Question about the time of Christmas and death of Christ

There is little definite, undoubtedly correct historical data about the time of birth and the time of the suffering and death of Christ; the establishment of these two facts, meanwhile, should lie at the basis of a specifically Christian era. As for the time of the birth of Christ, it must be recognized first of all that civil history does not give definite indications of the year of the census, which was in the year of R.H. Thus, there is a gap in civil history that chronology has not yet been able to cope with. Of course, those who, taking advantage of the silence of history, think to reject the authenticity of the Gospel events, are acting unfairly. It is known that for Jewish history we have authority in the person of Josephus (prisoner of Emperor Vespasian). He lived very close to the time of Christ and regarding the most important dates of Jewish political life had the opportunity to use very accurate and definite information. He presents such information about the reign of Herod, the reliability and accuracy of which is difficult to doubt. Herod's accession took place in the year when he was in Rome, during the consulate of Cneius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio. It was 714 from the founding of Rome. Herod died in the 37th year of his reign. If 714 was the first year of his reign, then adding 36 to 714, we get 750. From the Gospel it is known that Herod’s death was preceded by the massacre of Bethlehem infants from 2 years of age and below. When the beating took place, Jesus Christ was at least two years old, and perhaps more. This means that our chronology does not correspond to the actual one, but goes several years (5-6 years) ahead. Astronomy confirms this. Josephus says that Herod died after a 37-year reign, in the year when there was a lunar eclipse before the Jewish Passover, which made a strong impression. Astronomy shows that there were three lunar eclipses during the corresponding time period. One was on January 20, 752; it apparently was in America, and not in Jerusalem. Another was in 753 from the founding of Rome; it occurred on the night of January 9-10 - the middle of the eclipse fell by 1 hour 16 1/3 minutes after midnight; this eclipse apparently took place in Jerusalem and it would be very convenient to consider it as the eclipse that happened in the year of Herod’s death before the Passover - if it had not been too late: Herod died in 750. The third eclipse took place in 750 from March 12 to 13; its midpoint fell at 3 hours 11 8/10 minutes after midnight. It was private and visible in Jerusalem. It was this that preceded the Passover, which took place in the year of Herod’s death. Numismatic data also encourages us to prefer the date of 750 to the date of 753: the successor of Herod is indicated on the coins of 753, which means that Herod had already died at that time. From this it clearly follows that Jesus Christ was born before 750, perhaps in 748 and even earlier, in 747. There is also no firm data regarding when He died. we can say that no legend about the year of the Savior’s death on the cross has been preserved; for in order for a tradition to be preserved, there must first of all be unity of chronology between the one who tells the tradition and the one who accepts it. The apostles could say that the resurrection of Christ was on the 16th of Nissan, but for the Romans this was an incomprehensible date, and the first Christians were hardly scientifically prepared enough to translate it into Roman notation. Yes, they did not attach much importance to this: the apostles served the cause of faith, and not scientific curiosity. In order to convey the time of the Savior’s death in the Roman reckoning, it would be necessary to make inquiries in the praetorium, where the day of Christ’s condemnation to the cross could be recorded in Roman. But even this cannot be insisted on with particular confidence: Pilate may not have considered the death penalty of a Jew as a majus negotium (“big deal”) within the limits of his authority and therefore may not have ordered the drawing up of a special act on this. And if contemporaries did not record this day in Roman dates, it was already very difficult for subsequent generations to calculate this day. Let's imagine that there will be some time and our chronology will be replaced by the Chinese one. October 17, 1888 AD, of course, is clear to everyone. But, of course, none of the contemporaries of the event considered it necessary to transfer this date to the Chinese calendar, and in the future (under Chinese chronology) this date may be lost. After this, it is clear that among Christians there could not be an exact legend about the time of the Savior’s death on the cross. In the first times, it seemed completely sufficient to know that He died under such and such bishops and Pontius Pilate; The preachers of Christianity, the apostles, were not ministers