Dating the Ministry of John
There is less controversy with the worldly critics about this date, because it is pretty easy to establish that there is a possible harmony with all the items mentioned by Luke, concerning the beginning of the ministry of John. The 14th year of Tiberius, by official Roman reckoning would be 29 AD. Pontius Pilate was governor in the region from 26 AD to 36 AD. Herod Antipas was the Tetrarch of Galilee from 4 BC through 39 AD. Herod Philip was Tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitas from 4 BC to 34 AD. The rule of Lysanius is not dateable, though an inscription yo him has been found which is dateable to between 27 and 34 AD, though he could have reigned longer in either direction. Joseph Caiaphas was High Priest from 18 - 36 AD. He is linked with his Father in law, Annus, who was High Priest from 6 - 15 AD. So there can be no accusation of error from the world, as this is all very consistent. The date fits 26 AD, or it fits 29 AD, which are the two dates most often argued for by those who suggest a 30 AD crucifixion, or 33 AD crucifixion.
Criticism usually centers on two minor points. Luke says the word of God came to John at a certain time which we will discuss. Some critics say that this date defines the time John first began preaching in the wilderness, and finds certain objections to John’s ministry beginning in the same year as Jesus’ ministry. We would just point out that the Scriptures do not discuss whether or not this was the first year of John’s ministry. It only says it was a year when the word of God came to John. We rather think it was the fourth year of John’s ministry, a conclusion we reach by prophesy, not by Scriptural proclamation.
The other criticism is Luke’s statement in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was "about 30" when if these dates are correct, Jesus would have been a little older, from 30 - 36. But the verse being vague, and using the word "about" doesn’t give them much room for complaint. (Bible critics will not allow earlier dates than 4 BC for the death of Herod-- and Jesus had to be born before Herod’s death-- because the 4 BC date is too firmly fixed in secular history.)
Our own view will open the matter up to the critics again, who we care nothing about. We believe that the word of God came to John, and Jesus began his ministry in 23 BC. This date has two problems. How can this be the 15th year of the government of Tiberius, and how can it be related to Pontius Pilate, when it is commonly believed that he didn’t start his rule in the region till 26 BC.
First, we are not sure that the verse in question bears only the interpretation that this time period marks the preaching of John in the year of Jesus’ baptism. There is another possible interpretation, as born out by Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible. Young sets the expression Annas and Caiaphas being Chief Priests, away from the rest of the previous texts with dashes, and it could be understood that Luke was saying that the word came to John in the time of Annas and Caiaphas priesthood, but that the rest refers to the conclusion of the matter, which would be John’s death in Herod’s prison, 26 AD.
John’s death was following the third Passover of Jesus’ ministry. We know this from the chronology of Jesus’ life. In Matthew14, Jesus hears of John’s beheading in prison, and sets out for a desert place, no doubt to mourn and have solace. But the people, learning of his whereabouts, follow him. It is at this time that he performs the miracle of feeding the 5000 people. When we compare this event with the gospel of John, we see that this miracle occurs John 6:10, but the third Passover is recorded in John 6:4. So John’s death is following the third Passover of Jesus’ life, which would be in 26 AD. But we acknowledge that the more common and reasonable reading is that the 15th of Tiberius was the year of Jesus’ baptism by John, when the word of the Lord came to him.
We would explain the matter this way. Concerning the reign of Tiberius, there are many years which could be, and are used to mark the start of his reign. Augustus had been tired of public life for many years, and very much wanted to retire. He really didn’t want to leave the throne to Tiberius, as he regarded him as too cruel, and perhaps a bit dull and slow minded. He also held a grudge against Tiberius, because he had married Augustus’ only daughter, Julia, but had divorced her for adultery, which Augustus reluctantly came to recognize as true. But in the end, there were no other candidates surviving, and so Tiberius was acknowledged by Augustus to be the next Caesar.
