4. Chronological Data.— a. The year of Christ's birth (for the general condition of the age, see Knapp, De statu temp, nuto Christo, Hal. 1757; and the Church histories of rHcselor, Neander, etc.; on a special point, see ]yiasson, Jani tempi. Christo nascenle rpseratum. Hotterdam, 1700) cannot, as all investigations on this point have proved
!76
JESUS CHRIST
(Fabricii Bibl. antiquar. p. 187 sq., 342 sq. ; Thiess, Krit. Comment, ii, 339 sq. ; comp. especially S. van Tilde, De anno, mense et die nati Chr. Lugd. Bat. 1700, prsef. J. G. Walch, Jena, 1740; K. Michaeles, Ueber das Geburts- u. Sterbejahr J. C. Wien, 1796, ii, 8), be determined with full certainty (Keccard, Pr. in rationes et limites incerti- tudinis circa temp. nat. Chri^ti, Reg. 1768) ; yet it is now pretty generally agreed that the vulgar aera (Hamber- ger, De ejwchtB Dionys. ortu et auctore, Jen. 1704 ; also in Martini Thes. Diss. Ill, i, 341 sq.), of which the first year corresponds to 4714 of the Julian Period, or 764 (and latter part of 753 ; see Jarvis, Introd. to Hist, of the Chui-ch, p. 54, 610) of Home (Sanclemente, De vulg. cercB emendat. Rom. 1793 ; Ideler, Chronol. ii, 383 sq.), has as- signed it a date too late by a few years (see Strong's Harm, ami Expos. Append, i), since the death of Herod the Great (Matt, ii, 1 sq.), according to Josephus {Ant. xvii, 8, 1 ; comp. xiv, 14, 5 ; xvii, 9, 3), must have oc- curred before Easter in B.C.. 4 (see Browne's Ordo Sce- clorum, p. 27 sq.). Hence Jesus may have been born in the beginning of the year of Rome 750, four years before the epoch of our sera, or even earlier (Uhland, Chiistum anno ante ar. vulg. 4 exeunte nutum esse. Tubing. 1775; so Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, Jarvis), but in no case later (comp. also Offerhaus, Spicileg. p. 422 sq. ; Paulus, Com- ment, i, 206 sq. ; Vogel, in Gabler's Journ.f. auserl. the- olog. Lit. i, 244 sq. ; and in the Studien der wiirtemberg. Geistlichk. I, i, 50 sq.). A few passages (as Luke iii, 1, 23 ; Matt, ii, 2 sq.) afford a closer determination [see Cykexius] ; the latter gave occasion to the celebrated Kepler to connect the star of the !Magi with a planetary conjunction (of Jupiter and Saturn), and more recent writers have followed this suggestion (Wurm, in Ben- gel's Archil: II, i, 261 sq. ; Ideler, Ilandb. d. Chronol. ii, 399 sq., and Lehrb. d. Chronol. p. 428 sq.; compare also Miinter, Stern der Weisen, Copenh. 1827; Klein's Oppo- sitionssck7:Y, i, 90 sq. ; Schubert, Lehrb. d. Siernkunde, p. 226 sq.), fixing upon B.C. 6 as the true year of the nativit}-. See Nativity. But Matt, ii, 16 seems to state tliat the IMagi, who must have arrived at Jerusa- lem soon after the birth of Jesus, had indicated the first appearance of the phenomenon as having occurred a lung lime previously (probably not exactly two years before), and on that view Jesus might have been born earlier than B.C. 0, the more so inasmuch as the acces- sion of Mars to the same conjunction, occurring in the spring of B.C. 6, according to Kepler, may have first excited the full attention of the INIagi. Lately Wiese- ler {Chronolog. iSi/ni>pse,\x 67 sq.) has brought down the nativity to the year B. C. 4, and in additional confirma- tion of this date holds tliat a comet, which, according to Chinese astronomical tables, was visible for more than two months in this year, was identical with the star of the wise men, at the same time adducing Luke ii, 1 sq. ; iii, 23, as pointing to the same year. But if the Magi had first been incited to their journey by the appearance of that comet, they could not well have designated to Herod as the Slessianic star the planetary conjunction of A.U.C. 747 or 748, then almost two years ago, seeing this was an entirely distinct ])henomenon. Under this sup- position, too, Herod would have made more sure of his purpose if he had put to death chikbren three years old. According to this view, then, we should place Christ's birth rather in B.C. 7 than B.C. 4. Some uncertainty, however, must always attend the use of these astronom- ical data. See Stau in the FLast. As an element in determining the year of the nativity, Luke iii, 1, comp. 23, must also be taken into the account. Jesus is there positively stated to have entered upon his public min- istry at thirty years of age, and indeed soon after John the Baptist, whose mission began in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, so that by reckoning back about thirty years from this latter date (August, 781, to August, 782, of Rome, A.D. 28-29), we arrive at about B.C. 3 as the year of Christ's birth, which corres)wnds to the statements of Irenseus {llnret. iii, 2.5), Tertullian {Adv. Jud. «), and Eusebius {JJist. Ec. i, 5), that Jesus
JESUS CHRIST
Ml
JESUS CHEIST
was bom in the year 41 (4-2) of tlie reign of Augustus, i. e. 751 of Rome, or B.C. 3 (Ideler, Chnmolof/. ii, 3«5). As Luke's language in that passage is somewhat indeti- nite (■' about," wan), we may presume that Christ was rather over than under thirty years of age; and this will agree witli the computation of the fourth year be- fore the Dionysian ara, i. e. 750 of Kome. If, however, we suppose (but see Browne, Ordo Scevlovum, p. G7) the joint reign of Tiberius with Augustus, i. e. his associa- tion with him in the government especially of the prov- inces (VelL Paterc. Hist. Rom. 11, 121 ; Sueton. iii, 20, 21 ; Tacitus, Annal. i, 3 ; Dio Cass. Hist. Rom. ii, 103), three and a half years before his full reign (Jarvis, Introd. p. 228-239), to be meant, we shall again be brought to about B.C. 6, or possibly 7, as the year of the nativity. The latest conclusion of Block {Das u-ahre Gehurtsjaln- Christ i, Berl. 1843), that Jesus was born in the year 735 of liome, or nineteen years before the beginning of the vulgar ajra, based uikhi the authority of the later Rab- bins, does not call r<irsiK<ialexammation (yet see Wiese- ler, Chronol. .Si/nnjisc. \i. i;!2). See Advent.