Talk:Chronology of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The various Herods
During AD 6, there in fact WERE rulers called Herod both in Judea and Galilee. Matthew's reference to King Herod has ment that people assume that they mean Herod the Great, although in fact, he was not strictly a king either. Herod the great called himself king anyway, and maybe his sons did the same? Or maybe, simply, Matthew got all the Herods confused?
Now, I'm no professor in biblical history, but I haven't heard any plausible argument against this, and it certainly sounds as least as plausible than dating Jesus birth after a random pick of the plethora of celestial phenomenons that might possibly fit. ;-) But if there is something that totally kills this theory, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'll suggest this addition (without the bolding, obviously):
On the other hand, Luke's account places Jesus' birth during a census conducted under the governorship of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus, conducted a census in AD 6. In order to reconcile the two Gospel accounts, some have suggested that Josephus was mistaken, that Quirinius had a separate period of rule under Herod, or that Josephus reported the date of completion of the census. It has also been suggested that there may be some confusion between Matthews King Herod and Herods sons Herod Archelaos and Herod Antipas who in 6 AD ruled Judea and Galilee respectively. In any case, the actual date of Jesus' birth remains historically unverifiable.
--Regebro 09:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that the later events in Matthew only make sense if "Herod" is Herod the Great, because the Holy Family fled to Egypt, and returned only when "those who sought the life of the child" (i.e. Herod) had died, but were concerned when they found that Archelaus had succeeded Herod. (Matthew 2:22) "Herod" then has to be Herod the Great, and "Archelaus" has to be Herod Archelaus. Matthew does (mistakenly) call Archelaus a king, when he was actually an "ethnarch". I believe Herod the Great was allowed to style himself "king", however. Archelaus was deposed in AD 6 (not sure exactly when during the year). Mpolo 12:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
-
- OK, thanks for clearing that up. I still trust Luke more than Matthew, but that is another topic. ;-) --Regebro 19:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The 1st paragraph of the Date of Death section is very confusing. I read it 3 times and I'm still confused. - Kaldari 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Herod the Great was declared King of Judea by Mark Antony in the Roman Senate.
[edit] WikiProject Jesus
In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Birth after 8BC
Some mention should be made of Caesar Augustus' census that began in 8BC. Ostensibly this census was the reason for Mary and Joseph's journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and thus sets the eariest possible year for Jesus' birth, i.e. Jesus could have been born any time between 8BC and 4BC (Herod's death), unless there's something else I don't know about. Kaldari 05:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- This census never existed. It's based on the idea that the Romans held a census every 14 years - meaning 8BC is the census before 6AD. But until the late 1st century, censuses were always for particular provinces, and ad hoc, never empire-wide. (The Gospel statement that the decree from Rome was for 'all the world' is a misunderstanding of the meanging of the original text, based, for once, not on an mistranslation, but on an accurate one - as in modern Arabci and French, the phrase 'all the world' (kul il-alam in Arabic, tout le monde in French) is literally 'all the world' in English, but has the same actual meaning as our 'everyone' - in this case, everyone in the province of Syria and Judea, the latter having been added to Syria in 6AD on the exile of Archelaus). There was no 14 year cycle, and hence no census in 8BC. (Incidentally, there's another and even more cogent erason why the Romans didn't hold a census in Judea in 8BC: it wasn't part of the Roman Empire).
- I happen to be watching the Discovery Channel not long back when I saw a Roman coin that seemed to help date the birth within one week. The coin had the correct Emperor on the front (I cannot remember if there was a date on the coin); however, the coin's back had the major clue after the Emperor which was the bright star in the sky to mark the moment and included the additional clue of a whole star system. With computer regression of the known stars during that moment from what we know today the date given was April 7-14, 3 B.C. for the birth of Jesus.
Comraderedoctober 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge or expand
This article strikes me as being too limited in scope to be the third article in Template:Jesus, and perhaps too limited to exist at all.
I propose that we merge this article with "Detailed timeline for Jesus"; the other article is far too short and stubby on its own, and has little potential for expansion, whereas this article is too limited in scope, and should probably become a general article about the chronology of all events in Jesus' life.
