The Chronological Scheme of Acts
The article ‘Chronology of the New Testament’ by C. H. Turner in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible marks an epoch in this important subject. Its astronomical and calendar data are indeed not unimpeachable, for the more recent studies of Fotheringham make it highly probable that A.D. 30 should b...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
1921
|
| In: |
Harvard theological review
Year: 1921, Volume: 14, Issue: 2, Pages: 137-166 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The article ‘Chronology of the New Testament’ by C. H. Turner in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible marks an epoch in this important subject. Its astronomical and calendar data are indeed not unimpeachable, for the more recent studies of Fotheringham make it highly probable that A.D. 30 should be taken as the year of the crucifixion, rather than Turner's date of A.D. 29. But Turner's careful survey of ancient sources proves that from a very early time “the year of the two Gemini” (A.D. 29) was fixed upon by tradition, and became the accepted starting-point for primitive reckonings in both directions. Convenience of adjustment to the paschal cycle had probably much to do with the adoption of this particular year, which facilitated harmonization; but at the very early period to which it can be carried back tradition is not likely to have varied more than a year or two from the correct date for so all-important an event. While, then, a slightly earlier or later absolute dating, such as A.D. 30, may obtain the preference of modern chronographers it seems not impossible that the traditional date of 29 A.D. for the crucifixion may go back to the period of Luke himself. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-4517 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Harvard theological review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0017816000014425 |