind Jews responded by alluding to a certain date of 46 years that pertained to some aspect of the reconstruction of the Temple.

            The exact meaning of this chronological statement has been somewhat lost by the failure on the part of translators to accurately translate this statement from the Greek. This is probably due to the fact that the grammatically correct translation of this phrase is actually not a very logical response by the Jews. So this has led translators to render this statement as what the Jews probably meant to say; but although these latter translations do make more sense, they are still grammatically inaccurate here. It rightly is the translation that is grammatically correct but that doesn’t seem to make any sense at all, that best brings out the chronological significance and historical accuracy of this "46-year" statement.

            The Jews’ response to Jesus has traditionally been translated to basically mean either that: (1) ' it had taken forty-six years to build the temple and that it was now completed' ^R212 or (2) that: 'the temple had been under construction for 46 years and it was still under construction,' ^R213 but, as we have already stated, neither of these translations are accurate.

            The conjugated form of the Greek verb for "to build," -oikondomēthē-, in this statement is grammatically identified as an aorist indicative (passive).^R214 As many Greek grammarians have emphasized, the Greek verbal tense system, unlike the English’s system, do not indicate the time of an action, but rather the “kind of action.”^R215 These kinds of actions are either: Durative, Undefined, and Perfective. Grammarian Gerald L. Stevens has illustrated^B216 these varying aspects as follows:

                                                1. Durative   [---------- or - - - - - - ]

                                                2. Undefined [                  ●                 ]

                                                3. Perfective [ - - - -➤ or  ●- - -➤]

            Of these three, the Greek aorist tense fits into the category of an "undefined" action^R217 since it does not emphasize the details in the process or result of an action, but mainly mentions that this action or event took place.^R218 This undefined action could either take place in the past, present or the future, and it is only in the indicative mood that the aorist tense could also indicates past time.^R219 This past time is grammatically indicated by the use of, what is known as, an “augment.”^R220 In the case of the verb oikondomēthē in John 2:20, the opening double vowel (diphthong) -oi is “lengthened” to the improper (i.e., contracted) diphthong-  ō_i ( ᾠ^R221). Its Greek spelling is therefore changed from ‘oἰkodomhqh’ to ‘ᾠkodomhqh,’ as many (though not all) NT Greek manuscripts have it.^R222 The omission of this visible augment in some NT manuscripts is due to the fact that the rules of Greek Morphology (the rules governing the forms of Greek words) allows for an opening diphthong not to be visibly augmented.^R223 Nevertheless, such an (aorist) indicative verb would still be indicating past time whether it was visibly augment or not and the fact that most NT manuscripts have the visible augment for the aorist indicative verb of John 2:20 strongly suggests that was indeed indicating  past time.

            Now since, as we have seen, the aorist tense describes only a non-continuous action and not a durative one then this verbal expression could not be indicating a building process or an ongoing (“linear”) action stretching over a 46-year period. If that would have been the intended meaning of this statement, then a durative type of verb would have been used instead (i.e., either an imperfect or present tense form of the verb ‘to build’) If a [past] imperfect tense had been used, then this statement would literally have said:

                                        ‘This temple was in building for 46 years.’^N224

            If a present tense have been used, it would have had a slight present perfect sense in its translation^R225 and would been expressed as:

                                     ‘This temple has been in building for 46 years.’

            Since an aorist tense was used here instead of the imperfect or present tense, then the most accurate translation of this statement should then be:

                                     ‘This temple has been built for 46 years.’^N226

            This would therefore mean that at the time this statement was made by the Jewish leaders to Jesus, the Jewish temple would had already stood built for 46 years.     

            Now there is another key word, and also a clear historical allusion that corroborates this latter accurate rendering of Christ’s statement and thus reveals exactly what the Jews were referring to.

            There are two words in the Greek New Testament that are used to describe the two distinct and specific areas of the Jewish "temple," namely naos and hieron.  The distinction between these two words has been lost in most English translations as both of these words have been translated as "temple," but the first word, naos, actually specifically referred to the actual sanctuary area; the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. This meaning of naos can be seen in passages like Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 where it is used to identify the location of the veil that was rent in two at the time of Christ's death. This is obviously referring to the veil in the sanctuary that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.^S227  On the other hand, the Greek word hieron was used to describe the area that surrounded the temple, (i.e., its “courtyard” or “precinct”). Going out from the sanctuary this courtyard area was divided into three distinct courts namely: the "Priest's Court," the "Court of the Gentiles," and the "Court of the Women."^R228  It was in this Temple precinct that Jesus had found the people who were buying and selling temple goods (John 2:14, 15), and it was in this same area that surrounded the sanctuary that Jesus repeatedly taught the people ^N229 since this was an area that was accessible to by the general public, while only the priests and Levites could enter the naos (sanctuary).

             In speaking of the "temple" in John 2:20, Jesus used the word naos to indicate that He was specifically referring to the "sanctuary." The Jews fully understood that this is what He was referring to as they also used this same word naos in their reply (vs. 21). They just didn’t understand, as John pointed out later, that He was figuratively referring to the "sanctuary" (naos)  of His body.^N230

            Now it is from the historical account of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus concerning this

 Temple’s reconstruction that we come to fully understand the chronological contribution that was made in the reply of the Jews.

            Josephus made four statements that are key to the dating event of the reconstruction of this sanctuary (naos). He first made the following two related statements in his work: Antiquities of the Jews:

(1) “Now when Herod had already reigned seventeen years, [Augustus] Caesar came into Syria . . . ”^B231

(2) “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great  work, that is, to build of himself the Temple of God at his own expense.”^B232

           

            If, as Josephus says, Herod had already reigned seventeen years, (or: "gone forward," as the Greek verb "proelthontos" literally means) then it was in the eighteenth year of his reign that Augustus Caesar made this Imperial trip to Syria.^N233 This eighteenth year of Herod can be dated concretely on the Julian Calender since this trip of Augustus to Syria is alluded to in the writings of Roman historian Dio Cassius [54:7.4-6], and is there said to have taken place “in the spring of the year when Marcus Apuleius and Publius Silius were consuls.” Since M. Apuleius and P. Silius P. f. Nerva were consuls in the year 20 B.C.,^R234 then this is to be the Julian date for this trip.

            This corroborating date of Dio Cassius is quite valuable here because of the existence of two possible starting dates from which the years of Herod’s reign could have been reckoned from. It (1) could have been reckoned from the time he was named King of Jerusalem, which was in 40 B.C.,^R235 or (2) from the time when he actually took Jerusalem, which was three years later in 37 B.C.^R236 But since the combination of Dio Cassius’s and Josephus’s statements indicate that Augustus’s trip to Syria 'in 20 B.C.' was in the “eighteenth year” of Herod, then it is therefore evident that Josephus had been reckoning, the years Herod’s reign from the time Herod took Jerusalem in 37 B.C.^N237

            Now Herod’s original plan for the temple reconstruction was that he would completely destroy the existing Temple (the one which had been rebuilt after the Babylonian captivity) and then rebuild the new one on the same site, and also on a much grandeur and magnificent scale,^R238 but because he realized that the Jews would not agree to see their Temple structure completely leveled before another one started to be rebuilt (due to the risk factor that it may not actually be rebuilt at all and that they would be left without a temple) he therefore offered to first gather all the necessary building materials for the new Temple and then, and only then, would he destroy the existing Temple in order to begin building the new one. The Jews had no problem with this reasonable offer, so this is how Herod proceeded.^R239

            The exact date when this work started can be determined, and this by a (chain-reference) comparative analysis of a few statements in Josephus’s account. He, first of all, pointed out that (1) the rebuilding of the "sanctuary"(naon)^N240 was completed in “a year and six months”^R241 and that (2) a great celebration immediately followed this conclusion of the work in Jerusalem, and that this celebration coincided with the anniversary date of  Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem. This conquest of Jerusalem by Herod can be concretely he dated because Josephus, in his previous account of this event indicates by several statements that it took place on what actually works out to be September 25 of 37 B.C.^R242 However, due to the varying choices of months in 37 B.C. that have been adopted by some modern historians’ ("private") interpretations of Josephus’s (“incorrect”) statements,^R243 it would be beneficial to see in detail the clear and specific way in which Josephus did accurately date this event.

            He first says that Herod’s conquest fell in the year “when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome.” This consulate was in the year 37 B.C.^N244 He then adds that it was also “on the hundred eighty and fifth Olympiad.” The "Olympiad" period were the four-year period that extended between the Greek Olympic games, and the one that Josephus was referring to extended from the years 40 B.C. to 36 B.C.^R245 Then Josephus adds that the month of the conquest was “the third month [of the Olympiad].” Since a year in an Olympiad started on July 1 and end on June 30, then this “third month” was the third month from the Olympiad’s beginning month of July. This “third month” was the Julian month of September.^N246 Finally Josephus said that the city also fell on the day of  “the solemnity of the Fast,”^N247 which was the “Day of Atonement,” which is usually celebrated in late September/early October, (from on at least September 25^N248). Finally Josephus mentions that 27 years before Jerusalem had also falllen on this very same Feast Day to Pompey and the Romans.^R249 The year in which that prior fall took place was 63 B.C.,^R250 so, using inclusive reckoning, these 27 years end in 37-36 B.C. as the following table shows:

                                     # ---  Year        # ---  Year        # ---  Year

                                        1 - 63-62 B.C.       10 - 54-53 B.C.      19 - 45-44 B.C.

                                        2 - 62-61 B.C.       11 - 53-52 B.C.      20 - 44-43 B.C.

                                        3 - 61-60 B.C.       12 - 52-51 B.C.      21 - 43-42 B.C.

                                        4 - 60-59 B.C.       13 - 51- 50 B.C.     22 - 42-41 B.C.

                                        5 - 59-58 B.C.       14 - 50-49  B.C.     23 - 41-40 B.C.

                                        6 - 58-57 B.C.       15 - 49-48 B.C.      24 - 40-39 B.C.

                                        7 - 57-56 B.C.         16 - 48- 47 B.C.     25 - 39-38 B.C.

                                        8 - 56-55 B.C.       17 - 47-46 B.C.      26 - 38-37 B.C.

                                        9 - 55-54 B.C.       18 - 46-45 B.C.      27 - 37-36 B.C.                                                 

            So according to this specific dating formula of Josephus, the date that Herod took Jerusalem was indeed on (at the least) September 25, 37 B.C.

            Now based on the time of “a year and a half” that Josephus said it took to rebuild the sanctuary (naos), it can therefore be seen, by counting backwards from the date of (at least) late September, that the rebuilding of the Temple had actually begun around late March 25, and that in 20 B.C. ^N251 However since this date of March 25 came just a few days before the Passover Day ceremony which was on March 29,^N252 and it is quite likely that the Jews would not have their Temple be destroyed (just) before the important Passover Feast, it is then very likely that Herod waited out these 4-5 days until after the Feast Day (i.e., March 30) to begin the work.^N253

            Based on all of this dating keys here a chronology of the ‘year and six month’ work would be as follows:

                        ca. March 30, 20 B.C. - March 30, 19 B.C. - - - - - - - 1 year

                        March 30, 19 B.C. - September 25, 19 B.C. - - - - ca. 6 months

                        March 30, 20 B.C. - September 25, 19 B.C. =      1 yr & 6 months

            The rest of the work on the buildings that would be raised in the ‘outer courts’ and ‘around the sanctuary [in the "hieron"]’^R254 was not going to be completed until the year 62/63 A.D.^R255

            Since the study of O. Edwards concerning the proper reckoning of Herod’s reign^R256 has shown that it would be more accurately reckoned according to the Jewish Civil calender which started in the Fall (September/October),^N257 the from the time that Herod’s 18^th regnal year would have begun (ca. Oct 1, 21 B.C.) to the time when the rebuilding work which he later proposed actually began (ca. Apr 9, 20 B.C.), he had had up to about six months to gather all the building materials for the work as he had suggested.

