Skip to content

Raw Web Research Data

1. Artaxerxes I's 7th Year -- Dating to 457 BC

Key Evidence

  • Artaxerxes I Longimanus acceded c. 465/464 BC after Xerxes' assassination
  • First regnal year by Babylonian reckoning: spring 464 to spring 463 BC
  • Seventh year: spring 458 to spring 457 BC
  • Using the Jewish fall-to-fall civil calendar (as used by Nehemiah and presumably Ezra): 7th year = autumn 458 to autumn 457 BC
  • Ezra departed Babylon on 1st of 1st month, arrived Jerusalem on 1st of 5th month (Ezra 7:8-9) -- well within 457 BC
  • Confirmed by: Babylonian chronological tablets, Jewish papyri from Elephantine, Egypt

Calendar Reckoning Debate

  • If spring-to-spring (Babylonian/Nisan): 7th year = 458 BC
  • If fall-to-fall (Jewish civil/Tishri): 7th year = 458/457 BC, with Ezra's arrival falling in 457 BC
  • Both reckonings place the effective date of the decree's implementation in 457 BC

Sources

2. Tiberius' 15th Year and Jesus' Baptism

Standard Reckoning

  • Augustus died August 19, AD 14
  • Tiberius's sole reign: AD 14 onward
  • Standard inclusive reckoning: 15th year = AD 28-29
  • This places John's ministry beginning in late AD 28 or early AD 29

Co-Regency/Co-Princeps Reckoning

  • Tiberius received imperium (shared authority) over the provinces c. AD 12-13
  • If counting from co-princeps authority: 15th year = AD 26-27
  • Luke may have dated pragmatically from when Tiberius held actual authority over Judea
  • This places Jesus' baptism in autumn AD 27

Scholarly Assessment

  • The Tyndale Bulletin study surveys extant first- and second-century literary, numismatic, and inscriptional evidence
  • Academic consensus: most scholars favor AD 28-29 based on sole reign
  • The co-regency dating to AD 27 has historical defenders but is a minority position among mainstream NT scholars
  • Both positions are within the range of plausible historical dating

Sources

3. Crucifixion Date

Main Candidates

Virtually all scholars place the crucifixion in the spring of either AD 30 or AD 33.

AD 30

  • Passover: Friday, April 7, AD 30
  • Supported by: Majority of contemporary scholars (per Rainer Riesner)
  • Requires a shorter ministry (~2 years if baptism in AD 28-29)

AD 31

  • Passover fell on a TUESDAY in AD 31, not a Friday
  • This astronomical constraint effectively eliminates AD 31 from the standard framework
  • The historicist tradition (which favors AD 31 based on 27 + 3.5 = 30/31) faces this difficulty
  • Some resolve it by noting ancient Jewish calendar practices may not match modern astronomical reconstructions
  • Uncertainty in ancient calendar observation vs. calculation may allow for a Friday Passover

AD 33

  • Passover: Friday, April 3, AD 33
  • A lunar eclipse occurred on the night of Passover, April 3, AD 33, visible from Jerusalem
  • Requires a longer ministry (~3+ years if baptism in AD 29)
  • Supported by significant scholarly contingent

Summary

The scholarly consensus narrows to AD 30 or AD 33. AD 31 remains defended by those who prioritize the 70-weeks calculation but faces astronomical challenges.

Sources

4. Dispensationalist Gap Theory -- Daniel 9's 70th Week

The Theory

Dispensationalism requires a gap (or "parenthesis") of 2000+ years between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel 9. The 69th week ends at Christ's triumphal entry or baptism; the 70th week is projected into the future "tribulation" period.

Claimed Textual Basis

  1. Daniel 9:26 places "the cutting off of Messiah" and "the destruction of Jerusalem" AFTER the 69th week but (allegedly) BEFORE the 70th week, creating space for a gap.
  2. Daniel does not explicitly say the 70th week follows immediately after the 69th.
  3. The "prince that shall come" (Dan 9:26b) is identified as a future Antichrist, not a Roman general, and his "covenant" (v.27) is a future peace treaty with Israel.

Critical Responses

  1. Textual continuity: Daniel 9:24 says "seventy weeks ARE DETERMINED" -- a single, continuous block. 7 + 62 + 1 = 70.
  2. Parallelism: Verses 26-27 exhibit synonymous/synthetic parallelism. Events described as "after" the 69th week (v.26) are the same events that occur "in" the 70th week (v.27).
  3. Subject identification: The "he" of v.27 has Messiah as the nearest grammatical antecedent, not "the prince that shall come" (introduced in a subordinate clause).
  4. Verb choice: Dan 9:27 uses gabar (Hiphil, "to strengthen/confirm") with beriyth (covenant), suggesting an existing covenant being confirmed, not a new treaty being made. A new treaty would use karath beriyth ("cut a covenant").
  5. No biblical precedent: No other prophetic time period in Scripture contains an unstated gap of millennia. The concept of a "prophetic parenthesis" must be imported from outside the text.
  6. NT evidence: Mark 1:15 ("the time is fulfilled") and Galatians 4:4 ("the fulness of the time") indicate the prophetic timetable was reaching completion in the first century, not pausing for an indefinite gap.

Sources