Talk:Chronology of Jesus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chronology of Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jesus' time of death

The article states he died on April 3rd. Jesus died on Friday, April 1 (or April 3, Julian Calendar), A.D. 33 at 3:00pm (Jerusalem time).

- Mark 15:25 fixes the time of Jesus’ impalement at the third hour,
- and John 19:14 says it was the sixth hour.
- Explanation, One source even went so far as to say that by “sixth hour” John meant the sixth hour of the night, or midnight. But this does not allow time for the many events to take place, some of which did not even start till daylight.

"The explanation that seems logical and unstrained is this. The days were divided into twelve hours, running from sunrise to sunset, or about 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. (John 11:9) Not dividing the hours into minutes, the Jews would say it was the third hour until the fourth started, just as today one may say he is thirty years old, though actually he may be thirty years nine months. Hence Mark’s third hour could be close to the fourth’s start, or 10 a.m. John does not claim to be accurate, saying that “it was about the sixth hour”. It could have been 11:30 a.m., or even earlier. The day was one of great emotional strain on Jesus’ followers, and they would hardly be calmly noting the relatively unimportant exact time of events. Also remember that they did not have watches handily strapped to their wrists in those days. Time was doubtless generally calculated by observing the sun, which could have been obscured by haze or clouds, and at best would be only an approximation. It should also be remembered that John wrote his account some 65 years after these events happened. So all of these factors allow much leeway to absorb the time discrepancy in the two accounts...Another point that may bear on the matter: the scourging or whipping was considered a part of the process of impalement. It was so terribly cruel that sometimes the victim died under it, and it may have been severe enough in Jesus’ case to necessitate getting another man to help bear the stake, after Jesus started with it alone. (Luke 23:26; John 19:17) If this scourging was the start of the impalement procedure, some time would elapse between its beginning and the actual nailing to the stake." - From the article Questions from readers, 1951. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The various Herods

During AD 6, there in fact WERE rulers called Herod both in Judea and Galilee. Matthew's reference to King Herod has ment that people assume that they mean Herod the Great, although in fact, he was not strictly a king either. Herod the great called himself king anyway, and maybe his sons did the same? Or maybe, simply, Matthew got all the Herods confused?

Now, I'm no professor in biblical history, but I haven't heard any plausible argument against this, and it certainly sounds as least as plausible than dating Jesus birth after a random pick of the plethora of celestial phenomenons that might possibly fit. ;-) But if there is something that totally kills this theory, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'll suggest this addition (without the bolding, obviously):

On the other hand, Luke's account places Jesus' birth during a census conducted under the governorship of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus, conducted a census in AD 6. In order to reconcile the two Gospel accounts, some have suggested that Josephus was mistaken, that Quirinius had a separate period of rule under Herod, or that Josephus reported the date of completion of the census. It has also been suggested that there may be some confusion between Matthews King Herod and Herods sons Herod Archelaos and Herod Antipas who in 6 AD ruled Judea and Galilee respectively. In any case, the actual date of Jesus' birth remains historically unverifiable.

--Regebro 09:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the later events in Matthew only make sense if "Herod" is Herod the Great, because the Holy Family fled to Egypt, and returned only when "those who sought the life of the child" (i.e. Herod) had died, but were concerned when they found that Archelaus had succeeded Herod. (Matthew 2:22) "Herod" then has to be Herod the Great, and "Archelaus" has to be Herod Archelaus. Matthew does (mistakenly) call Archelaus a king, when he was actually an "ethnarch". I believe Herod the Great was allowed to style himself "king", however. Archelaus was deposed in AD 6 (not sure exactly when during the year). Mpolo 12:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I still trust Luke more than Matthew, but that is another topic. ;-) --Regebro 19:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph of the Date of Death section is very confusing. I read it 3 times and I'm still confused. - Kaldari 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herod the Great was declared King of Judea by Mark Antony in the Roman Senate.

It seems that everyone agrees on Herod dying in 4 BC, which comes from Josephus' Antiquities (although I have yet to see the first citation or source reference for that). Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (Second Edition; Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 1996) ISBN 0-94-5657-87-0 contains a wealth of material corroborating the date of Herod's death as 1 BC. What it says is that in 1544, a printer made a typesetting error. Apparently, all copies of Josephus' Antiquities in the British Library in London, and in the American Library of Congress, from before 1544, support the inference that Herod died in 1 BC. I thought this is well worth mentioning? Trobbelke (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, quite frankly. There was no 'typesetting error'. Martin's book (which was self-published) has got it wrong. Prior to 1544, only poor quality translations from Latin were available. In that year, the first proper modern translation from the original Greek was done by Arnoldus Arlenius, which for the first time presented the correct information on the death of Herod's son Philip which helped to date Herod's death correctly. All subsequent translations, including the classic 19th century work by the German scholar Benedikt Niese, benefit from the availability of a much wider range of manuscripts and confirm Arlenius' information.--Rbreen (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of Arnoldus Arlenius' work has been called "one of the most barbarously ligatured ever put into print." on the wikipedia page you provided the link for. Are you sure you want me to trust this person's work?

But there seems to be more guessing by everyone about this period in time. Actually, Josephus wrote about a time long before he was born. So who's to say he didn't make any mistakes? Some people say he did make mistakes. Trobbelke (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Birth after 8BC

Some mention should be made of Caesar Augustus' census that began in 8BC. Ostensibly this census was the reason for Mary and Joseph's journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and thus sets the eariest possible year for Jesus' birth, i.e. Jesus could have been born any time between 8BC and 4BC (Herod's death), unless there's something else I don't know about. Kaldari 05:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This census never existed. It's based on the idea that the Romans held a census every 14 years - meaning 8BC is the census before 6AD. But until the late 1st century, censuses were always for particular provinces, and ad hoc, never empire-wide. (The Gospel statement that the decree from Rome was for 'all the world' is a misunderstanding of the meanging of the original text, based, for once, not on an mistranslation, but on an accurate one - as in modern Arabci and French, the phrase 'all the world' (kul il-alam in Arabic, tout le monde in French) is literally 'all the world' in English, but has the same actual meaning as our 'everyone' - in this case, everyone in the province of Syria and Judea, the latter having been added to Syria in 6AD on the exile of Archelaus). There was no 14 year cycle, and hence no census in 8BC. (Incidentally, there's another and even more cogent erason why the Romans didn't hold a census in Judea in 8BC: it wasn't part of the Roman Empire).

I happen to be watching the Discovery Channel not long back when I saw a Roman coin that seemed to help date the birth within one week. The coin had the correct Emperor on the front (I cannot remember if there was a date on the coin); however, the coin's back had the major clue after the Emperor which was the bright star in the sky to mark the moment and included the additional clue of a whole star system. With computer regression of the known stars during that moment from what we know today the date given was April 7-14, 3 B.C. for the birth of Jesus.

Comraderedoctober 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You simply don't use Discovery Channel as a source for material that is meant to be serious. There is no way to verify it or to refer to a source that other people can check. --Doktorspin (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge or expand

This article strikes me as being too limited in scope to be the third article in Template:Jesus, and perhaps too limited to exist at all.

I propose that we merge this article with "Detailed timeline for Jesus"; the other article is far too short and stubby on its own, and has little potential for expansion, whereas this article is too limited in scope, and should probably become a general article about the chronology of all events in Jesus' life.

If you guys don't like the idea of merging the two articles together, then I suggest that we expand this article into a general chronology of Jesus anyway, and make this article and Detailed timeline's relationship similar to the relationship between Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus: the latter gives information on historians' view of , and the former explains in detail what this view is based on by analyzing textual evidence and other sources of information on Jesus' life. However, the difference between that pair of articles and this pair is that both articles in that pair are quite long and detailed; in this case, only one is, and even that one (Chronology) isn't especially long, and could in fact use some expansion (and some copyediting, which I've made a little progress in).

