When was Jesus born? This predella panel from an altarpiece by Mariotto Albertinelli (1474–1515) depicts the newborn baby Jesus flanked by Joseph and Mary. In which year was Jesus born—B.C. or A.D.? The evidence suggests he was born in 4 B.C. or before. Photo: John G. Johnson Collection, 1917, courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

In which year was Jesus born?

While this is sometimes debated, the majority of New Testament scholars place Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C. or before. This is because most date the death of King Herod the Great to 4 B.C. Since Herod played a major role in the narrative of Jesus’ birth (see Matthew 2), Jesus would have had to be born before Herod died.

This begs the question: How could Jesus have been born in B.C.—“before Christ”?

The terms B.C. and A.D. stand for “before Christ” and “anno Domini,” which means “in the year of the Lord.” These terms are used to mark years in the Gregorian and Julian calendars—with the birth of Jesus as the event that divides history. In theory, all the years before Jesus’ birth receive the label B.C., and all those after his birth get A.D. If Jesus had been born in 1 A.D., these designations would be completely accurate.

However, as mentioned above, it seems most likely that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. or earlier. How then did the current division between B.C. and A.D. come to be?

FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary examines the calendar division in his Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus,” published in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He identifies the monk Dionysius Exiguus, who lived during the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., as the originator of the B.C. and A.D. calendar (based on when he calculated Jesus was born):

Dionysius was born in Scythia Minor, which means somewhere in Romania or Bulgaria, and he lived from about 470 to 544 A.D. He was a learned monk who moved to Rome and became well known for translating many ecclesiastical canons from Greek into Latin, including the famous decrees from the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Ironically, he also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics. I say ironically because what he is most famous for is the “Anno Domini” calculations that were used to number the years of both the Gregorian and the adjusted Julian calendars.

Although we are not exactly sure how he came to this conclusion, Dionysius dated the consulship of Probius Junior, who was the Roman Consul at the time, to “525 years after ‘the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ’”—meaning 525 years after Jesus’ birth, that is, 525 A.D. Because of Dionysius’s calculations, a new calendar using B.C. and A.D. was born. The terms B.C.E (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) also use this calendar.

Even though Dionysius Exiguus calculated his date for the year in which Jesus was born in the sixth century, it was not until the eighth century that it became widespread. This was thanks to the Venerable Bede of Durham, England, who used Dionysius’s date in his work Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

Learn more about when Jesus was born and Dionysius Exiguus’s calculations for B.C. and A.D. in Ben Witherington III’s Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus” in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus” by Ben Witherington III in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 29, 2017.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

How December 25 Became Christmas

Christmas Stories in Christian Apocrypha

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

O Little Town of…Nazareth?

The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke—Of History, Theology and Literature

How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus

Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus

Part I

The post When Was Jesus Born—B.C. or A.D.? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

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?

Q&C, BAR, July/August 2013

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.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

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.

If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, why is he called a Nazorean and a Galilean throughout the New Testament? Learn more >>

A Different Fast

Q&C, BAR, May/June 2014

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

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

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.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Christmas Stories in Christian Apocrypha

Who Was Jesus’ Biological Father?

Why Did the Magi Bring Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh?

Herod Antipas in the Bible and Beyond

August 2017: An Eclipse of Biblical Proportions

Classical Corner: A Comet Gives Birth to an Empire

How Old Is That? Dating in the Ancient World

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey

Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew

Herod’s Horrid Death

How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus

How December 25 Became Christmas

The Magi and the Star

The post Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Rising above the Judean hills, the artificially conical mountain of Herodium still bears witness to the building prowess of its namesake, King Herod the Great. Photo: Duby Tal.

“Herod was borne upon a golden bier studded with precious stones of various kinds and with a cover of purple over it. The dead man too was wrapped in purple robes and wore a diadem on which a gold crown had been placed, and beside his right hand lay his scepter. [Thousands must have been in the procession, including] the whole army as if marching to war … followed by 500 servants carrying spices. And they went eight stades [or 200 furlongs] toward Herodium, for it was there that the burial took place by his own order.”
—Josephus, Antiquities 17.197–199

After Herod died in 4 B.C., he was buried at Herodium—but where? A few years ago, it seemed that the question was solved. Eminent Herodium archaeologist Ehud Netzer declared that he had found Herod’s impressive mausoleum. (Netzer passed away in 2010, and all of his BAR articles—including his posthumously published article on the discovery of Herod’s Tomb—are available here for free).

