What Year Was Jesus Born? Google is WRONG!

What year was Jesus born? Google tells you scholars say it was between 6-4BCE. However, this requires only accepting Matthew's narrative to be correct over Luke - as the two narratives contradict. In fact Luke presents two different ranges for Jesus' birth depending on whether you follow chapter 1 or 3. The reality is both narratives are highly literary accounts that probably don't preserve a historical birth year - but if they have any useful data then the range of Jesus' birth is actually much wider.
If you haven't already, check out ‪@UsefulCharts‬ who makes fantastic chart videos and I've definitely taken inspiration from them in the way I present some of the timeline data. You can watch their video on this topic here: • When Was Jesus Born?
Patrons get to see these videos first:
Patreon: / tabletsandtemples
KZbin Membership: / @tabletsandtemples
+ Stay in the loop:
Instagram: / tabletsandtemples
FB: / bibleunbox
Twitter: / tablets_temples
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
Sources:
The early church birth years come from the Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Prof Jack Finegan. It's a bit dated, but the information about this topic is still correct.
Some discussion about the problems of dating between Matthew and Luke can be found in Evidence for the Chronology of Jesus by Alden A. Mosshammer.
The argument for "about thirty" is found in the article "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" by Andrew E. Steinmann

[@TabletsAndTemples]

If you haven't already, check out @UsefulCharts who makes fantastic chart videos and I've definitely taken inspiration from them in the way I present some of the timeline data.

[@brett2660]

Just an fyi, the Patreon link is to the old one. It's not directing to Tablets and Temples.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

​@@brett2660 thank you! Should be fixed now

[@UsefulCharts]

Awesome video. You elevated my timeline style to a new level!

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thank you! That means a lot coming from you. Love your work ✌️

[@blackukulele]

In Luke 2, the word 'prote' can mean 'first' but it also can mean 'prior' or 'before', which might suggest that the registration referred to in Luke 2 was a preparation for the later census under Quirinius. It is also possible that Quirinius was governor between 4BC and 1AD, as there is no record as to who was the Roman governor during those years. Quirinius was in the area. Just a couple of thoughts.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Sure but the issue with trying to place Quirinius in Syria earlier (and I've seen a popular video recently try to do just that) is we have corroboration from other sources as to what Quirinius was doing prior to his governorship of Judea. From 12BCE he was a military leader in Galatia and Cicilia. Then in 1CE he tutored Augustus' grandson. The reason he became governor of Syria was because Archelaus was banished and the 6ce census needed to be taken for taxation as now the Romans were taking control.

[@danielmalinen6337]

According to Tacitus, Josephus and Vellesius Paterculus, Quirinius had indeed been in Syria before, but in a completely different position. From year 1 onwards, Quirinius was the tutor of Gaius Caesar, the Imperial Legate of Syria, who had been sent to Syria because Varus, the previous Legate, was extinguishing the "golden eagle rebellion" in Judea after the death of Herod. And in the absence of Varus from Syria, Parthia had invaded Armenia, a vassal state of Rome, and exiled the king of Armenia to Rome. Along with Gaius Caesar and Quirinius, Marcus Lollius, Sejanus and the historian Vellesius Paterculus were also sent to Syria because Rome wanted to negotiate peace with Parthia. After they reached Syria, Varus returned from Judea and they sent the treasurer Sabinus to collect the hundreds of thousands of sesterces that the late Herod had promised to the emperor Augustus. However, this led to a new unrest, which forced Varus to return from Syria to Judea and crucify 2,000 Judean rebels.

[@danielmalinen6337]

​​@@TabletsAndTemplesAlthough there were a lot of mistakes and problems in that one video (I assume you mean the one where Quirinius and Sabinus were forcibly combined one), it was still correct about that Quirinius was not in Syria for the first time in 6 CE but he worked there earlier in other position and not as an Imperial Legate (governor). According to Tacitus, Josephus and Vellesius Paterculus, Gaius Caesar was sent to Syria in 1 CE as a new Imperial Legate because Parthia invaded Roman Armenia and Varus was away in Syria putting down the post-Herod unrest in Judea. And Gaius Caesar was accompanied by Quirinius (as his tutor), Marcus Lollius (as his assistant), Sejanus (as his commander) and the historian Vellesius Paterculus (as his recorder). And this is possibly also the reason why the author of Luke misplaces the census.

[@niswr7319]

Honestly would make sense if the Early Church was right. If he was born between 4-3 bc, and “died” at ~33 in 30 AD. It would be poetic and theologically imperative as to why the Temple was destroyed 40 years later in 70 AD.

[@NotTheDude]

Randomly found this video on Reddit. Your channel is awesome! Thanks for the entertaining and scholarly content!

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Glad you enjoy it! Welcome aboard!

[@stormx2827]

Fantastic as ever, thank you. Your treatment of the gospels is even-handed and scholarly, neither over-indulging the text (as the UsefulCharts video does IMHO), nor overly skeptical (which wouldn't make a very good video!). I see some compression artifacts in the background of the timeline - hopefully youtube's video encoding sorts em out before this goes out more widely. Thanks again

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thank you so much for your support. Also thanks for the heads up, I think the compression should be fine now that YT has had some more time to process.

[@stormx2827]

@@TabletsAndTemples strange one - I can see it in the 720p and 480p versions, but not 1080p. May be my browser.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Got a timestamp? I'll check it out @@stormx2827

[@stormx2827]

@@TabletsAndTemples 2:30 through 2:50 - the background appears blocky and subtly flashing to me.

[@InquisitiveBible]

@@stormx2827 No compression artifacts on my end.

[@js1423]

Another solid video! Also, were you trying to produce a documentary around a scandalous case of the theft of some papyrus-manuscripts?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thank you! Yes that is in the works. Aiming for a release before July next year.