            So now since it was to this rebuilt naos (sanctuary) that Jews in Jesus time were referring to in their response to Christ, then they were therefore counting its rebuilt years from its completion date of the Fall of 19 B.C. The naos (sanctuary) would have been considered to be “built” from that time.          

            Grammarians and commentators have usually classified the aorist verb in John 2:20,"built," as a Constantive Aorist,^R258 since this syntactical classification is used to describe an aorist action as a fact without any particular 'reference to its beginning, its end, its progress, or its result,^R259 but since a time period (46 years) was specified for this building action which made an implicit reference to its building date, and also since the result of this building action was also being emphasized here, then this classification is not the most accurate here.^N260 Actually, in the light of what this building statement was referring to, this aorist verb in John 2:20 would be more accurately classified as a Culminative^E261Aorist, since this aorist places a slight emphasis on the conclusion or the results of the completed action (which is what the Jews were doing), and since it is also often found in verbs who inherently signify effort or attempt or intention or process, and also indicates the completion or attainment of these things.^{R262, R263} This type of Aorist also comes close to having the meaning of a perfect tense,^R264 (i.e., an ongoing present result of a past completed action, or more correctly a past completed process^R265), and is therefore best translated with the supplied word "has." So based on all of these syntactical features, the Jews were indeed indicating to Jesus was that: ‘the sanctuary "had been built" or "had now stood built" for 46 years...and that He now wanted to destroy it and rebuild it in an incredible three days!’^N266

            The traditional, yet incorrect translation of the aorist verb -oikondomēthē- in John 2:20 in most English Bible today as an ongoing "building" may have been influenced by the English translation of the LXX version of Ezra 5:16. In that passage, the verb oikondomēthē is also used in the context of a Temple rebuilding and this verse has traditionally been translate to say:

“Then the same Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem; but from that time even until now it has been under construction, and is not finished.”[i.e.s.]^N267

            The immediate context of this verse seems to indicate that this aorist should be indicating an ongoing action but, as we have seen, that would harmonize with the type of action that the aorist tense represents,^R268 which is again simply an undefined action. So this action should also be expressed in the meaning and translation of the verb oikodomēthē in Ezra 5:16 LXX. Now since this Greek verb was a translation of the Aramaic (passive)^R269 Hithpeel/Ithpeel participle^R270 that is found here in the Masoretic Text,^N271 which, simply said, is a verbal adjective, in the reflexive voice, that is used to indicates a (somewhat forceful)^N272 continuing state or action,^R273 a Constantive notion could be argued for here, but it could actually be better defended that this aorist verb was functioning as an Ingressive aorist and was thus placing a special emphasis on the past enduring beginning stages of this action. In this sense it would be emphasizing the idea that the sanctuary had forcefully made itself to enter into a new (lasting) state and condition (and not the process) of being built. Based on this understanding, the translation of this verse would be:

           

‘Then the same Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem; but from that time even until now it began^N274 to be built and/but is not yet finished.’ [i.e.s]^N275

            Now, going back to the John 2:20, the actual accurate translation of the Jews’ reply to Jesus there which said that: ‘The sanctuary has been built for 46 years and you will raise it up in three days?’ really makes their answer somewhat irrelevant and shallow here, but it must be pointed out that they were not always known to respond in a sound way to Jesus’s deep and figurative, and sometimes hard to grasp statements,^S276 especially when they could not see the spiritual meaning in them.^S277 This encounter with Jesus in John 2:13-20 was their first exposure to His wisdom, His theology and His teaching style,^N278 and the somewhat ironic statement that He made here^R279 probably caught them off guard and caused them to respond in such an illogical way.^N280 Notwithstanding, and actually, all things taking into consideration, most likely here, this response of the Jews may actually make perfect sense if it is also taken into consideration that ‘since this “hailed,” lasting, 46-year old Temple was so “well built”, just destroying it would take much more than 3 days, let alone its rebuilding.^E281

            It may also seem strange at first that the Jews responded to Jesus by mentioning such an odd, yet precise, date of the years the sanctuary had been rebuilt as they easily could have instead said in a more general way that:

           

‘It has been over 40 years that this sanctuary has been rebuilt and you will raise it up in three days!’

            Yet their specific answer showed here how they really took at heart this Temple. In fact, its completion (= its inauguration) 46 years earlier had been greatly and ‘illustriously’ celebrated, (as it also coincided with the celebration of the king’s inauguration),^R282 thus addedly providing a quite memorable, and annually commemorable, date. This then all would not make it a surprise that any apparent comment made against this Temple would greatly disturb these religious leaders, and it then is no surprise that this single comment by Jesus would later be considered as a major accusation against Him at the time of His final trial.^S283

            Now, with the correct translation and understanding of John 2:20 having been established, we can now see the full chronological contribution that this statement came to make in regards to the date of Christ’s first Passover visit during His public ministry. Since, as it has been calculated, the first year of  the sanctuary being rebuilt was in the Jewish 7^th month (Tishri), i.e., the year from September/October 19 B.C. to September/October 18 B.C., then the 46^th year of this rebuilding anniversary was the period that fell between September/October 27 A.D. and September/October 28 A.D.,^N284 as the following table demonstrates:

                                (September/October-to-September/October Years)

                                     # ---   Year         # ---  Year         # ---  Year

                                     1 - 19-18 B.C.        16 - 4-3 B.C.          31 - 12-13 A.D.

                                     2 - 18-17 B.C.        17 - 3-2 B.C.          32 - 13-14 A.D.

                                      3 - 17-16 B.C.       18 - 2-1 B.C.          33 - 14-15 A.D.

                                      4 - 16-15 B.C.       19 - 1 B.C.-1 A.D.    34 - 15-16 A.D.

                                      5 - 15-14 B.C.       20 - 1-2 A.D.        35 - 16-17 A.D.

                                      6 - 14-13 B.C.       21 - 2-3 A.D.        36 - 17-18 A.D.

                                      7 - 13-12 B.C.        22 - 3- 4 A.D.       37 - 18-19 A.D.

                                      8 - 12-11 B.C.       23 - 4-5 A.D.        38 - 19-20 A.D.

                                      9 - 11-10 B.C.       24 - 5-6 A.D.        39 - 20-21 A.D.
                                    10 - 10-9  B.C.         25 - 6-7 A.D.        40 - 21-22 A.D.                                           

                                    11 -   9-8 B.C.         26 - 7-8 A.D.        41 - 22-23 A.D.                                           

                                    12 -   8-7 B.C.         27 - 8-9 A.D.        42 - 23-24 A.D.                                           

                                    13 -   7-6 B.C.         28 - 9-10 A.D.      43 - 24-25 A.D.                                           

                                    14 -   6-5 B.C.         29 - 10-11 A.D.    44 - 25-26 A.D.                                           

                                    15 -   5-4 B.C.         30 - 11-12 A.D.    45 - 26-27 A.D.
                                                                46 - 27-28 A.D.

            So the Passover, when the Jews made this comment to Jesus, the one that fell in the 46^th year of the Temple’s rebuilt anniversary, would have been the Passover in the A.D. 28.^N285 This date then concretely indicates that the baptism of Jesus had occurred in 27 A.D. and also that Luke had bee reckoning his date in Luke 3:1 for the co-regency of Tiberius Caesar back in 13 A.D.

            This established chronology also indicates that Christ’s baptism in the Jordan had occurred, amazingly enough, exactly 483 years after the starting point of Daniel’s  Seventy Weeks in the year of 457 B.C., which would mean that the coming on the scene of Jesus the "Messiah" and "King," at the end of the 69 prophetic weeks would have been accurately and timely fulfilled by Jesus Christ, both theologically and chronologically!

            With now the date of Christ’s baptism, and His first Passover having been established to ca. 27 and 28 A.D., respectively, what can now be significant to determine is the approximate time of the year in 27 or 28 A.D. when Jesus was baptized. Based on the detailed accounts in the gospel of John concerning the events in the early stages of Christ’s ministry (John 1:19-2:25) leading up to His first Passover visit, we can indeed fairly accurately determine this probable season.

The Time of the Year of Christ’s Baptism

            Based on the established and accepted fact that a days "journey" in Biblical times covered about 16-20 miles,^R286 a day-by-day outline of  the itinerary of Christ’s early ministry which is aided by the temporal markers in the Gospel of John (John 1:29a, 35a, 43a, 2:1a,12b)would have been as follows:

[See Map#2 for the sketch of these points (❶-❿) in this itinerary]

            ➊Day 1   (John 1:19-28) -John the Baptist is questioned by Jewish religious leaders

            ➋Day 2   (John 1:29-34) -John and Jesus meet for the first time since the baptism

            ➌Day 3   (John 1:35-42) -John and Jesus meet again; Jesus is followed by 3 disciple^N287

            ➍Day 4   (John 1:43-51) -Jesus calls Philip, who in turn calls Nathanael; Jesus leaves for                                                                      Galilee (John 1:43).

➎Day 4-8                       -The 70-mile trip from Bethabara (Bethany) (John 1:28) to Cana of                                      Galilee (John 2:1).^N288 

            ➏Day 9-15 (John 2:1-11) -'Seven days of feasting'^R289 at the wedding in Cana.^N290

            ➐Day 16    (John 2:12a)   -Jesus makes a 16-mile trip (1-day) from Cana to Capernaum.

            ➑Day 17-19? (John 2:12b)-Jesus and his disciples do not stay in Capernaum “many                                                                                days”.

            ➒Day 20-25   (John 2:13) -Jesus makes a 75-mile trip (4-5 days) from Capernaum to                                                                             Jerusalem for the Passover.

            ➓Day 25        (John 2:14) -Jesus arrives in Jerusalem and cleanses the Temple.

            This reconstructed itinerary of Christ’s early ministry, would then mean that approximately or better, at least, 25 days had elapsed between the account of the questioning of John the Baptist in John 1:19-28 and the first Passover visit of Christ in (the Spring of) 28 A.D.

Now the logical understanding here would be to defaultly assume that John the gospel writer had begun this chronological account of Christ’s travels immediately after Jesus had returned from His forty-day stay in the Wilderness of Temptation since the gospels say that Jesus went to the wilderness of temptation immediately after His baptism.^{S291, N292} Based on such a sequitur, default assumption, if these 40 days were indeed attached to this minimum of 25 days, it would then mean that at least 65 days that had elapsed from the baptism of Christ to His first Passover visit in the Spring of 28 A.D. Now since this Passover probably occurred sometime around the middle of March to the middle of April, this would then mean that Jesus had been baptized about in early January to early February 28 A.D. (about 9 weeks before).

The prophecy then indicates that at the end of, what works out to be, 483 years, a certain “Messiah, Prince/(sub-)Ruler” will make his appearance on the scene. This identity of the Messiah is clearly and rightfully assumed by Jesus Christ, and it is only publicly declared/revealed by Him after His baptism by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. (See also Luke 1:32; John 18:37). From the precise, uninterruptible chronology of the prophecy, which precisely began in the 7^th Jewish month (i.e., Sep/Oct) of 457 B.C., the end of this 483-year period is to take place in Sep/Oct of the year 27 A.D. Then sometime after that chronological period’s ending, the Messiah is to make His official (public) appearance on the scene, as such.

