Portrait of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout, 1623
When was William Shakespeare born and when did he die? What did he look like?
These should be pretty knowable things. After all, Shakespeare breathed his last less that 400 years ago and nearly 1,600 years after Jesus Christ was crucified. This is not ancient history. Shakespeare lived after 1500 AD; the year generally considered the beginning of modern civilization.
There is his familiar likeness above and schoolbooks tell us he was born on April 23, 1564 and died on his fifty-second birthday, April 23, 1616.
Except we really don’t know for certain what he looked like and those birth-death dates, which are probably close and possibly correct, are merely conjecture, not established fact. The portrait above appeared on a Folio of Shakespeare’s work seven years after the playwright’s death rendered by a man who, in all likelihood, had never seen Shakespeare. Every likeness since has been based on that portrait. There is no written description of Shakespeare’s looks or contemporary portrait in existence. (There have been a couple of paintings unearthed in recent years with claims of being made during Shakespeare life, but these are not authenticated.)
The portrait on the right is known as the “Chandos portrait”, after the
former owners, the Dukes of Chandos. The painting has been attributed to John Taylor, but also to Richard Burbage. No one really knows if it was either or someone else. It is believed to been painted from life between 1600 and 1610 – it is believed, but not certain. It fact, it isn’t even absolutely certain subject is Shakespeare, although the National Portrait Gallery feels it probably is -- meaning it possibly isn’t. It is noted that subsequent, posthumous portraits of the author were most likely based on the Chandos Portrait.
As to the dates, his birth has been conjectured as April 23, 1564 because there is a baptism registry at Holy Trinity Parish Church in Stratford dated April 26, 1564. Since it was a common practice to baptize three days after birth, it is assumed his birthday was on the 23rd. However, common practice is not certainty. Infants were sometimes baptized on the day of birth and sometimes not baptized until months later.
Somewhat the same reasoning is used in establishing his death. His burial is registered in the same Stratford Church as April 25, 1616. How long before his funeral did he die? Well, April 23 makes for a convenient date because it is St. George’s Day and St. George is the Patron Saint of England. What better date for England’s greatest writer to have been both born and died? Of course, there has been a long debate if Shakespeare actually wrote those plays that earned him that accolade.
The death of Julius Caesar occurred on the Ides of March (the 15th), 44 BC or at least that is the preponderance of acceptance (notice I said acceptance, not evidence). There may be one problem if the writings of Pliny the Elder are accurate. Pliny was born the closest to the death of Julius than the other ancient historians, especially Plutarch, who we depend upon. Plutarch was born in 46 AD and Pliny was born in 23 AD.
According to Pliny there was a solar eclipse in the year of Julius’ death sometime after he was dead. There were no visible solar eclipses in the Roman Empire during 44 BC or the immediate years around it. There was such an eclipse in August 49 BC.
Pliny also quotes Augustus Caesar as saying he saw, soon after Julius’ death, a comet in the northern skies over a period of seven days. Such a comet was recorded in 49 BC, but not in 44 BC. So was Julius Caesar actually assassinated in 49 BC instead of 44 BC?
I don’t know? Can we rely on the writing of one ancient historian? (Unlike other issues discussed throughout this document where multiple sources support the statements made, I have only found one source so far claiming that Julius Caesar died in 49 BC, Biblical Chronology. The information about solar eclipses and comets is supported elsewhere, but that these occurred during the year of Caesar’s death seems to rely mainly on the writings of Pliny the Elder. I would want further documentation on this one. The picture of Julius Caesar used here is part of a statue by Nicolas Coustou done in 1696. Did Julius really look like this?)
We do know Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by 23 men and his last words were, “Et tu Brute?” Right?
Well, maybe, maybe not. We really aren’t sure of Julius’ last words. Suetonius wrote they were “You too, child?” Plutarch wrote Julius uttered no last words. It was Shakespeare who put the words “Et tu Brute” into Caesar’s mouth, you know the guy who may or may not have been born and died on April 23 and may or may not have written “Julius Caesar”.
