Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse
Letters to the Editor debate dates of Herod’s death and Jesus’ birth
Giotto, Adoration of the Magi, c. 1306.
Both Luke and Matthew mention Jesus’ birth as occurring during Herod’s reign (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Josephus relates Herod’s death to a lunar eclipse. This is generally regarded as a reference to a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. Therefore it is often said that Jesus was born in 4 B.C.
But physics professor John A. Cramer, in a letter to BAR, has pointed out that there was another lunar eclipse visible in Judea—in fact, two—in 1 B.C., which would place Herod’s death—and Jesus’ birth—at the turn of the era. Below, read letters published in the Q&C section of BAR debating the dates of Herod’s death, Jesus’ birth and to which lunar eclipse Josephus was referring.
When Was Jesus Born?
Let me add a footnote to Suzanne Singer’s report on the final journey of Herod the Great (Strata, BAR, March/April 2013): She gives the standard date of his death as 4 B.C. [Jesus’ birth is often dated to 4 B.C. based on the fact that both Luke and Matthew associate Jesus’ birth with Herod’s reign—Ed.] Readers may be interested to learn there is reason to reconsider the date of Herod’s death.
This date is based on Josephus’s remark in Antiquities 17.6.4 that there was a lunar eclipse shortly before Herod died. This is traditionally ascribed to the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.
Unfortunately, this eclipse was visible only very late that night in Judea and was additionally a minor and only partial eclipse.
There were no lunar eclipses visible in Judea thereafter until two occurred in the year 1 B.C. Of these two, the one on December 29, just two days before the change of eras, gets my vote since it was the one most likely to be seen and remembered. That then dates the death of Herod the Great into the first year of the current era, four years after the usual date.
Perhaps the much-maligned monk who calculated the change of era was not quite so far off as has been supposed.
John A. Cramer
Professor of Physics
Oglethorpe University
Atlanta, Georgia
FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.
When Was Jesus Born? When Did Herod Die?
Q&C, BAR, January/February 2014
Professor John A. Cramer argues that Herod the Great most likely died shortly after the lunar eclipse of December 29, 1 B.C., rather than that of March 13, 4 B.C., which, as Cramer points out, is the eclipse traditionally associated with Josephus’s description in Jewish Antiquities 17.6.4 (Queries & Comments, “When Was Jesus Born?” BAR, July/August 2013) and which is used as a basis to reckon Jesus’ birth shortly before 4 B.C. Professor Cramer’s argument was made in the 19th century by scholars such as Édouard Caspari and Florian Riess.
There are three principal reasons why the 4 B.C. date has prevailed over 1 B.C. These reasons were articulated by Emil Schürer in A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, also published in the 19th century. First, Josephus informs us that Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiquities 17.9.3, The Jewish War 2.1.3), making a lunar eclipse in March (the time of the 4 B.C. eclipse) much more likely than one in December.
Second, Josephus writes that Herod reigned for 37 years from the time of his appointment in 40 B.C. and 34 years from his conquest of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. (Antiquities 17.8.1, War 1.33.8). Using so-called inclusive counting, this, too, places Herod’s death in 4 B.C.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Third, we know that the reign over Samaria and Judea of Herod’s son and successor Archelaus began in 4 B.C., based on the fact that he was deposed by Caesar in A.U.C. (Anno Urbis Conditae [in the year the city was founded]) 759, or A.D. 6, in the tenth year of his reign (Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.27.6; Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.2). Counting backward his reign began in 4 B.C. In addition, from Herod the Great’s son and successor Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee until 39 B.C., who ordered the execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29) and who had a supporting role in Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:7–12), we have coins that make reference to the 43rd year of his rule, placing its beginning in 4 B.C. at the latest (see Morten Hørning Jensen, “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew,” BAR, September/October 2012).
Thus, Schürer concluded that “Herod died at Jericho in B.C. 4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.”
Jeroen H.C. Tempelman
New York, New York
John A. Cramer responds:
Trying to date the death of Herod the Great is attended by considerable uncertainty, and I do not mean to claim I know the right answer. Mr. Tempelman does a good job of pointing out arguments in favor of a 4 B.C. date following the arguments advanced long ago by Emil Schürer. The difficulty is that we have a fair amount of information, but it is equivocal.