            The date for the baptism of Jesus and the start of His public ministry is conclusively/most objectively anchoredly indicated from by the date of the Passover revealed in John 2:20 which, when accurately translated (actually non-sequiturly), says (by the quasi-flummoxed Jewish leaders): “This sanctuary has stood built for 46 years...!!?”, is conclusively reckoned to be in the Spring of the year 28 A.D.

            Then from the chronological data given early in the gospels of Luke and John, it can be further specifically determined that the Baptism of Christ had priorly taken place, actually, around the middle of that winter, earlier in that 28 A.D. year -[contra e.g., GC 327.1's ‘autumn baptism’], some ca. “2 months” (DA 144.3-145.1)/65 days (= 40 (Matt 4:1|DA 109.1ff, 114.1-2) + ca. 25 (John 1:29ff|DA 136.4-137.1ff)) leading up to that first ministering Passover visit (John 2:13ff).

            Further corroborating evidence about the exact year of Christ’s baptism is then seen in Luke 3:1. -Contrary to a popularized erroneous claim²⁹³, that specific year is not revealed by a convergence of the several reigns cited in Luke 3:1-2, for that convergence factually merely produces a wide range of years of: 27-33/34 A.D. Rather the precise year is obtained from the fact that it was also during the said “15^th year of the authority of Tiberius.” (Luke 3:1) That is because the Greek term used in this verse to speak of the “authority” of Tiberius is not to be used and understood interchangeably with the term for “reign” as it is commonly done in Bible translations. An in depth study of the use of this word in the 630+ times that it occurs in other Greek works, clearly reveals that it has a specific meaning of referring to the “authority” or “power” that someone, or some entity, has in order to reign or have the supremacy and/or dominion. As such it is also a “power” that can be shared by two or more individuals or entities. Therefore, based on the documented history of Tiberius’s accession and reign as emperor, the beginning of this 15 year reckoning is from the time when Tiberius Caesar was made a co-emperor, and that by Consular law, by his adoptive father Emperor Augustus Caesar. However while that Consular Law was proposed and passed in the Senate sometime around October 23 of A.D. 12, it apparently was not formally put into effect until Tiberius’s actual return to Rome a little after the Roman’s New Year’s Day of January 13 A.D. So Tiberius’ ensuing 15^th year therefore was from (some date in) January 27 A.D. to January 28 A.D. And it is towards the very end of that 15^th year period, that Jesus was baptized.

            (As the reference in Luke 3:23 to Christ’s approximate age is often, but falsely, used to try to determine the year of the beginning of Christ’s ministry, see this pertinent post on the actual year of Christ’s birth).

            Now, succinctly stated: the manifest reconciling fact here between this more Biblically and objectively proven date of January 28 A.D. for Christ’s baptism and the prophetic chronological indicator in Dan 9:25 for an (exact) arrival on the scene of the Messiah 483 years after the start of the prophecy, thus in the Fall of October 27 AD. is in how closely the “forerunning” ministry of John the Baptist was “symbiotically” linked to that of the Messiah (e.g. Matt 17:10-13). In fact John the Baptist himself clearly states that ‘the whole reason/purpose of his ministry and his baptizing was so that the Messiah would be revealed to Israel’ (John 1:31, 33 =DA 109.3-110.1). And so, it appears that John began his ministry by first going on an extensive, itinerant preaching tour (Matt 3:1-4) and “then” (Matt 3:5a) he settled near Bethany to do baptisms, and it is then that the people who had heard his prior preaching went out to him to be baptized....and it was at that time, when also these tidings of John ministry had reached the region where Jesus lived ca. 75 miles away from Jerusalem/Judea in the Galilee region (Matt 2:19-23), that Jesus, and others in the region, traveled to where John was ministering. (DA 109.1). So, given the fact that John’s ministry did not involve miraculous signs (John 10:41; cf. 4:1), it probably took a while for his, thus “simple”, message to spread throughout Israel. Furthermore, it is evident that John ministry was started a long while before Jesus came on the scene at all as John had had time to assemble many “disciples”, some of which would immediately leave him to follow after Jesus upon John’s endorsement of Him (John 1:35-37; DA 138.4-5ff). And quite interestingly, in Luke 3:21, Luke uses very specific/deliberate (Greek) expression to (literally/accurately) say: “As a result of every-[only repenting]-one (Gk. apanta) being baptize (Gk. (aorist) infinitive (=main verb)), Jesus also was being baptized (Gk. passive (dependent) aorist participle-(of result/end)”, all strongly indicating that Jesus going out to John to be baptized was pointedly greatly dependent on when everyone else was being baptized.

            So it is manifest that John had begun his “forerunning” ministry for a while before Jesus, and at first mainly as an itinerant preacher, and then John entered a non-itinerant phase of baptizing, and it is then that people now left there homes/locations to go out to him instead, and it is at that time that Jesus also did the same. So it pointedly was John’s (secondary) baptizing ministry which served as a “sign” to Jesus (See DA 109.1, cf. 109.3b).

            Thus it is quite possible that John had begun, at God’s indication, preaching in October 27 AD., and then, perhaps distinctly, at God’s indication (John 1:33), began baptizing around January 28 AD, and ‘as a result’ of this news of, pointedly, this call to ‘go and be baptized by John’ also reached Nazareth, that Jesus then joined the flocking crowds to also be baptized, and was thus officially revealed as the Messiah. So it would be John’s Messiah-seeming (Luke 3:15ff; John 1:19-20ff) preaching start itself, in possibly October 27 AD, when he actually straightly announced the soon arrival of the (superior) Messiah (John 1:26-28, 30-31; Luke 3:16-17)  which had timely fulfilled the prophetic chronological element in Dan 9:25. Then Jesus merely seamlessly complemented, and continued this Messianic Advent.[4]²⁹⁴ Also, the allegorical, and timed, ‘repent or likewise perish’ (Luke 13:1-5) parable of Christ in Luke 13:6-9 (cf. Matt 21:18-19ff), told in the third (cf. John 7:2) and final year of Christ’s public ministry, shows that the (manifestly) 3.5, (inclusively reckoned: 4), years of ministry by John the Baptist and Jesus were indeed seamlessly, consecutively, conjoined. (Luke 3:8-9, 15-17; Matt 3:1-2||Mark 1:14-15 cf. Matt 17:10-13).

“About 30 Years of Age”

            When the probable age of Jesus at the time His baptism is taken into consideration here with the year of His baptism sometime in January 28 A.D., a very interesting conclusion can be made in regards to Jesus’s awareness of the Messianic prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.

            It has traditionally been believed that Jesus was waiting to be of the "legal" age of 30 to begin His ministry because of the stipulation in Num 4:3 concerning Levites entering the Temple service, but a closer look at the implementation of this "legal age" over the years reveals that this may not necessarily have been the reason. First of all, this traditional conclusion is primarily based on the syntactically inaccurate translations of Luke 3:23 by some English versions which say that Jesus "began to be about thirty years of age" at the time of His baptism,^R295 but based on an accurate rendering of the Greek text here, what Luke had actually said here, after he had written about the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, was that “Jesus Himself was about 30 years of age when He began [His ministry].”^R296 I. Howard Marshall has pointed out that Luke's use of the expression hōsei “about” is a clear indication that this age of 30 was not the exact age of Christ at the time of His baptism, but rather an approximation,^B297 and in addition to this, Luke’s “about” statement is expressed here in one of two possible ways for a number approximation in Greek can be expressed as either hōs or hōsei. The difference between the two is that, with numerals, the hōsei expression, which has the particle of conditionality “ei” (= “if”) attached at its end, indicates an even more general approximation than the expression hōs^R298 So Luke actually wasn’t sure about Jesus’ exact age at that time and rather gave a "ballpark" figure which was saying that: ‘Jesus was in His thirties when He began His ministry.’

            Now when it is also taken into consideration here that: (1) Jesus may have been born as early as 8 B.C.,^R299 which would mean that He would have been about 34^N300 years of age at the time of His baptism in 28 A.D.; (2) the age of 30 for entering the temple service mentioned in Num 4:3 was actually first lowered by God Himself through Moses to 25 (Num 8:23, 24), and then it was established at 20 later on by a last act of King David (1 Chr 23:24, 27) as the work of moving around the tabernacle and its utensils was no longer needed with a then fixed Temple (vs. 26), and that it was this lowered age of 20 that was followed after the time of the Second Temple period (Ezra 3:8); and also that (3) these ages of 30, 25 and 20 were only a minimum requirement and anyone from these ages up to fifty could enter the Temple service;^S301 it then becomes apparent that Jesus was really not waiting until He was actually thirty to begin His ministry, but that instead He seemed to have been waiting for His “(appointed) time.”^N302

            This can be seen by the fact that, at the youthful age of twelve, Jesus anxiously wanted to start His ministry as soon as He became aware of what “His Father's business” was all about and what He had to do (Luke 2:49). Yet after listening to His parents and going back home with them  after this Passover visit (Luke 2:51), He then waited about 22 years before actually beginning His ministry. Since, as we have mentioned earlier, Jesus may have been born as early as 8 B.C.,^R303 He then could have theoretically begun His ministry 8 years after His temple visit (in what would be 12 A.D.) since He would then have been twenty years old, or He could have begun13 years after this visit (in what would be 17 A.D.) when He would have been twenty-five. But instead He waited until 28 A.D., when He would then be 34 years old.^N304

            Also when one takes into consideration that (1) these “legal ages”of 20, 25 or 30 for Levites entering the service may not have been binding on Jesus at all in the first place since He was not a Levite from the tribe of  “Levi” but rather a Nazarene from the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:11-17;^N305 cf. Gen 49:8-10; Matt 1:3; 2:6; Rev 5:5); and also that (2) He technically was not entering the Jewish Temple service; the question must then be asked: What then caused the then youthful and anxious Jesus to instead wait about 22 years, to begin His public ministry? It now becomes almost self-evident that Jesus had actually been waiting for His Messianic appointed “time,” i.e, the Messianic “time” of Daniel’s Seventy Week prophecy. It could also be suggested here that the youthful Jesus, at the age of twelve, may not have yet studied and/or understood the Messianic time-prophecy in Daniel, but that after His Temple visit, He would have come to understand it and see that He had to wait for the 69 weeks of Dan 9:25 to fully elapse before officially making His public appearance and ministry as the Messiah.^N306

            This conclusion is further supported by the fact that early in His public ministry, Jesus, after He had completed an extended ministry in the area of Judea right after His first Passover visit in 28 A.D. (John 2:13; 3:22), He returned to His hometown of Galilee (John 4:1-3[4]) and began a ministry there (see John 4:43-47a, 54; cf. Matt 4:12-16; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14-16ff). At that time, upon entering into Galilee, He specifically said:

“The (set/appointed) time [Gk.-kairos]^N307 has been fulfilled,^N308 and the kingdom of God is at hand....” Mark 1:15.

