date contradictory to the one just found, if the fifteenth year of Tiberius is to be counted from the death of his predecessor, for Augustus died August 19, A.D. 14.  Reckoned from this time the opening of John’s work falls in the year A.D. 28, and the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry could not be earlier than the spring of 29.  This is at least two years later than is indicated by the statement in John.  The remark in John is, however, so incidental and so lacking in significance for his argument that its definiteness can be explained only as due to a clear historic reminiscence; but it does not follow that Luke has erred in the date given by him.  Although Augustus did not die until A.D. 14, there is evidence that Tiberius was associated with him in authority over the army and the provinces not later than January, A.D. 12.  One who lived and wrote in the reign of Titus may possibly have applied to the reign of Tiberius a mode of reckoning customary in the case of Titus, as Professor Ramsay has shown (Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 202).  If this is the fact, Luke reckoned from the co-regency of Tiberius; hence the fifteenth year would be A.D. 25 or 26, according as the co-regency began before or after the first of January, A.D. 12.  This would place the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry in the spring of 26 or 27, in agreement with the hint found in John.

50.  If the public ministry of Jesus began with the spring of 26 or 27, the close of three years of activity would, come at the Passover of 29 or 30.  The former of these dates agrees with the early Christian tradition already mentioned.  But before accepting that traditional date another matter must be considered.  Jesus was crucified on the Friday at the opening of the feast of the Passover.  Whether it was the day of the sacrifice of the Passover (14 Nisan) or the day following (15 Nisan), is not essential for the present question.  As the Jewish month began with the first appearance of the new moon, it is evident that, in the year of Jesus’ death, the month of Nisan must have begun on a day that would make the 14th or the 15th fall on Friday.  Now it can be shown that in the year 30 the 14th of Nisan was Thursday (April 6) or Friday (April 7), for at best only approximate certainty is attainable.  The tradition which assigns the passion to 29, generally names March 25 as the day of the month.  This date is impossible, because it does not coincide with the full moon of that month.  The choice of March 25 by a late tradition may be explained by the fact that it was commonly regarded as the date of the spring equinox, the turning of the year towards its renewing.  Mr. Turner has shown (HastBD.  I. 415) that another date found in an early document cannot be so explained.  Epiphanius was familiar with copies of the Acts of Pilate, which gave March 18 as the date of the crucifixion; and it is remarkable that this date coincides with the full moon, and also falls on Friday.  Such a combination gives unusual weight to the tradition, particularly as there is no ready way to account for its rise, as in the case of March 25.  From this supplementary tradition the year 29 gains in probability as the year of the passion.  Without attempting to arrive at a final conclusion,—­a task which must be left for chronological specialists,—­it is safe to assume that Jesus died at the Passover of A.D. 29 or 30.