Investigation on the Dating of the Life of Jesus

Investigation on the Dating of the Life of Jesus

Cover page CEV 2021
Details of the Work
Author	Jean-François Lavère
Full Title	Investigation on the Dating of the Life of Jesus – enlightened by the harmony of the gospels and by the contributions of Maria Valtorta.
Pages	121
Publication	2021
Publisher	Centro Editoriale Valtortiano
ISBN	978-88-7987-361-1

Among all studies on the dating of the life of Jesus, none has asserted itself in an indisputable way. But this observation does not mean that among the various proposals, there is not one that comes closer than others to the truth. Inspired by Saint Luke — who himself claims, from the beginning of his gospel, the accuracy and order of his narrative — Jean-François Lavère offers us this investigation enlightened by the comparison of historical sources, the gospels, and the writings of Maria Valtorta.

Summary of the Work

• Introduction. 7
• The Beginning of the Public Life of Jesus. 10
• The Sabbatical and Jubilee Years. 23
• The Time of the Passion and the Resurrection. 26
• The Birth of Jesus. 35
• The Conception of Saint John the Baptist. 45
• What to Conclude from this Investigation? 50
• The Decisive Contributions of Maria Valtorta’s Account. 53
• Chronology and Dating of the Life of Jesus Deducted from Maria Valtorta’s Account. 56
• Other Historical Data from the First Century. 95
• Conclusion. 111
• Table of Correspondence of Some Proper Names. 115
• Appendix: Maria Valtorta and her Work. 117

Author's Introduction

"The Church, since Saint Augustine, has always affirmed that the books of Sacred Scripture 'firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God wanted to be recorded' (Dei Verbum no. 11). For every Christian, the Gospel thus obviously remains the essential foundation for any study about the life of the Lord. We must Believe in the information it provides us, even if their truth does not appear at first glance. Despite the spirit of the 'Enlightenment', and numerous attempts made over the last three centuries, no one has succeeded nor will ever succeed in proving irrefragably that the gospel accounts contradict or contain historical errors.

Certainly, the gospels include several markers that at first glance seem difficult to reconcile. If we add the most pertinent historical, epigraphic, numismatic, astronomical data, and some convincing hagiographic elements drawn from the best established traditions, then the whole appears at first totally inextricable. If so many generations of researchers have stumbled over this problem, it is certainly not due to a lack of markers but rather because these markers are numerous and often, at first analysis, seem contradictory among themselves. The temptation can then be strong to ignore the data that invalidate the chosen theory and try to focus attention solely on those that support it... This stratagem, besides lacking scientific rigor, sooner or later is uncovered, leading to new research and new theories. In the end, it appears that no system of dating the life of Jesus has succeeded to establish itself indisputably over 2000 years.

But this observation does not mean that among the different proposed systems, there is not one that conforms to the truth. Is the absence of indisputable proof to impose a dating sufficient to doubt the historicity, harmony, or even the veracity of the gospels? Since the self-proclaimed 'Age of Enlightenment', this is precisely the attitude favored by many authors, preferring to disparage the Scriptures rather than humbly admit their incapacity to resolve the age-old enigma they pose concerning the dating of Christ’s earthly stay. It truly is an affront to the early Christians to judge them so credulous or uninformed for having accepted these supposed contradictions, sometimes even accepting to die for them.

It seemed good to me also, who carefully followed everything from the beginning, to write (...) an orderly account with exactitude... (Luke 1:3).

At the beginning of the Christian era, the Fathers of the Church tried to date the principal events of the life of Jesus. And for this purpose, their main source of information was obviously the Gospel. Indeed, if the Lord desired to reveal to us the dates of his earthly sojourn, it is certainly in the Scriptures that they should be sought, since only Sacred Scripture contains the 'revealed Truth.'

To carry out this search, the text of Saint Luke imposes itself first because the author himself claims at the beginning of his work the accuracy and ordering of his account. By carefully studying the datings of the life of Jesus established during the first five centuries, it appears quite clearly that the Fathers of the Church primarily relied on two pieces of information drawn from Saint Luke’s text concerning the beginning of the public life. This will therefore also be our starting point."

The Beginning of the Public Life of Jesus

Luke 3:1

John the Baptist proclaims the baptism of conversion "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius" (Luke 3:1). Jesus "was about thirty years old when he began" his public life (Luke 3:1).

