Mohammedan Paradise, no Indian isle of bliss. Unless perfect holiness have charms to captivate our hearts, we know of no heaven Christianity has to tempt us with. In short then, if men will have the world at all hazards; if, whatever it may cost, they are determined to join in the hot strife with men however unprincipled, for secular wealth, honors and distinctions; we say to such, we can indeed point out to you no road to certain success; you may be overreached and defeated after all your efforts, and the prize when obtained may vanish of itself or be wrested from your grasp. But, on the whole, as the world is, your shortest and surest way is to be ready to aban. don principles, debase your characters, sear your consciences, sacrifice your peace and destroy your souls. But, as you value your highest happiness here or hereafter, enter not the lists in such a contest. Let the world have its own. Let Machiavelli be right. Let worldly men pursue a low object by base means; the means are naturally fitted to the end. Let us not wish to deny, let us not envy their success. But let us seek for the approbation of a good conscience, for that "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." ARTICLE VII. THE TRUE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH. Translated from Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg, 1843. By Rev. George E. Day, Marlborough, Mass, [The computation of time from the Christian era, universally adopted since the eighth century among Christian nations, is based upon the calculation of the year of Christ's birth, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman monk of Seythian extraction. That this calculation is incorrect, is now gener ally admitted. The church fathers had only an uncertain tradition and differed among themselves. In modern times, Pearson and Hug, have placed the birth of Christ one year before our era; Scaliger, agreeing with Eusebius, two years; Calvisius Vogel, Paulus, and Süskind, agreeing with Jerome, three; Bengel and Anger, with Wieseler and the common view, four; Usher and Petavius, five; Sanclemente and Ideler, seven. The present essay, in addition to comprising the results of the 1846.] Introductory Note. 167 latest investigations on this question, is further valuable as a thorough examination of the credibility of two prominent events recorded in the gospels in connection with the birth of Jesus, both of which have been disputed, viz. the star in the east, and the census under Augustus near the time of Christ's birth. The former, Prof. Norton (Evidences of the genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Notes, p. lix.) does not hesitate to call "a fiction," and even grounds his rejection of the first two chapters in Matthew, in part, on their containing what he calls such "a strange mixture of astrology and miracle" as "we find represented in the story of the Magi." Even supposing the star to have been an extraordinary meteor, it is difficult to perceive the force of this objection, unless indeed we first assume that the birth of Christ was a far less important event than the world has been accustomed to regard it. But if the ground maintained by Wieseler, in this essay in respect to the star in the east, is correct, not only are the objections of Prof. N. stripped of the semblance of plausibility, but the narrative itself, confirmed by undeniable astronomical facts, becomes a remarkable witness in favor of the genuineness of the two chapters, which it is cited by Prof. N. to impeach. It is only necessary to add that the author of the following essay is a native of Altencelle in the kingdom of Hanover, where he was born, Feb. 28, 1813. In 1836, he was appointed Repetent in Theology; in 1839, Privatdocent; and in 1812, Professor extraordinarius, in the University of Göttingen. The two other works by which he is known to the public are an examination of the genuineness of Mark 16: 9-20 and John xxi,1 and a treatise on the Apocalyptical literature of the Old and New Testaments. -TR.] For the sake of more certain progress, we propose to treat, in the first place, of the year in which Jesus was born, and then, to inquire whether anything can be definitely decided in respect to the month and day. Our first inquiry, then, is: "In what year was Jesus born? 1 Num loci Mr. 16: 9—20, et Jo. 21, genuini sint nec ne indagatur eo fine, ut aditus ad histor. apparitionum J. Ch. rite conscribendam aperiatur. Götting. 