A third possibility is merging this article with Historical Jesus and possibly a few other articles, but I think that it's not a bad idea to have an article dedicated solely to when events are believed by various parties to have happened in Jesus' life. I just think the current two are not the most efficient way to organize things. Thoughts? -Silence 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your merge idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes please merge them together. Its good

Writing style

Could the editors on this page please adhere to good writing style even if you dont know the facts!--Light current 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Not the most helpful of advice. I'm sure the editors of this page are using the English language to the best of their ability. Many editors on Wikipedia are not native English-speakers, and so are prone to unusual mistakes like the ones common to this page. The only way to really solve this in the short term would be to stop editing altogether, which is hardly the ideal solution—grammar is relatively easy to fix, as you and I are both capable of copyediting poor English to bring it up to shape (I've already done so with a fair-sized chunk of this article; why don't you try to be of some help and do the same, if you're bothered so much by the current state of affairs?). At most they could try automatic spelling- or grammar-checking programs, but those can be a hassle with Wikicode. I understand and agree that it's frustrating to see so many obvious grammar mistakes in articles, but remember that Wikipedia is an evolutionary effort: the only way for something to improve is for someone to fix it. Not for leaving it for someone else to fix it. -Silence 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have altered some of the more glaring grammatical and style errors. I just think it is below the expected standard. This is not a page on my watchlist-- I happened to come across it randomly.!--Light current 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree regarding the adverse styling of the article. This,

A loving creator would make his word the bible, have everything important easily understood by those that seek him in spirit & truth (John 4:24, 14:6, 17:17). This makes sense to any parent who tries to teach their child something important (Philippians 2:12-16, Luke 11:9-13). So, all the controversy about contradictions, and what is, or is not clear, crucial or contestable, is then logically not important at all (1Corinthians 1:20). If it was, then our creator would have made it clear. So dwell on what he makes clear as his son did, and don't get side-tracked about unimportant debates that will not lead you to everlasting life in a world that is returned back to the way it was originally meant to be, in harmony with the creator (John 17:3). Surely, that is the what the aim of his word the bible is for us. Surely he wouldn't confuse us all, or want us to get confused! Have this in mind as you read on. And if you are truly interested in God's word the bible then please, read these scriptures quoted that 'ARE THERE' to be understood clearly and for the benefit of those seeking God (2 Timothy 3:16,17. Matthew 6:33)

Is what greeted me upon finding this page. I did not arrive to discuss the validity of the gospels nor to view an argument about it, but to educate myself on the life of a man who likely did exist (whether you believe he was the Son of God or not) and preached to many people. The presence of such an introduction immediately counts against the validity of the information presented herein. It needs removing as such, that is what I am about to do. Theorised validation of the Bible's tales belongs elsewhere. - Hayter 14:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First "a pan-Roman census supposedly organized during the reign of Quirinius [..] Neither event is known outside the gospels, and both have been challenged as intrinsically unlikely" followed by "a census conducted under the governorship of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus, conducted the census in AD 6". Am I missing something or what?

After the merge

OK, the articles have now been merged. Next problem: how best to make the two pages work together. The current way it works is acceptable, but some people may have a problem with how far you have to scroll down to reach any of the text (unless you use the TOC to skip the detailed timeline). I'd like to get an idea of which of the following three options (or bring up another if you have one) they'd prefer:

Have the page layed out like it currently is, with the detailed timeline in one part of the article and the textual analysis in a later (or earlier) part, and one must be scrolled by to reach the other.
Have the page layed out like this page has it: with one side of page for the paragraphs and the other side for the timeline, making it easy to access both at once.
Re-separate the pages out into two different articles.

Also: I think this page should be moved to Chronology of Jesus. Any objections? -Silence 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, what the heck. I'm revising lots of other pages right now anyway, this page is only rarely frequented by anyone, and it's easier to discuss and revert these things after I've shown what I have in mind. -Silence 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And in English?

"If the currently prevailing opinion about the compilation of the gospels is accepted, the earliest body of gospel tradition, represented by Mark no less than by the primitive non-Marcan document (Q document) embodied in the first and third gospels, begins, not with the birth and childhood of Jesus, but with His baptism; and this order of accretion of gospel matter is faithfully reflected in the time order of the invention-of feasts."

Could we have this in plainer language? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Another: "Jesus died after Passover, a Jewish holiday occurring in northern spring."

What is *northern* spring?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.97.41 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious? Northern spring is spring in the northern hemisphere. Spring in the southern hemisphere happens when it is autumn (fall) in the north. It is really not a difficult concept once you accept the world is round. I don't understand why you asked the question. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What dates ARE known?

4 BC/BCE – Herod the Great, Jewish-Roman client-king of Judea, dies
4 BC/BCE – Herod Antipas, son of Herod, becomes client-king of Galilee
4 BC/BCE – eclipse around time of Herod's death
AD 6 CE – Quirinius census
6 – Judea becomes a subjugated Roman province
14 – reign of Tiberius Caesar begins
26/27 – Pontius Pilate appointed governor of Judea
c 29 – John the Baptist begins ministry
?? – Herod executes John the Baptist
?? – Jesus crucified
36 – Caiaphas no longer high priest
36 – Pilate crushes Samaritan religious uprising
36/37 – Pilate removed from office
37 – Tiberius dies
39 – Herod Antipas exiled by Caligula
66 – Jewish-Roman War begins
70 – destruction of Jewish Temple & most of Jerusalem by Romans
73 – Masada and end of Jewish-Roman War

While vague about Jesus' years, the NT is quite specific about John the Baptist --JimWae 02:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

The Talmud and Chrysostom might aid this article

There is a passage in the Talmud that speaks of the time the shepards grazed their livestock - I would have to research a bit to find which book that this information is in. Basically, the Talmud states that flocks were grazing in the field in March and brought in during the beginning of November. This has something to do with the rain, during the months of rain the animals would be in their respective pens. The author says that the shepards would "take advantage of the winter rains" and I am wondering what evidence you are basing that off of or if you are just assuming things to fit in with the December date. If you want to talk Christian witness to an erroneous Dec. date here is fourth century Bishop John Chrysostom. He writes : "On this day also the Birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this the Birthday of the Invincible One; but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disk, but Christ is the Sun of Righteousness." Plainly you can see how this information might help this article sound more objective and not like it is advocating a certain date over other theories. I was very disappointed in this article. I teach religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

i would have to agree with you on this subject, for it is really sad to see other brothers in christ so wrongly taught in doctrial error i to i am dissappointed in this artical as well i know that more research is to be done and a propper foundation in our lord and saviour jesus christ is to be founded in the our hearts before making silly and doctrial mistakes, for we are accountable to the father in heaven for what we teach others.

                            shaun fairfield perth w.a 1/06/06

You sadness should be kept for yourself. There is very good reason to uphold December as the birth of the Lord. First, Jewish sources do speak of sheep being outside of Bethlehem all year round. As conservative Protesant scholar Daniel Wallac has also observed these were not just any sheep but sacrificial lambs. His paper is here http://bible.org/article/birth-jesus-christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AD or BC Abbreviations

Just wondering - Anno Dominus is Latin and thus makes sense, but "B.C." is an English acronym - how could Dionysius Exiguus have used this acronym (especially before English existed as a language)? Any information or clarification would be helpful - otherwise I will remove this 'fact' from the article.