The Israel Museum put together the exhibit Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey around the 25-mile procession from the throne room in Jericho to the tomb Netzer discovered in Herodium. This extremely popular exhibit guided visitors around the modest tomb of the megalomaniac ruler. This discrepancy gave some scholars pause; would one of history’s most renowned builders (and, let’s not forget, largest egos) really have been interred in a simple tomb?

As the point where three of the world’s major religions converge, Israel’s history is one of the richest and most complex in the world. Sift through the archaeology and history of this ancient land in the free eBook Israel: An Archaeological Journey, and get a view of these significant Biblical sites through an archaeologist’s lens.

The mausoleum uncovered by Ehud Netzer sits halfway up the slope and is connected to Lower Herodium by a monumental stairway. Although Josephus states that Herod was buried at Herodium, he does not specify where. Was he buried in the mausoleum on the slope or in the fortress at the summit? Reconstruction by Hiram Henriquez/National Geographic Stock.

Hebrew University scholars Joseph Patrich and Benjamin Arubas are just as confident that this was not Herod’s tomb as Netzer was sure that it was. In “Was Herod’s Tomb Really Found?” in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, editor Hershel Shanks examines the evidence and weighs in as the hunt for Herod’s tomb continues.

Shanks writes, “Netzer did find an impressive mausoleum at Herodium. It contained three remarkable sarcophagi. It is located, however, on the slope of the dramatic man-made mountain that marks the site from afar.” Patrich and Arubas compare Herod’s tomb at Herodium with contemporary royal tombs of the period, and Herod’s pales in light of the others’ monumentality.

So where was King Herod’s tomb at Herodium? Shanks writes:

On top of the mountain-like mound that is Herodium is a glorious, but relatively small, palace/fortress encircled by two concentric walls… On the four compass points of the enclosing wall are four towers. Three of them are half circles extending outward from the wall. The fourth (on the east) is not just a half circle but a full circle—and much larger than the others (55 feet in diameter compared to 45 feet of the three semicircular towers)—and solid! This large solid tower extends deep into the interior of the enclosure wall. The upper part of this tower no longer exists. Now only 50 feet high, it has been estimated to have originally been 120 feet high. Although its original height can only be guessed, it was surely much higher than the other three semi-circular towers.

Read Shanks’s article in the BAS Library to learn more about the eastern tower, including geophysical testing, assemblages of fine pottery at Herodium and the ongoing hunt for Herod’s tomb.

BAS Library Members: Read “Was Herod’s Tomb Really Found?” by Hershel Shanks as it appears in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Sign up today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 2, 2014.

Read more in Bible History Daily:

Ehud Netzer Publications Available to Public

Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey

Monumental Entryway to King Herod’s Palace at Herodium Excavated

Herod the Great: Friend of the Romans and Parthians?

The post Herodium: The Tomb of King Herod Revisited appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The History Channel’s series Bible Secrets Revealed tackles the mysteries of the Bible.

Consulting producer Dr. Robert Cargill, who is an archaeologist and assistant professor of classics and religious studies at the University of Iowa, has responded to Bible Secrets Revealed viewers’ questions throughout the series. Read the questions and answers here.

Episode 4, “The Real Jesus,” aired on December 4, 2013.

• Learn more about the show and to see a list of other episode summaries.

Summary of Episode 4 by Dr. Robert Cargill

Dr. Robert Cargill, professor and consulting producer

The fourth installment of Bible Secrets Revealed discusses the person and ministry of Jesus.