When did his reign begin? Augustus died in 14 AD, so that is the officially recognized date for the start of Tiberius’ rule. But Tiberius had assumed the control of the Empire in 12 AD, so some begin his reign from this point. And there was a decree made in 10 AD, that Tiberius was the next Caesar, and this is the date the Catholic dictionary uses. And the earliest date (when Augustus realized he had to appoint his heir to settle the unrest) was at a Spring festival in 9 AD, when Augustus ended all questions about who was his heir. The 9 AD date works perfectly for the 23 AD date we suggest.
But what about the rule of Pontius Pilate? It is pretty clear from secular history that he did not begin his rule in Palestine till 26 AD. How can his governing be explained back to 23 AD? This too, goes to the heart of Roman politics.
Tiberius was struggling in 23 AD. He was 64 years old, and very much tired of governing. Tiberius had taken a relative named Drusus, the son of Agrippina and Germanicus. Germanicus was Tiberius’ nephew, whom he had adopted to himself, and Agripipina was the grand daughter of Augustus, through Julia (Julia being the same Julia who was Tiberius’ ex-wife, who Tiberius had accused of adultery to Augustus, and for which he was banned and nearly killed by Augustus.) But in 23 AD, Drusus fell sick suddenly, and died. Many historians write that he was actually poisoned by a powerful man named Sejanus. Tiberius now had no heirs old enough to lead the empire. He considered several options, including returning Rome to a Republic, but decided instead to use this same Sejanus as his associate in governing Rome, while he waited for one of Drusus three children, Drusus, Nero, or Gaius to come of age.
Sejanus was the son of Strabo, one of Tiberius’ most trusted generals. He is thought to have had a long and personal relationship with Tiberius, having saved Tiberius’ life in a cave in, and also having proved himself an able administrator, organizing the Praetorian Guard and wonderfully completed other difficult duties relevant to governing Rome. So close was the relationship between Tiberius and Sejanus, that in 26 AD, Tiberius left Rome for the isolated island of Capri, and never returned, Sejanus being his voice in Rome.
From 23 AD and onward, Sejanus had worked in getting his friends into all the positions of power, including generals in the army, finding (inventing) cause to execute all his enemies. He was setting himself up to ultimately revolt against Tiberius, and take control of the Empire. It is all but certain that it was Sejanus who appointed Pilate as governor of Judea. Both men were in Rome at that time, and shared the common bond of extreme anti Semitism.
Luke says that Pilate was "acting as Ruler," not that he was the ruler. He uses the same word here for Pilate, that he did for Cyrenius, when he was a military leader, not the actual governor in the area of Syria. In fact, these are the only two places where this form of the word is used. We do not know when Pilate was appointed as Governor. All we know is from Josephus, who tells us that Pilate was in Judea for 10 years, and that he tried to return to Rome before Tiberius died, but was unsuccessful. Tiberius died in 37 AD. This is all rather curious because Tiberius was not in Rome, nevertheless, from this it is presumed that Pilate was Governor in Judea from 26 through 36 AD, which is all quite possible without ruling out the possibility that he was appointed Governor some time earlier and was ruler in absentia, while he prepared to come to Judea.
The only testimony concerning the rule of Pilate is this from Josephus:
"(Tiberius)...sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annus Rufus...When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate became his successor...So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome...but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead." (italics mine)
Tiberius probably sent Gratus to be procurator in 9 AD, who ruled 11 years till 20 AD, when a change in administrators meant a change in procurators, just as it did when Tiberius began to administer the empire, in 9 AD. Pilate was Sejanus’ choice, in 21 AD, but who didn’t physically go to Judea till 25 -26 AD.
More to the point that this is correct. The afore named Germanicus is recorded by both historians, Tacitus and Dio, to have died five years after yhe death of Augustus. But Josephus places the death of Germanicus to have been during the reign of Pontius Pilate. Josephus also records that Gratus, who Pilate succeeded, ruled under Tiberius for eleven years. For both of these things to have been true, that is, for Gratus to have ruled 11 years, and for Germanicus to have died in Pilate's rule, five years after the death of Tiberius; then 19-20 AD must be the 11th of Tiberius. And so again, 9 BC would be the start of Tiberius' reign. Gratus would have been procurator of Judea from 9 through 20 AD. Pilate would have become procurator in 21 AD, moving to Judea in 25 AD.