The key information comes, of course, from Josephus who brackets the death by “a fast” and the Passover. He says that on the night of the fast there was a lunar eclipse—the only eclipse mentioned in the entire corpus of his work. Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 15th day of the first month (March or April) of the religious calendar. Josephus does not indicate when within that time interval the death occurred.
Only four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C., March 12–13, 4 B.C., January 10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C. The first eclipse fits Yom Kippur, almost too early, but possible. It was a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, but it is widely regarded as too early to fit other information on the date. The favorite 4 B.C. eclipse seems too far from Yom Kippur and much too close to Passover. This was a partial eclipse that commenced after midnight. It hardly seems a candidate for being remembered and noted by Josephus. The 1 B.C. dates require either that the fast was not Yom Kippur or that the calendar was rejiggered for some reason. The January 10 eclipse was total but commenced shortly before midnight on a winter night. Lastly, in the December 29 eclipse the moon rose at 53 percent eclipse and its most visible aspect was over by 6 p.m. It is the most likely of the four to have been noted and commented on.
None of the four candidates fits perfectly to all the requirements. I like the earliest and the latest of them as the most likely. The most often preferred candidate, the 4 B.C. eclipse, is, in my view, far and away the least likely one.
A Different Fast
John Cramer responds to Mr. Tempelman’s letter to the editor (“Queries and Comments,” BAR, January/February 2014) that Herod’s death occurred between a “fast” and Passover. Mr. Cramer acknowledges that the fast of Yom Kippur fits the eclipse but doesn’t fit the time frame of occurring near Passover. There is, however, another fast that occurs exactly one month before Passover: the Fast of Esther! The day before Purim is a fast day commemorating Queen Esther’s command for all Jews to fast before she approached the king. Purim fell on March 12–13, 4 B.C. So there was an eclipse and a fast on March 12–13, 4 B.C., one month before Passover, which would fit Josephus’s statement bracketing Herod’s death by a fast and Passover.
Suzanne Nadaf
Brooklyn, New York
John A. Cramer responds:
This suggestion seems plausible and, if I recall correctly, someone has already raised it. The consensus, if such exists, seems, however, to be that the fast really should be the fast of Yom Kippur, but resolving that issue requires expertise to which I make no claim. Too many possibilities and too little hard information probably leave the precise date forever open.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
When Did Herod Die? And When Was Jesus Born?
Q&C, BAR, September/October 2014
Regarding the date of the death of Herod the Great, the question of which lunar eclipse and which Jewish fast the historian Josephus was referring to must be considered in light of other data that Josephus reported. Professor John Cramer’s suggestion that an eclipse in 1 B.C.E. would place Herod’s death in that year, rather than the generally accepted 4 B.C.E., cannot be reconciled with other historical facts recorded by Josephus.
As is well known, Herod’s son Archelaus succeeded him as the ruler of Judea, as reported by Josephus (Antiquities 8:459). Josephus also recorded that Archelaus reigned over Judea and Samaria for ten years, and that in his tenth year, due to complaints against him from both Jews and Samaritans, he was deposed by Caesar Augustus and banished to Vienna (Antiquities 8:531). Quirinius, the legate or governor of Syria, was assigned by the emperor to travel to Jerusalem and liquidate the estate of Archelaus, as well as to conduct a registration of persons and property in Archelaus’s former realm. This occurred immediately after Archelaus was deposed and was specifically dated by Josephus to the 37th year after Caesar’s victory over Mark Anthony at Actium (Antiquities 9:23). The Battle of Actium is a well-known event in Roman history that took place in the Ionian Sea off the shore of Greece on September 2 of the year 31 B.C.E. Counting 37 years forward from 31 B.C.E. yields a date of 6 C.E. for the tenth year of Archelaus, at which time he was deposed and Quirinus came to Judea. And counting back ten years from that event yields a date of 4 B.C.E. for the year in which Herod died. (The beginning and ending years are both included in this count, since regnal years for both Augustus and the Herodians were so figured.)
These reports, and the chronology derived from them, provide compelling evidence for the generally accepted date of Herod’s death in the spring of 4 B.C.E., shortly after the lunar eclipse of March 13, regardless of the fact that eclipses also occurred in other years.