            The perfect tense that the verb “fulfilled” was expressed in here is a Greek tense that “is used with special significance by an author[/speaker].”^B309 As we have briefly stated earlier, it is a tense that specifically denotes an action, or more correctly a process,^R310 that took place in the past, the result of which have continued to the present.^R311 This perfect tense is more specifically a Intensive/Resultative Perfect here as the emphasis here is more on the past completed action/process;^R312 which would in this case be the fulfillment long chronological time period of the Seventy Weeks concerning the coming on the scene of the Messiah (the 69 prophetic weeks). This is because, this prophecy is the only Messianic prophecy that had a specific time element in it then Jesus was no doubt referring specifically to this Messianic set/appointed “time” here. So in summary, Jesus was actually saying here, with particular emphasis, that the set/appointed time of the Messiah, had been fulfilled (back in 27 A.D.) and the “present continuing state” of this past fulfillment was being revealed in the public ministry that He had since then been carrying out. (see in Luke 4:14-21). The kingdom of God was indeed at hand because since that time He had been performing mighty, redemptive acts and miracles (cf. Matt 12:28).^N313

            So it does indeed seems that Jesus made a particular, though implicit, appeal to the Seventy Week prophecy here and this was apparently because He was now returning to His hometown of Galilee, where He had spent 30+ years of His life after his return from Egypt (cf. Matt 2:22, 23). He knew, that the people there would not believe in Him because their familiarity with Him would prevent them from fully having faith and Him and the great works that He had now been empowered from on High to do. (See Matt 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6). As He had said:

‘A prophet has no honor in his own country, among his own relatives and in his own house’ (see Matt 13:57, Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24 and John 4:44; Cf. Matt 21:11).^N314

           

             That is why He was only able to do some 'minor' miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) since His healing of people greatly depended on the faith they had in Him (see e.g., Matt 9:22, 29; 15:28; Mark 5:35-43; cf. Matt 17:20; Mark 9:23, 24; John 11:23-27). So here Jesus had made a direct appeal to the fulfilled set/appointed time of the Seventy Week prophecy as He was returning to Galilee in order to indicate the reason why He was now going about doing the works that He was doing and asking His hometown folks to have faith in Him. The witness of this fulfilled appointed time would help them  understand why He had not previously made such claims, and such a requirement (cf. Mark 6:6b) during the 30+ years that He had lived among them. This fulfilled prophecy would indeed help to break down the wall of prejudice that they had against Him -the hometown Returnee. As the late Christian singer Keith Green sang concerning this attitude of unbelief towards Jesus by the people in Nazareth and Galilee: 

“What! You must be kidding!

He thinks he’s a prophet!?!

But prophets don’t grow up from little boys,

... or do they???”^B315

[cf. Mark 3:21; 6:3; John 7:5].

            Now with this incident showing that Jesus was indeed a close follower of the Messianic prophecy in Dan 9 (for obvious reasons), it then seems that the appointed “time” or “hour” statements made by Jesus in reference to the set times in His public ministry (Matt 26:18, 45; Luke 22:53; John 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 11:7-9; 12:23, 27; 13:1) were actually references to the prophetic "time" of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.^N316

            With now the coming of māšîah nāgîd having been precisely fulfilled historically by the timely baptism of Christ in the Fall of 27 A.D., we can now turn to Dan 9:26 to examine the events that were prophesied to take place “after the sixty-two weeks;” i.e., after 27 A.D.

Chronology of the 70 Weeks  [27 A.D.]

Notes to "māšîah nāgîd"

1. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, 240;  Montgomery, 379; Porteous, 132, 141, 142;  D. S. Russell, The Method and the Message of the Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press, 1964), 186-188; Towner, 142.

2. Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, ed. and trans. E. J. Revell (Masoretic Studies 5; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980), 158. See also Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 68, who also make a similar comment.

3. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 29 [1.6.4b].

4. Williams Wickes, Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament: On Psalms, Proverbs, and Job; On the Twenty-one Prose Books, proleg. A. Dotan (New York: Ktav, 1970, originally 1881, 1887).

5. Ibid.

6. Owusu-Antwi, 186-197.

7. See Wickes, Treatise, I:32-35.

8.  Other examples of this emphatic function of the athnach are seen in Gen 1:21; 4:15; 41:47; Exod 25:22; Deut 28:32.

9. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 189. See also Gen 34:7; 35:9, 21; 41:53; Exod 12:23; 24:4; Num 20:13; 28:26; 1 Sam 14:27; Isa 27:13; Dan 9:2.

10. See also Gen 9:10; Exod 3:12; Isa 28:16; Jer 2:23; Dan 1:6.

11. See also Gen 19:20; Deut 3:19; 1 Sam 3:3; 2 Sam 14:26; Jer 20:1.

12. See e.g., Gen 6:15; 1 Chr 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Ezek 2:36, 40, 41.

13. See e.g., Gen 10:10; 13:14; 1 Chr 7:8; 12:30; 29:27; Dan 8:20.

14. See also e.g., Num 1:21, 23; Neh 7:11, 45, 66.

15. Owusu-Antwi, 191.

16. Ibid., 192.

17. Ibid.

18. E.g., Gen 46:21; Num 1:46; 1 Chr 7:9.

19. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 206 [11.2.10c].

20. For a list of the Hebrew terms for the English preposition "for," see The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, "for," vol. 2.  2^nd ed. rev. (London: Walton and Marberly, 1860), 1534.

21. Goldingay, 229.

22. Owusu-Antwi, 195.

23. Cf. also Roger T. Beckwith, "Daniel  9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming..." RevQ 10 (1980): 521-542.

24. Quoted in: Yeivin, Tiberian Masorah, 218.

25. Cf. Archer "Daniel," 113; Boutflower, 186; Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1944), 101; E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 191.

26. See discussion on “The Building of Jerusalem” in Ch. 4, Pp.

27. During this “sabbath year” the land was to lie fallow and be left uncultivated. There were also socio-economic purposes included in these sabbaths in the sabbatical cycle. See  Exod 23:10, 11; Duet 15.

28. See the chart of B. Zuckermann in Treatise on the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee. Translated by. A. Löwy (New York: Hermon Press, 1974), 60.  As we will also later see two other key years in the overall chronology of the Seventy Week prophecy, 27 A.D. and 34 A.D., were all also dates of the sabbatical cycle of sabbatical years. [Ibid., 61; cf. Ben Zion Wacholder, Chronomessianism: "The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calender of Sabbatical Cycles," HUCA 46 (1975), 218; idem.,"The Calender of Sabbatical Cycles during the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period," HUCA (1973), 185, 190].     

            Despite the mention of the Jubilee celebration in connection with the sabbatical-year cycle of Lev 25:8, this sabbatical year cycle cannot be used to calculate the years when the Jubilee was celebrated because of the lack of historical data concerning the years in which this feast fell in and because of the uncertainty, in both Jewish and Christian scholarly circles, as to when the Jubilee was celebrated. Some say it was in the year after the 49 years of the sabbatical cycle, others says that it was on this 49^th year, while others say that it was in both years. For a discussion on these different theories see Zuckermann, “Treatise.”

29. Yeivin, Tiberian Masorah, 173.

30. HAL, 608; KBL, 573; BDB, 602; Klein, 390, 391; Seybold, "māšah," TWAT, 5:48., etc.

31. HAL, 609; KBL, 574; BDB, 603; GCHL, 516; Klein, 390; Seybold, "māšah," TWAT, 5:48; Soggin, "mælek, König," THAT, 1:913; Victor P. Hamilton, "māshah," TWOT, 1:530; cf. Owusu-Antwi, 161-163.

32. See e.g., Lev 4:3, 5, 6; 6:15; 1 Sam 12:3; 24:7; 2 Sam 1:14; 23:1; Psa 60:7; 105:15; etc.

33. Cf. Marinus de Jonge, "Messiah," Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:779.

34. Cf. Boutflower, 191, 192.

35. Pusey, 197.

36. See e.g., 1 Chr 5:2; 26:24; etc.;

37. See e.g., 1 Chr 13:1; 27:4, 16; etc.,

38. See e.g., 1 Chr 9:11, 20; 2 Chr 31:12, 13; etc;

39. See e.g., 1 Sam 9:16; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:2; 2 Kgs 20:5; 1 Chr 11:2; 17:7; 12:27; 28:4; 29:22; etc.

40. See e.g., Gen 25:16; 34:2; Num 7:2, 18, 24, 30, etc; Jos 13:21; Ezek 7:27; etc.

41. E.g., Gen 12:15; 21:22, 32; Jer 32:32; 38:17, 18, 22; Ezra 7:28; Hos 13:10; etc.

42. See Dan 1:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18; 8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13 (2X), 20 (2X), 21; 11:5; 12:1.

43. Cf. Seow, 72; Moses Stuart, 282; Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 258 [14.3.1a]; Williams, 16.  Stuart (282) also adds that: “In its present position, moreover, standing after [the preposition] ^⊂ad, it cannot be a predicate, for it could be only in case ^⊂ad were omitted, and then the assertion might be: Anointed [is] a prince.”

44. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 259; Joüon and Muraoka, 2:521.

45. Clyde T. Francisco, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel" RevExp 57 (1960): 136; Ronald W. Pierce, "Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9," Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 217; Thomas E. McComiskey, "The Seventy 'Weeks' of Daniel against the Background of Near Eastern Literature." WTJ  47 (1985): 28, 29; Michael J. Gruenthaner, "The Seventy Weeks." CBQ 1 (1939): 48.

46. Goldingay, 261.

47.  E.g., Karl Marti, Das Buch Daniel.* Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament,* 18 (Yubingen: J.C.B Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1901), 69; Hartman and Di Lella, 251; Lacocque, 195; Porteous, 142; E.W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel.  Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press, 1956), 213; Towner, 143; A.A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: The University Press, 1892), 156; Montgomery, 379.

48. Goldingay, 262.

49. F. F. Bruce, "Josephus and Daniel," ASTI 4 (1965), 152.

50. See Owusu-Antwi, 163, 164, 170, 171, 284-290, 305-307.

51. Cf. 1 Sam 10:1; 1 Chr 29:22.

52. See also Rev 17:14; 19:16.

53. Cf. Gen 49:10; 1 Chr 28:4. See also the Royal Messianic theme found in Psalms 2.

54.  See also Matt 24:5, 23 were Jesus uses this title of christos to warn against people who would come claiming to be the "Messiah."

55.  Cf. Isa 9:6, 7.

56.  It also was this similar belief that the prophesied Messiah would be a King that caused the Jews to be so reluctant to believe that the simple-looking, and humble Jesus was the Promised Great and Ultimate King of Israel (cf. Isa 53:1-4).

57. See in Ch. 6, Note #60 for a discussion of the wordings of the Inscription.

58. It is interesting to note that the Jews were primarily interested to know if Jesus was the Messiah, for religious reasons of course, while Pilate wanted to know if Jesus was a King due to the political implications that this would have (cf. Acts 17:7).

59. It must be kept in mind that there actually was no "year zero" and that we went from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. on the historical time-line or else this time period would end in the year 26 A.D.

60 Saul (1 Sam 9:16), David (1 Sam 16:12; 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3), [Absalom (2 Sam 19:10)]; Solomon (1 Kgs 1:34), and Hazael of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15); Jehu (2 Kgs 9:2, 3); Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:30); cf. Jud 9:8, 15.

61 Aaron and his sons (Exod 28:41; 29:7; 30:30; 40:15; Lev 16:32),

62 Elijah anointed Elisha (1 Kgs 19:16)

63 Matt 3:13-16~Mark 1:9-11~Luke 3:21, 22.

64. Cf. Matt 12:18-21.

65. Kilian McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 111.

66 Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ simultaneously occupied the office of Prophet, Priest (cf. e.g., Heb. 7, 8) and King, all three requiring Him to be Anointed before public ministry. (Cf. Heb 1:9 = Psa 45:6, 7).

67. Later on, we will be able to specify the most probable time and season of the year when it could have taken place.

68. This native land of Luke is based on the testimony of Church Father Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica,* 3:4.6) who claims that Luke was “by race an Antiochan.” Antioch was an important city in the province of Syria. [See Map#3 for location].

69. This is an official title that Luke later also uses in the book of Acts to refer to Roman procurators (governors) like (Marcus) Felix (Acts 23:26; 24:3); and (Porcius) Festus (Acts 26:25). [Cf. Matthew Bunson, "Marcus Antonius Felix," & "Porcius Festus," Encyclopedia of Roman Empire, 155].