Speaking of AD and BC, shouldn't all Wikipedia articles be using CE and BCE? 161.53.167.66 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

AD is not the same as BC, AD=Anno Domini (In the Year of the Lord) so it's after Christ, BC=before Christ. Martious 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AD does not mean after Christ. It's supposed to be during OR after Christ. However, both BC and AD are off a little because the years were poorly calculated way back when the BC/AD distinction was introduced. Wryspy 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Where are the sources for various interpretations of biblical texts? And shouldn't there be (other) historical evidence of the happenings listed here? - G3, 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And to judge from the name of this article (this might also be a rename issue) I expected to find non-canonical dates for Jesus's life. Maybe just a link to other articles about what the Apocrypha says, something of that nature.

Day of birth

I removed this sentence from the section: For instance, Roman Catholics believe Jesus was born on December 25, and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe it to be January 9. In fact, both Catholics and Orthodox celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25. It's just that many Orthodox still use the Julian Calendar when it comes to church dates, and December 25 on the Julian calendar happens to correspond to January 9 or thereabouts on the Gregorian Calendar. The difference has nothing to do with when Jesus was born, and everything to do with whether to follow the Pope's lead and switch calendars (or switch for the sake of convenience, meshing with what is now the civil calendar in most places.) Wesley 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the writer's climatological reasoning for Jesus being born in December is completely illogical. Winters there are very cold (relatively) and somewhat rainy, leading one to believe that shepherds tending their flocks in the fields probably wouldn't happen during these months. I can't imagine a shepherd, with clothing made for hot and dry climates, would be spending the night in the fields with temperatures around 40 degrees F. Also, you'll find that shepherds in any culture would have usually tended flocks when the weather is warm, especially at night when protection is needed most during warmer months. Furthermore, the fact that is rainy does not necessariy mean that grasses would be growing. The normal harvest months in that region are April through September, with grasses and grains such wheat being harvested in April and May.

NPOV issue

"Moreover, the gospels appear to disagree with one another as to the sequence of various events which they describe (though many have attempted to harmonize them), and are considered by some commentators to be unreliable in any case"

This is pushing a POV that the Gospels contradict themselves in sequence. However, I notice that this article doesn't really cover the issue very well. I'm putting an NPOV tag onto the article until this is sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the gospels do not agree chronologically. This isn't a POV, its a fact. Look at Papias, he says specifically about Mark "It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ."--Andrew c 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If they don't agree chronologically, I'm sure it won't be hard to give specific examples. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Jesus curse the fig tree, before or after overturning the tables in the temple? When did Jesus overturn the tables according to John? When did John the Baptist die? When was Jesus rejected in his hometown? etc--Andrew c 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Synoptic problem.

Rename

support --Striver 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
reject see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I reject this proposal because the article includes nonbiblical sources. (Shouldn't the posters of the "support" and "reject" have identified themselves?) Wryspy 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unknown reference

Jesus was actually born on the 14th April 6BC

That's at the bottom of the November/January section. Where did that come from? Did someone just throw that up there? It's got nothing to do with the rest of the section and isn't sourced. Unless someone borrowed ol' Doc Brown's Delorian and went back in time, I don't think we can know for sure. --TimPendragon 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

lead

This is a high-importance, start-class article, so I'm here to work on it. I'm starting with the lead. If you read wp:lead, you might agree with me that lots of WP leads are pretty poor. Jonathan Tweet 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Page?

Might need some protection, maybe semi or something, because lots of vandals. --HeeroYuiX 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Falsely implied calculation

The article states "In his calculations, Dionysius miscalculated the death of Herod by four years, resulting in the awkward situation that Jesus' birth is usually dated into the years 'BC' (Before Christ)." The wording of this passage implies the calculations of Dionysius survived, he considered the death date of Herod in his calculations, and he miscalculated the date. As far as I know, Dionysius's calculations did not survive, and we have no idea how he calculated the Incarnation of Jesus. --Gerry Ashton 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Question moved from main article

my teacher told me that Jesus was born on 1 ad. that was the start of the Anno Domini [A.D.] i'm confused? my mom says that they shouldn't teach that stuff at school. b/c they don't tell the whole truth. Question was added to article at 20:59, 22 December 2007 UTC from IP address 71.226.74.239. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article Anno Domini. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthday of Yeshua

Matthew 13:1-23, "He who has ears [to hear], let him be listening and let him consider and perceive and comprehend by listening."

The birth of Yeshua or Jesus is one of the easiest calculations in the Bible. It's important to note that Jesus was not born on December 25 -- that day belongs to the birth of a pagan sun god, called Mithra.

As to the birthday of Jesus, you don't need to chart the stars. You don't even need to know Hebrew. The New Testament provides certain clues or facts about the year (7 BC) and day (Elul 1) he was born.

I don't have time to explain everything, but if anyone wishes to know more there are several articles on the Internet that delve into the subject.

To determine the approximant date, you must take into consideration the Hebrew traditions of Yom Kippur or Purification and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Then we must convert the day from the Hebrew to Gregorian Calendar making a slight adjustment for the change. Fortunately, the Jewish people have kept their calendar for the last 5768 years. So, we can use a Hebrew Date Converter [1] to correlate the date to our calendar.

I calculate the date to be between August 15-21 in the year 7 BC. If you want the exact date with precision, you might consult an expert on the Hebrew Calendar. - [Isaiah C] 67.185.221.213 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What a shame you don't have time to explain everything! Bitbut (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

birth date october: failed verification

The 1st external link in the October section cannot be accessed (it asks for name and password). I've tried connecting with two browsers (Konqueror, Firefox). adriatikus | talk 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible content to merge

This well sourced, well written content was removed from Jesus as being too detailed. While a lot of the stuff is already covered here, perhaps some is salvageable. Anyone want to try to add any of this stuff:

The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 90 AD/CE),^[1] and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE).^[2] Scholars debate over the details of Jesus' birth, and few claim to know the exact year or date of his birth or death.

The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus. In Western Christianity, it has been traditionally celebrated on December 25 as Christmas (in the liturgical season of Christmastide), a date that can be traced as early as 330 among Roman Christians. Before then, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany,^[3] also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan River and possibly additional events in Jesus' life. (Many today in Eastern Christianity celebrate Christmas on January 7 because they continue to use the Julian calendar, in which December 25 corresponds to January 7 on the Gregorian calendar now in common usage.) Some scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer date.^[4] Some scholars^[specify] speculate that the December 25th date of the celebration derived from a Christian opposition to or absorption of the cult of the unconquered sun (Sol Invictus) promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. The pope, Benedict XVI, has challenged this theory, arguing that a December 25th date was determined simply by calculating nine months beyond March 25th, regarded as the day of Jesus’ conception (the Feast of the Annunciation).^[5]

In the 247th year during the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum," or "before Christ (was) born"), and assigned to the following year "AD 1", "Anno Domini 1", which translates as "in the year of Lord", thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus. The system was created in the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization.

It is hard to date Jesus' birth because some sources are now gone and over 1,900 years have passed since the Gospels were written; however, based on a lunar eclipse that the first-century historian Josephus reported shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a role in Matthew's account), as well as a more accurate understanding of the succession of Roman Emperors, Jesus' birth would have been before the year 3 BC/BCE.

The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both place Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great. Luke describes Jesus' birth as occurring during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea. Josephus dates the census to 6 AD/CE (which Luke refers to in Acts 5:37), long after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC/BCE.^[6] However, scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE.^[7]

The date of Jesus' death is also unclear. To some, the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion as directly before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan (called the Quartodeciman), whereas the synoptic gospels describe Jesus' Last Supper as the Passover meal^[8] (see Mark 14:12) on Friday 15 Nisan; however, some scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.^[9] Further, the Jews followed a lunisolar calendar with phases of the moon as dates, complicating calculations of any exact date in a solar calendar. According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, which takes into consideration the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and the dates of the Passover in those years, Jesus' death was probably on April 7, 30 AD/CE or April 3, 33 AD/CE.^[10]

-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For those for whom the POV is not obvious

Surely it is POV to have lede say:

He rose from the dead three days later, appeared to the disciples and others, and then ascended to heaven.