Jeffrey R. Chadwick
Jerusalem Center Professor of Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah
Read Lawrence Mykytiuk’s BAR article “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” >>
There’s More Evidence from Josephus
Q&C, BAR, January/February 2015
In the letter to the editor in BAR, September/October 2014, Jeffrey Chadwick gives the argument for the death of Herod in 4 B.C. [used for determining the date of Jesus’ birth]. For over a century, this has been part of the standard reasoning for the 4 B.C. of Jesus’ birth. However, it does not come to grips with all of the data from Josephus. Elsewhere I have written about this. [An excerpt by Professor Steinmann can be read below.—Ed.]
One cannot simply and positively assert that a few short statements by Josephus about the lengths of reigns of his sons can be used to prove that Herod died in 4 B.C. Instead, one needs critically to sift through all of the evidence embedded in Josephus’s discussion as well as evidence external to Josephus to make a case for the year of Herod’s death.
Andrew Steinmann
Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew
University Marshal
Concordia University Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Read an excerpt from Andrew E. Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 235–238 [footnotes removed]; see also his article “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009), pp. 1–29.
Originally Herod had named his son Antipater to be his heir and had groomed Antipater to take over upon his death. However, a little over two years before Herod’s death Antipater had his uncle, Herod’s younger brother Pheroras murdered. Pheroras had been tetrarch of Galilee under Herod. Antipater’s plot was discovered, and Archelaus was named Herod’s successor in place of Antipater. Seven months passed before Antipater, who was in Rome, was informed that he had been charged with murder. Late in the next year he would be placed on trial before Varus, governor of Syria. Eventually Herod received permission from Rome to execute Antipater. During his last year Herod wrote a will disinheriting Archelaus and granting the kingdom to Antipas. In a later will, however, he once again left the kingdom to Archelaus. Following his death his kingdom would eventually be split into three parts among Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.
Josephus is careful to note that during his last year Herod was forbidden by Augustus from naming his sons as his successors. However, in several passages Josephus also notes that Herod bestowed royalty and its honors on his sons. At Antipater’s trial Josephus quotes Herod as testifying that he had yielded up royal authority to Antipater. He also quotes Antipater claiming that he was already a king because Herod had made him a king.
When Archelaus replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir apparent some two years before Herod’s death, Antipater may have been given the same prerogatives as Archelaus had previously enjoyed. After Herod’s death Archelaus went to Rome to have his authority confirmed by Augustus. His enemies charged him with seemingly contradictory indictments: that Archelaus had already exercised royal authority for some time and that Herod did not appoint Archelaus as his heir until he was demented and dying. These are not as contradictory as they seem, however. Herod initially named Archelaus his heir, and at this point Archelaus may have assumed royal authority under his father. Then Herod revoked his will, naming Antipas his heir. Ultimately, when he was ill and dying, Herod once again named Archelaus his heir. Thus, Archelaus may not have legally been king until after Herod’s death in early 1 B.C., but may have chosen to reckon his reign from a little over two years earlier in late 4 B.C. when he first replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir.
Since Antipas would eventually rule Galilee, it is entirely possible that under Herod he already had been given jurisdiction over Galilee in the wake of Pheroras’ death. This may explain why Herod briefly named Antipas as his heir in the year before his death. Since Antipas may have assumed the jurisdiction over Galilee upon Pheroras’ death sometime in 4 B.C., like Archelaus, he also may have reckoned his reign from that time, even though he was not officially named tetrarch of Galilee by the Romans until after Herod’s death.
Philip also appears to have exercised a measure of royal authority before Herod’s death in 1 B.C. Philip refounded the cities of Julias and Caesarea Philippi (Paneas). Julias was apparently named after Augustus’ daughter, who was arrested for adultery and treason in 2 B.C. Apparently Julias was refounded before that date. As for Caesarea Philippi, the date of its refounding was used to date an era, and the first year of the era was 3 B.C. Apparently Philip chose to antedate his reign to 4 B.C., which apparently was the time when Herod first entrusted him with supervision of Gaulanitis.
