GaryP

Over the years, I had read that Jesus was really born about 4 BCE. Then the last few years, that it was more likely 6 BCE or a little earlier.

I never figured out why the date had changed until I started to see about 10 years ago, that King Herod died in 4 BCE. Therfore, 4 BCE would have been too late to fit the Bible story.

It seemed as if everyone was changing the story just so Christians would have a reason to continue to believe the Bible story.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Thanks.

GunnerJ

I think if you removed the "when" from your title, you'd have a much better question.

Cutter

Like Rimstalker said, or rather implied, there's a big question mark as to whether JC even existed.

Arrowman

I don't think it's as bad as that. If you assume that Jesus did exist (and yes, that can be debated), I think it's quite legitimate to fine-tune the date of his birth by a couple of years based on surrounding events. Of course, in doing so you are now layering on a second assumption - that Herod was alive at the time of Jesus' birth (ie that the story of Herod killing all the first borns etc is for real or at least based on real events).

It's just a matter of saying "If Jesus was real (whether liar, lord or lunatic), then he must have been born somewhere around 10-4 BCE."

Bree

I was always told (and remember this is from a Fundie Baptist crazy-head minster) that Jesus was born in 7BC because that was the year the Chinese saw some kind of bright star in the East.

Wow. I can't believe I kept a straight face while typing that.

GaryP

I certainly am not sure if he was born, too.

My point is that Christians seem to be able to turn any event or argument for the non-existence of Jesus around to rationalize their belief.

And is there doubt that Herod lived? I always thought that he was pretty well established as an historical figure.

Pantera

You're getting the cart before the horse here. Assuming Matthew's account is correct (a big assumption, but let's leave that for the moment), the only information it gives on the date of Jesus' birth is that it was a couple of years before Herod died. Therefore any change to the dating of Herod's death also affects the dating of Jesus' birth.

I've seen Herod's death variously dated as 2 BC and 4 BC. I'm not familiar with the particular issues surrounding this question, but in general assigning exact dates to events in ancient history is frequenntly problematic because historians of the time often didn't see exact dates as a particularly important detail - histories are full of phrases like "around this time...", and even when dates are given it is frequently in the form of "In the year that X and Y were consuls and Z was governor..." - which is only useful if you already know when X and Y were consuls and Z was governor. So it's quite possible that there is uncertainty about the date of Herod's death, and any uncertainbty there is also translated into uncertainty about the date of Jesus' birth.

NOGO

GaryP

Matthew implies that Herod the Great was still alive when Jesus was born.

Luke on the other hand says that Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Luke 2
1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

It is rather difficult to reconcile the two because Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE (6 AD) while Herod died in 4 BCE.

Also since cesuses took place every 14 years you can guess 7-8 BC but then Quirinius was governor of Syria.

So you have a choice

1) 4 BC
2) 6 AD
3) 7-8 BC
4) Somewhere around that time
5) All myth

GaryP

pantera and NOGO--

Thanks for the info.