How many men assassinated Julius Caesar? One credible source says 23 men, another says 37 did and yet another says 60 men were involved. More honest accounts admit the number isn’t known.
Let’s step back even further in our list of great men to Alexander the
Great. We hear much about this man with little question as to the veracity of the accounts of his life. It is interesting that critics attack the accuracy of biographies of Christ’s life because they were written dozens of years after his departure, but except willingly the biographies of Alexander written 500 years after his death. (To this day, exactly how Alexander died is uncertain.) His date of birth is categorically given as either July 20 or 21 of 356 BC. This is based on Alexander being born on the Hecatombacon Sixth of the Athenian Festival Calendar. However, the Athenians were very sloppy calendar keepers or we should say calendars, for they had a second calendar for the political year. Hecatombacon was the first month of the Festival calendar and in theory began on the first new moon after the summer solstice. We say theoretically because the astrological, civil and religious calendars did not agree on when the months began, how many there were in a given year or how many days long they were. Despite the statement that Alexander was born on July 20 or 21 of 356 BC, the truth is it is impossible to really know.
This raises the subject of our own modern calendar and the birth of Jesus, whom it is supposedly based upon. After all, BC stands for “Before Christ” and AD is short for “Anno Domini”, which means “In the Year of Our Lord”. (You will notice I stand by these designation rather than the more recent attempts to secularize the division by using BCE “Before the Common Era” and CE “Common Era” (although these designations still have their division based on the life of Christ, but don’t tell the secularists who deceive themselves into believing changing the name changes the facts.)
It is problematic establishing conclusive dates, especially dates in ancient history. Obviously we can have difficulties because there was not always a standardized calendar, as we have seen with the Greeks. Various countries and people had their own means of counting time. The Jews and Romans, for instance, based their calendars on moon cycles, while we use a calendar today based on the earth’s orbit of the sun.
The standardized worldwide calendar of our time is called the Gregorian calendar. There was a partially standardized calendar prior to the Gregorian called the Julian calendar. Although both are based on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, they did have a slight difference in the count of days and had to be adjusted. Both require a leap year every four years. However, leap years were erroneously added every three years early in the use of the Julian and this over time resulted in a loss of ten days.
Although the Gregorian corrected some of the errors of the Julian calendar, it presented some problems of its own. Years in the Gregorian were dated from the birth of Christ. Years after his birth were counted forward and those before his birth were counted backward. The span of someone who lived in AD would be shown as 1900-1970 AD, while a person born in BC would be shown as 1970-1900 BC. There is no year zero, which further adds confusion. Some people think 2010 is the first year of a new decade, but in reality it is the last year of the current decade; 1999 was not the last year of the previous century, 2000 was. Our current century began on January 1, 2001.
Furthermore, 1 AD is not correct as the first year of Christ’s life, which is a matter of considerable dispute.
The Julian and Gregorian Calendars are not that old relatively. The Roman’s had a rather messy Calendar up to Julius Caesar. One big problem with it was politicians and others would change it to curry favor, thereby making exact dating difficult. This Calendar had become such an unreliable tool by the time of Julius Caesar that he had a new Calendar created. This was the Julian calendar. It was created in 46 BC and went into use in 45 BC. This was replaced by our modern calendar in 1582 under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII, for whom it is named.
One of those fringe issues that divert people’s attention to the Gospel truths about Jesus is the debate over his birth date. Information given by Luke and Matthew about certain personages is often used to try and pinpoint the year.
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was {governor} of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. Luke 2:1-3
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2
There isn’t much doubt that Caesar Augustus, Quirinius and Herod the Great were contemporaries around the period where BC ended and AD began. However, one question raised is the status of Quirinius during the time prior to 1 AD. It is accepted that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Governor of Syria by 6 AD, but not earlier. Remember though, we are dealing with ancient times fraught with questionable histories and dating procedures, not to mention missing or unknown records. Still, there are several possible answers to the Quirinius Question.
The word translated in Scripture as “governor” was “hegemon”, which means “ruling officer or procurator”. Quirinius did not become actual governor {legatus – different word} until later, but there is no reason to dispute Luke calling him a ruling officer at this time. Quirinius was serving in an official governing position in the last decade of BC (and there were many censuses taken during this period of time, any number of which could have been this one).
