It seems like everything you read that touches on the birth of Jesus says he was born in 4 B.C.E. or earlier. It’s the same on television, they all say the same thing, 4 B.C.E. If you get hold of an older Bible, some of them have the date of Genesis chapter one as 4004 B.C. because that is the date that Archbishop Ussher, back in the early 1600s, decided the universe was created.
To be more precise, Ussher, Primate of all Ireland, believed that the physical cosmos was created on October 23, 4004 B.C. of the Julian Calendar. Contrary to common belief, he did not seem to speculate on the time of day.
But why did he believe everything was made by God on that date? I’ll let the Archbishop explain it in his own words in the next two paragraphs. (You might want to skip the next two paragraphs. In fact, if I were you, I would.)For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the beginning of the world, and the number of years before that backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years, which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.
We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and every four year six. And I have observed by the continued succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced. -From Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. (I think.)
Most scholars have a simpler explanation. They suggest that Ussher set creation 4000 years before the date of the birth of Jesus, and he believed that took place in 4 B.C. But where did that date come from? Like I suspect most folks do, I assumed that the date came from the ancient records. The Romans were so organzied. Didn't they keep records of everything? I am sure they did. The problem is that records disappear over time. Evidently, the historians have no records of Herod's death even though he was a really important guy at the time. They have no record of when he died.
But didn't the Bible give rather detailed information as to when Jesus was born? Luke, who wrote an account of the life of Jesus, liked to give facts. As Luke explains: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. The problem is squaring this with known history.
The question I had was why do they claim that Jesus was born at the latest in 4 B.C.E.? You see this date has a problem, because Luke says Jesus started his ministry when he was "about thirty years old". Now it is pretty generally accepted that Jesus commenced his ministry about 29 C.E. You can see the problem. If Jesus was thirty in 29 C.E., he could not be born in 4 B.C.E., let alone anywhere up to two years earlier than that. It is always amazing how many good churchgoers accept secular chronology over the Bible. That might be understandable if the secular chronology were well founded, but often the records are at best fragmentary with chunks missing. So when I read that when a churchman was asked how he could reconcile Luke's statement that Jesus started his ministry when he was about thirty with the claim that Jesus must have been about 34 or 35, he said that "35 is about thirty". NO-it-is-not. My opinion is that's a lame statement if there ever was one. Thirty-five is about 35, not thirty.
Anyway, what I kept reading was that Jesus could not have been born later than 4 B.C.E., because Herod died in 4 B.C.E., but did he? What I needed to find out is why they say Herod died in that year. Where are the records? In truth, there are none. So how do the scholars, going all the way back to Ussher come up with that date? That is what I wondered.
Well it turns out that the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived in the First Century, associates Herod's death with a lunar eclipse. There was a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C.E. and that associated with some questionable facts causes some scholars to come up with the date of 4 B.C.E. for Herod's death. The problem is that there were three other total lunar eclipses around that date, two in 5 B.C.E., and one in 1 B.C.E. You will notice that the last one fits with Bible chronology, and agrees with what Luke said. Their reason for ignoring the date that fits with the Bible, and choosing the earlier date is quite flimsy. So many religious people choose to accept the unsupported word of a source outside of the Bible than accecpt the Bible. It's really quite odd.
Now the next part is a wee bit confusing. When the idea of numbering the years began, A.D. 1 was the first year, A.D. 2 was the second year. So too with the B.C. years. Notice how it worked in the following image:
I made up this illustration because counting dates from BC to AD tends to drive folks crazy. Notice that if Jesus was born near the end of 2 B.C., how old would he be on his birthday in A.D. 4?
Notice that he would be five years old. Go another 25 years, to when Jesus would be about thirty years old. If you add 25 years to A,D, 4 you end up at the same time of year in A.D. 29.
Now, the Magi did not visit Jesus when he was in the manger, despite what greeting card illustrators suggest. When they visited him he was a small child living in a house. Because of the date the Magi gave to Herod, the king had the boy babies under two murdered. This means that Jesus must have been over one year, but less than two. Herod probably allowed himself some latitude. If Herod died in 1 B.C.E., that would agree with Jesus being born in the latter part of 2 B.C.E., although not in December, because he wasn't born in the winter.
If that is confusing, which I think it is, you might want to work it out on a piece of paper.
But the point is that Jesus was not born in 4 B.C.E., but in 2 B.C.E., and he commenced his ministry at the age of about thirty in A.D. 29. If you really look at the facts and figures closely, you will see that without a doubt the people that claim Jesus was born in 6 to 4 B.C.E. are flat out wrong.
Email: contact@ericaitken.com
© Copyright 2015 Eric Aitken All rights reserved.