            Also the fact that Luke doesn’t address this same Roman official Theophilus as “Most Excellent” in Acts as he had done in the Gospel account (comp. Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1) has led some to conclude that by this time Theophilus may have converted to Christianity and may have thus lost his position in the Roman Empire. This conclusion can be supported syntactically since Luke uses an “emotional address” vocative when he says: “O Theophilus!” Jesus uses this same “emotional address” when a Canaanite woman had made a faithful and insightful response to His testing statement: “It is not good to take children’s bread and throw it to the puppies.” She responded by saying: “Yes, Lord! For even the puppies feed on the crumbs falling from their masters table.” This pleased Jesus and he responded by saying: “O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish.” [u.e.s.] (see Matt 15:21-28). In a similar way Luke may have been quite surprised, emotional, and pleased by Theophilus’s ready response to the Gospel message; and he now sent him (through the work on the ‘Acts of the Apostles’) an account of the rise, deeds and progress of this new Church that Theophilus would now have joined.

            (The classification of this vocative preceded by “O” as an emphatic address is contra N. Turner (33 note (c)) who claims that Acts is “the only NT book where [“O”] cannot be said to involve some emotion”; and also contra D. B. Wallace, (69) who claims the same thing, and also adds that this “O” is unemphatic because it is in mid-sentence).

70. Some choose to believe that the reference to Theophilus here is not literal but actually a general name meaning: "friend of God," (from the combination of: Theos- ‘God’ and  philos- ‘friend of’), which Luke used to refer to Christians in general, but this is a theory that really has roots in attempts to undermine the literalness and thus truthfulness of the Gospel accounts. The writings of Josephus shows that the name "Theophilus" was one that was used for literal people -even Jewish figures. (See Antiquities of the Jews 18:5.3 [#123] & 19:6.2 [#297]).

71. Contra. SDABC 5:247n11 which posits that because Luke had based his account from Palestinian Jewish sources/testimony (Luke 1:2), even Mary the mother of Jesus for the account of Luke 2, as well as the Twelve disciples. Despite this probability for his sources, Luke still could, and most likely would, have “translated/reworded” terms and reckoning methods that were exclusive to the Jews for his Roman Official recipient here.

72. E.g, the “Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation” (Luke 21:20 vs. Matt 24:15, 16|Mark 13:14).

73. See Mark’s translation of Aramaic words and expressions in 5:41; 7:11; (13:14); 15:34; and his explanation of Jewish feasts such as Passover (14:12) and the custom of the Pharisees (7:3, 4); and also his giving of the Roman equivalent of a Palestine coin (12:42).

74. Believing that Luke was using the Jewish reckoning system to relate the date of Christ’s baptism to the Roman Official Theophilus, indeed vs. the many other possibilities, would be as odd and highly unlikely as a Canadian Christian today trying to relate the birth year of Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion (October 16, 1886) to a American State Governor friend of his as Tishrei 17, 5647, i.e., according to the current Jewish dating system.

75. Cf. G. B. Caird, "Chronology of the NT," IBD (1962), 1:601; Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 36.

76. See Dio Cassius, Roman History, 56:29.6; 30.5; Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History, 2.123.2; Suetonius, The Deified Augustus, 99C.

77. Cf. H. Stuart Jones, and Hugh Last. "The Early Republic," CAH, Vol. 7. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: The University Press, 1928), 437; Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 87 [#172].

78. See examples of this dating formula in e.g., Dio Cassius, Roman History, 54:7.4; 56:29.2; 58:17.1; 20.5; Paterculus, Compendium, 2:123.2; Suetonius, The Deified Augustus 99C; Gaius Caligula, 4.8.1; among others.

79. Based on Theodor Mommsen, ed. Chronica Minora,* Vol. 1. SAEC 4-7 (Berolini: APVD Weimannus, 1892), 219, 220; cf. Ibid., 280, 281; Finegan, 84 [#179].

80. The Greek term “hēgemoneuontos” which is used here to describe Pilate’s official function specifically referred to the more militarily-base office of a “Prefect” (as it will be seen in greater detail later), but it has traditionally been assumed that Pilate was a “Procurator.” A stone inscription discovered in 1961 in the Roman theater of Caesarea and which had originally been set up by Pontius Pilate in Caesarea during his rule in Judea, has come to settle this question as it showed that Pilate himself described his office as a “Prefect.” 

Pilate Inscription (Replica)

It reads as:

                                    TIBERIEVM -(A building in honor of Tiberius)

                                    PON]TIVS PILATVS -(Pontius Pilate)

                                    PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]E ... -(Prefect of Judea)

Illustrative Reconstruction (Logos)

            Nevertheless even as a prefect, Pilate could still be considered as a procurator since the “Prefect” was also entitled to perform the financial functions of a “procurator,” and thus also assumed that title. [See B. Levick, Claudius, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), 48]. (For further discussion on the Pilate inscription see: Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ. New English Edition. Rev. and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar. 3 vols (Edingburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-87), 1:358 note 22; and John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav, Jesus & His World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 225-227).

81. Traditionally the date of Pilate’s rule has been dated from 26-36 A.D., but based on the specific testimony of Josephus (Ant., 18:4.2 [#89]), this “ten-year” rule has to be dated from early 27 to early 37 A.D. as he says there that: “Pilate, having spent ten years in Judea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refused.” (Pilate was being sent to Rome by his superior L. Vitellius, the legate (president) of Syria, in order to stand trial for his lawless crimes against the Samaritans (Ibid., 18:4.1, 2 [#85-#88]). Since Josephus also adds that before Pilate could get to Rome, Tiberius passed away (March 16, 37 A.D.) (Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:73.1), then Pilate had left for Rome some time around late February or early March in 37 A.D.  If backdate Pilate’s “ten years” from this date, then his arrival in Judea was sometime around late February or early March in 27 A.D.  (Cf. K. F. Doig, New Testament Chronology (San Francisco, CA: EMText, 1992), 165-176).

82. An “tetrarch” was the title for a ‘ruler of a quarter.’ [Greek= tetras (“four”) + archēs (“chief rule”), cf. The Analytical Greek Lexicon, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975), 116: “tetrarchēs”. Since the tetrarch was “one of a sovereign body of four” (Ibid.), then this probably explains why Luke mentions four key political “quarters” (ruled over by three tetrarchs) of the Palestine area, in this dating section, namely:

            1. Galilee -Herod

            2. Iturea- Philip

            3. Trachonitis- Philip

            4. Abilene- Lysanias

     (Also, an “ethnarch” was a ‘chief ruler of a nation.’ [Gk.= ethnos (“nation”) + archēs (“chief rule”), cf. Ibid., 402: “ethnarchēs.”)

83. SDABC, 5:243; cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:7.1, 2 [#240-#256].

84. Exact dates not known but see Shürer, 1:567-569 on the historicity of this tetrach.

85. The fact that Luke mentions the High Priest Annas with Caiaphas here has puzzled NT scholars since Josephus says that Annas was deposed as High Priest by the predecessor of Pontius Pilate -Valerius Gratus- sometime after Tiberius had become emperor [See Ant. 18:2.2 (#33, #34)]. Since this deposition took place about ten years before the ministry of John the Baptist, it then is strange that Annas is mentioned at all here, but in reading through the Gospel accounts it is very clear that this same Annas had quite an influential, and apparently official, High-priest role during the time of the ministry of Christ and beyond. (See John 18:13, 24: Acts 4:6). What apparently happened here is that when Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus 11 years later (Ibid., 18:2.2 [#35]), Annas was reinstated as High Priest and served in that office together with Caiaphas. This is also probably why Luke refers to their joint high priesthood in the singular.

86. Roman historian Tacitus says that by the first century A.D. Rome “was also no longer ruled by kings,” (Tacitus, Annals, 1.1) as it had become a Republic that was ruled by Emperors, (Arnold, 51 - Cf. Strabo, Geography, 6.4.2 who says that “After the founding of Rome, the Romans wisely continued for many generations under the rule of kings. Afterwards, because the last Tarquinius was a bad ruler, they ejected him, framed a government which was a mixture of monarchy and aristocracy,”).

            Therefore along these line W. T. Arnold points out that although the phrase that describes an Emperors’ term in office as a "reign" is too convenient to be dropped, it is of course, strictly speaking, inexact (Ibid., 46 note 3).

            The specific Greek work for “reign” is basileias and is strictly reserved for kings. E.g., in texts of Appendix D #96; #213; #480.

87. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

88. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

89. Gen 36:30; Num 1:52; 2:17; 4Ma 6:33; 13:4; Sir 7:4; 10:1.

90. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

91. This grouping is not straightly based on how the term hēgemonia has been translated in these English translations of these texts, but by how they have been determined to be specifically functioning/meaning with their larger context in mind. As this categorization here is arguable, it is therefore qualified as being “loose.”

92. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

93. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

94. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

95. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

96. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

97. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

98. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

99. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

100. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

101. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

102. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

103. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

104. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

105. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

106. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

107. Numbers in square brackets [#] = Appendix D reference numbers of the contextual Greek and English texts. Underlined words = the translation of hēgemonias.

108. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

109. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

110. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

111. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

112. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

113. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

114. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

115. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

116. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

117. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

118. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

119. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

120. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

121. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

122. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=h(gemoni/a&lang=greek&sort=max

123. G.W.H. Lampe, ed., "hēgemonia," A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), Fascilcle 3, 599.

124. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, "hēgemon-ia," A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1:762-763.

125. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, "hēgemonia," A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 343.

126. G. Delling, "archē," TDNT, 1:478-484; K Weiss, "archēn," EDNT, 1:161.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132. Josephus, The Life of Josephus, 76 [#423].

133. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 57:24.1.

134. Ibid., 58:24.1.

135. Ibid., 58:24.2.

136. In the consulship of “Lucius Bitellius and Fabius Persicus” (Ibid.,) which was in 34 A.D.  

137. A similar meaning for archēs is also seen in the writings of Greek historian Polybius as he says that the Greeks at the time of Alexander became supreme in Asia also when they were able to overthrow the Persian Empire. This then implies that while the Persians were sharing authority in parts of the world with them they were not considered to be in primacy. (Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, 1:2.3).

138. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 57:7.1.

139. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:4.6 [#106].

140. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:6.10 [#224].  Another Jewish writer -Philo- uses hēgemonia similarly as he says (1) that ‘Gaius had derived his sovereignty (i.e. leadership of the Roman Empire) from Tiberius;’ and (2) ‘Gaius succeeded to the sovereignty of Tiberius’ [Philo, Embasssy to Gauis, 21 [#141] & 26 [#168]].

141. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:6.10 [#224].

142. Josephus’s numbers are not quite accurate here. Since Tiberius had died on March 16, 37 A.D., (see ref. in Note ??) this would place Josephus’ starting date in about October 13, 14 A.D. which is about 66 days short of the date in which Augustus Caesar had died (August 19, 14 A.D.). Roman Historian Dio Cassius was also slightly inaccurate as he had mistakenly stated that Tiberius died on March 26, 37 A.D. and therefore calculated that Tiberius’ rule had lasted for 22 years 7 months and 7 days, which is 10 days off the mark. [Dio Cassius, Roman History, 58:28.5].

            In fairness to Josephus, if (1) his other mention of this reckoning in Wars 2:9.5 [#180] (actually -previous mention since he wrote Wars some 19 years before Antiquities) as: “22 years, 6 months and 3 days” is used here instead and (2) if he was reckoning the regnal years of Tiberius according to the Jewish method (established earlier see page ??) of using (a) an accession year and (b) beginning the years of foreign (i.e, non–Israelite) kings in the Fall, in the month of Tishri, the 7^th month, then he would have considered Aug. 19 to Sep. 13, 14 A.D. to have been Tiberius’ accession year, and thus his year zero, with his first year beginning on Tishri 1 (~Sep 13) of that year, which is in fully harmony with mid-September being the Julian Calender equivalent for the start of the Jewish 7^th month.

