When Jesus born?

[r16]

there are thousands of prophets , very few of them named , usually only those sent to Hebrews , because of their extensive "literature" . Muhammed is the "primary" if you will because he is the last , no more prophets because the "Religion has been completed with Kuran" . There are 3 other "books" and Isa/Jesus as the Prophet who had the Bible , can not be considered a minor prophet . Especially considering the beliefs that he will return just before the end of the world .

 

[Harv]

Are you sure? I was under the impression that if any date is most commonly accepted it's 4 BCE, because that's when Herod the Great died. This obviously assumes that Matthew is correct in dating Jesus' birth to shortly before Herod's death, although I don't know why one would assume that.

For some reason, I believe you are the resident scholar in this part of the Forums. I understand we are trying to reconcile a few sources of information.
The book of Matthew - A quick glance indicates we are looking for when Herod died
The book of Luke - Augustus is mentioned. Governor of Syria

Then I think we have to rely on Josephus to establish a timeline of these kings and governors.

For the death, I thought we had two possible dates based on the four (one) gospel account.

 

[Plotinus]

Well Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 CE. So clearly these are different dates. Fundamentalists will argue that somehow they can be reconciled (e.g. maybe Quirinius was, uniquely, governor of Syria twice), but whatever theoretical possibility such suggestions may have, there's no reason to think they're probable beyond a desire to preserve biblical inerrancy. A similar problem holds with the date of Jesus' death. All the Gospels agree that he died during Passover, and on a Friday, but the Synoptic Gospels have his death occurring on the day of Passover itself (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Friday) while John has his death occurring on the Day of Preparation, the day before (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Saturday). None of this can be plausibly reconciled, but I don't think it really matters very much. We can be reasonably sure that he was born within a few years of 1 CE and died within a few years of 30 CE, and I don't think that much hangs on the precise dates.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

For some reason, I believe you are the resident scholar in this part of the Forums.

A theologian and an Athiest. I wonder... Does anyone know if Bart Ehrman likes playing Civilization!?

 

[Harv]

Well Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 CE. So clearly these are different dates.

I wonder... Does anyone know if Bart Ehrman likes playing Civilization!?

I have listened to several of his interviews and it is very interesting. On a point like this, he would giggle and say - Well, which is it?

How many sources do we have indicating Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinus (became) governor in 6CE?

A similar problem holds with the date of Jesus' death. All the Gospels agree that he died during Passover, and on a Friday, but the Synoptic Gospels have his death occurring on the day of Passover itself (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Friday) while John has his death occurring on the Day of Preparation, the day before (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Saturday).

I was not aware of this and I did not open my (KJV - JK) bible to check all four Gospels. So I did not know there were were more possible dates. Is it possible that the confusion might be in reconciling the Jewish calendar with the Roman calendar, possibly a Greek calendar, and then the Gregorian calendar much, much later. The detail I am thinking of is I thought in the Jewish calendar, the day starts when the sun sets. Did the day also coincide with a Lunar eclipse?

Now, if asking questions like this in a place like Sunday School, it is kind of amusing how when finally driving the point home they want to know why this detail is so important. (The last time encountered this issue, I was asking a question why so much art portrays him as appearing so Western European when his ethnicity would have been Jewish.) I do not have enough energy and staying power to deal with this.

If what you are saying is correct, then the only way to reconcile is to decide who is correct and who erred.

If describing sources, then I imagine the vertical axis being a timeline and make a checkmark, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. I understand Matthew used Mark as a reference - or maybe even a revised version of Mark. So it was written later. That is one side of the checkmark. Luke also used Mark as a reference and that is another side. John was written much later and forms the end of the checkmark. (The authors of) Matthew and Luke independently established an approximate time of the birth. The details of childhood were different. Matthew describes a flight to Egypt waiting for Herod to die. Luke said he grew into a healthy boy.

So Matthew would be attaching a timeline to Herod because they wanted that detail in their story to tie a prophecy. Luke might have been tying a different time - He was tying to some census. Both were reconciling the geographical difference between Bethlehem and Nazereth.

I voted BCE in the poll. This is based on the assumption that the crucifixion was in 30, 31, or 33CE - no earlier than 29, because Luke named a year when Tiberius was Caesar. Tradition had his age at 33, probably based on 30 being an age to start a ministry and a few years of ministry. This number does not have to be exact - However, this makes it difficult to reconcile 6CE as a birth year - because 33CE would only put him at 27 years old.

What years do you believe the gospel stories were written?

 

[Plotinus]

On the death date, Matthew 26:17-19 states that Jesus made plans to eat the Passover meal with his disciples. As you rightly say, the Jewish day begins at sunset, so this means that the Passover meal, which is eaten in the evening, happens at the start of Passover, which lasts from just before the Passover meal to sunset on the following day.

