The chronology of the life of the Messiah

CHR003: The Jewish calendar

We have included this study in the category devoted to chronology, because it seems essential to us to understand the subtleties of the ancient Jewish calendar. Indeed, the way the Jews reckoned days, months and years differs significantly from our modern practices. The day began at sunset (Genesis 1.5; Leviticus 23.32), months began with the appearance of the first lunar crescent, and years were adjusted so that the feasts remained in their proper season (Exodus 12.2; Deuteronomy 16.1).

Even though modern date converters make it possible to obtain correspondences with our Gregorian or Julian calendar, certain corrections or adjustments sometimes prove necessary in order to respect as well as possible the calendar customs and constraints of the time. These tools rely mainly on theoretical astronomical calculations, whereas the ancient calendar also depended on concrete observations, notably the visibility of the moon and keeping the Passover in the spring.

We must nevertheless acknowledge that no definitive historical proof makes it possible to confirm with certainty all the chronological proposals put forward in this study. Our reconstructions consist above all in applying, as consistently as possible, the principles set out in the biblical texts. This does not mean, however, that we can state with certainty that the autorités juives — afficher la définition INF380 of that time systematically applied these rules exactly as we understand them today.

Nevertheless, this hypothesis remains plausible in view of the importance the Jewish people attached to observing the Law and respecting the prescriptions of the Torah — afficher la définition INF032 (Deuteronomy 4.1-2; Psalms 119.160). The religious feasts held a central place in the spiritual life of Israel, which makes it likely that particular attention was paid to the management of the sacred calendar (John 7.2; Luke 22.1).

CHR004: The exact date of the decree

In this study, we seek to refine our results by placing the date of the 1st of Nisan in the historical and calendar context of the time. Thanks to modern date converters, it is now possible to establish correspondences between the Hebrew, Julian and Gregorian calendars. These tools rely mainly on precise astronomical calculations, notably the theoretical observation of new moons and the regular lunar cycles established by modern science.

However, it should be remembered that the calendar used in antiquity did not rest solely on abstract mathematical calculations. The beginning of the months depended on the actual observation of the first visible lunar crescent (Genesis 1.14), while the possible addition of an intercalary month was meant to keep the celebration of the Passover in the spring, in accordance with the prescriptions of the Law (Exodus 12.2; Deuteronomy 16.1). This gap between the lunar year and the solar year therefore required, at certain times, the addition of a thirteenth month in order to avoid a gradual drift of the biblical feasts.

It therefore seems probable that in 458 BC the Babylonian authorities or the Jewish leaders in exile added an extra month in order to realign the lunar calendar with the solar cycle. Such a decision made it possible, in particular, to ensure that the month of Nisan remained after the spring equinox, an essential condition for celebrating the Passover in its traditional seasonal setting (Exodus 13.4; Esther 3.7).

This fact is of particular importance in the chronological study of the prophecies of Daniel (Daniel 9.24-27), because a simple variation of one month in the ancient calendar can significantly change the correspondences established with our modern calendars.

CHR005: Calculation of the dates concerning the life of the Messiah Jesus

In this study, we seek to determine the most precise dates possible for the great events that marked the life of the Messiah Jesus. To do so, we examine all the Gospel passages containing chronological indications, in particular those of Luke, who frequently places events in their historical context (Luke 1.5; Luke 2.1-2; Luke 3.1-2). We will also take into account the details provided by Matthew, Mark and John, whose accounts supply complementary elements indispensable for a coherent reconstruction of the Gospel chronology.

Our approach consists in showing that this information, far from being approximate or contradictory, presents a credible historical and chronological coherence when studied in its biblical, historical and calendar context. Starting from the supposed date of the death of the Messiah Jesus (Matthew 27.62; John 19.31), we will gradually work back through the course of events in order to examine the date of his baptism, the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist, and then the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 3.23; Matthew 2.1).

This study rests neither on a personal opinion nor on any alleged special revelation. It consists above all in a methodical analysis of the biblical texts, set against the available historical, astronomical and calendar data. Our goal is to understand how the authors of the Gospels situated the events they report, and to what extent these indications make it possible to establish a coherent chronology.

Some readers will perhaps be surprised by the precision of the results proposed. However, a detailed examination of the texts shows that these are not arbitrary speculations, but conclusions drawn from research based on the careful study of the Scriptures, Jewish calendar practices and the historical context of the 1st century (Luke 1.1-4). Even if certain uncertainties remain unavoidable because of the age of the sources, the convergences observed appear numerous enough to justify an in-depth study of this chronology.