Additionally, there are 2 main tasks to chronology - dating & sequencing. When the birth & (especially) death dates cannot be established within less than 10 year period, AND # of years of ministry ranges from 1 to 3, what is the point of assigning years to other events? There is also much disagreement just on sequencing. The article should focus on discussion of major chronological events - birth, beginning of ministry, death. Anothertopic could be discussions on sequencing. Any mention of articles of faith as fact should be in a separate article identified as a faith-based view.--JimWae (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, it says, "According to common interpretations of the four canonical gospels..." I don't think it's POV to simply report on what the text says, that's all the article claims to do. Tb (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Common to whom? Christians? Over 2/3 of humans would not commonly agree that he rose & ascended
Modifiers of one sentence do not clearly apply to an entire paragraph unless explicitly so stated--JimWae (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
those who would interpret the gospels as in the first 2 sentences are not the same group as those who would so commonly interpret the last sentence. The switch needs to be made explicit.
The assignment of actual dates has very little to do with interpreting the gospels at all --JimWae (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. While the rest of the article may rely on gospels for information and attempt to correlate these sources back to known secular ones this one has no such correlation. It is stated as a relative date and has little to no relevance to the rest of the chonology. If there were external sources that would corroborate in some fashion (e.g. reliable primary historic sources for the resurrection) they could be used to support other areas of the chronology, as it is there is no valid reason to keep it. Believers will continue to accept the gospel's statement of "three days after death" and the rest of us do not have sources to either prove or disprove this. It is thus unnecessary for either point of view and ought to be removed on account of the bias it imparts.67.169.74.129 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope the current text is a little better. I would appreciate it if you would use the talk page and not sprinkled commentary in the article itself to raise questions: it makes it much simpler to work. Tb (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have used both tagging (with pointers to where the tags apply) & talk page - and will probably continue to do so
The lede is better - but still gives the impression that the gospels are the major source of dating. The only attempt at chronology in the gospels themselves relates to John the Baptist & saying Jesus was "about 30". The external sources need to be mentioned
There is little point to assigning years to all the events this article does, since eah could be off by as much as 10 years. A more realistic tack would be to divide the events into FIRST YEAR (xx AD to xx+10 AD), SECOND YEAR (xx+1 AD to xx+11 AD), THIRD YEAR (xx+2 AD to xx + 12 AD) - with a note that there is no indication in John that any more than one year took place JimWae (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's silly. The dating of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Great are both extremely well-known. If you might read the article, you could see that in fact, there are some fairly clear external tie-downs for dating. Tb (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How about attempting to understand what I said - I was referring to events in Jesus' life. Herod & Pilate dates would pretty much bracket Jesus' events. AND I made several points - not just one --JimWae (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Luke says that Jesus was "about 30" at the time of his baptism. Maybe you need to read the "Year of death" section. Everything you have said is already addressed in the article (including the disagreement between John and the synoptics about the length of Jesus' public ministry). So I think that your comments are not helpful to improve the article. If you think there is a span of ten years which should be noted, please indicate what you think that span should be, but when you talk in generic terms as you have done, it's almost impossible to determine what improvements you think should be made. Tb (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim that the "lede" "gives the impression that the gospels are the major source of dating", the lead actually says that the chronology is reconstructed from events named in the gospels and and externally known events. If you have a wording that you think would express that better--rather than what simply seems to be an objection to the existence of the article as a whole--propose a better wording here. Tb (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you think "Relating those externally known events" sufficiently covers it?? --JimWae (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The lede should reflect the upcoming article. There is a profound scarcity of info in the gospels themselves to do ANY dating at all. I have already pointed to text re John the Baptist as being (probably) the only place any dating was attempted in the gospels. Beyond that, we have little more than the times various Romans & Jews occupied their administrative positions - all of which uses so-far-unspecified external sources.
This article is NOT a priority for me. I was concerned to remove some of the POV & the implications that Christians had preferential access to this topic.
Perhaps Josephus could be mentioned somewhere in the article & as a source in the lede
Btw, how does this make sense: "Elsewhere, Luke states that Jesus was 'about thirty' when he began preaching, implying a birth date around 2/3 BC."? --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't people "About 30" from as early as age 24 to as late as 37 or so?
The article says JB started his ministry in 28/29 AD, that Jesus started his AFTER JB, AND has Jesus starting his own ministry in 26 AD (2 or 3 years BEFORE JB). Some remarks on this are needed.
I suggest that instead of trying to include a running yearly account of Jesus events (about which there is so much discrepant opinion), that they just be put in 1st yr, 2nd year, 3rd year. D0 I need to spell that out in great detail? --JimWae (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
the lede says "The accounts of the four canonical gospels have the following shape: Jesus was born between 8 BC and AD 6".
- the gospels cannot give us this "shape" without external sources. Saying the gospels give us this "shape" is misleading
There is NO external source for any slaughter of the innocents. Star of bethlehem will never be identified --JimWae (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"About thirty"

People who are about thirty aren't "24 to 37" except when like me you wished you were younger when you were 37. But it's perfectly reasonable for the article to be improved by making its assumptions and the issues concerning them more explicit. What I'm not sure is how you think that should be done, given that the text is already there. It's not like the question is hidden. It's not possible to list every qualification and question in the introduction. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution of all the summary in the front to the Gospels

You're right that this was imprecise. I've changed it; let me know if that works there. The lead can't somehow include all the questions and uncertainties which are expressed later in the article, but it certainly can improve them. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Slaughter of the innocents

Of course there is no external source, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. This is not a replacement for Historicity of Jesus or Historical Jesus or External verification of elements from the gospel narratives. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

confusing sentence?

Question: "how does this make sense: 'Elsewhere, Luke states that Jesus was 'about thirty' when he began preaching, implying a birth date around 2/3 BC.'?"

"Elsewhere," that is, not in the text described in the preceding sentence, Luke uses the words "about thirty" to describe Jesus' age when he began preaching, which if he was killed in the late twenties AD, means he was born around 3 BC. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"About 30" could NOT result in a range of one year result for birthdate EVEN IF the year he was "about 30" were known (which it is not)
I thought the appropriate tag for the "biblical TImeline" section would be { { OR } } - but looking at the contradictions around JB, I am thinking { { dubious } } is more appropriate. The way out of this is to NOT try to assign AD years to the events - just use "1st Year", etc... --JimWae (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the whole point of the article is to summarize attempts to date Jesus' life to specific years by correlating externally known events to markers in the Gospels. I'm in complete agreement that the article is a bit of a hash at present; it could well stand significant improvement, but idle "this sucks" isn't very helpful at improvement. Tb (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I think { {dubious}} is entirely relevant to an article that admits it is "guessing", and then contradicts itself. The article says JB started his ministry in 28/29 AD, that Jesus started his AFTER JB, AND has Jesus starting his own ministry in 26 AD (2 or 3 years BEFORE JB). The obvious ridiculousness of this has stood unnoticed by its editors for... (years?), and unless pointed out, there is little motivation for change. Btw, Chronolgy is also about just getting the SEQUENCE down. If the "whole point" of the article is to assign single years (rather than ranges) to each Jesus event, then the "whole point" is WP:OR --JimWae (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes it WP:OR? I'm not suggesting that the whole point is to assign single years. The whole point is to date to specific years, whether single or ranges, as the data requires. Of course it lacks references at present, but the topic is one well covered in secondary literature and standard commentaries all contain relevant discussions. It really sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT is going on here. Yes, the article is defective as it stands. This is Wikipedia: make things better. Another editor has just done some work on this; if you don't want to, don't, but Wikipedia is not about complaining, it's about doing. Tb (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added { {dubious|date=April 2008|15th year of Tiberius is year 29}} Where is any source that says 26? --JimWae (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, a very helpful source is Finnegan's Handbook to Biblical Chronology. It's extremely even handed, what I think you might call NPOV, and yet obviously by a believing author. He's relentless about all the various theories, etc. You'll probably like it, and I think you'll find where the idea came from that says Tiberius' "15th year" could have been as early as 26. Happy hunting! Herobill (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus visit to Jerusalem in 7 AD

