Nark,
You wrote: Too bad Luke 3:1, for what it is worth, is explicitly about the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, not Jesus'!
I disagree. If, as you say, Luke's words recorded in Luke 3:1,2 were intended to date the beginning of John the baptist's ministry, then Luke attached more historical significance to the ministry of John than he did to the ministry of Jesus Christ. For in Luke 3:1, 2, in an effort to help us accurately determine the time of the event he was there recording, Luke painstakingly listed seven different contemporary historical public figures by name, and five separate geographical regions which were controlled at the time by the five governmental officials on his list. If, as you say, Luke 3:1, 2 is referring to the time John the baptist's ministry began, Luke went to great lengths to tell us when exactly John began his ministry but made no attempt at all in his gospel to tell us when Christ's ministry began. There is only one sensible explanation for Luke's seemingly confused sense of priority. That is, to understand that in Luke 3:1, 2, Luke was not recording the time when John the baptist began his ministry. Rather, he was recording the time when Jesus Christ began his public service to God.
But how can this be? Doesn't the Bible tell us that John the Baptist began his ministry in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" which was 29 AD? No, it does not. It only tells us that in that year "the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert." (Luke 3:1, 2) Now, the traditional thinking has been that "the word of God" there referred to instructed John to begin "calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " (Luke 3:4) The problem with this understanding is that it is only an assumption. And considering other information given to us in scripture, it does not appear to be a valid one. The Bible does not record any instructions given by God directly to John, telling him either how he should conduct his ministry or when he should begin it. It also seems unlikely that God would have ever given John such instructions.
Why does this seem unlikely? Because scripture indicates that John was informed from the time he was an infant what God wanted him to do and when God wanted him to do it. Luke tells us that before John's birth his father Zechariah was informed by an angel that his future son had been chosen by God to minister to the people of Israel in a very important way. Zechariah was told that the child he was to name John would, "make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17) Zechariah later spoke to his son John, saying in part, "You, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most high; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins." (Luke 1 :76, 77) Clearly, Zechariah understood that his son John had been chosen by God to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of their long awaited savior. It is also clear that Zechariah explained to his son exactly what kind of ministry God had chosen him to perform.
But what indication do we have that John did not need personal instructions from God telling him when he should begin his special ministry? The Bible provides us with the answer to this question. For it tells us that John was from the priestly tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5-14) And according to the law of God recorded by Moses, all Levite men "at the Lord's command" were to begin their service to God at thirty years of age. Certainly John, who received instructions in the Law from his father Zechariah, was well aware of this command of the Lord recorded in scripture. John also must have known that all the men in his family had begun their service to God at this same time in their lives. These things being so, we can see that John would have required no personal instructions from God telling him either what He wanted John to do or when He wanted John to do it.
But if "the word of God" which "came to John in the desert in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" was not a set of instructions from God to John concerning how and when God wanted John to conduct his ministry, what "word of God" came to John in the desert in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar"? That "word of God" was no other than Jesus Christ himself. I believe the apostle John understood Luke's "word of God" reference in Luke 3:2 in this way. For when he much later wrote his own account of the life of Christ, he continually refers to Jesus as "the word" when discussing the relationship between Jesus and John the baptist, which he does at great length in the opening passages of his gospel. For instance, in John 1:14,15 John tells us, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
So, if Luke 3:1,2 is telling us of the time that Jesus Christ as "the word of God" began his ministry, when did John the baptist begin his public service to God? I am now thoroughly convinced that John began his ministry three and a half years before Jesus Christ's ministry began. How did I become convinced of this? By answering the following questions.
Why was John the baptist prophetically referred to as Elijah? (Malachi 4:5,6; Matt. 11:12-14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:17) Why was he compared to Elijah rather than some other prophet such as Elisha or Jeremiah or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Daniel or Zechariah or any one of Jehovah's many other prophets of years gone by? Though John denied that he really was Elijah (John 1:21), he clearly went to great lengths to copy part of Elijah's prophetic ministry. To make it quite plain exactly what he was doing, John even dressed like Elijah. (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6) Why?
I have found there is really only one way to answer these questions. The answers are found by studying the prophetic life of Elijah. Specifically, the part of his prophetic life which we read about in 1 Kings chapters 17 and 18. There we find that, during the reign of King Ahab, Elijah prophesied that in northern Israel there would "be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except by my word." (1 Kings 17:1) Elijah's prophecy proved true when a long drought followed causing a severe famine in the land. At the end of those "few years" Elijah introduced a long awaited and greatly needed shower of rain to Israel.
