i found this on google keep you too busy!
.........................................................................................
The previous article discussed the year of Jesus's death in 33 AD,
it seems appropriate to also discuss the year of his birth. There is
no direct statement about that year, but it can be approximately found
given the gospel accounts, and known history of that time.
In order to find the year of Jesus's birth, other than to say:
"Well, uhm... it's year 0, look at the calendar", you have to work
backwards from the year of Jesus's death. The year of Jesus's death
is a known year, 33 AD (see the previous article). From there,
Luke made mention of Jesus's age just prior to the start of his
three and half year ministry:
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph...
So right here, you can look at his death in 33 AD, subtract off
the three and a half year ministry, and his "began to be about thirty"
which you might read as being nearly 30 at that time, 29.5 ?, to
then claim:
Jesus's birth year = 33 - 3.5 - 29.5 = 0
As the recording of dates in time jump from 1 AD back to 1 BC over
1 year, that says that Jesus had to have been born in 1 BC, or:
Jesus's birth year = 33 AD - 3.5 - 29.5 - 1 year jump = 1 BC
But is that all there is to it?
There are some that point out that there is a conflict when 1 BC
is considered to be Jesus's birth date. They point out this verse
as a basis to reject 1 BC:
Mat 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days
of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from the east
to Jerusalem,
The verses continue from there, where they say that Herod learned
that Jesus would be eventually considered a "King", and that upset
him to where he ordered the killing of all newborns in Bethlehem
so as to not allow Jesus to survive and become a "King".
Many then point to Herod the Great as the king at that time and
say that he was dead by 4 BC, dead by the time Jesus was born in
1 BC, so how could the verse be right in claiming Herod as king,
and Jesus being born in or near 1 BC? Clearly, either Luke was
wrong about Jesus's age at the time of his ministry, or Matthew
was wrong about Herod. How could the accounts be correct?
Simple: it wasn't Herod the Great in the Matthew 2:1 verse.
Checking the historical accounts, you find that Herod the Great
was near 70 years old by the time he died in 4 BC. Being 70 and
then dead for 3 years prior to 1 BC, Herod the Great wouldn't
have cared beans about some future king as a baby. So no, it's
not Herod the Great Matthew was talking about in the verse above.
Herod the Great did though have 3 sons that were made joint kings
of the region:
Herod Archelaus: ruled Judaea, Samaria, and Idumea
Herod Antipas: ruled Galilee and Perea (and later had John beheaded)
Herod Phillip: ruled lands east of Jordan
Herod Archelaus ruled from 4 BC to 6 AD, he had direct control
over Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth, and he is the one
mentioned a few verses down in Matthew:
Mat 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea
in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
there: nevertheless, being commanded by God in a
dream, he returned into the parts of Galilee.
See Archelaus?
That's Herod Archelaus, the king of Judaea, Sumaria, and Idumea
at the time that the order went out to kill the newborns in
Bethlehem.
Herod Archelaus was 18 years old in 4 BC, and was the principal
heir of his father's kingdom. He was described as being cruel and
tyrannical, a hypocrite and a plotter. He killed thousands and
his reign ended in 6 AD. There is little doubt that he would have
been the one to give the order to kill all newborns in Bethlehem.
Herod Anchelaus was eventually summoned to Rome, deprived of his
crown, and banished to Vienne in Gaul.
Nothing is known about Archelaus after he was banished in 6 AD.
Archelaus's rule is seen as a dark point in Israel's history.
His rule started with deaths of thousands and continued on to
where he was eventually banished 9 years later. He was banished
because the people he ruled, they were able to make known to
Caesar the awful things Archelaus did.
Notice: They didn't banish Herod the Great, they banished his son,
Herod Archelaus who was ruling at the time the command
was given to kill all newborns in Bethlehem.
It's not likely that Herod the Great was the Herod described to
have given the order to kill the newborns in Bethlehem. Both the
timing, and the banishment aspects confirm that Herod the Great
could not have been the one, but instead, it was Herod Archelaus.
Herod Archelaus having killed thousands, hated for 9 years, then
banished to Vienne in Gaul, a region where Rome was losing control
after 5 AD, it is very likely, that Archelaus was later tracked
down by relatives of those he killed and destroyed over his 9 year
rule, and was probably assassinated shortly after arriving in Gaul.
In the verse above, Joseph had heard that Archelaus ruled in the
place of his father, so even though Archelaus was no longer ruling
after 6 AD, Joseph feared to return because someone else would
have been taking over in his place. The family of Herod the Great,
his sons had been ruling, so Joseph feared to go back.
The angel told Joseph that Herod Archelaus was dead, as was anyone
else remaining that wanted to kill Jesus:
Mat 2:19 But when Herod (Archelaus) was dead, behold, an angel
of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead
which sought the young child's life.
Herod Archelaus was out of power after 6 AD and was no longer in
Israel. He was banished to Vienne in Gaul and was probably assassinated
soon after arriving.
Given Joseph being told to go back, when would Archelaus had
to have died?
Well, Jesus was said to be 12 years old when he stayed behind at
the temple during Passover, and that his family went there every
year after returning:
Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast
of the Passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem
after the custom of the feast.
Assuming that Jesus went to the feast for at least 2 years after
returning:
12 AD - 2 = 10 AD (or earlier)
Herod Archelaus died between 6 AD when he was banished, and 10 AD.
Again, I'd estimate that those he ruled, tracked him down soon
after he was banished (2 years ?), and assassinated him.
So far, the accounts look to match well with recorded history
and probable events not yet found in recorded history.
So, that's gotta be all there is to the 1 BC birth date, right?
Nope.
There is also this issue:
Lu 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a
decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should
be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor
of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is
called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David🙂
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with
child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were
accomplished that she should be delivered.
The first item that conflicts there is, there is no record backing
up a tax at the time. Second of all, Cyrenius was not a direct
governer of Syria at the time.
What's wrong is that the verses have been mistranslated. The verses
actually make sense when translated as:
Lu 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a
decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should
be registered.
2 (The same registration was a primary task when Cyrenius
was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be registered, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is
called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David🙂
5 To be registered with Mary his espoused wife, being great with
child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were
accomplished that she should be delivered.
What Luke is saying is, that even though Cyrenius was not yet
the governor of Syria, another similar registration occurred at
that time... but under someone else.
History tends to back up this view.
When Herod Archelaus inherited his kingdom, the kingdom was NOT
split up yet, it was still as it was when it was being ruled by
Herod the Great, nothing had changed other than Herod the Great
had died. When Cyrenius initiated a registration in 6 AD, the kingdom
was at that time, already split up, three different rulers.
Luke looks to be pointing out that it was not so much Cyrenius
that was doing the registration, but that it was similar to the
registration Cyrenius undertook when he was governor of Syria,
with three major rulers, and constraints of who would be taxed
in what regions under their specific tetrarch.
You see, before, it was all one kingdom ruled by Herod the Great
and they all contributed to that. After the regions were split up,
it all changed, they had to redo the taxation to make the various
regions accountable to their specific tetrarch. The people then
had ...
04 Apr '12 10:12
Gospel of Matthew and Luke contradiction
Back to Top