I am very interested to know where this data came from. Personally, I believe it. It fits with the basic facts about Joseph fearing Archelaus (who was deposed in 6 AD) and leaving Jesus behind [in Nazareth, during Passover each year] until age 12. In other words, Jesus would just happen to be twelve in March of 7 AD, the first Passover when Archelaus was "safely" (to Joseph's feeling) gone away. So if Jesus was 12 in March of 7 AD then his birth must have been somewhere during the 12 months preceeding March of 6 BC. Personally (again), my own research suggests Jesus was indeed born in 7 BC, possibly in May. (But the month isn't important at the moment.) Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of my own project, and don't really want to join in the wikipedia effort directly. But I had to comment here because I've been hunting for anyone online who puts Jesus' 12-year-old trip in 7 AD. Honestly, I keep saying to myself, "I can't understand why this hasn't been suggested before." But I can't find it anywhere other than random spots like this [iow, I find it rarely listed but never explained]. Then again, I first posted this theory on my own website as early as 12 to 18 months ago. So who knows? Maybe I'm the source? ;) But I hope not. That would end my hunt. Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd be very grateful if anyone can tell me the source for the date "c.7" in this article. Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, until further research and discussion goes on, I just want to say I have no problem with the "dubious" label on this date. But I definitely don't think it shoudl be deleted, either! Herobill (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Timeline (needs to go)

The Biblical Timeline section is highly problematic. It is entirely unsourced. It is also completely useless to say that Jesus fed the 5,000 is c. 29, if we later say he died in 36 (meaning he had a 7 year ministry), or that he already died in 27. I'm not even sure where these dates are coming from that are attached to specific events (outside death and birth). I believe the brief timeline above this section is all we need (and all that is supported by the sources). What do others think? Should I tag the whole section as totally disputed or just remove it entirely?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Would it be possible to do a timeline just relative to the key points of say birth, baptism, death, as obviously whatever dates are taken for these affects other dates around. Presumably the material now there is built around particular assumptions on these dates, the dating of which is already discussed here and in other articles. It is useful to have the few non-Biblical dates set out in the same timeline, and the range of scholarly opinion on the main key dates of the biblical events. But I presume most of the dates during his ministry are just quesses as to how much could be fitted into year 1, 2 etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a basic timeline might be useful but this one is absurdly speculative: we do not know how long Jesus was active for (might have been less than a year), and we do not know when he began or was killed. --Rbreen (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This timeline is based not any any historical or textual evidence that is transparent, but apparently on the musings of Barbara Thiering. I think removal is the scholarly necessity. --Doktorspin (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth again

There are also three different earliest estimates for the birth date of Jesus on this page, which I hope to make uniform soon. The 4BCE date is simply untenable. First it implies Herod died immediately after the birth for which there is no reason to assume. Matt indicates that Herod killed children up to 2 years of age in the massacre story implying that Jesus would have been at least a year old. -- spin^control 21:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Thiering's "pesher technique" mentioned in the Biblical Timeline for 7 BCE certainly does not reflect a mainstream scholarly views.

"Suggested birth : March 1, Bethlehem-Queen's house, Qumran (pesher technique of scholar Barbara Thiering applied to Luke 2:6,7"

If there are no objections I'll remove it before Feb 16. -- spin^control 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means remove the Thiering reference, it is certainly not mainstream. It is not the most outlandish estimate, though, I seem to remember Nikos Kokkinos in all seriousness suggested 10 or 12 BCE. --Rbreen (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the date so much as the spurious Qumran reference. And I think it's time. -- spin^control 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

Australian astronomer Dave Reneke puts the date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth at June 17, 2 BCE.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How does that work if the gospel of Matthew tells us Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (died in 4 BCE)? -- spin^control 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Numerous respectable sources, Michael Grant (author) among them, have very much called into question the factual veracity of much of the information in the gospels. Having said that, the speculation of the astronomer, seemingly based on the information obtained from those gospels, is not necessarily any more reliable. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In the big picture, those numerous respected sources are swamped by those who basically accept 4 BCE despite the problems. There is an enormous body of literature on the subject. -- spin^control 17:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am aware of the size of the body of literature in question. However, that, possibly unthinking?, lack of individual examination in at least some cases does not necessarily mean that the numerous individuals who examine the evidence do not deserve at least passing mention. Granted, in this particular case, I know comparatively few people who do argue as late a time as 2 BCE for the birth of Jesus, and do wonder whether it might qualify as a fringe theory, so that's more or less not a big factor in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very, very bad historiography

It is not scientifically sound to cite the Bible to prove anything about the Bible. This entire entry is about a set of very divisive issues about which not even believers agree, much less non-believers.

About the only way that this project could succeed is for the various contributors to say that "Such-and-such is reputed to have happened" according to "so-and-so"--followed by the appropriate citations.

Otherwise, we are going to continue to have as an encyclopedia article a very bad mix of doctrinal claims and pseudo-scientific claims.

One may believe as one wishes, but an objective treatment of this topic is only possible if one can step outside of the issues long enough to admit the extremely unreliable data and sources that are being cited as fact.Landrumkelly (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

May we say rather that it would not be logically sound to argue in circles? But one may, without arguing in circles, prove things about the Bible, using itself (or do the same for any other document from history): it's a question here of historically sound, or of theologically sound, not necessarily of scientifically sound (in the modern sense). I should think archeologists would use objects to prove things about the same objects. And even scientists - e.g. astronomers observe the objects themselves, to prove things about those objects (planets, stars, etc.) Perhaps what you're suggesting is the need to make clear distinctions between the various Kinds of argument being used. I should think doctrinal claims might be presented, as exactly that, in a good encyclopedia article about doctrines; similarly for pseudo-science; as for science in the modern sense; etc. 67.142.161.20 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Serry

AD/BC clarification

Small issue here, but I think we need to somehow clarify that "AD 1" is actually "1 CE". This article uses the CE/BCE notation, but in one paragraph containing a direct quote, the AD/BC notation is referenced exclusively. This could be confusing to the reader, and is not consistent era usage per WP:ERA. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered simply adding (AD 1 = 1 CE) at the end of the quote, but I agree that AD/BC is also used earlier in the paragraph. Because Common Era was not used until more than 1000 years after Dionysius, we cannot introduce it in the same sentence. I could expand the history of "before Christ", including a couple of equivalent Latin phrases, but that would only compound your concern. Another concern is that the initials AD/BC and CE/BCE are recent innovations—initials were not used in either Latin or early English. Furthermore, AD, BC, CE and BCE are all unique to English—other lanquages use initials derived from their own language. We could simply explain that AD/BC is equivalent to CE/BCE after the history of AD/BC but before the quote. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should not use CE/BCE. It originally used BC/AD until User:Rbreen arbitrarily changed it. I asked him why he did so but he ignored my request. LevenBoy (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If true, it needs reverting. Will check how easy this is to do. I've struck problems with search & replace before. ^ross ^nixon 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you because you messed up again! This time you changed all instances of "BCE" to "AD", thus changing Jesus' birth by many years. Furthermore, you piped that new AD to Common Era. Additionally, you changed several words that ended in "-ce" to "-AD", such as "place" to "plaAD". However, I agree that that the era should be changed back to its stable version, BC/AD. This article used BC/AD since its creation in 2004 until an anonymous editor, 70.105.228.24, changed the era to BCE/CE on 13 December 2008. He complained that BC/AD "amounts to a religious claim", which indeed makes it appropriate for a Christian article. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been notoriously associated with this issue in the past, but I think here the policy is clear: we can revert to AD/BC because it was the original era notation and was arbitrarily changed by a random, anonymous user for no reason and with no consensus to change. This goes against the policy at WP:ERA. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed dates again, should be few errors if any this time. ^ross ^nixon 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any errors regarding the latest era change, but other minor dating format problems exist which I'll address later. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting arguments

"This implies that Jesus could have been up to two years old by the time of the massacre, which would have taken place some time, perhaps some years, before the death of Herod in 4 BC. Luke on the other hand relates the birth to the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 AD, although also implying that the conception took place during the reign of King Herod."