"Saint Luke here gives us a first element situating in time the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and a second allowing to connect his birth to it. History records that Augustus died Tuesday, August 12, 14 AD, and that Tiberius legally succeeded him Sunday, August 17, 14 AD. He then took the oath on September 14 and received his investiture from the Roman Senate on September 15. Finally, on October 13, 14 AD, he was officially named "Princeps". Naturally, the year 14 AD was generally retained by Roman historians, as early as the end of the first century, as the first year of Tiberius's "reign". The fifteenth year of his reign then mathematically begins during the year 28 AD. No great erudition is needed to deduce that Jesus began his public life at the start of 29 AD!

Considering without doubt this indication as the most precise one that can be drawn from the Gospel, the Fathers of the Church were then able to almost unanimously fix the birth of the Lord thirty or thirty-one years earlier, provided they estimated the beginning of Jesus’ ministry at his thirtieth birthday, or at his completed thirty years, Saint Luke’s text leaving some uncertainty on this point. Since it was not yet a question at that time to date events by "the Christian era", the Fathers took well-known references: the Olympiads, the appointments of Roman consuls, or even the beginning of the Roman Empire. But the latter marker was still uncertain, and the Fathers indicated the 41^st or 42^nd year of Augustus, provided they considered the year 1 of his reign at Julius Caesar’s death (March 15, 44 BC), or when he was acclaimed emperor (April 21, 43 BC). Ultimately, this corresponds to the year 751 or 752 from the founding of Rome, or more simply for us, to the year 3 or 2 BC. Here is an attempt at as detailed as possible an inventory of the date of Jesus' birth according to ancient testimonies:

Ancient testimonies placing the Nativity in 4 BC:

• Sulpitius Severus (ca. 360-425, Chronicle Book II, ch. 27): "Under Herod, in the 33rd year of his reign, Christ was born on December 25 under the consulship of Sabinus and Rufinus" (...) "Herod reigned four years after the birth of the Lord, his reign having lasted 37 years in total."

Ancient testimonies placing the Nativity in 3 BC:

• Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos VIII,11 ca. 197 AD): "We see that in the 41st year of Emperor Augustus, which means 28 years of power after Cleopatra’s death, Christ was born. Augustus himself survived fifteen years after the birth of Christ."
• Saint Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses - III. 21-3 ca. 170-180 AD): "The Lord was born in the 41st year of Augustus’ reign."
• Saint Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis Book 1 ch. 21 ca. 210-220 AD): "The 25th of the month of Pachon, in the 28^th year since Egypt was subdued" (since Actium). (But otherwise Clement’s chronology contains several obvious errors).
• Eusebius of Caesarea: (ca. 315-320 AD) "The 2^nd year of the 194^th Olympiad, 42^nd of Augustus, and the 28^th year of the submission of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra... Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born at the time of the first census, when Quirinius governed Syria" (Hist. Eccl. Book 1 5-2)
• Saint Jerome (ca. 380-400 AD) notes for the 2^nd year of the 194^th Olympiad the correspondence with the date given by Tertullian for Christ’s birth. He confirms elsewhere: "In the 28^th year of Caesar Augustus, the 41^st year of his reign, Christ was born in Judea while confusion reigned in the world" (Commentary on Isaiah ca. 380). This was also the opinion retained by Cardinal Baronius.
• Saint John Chrysostom (ca. 400 AD) places the birth in the 42^nd year of Augustus' empire "since the death of Caesar."
• Cassiodorus (ca. 560 AD) places the birth of Jesus under the consulship of Lentulus and Messala, in the 41^st year of Augustus' empire "since his first consulship."

Ancient testimonies placing the Nativity in 2 BC:

• Saint Hippolytus of Rome, ca. 204 AD: (Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel 9,27): "The Lord was born in Bethlehem on April 2, 5500, year 752 from the founding of Rome." Elsewhere in the same work (4,23) he writes that Jesus was born in the forty-second year of Octavian Augustus' reign.
• Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 20,2 ca. 374-377 AD): the 42nd year of Augustus's power, 13th of his consulship (?), and under the consulship of Silvanus.
• Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 375-390 AD) counted 49 years from the birth of Christ to the 8^th year of Emperor Claudius.
• Orosius: (Histories Against the Pagans. VI / 22-1, book 7/ 2-14 and 3-1, ca. 410-420 AD): "Therefore, in 752 from the founding of Rome... Caesar Augustus himself closed the doors of Janus for the 3rd time" (...) "Christ was born. In our time, near the end of the 42^nd year of the empire, of Augustus Caesar... Christ was born." – "So in 752 from the founding of Rome Christ was born who brought saving faith to the world."
• Malalas: (Chronographia of John Malalas, ca. 565-575 AD): "The 42^nd year of Emperor Augustus, December 25," (...) "our Lord God, Jesus Christ, was born in the city of Judea, named Bethlehem" (...) "Octavian and Silvanus being consuls, Herod being king of Judea."

