Additional Observations on Luke, chap. iii. ver. 1. CHRONOLOGERS are generally agreed that our Lord was born four years before the commencement of what is termed the VULGAR ERA of his Nativity; that is, in the 749th year from the building of Rome, according to Varro. Herod the Great died about the 751st year of Rome, two years before the present vulgar æra, according to the most accurate chronologers; therefore, our common computation must be four years too late. It is universally agreed that Augustus reigned till A. D. 14, according to the common reckoning; therefore, the 30th year of Christ's age must correspond to the 12th year after the death of Augustus; or, which is the same, to the 12th year of the sole reign of Tiberius Cæsar: and as, according to the general custom of the Jews, a person was not deemed qualified to enter on the public work of the ministry before he was 30 years of age, (though some did it at 25,) it may be safely stated, that the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, coincided with the 30th year of the Baptist's age; and therefore it must have coincided also with the 30th year of our Lord's age, as the latter was born only six months after the former. But here a question of great importance, and apparent difficulty, arises: if, as the greatest chronologers agree, Christ's 30th year was the same with the 12th year after the death of Augustus, how then can A. D. 26. which appears in these Notes in the margin of Luke, chap. iii. 1. be called both the 12th and 15th year of the reign of Tiberius? There are several ways of solving this difficulty; but I need refer only to the following, which is sufficiently obvious: on August 28, A. D. 11. Augustus associated Tiberius with himself, in the full government of the empire; or, as Velleius Paterculus expresses it, ut æquum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset, quam erat ipsi; "that he might have equal power with himself in all the provinces, and in all the armies of the empire." Now, this accounts exactly for the three years of difference which appear to exist between the statement of St. Luke, and the computation of modern chronologists; the former, reckoning from the time in which Tiberius was associated in the empire with Augustus; the latter, from the death of Augustus, when Tiberius became sole emperor. For, as Tiberius was associated with Augustus on August 28, A. D. 11. and Augustus died August 19, A. D. 14, it appears that the time in which the two emperors reigned conjointly, was exactly two years and 356 days, or three years all but nine days. That St. Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from the above period, as many others certainly did, and not from the death of Augustus, is exceedingly probable; because, taken thus, all his dates agree: and a person who has been so careful as St. Luke evidently was, to fix the dates of the most important transactions he relates, by several chronological data, (as I have had occasion, more than once, to remark in the Notes on his gospel and the Acts,) could not be guilty of such an oversight as this would be, had he dated from the death of Augustus, every candid reader must allow. Besides, he uses a term which may be fairly thus explained, Luke iii. 1. Εν έτει δε πεντεκαιδεκατῳ της ηγεμονίας Τιβερίου; In the fifteenth year of the GOVERNMENT Tiberius; a term which is applied not only by the sacred writers, but also by the best Greek authors, to signify government, in general, whether administered by king, emperor, deputy, toparch, prætor, or any other; and that the word should be understood of government in this general way, and not of that which is restricted to a basileus, imperator, or monarch, who reigns alone, not dividing the empire with any, and consequently being accountable to none, is rendered extremely probable by this use of the term in the very next word in this sentence; Pontius Pilate being GOVERNOR, YEμOVEUOVTOS, (executing the office of governor,) of Judea; who certainly was not monarch of Judea, but a deputy of the Roman emperor. As Pilate, therefore, governed by the authority of Augustus, so Tiberius reigned in conjoint power with Augustus himself; and therefore the term jyμonia, government; and yeμovauw, to exercise, or execute the office of a governor, is with equal propriety attributed both to Tiberius, in his conjoint authority with Augustus; and to Pontius Pilate, or any other governor, acting under the imperial authority. It would be easy to multiply examples here to shew that the word may be as well understood of a conjoint or deputy governor, as of an emperor or monarch. To 2 all this might be added, the consideration that Tiberius must be reputed and called emperor by all the Roman people, as well during the time he was associated with Augustus, as after he became sole monarch. And, would it not be natural for them, in speaking on the subject, to say, Tiberius is now in the first, second, or third year of his reign; even while Augustus was yet living? nor could they speak any other language with propriety. It is true that, after the death of Augustus, the Roman historians generally attribute the whole forty-four years of the reign of Augustus, (the latter three of which he had reigned conjointly with Tiberius,) to Augustus himself; and date the reign of Tiberius from the death of his predecessor; and this they do merely for distinction's sake: but we may safely state, that no man, who lived in the time of the conjoint reign of these emperors, as Luke did, would write in any other way concerning the reign of the surviving emperor, than Luke has done. The chronology of very few facts in the whole compass of ancient history can be ascertained with greater accuracy than that of Herod's death. Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities, lib. xiv. cap. 14. s. 5. has fixed the time when Herod was named king by the Romans with so great precision, as to inform us who were the Roman consuls that were in office at the period of this monarch's accession to the throne. His words are: 'O μey BTWS την βασίλειαν παραλαμβάνει, τυχων αυτής επί της έκατοσης και ογδοηκοσης και τεταρτης Ολυμπιαδος, ὑπατευοντος Γαι Δομετιο Καλβίνο το δεύτερον, και Γαια Ασινια Πωλίωνος. “ And thus he (Herod) received the kingdom, having obtained it in the one hundred and eighty-fourth Olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio the first time." Now it is certain, that these Consuls were in office A. U. C. 714, according to the computation of Varro, which was that used by the Romans in the celebration of their secular games; and, consequently, this year must have been the same with the thirty-ninth before the commencement of the vulgar æra of Christ's nativity, according to the chronological table of Archbishop Ussher, unquestionably one of the most accurate chronologers of modern times. Therefore as Josephus, Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 8. s. 1. and Bell. lib. i. cap. 33. s. 8. as well as other historians, has assigned the length of the reign of Herod the Great to be 37 years, it is certain that the death of this king must have happened about the 751st year of Rome, that is to say, about two years after Christ's birth, and in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus Cæsar, if we reckon the years of his reign from the battle of Actium, at which time the government of the Triumviri was abolished, and that of Emperors properly commenced. It is also certain, from most indisputable evidence collected from the whole body of the Roman and Greek historians, that Augustus Cæsar died 44 years after the battle of Actium, and, consequently, the 12th year of Tiberius's sole reign, must have been 28 years after the death of Herod; for 16, the years that Augustus reigned after Herod's death + 12 28. It therefore follows, from the tables of Roman consuls, which have been carefully preserved in the Chronicon of Eusebius, that there was an interval of 65 years between the commencement of Herod's reign and that of Christ's public ministry; consequently, there is every evidence necessary to prove, that St. Luke did reckon the years of Tiberius's reign from the time that this monarch was associated with Augustus in the empire. By all this it appears, that the time of which Luke speaks, was properly the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, though only the twelfth after the death of Augustus. And that as Herod did not die, as chronologers generally agree, till the 751st year of Rome, which was the second year of our Lord; therefore, the whole account of the murder of the Innocents, as given by St. Matthew, chap. ii. is perfectly consistent. This being the real state of the case, it seems exceedingly strange, that learned men should have made objections to the verity of St. Luke's history on this account; and that some, to the disgrace of criticism, should have had the weakness or bigotry to pronounce, on such untenable ground, the evangelical history of the genealogy of our Lord, to be spurious! But wisdom is justified of her children. Table of remarkable Æras, TABLE I. and Chronological Facts. commencement 434 of the Christian 5 35 æra. 36000 add almanci 5520 195521 5522 5523 65546 5507 4725 4019 5524 5518 5508 4726 4020 5525 5519 5509 4727 4021 CXCIX. 5510 4728 4022 5527 5521 5511 4729 4023 5528 5522 5512 4730 4024 5529 5523 5513 4731 4025 55 5514 4732 4026 5531 5525 5515 4733 4027 5532 5526 5516 4734 4028 4735 4029 CCI. 3115533 5536 5530 5520 5537 5531 5521 4739 4033 5538 5532 5522 4740 4034 5539 5533 5523 4741 4035 5540 5534 5524 4742 4036 5541 5535 5525 4743 4037 5526 4744 4038 5543 5537 5527 4745 4039 5544 5538 5528 4746 4040 5545 5539 5529 4747 4041 5540 553047484042 11442-Tiberius and 1343 Augustus, con- 2 44 jointly. 4 Tiberius reigns 6 death of Augus- 9 after the death of 10 his predecessor; 11 & three years con23 12 jointly with him; 13 making, in the 14 whole, 25 years; 2615 which appears to 16 be the computa17 tion followed by 2918 St. Luke, ch. iii. 1. 19 who dates from 3120 the time in which 21 Tiberius was asso22 ciated in the em23 pire with Augus24 tus. 3 5 alone after the N. B. The Roman numerals in the column containing the æra of the Olympiads, do not mean that the respective Olympiads were completed in the years of the different epochs with which they are collateral, or, in other words, that so many times four years had then elapsed since the institution of the Olympic games; but they serve to point out the years in which the respective Olympiads commenced. |