“The Real Jesus” Act 1: Jesus’ Early Life

Act 1 opens with the issue of the year of Jesus’ birth. Many people do not realize that Jesus was not born in “Year 1” according to our modern calendar (despite the church’s best efforts to align the calendar with Jesus’ birth”), but some time between 7 and 4 B.C.E. If Jesus was born during the time of Herod the Great, as is stated in the Gospel of Matthew, he would have had to have been born prior to 4 B.C.E., the year Herod died. When we add to this the fact that it took time to travel in the ancient world, and that the visit from the Magi to Herod and then to Jesus therefore wasn’t immediate, as well as the fact that those who calibrated the calendar didn’t account for “Year Zero” (that is, the calendar goes from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. without taking into account the first year of Jesus’ life), then we end up with a date likely between 7 and 5 B.C.E. I’ve written on this subject previously at Bible and Interpretation.

The show then addresses problems with the account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Why would “Jesus of Nazareth” be said to have been born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, the hometown of his parents? It was likely to fulfill a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in the “City of David,” which is Bethlehem. So Luke tells the story of Joseph traveling to Bethlehem for a census to be counted in the place of Joseph’s birth—something that has absolutely zero precedent and/or evidence in antiquity.

An additional problem with the date of the birth of Jesus arises when the Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born during the time of Quirinius, who was not appointed Legate of Syria until 6 C.E., meaning that either Matthew’s or Luke’s dating (or both) of the birth of Jesus is incorrect. Herod the Great and Quirinius never ruled at the same time and were, in fact, about ten years apart.

The episode then asks about Jesus’ so-called “lost years”—the period of Jesus’ childhood about which the Bible is silent. The gospels focus mainly on Jesus’ adult ministry. Only the later addition of the birth narratives, which our earliest gospel—Mark—did not bother to include, caused a perceived “gap” in the story of Jesus’ life when in reality no gap existed. The story of Jesus simply began with his adult ministry.

FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

We also learn that Jesus had siblings. Jesus had four brothers named in the Bible (James, Joses, Judas and Simon), along with some sisters (Mark 6:3). This would not be a problem, except for the rise of the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which argues that she not only immaculately conceived and gave birth to Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout the remainder of her lifetime. This conflicts with the Bible, which says specifically that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Interestingly, Catholics traditionally solve this problem by arguing that the supposed “brothers” mentioned in Mark 6 are actually “cousins,” while the Greek Orthodox tradition solves this problem by arguing that Joseph was married prior to being married to Mary. According to the tradition, it was with his deceased wife that Joseph had “James and Joses and Judas and Simon,” meaning that the brothers mentioned in the Bible are half-brothers of Jesus by a previous marriage, allowing Mary to be a perpetual virgin.

Joseph, Mary and the three magi gaze at the newborn babe in Italian artist Andrea Mantegna’s “Adoration of the Magi” (c. 1500). Collection: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

The show then suggests that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke draw on a prophecy from Isaiah 7 to portray Jesus as an answer to prophecy, meaning that the virgin Mary was understood not just to be the “young woman” Mary, but as a woman who had not had sex and who therefore immaculately conceived Jesus—making the birth of Jesus much more auspicious. The context of the prophecy is actually dealing with a threat against Jerusalem in the late 8th century B.C.E. In the documentary, I refer to the “time of Hezekiah.” The clip should more specifically refer to King Ahaz, Hezekiah’s father, who, according to the Bible, feared that Jerusalem would be lost to an alliance between Pekah, King of Israel, and Rezin, King of Aram, around 732 B.C.E. (2 Kings 16:5). Thus, Ahaz agreed to become a vassal of Tiglath-Pileser III (2 Kings 16:7–9), who protected Judah by wiping out Damascus and Aram—and killing King Pekah of Israel (2 Kings 16:9). The rest of the Kingdom of Israel—including its capital in Samaria—was conquered by Sargon II around 720 B.C.E. While Jerusalem was spared during the time of Hezekiah’s father, Jerusalem again comes under threat during the reign of King Hezekiah of Israel around 701 B.C.E., when Assyrian King Sennacherib lays siege to Jerusalem (Isa 36–39/2 Kings 18–20).

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.”

Isaiah is essentially saying, “Look, a young woman is with child now, but by the time he knows good from evil (i.e., reaches adulthood), life will be good for him, and he’ll be eating curds and honey from his own land.” The prophecy is a poetic way to communicate to the king that Israel will survive this present threat, and children born this year will enjoy the fruits of their homeland—that is, Jerusalem will not be conquered.