Other legitimate possibilities have their defenders. One is that Quirinius served as governor more than once and there is archeological evidence to the effect he did so serve during the later years of BC. A second proposition is there was another man named Quirinius. (Names are another area of confusion in ancient times and two people are often mistaken as one and the same. Sometimes one individual is also thought to be two different individuals because they went by more than one name.) Another argument is that Luke’s Greek was translated wrongly and should have been translated as “before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Yet, another argument is that Jesus was actually born between 5 and 8 AD. This argument hinges on the theory that Herod the Great died in 8 AD, not 4 BC and there are proponents who make a case for 8 AD. (Personally, I am not among those who place Christ’s birth that late.)
Now, why does Herod’s death date come into the discussion? Because Herod (pictured right as portrayed in “The Bible Series on History”) was alive
when Jesus was born according to Matthew. It was commonly accepted that Herod died in 4 BC and thus estimated that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC. (It is sometimes assumed Jesus must have been a child about two years old when the Magi visited and told Herod when the Star first appeared. Why? It was assumed so because Herod ordered all boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two to be killed. This is only conjecture. Herod may very well been playing it safe, overkill as it were, and Jesus may have still been an infant when the Magi came. I personally believe Jesus was closer to two.)
But nothing is set in stone when we deal with dates two thousand years ago. So when did Herod die? Well, pick a year: 6 BC, 4 BC, 1 BC or 8 AD. In many reference books it will say he died in 4 BC. However, more recent evidence suggests he died in 1 BC.
Part of the difficulty is much about Herod relies upon the works of Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD – pictured left). Josephus wrote a twenty-volume history called “The Antiquities of the Jews” and an eight-volume history called “The War of the Jews”. Josephus wrote two accounts concerning the life of Herod the Great, but these contain inconsistencies and discrepancies on events and the age of Herod at the time events occurred.
There are very good arguments based on known information that Herod died later that 4 BC and I am leaning toward the persuasions that he died in 1 BC. (You can find more information supporting this in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in Novum Testamentum by Andrew E. Steinmann or at www.bethlehemstar.net among others. (I recommend bethlehemstar as a very thought provoking theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC, the Magi arrived in Bethlehem in December 2 BC (on the 25th no less) and that Herod died in 1 BC.)
I believe all the swirling debates over dates are inconclusive, circumstantial and speculative, and do not affect the truth or accuracy of Scripture. I trust the Scriptural account more than any questionable opinions written by men, including my own. I take the stand the account of Jesus’ life is true and accurate according to the Word of God. We should concentrate on the story of salvation, rather than be diverted into irresolvable bickering over dates. There exists enough evidence to support any apologetic of supposed conflicts within the Bible to render criticism mote and inconsequential.
One final consideration, in looking backward from a distance, we mustn’t forget contemporary acceptance. Certainly we have record of those enemies of Christ who brought accusations against him, the Apostles and the early Church. These included calling Jesus and his Disciples drunkards, claiming Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and spreading a rumor his disciples stole the body from the tomb. These are smear campaigns much as we see today between political opponents. There are theological debates and arguments within the church over procedural and devotional matters. But there isn’t dispute over historic facts.
Luke addressed both his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus, for instance (refer to “Luke’s Introduction” ). If Luke’s information about the personages mentioned or issues such as the census were incorrect, Theophilus most likely would have caught the error and informed Luke of it. Why would Theophilus be receptive to a second volume, Acts, if he saw major errors of recent history in the first volume?
We mustn’t lose sight that when Luke and the others wrote their accounts and letters there were those alive familiar with the facts. If a biographer of John F. Kennedy wrote that Mark Chapman assassinated him in Denver in 1959, there would be many, many people quick to complain to the publisher about these errors because they had been alive at the time and remembered it was Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963. Subsequent editions of the biography would correct this or the book would soon be assigned to the junk heap and oblivion. Why would we think grievous errors in Luke or by any other Gospel writer on the daily news of their times would escape contemporary notice?