143. Hēgemonon is found with a similar use in the writings of Greek historian Thucydides as he relates the letter of a military commander report to his superior about the current condition of his sent troops and says: “And now I beg you to believe that neither your soldiers nor your generals are blameworthy...” Later on in that letter, this commander asks for relief because of his kidney disease and says: “And I submit that I have a claim upon your indulgence [compliance], for when I was strong I served you well in many positions of command [hēgemoniais].” [Thucydides, 7:15.1, 2]

144. See also Plato, Timaeus, 45B for a similar use of hēgemonias as it says there: “Wherefore, dealing first with the vessel of the head, they set the face in the front thereof and bound within it organs for all the forethought of the Soul; and they ordained that this, which is the natural front, should be the leading part.” [i.e.s]

145. Plutarch’s Lives, Camillus, 23.1.

146. Plato, Laws, 1A.  A similar use and meaning is also found in P Rein 9¹³ [Papyri #9, line 13] (B.C. 112) as to refer to: the battalion under the “commandment of Artemidorus.”

147. Thucydides, 4:91.1.

148. Strabo, Geography, 17:3.25.

149. See in Note #68.

150. Cf. Bunson, "Prefect of the Praetorian Guard," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 343.

151. W. T. Arnold, Studies of Roman Imperialism (Manchester: University Press, 1906),  28, cf. 47.

152. Ibid., 23, 24.

153. See Henri Estienne, Stephanus: Thesaurus Graecae Linguae.* Vol. 5. (Austria: Akademische Druk- V. Verlagsanstalt, 1954),  87.

154. Since this "exclusive military power" of the Emperor  was only valid in provinces outside of Italy; as it was therefore proconsular (or provincial) imperium. (See Arnold, Roman Imperialism, 24).

155. Ibid., 24, 25.

156. Michael Grant, The Army of the Caesars (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974),  117; cf. Bunson, "Imperator," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 204; A. R. Burns, The Government of the Roman Empire from Augustus to the Antonines (London: The Historical Association, 1952), 7.

157. Cf. Bunson, "Tribunicia Potestas," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire,  427; Arnold, 32, 33.

158. Frank Burr Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius (Cambridge: W.  Heffer and Sons, Ltd, 1959), 45.

159. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 55:13.1.

160. See Dio Cassius, Roman History, 55:13.1-7, cf. 55:9.4-5; Cf. B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), 47-67; Marsh, 40-44; Robin Seager, Tiberius (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), 46, 47.

            Later on Emperor Claudius did the same thing, despite having a son of his own, to ensure that Nero would become Emperor after him. (See Josephus, War, 2:12.8 [#248]; cf. Antiquities, 20:8.2 [#151]).

161. Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:21.1; Augustus Caesar, Res Gestae Divi Augusti,* 2:8.4; Dio Cassius, Roman History, 56:28.6. See also Levick, Tiberius the Politician, 63-64 note 59-65; Pat Southern, Augustus (New York: Routledge, 1998), 189; William Smith, ed. "Augustus," DGRBM, (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1880), 1:429 cf. ibid., "Tiberius," 3:1118.

162. See Bunson, "Imperium Maius," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 205.

163. Grant, The Army of the Caesars, 114.

164. This was not simply e.g., a seat next to Augustus around a table, but was a formal “front and center” seat next to the Emperor who was positioned before the Senate, on a slightly elevated platform of/for the “Presiding Magistrate”. 

Curia Julia Floor Plan

See also these photos & drawings of the (restored) Senate House in Rome:

Roman Senate Site Today (Restored)

Virtual Reconstruction of Roman Senate

Artistic Drawing of Roman Senate

Artistic Roman Senate Session

165. See Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:21.1; cf. Arnold, 28.

166. Augustus Caesar, Res Gestae Divi Augusti,* 2:8.9-14.

167. Tacitus, Annals, 1:7.7

168. See Ibid., 1:24.3.

169. See Ibid., 1:7.7.   

170. Tacitus, Annals, 1:3.3. English translation by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942).

Original Latin text [enumeration emphasis supplied]: “illuc cuncta vergere: [1] filius, [2] collega imperii, [3] consors tribuniciae potestatis [4] adsumitur omnisque per exercitus ostentatur,”

171. Finegan, 330 [#570].

172. Suetonius, Augustus, 101.2

173. From the Latin iussit = 3rd sing, perfect tense of iubeo/jubeo - he ordered/commanded. (Full Latin phrase: “quos et ferre nomen suum iussit”)

174. Notwithstanding, Tiberius refrained from assuming this title until it was conferred on him by the Senate (see Dio Cassius, Roman History, 57:2.1).

175. Located in the area which is presently: Lyons, France.

176. See  H. Dieckmann, Die effecktive Mitregentschaft des Tiberius,* Klio 15 (1917/18):  339-375; C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy 31 B.C.- A.D. 68 (London, 1951), 77; Robin Seager, Tiberius (illustrations between page 46 and 47); Levick, Tiberius the Politician, 63.

177. These were years reckoned according to the Actian Era which began and ended on September 2 as it commemorated Augustus’s naval battle victory at Actium of September 2, 31 B.C.

178. Lewin, Thomas. Fasti Sacri.* A Key to the Chronology of the New Testament (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1865), liv.

179. R. Cagnat and J. Toutain, Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes,* 1:853.

180. See Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:17.1.

181. Arnold, Roman Imperialism, 25.

182.  Ibid.  In fact Augustus was hailed as “imperator” a total of 21 times during his life [See Augustus Caesar, Res Gestae Divi Augusti,* 1:4.21; Finegan, 86 [#180, 181].

183. Arnold, Roman Imperialism, 47 note 1.

184. See Josephus, War of the Jews 6.6.1 [#316]. Josephus actually says that Titus was “made” imperator at that point but this doesn’t appear to be a technically accurate expression here based on the way that victorious Roman general were usually “hailed” as imperator.

185. Cf. Bunson, "Flavius Titus," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 421, 422.  

186. See Paterculus, Compendium, 2.121.2.

187. Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:21.1.

188. See references in Note #101.

189. See Smith, "Paterculus," DGRBM,  3:134.

190. Ibid., 3:135.

191. Bunson, "Suetonius," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 397.

192. Ibid.

193. Cf. J. C. Tarver, Tiberius the Tyrant (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1902), 293, 294.

194. See Smith, "Lentulus #41," DGRBM, 1:733.

195. See Suetonius, Gaius Caligula, 4:8.2.

196. Ibid.

197. See Bunson, "Pliny the Elder," Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 331, 332. This “Pliny the Elder,” whose actual name was Gaius Plinius Secundus [See Suetonius, Gaius Caligula, 4:8.1], is not to be confused with “Pliny the Younger” (61 A.D.-122 A.D.) who actually was the nephew of Pliny the Elder and whose actual full name was Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus and was a front line Roman official [See Bunson, "Pliny the Younger," 332].

198. Suetonius, Gaius Caligula, 4:8.2, 3.

199. See Smith, "Paterculus," DGRBM, 3:135.

200. Ibid.

201. Levick, Tiberius the Politician, 27.

202. Ibid., 235 note 45; (quoting Paterculus, Compendium, 2:94.4 and 2:122.1).

203. See also the defense for late 12 A.D. by G. V. Sumner, "The Truth About Velleius Paterculus: prolegomena," HSCP 74, (1970), 270 note107.

204. Woodman, Anthony John. The Tiberian narrative, 2.94-131 / Velleius Paterculus.  [Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries: 19] Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1977.  211-212.

205. Suetonius, Tiberius, 3:24.1

206. Ibid., 3:25.1.

207. Josephus, War of the Jews, 2:9.1 [#168].

208. It thus cannot be said as a “hard and fast” rule that hēgemonias solely refers to a sole rule. This would be as incorrect as saying that they word “many” (i.e., a large number, which technically, means at least ‘more than one’) solely refers to situations involving ‘1000 or more’ because, e.g., it is used for such in a sample of examples with only one situation involving ‘100 or more’.

209. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 57:7.1.

210. This native land of Luke is based on the testimony of Church Father Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3:4.6 who claims that Luke was “by race an Antiochan.” Antioch was an important city in the province of Syria. [See Map#3 for location].

211. The other is recorded in Matt 21:10-19; Mark 11:12-18; Luke 19:45-48.

212. See e.g., NIV, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB.

213.  See e.g., NRSV.

214. Cf. Zodhiates, TCWS-NT, 306.

215. See e.g., A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 5^th ed. (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1931), 343, 344; Gerald L. Stevens, New Testament Greek (New York: University Press of America, 1994), 25, 26; etc.

216. Stevens, NT Greek, 26.

217. Ibid., 29.

218. Ibid., 26; Cf. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 118, 119; J. A. Brooks and C. L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979),  98.

219. Ibid.

220. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 98, 99

221. Stevens, NT Greek, 149-151.

222. This verb does not appear in its visible augmented form in the NT manuscripts (coded): B^*, W^supp, 33, 124, 579, P^{66*, c},  P^{75*, c}, a, Ψ:[MSS Mean Date = 6^th Cent.]; but it does appear in its visible augmented form in NT manuscripts: A, B^c, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, P, S, U, Y, f ¹ ={only MSS: 1, 118, 1582}, f ¹³ ={only MSS: 13, 69, 124, 788, 1346}, Δ, Λ, Θ, Ψ, Ω, tr, 565, 700, 1071, 1424: [MSS ang1033 Mean Date = 9^th/10^th Cent.]. [See Appendix C for the list of the full names and/or dates of these manuscripts].

223. See William D. Mounce, The Morphology of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 67.

224. An example of the meaning of the imperfect (durative) form of the verb ‘to build’ is seen in Luke 17:28 [NASB] where the action of the people in Sodom of “building.” along with all of there other actions of “eating;” “drinking;” “buying;” “selling;” and “planting;” are all in the imperfect tense to indicate ongoing actions.  

225. Cf. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 84.

226. The translation of ‘It has taken 46 years to build this temple’ would be incorrect also because of the fact that it would require a conjugated form of the verb “to take” in the Greek text along with an infinitive form for the verb “to build.”

227. For other example of similar uses and meanings of naos see e.g., Matt 23:16, 17; Luke 1:9, 21, 22; etc.

228. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 15:11.5 [#417-#420] &  8:3.9 [#95-#96].

229. See e.g., Matt 21:12, 14, 15; 26:55; Mark 12:35; 14:49; Luke 2:46; 21:37, 38; John 7:28; 8:20.

230. See also Rev 21:22 where this concept that Jesus represented and replaced the physical temple is again related by John.

231. Josephus, Antiquities, 15:10.3 [#354]

232. Ibid., 15:11.1 [#380]

233. Jack Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1957, 277) had argued that the statement of Josephus (Antiquities, 15:11.1 [#380]), that was accurately translated as: “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, . . .” should be understood as: ‘eighteen years in Herod’s reign had already passed by here and he was now entering in his nineteenth year passed.’ This is based on his translation of the perfect participle gegonotos here (lit. “come to be”) but this is a supposition on his part, as he admitted [ibid.]. This perfect participle [See below  on pp.  for the meaning of the Greek perfect tense] is actually literally translated as: “[When the eighteenth year of Herod] had come to be [i.e., ‘had come to originate;’ in the sense of: ‘had begun’],” and the past action that is being emphasized here is not a completed eighteenth year, but rather the completed start of this eighteenth year. (This argument by Finegan is not present inthe updated (1998 p. 347 [#592]) version of his work, however it is still mention here as this is a mistaken conclusion that can easily be made by a translator).             