[@blackukulele]

Wasn't there a lunar eclipse around 1BC/1AD? Josephus said that Herod die between an eclipse and the Passover (scholars who say 4BC go for solar eclipse)?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

I mean there's plenty of options eclipse wise, there's ones in 4BC and 5BC. But Archelaus was deposed in 6CE after a reign of 10 years (book 17 of ant.). That means he had to succeed Herod in 4BCE.

[@blackukulele]

@@TabletsAndTemples So the dating for the deposition of Archelaus is based on the date for the death of Herod the great, which is the point at issue, or is their an independent basis for that date? Wikipedia references a coin that places Quirenius in Syria in the 36th year of Augustus, which they say is AD 5/6. If August became Augustus in 27 BC, that would make it AD 9, or there abouts?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

@blackukulele other way around. So Herods death in Josephus is calculated based on Archelaus' ascension. It's book 17 of antiquities, I'm pretty sure the Herod the Great stuff would be just before in book 16. I found the Wikipedia note you mentioned, I'll have to read Novaks book to see what argument he is making around 5/6ce. But Quirinius was in Syria until 9CE so a coin bearing that date would be inclusive of his governorship.

[@VictorBush-cx7sj]

Not that I defend the historical accuracy of the gospels, but a big problem with the Luke 3 computation is the dating is not about when Jesus was baptized at about 30., but it is about when John the Baptist started his ministry. There could have been a gap between that and Jesus's 30 something baptism.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Yes, historically. However, in the imaginations of Luke and Matthew it certainly leans towards the two things happening around the same time. Both of them imagine Herod being aware of Jesus' ministry after the death of John. Given their portrayal of a short ministry (again not necissarily historical, just their portrayal) that necessitates Jesus starting his ministry within a year or two of John's baptisms. Now there's a whole bunch of other chronological problems with the gospel's portrayal of John's death and dates we know from Josephus but that's a whole other topic. Now just to be clear, as a critical scholar, and as I state in the video - I don't think there's any way of knowing at all. This was just about what ancient authors *likely* believed. And yes I think they are likely wrong, and they didn't really know the chronology. I might do a seperate video on the John the Baptist problem because it's interesting on its own.

[@VictorBush-cx7sj]

@@TabletsAndTemples Right. When anything happened in ancient times is murky compounded by lightweights like Jesus and JtB. Imagine if "Luke" used Olympiad dating, something well established by Greek writers at the time and eventually be picked up by early Christian writers. Something less closely related that I would be interested in seeing an expert discuss is whether what is now Christianity was actually under way before Jesus, at least John the Baptist if not sooner. Something that got my attention is mention of "pre-Jesus" "Christians" in Ephesus being proselytized through John as depicted in Act 18 and 19. Just a thought

[@Sharminshosii]

good content💜💜

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thank you!

[@InquisitiveBible]

I love a nice timeline.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Who doesn't haha

[@GodcodeX77]

Date conceived on april seventeen four. Born September eighteen four.

[@lisamounts6555]

The Chinese have accurate records I have read. Check out their records as well.

[@pakimonsas]

There is also a possibility that Herod died in 1 BC

[@TabletsAndTemples]

I've certainly heard this, however attempts to say Herod died in 1BC are typically based off trying to find an eclipse. What it ignores however is that Archelaus (whose life lines up with other historical events) was deposed in 6CE after 10 years of ruling. Since Archelaus succeeded Herod after his death, 4BCE is the latest possible date for the death of Herod. Recent mainstream scholarship has refuted the notion that Herod died in 1BCE.

[@pakimonsas]

@@TabletsAndTemplesThere are recent scholars like Steinmann which favor the latter date. One of the explanations of Archelaus being deposed after 10 years of ruling is that he backdated his reign to 4 or 3 BCE to assert an overlapping with Herod's rule, and bolster his own legitimacy. We can't easily dismiss 1 BCE as the year Herod died.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Sure, but I will contend that Steinmann still promotes the minority position. And his thesis is not without criticism. Notably Joseph Sievers review of "Between Rome and Jerusalem" lays out the problems with the 1BCE date. Jachowski's "The Death of Herod the Great and the Latin Josephus" also deals with Steinmann more directly. The primary issues are the 1BCE eclipse fails to meet the within 34 years of the death of Antigonus and then there's the Varus issue.

[@MaxRenke]

It's pretty funny to me that it's no 0 CE since, you know, that's what it's based on 😅

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Haha true. I mean there isn't technically a 0, it goes from 1bce to 1ce. But diogenes who invented the calendar that had Jesus birth at 1ce didn't write down how he reached that conclusion. He's also much later, writing in the 4th century, so that's why I didn't include him.

[@fatbottombracket]

We need to change our views and critically examine this. There is zero physical evidence that Jesus existed, period. It would be helpful to change the narrative to why are people worshipping a myth? Trying to find a date some guy that never existed was born is futile.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Most critical scholars would accept that there was a historical Jesus, without believing in miracles etc. This is just about looking at the assumptions behind ancient sources and when they thought he was born. I've also explained that they are literary accounts and not to be taken as accurate sources of dating.

[@fatbottombracket]

@@TabletsAndTemples I appreciate the reply. In my research I came across information about the creation of our current calendar and how it was retroactively ‘made up’ to include that birth to be sometime between the chronology in the book of Matthew and Luke. If my memory serves correctly I believe the Catholics had a role in this calendar during the Middle Ages. Cheers 🍻

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Yes, the current calendar is based on the work of the 4th century figure Diogenes. Unfortunately we don't know how he reached his conclusions, but he was the 1st person to make a calendar placing Jesus birth as year 1. But as you say it wasn't adopted until much much later. I actually have a whole video on it, it's our BC/AD video.