A similar prophecy is given to Hezekiah when the Assyrian army besieged Jerusalem around 701 B.C.E. Isa. 37:30–32 reads:

“And this shall be the sign for you: This year eat what grows of itself, and in the second year what springs from that; then in the third year sow, reap, plant vineyards, and eat their fruit. The surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; for from Jerusalem a remnant shall go out, and from Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.”

Recent scholarly publications have argued that Hezekiah’s Tunnel was not built by Hezekiah but by his predecessor or his successors. Click here to reexamine the dating of Hezekiah’s Tunnel in Bible History Daily.

Once again, Isaiah employs the same metaphor as he does in Isa. 7:14-16—that of Jerusalemites eating the produce of their own land—to foretell the deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian threat. And, of course, both predictions came to pass, and Jerusalem was spared from both threats in the late 8th century B.C.E.

However, during the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E., many Jews were looking back to the books of the prophets to see if they could be reinterpreted to speak to the Jews’ present time and struggle. This is precisely what happened to Isaiah’s prophecy in Isa. 7, when, as we’ve discussed earlier, the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah to the Greek word parthenos allowed the gospel authors Matthew and Luke to reinterpret the “virgin” of Isaiah 7 as a woman who conceived without sex and gave birth to a savior, who they interpret as Jesus. But this is a reinterpretation of a prophecy that originally had a specific context speaking to the deliverance of Jerusalem.

The special nature of Jesus’ birth by Mary is perhaps underscored by the lack of emphasis offered to the siblings of Jesus mentioned by name in the Bible, which would serve to emphasize Jesus as the Son of God and not just one of the sons of Mary.

The show then transitions to a discussion on the Nag Hammadi and Gnostic gospels, which contained documents that sought to supply answers to some of the holes in the story of Jesus. One such gospel is called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which essentially depicted Jesus as a magical boy who killed anyone who upset him. However, since the stories about Jesus are so scandalous and make Jesus look like a little bully, the gospel was left out of the canon.

“The Real Jesus” Act 2: Jesus and Mary Magdalene

“The Pre-Penitent Magdalene” by Chris Gollon. Private Collection / Bridgeman Art Library / Courtesy of IAP Fine Art.

Act 2 opens with a discussion of John the Baptist and his relationship with Jesus (and his ministry). The show points out that Jesus’ originally separate ministry really took off with the beheading and death of John the Baptist. There is then a discussion about the ministry of Jesus and the makeup of his followers, specifically targeting the poor and marginalized. The show also points out that it was women who largely supported Jesus’ ministry.

Jesus’ relationship with one woman in particular, Mary Magdalene, is highlighted. The show suggests that Mary may not only have been an important disciple, but a financial benefactor of Jesus’ ministry (see Luke 8). However, the show then highlights the special relationship between Jesus and Mary written about in several of the Gnostic gospels, some of which suggest that she may have been married to Jesus.

While the Bible never calls Mary Magdalene a prostitute, the documentary suggests that the later attempts to conflate Mary Magdalene with the unnamed “sinful” woman mentioned in Luke 7, and the resulting popular conception of her as a prostitute, may have been a deliberate attempt to downplay the reputation of Jesus as a drunkard and a “friend of sinners” and portray him instead as a much more “righteous” individual.

Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Was Mary Magdalene the wife of Jesus? Birger A. Pearson addresses these popular notions in the article “From Saint to Sinner” in Bible History Daily.

“The Real Jesus” Act 3: The Radical Teachings of Jesus

Act 3 opens with Peter’s Great Confession and asks whether Jesus actually understood himself to be the Messiah. Does the Bible ever record him as claiming to be the Jewish Messiah? The answer is exacerbated by Jesus’ intentionally ambiguous choice of the Aramaic term “bar enosh,” or “Son of Man,” to describe himself. The term was both the common way of saying “a person,” but had also become a loaded Messianic term because of its use in Daniel 7:13.