During the first six centuries, the birth of Jesus was therefore very largely placed in 3 or 2 BC, and those who fixed it thus implicitly admitted that Herod the Great was not dead in 4 BC (as it was claimed centuries later), but around 2 or 1 BC.

It is also based on Saint Luke’s text that centuries later, in 532, Dionysius Exiguus, considering that the 15th year of Tiberius began August 19, 28, and estimating Jesus' age then not as 30 but only 29, fixed the Incarnation on March 25 in the 753rd year of Rome, the 3^rd year of the 194^th Olympiad. He therefore designated January 1, 754 from Rome as the year 1 of Jesus Christ. This marker gradually took hold and is still that which governs the Gregorian calendar today.

But numerous researchers who studied this question throughout the centuries realized that this reasoning presented some flaws. Eusebius of Caesarea had already noted that placing the start of Jesus' ministry in January 29 (as Dionysius Exiguus later did) naturally leads to fixing the Passion in 32 AD, and this date soon proved incompatible with other gospel and astronomical data relating to the time of the Passion.

Thus, here are two indications from Saint Luke which, by their interpretations, lead more or less to a dead end and raise two questions.

First Question

When Saint Luke writes "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius", does he unquestionably refer to the year 28/29 of the Christian era?

From the 3^rd century, the Fathers had at their disposal the writings of Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, or Dio Cassius, who all more or less agreed on the years of Tiberius' reign. They had little reason to doubt these writings.

But a bit earlier, towards the end of the 2^nd century, Saint Clement of Alexandria asserts that some, instead of giving Tiberius a reign duration of twenty-two years, gave him twenty-six years six months and nineteen days. So at that time (and even long afterward) "some" considered that Tiberius’ reign began in year 11 or 12 and not in year 14 of the Christian era. Yet August 11, 11 AD is precisely the date when he was associated to the government of the empire. The following year, January 15, 12 AD, his triumph and the title imperium proconsulare maius, officially designating him as Augustus’ successor, are celebrated in Rome. From then on, he took an active part in state government, assisting his stepfather in promulgation of laws and administration, and personally appointing Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi as city prefect. Tacitus himself openly suspects that Tiberius took power "before the death of Augustus".

A contemporary and friend of Tiberius, Velleius Paterculus (-20/+30), wrote a Roman History shortly before his death. His chronology contains no direct dating. But he specifies (II, 121) that Augustus provoked a formal decision of the senate by which his adopted son was named co-regent, at the time of his triumphant entry into Rome after he had defeated the Pannonians and Dalmatians. These facts are confirmed and dated by Suetonius (Life of Tiberius, 21) on January 16, 765 from Rome. For those who, still at the time of Saint Clement of Alexandria, considered that Tiberius took power in 765 from Rome, the fifteenth year of "his reign" coincided with years 779/780 from Rome (that is year 26/27 AD of the Christian era). It is not at all impossible that this was also the prevailing opinion at the time of Saint Luke...

Indeed, that there was for the entire first century and even later some hesitation about the beginning of Tiberius’s reign should not surprise us. Contemporary epigraphic inscriptions from the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, or even Claudius are dated according to serving consuls or decisive events like the Battle of Actium but do not mention regnal years. The use of indicating regnal years seems to have been introduced by Roman historians only after the second century. Were they inspired by numismatics? Indeed, for a long time, one of the first gestures of Oriental monarchs upon taking power was to mint coins, and coins formed a natural means to count effective years of power in the Empire’s provinces. But regnal years did not appear on Roman coins. Furthermore, historians’ writings of the time confirm that they experienced some confusion in "reconstituting" regnal years of great rulers. Just read Flavius Josephus to be convinced. And let us not forget that Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, and Saint Luke wrote their gospels in the decades following the Passion, as is now proven by the Qumran manuscripts. Thus, well before Flavius Josephus and his contemporary Roman historians, it is not impossible that the fifteenth year of Tiberius was counted from year 765 from Rome.

It is not proven that Saint Luke was referring to the year 28 when mentioning the fifteenth year of Tiberius.

Second Question

When Saint Luke writes that Jesus "was about thirty years old when he began," does this refer to his thirtieth birthday or to his completed thirty years?