Additional support for Philip having been officially appointed tetrarch after the death of his father in 1 B.C. may be found in numismatics. A number of coins issued by Philip during his reign are known. The earliest bear the date “year 5,” which would correspond to A.D. 1. This fits well with Philip serving as administrator under his father from 4–1 B.C. He counted those as the first four years of his reign, but since he was not officially recognized by Rome as an independent client ruler, he had no authority to issue coins during those years. However, he was in position to issue coinage soon after being named tetrarch sometime in 1 B.C., and the first coins appear the next year, A.D. 1, antedating his reign to 4 B.C. While the numismatic evidence is not conclusive proof of Herod’s death in 1 B.C., it is highly suggestive.
Given the explicit statements of Josephus about the authority and honor Herod had granted his sons during the last years of his life, we can understand why all three of his successors decided to antedate their reigns to the time when they were granted a measure of royal authority while their father was still alive. Although they were not officially recognized by Rome as ethnarch or tetrarchs until after Herod’s death, they nevertheless appear to have reckoned their reigns from about 4 B.C.
This article was first published in Bible History Daily on January 7, 2015.
FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Eliezer:
Sanhedrin Chapter XI.:
The same [Antonius; three possibilities] questioned again the same [Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nassi 135-219 C.E.]: At what time does the soul come into the body–at the moment of conception, or at the time the embryo is already formed? And the answer was: When it is already formed. Said Antoninus to him: Is it possible that a piece of flesh shall keep three days or more without being salted, and it shall not become stinking? And therefore it must be said: At conception. Said Rabbi: This teaching I accepted from Antoninus, and a support to him is to be found in [Job, x. 12]: “And thy providence watched over my spirit.”
Antoninus questioned Rabbi again: At what time does the evil spirit reach man? At the time the embryo is formed, when it comes out from the womb? And he was answered: At the time it is formed. Rejoined Antoninus: If so, the embryo would kick the entrails of the mother and go out; therefore it must be from the time it comes out. And Rabbi said: This teaching I received from Antoninus, and he is supported by Gen. iv. 7: “Sin lieth at the door.”
Which is proof positive that this was a subject of discussion and debate about the time of Yeshua. From a legal point of view, an embryo was not yet a person, for the purposes of inheritance. But this does not preclude the recognition that the embryo is alive. The two cannot be confused; life, and the ability to inherit.
If an embryo is not alive until birth, then how does it move or kick? How is it “quickened” in the womb? Quickening, during pregnancy, is when the mother feels the embryo moving. Quickened is defines as “Primarily, to make alive; to vivify; to revive or resuscitate, as from death or an inanimate state.” Fourteen Psalms mention quickening as giving life to dead flesh. The Jews of Yeshua’s time were versed in the Psalms, and considered David to be an authority in many matters, including this.
The birth of Caesar was also known at the time. This was not the first Cesarean performed in the ancient world. Premature births, whether the child survived or not, also were not totally unknown.
“From the time I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” The Timeless One, knew you, even before your birth, while you were in the womb. But if you are not alive, you are not a you. This was well known, and of course, debated.
I also misread my notes. I will have to readjust the timeframe for Herod’s death to match “after a day that a fast was observed before an eclipse, before Passover”. Antiquities shows Herod still alive after “And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon”, which was January 10. Herod gathered the heads of the families into the hippodrome (about 4 days total); sought a cure in the baths (about 6 days total), which involved slow travel (about another 6 days); had Antipater killed (add a day); died five days later; was buried (same day); was mourned by Archelaus for seven days; Archelaus partied (likely 2 days); took the throne (1 day) and addressed the people; the people petitioned him (from 1 to 3 days later); Passover arrived (April 7, 1 B.C.E.) So, Herod had to have died between approximately February 1 to March 25, 1 B.C.E.
I did not add:
Up until 4 centuries ago, the Jews did not even celebrate birthdays. It was considered to be an evil, for who could determine what only Hashem knew? Who even knew if He had created a man, or a girl? Three places in the Scriptures, the celebration of birthdays is mentioned, in association with some calamity.
From Job 3:
After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day [of birth; 24 hours]. 2 And Job spake, and said, 3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night [part of a 24 hour period] in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.
Inanimate meat without a life spirit within it, cannot be a man, nor a child.