The show then focuses on his radical, apocalyptic teachings, which saw all people as created as equals, and which proclaimed another kingdom of Heaven that would supplant the Roman Empire and it’s social order. In this new kingdom, common people were equal to the powerful and wealthy. It became a following of outcasts based on Jesus’ populist teachings. But does this constitute a political agenda? While Jesus didn’t speak of a military uprising, the fact that he was declaring the coming of a new kingdom would have been interpreted as sedition by the Romans and therefore would have been seen as a political threat.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

“The Real Jesus” Act 4: The Passion Week

Act 4 opens with a discussion of the Passion Week in Jerusalem and asks if Jesus knew he was going to die. The show points out that Jesus basically acts out the royal inauguration of the ancient kings of Israel mentioned in Zechariah 9. Marching down to the Gihon Spring and riding into Jerusalem on the back of the royal donkey would be the equivalent of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC on Inauguration Day. Thus, the reenactment of the coronation of the king of Israel would have been understood as a rebellious act.

Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple in Matt. 21:13 (and in all 4 Gospels) appears to have been the singular episode that most precipitates his death. It is also the one episode that records Jesus as brandishing a weapon (a whip of cords in John 2:15). The show asks if this is further evidence that Jesus perceived himself as a political figure like a king seeking to establish an alternative kingdom here on earth, or a non-political figure like a prophet, who spoke only of reform in this world and/or of a kingdom in another world.

The show also questions whether the trial that condemned Jesus would have taken place as described in the Bible. Many scholars question whether such a trial—which would have been illegal according to Jewish law (at night, on or approaching the holy day of Passover)—actually took place as described. Regardless of what one concludes about Jesus’ trial, most conclude that he was executed for the crime of sedition, which lends evidence to the argument that he was at least perceived by the Romans as leading a political rebellion.

“The Real Jesus” Act 5: The Resurrection of Jesus

“Mary Magdalene Discovering The Empty Tomb” by Herschel Pollard.

Act 5 opens with a discussion of the Resurrection of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. The show addresses the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead, or whether the body was taken from the tomb either for reburial (which was customary for Jewish burial at the time), or was robbed from the tomb to give the illusion that Jesus had been miraculously raised from the dead. Because the death of their Messiah was unexpected to many of the disciples of Jesus, many may have begun to interpret his resurrection in spiritual terms and to claim that Jesus’ kingdom was never to be of this world, but rather solely a spiritual kingdom in some world to come. This reinterpretation of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection by the followers of Jesus as a wholly spiritual movement (rather than an earthly movement) may have caused his disciples to elevate Jesus from the role of foretold Jewish Messiah to the role of apocalyptic Messiah, Son of God and savior of the entire world. Likewise, Christianity transformed from a belief in the teachings of Jesus the Jewish prophet (and perhaps Messiah) to a belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, which brings about the salvation of humankind.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Bible Secrets Revealed, Episode 1: “Lost in Translation”

Bible Secrets Revealed, Episode 2: “The Promised Land”

Bible Secrets Revealed, Episode 3: “The Forbidden Scriptures”

The post Bible Secrets Revealed, Episode 4: “The Real Jesus” appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Trompe l’oeil painting of a window with open shutters, depicting a sacred landscape with goats, from the “royal box” of the Herodium theater. SOAJS Photo ©The Herodium Expedition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem / by Gabi Laron

Intermittently over 40 years, Netzer excavated at Herodium, Herod’s Judean desert fortress, exposing for the first time, below the conical mountain, the palatial pleasure palace with its pools, decorated bathhouses, and hints of lush gardens, as well as the 1,200-foot-long leveled area resembling a race course.* In 2007 Netzer and his team identified the burial place of Herod that had eluded them for decades on the flank of the mountain, above the end of the course. Only then did it become clear that the course was planned and built by Herod for his own burial procession.

Ehud Netzer was a member of BAR’s editorial advisory board for 30 years and frequently wrote for the magazine. In commemoration of his scholarship, we’ve made all of his publications in the BAS Library available for free.

Click here to read a collection of works by the illustrious scholar, including the posthumously published “In Search of Herod’s Tomb.”

Herod died in 4 B.C.E. at his winter palace in Jericho. The 25-mile procession from the throne room in Jericho where the king’s body lay to his tomb in Herodium became the organizing concept for the Israel Museum’s Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey.