CHR006; The “next days” noted by John

In our research aimed at establishing as precise a chronology as possible of the life of the Messiah Jesus, we have paid particular attention to the information reported by the apostle John. Indeed, his Gospel often complements the Synoptic accounts by providing chronological, geographical and contextual details that Matthew, Mark and Luke did not always see fit to develop. The ministry of Jesus in Judea is, in this respect, a particularly significant example (John 3.22-24; John 4.1-3).

We have studied in particular the course of events immediately after the baptism of the Messiah Jesus. In the first chapters of his Gospel, John repeatedly uses precise time markers such as “the next day” (John 1.29; John 1.35; John 1.43) and then “the third day” (John 2.1). These chronological markers are of particular interest, because they make it possible to follow the sequence of events that marked the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus.

Careful analysis of these indications, set against the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, makes it possible to propose a coherent and historically plausible chronology of the events that followed the baptism of Jesus, notably the period of temptation in the wilderness, the first testimonies of John the Baptist, the calling of the first disciples and the noces de Cana — afficher la définition INF122 (Matthew 4.1-11; Mark 1.12-13; Luke 4.1-13; John 2.1-11).

Some readers will perhaps be surprised to find that it is possible, from these various data, to reconstruct a relatively detailed chronological sequence. Yet this approach rests solely on the study of the biblical texts and on the search for a coherent harmonization between the different Gospel testimonies.

Of course, we do not claim to have absolute proof to confirm every detail of this reconstruction. Certain stages necessarily remain hypothetical because of the sometimes concise nature of the Gospel accounts. However, careful examination of the texts shows that it is possible to understand the general course of events without concluding that the Gospels contradict one another. On the contrary, the differences observed often appear as complementary information reflecting the particular aims of each inspired author (Luke 1.1-4; John 20.30-31).

CHR007: The date of Jesus’ birth

Everyone traditionally knows the date of Jesus’ birth, since this event is still celebrated every year on December 25. However, this date rests above all on a late ecclesiastical tradition and not on an explicit indication in the Gospels. The biblical texts indeed give no precise date for the birth of the Messiah Jesus (Matthew 1.18-25; Luke 2.1-7).

The year of Jesus’ birth also raises several historical difficulties. Many scholars consider that he was not born in the year 1 of our calendar, but several years earlier, often between 6 and 4 BC, mainly because of the date traditionally accepted for the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2.1). This situation frequently leads to the paradoxical claim that Jesus was “born before Jesus Christ.”

This study is the result of in-depth analyses of the biblical, historical and calendar data. The conclusions we reach lead us to reexamine several commonly accepted ideas concerning the chronology of the birth of the Messiah. We will gradually work back through the course of events in order to understand what really happened, setting the indications of the Gospels against the available historical information.

Our approach rests above all on the search for an overall coherence between the biblical texts and the historical events. The details given by Luke concerning the political authorities of the time (Luke 1.5; Luke 2.1-2; Luke 3.1-2), the information relating to the reign of Herod (Matthew 2.1) and the chronological elements linked to the prophecy of Daniel (Daniel 9.24-27) are important landmarks for this study.

This work thus leads us to question certain dates often presented as historical certainties, when they actually rest on hypotheses that historians and exegetes have long debated. Other approaches, sometimes less well known, also deserve to be examined carefully when their consistency with the biblical data appears significant.

The conclusions proposed in this study may surprise some readers. However, we invite everyone to examine carefully the argument developed, as well as the coherence of the information reported by the Gospels. Our goal is not to defend an original theory at all costs, but to seek the most coherent understanding possible of the events on the basis of the biblical texts themselves.

In this approach, we give particular importance to the testimonies of the biblical authors, notably Luke and Daniel, who present their accounts as founded on serious research and inspired revelations (Luke 1.1-4; Daniel 7.28). We thus seek to understand history in the light of the Scriptures, and not to systematically adapt the Scriptures to modern historical reconstructions.

CHR008: The death of King Herod the Great

For a long time we regarded as an incontestable historical reference the claim that King Herod the Great died in the year 4 BC. This date is now widely accepted in many historical and exegetical works. For a long time, therefore, we accepted it without really questioning it. Yet when we compared this chronology with the indications given by the Gospels, notably those of Luke and the prophetic data of the book of Daniel, several difficulties appeared (Luke 1.5; Luke 2.1-2; Daniel 9.24-27).