Meaning that the conception happened 10 years before the birth? PiCo (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Table?

Wouldn't this work better as a table? PiCo (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, its not clear what you are proposing? Wdford (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean a table setting out, in the rows, the various events and the dates proposed and the evidence - 3 columns.PiCo (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pico. Funny you should say that. Please see this: Gospel harmony and the talk page. I suggested 7 tables, just now. I actually wrote a section on that last night.... I think the table belongs there, and needs to be 7 tables, to be usable, else will be too large. Since you know the Gospels, your suggestions will probably be useful. By the way, were you going to make changes to the Sanhedrin Trial as we suggested? I cleaned up the sections we had discussed. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although that will to an extent duplicate the existing information box on the right of the page. Also, sometimes the discussion is quite long and detailed, which would be clumsy and un-user-friendly in a narrow column making for a very long table. Perhaps we should just jack up the information box for now? Wdford (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean 7 tables in the vertical box. I meant in the Gospel harmony article that has one table with 110 entries or so. I think the vertical navbar can be thought about afterwards. It is used in too many places and touching it leads to many consequences. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth of John the Baptist

In the sidebox of chronology the suggested birth of Jesus is given as 6 BC and John as 4 BC. Umm, isn't that strange if Jesus was conceived not long before John was born? -- spin^control 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked. That is a terrible table, very confusing. It tries to give multiple dates for the same event. Needs a MAJOR clean up. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

November / January

"Kislev 25, 3757 AM is reported in error as the Julian date of November 25, 5 BC, not December 25, 5 BC. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the Jews of the Diaspora used a rule-based calendar of the Pharisees to calculate dates, this being formalized into the present fixed calendar by Maimonides in 1178 AD. Extending this calendar back to 5 BC does not adjust for the precession of the equinoxes, and this gives dates too early according to the Vernal Equinox and beginning of spring.^{[citation needed]}

Extending the present fixed calendar back to Nisan 1, 3756 AM, which precedes the birth of Jesus and yields the bogus November 25, 5 BC date, is March 9, 5 BC. This is too early before the equinox and is actually Adar II. Nisan 1 shifted a month and actually began on April 6, 5 BC.^{[citation needed]}

By contrast, in today’s 19-year metonic cycle Jewish calendar, the earliest that Nisan 1 appears is on March 12 in 2016 AD (per the Gregorian calendar, which has adjusted for the precession of the equinoxes.) If the new moon was observed as early as March 9 it would have been Adar II, additionally declared that month because of the premature state of the corn crop and fruit trees (Sanhedrin 2:2)"

I have removed this from the page as it is long uncited and the relevance is obscure. If someone can find out what it's trying to say and can provide a proper citation, it could go back. --Rbreen (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Jesus rise or was Jesus risen from the dead?

The last step of the "essential chronology" of Jesus now reads:

According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus was risen from the dead on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

This is result of a series of "adjustments":

EDIT (03:11, 02.25.10) MdS: "rose from the dead" => "was found to have been risen from the dead"
EDIT (00:13, 02.26.10) 70.176.218.89: REVERTED to "rose from the dead"
EDIT (12:02, 03.02.10) MdS: "rose from the dead" => "was risen from the dead"

The reason why the phrasing with "was risen" is preferable to the one with "rose" is do to the fact that in the New Testament the notion that God raised Jesus from the dead is vastly predominant compared to the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, by his own power, which is only found (perhaps) at John 2:19-21.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. That is educational so please provide the "other" Bible references (predominant ones) as well, so everyone can figure this out. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Try http:// is.gd/9zlbA - if true, Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and rose on Saturday evening. ^ross ^nixon 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not looking into date now, but think Miguel de Servet needs to have refs for his assertion. I could do a search, but it is best he adds it to support his claim. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All you need to do is run a basic bible search, here are some:

Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37, Romans 7:4, 10:9, 1 Cor 6:14, 15:15, Gal 1:1, Col 2:12, 1 Pet 1:21

75.0.5.82 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization: "He" vs. "he"

There is no reason to capitalize "he" or "his" when refering to Jesus. Other articles, namely that of Buddha, Krishna, or Moses do not use the irregular capitalization. Putting the undue emphasis with reference to Jesus implies a Christo-centric (and possibly Islamocetric) worldview which further implies a POV on the part of editors.JewishLeftist (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. IPs come out of nowhere and change them back and forth right and left all the time, all over the place. History2007 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, What has Jesus Christ got to do with Buddha, Krishna or Moses. We want a Christo-centric world view all over the place cos that's the Truth. We want to see Jesus lifted high, a banner that flies across the world, that all of you might know the Truth and see... He is the way to heaven ! Alan347 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Alan, there are people of every age, size, shape and belief on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia policies give a semi-equal voice to all of them. So the Hindus see their view as important as any. And you are not going to change that through argument here. That energy is better spent elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Herod's death revisited

While it is believed my many that Herod died shortly after the partial lunar eclipse of 13 March 4 BC (shortly before the Passover), there were actually two other eclipses in 1 BC (9 January and 29 December) that may better mark his death. Josephus records that there was a Jewish holiday celebrating Herod's death on 2nd day of the month Shebat, which would occur in December-January, not in March, and in both cases was shortly after the listed eclipses. (http://www.setterfield.org/startechnical.html THE CHRISTMAS STAR--Technical notes)

— Glenn L (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Would this be of any use?

    "During the last period of Herod's life there were only three total eclipses
of the moon, namely, September 15, 5 B.C., March 12-13, 4 B.C., and January 9,
1 B.C.  All the events narrated above could hardly have taken place within the short

period of one month (i.e., between the eclipse of the moon on March 12-13, 4 B.C., and the Passover on April 11, 4 B.C.). Hence it is most probable that Josephus was referring to the eclips of the moon on September 15, 5 B.C." ^[11]

     By "all the events narrated above" he refers to events in Herod the Great's

life between the eclipse (when he had two people executed in a certain incident) and his death (shortly before that Passover).