On October 28, 2010, Netzer was leaning against a wooden railing at Herodium when it gave way. He plunged almost 20 feet from the edge of the royal box into the tiered seating area of an elegant small theater uncovered shortly after the discovery of Herod’s mausoleum nearby on the hillside. Three days later he died of his injuries. Only hours before his fall, he had finished walking about with the Israel Museum curators to mark those elements at the site that would remain and those that would be carried to Jerusalem for display and restoration. His wife, Dvora, recalled that “on that day Ehud had been amazingly happy.” The exhibit he had sought and helped plan was moving toward fruition.

Professor Ehud Netzer sketches a freehand reconstruction of Herod’s mausoleum. This photo was taken at Herodium on the day he tragically fell to his death. Photo © Andrei Vainer

When the theater’s fresco windows with their trompe l’oeil open shutters and painted outdoor land and seascapes were first exposed, the museum sent conservators to work side by side with Netzer and his team. In preparation for the exhibit, fresco fragments found on the floor of the theater’s royal box were restored at the museum to reveal a window with a bull, a shrine and trees, as well as another featuring a ship in full sail—quite astonishing in the desert. The stucco panels decorating the ceiling of Herod’s throne room at his winter palace in Jericho, where the dead king lay in state, were also pieced together from fragments. Original fresco appears on the walls of the throne room, and above it faint lines indicate missing pieces from the pattern.

My glimpse into the exhibit space was the entrance to the 900-square-foot gallery itself. A photomural of the Judean desert leads to the reconstructed throne room from Jericho, starting visitors on the route of the burial procession. On the walls above original frescoes, faint gray geometric outlines suggest what is lost. A multilingual text projected on the floor of the empty throne room represents the dead king’s body on his bier, echoing Josephus’ description: “The bier was of solid gold, studded with precious stones, and had a covering of purple, embroidered with various colors; on this lay the body enveloped in a purple robe, a diadem encircling the head and surmounted by a crown of gold, the scepter beside his right hand.”

Visitors leave the throne room on a route leading them to the central themes of the exhibit: Herod’s impact on the architectural landscape of the Land of Israel; his complex relationships within the Roman Empire; and, ultimately, his burial at Herodium. Along the way, more than 200 objects found at Herodian sites, including Jerusalem, Jericho, Cypros and Herodium, are exhibited for the first time. One of the most complete and dramatically personal is a huge stone bathtub from Cypros. Herod’s special affiliation with Rome is expressed through sculpted portraits of Augustus, Cleopatra, Livia and Marcus Agrippa (on loan from the Metropolitan Museum and the Hebrew University’s Mt. Scopus campus) and by luxury objects in silver, glass and marble carried to the region from Rome, as well as Herodian finds imported or crafted by Roman artisans.

Restoration work on the tholos, the upper story of Herod’s mausoleum, including the entablature, roof fragments and urn. Photo © the Israel Museum, Jerusalem / by Meidad Suchowolski

About a third of the full-scale reconstructed burial chamber consists of the original architectural blocks excavated at the site. Standing 82 feet high, the tholos of the mausoleum weighs 30 tons, requiring the museum to build a strengthened foundation for the gallery to support its great weight.

A catalog will accompany the exhibit with contributions by leading scholars about Herod and Herodian architecture, including three articles by Ehud Netzer. Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey will be on display for eight months. Its destiny after closing was unknown at the time of my visit.

May 2014 Update: In the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks examines the evidence for and against Netzer’s tomb discovery in Herodium, and suggests an alternate possibility for the location of Herod’s burial. Read more about the feature online for free.

More on Herod in Bible History Daily:

Herodium: The Tomb of King Herod Revisited

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History
This page includes the full article “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount” by Leen Ritmeyer as it appeared in BAR.

Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist

Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Not Completed by King Herod

Effort to Recreate Herod’s Tomb Criticized

That Other “King of the Jews” by James Tabor

The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder by Ehud Netzer, reviewed by Hillel Geva

Notes

* See Ehud Netzer, “Searching for Herod’s Tomb,” BAR, May/June 1983.

** Ehud Netzer, “In Search of Herod’s Tomb,” BAR, January/February 2011.

The post Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.