Various chronological adjustments were then proposed in order to resolve these tensions: hypotheses about the dates of reigns, imperial co-regencies, calendar adjustments, or symbolic interpretations of certain prophetic periods. However, despite these attempts, many inconsistencies remained. The different pieces of the chronological puzzle seemed hard to fit together satisfactorily.

We found that, by temporarily removing the constraint imposed by the traditional date of Herod’s death, several biblical pieces of information regained a remarkable coherence. The main stumbling block therefore remained that famous date of 4 BC.

We then set about examining more closely the historical sources behind this claim. The first surprise was to find that this dating does not rest on an official inscription or direct archaeological evidence, but mainly on an interpretation of the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. The date of 4 BC is deduced from several chronological elements in his works, notably the events surrounding Herod’s death and the lunar eclipse mentioned shortly before his death.

It thus appears that this chronology, although widely accepted, remains above all a historical reconstruction. Yet some scholars have also proposed another possibility: a death of Herod in the year 1 BC. Under this hypothesis, several chronological difficulties seem to ease, and the indications given by Luke, as well as certain interpretations of the prophecy of Daniel, regain a more natural coherence (Luke 3.1-3; Luke 3.23).

This study therefore presents a summary of our research on this question. Our goal is not to impose absolute certainty, but to show that a dating of mort d’Hérode en 1 — afficher la définition INF282 BC can also be considered on the basis of the texts of Flavius Josephus. This hypothesis seems particularly interesting to us, because it makes it easier to harmonize the historical data with the biblical indications relating to the birth and ministry of the Messiah Jesus.

We also wish to make clear that our approach consists neither in forcing the texts nor in artificially altering the available historical information. We readily acknowledge that the hypothesis of mort d’Hérode en 1 — afficher la définition INF282 BC still raises several questions debated among historians. However, it should also be remembered that the traditional dating of 4 BC likewise presents difficulties and requires certain interpretations or suppositions in order to be maintained.

Thus, this study does not claim to close the debate, but simply invites us to reexamine carefully the available historical and biblical data, in the interest of seeking a chronology that is coherent and respectful of the texts.

CHR009: The date of Jesus’ death

The date of the death of the Messiah Jesus is the subject of many debates among historians and Gospel specialists. The chronological indications provided by the biblical texts generally lead to two main possibilities: Friday, April 7, AD 30, or Friday, April 1, AD 33. Both dates indeed correspond to a crucifixion occurring on a Friday, the eve of a particularly important sabbat — afficher la définition INF089 connected with the feast of Passover (John 19.14; John 19.31; Mark 15.42).

The Gospels specify that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, before the beginning of the sabbat — afficher la définition INF089 (Matthew 27.62; Luke 23.54). Moreover, the crucifixion takes place during the period of the Jewish Passover (John 18.28; John 19.14). Taking into account the calendar and astronomical data relating to the ancient Jewish calendar, few dates meet these criteria in the period corresponding to the governorship of Pontius Pilate (Luke 3.1).

We are therefore faced with two main possibilities, which must be examined carefully. It is then necessary not only to justify the choice we make, but also to understand the reasons that lead other scholars to favor a different solution.

In this study, we set out in detail the elements that lead us to favor the year 33 for the crucifixion of the Messiah Jesus. We present in particular the arguments drawn from the Gospels, from the chronology of the ministry of John the Baptist (Luke 3.1-3), from the various Passovers mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 2.13; John 6.4; John 11.55), and from the prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel (Daniel 9.24-27).

However, we also explain the reasons that lead some scholars to favor the year 30. Several historical and chronological elements are indeed interpreted differently depending on the approaches adopted, notably regarding the date of the death of King Herod the Great. Choosing a death of Herod in 4 BC or in 1 BC directly affects the chronology of the birth of Jesus and, consequently, the whole chronology of his public ministry.

In this study, we strive to present the arguments as honestly and rigorously as possible. Our approach does not consist in forcing the interpretation of the texts in order to defend a preconceived theory, but in carefully examining the information provided by the Scriptures. We first seek to understand the biblical data in their own context, and then to see how they can fit coherently into secular history.

Indeed, we consider that there are not two distinct histories, that of the Bible and that of the world, but a single historical reality. The events reported in the Scriptures must therefore be able to find their place within the general framework of human history (Luke 1.1-4).