Evidently, the opinions of the Fathers of the Church were divided on this point. It seems fairly generally accepted that Saint Jerome, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint Theophylact, or Saint Euthymius opted for the beginning of the 30^th year, while Saint Ignatius, Eusebius, Saint John Chrysostom or later Baronius leaned rather toward the beginning of the 31^st year. This differing viewpoint also justifies a one-year discrepancy among the authors for situating Jesus’ birth.

Can Jewish traditions enlighten us on this matter? In Judaism, according to the Maxims of the Fathers, "at thirty, one reveals his strength." Thirty seems to have been the age when a rabbi could begin to have disciples and teach them. It was in any case the initially intended age for Levitical service. Thirty is also the age of Ezekiel’s calling (Ezekiel 1:1), or the age David was when he became king (2 Samuel 5:4). Saint Irenaeus, refuting the error of the Gnostics who claimed Jesus died in his thirtieth year, writes: "But how could he preach before reaching the legal age of masters?" Much later, Cornelius a Lapide is even more explicit when commenting on Saint Luke’s passage: "At thirty years, according to Hebrew custom, He began to carry out his ministry as teacher and Redeemer, and to preach publicly."

It is likely that Jesus began His Mission on the anniversary of His thirtieth year.   

Without in any way questioning the truthfulness of the information provided here by Saint Luke, it must be admitted that it no longer appears precise enough today to reliably date the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.

However, Saint John, in his gospel, gives us another piece of information that could be decisive for this dating. During the first Passover, when Jesus had just driven out the Merchants from the Temple, a group of scribes challenges Him…

John 2:20

"It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

Surprisingly, this element does not seem to have been considered by the Fathers of the Church.

• - either because they were troubled by the fact that the synoptics also mention Jesus driving out the Merchants from the Temple, but situated this act just before the Passion.
• - or because this data seemed incompatible with the interpretation made in their time of the 15th year of Tiberius,
• - or, as suggested by a commentary of Saint Thomas Aquinas, because they thought it was an allusion to Solomon’s construction of the Temple and thus saw no direct connection with Jesus’ earthly sojourn.

Why would Saint John, eyewitness of most of the Lord’s words and deeds, deliberately place this incident at the beginning of his gospel, if not because it actually took place at the beginning of the public ministry? A logical explanation seems to impose itself: Saint John, having written his gospel last, could not have been unaware of the widely circulated accounts of his three companions. Nothing compelled him to retell well-known "news items" like Jesus driving out the merchants again, a few days before the Passion. He therefore deliberately chose to reveal primarily what his companions had omitted to say, knowing better than anyone that "Jesus did many other things" (John 21:23). He himself "bears witness to these things and wrote them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). If we compare his account of the Last Supper and the Passion with the three other synoptic accounts, it is striking that Saint John endeavored to testify to what his colleagues had left in the shadows.

As for the "construction" of the Temple, one must recall that for Christ’s contemporaries, for four decades the Temple and its esplanade were the object of more or less continuous works. The moment when Herod decided to renovate, heighten, and embellish the Temple is precisely known to us through the cross-checking of information provided by Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius. This decision was taken between autumn 20 BC and very early 19 BC.

We also know that the first phase of these works was extremely rapid, the interior of the Temple being finished eighteen months after the announcement of the works. Flavius Josephus informs us that it was around June/July of the year 18 BC that "a great Ceremony was organized to inaugurate the Temple" (...) "this inauguration coincided with the anniversary of Herod's arrival to power" (possibly the 9th of Sivan). The enormous earthworks on the esplanade took more than eight years, before later starting porches’ fittings and embellishment works. Flavius Josephus further explains: "Herod had built around the Temple very wide and tall porticoes, arranged according to the laws of symmetry, and so beautiful that it seemed never before had the Temple been enclosed with such magnificence." The first works having started in spring 19 BC, forty-six years later, this inevitably brings us to spring 27 AD of the Christian era.

The first Passover that Saint John mentions, at the beginning of Jesus' public life, is that of year 27.

So here is a very precise first marker, directly derived from the Gospel, which could theoretically suffice to date all of Jesus’ life. If one accepts that the word concerning the 46 years employed to embellish the Temple was spoken at the first Passover of Jesus' public life, then one must count Tiberius’s years from year 12, even if this way of counting can no longer be formally proven today, except for a future archaeological discovery.

We will now see that this decisive marker is fortunately not the only one…"

End of the good pages.

Stories of the lives of saints.

In the Catholic context, usually refers to the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) because of their common framework. Broader definition: those offering a general overview of a whole. (Example: a synoptic table).

Offering a general overview of a whole. (Example: a synoptic table). In the Catholic context, often refers to one of the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) because of their common framework.