This meal is eaten in verses 20-29 and is the Last Supper. The next day is when Jesus is crucified (27:1), so this means that according to Matthew Jesus dies on the day of Passover itself.

John 19:14 specifies that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation, that is, the day before Passover. John also has Jesus eat the Last Supper with his disciples on the previous evening, but in John's account, this is not a Passover meal.

I don't know about any lunar eclipses in these years, but the darkness described in Matthew 27:45 is not a lunar eclipse, because that can't happen during the day time. It's not a solar eclipse either, because those do not last for three hours. Since no other historical source mentions a mysterious and terrifying three-hour-long period of darkness I think one can safely regard this as legendary, just like the zombie apocalypse that is also described (27:52-53).

I don't see any particular problem with supposing that Jesus was 27 when he died, since the Gospels only state that he was roughly 30 at the start of his ministry, and that's pretty vague. The length of his ministry is also uncertain. The traditional figure of three years comes from the fact that John mentions three Passovers in the course of it - but since one comes at the start and one at the end, that would suggest two years. The Synoptics only mention a single Passover, at the end, and give the impression of a much shorter ministry. So he could easily have been quite a bit younger than 30 or indeed quite a bit older (Irenaeus argued that he was an old man when he died).

I think that probably Mark was written in maybe the 60s, Matthew and Luke in maybe the 70s, and John maybe a bit later, which are the usual dates, but nobody really knows, of course. I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference when it comes to trying to work out what we can know about the historical Jesus.

 

[Ajidica]

Well Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 CE. So clearly these are different dates. Fundamentalists will argue that somehow they can be reconciled (e.g. maybe Quirinius was, uniquely, governor of Syria twice), but whatever theoretical possibility such suggestions may have, there's no reason to think they're probable beyond a desire to preserve biblical inerrancy. A similar problem holds with the date of Jesus' death. All the Gospels agree that he died during Passover, and on a Friday, but the Synoptic Gospels have his death occurring on the day of Passover itself (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Friday) while John has his death occurring on the Day of Preparation, the day before (so it was in a year when Passover fell on a Saturday). None of this can be plausibly reconciled, but I don't think it really matters very much. We can be reasonably sure that he was born within a few years of 1 CE and died within a few years of 30 CE, and I don't think that much hangs on the precise dates.

Out of curiosity, how did people in the classical and medieval world handle the apparent disagreements inside the Bible?
Based on what I've picked up from authors like Guy Halsall talking about early medieval documents, I'd guess that it simply wasn't a concern for them. As long as the proper moral or philosophical lesson was there, 'factual' disagreements weren't really a concern. In hagiographical writings authors were perfectly fine with 'correcting' events so the document taught the proper lesson. Does that hold true for the Bible?

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Well as we're on the subject of apparent biblical contradictions, for those who are interested (probably no one) Mike Winger has 3 interesting (imo) videos on the subject.

5:26 = How many Angels were at the tomb
6:17 = John Chapter 20
8:53 = Peter Jennings
12:07 = Does Jesus enters or does he leaves Jericho
20:40 = Genesis 1 and Gensis 2 creation stories

This video is the most relevant to the discussion
8:00 = Did Jesus answer his accusers
14:37 = What color was his robes
15:21 = Who carries the cross
22:05 = How long was Jesus in the tomb
24:46 = What was written above the cross
27:59 = Where were the women during the crucification
33:25 = Did both criminals revile Jesus
33:52 = Who visited the tomb first
36:41 = When did they visit the tomb
39:31 = Where was the stone when they arrived
43:58 = What did the tomb visiters do next
48:02 = Do they believe the reports of the resurrection

0:54 - #1 Does God Change
4:16 - #2 Is God good to all
7:47 - #3 Was Jesus in Despair or Confusion
6:54 - #4 Has anyone seen God
24:03 - #5 Do I bear my burden or others
25:26 - #6 Should I obey government or not
27:30 - #7 To kill or not to kill
30:22 - #8 - How old was Ahaziah when he became king
31:44 - #9 - How many stalls did Solomon have
36:07 - #10 - Did Paul's men hear a voice
39:47 - #11 - Who killed Saul
42:50 - #12 - Did Michal have children
45:18 - #13 - Where did they go after feeding 5000
51:48 - #14 - why is Matthew's genealogy incomplete
54:13 - #15 - which genealogy was right
56:58 - #16 - was Jesus wrong about the old testament

 

[Plotinus]

Out of curiosity, how did people in the classical and medieval world handle the apparent disagreements inside the Bible?
Based on what I've picked up from authors like Guy Halsall talking about early medieval documents, I'd guess that it simply wasn't a concern for them. As long as the proper moral or philosophical lesson was there, 'factual' disagreements weren't really a concern. In hagiographical writings authors were perfectly fine with 'correcting' events so the document taught the proper lesson. Does that hold true for the Bible?