1839, 8vo. * Auslegung und Kritik der apokalypt. Literatur des Alten and Neuen Testaments, 1 Beitr. die 70 Wochen des Proph. Daniel. Nebst einer hist.-krit. Untersuchung über den Sinn, etc., der Worte Jesu von s. Parusie in den Evang. Götting. 1839. The first year of our customary reckoning of time from the birth of Christ, or the Dionysian era, agrees with the year 754 U. C., according to the reckoning of Varro, or 4714, Per. Jul. Dionysius himself, as Ideler, after Sanclemente, has shown, in his Manual of Chronology, II. 383, (to whose instructive discussion of our question I beg leave to refer the reader,) placed the birth of Jesus near the close of the year 754 U. C. Of more recent writers, even Hase, despairing of the credibility of the gospel narrative, agrees with the Dionysian reckoning. With this exception, the conviction of the erroneousness of this computation, is at present nearly universal. Let us review the grounds of its rejection, and inquire whether a better one may not be substituted. In our Gospels, we have four data, on which our investigation must rest, viz.; first, the reign of king Herod, (Matt. 2: 1, comp. Luke 1: 5,) the father of Archelaus, (Matt. 2: 22); secondly, the appearance of the star of the wise men, and their arrival in Jerusalem, (Matt. 2: 2, 7, 16); thirdly, the census in Judea, under Augustus, (Luke 2: 1); and fourthly, the thirty years of age, at which Jesus entered upon the Messianic office, (Luke 3: 23.) Only the first, third and fourth of these data were designed to possess a chronological character, and thus in this respect also Luke appears more distinctly chronological. According to the degree, in which these four data lead to one and the same result, must its value be estimated. Should it be supported by a whole chronological system with which the gospel narrative harmonizes, its truth would hardly be doubted. FIRST DATUM. Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Matt. 2: 1-22. Luke 1: 5. But how long did Herod reign and when did he die? The historian Josephus, to whom, as by birth a Jew, special authority on this point belongs, informs us (Antiq. 17, 8. 1, de bell. Jud. 1, 33. 8,) that Herod died in the thirty-seventh year after the time, when by Roman influence (through Antony and Octavius, by virtue of a decree of the Senate) he was appointed king, and in the thirty-fourth year after the death of Antigonus, or the commencement of his actual reign. This appointment, which is mentioned in the Antiq. 14, 14. 5, falls, 1 We reckon here and throughout this Article from the foundation of Rome, in order to have a fixed standard different from the year of Christ's birth, and by which the latter may be measured. The year of Rome (U. C.) can be easily changed into the erroneous but current year of the Dionysian era. 2 See his Leben Jesu, 3te Aufl. S. 49 sq., where the works on this question are cited. 1846.] Manner of Reckoning Time by Josephus. 169 two chronological data, the 184th Olympiad and the consulate of Cn. Domitius Calvinus II and C. Asinius Pollio, there given, in the year 714 U. C. With this agrees the third datum, that Herod by the joint action of Antony and Octavius, though at the instance, especially, of the former, was elevated to the throne; for the reconciliation of these two men took place immediately upon the death of the imperious Fulvia, i. e. according to Dio 48. 28, in the beginning of the year 714 U. C. In accordance with this, the death of Antigonus, and the storming of Jerusalem by Herod and the Romans, falls, according to Ant. 14, 16. 4, in the year 7171 U. C., in the third month (Sivan), i. e. June or July, as Josephus expressly declares. Upon these data, most chronologists, at the present day, correctly place the death of Herod in the beginning of the year 750 U. C., and only a few, as Paulus, continue to assign the year 751. In fixing upon the latter period, it has not unfrequently been overlooked, that Josephus, in accordance with the chronological principle laid down in the Talmud,3 reck 1 Dio 49. 22, incorrectly places the storming of Jerusalem in the consulate of Claudius and Norbanus, or 716 U. C. Comp. Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. II. 390, and Anger, p. 7. 