9 Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day: 10 Because it shut not up the doors of my mother’s womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes.
How could something not yet alive, know sorrow from that day?
11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
This could be argued pre-or post-birth.
16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
This references miscarriages, wherein the fetus was yet so unformed, that the miscarriage is not even outwardly known.
26 I was not in safety, neither had I rest, neither was I quiet; yet trouble came.
Cryptic; not yet dead; not yet born. Yet trouble was his assigned lot, even before birth.
Job’s children were slain for celebrating “their day”. Basically, celebrating their birthdays, calculated from 9 months before their physical birth, is an abomination; for only Hashem knows the exact day. Celebrating it one year after exiting the womb, is an abomination also; as they were already alive in the womb, from an undetermined date, and it is a falsehood to say otherwise. The ancient Jews played it safe, and did not celebrate this uncertainty at all.
Ecclesiastes 7:1: A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.
The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well. Each series typically lasts 12 to 15 centuries and contains 70 or more lunar eclipses. Straight from NASA: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
After spending 597 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E. in the Court of the Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) Empire (626 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E.), the royal and priestly classes would have been well aware of Chaldean astronomy. And the Chaldeans predicted, and attached great significance to, recurring Saros Series eclipses.
Those letter writers who discuss the possibility of someone in Jerusalem “noticing” an eclipse, need to understand that eclipses were predictable, and were watched for, and were confirmed as having met the expected periodicity. So, the time of day or night that an eclipse occurred, is irrelevant to its actually being seen by accident. Also, there were always guards on the walls, and at the gates, of every city, who would have noticed any aberrant celestial event. From 100 B.C.E. to 100 C.E., every eclipse was a member of one of the many Saros Series (as are all lunar eclipses, throughout history).
January 10, 1 B.C.E. is a Saros Series 58 eclipse. Saros Series 58 is composed of 73 lunar eclipses, of which 24 (32.9%) were total (world-wide). NASA has maps, which show when and where these eclipses occurred. http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros058.html
All of the eclipses in question belong to predictable Saros Series, so not one of them was a surprise to the Priesthood.
Most rabbis began their ministry as Torah rabbis, teaching at the synagogues and schools to the young children. Only a rare few continued on with their education to become master rabbis. It wasn’t until the age 40 where they would be considered one who had understanding in the Law, and when they finally turned the age of 50, they would be given the honor to counsel others, meaning having their own talmidim. That meant they were able to give their own interpretation of the Law. It was at this point when a rabbi could become a master rabbi. By this time, he would be considered a wise, aged man.
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned four other factors within the above discussion:
• Daniel’s The Seventy Weeks Prophecy
• The decree of the Persian king, Artaxerxes I Longimanus
• The ‘prophesied dates’ of the Messiah’s anointing and His crucifixion
• Jesus’ age at the beginning of His ministry
Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 9:25-27), set out a period of 69 weeks (or sevens) of years (i.e. 483 years) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah.
That decree is widely accepted to have been that of the Persian king Artaxerxes I Longimanus which occurred in the 7th year of his reign (Ezra 7:7-8). Artaxerxes ruled from September 465 to October 424 BC, thus the 7th year would have been 458-457 BC. The Persian calendar ran from spring to spring, so September 465 BC to spring 464 BC would have arguably been Artaxerxes’ accession year, his official reign beginning in 464 BC. The Jewish religious year was Nisan to Adar (spring) and the civil year Tishri to Elul (autumn). Ezra left Babylon in the 1st with an entourage and arrived in Jerusalem in the 5th month. This is likely to have been a spring/summer caravan trek, rather than an autumn/winter one. The 1st month must therefore have been that of the religious year (i.e. Nisan). The commentaries support this. This further reinforces the decree of Artaxerxes occurring in 457 BC rather than the year he ascended the throne (458). Thus 457 BC is the starting year of Daniel’s prophecy. There could be further scrutiny on whether to use inclusive or exclusive reckoning, but assuming exclusive for the moment, -457 483 1 = 27 AD [there is no 0 BC/0 AD].
