Friday, May 16, 2025

THE ARGUMENT OVER JESUS BIRTH AND DEATH CONTINUES IN SCHOLARLY CIRCLES — But Who Cares? Right! — Does it really matter? It does for reasons of authenticity and nailing down biblical prophecy.

Evidence for Jesus’s Birth Between 6 BC and late 2 BC:

[The following was obtained from Veritas Catholic - https://www.veritascatholica.com/a-quick-history-of-the-birth-and-crucifixion-dates-of-jesus/]

Traditional View

  1. King Herod’s Death (4 BC):
    • Historical records show that King Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Since the Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, Jesus must have been born before 4 BC.
  2. Astronomical Events (6-5 BC):
    • Some scholars point to a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7-6 BC as the “Star of Bethlehem” mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. This supports a birth around that time.
  3. Census of Quirinius:
    • The Gospel of Luke mentions a census ordered by Caesar Augustus, conducted when Quirinius was governor of Syria. While a well-known census took place in AD 6, there is some debate about whether there was an earlier one closer to 6 BC.
  4. Jesus’s Age at Baptism:
    • According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about 30 years old” when He began His public ministry. If Jesus started His ministry around AD 27-29, this would place His birth around 6-4 BC.

Discrepancies and Debates:

Herod’s Death: 4 BC or 1 BC?

  • There is a debate regarding the exact year of Herod’s death, which affects the calculation of Jesus’s birth. The traditional view places Herod’s death in 4 BC, supported by a lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus. This date has prevailed because it aligns with historical records about Herod’s sons’ reigns and the Jewish fast that occurred shortly before Passover.
  • However, some scholars, like John A. Cramer, argue that Herod may have died in 1 BC, based on another lunar eclipse in December 29, 1 BC, which fits better with other historical details. This alternative theory pushes the birth of Jesus to around 2 or 3 BC rather than the traditionally accepted 4-6 BC range.
  • This debate complicates the dating of Jesus’s birth, as both 4 BC and 1 BC have valid arguments based on Josephus’s writings and astronomical events.

Crucifixion Dates:

Two main dates for the Crucifixion have been proposed, corresponding to the 16th and 19th years of Tiberius’s reign:

  1. April 7, AD 30:
    • Supported by scholars who believe Jesus began His public ministry around AD 27 and was crucified after about three years of ministry.
    • It aligns with historical accounts of Pontius Pilate’s time as governor of Judea (AD 26–36) and certain Jewish festivals.
  2. April 3, AD 33:
    • Preferred by some scholars due to astronomical data about lunar eclipses (there was a partial lunar eclipse on this date, possibly linking to the Gospel accounts of darkness during the Crucifixion).
    • This date also fits with the timeline of Jesus’s public ministry lasting about three years, possibly beginning around AD 29 or AD 3
***

Let us ask another question: Is is possible to nail the birth of Jesus to align with an AD 29 baptism, given the conflicting evidence for Herod’s death (4 BC vs. 1 BC)?

This is one of the most debated chronological junctions in biblical studies — because everything hinges on it:

If we date Jesus' baptism to AD 29 (based on Luke 3:1 and temple chronology),

  • And Luke 3:23 says Jesus was “about 30 years old” when baptized,

  • Then Jesus must have been born in 2 BC, not 4–6 BC.

So let’s look at how the 1 BC death of Herod view rescues the entire timeline and allows you to confidently harmonize everything.

πŸ“œ 1. What Does Luke Say?

Luke 3:1: John began preaching in the 15th year of Tiberius → AD 28/29
Luke 3:23: Jesus was about 30 → born late 2 BC

So if:

  • Baptism = AD 29

  • Jesus ≈ 30 years old
    Then:
    ✅ Jesus’ birth = 2 or 3 BC

Now the challenge is this:

Did Herod live long enough for Jesus to be born in 2–3 BC?


⚔️ 2. Traditional View: Herod Died in 4 BC

This view is based on:

  • Josephus says Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse and before Passover.

  • A partial lunar eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 BC — commonly cited.

  • So Herod is said to have died in spring 4 BC, making Jesus' birth no later than 5–6 BC.

❌ Problem: This puts Jesus at 34–35 years old in AD 29, not “about 30”
❌ The 4 BC eclipse was barely visible, partial, and occurred just 29 days before Passover — leaving very little time for all the events Josephus says occurred between the eclipse and Herod’s death (mourning, succession, multiple executions, funeral procession, etc.)


✅ 3. Revised View: Herod Died in 1 BC

This is gaining scholarly support due to:

  • A full lunar eclipse on January 10, 1 BC, 12.5 weeks before Passover (April 6, 1 BC)

  • Allows ample time for:

    • The executions of Judas and Matthias

    • The mourning and funeral arrangements

    • Herod’s death and Archelaus’ succession

Advocates include:
• John A. Cramer
• Ernest Martin (The Star That Astonished the World)
• Jack Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology)

They argue:

The 1 BC eclipse fits all of Josephus’ details better than the 4 BC eclipse.