of chronology. The later testimonies about this are only scientific guesses and should not confuse us with the confidence with which the writers declare them. Tertullian, for example, passes testimony about this as indisputable truth; but this is his manner of presentation. What indisputable data is there about the year of Christ’s death on the cross? In the Gospel and Creed we read that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The years of Pilate's reign are fairly well defined by Josephus. Pilate ruled Judea for 10 years; when he, having been deprived of power under Tiberius, arrived in Rome, he found Tiberius dead. But Tiberius died on March 16, 790 a.U.C., 37 AD. That turns out to be years 27–36. As a result, the choice of years is significantly reduced. Jesus Christ rose on the first day of the week, in the morning, on our Sunday. This Sunday then fell on the 16th of Nisan, and this is the significant difference between our Orthodox views and Western European ones; therefore, the most accurate research of Western European scientists about the year of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not suitable for us. The fact is that all Western learned theologians are obsessed with some kind of belief that Jesus Chrytos was crucified on the 15th of Nisan, that is, on the first day of unleavened bread, and not on the 14th. In Russian literature, this issue is discussed quite clearly in Khvolson’s “Christ. Readings" for 1875, 1877 and 1878. and “Notes of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences” in volume 41, series 7 (Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes. St. Petersburg 1892), where evidence is presented that it is impossible to consider the 15th of Nisan as the day of the crucifixion of Christ. Thus, we have to look for the year in the series of years of Pilate’s reign when, according to astronomical data, Sunday falls on the 16th of Nisan. Such a year turns out to be, first of all, the 30th year of our chronology, 783 from the founding of Rome, then 33 AD, 786 from the founding of Rome. All the probabilities are for the fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected on April 5, 786. Thus, it turns out that Jesus Christ died in 33. But this rests on provisions that are very difficult to substantiate historically. As for the Gospel indication that when Christ was about 30 years old, it was the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke III, 1:23), the main question here is not how to count the years of Tiberius’s reign (assuming that the Jewish chronology could diverge from the Roman one and for the 15th year we could count not 29, but 27), but that the value of “about 30 years” in the considered The date indicated is approximate. And despite all the chronological authority of Eusebius of Caesarea, we cannot insist with him that Christ died precisely in the 34th year of birth, because there was other news coming from Irenaeus of Lyons, that Christ sanctified by his stay on earth all ages of human life (Adv. haer. 2, 23:2). And it is known that Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who had John the Theologian as his teacher; therefore, it is possible that this news comes from John the Theologian, and in this case this is an authority before which the authority of Eusebius can crumble to dust. Irenaeus says that Christ was “an old man who had reached old age.” But is it convenient to call a 30-year-old person this way? And that Christ’s appearance was not one of flourishing, there is evidence of this in the Gospel itself (John). So the Pharisees objected to Christ: “You are not even fifty years old, and you say that you saw Abraham” (John VIII, 57). It is obvious that He looked to be much more than 30 years old. No doubt they would be happy to say, “You’re not even thirty years old,” if it were possible. No solid historical tradition has been preserved about the time of Christ's public ministry. The usual view that His ministry lasted 3 1/2 years and His life ended in the 34th year is based on the authority of Eusebius. We do not find complete confirmation of this tradition in the text of the Gospel; Thus, the holiday to which the healing of the paralytic refers, from a textual point of view, allows for different interpretations. Maybe it wasn't Easter. But Easter determines the time of Christ’s public ministry. And in ancient (pre-Eusebian) times another view was stubbornly held, that the ministry of Christ lasted one pleasant year of the Lord (Hippolytus of Rome, etc.); in this case, Christ died at the age of 31, and based on the year of the crucifixion, one has to calculate the year of birth. Thus, the birth of Christ far precedes our era; His death can most likely be attributed to the year 33. The usual idea of ​​33 1/2 years of Christ's earthly life does not have sufficient grounds, and Irenaeus already assumed at least 40 years of age for Christ; also, apparently, is assumed in the Gospel of John.