            The study of O. Edwards ("Herodian Chronology," PEQ 114 (1982), 29-42) has shown that Herod’s reigned was more than likely reckoned according to the Jewish Fall-to-Fall, Civil Calender. (Cf. Note #194; K. F. Doig, NT Chronology, 91, 92). According to Parker and Dubberstein’s (45) calender reconstruction, it would have started back around October 1, 21 B.C.

234. Cf. Finegan, 276. For a table of the consuls who ruled between 44 B.C.-135 A.D. see (Ibid.) 84-85 [#179].

235. See Josephus, Antiquities, 14:15.14 [#465], compare with Ibid., 14:16.4 [#487].

236. Ibid.

237. In the book War of the Jews, there is an apparently contradictory statement of Josephus which says: “in the fifteenth year of his reign, he (Herod) restored the temple.” (Wars 1:21.1 [#401]) This would then make the Temple reconstruction begin in 23 B.C., but commentators are in agreement that this might be a chronological error on the part of Josephus or a later copyist, or a textual corruption. [cf. Finegan, 277-278; Hoehner, 40].

238. Josephus, Antiquities, 15:11.1 [#380].

239. Ibid., 15:11.2 [#388].

240. Josephus also makes a distinction between the words naos and hieron in his writings as he later goes on to say that Herod stood in the hieron to make a speech to the people. (Antiquities, 16:4.6 [#132]). This was obviously the outer courts or Temple precincts since Herod, was not allowed to go into the place of the altar and sanctuary (see Ibid., 15:11.6 [#421]).

241. Josephus, Antiquities 15:11.5-6 [#420, #421].

242. Ibid., 15:11.6 [#423].

243. See in Note #187.

244. See Finegan, 96. Roman historian Dio Cassius contradictorily states that this siege took place during the consulship of: “Claudius and Norbanus,” which was 38 B.C. (See Dio Cassius, Roman History, 49:23.1) but as Emil Schürer (1:284, 285), has clearly shown, it is Dio Cassius and not Josephus that is inaccurate here.

245. See Finegan, 187.

246. Contra: Peter Richardson, Herod (University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 160, who says that it was in June; A. H. M. Jones, The Herod of Judea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967 [1938]), 48, who says that it was in July; Abraham Schalit, König Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk.* (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 764-768, who says that it was in August; and semi-contra: Michael Grant, Herod the Great (New York: American Heritage, 1971), 59, who says that it was in either August or September. Also contra: Schürer, 1:285 note 11, who says that this “third month” was probably the third month of the engagement (June or July). Josephus also uses this “third month” expression to refer to the third month after the beginning month of the Olympiad -July- in: Antiquities, 14:4.3 [#66].

247. Josephus, Antiquities, 14:16.4 [#487]. Cf. Ibid., 14:4.3 [#64-#66]; Dio Cassius, Roman History, 37:16.2b-4, who called the Jewish Sabbaths: “the days of Saturn”; Strabo 16:2.40 [#762, #763]; Schürer, 1:239, 240 note #23.

248. This date of the 25^th is based on the fact that the Israel’s Day of Atonement was celebrated on the “10^th day of the 7^th (Jewish) month” (See Lev 16:29, 23:27, 25:9). Since the 7^th month of the Jewish calender (Tishri) was reckoned from mid-September to mid-October on the Julian Calender (see calender in Appendix A), then the 10^th day of that month would fall from at least September 25 of Julian calender.

249. Josephus, Antiquities, 14:16.4 [#488].

250. Dio Cassius, (Roman History, 37:10.4) places these events in the time when ‘Marcus Cicero had become consul with Gaius Antonius’ which was in 63B.C.  (tinyurl=1)

251. Accordingly to the modern theoretical calender reconstructions and recalculations of Parker and Dubberstein for the two key dates here of the 20 B.C. Passover Day and the 19 B.C. Day of Atonement were calculated to have fallen on April 9 and October 3, respectively, in these years (see Parker and Dubberstein, 44 & 45), but the March [25] and September [25] dates which are indicated by the dating formula of Josephus have to be given priority here over those theoretical recalculation.

252. This date is based on the fact that the Passover Feast took place 14 days after the start of the first Jewish month (Nisan) which normally is mid-March. (Cf. e.g. Exod. 12:2, 6 & calender in Appendix A).

253. Since the Passover Lamb was sacrificed on the ‘Altar of Sacrifice’ which was located in the courtyard of the Temple precinct and not in the Sanctuary itself, it could conversely be argued here that even if Herod began his work on the “Sanctuary” before Passover Day it would not interfere with the ceremonies of this Feast. (Also the 7-day Feast of Unleavened Bread which immediately followed the Passover Day (see e.g, Exod.12:15ff; Lev 23:5ff) also involved (burnt) sacrifices (Lev 23:8, 12), but also did not require the services of the Sanctuary).

254. Cf. Matt. 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

255. See Josephus, Antiquities, 20:9.7 [#219].

256. O. Edwards, "Herodian Chronology," PEQ 114 (1982), 29-42.

257. This is especially based on the reasonable understanding that Herod the Great was not recognized as a national Jewish king but as a “commoner” because he was  foreign-born, and thus had no claim  the Jewish throne and only got this position because he had been appointed by the Roman Senate. His reign was therefore should not reckoned according the “Sacred” Spring-to-Spring Calender but according to the “Hellenistic” Fall-to-Fall Calender, contrary to most opinions. (Cf. Edwards, 29). Edwards also proves that a Fall-to-Fall reckoning here would also “rectify the inconsistencies in Herodian chronology” (Ibid.). (See Appendix A for a discussion concerning these two Calenders).

258. See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek NT ..., 833; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959), 11; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 1:125 note 64; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), 200 note 81.

259. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 99.

260. This also contradicts A.T. Robertson’s claim (833) that it was ‘the whole period of forty-six years [that was being] treated as a point.’ A further argument can be made for a Constantive classification based on the fact that in the indicative mood this type of aorist is better known as a Historical aorist, and is often the characteristic of verbs whose inherent meaning imply a durative (linear) action, i.e. to build, [See Brooks and Winbery, 99], but as we will see, the Culminative classification better harmonizes with the overall grammatical and historical context of this statement.

261. Also known as a Consummative, Ecbatic, Effective, Perfective, or Resultative aorist.

262. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 100.

263. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace ([Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996] 560, 561) who also uses the same points as  the ones mentioned above to defend a Culminative function for the aorist in this verse over the usual Constantive view.

264. Ibid.

265. Cf. Zodhiates, "Perfect Tense," TCWS-NT, 855.

266. For a similar translation see Hoehner, 43, and Paul L. Maier, "The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life," Chronos, kairos, Christos. Edited by Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi  (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 123.

267. NKJV.  See also NASB, NIV NRSV. The KJV and RSV have “in building” instead of “under construction.”

268. Cf. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 98, 99.

269. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 431, 432 [26.3].

270. Cf. Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, 1235.

271. This text is in Aramaic because it is part of a larger Aramaic document (Ezra 5:7-17) from, more than likely, the Persian Empire archives, that was inserted here by the person who wrote the first part (Ezra 1 to 6) of what we now call the book of Ezra. [See Ch. 4, pp. Note #17 for an additional explanation of the origin of Ezra 1-6].

272. It is a reflexive (or passive) counterpart of the Piel stem (Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 426 [26.1.1d]), so it thus indicates an action that has to forcefully be ‘made to happen,’ by either the subject itself or by outside agent.

273. Cf. Zodhiates, "Hithpeel/Ithpeel Participle," TCWS-OT, 2288 & Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 619, 620 [37.4a, c], for the translation of this passive participle as an attributive adjectival participle (i.e., continued state of becoming built). A passive participle also “tends to describe a situation not implying progressive activity, but one resulting from some earlier action.” (Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 614 [37.1e].

274. An Ingressive aorist can be translated with words like "came," or "became," or "began." [Cf. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 99.]

275. Other examples in the Greek Old Testament of the verb ‘to build’ in the  visibly augmented aorist form (and in various verbal tenses) occur in Num 13:22; 1 Kgs 3:2 [3 Kgs 3:2 in LXX]; 1 Kgs 6:7; Neh 7:1; Isa 10:9 [LXX only] Ezek 27:5. They accurately indicate a completed building action in past time.

276. Cf. Mark 4:11, 12

277. See for example the discussion in John 8:12-28.

278. Other than, of course, His childhood visit to the temple (Luke 2:42-47).

279. Cf. Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 21, 22.

280. Wallace, (p. 560n20) describes the answer of the Jews as “non-sequitur” and resolves this by focusing on a probably understood “implicit point” that: ‘since the Temple had stood built for 46 years, then it was well built, thus it could not be rebuilt in 3 days as they seem to be understand Jesus.

281. Keep in mind that there were no (demolition) explosives nor, obviously. powered equipment, so such grand destructions in those days, even if by battering rams, was almost as difficult and labor intensive as the building process, (which also, especially if it was destroyed by the faster battering rams, would then require new building materials, which would greatly add to this rebuilding time. Indeed, as mentioned above, such a material assembly work, which according to Josephus had required ‘1000 wagons and also 10,000+ skilled workers’ to complete the job in 1.5 years (Antiquities, 15:11.2 [#390]), would physically have literally taken a lone person much more than three years to complete.

282. See in Josephus, Antiquities, 15:11.6 [#421-#423].

283. E.g., Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29; see also the similar capital condemnation with Stephen in Acts 6:14.

284. Keeping again in mind again not to included the nonexistent year "zero" as we went from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. on the time-line..

285. The date of this Passover of A.D. 28 goes to shed some more light on the controversial “Testimonium Flavianum” (Josephus’s apparent statement about Jesus Christ- Antiquities, 18:3.3 [#63, #64]). Just prior to this Testimonium, Josephus mentions that Pilate relocated his army from Caesarea to Jerusalem to take their winter quarters there. (Ibid., 18.3.1 [#55]). He then mentions that Pilate did this in order to abolish the Jewish [religious] laws and went on to try to introduce the effigies (graven images) of Caesar in Jerusalem, but this led to an immediate, passionate revolt by the Jews which eventually led Pilate to finally take down the images. (Ibid., 18:3.1 [#55-#59]). Pilate then tried to fund the building of an aqueduct by using the temple’s money, but this also led to another revolt which resulted in much bloodshed (Ibid., 18:3.1 [#60-#62]). Now all of this appears to have occurred very early in Pilate tenure as prefect of Judea, and since we have seen that he began to rule there in the spring of 27 A.D., then this all apparently occurred around the time of his first winter in Palestine (i.e., the winter of 27/28 A.D.). Now it is, interestingly enough, right after these incidents that the Josephus Testimonium occurs. This harmonizes with this fact that Jesus had made His first public appearance in the spring of 28 A.D. and that by performing many miracles during that very year’s Passover in Jerusalem.

286. Cf. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), 189, who says 15-20 miles; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896), 383, 386 (16-20 miles per day); M. P. Charlesworth, Trade-Routes and Commerce in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924), 21ff, 24, 43, 247, 258 (16-20 miles per day); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, "Traveling Conditions in the First Century; On the Road and On the Sea With St. Paul," BibRev 1 (1985), 40 (20 miles per day). Also according to the narrative of Acts 10:3-9, the men who were sent to bring Peter to Cornelius made the 30-mile trip from Caesarea (by the Sea) to Joppa in about 24 hours (that is: a night and a day). (Comp. esp. vss. 3 & 9). [See Map#3 for locations].