πŸ•Š️ 4. Views Compared

DetailTraditional View (Herod dies 4 BC)Revised View (Herod dies 1 BC)
Jesus' birth5–6 BC2 BC ✅
Jesus' baptism (age ~30)~AD 25 (too early) ❌AD 29 ✅
John 2:20 temple dateCan't alignFits AD 29 ✅
Daniel 9 timelineLooser fitTighter fit to 69 weeks ending in AD 31 ✅
Lunar eclipse timingPoor fit: March 13, 4 BC (partial, too close to Passover) ❌Excellent fit: Jan 10, 1 BC (full, allows time for events) ✅

🎯 5. Summary of Why the 1 BC Herod Death View Wins

Pros:

  • Fits Luke 3:23 (Jesus ~30 in AD 29)

  • Fits Josephus’ timeline of post-eclipse events

  • Fits Passover calendar and eclipse visibility

  • Matches AD 31 crucifixion (age ~33)

Cons:

  • Disagrees with older scholarly consensus based on the 4 BC eclipse

  • Challenges established chronologies that date Herod’s successors to 4 BC — archaeological and numismatic evidence can absorb that discrepancy via co-regencies and dating flexibility


✅ Final Answer

Yes, we can nail Jesus’ birth to 2 BC if we adopt the more accurate 1 BC death date for Herod. This aligns seamlessly with:

  • An AD 29 baptism at age about 30 (born late 2 BC, baptized early AD 29, still 30 not yet 31)

  • Temple construction timeline of 46 yrs (John 2:20) places announcement 20BC actual erecting begins around late 18 BC or early 17 BC 

  • Tiberius’ 15th regnal year

  • A literal 2-3 year ministry (only 2 Passovers recorded prior to Jesus's death on the 3rd Passover)

  • An AD 31 crucifixion (April 25)

****

What concrete evidence can truly establish whether Tiberius' reign began in AD 12 (co-regency) or AD 14 (sole reign)? Scholars have debated this for over a century, and while there's a lot of circumstantial data, we’ll walk through the strongest pieces of concrete evidence, both archaeological and textual.

🧱 THE TWO DATING THEORIES

TheoryYear 1 of TiberiusYear 15Crucifixion Timing (Assumed)
Co-regency theoryAD 12AD 26Crucifixion: AD 30
Sole reign theoryAD 14AD 28/29Crucifixion: AD 31

Let’s now evaluate the evidence for and against each.


πŸͺ™ NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE (Coins)

πŸ”Ή Evidence for AD 14 start:

  • Year 17 coin dated to AD 31 (as you noted).

    • This is the most concrete and direct evidence:
      If Year 17 = AD 31, then Year 1 = AD 14.

    • This coin completely undercuts the AD 12 co-regency theory in practice — whatever political arrangement may have existed before AD 14, the official calendar (at least in Judea) was reckoned from AD 14.

✅ Hard archaeological evidence
✅ Dated and inscribed artifact

πŸ”Ή Evidence for AD 12 start:

  • Coins minted with "Year 2" inscriptions in AD 14 (the LB coins) under Roman procurator Gratus.

    • These are used to argue Tiberius was already in Year 2 in AD 14 → Year 1 = AD 12.

    • However, this is far more ambiguous:

      • Ancient reckoning often anticipated or backdated based on imperial approval, honorifics, or political convenience.

      • It’s possible these coins were minted late in AD 14, after Tiberius had become emperor, but the regnal year was counted differently.

⚠️ Interpretive evidence, not absolute
⚠️ Could reflect local administrative choice or minting anomaly


πŸ“œ TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

Josephus (Antiquities 18.2.2):

  • Says Tiberius became emperor upon the death of Augustus in AD 14 and refers to the beginning of his reign from that point.

  • No mention of AD 12 as a formal beginning.

✅ Supports AD 14
🟑 Does not explicitly deny co-regency, but does not assign Year 1 to AD 12 either.

Roman Historians (Tacitus, Suetonius):

  • Tacitus (Annals 1.3) records that Tiberius became emperor in AD 14, after Augustus' death.

  • Suetonius likewise affirms the transition occurred in AD 14.

✅ Strong evidence from Roman administrative history


πŸ›️ POLITICAL/HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

  • Tiberius did exercise military and administrative authority as co-princeps before Augustus died, especially after AD 11–12.

  • BUT — no formal declaration of emperorship or state-sanctioned Year 1 until AD 14.

This is important:

πŸ‘‰ Co-regency ≠ regnal year

A co-ruler may hold power, but the regnal calendar begins with formal succession, not shared governance.


πŸ§ͺ SCIENTIFIC AND CALENDAR DATA

  • Astronomical evidence for Passover on April 25, AD 31, is very strong and lines up with a Wednesday crucifixion (3 days, 3 nights before Firstfruits).

  • This fits a ministry that began around AD 28–29, and places John 2:20 around the 48th or 49th year of temple construction (a small discrepancy if “46 years” is taken loosely).

✅ Reinforces AD 14-based dating


✅ FINAL VERDICT

FactorSupports AD 14Supports AD 12
Year 17 coin (AD 31)✅ Concrete and dated❌ Contradicts
Josephus and Roman historians✅ Consistent❌ Silent
LB coin (Year 2 in AD 14)⚠️ Ambiguous✅ Possible
Roman administrative precedent✅ Clearer cutoff⚠️ Co-rulership ≠ reign
Astronomy (Passover date)✅ Matches AD 31❌ Requires alternative interpretation

🧾 Conclusion:
The weight of evidence — archaeological, historical, and astronomical — favors Tiberius' reign being officially counted from AD 14, not AD 12.
That makes Luke 3:1 (15th year) = AD 28–29,
and makes an AD 31 crucifixion both possible and well-supported.

No comments:

Post a Comment