     Same author in the same book goes on to argue in favor of 8 B.C. as being
both the most probable option and the best supported by evidence (esp. the

every-14-year Roman censuses, of which one was ordered in 8 B.C. by the emperor, and carried out by Sentius Saturninus in Judaea, under Quirinius during the latter's FIRST appointment as governor of the Syrian province (presumably rewarding him for his military victory etc. etc.). ^[12] 67.142.161.20 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Serry

The inconsistent Chronology table

In September 2009 in response to another editor who commented that the table was inconsistent, I stated that the table is just terrible and inconsistent and needs to be fixed. It attempts to do a Gospel harmony coupled with dates but gets it wrong, and then lists 3 separate items for death! Unless someone fixes it, I will just delete it. Two years of junk floating there is enough. The whole chronology can actually be improved, and I can fix that, but teh table has to get fixed, or get out of the way after 2 years of complaints. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Days vs years

The more I look at this article, the more the word mess comes to mind. A specially messy item is the "day of birth" discussions which have very little historical support, and in this article even fewer references! There is a section "Other Dates" which has "zero references" and is mostly based on 3rd and 4th century speculations about the feast of the nativity. But the feast of the nativity does not provide a historical chronology, at all. I think that needs to be mostly axed and a smaller section placed at the end, stating that there are feasts for the nativity, etc. but that they have no bearing whatsoever on the historical chronology of the birth. In general, the issue of days (which are far more uncertain) must be separated from the 3-5 year approximate time spans that are generally used by multiple scholars to estimate the start of the ministry, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality problems

There seem to be quality problems all over the place in the article, now that I am looking into it. The text often begins to "sound authoritative" but turns out to be half-baked and seems to have encountered the classic pitfalls of using a WP:Primary source such as Josephus, forming an opinion, then looking up a single WP:Secondary to support said personal opinion, then jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

An example is the paragraph that starts: "The chronology of the reign of Herod Antipas also comes into play". In fairness, play is the right word there, for the rest of it plays with facts, not get them right. E.g. it flatly states (with a ref) that "the marriage of Antipas and Herodias took place sometime in AD 34". As the biography of Herodias (Herodias: at home in that fox's den ISBN 0814651089 pages 25-30) and other references make it clear, the exact year of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias is subject to debate among scholars, many suggesting the range 27-31, while others have approximated a date as late as AD 35, but such a late date has much less support. There is far less certainty there than the single reference suggests. Moreover, the text assumes that the Baptist was executed after the marriage, yet although both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod killing the Baptist, they differ on the details and motives, e.g. whether this act was a consequence of the marriage (as indicated in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in Ant 18.5.2 (as clarified in sources such as Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia ISBN 1576078566 page 508). Hence the final conclusion drawn from the analysis at the end of the paragraph there is both incorrect and without basis. But in fairness, they did not attach a reference to that so it looks like the WP:OR that it is, although it sounds authoritative.

But in addition to those types of errors of commission, there are also significant errors of omission in the article, e.g. the lack of any mention of John 2:20 which provides a totally independent (and historically verifiable) chronological element in its own right. So the word mess keeps repeating as one reads all of this, and it all needs to get really, really cleaned up. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I have fixed the problems now, added refs, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Most critical historians agree...?

I might be nit picking here, but in the Context and overview section it's stated "Most critical historians agree..." then goes on to list things like Jesus' existence, baptism, etc. My critique here is that these feel a bit like weasel words. What defines a "critical historian" and how many are "most"? Most could be anything over 50%, which might mean that there's still a large amount of decent. Then there's the question, of the community of biblical historians, who is considered critical? I don't know the actual figures but if less than half agree with all of these factors, the person making the claim of "most" could simply say that 75% of them aren't "critical" historians, as in they don't examine the evidence critically. Whereas another could say that "most" critical historians reject those points, since that's what makes them "critical" as in critical of the historicity of Jesus. I'm not saying that either of these are the case, as I don't know the statistics, I'm just trying to point out that this wording is potentially misleading. On one hand it has the potential to make people think that more historians accept the historicity of Jesus than may actually be the case. On the other hand, it has the potential to dismiss the ideas of some historians under the arbitrary judgment of the writer that they aren't critical. I'd like to see some hard figures such as "90% of Biblical historians agree..." of course with sources to back that up, and either the reference of being "critical" taken out or a clarification of what it means to be a "critical" historian, such as "historians who doubt the supernatural claims attributed to Jesus" (critics) or "historians who have critically examined the evidence" (critical thinkers.) It was just something that I found potentially misleading that I thought should be brought to everyone's attention.68.189.37.254 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I will change it to avoid the term critical. That issue was also discussed on the talk page of the Jesus article, and the Ehrman reference there needs to be added here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is quite acceptable, It's nice to know that I have a voice here despite not being an official part of the community.68.189.37.254 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term ministry vs preaching

Mr Breen has changed the word ministry to preaching. In this edit I explained that all the sources use that term, and his use of the preaching goes against conformity to the source. But he reverted that with a comment that I see as inadequate.

Mr Breen, this is not a big issue, and the term ministry is widely used in this context. Given that the analysis uses New Testament accounts, in those accounts ministry involves more than preaching, and has a specific temporal connotation involving baptism. So your change of ministry to preaching is less than logical. It is also uncommon usage:

First try this

Then try this

Moreover, your changes were not logical and have made some statements inconsistent because it is not clear when the preaching of Jesus began, but the start of his ministry is specifically defined in scholarly sources as just after his baptism - the scholarly analyses rely on that. Jesus may have been preaching ever since he was 18 years old, and the term ministry when used in chronology has a specific connotation in scholarly sources. So the use of the term preaching in your edit is both uncommon and inconsistent.

So explain yourself. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse

Peter quotes the words of an ancient prophet because they seem to predict the events witnessed that day (Pentecost), and because among other things, these words included "turning the moon into blood", this is considered an indication that during the crucifixion 50 days earlier a lunar eclipse, that would not have been visible in Jerusalem, was witnessed but later got lost in transcription?

"The lunar eclipse approach used for the determination of the date 3 April 33 AD is totally independent and distinct from the Newton-like construction of the Jewish calendar, but arrives at the same date."

Isn't it amazing, in 1983 they find the same date based on a lunar eclipse as J. K. Fotheringham did with a completely different method in 1910, a method that gave two possible dates of which Fotheringham chose April 3, 33 AD on the basis of its coincidence with a lunar eclipse. Amazing!! Ssscienccce (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What change to the article are you suggesting? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he was saying that Colin Humphreys was pushing his luck. But given that Humphreys got Nature to publish his analysis, it is WP:RS. The issue will become controversial when someone else to publish against Humphreys in Nature or somewhere like that. The article does say that Schaefer thinks his glare approach excludes visibility, but I have not seen that much on that elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Eclipse nonsense

Passover is at a full moon. And lunar eclipses occur at a full moon. So far so good. But full moons, either eclipsed or not, are nowhere to be seen in the sky at 3 oclock in the afternoon, or earlier as the gospel claims. Never. Full moons, and lunar eclipses, occur when, from the point of view of the earth, the sun and moon are in opposite directions. The full moon never rises until around sundown.Eregli bob (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"But full moons, either eclipsed or not, are nowhere to be seen in the sky at 3 oclock in the afternoon, or earlier as the gospel claims. Never." Untrue. Just two days ago I was watching the sunset (about a half hour before sunset: approx. 7 pm) and it was still quite light out. The sky was clear, and yet the moon was very visible in the clear lit sky. An almost full moon and very high in the sky (10-11 o'clock). Since I was not out earlier than this, based on how high it was in the sky, it probably had been out for quite some time.

Now there was a full esclipse on Friday, April 3, 33 A.D. (Julian date), but it did not occur at 3 pm, but later that evening. I'm sure the article never says it occurred at 3 pm (nor the gospel) and you are only reading this time into what was said... although someplace on earth it was near 3 pm since there are 24 hour timezones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.76.63 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a miracle - this is the Biblical point - Jesus' death caused darkness for three hours from the 6th hr (12pm) to the 9th hr (3pm) (Mark 15:33-34, et al). Somewhat like the star that guided the wisemen, the walls of Jericho tumbling down, and the crossing of the Red Sea, alot of Biblical, and otherwise, researchers have tried to point to actual events which is fine, but a literal reading of the Bible says that these events were caused by God - it isn't supposed to be explained. Note I'm not endorsing these events as fact or telling anyone to do so - just giving you the Biblical viewpoint. Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Issues in the "Other Approaches" section?

