When was Jesus born and when did he die?
I will start this new series
that I have translated from my Danish pages by making clear that I actually do
believe in the existence of someone who has later become the Jesus of the
Gospels and the foundation for the Christian faith, even if I do not believe
this person neither was, nor wanted to be, the founder of a new religion. But let
me start out with giving my interpretation of when this Jesus lived (his name
may actually have been something else, but I will get back to that in a later
article).
Jesus lived from year 1 to year 30!
That is what everybody is taught in shool, or rather it was at least in my
school days endless years ago. Even then, of course, Bible scholars knew that
this was not correct. The time of Jesus' birth was determined hundreds of years
after his death by calculating from some most likely misinterpreted facts. The
Christian calendar that we use in the West was established by the monk Dionysius
Exiguus in 525 AD. The basis of his calculations was a highly uncertain
indication of the time of when Jesus began his public ministry; a indication
which is mentioned only in the Gospel of Luke. More on that below. Most monks
and priests of the period, "knew" that Jesus was born about 750-760 years after
the founding of Rome, which was the starting point for the commonly used
calendar in the Roman Empire. Dionysius Exiguus based his calculations on this
information, but he also wanted to prepare a new Easter calendar which most
likely was more important to the early Church than getting the year of Jesus'
birth correct. Anyway he determined that Jesus was born in the year 754 after
the founding of Rome. However, this year fits very poorly, with indications
otherwise mentioned in the New Testament.
Only two of the gospels mention the birth of Jesus and these two gospel do not
agree on the year. Luke does not even agree with himself as he suggests two
different events from which to set the time of Jesus' birth.
Adoration
of the Shepherds by Gerard van Honthorst in the Pomeranian State Museum (source
commons.wikimedia.com)
Matthew states that Jesus was
born while Herod was king. Herod the Great reigned from 37 BC to 4 BC. If Jesus
was born during his reign, he was therefore born no later than 4 BC! However,
there is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew that indicate that he was born just
before Herod died. The desctiption of the Massacre of the Innocents indicates
that he was born at an earlier date. The Massacre of the Innocents will be
discussed in more detail in another article. According to Matthew (2.16), Herod
ordered that all male children in Bethlehem and the surrounding area that were
under two years old should be killed, as it was consistent with the wise men's
proclamation that a new king had been born. Jesus thus may have been born up to
two years before the infanticide. And this event need not have happened in
Herod's last year of life, so the probability indicates that Jesus was born at
the latest in the year 6 BC, and perhaps even earlier. Some have suggested that
the Star of Bethlehem might have been Halley's comet, which passed the earth
around 12 BC. I will get back to the Star of Bethlehem in my next article.
Matthew lets the family escape to Egypt, and they only return home when they
learn that Herod is dead, suggesting that the family had been abroad for some
time.
Luke also suggests in his gospel that Jesus was born "while Herod ruled". At
least he mentions that John the Baptist was born while Herod was king (Luke
1.5), and although he does not say so directly, he implies that Jesus was born
six months after John. However, the only thing he actually do say, is that the
annunciation of Mary took place at the time when Elizabeth was six months
pregnant. But maybe Mary was just told that she would have a baby 10 years later?
Actually, the gospel just states that Mary visited Elizabeth and stayed there
for three months. There is no indication that Mary was already pregnant at this
time. In fact, in Luke 1.80, it is told that John grew and became strong in
spirit "and he lived in the wilderness until he appeared publicly to Israel",
and Jesus' birth is not mentioned until the next chapter.
In Luke 2.1-2.2 it says: "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that
a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census
that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)" Publius Sulpicius
Quirinius took over as governor of Syria (of which Palestine was part) in the
year 6 AD, and the census was carried out in his first year of government. This
contradict the story in Matthew, but as mentioned above Luke also contradicts
himself, as Jesus cannot both have been born 6 months after John and therefore
at least 10 years previous to Quirinius as well as being born while Quirinius
ruled. Also, Luke states that when Jesus began his ministry, he was about 30
years old (Luke 3.23), but at the same time he also states (Luke 3.1 ff) that
John began his ministry in the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius, and implies that
Jesus began his ministry not long after, when he had been baptized by John. The
fifteenth year of Tiberius' was been 28 or 29, and either Jesus must have been
born in 2 BC or he was not baptized by John until after the latter had been
baptizing and preaching for a few years. The Gospel of John suggests that John
and Jesus began their ministries at about the same time, and that their
preachings and baptizings overlapped for quite a while (John 3.23). I will get
back to the issue on when Jesus was born in my next article about the Star of
Bethlehem.
Also, when Jesus was crucified is in fact very uncertain. Cf. above, John the
Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, and it is believed that
Jesus began his a short while after that. The three so-called synoptic gospels
(Mark, Matthew and Luke) let the time period when Jesus was active be very
short. Without being very specific, they all indicate that Jesus was executed on
the first Passover after he began his ministry, thus in year 30 AD, which
harmonizes very well with the idea that he was around 30 years of age. (Unfortunately,
birth year 1 doesn't fit very well as mentioned above as the actual year of his
birth). On the other hand the Gospel of John tells us that Jesus' active period
lasted for at least 3 years, so if he came forward in 29, he cannot have been
executed until 32 AD at the earliest. Several other places in the gospels also
indicate between the lines that Jesus preached for a relatively long time
alongside John.
The best dating of Jesus' death that can be given, is probably that it could not
have happened after the year 36, because that was when Pontius Pilate was
summoned back to Rome. He took the position as Prefect of Judaea in the year 26
AD, so Jesus must have been crucified somewhere between 26 and 36. If we
disregard the late time table of Luke and believe Matthew, Jesus may have
reached the age of 30 already in the early 20s AD, and then his execution may
have taken place at any time throughout Pilate's reign. However, there are
indications that it was near the at the end of Pilate's term. All the gospels
agree that Jesus wass only arrested after the execution of John the Baptist by
Herod Antipas. The reason for the execution was that John spoke against Herod's
marriage to his sister-in-law, Herodias, who had previously been married to his
half-brother. This wedding is believed to have taken place around 33 or 34, and
John was in jail for a while before being executed. Jesus also managed to preach
for some time after John's execution, so Jesus was probably crucified in either
35 or 36. At least it couldn't have been later as Pilate left Judaea in 36 AD,
and in 36 Caiaphas also ended his term as high priest, and it was, according to
the gospels, Caiaphas who questioned Jesus before he was sent to Pilate.
Why now this uncertainty? This is probably due primarily to the fact that none
of the evangelists aims to portray the historical Jesus. Possibly one or both of
the birth stories are later inventions and additons, but if one of them is true
(or at least true in some parts), most scholars agree that it is the story in
Matthew. He was apparently a Jew, and wrote before Luke. Even if most doubt it,
the author of Matthew may have been an eyewitness to some of Jesus' work, which
Luke, who was probably a Greek, definitely never was. Most likely, however, none
of the evangelists had experienced the events first hand. I have a tendency believe in Matthew
more than Luke though, as there are some details in
the gospel that make it more believable.
Without being able to say with certainty whether this is a correct assumption, I
have a possible explanation for the erroneous timing of Luke. This one is
related to where Jesus was born, and I return to that in a future article, but
it briefly suggests that Luke wanted to explain why a man, who was know to be a
Galilean, was born in Bethlehem in Judea.