Nowhere in the Old Testament are we told exactly how many years passed before Elijah ushered in the rain Israel had so long been waiting for. However, the New Testament provides us with this information twice. First, in Luke 4:25, Jesus himself told us that, "In Elijah's time the sky was shut for three and a half years." Later James told us that, "Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed and the heavens gave rain." (James 5:17,18)
Why does the New Testament tell us exactly how long Elijah served as God's prophet while the people of his land waited for rain? I believe it does so in order to provide us with the chronological information we need to determine the time of John's ministry.
For just as Elijah served as a prophet of God for three and a half years while the people of Israel were longing for rain to come to their land, John the baptist prophesied "the coming of the Lord" while the people of Israel were longing for the Messianic rain to come to them. This Messianic "rain" was prophesied to come to Israel in the 72nd Psalm. There we read in part, "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness and your afflicted ones with justice. He will be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth. All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him. All nations will be blessed through him and they will call him blessed." (Ps. 72: 1, 2, 6, 11, 17)
With this Messianic prophecy in mind, it seems clear why the New Testament informs us of exactly how long Elijah prophesied while waiting for rain to fall on Israel. Why? So we today can understand that the latter day "Elijah," John the baptist, prophesied "the coming of the Lord" for exactly three and a half years before he introduced the long awaited and greatly needed Messianic "rain" to the Jewish people. (John 1:29-31)
So, if Jesus began his ministry in the autumn of A.D. 29 and John began to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of the Messiah three and a half years earlier, then John's ministry began in the spring of A.D. 26. But this brings up another problem, If John began his ministry in A.D. 26, and he was thirty years old at the time, and his ministry lasted for three and a half years before Jesus began his own ministry, and John was six months older than Jesus as the scriptures indicate, doesn't that mean Jesus was thirty-three years old when he began his ministry? Yes, it does. That brings us to another of your comments.
You referred to: a conspicuous approximation about the age of Jesus when he began his ministry (v. 23, about -- ôsei -- 30 years old).
As you here point out, Luke tells us that Jesus was "about thirty years old when he began his ministry." ( Luke 3:23 ) But if Jesus was then thirty-three years old why would Luke have told us that he was then only "about thirty"?
I believe the solution to this problem can be found by taking a closer look at the word Luke used in Luke 3:23 which has been widely translated as "about." That Greek word is "hosei." Bible historians who date the birth of Christ to about 5 BC believe that Luke's saying that Jesus was "about 30" in 29 AD allows room for us to understand that Jesus could have been 2 or 3 years past 30 when he began his ministry. They also tell us that "hosei," the word Luke chose to use before the number 30, actually indicates a greater indefiniteness than the Greek word "hos" which Luke used elsewhere to convey the thought that the number he mentioned may not have been exactly as stated. And, Greek lexicons indicate that "hosei" may have actually been used here by Luke to mean more than just "about." They show that Luke may have used this Greek word to say that Jesus was then beginning his ministry "as if" he were 30, "as though" he were 30, "like" he was 30 or since he "had already been" 30. Why? Because Jewish men usually began their service to God at age 30 and were not permitted to do so before that age.
As a final thought in support of this understanding, I will point out that Luke tells us that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when "the word of God came to John" this "word" came to him while he was already "in the desert." There John served God as "a voice crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " In other words, Luke 3:1, 2 tells us that when "the word of God" came to John, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, John's ministry had already begun. And I believe all the facts from history and scripture combine to show that it had begun three and a half years earlier, in the Spring of 26 AD. You wrote: very few historians -- among those who do believe in a historical Jesus -- would grant him a ministry of 3 years and a half as the Watchtower does. When interpreted historically all Gospels point to a much shorter period. I disagree. Unfortunately, it looks like I wont now have time to do so at length.
You wrote: As you yourself recognise, the three years and a half belong to an artificial "prophetic" pattern (from Daniel 9, read out of its Antiochian context of course) which has nothing to do with historical method. And the same is true a fortiori for dating Cornelius baptism (an "event" which is mentioned only in Acts, without any chronological clue, not even the slightest allusion to Daniel) to 36 AD.
Regardless of its context, Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy is clearly Messianic and, I believe, points to the time of the events described in Acts 10. Maybe we can discuss this further at another time.