1 The passage reads thus: υπατεύοντος ἐν Ῥώμη Μάρκου Αγρίππα καὶ Κανινίου Γάλλου, ἐπὶ τῆς πεμπτῆς καὶ ὀγδοηκοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, τῷ τριτῷ μηνί, τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς νηστείας, ὥσπερ ἐκ περιτροπῆς τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Πομπηΐου τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις συμφορᾶς — καὶ γὰρ ὑπ' ἐκείνου τῇ αὐτῇ ἑάλωσαν ἡμέρᾳ - μetà lтŋ elkooi kaÌ ÉжTú. Anger, however, p. 191 sq., differs in respect to the month, and places the storming of Jerusalem on the tenth of Tishri. His reasons are: (1) Antigonus is said in Ant. 20, 10, to have reigned in all, three years and three months. But since, according to Ant. 14, 13. 10, he commenced reigning shortly after Pentecost, 714, his reign must have extended longer than to Sivan, 717. This argument, however, is nothing but a mistake in respect to the principle on which the reign of the Jewish kings was calculated, of which more presently. According to this principle, Antigonus, even if he began to reign at Pentecost, 714, had reigned three years up to Nisan 717. Consequently, three years and three months would exactly bring us to the third month, (Sivan,) 717. (2) The expression éoprǹ tñs vnoteías, Anger thinks, can only be understood of the fast-day, properly so called, the day of atonement or the 10th of Tishri. But here, we reply, is express mention made of a fast-day which fell in the third month, i. e. of a fast-day in Sivan and not in Tishri. Probably this fast was in commemoration of the suspension of the daily sacrifice in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, in Sivan, 168 B. C., which continued till the 25th of Kisleu, 165 B. C., and constituted the three and a half years in Daniel 9: 27. 12: 7, 11. Comp. 11: 31. [The last sentence is the substance of the latter part of a long and unessential note.-TR.] Gemara bab, tract. c. 1. fol. 3. p. 1. ed. Amstelod. 178 אמרי,Non numerant in regibus nisi a Nisano * להם למלכים אלא מניסן dixit R. Chasda : hoc non docent nisi de *. חסדא לא שנו אלא למלכי ישראל ons the years of the Jewish princes from Nisan to Nisan, and in such a manner, that a single day before and after that point is reckoned as a full year. Let us cite a few instances. One instance we have already seen in the three years and three months of Antigonus, in the note in Ant. 14, 16. 4. A second still more striking occurs in the same passage; where Jerusalem is said to have been taken by Herod on the same day on which, twentyseven years before, it was taken by Pompey. Now the first of these events took place in the year 691 U. C., and the last in the year 717 U. C. Consequently between these two data, according to the ordinary mode of reckoning, there would be only an interval of twenty-six years, and Josephus would have given exactly one year too much. But if we reckon according to the principle laid down by the Talmudists, we obtain exactly this one year; for then, the time of the taking of Jerusalem from Sivan 691 to Nisan 692, would be equal to one year, and the time from Nisan to Sivan 717, would be again equal to one year, and these two added together, would make two years of a period which, in the ordinary manner of reckoning, would only be one year. Again, Josephus, Ant. 20, 10, reckons from the beginning of the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple under Titus, i. e. from Sivan 717 to the 10th of Ab, 823, one hundred and seven years. According to the usual mode of reckoning, it is only one hundred and six years and one or two months; and if with Anger we place the beginning of Herod's reign on the 10th of Tishri, it is not even one hundred and six full years. But not to weary the reader with further examples, those already adduced will be sufficient to establish the general principle in respect to the true mode of computing the length of the reign of Herod and his immediate successors, and also to clear up, I trust, the difficulties in this part of Josephus' Chronology. Let us now turn back to the chronological data, derived from Ant. 17,8. 1, in respect to the death of Herod. Thirty-four years after the storming of Jerusalem in Sivan, 717 U. C., brings us, since the thirty-third year ends before the first of Nisan, 750, only to the beginning of Nisan in this year. We obtain the same result from the other computation, thirty-seven years after his appointment, in regibus Israelitarum. Ibid. fol. 2. p. 2, 778 111 Bibbob mɔwn 28 7073 21 MM, “Nisan initium anni regibus ac dies quidem unus in anno instar anni computatur." Ibid. :v 21wn no.9103 778 017, “unus dies in anni fine pro anno numeratur." Comp. Anger, p. 9, who has not recognized, however, this mode of computation in Josephus. |