Well, they usually found ways to handwave the contradictions aside. Augustine wrote a whole book on the "Harmony of the Gospels" where he goes at length through all of the (many) inconsistencies between them and explains them away, so if you want a demonstration of how Christians tackled this sort of thing, that's a good place to look.

Augustine's main concern about the passage in question is not the day but the time of Jesus' death, which is also variant between the Gospels; but he writes both there and elsewhere that when John says it was the day of preparation for the Passover he doesn't mean the Jewish festival, he means Jesus' sacrifice. And that's not entirely doing violence to the text, because of course the reason John has Jesus die at that moment is because that's when the Passover lambs were sacrificed, so he really is making a theological point about the nature of Jesus' death - although there's no indication that the plain meaning of the words isn't intended as well.

For Origen, and following him Gregory of Nyssa, the Holy Spirit deliberately includes passages in the Bible that are impossible to take in their plain sense, e.g. the claim that Moses sees the back of God. These are there to indicate to us that there is a deeper, spiritual meaning, not just to these passages but to every passage. I don't know off-hand whether they apply this reasoning to inconsistences between passages, but it would make sense.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Well as we're on the subject of apparent biblical contradictions, for those who are interested (probably no one) Mike Winger has 3 interesting (imo) videos on the subject.

...

I guess I'm probably the one guy interested but this video series is excellent. Thank you for sharing! I have so far only watched the first video of these three and I'm not just impressed but also encouraged.

So far my takeaway is this, those who don't want to believe will still not believe no matter how wrong you show their claims to be. Those that don't believe but do have some questions that they want answered have hope to believe.

We sow the seeds, God provides the gain. Keep looking up brother and peace be with you.

 

[Patine]

Out of curiosity, how did people in the classical and medieval world handle the apparent disagreements inside the Bible?
Based on what I've picked up from authors like Guy Halsall talking about early medieval documents, I'd guess that it simply wasn't a concern for them. As long as the proper moral or philosophical lesson was there, 'factual' disagreements weren't really a concern. In hagiographical writings authors were perfectly fine with 'correcting' events so the document taught the proper lesson. Does that hold true for the Bible?

It seems to hold true for various Polythist legends, Vedic texts, Avestan writings for Zorioastrianiism, and Shito and Confucians anals that show contradition with known historical events. The message and morals are indeed almost certainly much higher priority than historical, pinpoint accuracy, across the board.

 

[Patine]

Well as we're on the subject of apparent biblical contradictions, for those who are interested (probably no one) Mike Winger has 3 interesting (imo) videos on the subject.

5:26 = How many Angels were at the tomb
6:17 = John Chapter 20
8:53 = Peter Jennings
12:07 = Does Jesus enters or does he leaves Jericho
20:40 = Genesis 1 and Gensis 2 creation stories

This video is the most relevant to the discussion
8:00 = Did Jesus answer his accusers
14:37 = What color was his robes
15:21 = Who carries the cross
22:05 = How long was Jesus in the tomb
24:46 = What was written above the cross
27:59 = Where were the women during the crucification
33:25 = Did both criminals revile Jesus
33:52 = Who visited the tomb first
36:41 = When did they visit the tomb
39:31 = Where was the stone when they arrived
43:58 = What did the tomb visiters do next
48:02 = Do they believe the reports of the resurrection

0:54 - #1 Does God Change
4:16 - #2 Is God good to all
7:47 - #3 Was Jesus in Despair or Confusion
6:54 - #4 Has anyone seen God
24:03 - #5 Do I bear my burden or others
25:26 - #6 Should I obey government or not
27:30 - #7 To kill or not to kill
30:22 - #8 - How old was Ahaziah when he became king
31:44 - #9 - How many stalls did Solomon have
36:07 - #10 - Did Paul's men hear a voice
39:47 - #11 - Who killed Saul
42:50 - #12 - Did Michal have children
45:18 - #13 - Where did they go after feeding 5000
51:48 - #14 - why is Matthew's genealogy incomplete
54:13 - #15 - which genealogy was right
56:58 - #16 - was Jesus wrong about the old testament

In court cases with a lot of witnesses, or big cultural events, or disasters, many witnesses on record remember the details and nitty-gritty very differently from each other. This is a verified fact - even in lving memory.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Jesus was crucified April 3, 33 CE according to AIG. They accept John as being correct and not the other gospels.

Placing the Cross in History

Can we know the exact date of Christ’s death?

answersingenesis.org

 

[Patine]

Jesus was crucified April 3, 33 CE according to AIG. They accept John as being correct and not the other gospels.

Placing the Cross in History

Can we know the exact date of Christ’s death?

answersingenesis.org

Who is this AIG group, and who awards them such a superior status of academic authority? I am dubious.