287. Andrew, Simon Peter and very likely, John the gospel writer himself.

288. For a more detailed discussion of this six day outline see J. Ramsey Michaels, John- NIBC. Vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 28-49.

289. Cf. Isidore Singer, ed. "Marriage Ceremonies," The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1904), 8:340-347.

290. It would be safe to assume that Jesus stayed for the entire feast as He apparently performed the miracle of changing the water in wine near the very end of the feast which is why the master of the feast was surprised that such "good" (fresh) wine was "brought out"  so late in the festivities (John 2:10). It was more than likely the case that, all week long, the guest at this feast had been celebrating, eating and drinking and that their originally good-tasting wine probably did not taste as fresh as it had earlier in the week.

            They also had not been consuming alcoholic wine due especially to the presence of women and children at these weddings festivities. For an excellent related Biblical study on this subject of the use of alcoholic beverages in the Bible, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1989). Pages 136-175 discusses the topic of ‘Jesus and Wine in the NT.’

291. Matt 4:2; Luke 4:2; cf. Mark 1:12.

292. Some may have noticed that there is an apparent contradiction between Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels concerning the sequential order of Christ’s temptations. Matthew has what would be a 1-2-3 order (Matt 4:3f; 5, 6f; 8ff); while Luke has a 1-3-2 order (Luke 4:3f; 5, 6ff; 9ff). What appears to have been the case here, based on a comparative study of various Greek manuscripts of these passages, is that Jesus was not tempted only 3 times but actually 4 times, but with only three temptations. Temptation #3 (bowing before the devil to (painlessly) regain the kingdoms of the world) was apparently brought before Jesus twice (Matt 4:8ff & Luke 4:5ff). This is made evident by the following 4 textual and contextual indications.

            (1) A textual study of Luke’s passage (as all major Bible versions except the KJV) reveals that Jesus more than likely did not say to the devil: “Get thee behind Me, Satan!” after He was (first) presented with that compromising "offer." (See Greek text in GNT, 209). At that time He actually simply made appeal to Deut 6:13-“You shall worship the Lord your God, ....”- as His defense to strictly follow God’s plan. It apparently was only after the Devil came back to Him with this same temptation again that He then ordered him to ‘Get behind Him!’[Interestingly enough, at the time when in Christ’s ministry that Satan tried again to subtly suggest this "painless solution" to Jesus, but in a more subtle way (Matt 16:22, Jesus wasted no words with him and straightforwardly used this same authoritative command to chase him away (16:23a)].

            (2) Matthew in his text, seemed to have indicated that Jesus’s third temptation was indeed a repeat temptation as he began the account of this temptation with the Greek comparative adverb palin (“again”) (Matt 4:8).

            (3) There is a noticeable linguistic variation between Matthew and Luke in the Greek wording of the third temptation (unlike their almost word-for-word similar rendition of the other two temptations) that suggest that they may have indeed been two separate occasions.

            (4) A literal rendering of the Greek words that are used for “the world” in Matthew and Luke seems to suggests that there may even have been a "heightening in attraction" at the time of the repeated temptation. Luke simply says that Jesus was “led up” (assumedly, physically to some high vantage point) and all of the “kingdoms of the inhabited world” (Gk. -tēs oikoumenēs) were showed to Him (“in one moment”) with their authority and glory ‘promised’ to Him if He ‘complied.’ Matthew, on the other hand says that (at the second time), Jesus was taken to an “exceedingly (Gk.-lian) high mountain” and was shown the “kingdoms of the entire (lit. universal) world [Gk.-tou kosmou],” with their glory being promised to Him. Since Luke himself seemed to use the Greek expression oikoumeē to refer particularly to the realm of the Roman Empire (cf. Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; 19:27 and also the statements made to Roman officials in Acts 17:6; 24:5; but not to Jesus’s own statement in Luke 21:26), it could be that at the time of the second proposition of this temptation, its “promised” reward was more extensively emphasized to Jesus showing that it would actually extend throughout the entire planet, i.e., including not yet discovered/inhabited regions.

293 Again indifferently complacently & “blissfully”|ignoramusly|moronically, idiotically, yet innately/naturally/pridefully guilefully: “fluffly” (~=EW 36.2), -indeed just as per the indifferently profiteering so-called “work” of the SDA ‘dens of, moreover con artist, thieves’, (John 2:16|Matt 21:13|Ezek 13), reclaimed here by Doug Batchelor.

294 To my own (fleshly) “disappointment”, my prior belief that ‘Jesus was prophetically timely baptized in the Fall/October of 27 AD, indeed just had to be abandoned in the light of the Biblical, and also, manifestly direct, SOP evidence, as related earlier. Sure it would surfacely seem more convincing and convicting to continue to, now indifferently, make this ‘more powerful’ claim, -(as selectively, inherently preferably “moronically”, “choir-preachingly”/outrightly circularly smugly declaratively done here[53:06-59:20ff] by Stephen Bohr), but the research history of my dealing with this prophecy has foundationally been to have the most objectively, i.e., non-circularly, demonstrable evidence as possible, pointedly as I am endeavoring to convince others of the validity of this ‘Fully Messianic’ prophetic reckoning. So “blissfully” ignoring contraring evidence is not at all seen, nor deemed, to be a viable course/alternative for me, whatever the cost.*

            And in fact, I am more deeply seeing from this sort of “monkey wrench”, (in terms of all-precise fulfillements) in this overall interpreted chronology, that here also, God had effectuated His consistent, faith-testing/proving principle that He will always leave room for doubt in whatever He does. (GC 527.2; SC 105.2). So here, while a baptism of Christ Himself in the Fall of 27AD would virtually remove most doubt, the evident, actual Biblical reality that it was the (possible, even probable) start of John’s Forerunning Messianic preaching which had (seamlessly) provided the timely fulfillement, does indeed provide the ‘hook for doubt’, so that no one will be faith-lessly “convicted” (“against their will”) by merely the “tangible” chronological evidence of this prophecy, but rather truly, primarily, by its (sealing/anchoring) Spiritual (cf. John 6:26) Fully-Messianic “running theme”. (John 6:34-35ff; cf. John 6:41ff)

* I myself had priorly been claiming as an explanation for the evidentially incontrovertible gap between a baptism of Christ in late-Sep/early-October 27 A.D. and the start of his journeying right after coming out of the wilderness, ca. 20-25 days before the Passover of 28 A.D. that ‘the Holy Spirit probably did not drive Christ into the wilderness, for 40 days, in what was the significantly colder, even with possible snowfall, winter months. Weather information showed that the ca. 1250-1750 feet above see level Judean Wilderness had average temperatures ranging from only 6C (43F) to 11C (53F). (E.g. as, still validly applicable, this would be just like the ‘pro-Fall (Feast of Tabernacles) & contra-December (25)’ Christmas argument which points out that: shepherds at Christ’s birth were probably not having their flock of sheep outside, overnight, in late December. (Luke 2:8ff)). So I thus, at “best”, had had to (contra-Biblically) posit that Jesus had not gone to the wilderness “immediately” after His Baptism, but ca. 3-4 (winter) months later, in January or February of 28 A.D.

295. KJV, NIV.

296. Cf. JB, NASB, NEB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV; Robert G. Bratcher, A Translator's Guide to the Gospel of Luke (New York: United Bible Societies, 1982), 55, 56.

297. I. Howard Marshall, Luke. NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 162.

298. Cf. Spiros Zodhiates, Exe. ed., The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1990), 1889 [entries #5613 & 5616].

299. See my forthcoming book: “The Year and the Time of Christ’s Birth.”

300. This age is keeping in mind that His first year (8 B.C. - 7 B.C.) was His year "0"-(i.e., we are all actually a year older than the age we normally state because our year "0" is not include in the reckoning of our age).

301. See Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; 8:25.

302. Also, technically speaking, Jesus, being from the tribe of Judah, was not a “Levitical” Priest (see Heb 7:11-8:6) so this age requirement, even as low as 20, did not apply to Him. In fact, being from the, even prophetically, Royal tribe of Judah (Gen 49:9, 10; Heb 7:14; cf. 8:4) and that directly in the Royal/Davidic line (Matt 1:1-17), and, as demonstrated throughout the history of Israel’s and Judah’s kings, there was no age requirement to ascend to the throne, with an age as low as 8 having been accepted, (2 Kgs 22:1) Jesus, who no doubt fully knew, having been (repeatedly) told by Mary, that He had been Divinely designated to be the King of Israel (Luke 1:32, 33) really could have begun his ministry at any age, even at 12 (Luke 2:46-51) as He was then Intellectually/Spiritually/Biblically capable and also fully aware of His calling.

303. See Note #238 (above).

304. This age of 34 would also help make sense of the remark that a group of Pharisees later made to Jesus in John 8:57 about Him not being ‘50 years old yet.’ It would seem that such a remark would be more appropriately made to someone who was in His late thirties at the time rather than someone who was still in His early thirties.

305. The Melchizedek that is mentioned in this verse was a mysterious, yet significant Old Testament figure who lived in the time of Abraham. Because of his double role as a “priest of the Most High God” and “King of [Jeru]Salem” [see Gen 14:18 cf. Psa 76:2;110:4], he became a prominent type of Christ.

306. In a similar way, John the Baptist who, although he was the son of the Levi Zacharias (Luke 1:5, 8, 9), did not begin his ministry because he had then become of "legal age," but as Luke indicates, it was because ‘a (‘spoken’-i.e. prophetic) word from God [Greek= rhēma theou] had come to him...’ (Luke 3:2b). John seems to be alluding to this event when, in John 1:33, he went on to share with others the actual instructions he had received from a Heavenly voice while he was in the wilderness. Now since John the Baptist was older than his cousin Jesus, then he would have been older than this 35-year age when he began his ministry and thus 5 years passed the traditional legal debut age of 30.

307. See the use of this word as such in passages like Matt 8:29; 13:30; 16:3; 21:34, 41; 26:18; Mark 10:30; 12:2; 13:33; Luke 1:20; 12:56; 19:44; 21:8, etc, although the literal translation of “the set/appointed time” is not always given by most English translations.

308. This “has been fulfilled” translation here is a more accurate translation of the perfect indicative passive form [Cf. Zodhiates, TCWS-NT, 115] of the verb “fulfilled” here in Mark 1:15 than the common “is fulfilled” (see e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB).

309. Stevens, NT Greek, 259.

310. Cf. Zodhiates, "Perfect Tense," TCWS-NT, 855.

311. See Ibid., and Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 104.

312. See Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, 105; Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 574-576.

313. The importance of this in relation to the proper reckoning of Christ’s public ministry will be done later. (“The Year of the Crucifixion,” Ch. 7, pp.)

314. Also, as the mostly genuine, Book-of-Proverbs like, Gospel of (Judas) Thomas adds in relation to this saying of Jesus: “A physician does not heal those who know him.” (Thom. 31.2). For a recent, succinct discussion on the Gospel of Thomas see: Stephen J. Patterson James M . Robinson and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, The Fifth Gospel (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998).

315. Keith Green in “Song to My Parents (I Only Want to See You There)” on the Sparrow Records album: "For Him Who Has Ears to Hear," [April Music, Inc. (ASCAP), 1977].

316. The fact that Jesus was indeed a close follower of Old Testament Messianic prophecy in also seen, e.g., Luke 4:17-21; and also particularly in John 19:28-30 where John seems to indicate that Jesus had purposely said "I thirst" on the cross in order to fully fulfill the Messianic prophecy of Psa 22 (vs. 15). (This incident was a different situation than the time when Jesus was offered to drink just prior to being crucified and had refused because the Romans had given Him an alcoholic, painkilling mixture [Matt 27:34, 35]).