We know from the gospels that Jesus’ ministry lasted 3½ years, and assuming an autumn nativity (widely held, but for the moment not quite so important), that brings us to 31 AD as the year of the crucifixion – or possibly 30 AD based on closer examination (my own view). Daniel 9:26-27 does not state that the Messiah would be cut off after 3½ years of His ministry, but there is an inference to that effect. The event seems to be mirrored by the “prince who is to come” (the Antichrist) breaking the 7-year covenant “in the middle of the week”.
(BTW, some argue in favour of Sir Robert Anderson’s calculations of converting the 69 weeks into days to come up with a 445 BC decree and a 32 AD crucifixion, but I don’t buy that for a number of reasons that are beyond this discussion.)
The NT is ‘specific enough’ in stating that Jesus was ‘about thirty’ when he began His ministry (Luke 3:33). Some translations are a tad more ‘general’, but Young’s Literal Translation (amongst others) renders this from the Greek as “Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age”. In other words it was around His 30th birthday. This immediately followed His baptism, the Holy Spirit descending on Him as a dove and the Father’s voice heard from heaven (Luke 3:32) – the very day He was anointed as the Messiah (and following. This was the fulfilment of Dan 9:25 “…Until Messiah the Prince…” and that prophecy is extremely specific about its numbers. 30 was also the age at which priests were allowed to perform service in the temple (Num 4), and the significance will not go unnoticed.
Immediately after this event “Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted for forty days by the devil…” (Luke 4:1-2). As Messiah His first task was to take on and defeat Satan. This titanic spiritual battle, at the end (Matt 4:2) of a 40-day fast (not 37 or 44), was also part of His ‘coming of age’. We can therefore reasonably deduce that His age of 30 is given as a pretty accurate reference point.
So on that basis that Jesus became the Christ/Messiah in the fall of 27 AD (or possibly 26 AD) when He was 30. 27-30-1= 4 BC. This ties in with the birth of Jesus in that year, or possibly in 5 BC, depending on inclusive/reckoning. It does not however support a date in 1 BC for the birth of our Saviour, otherwise Luke would have written ‘about 26” or ‘27’ or ‘28’ – and that makes Jesus too young to begin His Messiahship – not yet ‘of age’ physically and spiritually.
God is precise.
Herod the Great was in Jerusalem when the Wisemen came in Matthew 2; that is very significant. The last few months of Herod’s life, according to Josephus, he was out of Jerusalem and seeking help for his ailments. He did not live in Jerusalem. Then he died in the Spring of 4 B.C. All of this leads me to say that the date for Christ’s birth is probably closer to 6 or 5 BC. Why was everyone so upset with what the Wisemen said? It is because it was on the heels of Herod’s execution of Alexander and Aristobulus in 7 BC. It is better to say 6 or 5 BC for a probable date of Christ’s birth, because it is closer to 7 BC. We know for sure the sons were executed in 7 BC. For the 4 BC date, Herod was out of town and not in Jerusalem. This also may mean a crucifixion date of A.D. 29 or 30 rather than A.D. 33 as some would suppose.
Jerry Knoblet
Author of the book Herod the Great
We must not forget that Y’Shua was alreadyTWO years old when HEROD THE GREAT had the baby boys TWO years old and under in BETHLEHEM and its districts murdered as he was trying to kill the MESSIAH, for it had been TWO years since the WISE men had appeared to him in JERUSALEM. Joseph and Mary were WARNED in a dream that HEROD was seeking to kill their son the MESSIAH, so they were instructed to FLEE into EGYPT which they did. Afterwards the Angel told them that he who sought to DESTROY their CHILD was now DEAD. If HEROD died in 4BC then Y’Shua was at LEAST TWO YEARS OLD when HEROD died making the Messiah’s birth at LEAST 6BC – However, we do not know how long Joseph and Mary and the SON OF GOD lived in EGYPT before HEROD THE GREAT died.
julie says
Jesus was not born in December but September and the magi would have found him as a young child ( toddler) around 4 BC he was born in 2 BC
😀 Sancta simplicitas…
Ah, BC years count DOWN, not up as do AD years. A person born in 4 BC would be two years old in 2 BC, five years old in 1 AD, and ten years old in 6 AD.
Not exactly. A person born in 4 BC would be two years old in 2 BC, but only four years old in 1 AD, and nine years old in 6 AD, since there was not 0. year.