 

[Birdjaguar]

AIG is Answers in Genesis. They are:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves: they must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eyewitness account of the beginning of all things and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

 

[Patine]

AIG is Answers in Genesis. They are:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves: they must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eyewitness account of the beginning of all things and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

I will have to examine more deeply before forming an opinion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC this is their theme park.

About the Life-Size Noah’s Ark

Ark Encounter features a full-size Noah’s Ark, built according to the dimensions given in the Bible.

arkencounter.com

 

[Plotinus]

There's a zoo near where I live run by fundamentalists. Fortunately being British they don't make quite such a song and dance about it, and you wouldn't know apart from the discreet room that contains an exhibition about Noah's Ark - and the occasional information sign near some of the animals commenting on how they demonstrate the glory of God. I asked one of my theological colleagues whether he felt any scruples about taking his children there, and he said he'd worried about it a bit but decided there was no harm in letting them just be aware of such views. Which seemed reasonable to me.

 

[Patine]

There's a zoo near where I live run by fundamentalists. Fortunately being British they don't make quite such a song and dance about it, and you wouldn't know apart from the discreet room that contains an exhibition about Noah's Ark - and the occasional information sign near some of the animals commenting on how they demonstrate the glory of God. I asked one of my theological colleagues whether he felt any scruples about taking his children there, and he said he'd worried about it a bit but decided there was no harm in letting them just be aware of such views. Which seemed reasonable to me.

I am Christian, but I am not a Literalist. If Christ spoke in allegory, why can not Genesiis?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have listened to several of his interviews and it is very interesting. On a point like this, he would giggle and say - Well, which is it?

How many sources do we have indicating Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinus (became) governor in 6CE?



I was not aware of this and I did not open my (KJV - JK) bible to check all four Gospels. So I did not know there were were more possible dates. Is it possible that the confusion might be in reconciling the Jewish calendar with the Roman calendar, possibly a Greek calendar, and then the Gregorian calendar much, much later. The detail I am thinking of is I thought in the Jewish calendar, the day starts when the sun sets. Did the day also coincide with a Lunar eclipse?

Now, if asking questions like this in a place like Sunday School, it is kind of amusing how when finally driving the point home they want to know why this detail is so important. (The last time encountered this issue, I was asking a question why so much art portrays him as appearing so Western European when his ethnicity would have been Jewish.) I do not have enough energy and staying power to deal with this.

If what you are saying is correct, then the only way to reconcile is to decide who is correct and who erred.

If describing sources, then I imagine the vertical axis being a timeline and make a checkmark, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. I understand Matthew used Mark as a reference - or maybe even a revised version of Mark. So it was written later. That is one side of the checkmark. Luke also used Mark as a reference and that is another side. John was written much later and forms the end of the checkmark. (The authors of) Matthew and Luke independently established an approximate time of the birth. The details of childhood were different. Matthew describes a flight to Egypt waiting for Herod to die. Luke said he grew into a healthy boy.

So Matthew would be attaching a timeline to Herod because they wanted that detail in their story to tie a prophecy. Luke might have been tying a different time - He was tying to some census. Both were reconciling the geographical difference between Bethlehem and Nazereth.

I voted BCE in the poll. This is based on the assumption that the crucifixion was in 30, 31, or 33CE - no earlier than 29, because Luke named a year when Tiberius was Caesar. Tradition had his age at 33, probably based on 30 being an age to start a ministry and a few years of ministry. This number does not have to be exact - However, this makes it difficult to reconcile 6CE as a birth year - because 33CE would only put him at 27 years old.

What years do you believe the gospel stories were written?

Whatever the years, they need to fit the information that we do know is true (verified by primary sources and the archaeological record), and in the case of Jesus' birth, there's also the question of exactly what was the Star of Bethlehem, anyway? Supernovae have been ruled out. Current speculation pegs it as an unusually bright planetary conjunction. But then you have the practicalities... do shepherds watch their flocks by night in December? Or is that just a fanciful Christmas song with no factual basis at all?

Augustus was Emperor until 14 CE. Tiberius was Emperor from 14 CE to 37 CE. Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea from c. 26 CE to c. 37 CE. So the relevant dates fall inside this range.


Funny thing about this BC/AD stuff... many years ago, shortly after Star Trek: The Next Generation started (1987), I asked a couple of friends if they'd like to see Patrick Stewart "in a Roman miniskirt, with hair".

The answer was an enthusiastic "YES!!!"

...

And so I set out to prepare them for 13 hours of I, Claudius, in which Patrick Stewart played Lucius Aelius Sejanus. I quickly found out that they knew very little Roman history and we got sidetracked into a weird argument in which one friend kept insisting that the timeline of events I wrote out made no sense. She couldn't figure out how the Crucifixion could have happened during the reign of Tiberius, when all of Jesus' life happened between 1 BC and 1 AD.

It's a bizarre experience when an atheist knows more about this stuff than a lifelong believer.