Just now I made a change to the "Other approaches" section, because I felt that the second sentence of the second paragraph ("There are many possible phenomena and none seems to match the Gospel account exactly") was unfairly suggesting that the "Star of Bethlehem" question was unambiguously closed. To mitigate this, I extended the sentence with an example of a recent claim to the contrary.

Then I looked at the rest of this same section, and it strikes me that there are several other issues here, and I'm wondering if anyone else agrees? To wit:

-- "A wide range of approaches to the chronology of Jesus have been suggested over the centuries, but have little support among modern scholars..." This sentence may well be true, but there is no citation to support the assertion that there is "little support among modern scholars" for the other approaches.

-- "...but that [particular date] did not correspond to a full moon." Again, as a reader I have no easy way to verify this assertion, as the citation given says nothing about the status of the moon on the date mentioned.

-- "Many scholars regard the star as a literary invention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to claim fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (Numbers 24:17)." This one is the most egregious. It cites, as its source, page 40 of a book by Joseph J. Walsh. I went and read the section of the book in question, and there is no support in the text for the assertion that "many scholars regard the star as a literary invention." Again, it might be a true statement, but it is completely misleading to list that particular book and page as justification for the statement. Yes, Walsh mentions the literary invention theory as one of the ways that people explain the mention of the star in scripture, but he gives no mention of how many people believe that theory, or whether those that do are "scholars" or not; and he gives the theory no more or less weight, in the context of his comments, than he gives to the two other theories that he mentions (one of which is that the star really existed); and in fact, on the next page (page 41) he explicitly says that he is not qualified to evaluate the relative merits of any of the three theories.

So... I guess I have two questions. One: does anyone else think these are issues? And two: if so, what's the best approach to fixing them? Do I just add "citation needed" markers? Or should I add additional content (as I started to do) to balance out what I think borders on a lack of neutrality?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Pabtm1 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts have always been that this section is basically mankind attempting to explain the divine and the editors who have put info in here haven't even done that good of a job. I agree with your first two points as the editor throws up a softball that is easily hit out of the park since its clearly WP:OR. As far as the Star of Bethlehem, I have literally heard dozens of theories about what it could be. Usually these theories focus on a short-lived celestial phenomenon that doesn't even fit the text of the Bible. All told, my knee-jerk reaction is to delete the whole thing as unsavable OR. Ckruschke (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm not sure that deleting the entire section is the answer. It's important to point out, I think, that people do try to set Jesus' chronology based on identifying natural explanations for the Star of Bethlehem. And it's at least theoretically possible that there really was some kind of bright celestial event, and that other people may have seen it and noted it in contemporary written records. The fact that no one seems to have found a documented event that fits the gospel narratives exactly, is sort of irrelevant to the fact that people have made (and continue to make) the attempt to do so. Which is really my problem with the way it's written now: it suggests that the issue of a real-life star is a closed question -- as if no one tries to make the case anymore. That seems to me to be self-evidently false. So, I would lean towards rewriting the section rather than deleting it. Just my 2 cents. Pabtm1 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pabtm1 - Deleting was my solution, which as you've stated is probably not the best. I also agree with the issues you point out - and specifically the Star of Bethlehem - "no one" knows what it was and theories continue to come in. One of the more "interesting" was a celestial convergence of Jupiter, Venus and Regulus (I think). Of course this would be short-lived and not fit the Bible narrative, but you are right we don't really care about that. Another idea is an unnamed Comet, which would certainly fit the long lived version of the Bible story, but it would have to be spectacular and noteworthy, so maybe it was a Sungrazer that burned up the next time around. Considering there are many theories on the Star of Bethlehem page, obviously the issue isn't settled. If you want to take a crack at rewriting it, be my guest. I'll look at it when you are done and maybe I can help out. Ckruschke (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke -- Okay, I went in and made my edits. Mainly I was trying to make the words conform more closely to the actual assertions that the references support. I deleted the last sentence entirely (about scholars who doubt the existence of an actual Star of Bethlehem), not because it's not true -- of course there are scholars who doubt the existence of the star -- but because a) the statement was not sourced properly, like, AT ALL, and b) in the final analysis, this is not an article about the Star of Bethlehem (there's a whole separate entry for that). Rather, this article is about the different ways that people try to suss out the timeline of the life of Jesus. (So the fact that some scholars believe the Star was a fiction, is immaterial -- for that matter, a lot of people think Jesus himself is a fiction -- but this article focuses on those people who DO believe that Jesus was a historical person, and how THEY attempt to fit his life into the known historical timelines... and of course the search for a real-life Star of Bethlehem plays a role in that). Hope this all makes sense. Pabtm1 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me - fine job - gold star day! Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The historic Y'shua bar Yosef did NOT die on the Cross - he had a near-death-experience

The historic Y'shua bar Yosef was born on April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC. (ref: http://MichaelMolnar.com) He was crucified on the 1st Day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nissan 3090 HC. The Christ did NOT die on the Cross; he appeared dead. The definition of death is 'final'. The Jewish Messiah had a near-death experience. He was taken down off the Cross without any bones being broken before sunset. About 37 hours later on Sunday mourning at sunrise, he again appeared. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh - ok. I'm pretty sure you can die w/o broken bones. So was Lazarus "dead" by your definition? That being said, the Talk page is not a forum to voice our pet theories. Ckruschke (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

According to Mathew's gospel, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod. It is well established that Herod died in the year now known as 4 BC. The date of 6 BC for the birth of Jesus fits in well with this.JFB80 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

^ Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, pp. 29–30, gives a c. 60–70 date; L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 244, gives c. 80–90.
^ Bock, ibid., p. 38, gives c. 62–70; White, ibid., p. 252, gives c. 90–100.
^ Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003, 1:454–55
^ Porterm J. R. Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith. Oxford University Press, 1999. Pg. 70 ISBN 0–19–521429–3
^ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 108; cf. p. 100. He regards the old theories as no longer sustainable. March 25th was also considered to be the day of Jesus’ death, and the day of creation. See also H. Rahner, Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung. Darmstadt, 1957. An English translation is available as Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, trans. Brian Battershaw (New York: Harper Row, 1963).
^ Josephus, Antiquities 17.342–4
^ Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96
^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
^ See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, pp. 284–295, for a discussion of several alternate theories with references.
^ Meier, p.1:402
^ p.xviii, "A Gospel Harmony," by Rev. John E. Steinmueller,...; pub. c.1942, W. H. Sadlier Inc., NY/Chicago.
^ Ibid, pp.xvii-xix.

[mat-date-1] Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, pp. 29–30, gives a c. 60–70 date; L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 244, gives c. 80–90.

[luke-date-2] Bock, ibid., p. 38, gives c. 62–70; White, ibid., p. 252, gives c. 90–100.

[3] Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003, 1:454–55

[4] Porterm J. R. Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith. Oxford University Press, 1999. Pg. 70 ISBN 0–19–521429–3

[5] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 108; cf. p. 100. He regards the old theories as no longer sustainable. March 25th was also considered to be the day of Jesus’ death, and the day of creation. See also H. Rahner, Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung. Darmstadt, 1957. An English translation is available as Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, trans. Brian Battershaw (New York: Harper Row, 1963).

[6] Josephus, Antiquities 17.342–4

[7] Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96

[Harris-8] Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.

[alternate-supper-9] See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, pp. 284–295, for a discussion of several alternate theories with references.

[10] Meier, p.1:402

[11] .xviii, "A Gospel Harmony," by Rev. John E. Steinmueller,...; pub. c.1942, W. H. Sadlier Inc., NY/Chicago.

[12] Ibid, pp.xvii-xix.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]