* It U possible that the aame source U alluded to tn Jos. Vita, 1, written at Rome under l)oniitian, T>if fj.tt rvt -yittvf
Thns there is no reason to press St. Luke's noie of time into meaning either 'wlien not yet 30 years ' or * at the moment of attaining the teacher's age of 30 years.' The phrase is an elastic one, and will cover any age from 28 to 32. Keckoued from the Nativity of Christ in ii.c. 7-6, the probable limits for the date of tlie IJaptism would thus be A.D. 22-27, a result which mu.st now be tested hj its conformity with the direct evidence for this date.
C. For the Baptism the Gospels supply a terminus ad quein in the synchronism of the passover men- tioned next after it witli the years ot the building of the temple (Jn 2-'*) ; and a terminus a quo in the synchronism of the beginning of the Baptist's ministry with the years of Tiberius (Lk 3*).
a. Jo 2^ Tio-ripaLXAnTcc Kxi l( iTirfv atK9iou.y,0*t i vdce; curef, say
the Jew-i in arg^ument with our Lord, mcanin;^, not that Herod's temple had taken 46 3-ears from its coiuniencenietit to ita coMipletion at some moment o( the past,— for the work was only just complete when the Jewish revolt broke out (Jos. Ant. xx. IX. 7), — but that at the time of speaking it 'had beenincourse of building ' 4fl years, the aorist being exactly paralleled in the phrase used of the temple of Ezra (Kzr 6'" «** toti Xut toC tun mx4>iefA-hthi xtt'i eCx irikig-Oft, 'from that time to this it has been in course of building, and has not been brought to completion '). Herod's temple was begun, according to BJ in his 15th, according to Arit. in his 18th year(iiJ 1. xxi. 1 ; Ant. xv. xi. 1); and as Jos. in both books summarizes the length of Herod's reign by a double computation from the de jure kingship in b.u, 40, and the de /acto kingship in B.C. 37, an obvious solution of the discrepancy would be to count the IMh year from the later, the 18th from the earlier, of the two starting-points, both reckonings then converging on b.c. 23. But in fact Jos., when he gives a single date, invariably computes it from the de /acto kingship only. So in Ant.— the book which on the hiijothesis just mentioned would employ tlie reckoning from b.o. 40 for the commencement of the temple — the battle of Actium (Sept. b.c. 31) is put in the 7th year of Herod ; Augustus' second visit to Syria, which was not earlier than B.C. 21 (for it was 10 years after the first, and that in turn was after Actium), Is dated in the I7th year ; and the completion of Cawarea is flxed in the 92nd OliTiipiad (B.C. 12-8), and in the 28th year (Ant. xv. v. 2, vi. 7, XVI. V. 1 ; BJ I. XX. 4). Seeing, then, that the divergence cannot be accounted for as a double reckoning, it must arise from the correction in Ant. of an error of BJ, so that Josephus' ulti- mate date is the 18th year from b.c. 37, or in other words b.o. 20-19. The passover of the first year will probably be that of B.C. 10, and toe passover of the 40th year that of a.d. 27.
Thus the latest date for the Baptism is the early months of A.D. 27.
b- Lk 31 it irij wturtxniiixMrm rvt ryifAsn'ou Tt$ip!9v Ktttra.p»( . . . iyfvir* f^uM dttu iTi "Imtttnf. Reckoned from Augustus' death, Aug. 19, a.d. 14, the 15th year of Tiberius would run from Aug. a.d. 28 to Aug. a.u. 29, so that the Baptism of Christ could scarcely fall before a.d. 29. Even if Tiberius' 2nd vear be dated from Jan. 1, a.d. 15, so that his 15th corresponas with A.D. 28, matters are hardly mended, for that year, too, would be irreconcilable with the results attained in the first two sections of this article, with the temple chronology just dis- cussed, and with tiie conclusions which will be established below from a comparison of the length of the Ministry with the date of the Crucifixion. It St. Luke really plm^cs the opening of the Baptist's preaching as late as a.d. 28^ he must, as in the case of Quirinius, have fallen into error. Writing half a century after the events, and peihai)s himself sharing tiie view which hniitcd the public Ministry of Chri.st to a single year, he might have deduced the 15th year for the commencement of the Minintry from A.D. 29, the date assigned by very early tradition for its close.
At the same time. It ts not quite so easy to luppose him deceived about the beginning of the Ministry aa aoout the census of the Nativity. Not only were Uie ovcnte 30 years nearer his own time, but they were of so much more uublic a character, that they must liave been matter of knowledge in a far wider circle, aniong tlie Baptist's disciples— with whom St. Luke's writings seem io show a special acquaintance — as well as among the lollowers of tlie Christ. Is it certain, then, what is meant by the 15th year of Tiberius? A modern reader is tempted to transfer to the lat cent, his own associations with bereditAry monarchy, where eacii ruler's rights and powi-ra come into existence at the moment of his predcressor's demise, neither sooner nor later. The lioman Empire of Augustus was scarcely in fact, certainly not in law, hereditary. The pre- rogatives of the emperor were due theoretically to the varioua offices which he held; and in dating events, as on coins and inscriptions, he would recite the number, not of the yean* of his reign, but of his consulships, his imperatorshipp. and his yearn of tribunician power. Cli'arty, none of these otficial mctho<l8 were followed by St. Luke, for Tiberius woe never consul more than five times, nor imperator more than eight, while his tribunician jMjwer, held permanently as one of the primary factors in tlie Imjierial cliarart»!r, was olready in ite 16th yea; at the time of Augustus' death. Nor wua tber* yet any