If you guys don't like the idea of merging the two articles together, then I suggest that we expand this article into a general chronology of Jesus anyway, and make this article and Detailed timeline's relationship similar to the relationship between Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus: the latter gives information on historians' view of , and the former explains in detail what this view is based on by analyzing textual evidence and other sources of information on Jesus' life. However, the difference between that pair of articles and this pair is that both articles in that pair are quite long and detailed; in this case, only one is, and even that one (Chronology) isn't especially long, and could in fact use some expansion (and some copyediting, which I've made a little progress in).
A third possibility is merging this article with Historical Jesus and possibly a few other articles, but I think that it's not a bad idea to have an article dedicated solely to when events are believed by various parties to have happened in Jesus' life. I just think the current two are not the most efficient way to organize things. Thoughts? -Silence 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes please merge them together. Its good
[edit] Writing style
Could the editors on this page please adhere to good writing style even if you dont know the facts!--Light current 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not the most helpful of advice. I'm sure the editors of this page are using the English language to the best of their ability. Many editors on Wikipedia are not native English-speakers, and so are prone to unusual mistakes like the ones common to this page. The only way to really solve this in the short term would be to stop editing altogether, which is hardly the ideal solution—grammar is relatively easy to fix, as you and I are both capable of copyediting poor English to bring it up to shape (I've already done so with a fair-sized chunk of this article; why don't you try to be of some help and do the same, if you're bothered so much by the current state of affairs?). At most they could try automatic spelling- or grammar-checking programs, but those can be a hassle with Wikicode. I understand and agree that it's frustrating to see so many obvious grammar mistakes in articles, but remember that Wikipedia is an evolutionary effort: the only way for something to improve is for someone to fix it. Not for leaving it for someone else to fix it. -Silence 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have altered some of the more glaring grammatical and style errors. I just think it is below the expected standard. This is not a page on my watchlist-- I happened to come across it randomly.!--Light current 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree regarding the adverse styling of the article. This,
A loving creator would make his word the bible, have everything important easily understood by those that seek him in spirit & truth (John 4:24, 14:6, 17:17). This makes sense to any parent who tries to teach their child something important (Philippians 2:12-16, Luke 11:9-13). So, all the controversy about contradictions, and what is, or is not clear, crucial or contestable, is then logically not important at all (1Corinthians 1:20). If it was, then our creator would have made it clear. So dwell on what he makes clear as his son did, and don't get side-tracked about unimportant debates that will not lead you to everlasting life in a world that is returned back to the way it was originally meant to be, in harmony with the creator (John 17:3). Surely, that is the what the aim of his word the bible is for us. Surely he wouldn't confuse us all, or want us to get confused! Have this in mind as you read on. And if you are truly interested in God's word the bible then please, read these scriptures quoted that 'ARE THERE' to be understood clearly and for the benefit of those seeking God (2 Timothy 3:16,17. Matthew 6:33)
Is what greeted me upon finding this page. I did not arrive to discuss the validity of the gospels nor to view an argument about it, but to educate myself on the life of a man who likely did exist (whether you believe he was the Son of God or not) and preached to many people. The presence of such an introduction immediately counts against the validity of the information presented herein. It needs removing as such, that is what I am about to do. Theorised validation of the Bible's tales belongs elsewhere. - Hayter 14:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
First "a pan-Roman census supposedly organized during the reign of Quirinius [..] Neither event is known outside the gospels, and both have been challenged as intrinsically unlikely" followed by "a census conducted under the governorship of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus, conducted the census in AD 6". Am I missing something or what?
[edit] After the merge
OK, the articles have now been merged. Next problem: how best to make the two pages work together. The current way it works is acceptable, but some people may have a problem with how far you have to scroll down to reach any of the text (unless you use the TOC to skip the detailed timeline). I'd like to get an idea of which of the following three options (or bring up another if you have one) they'd prefer:
- Have the page layed out like it currently is, with the detailed timeline in one part of the article and the textual analysis in a later (or earlier) part, and one must be scrolled by to reach the other.
- Have the page layed out like this page has it: with one side of page for the paragraphs and the other side for the timeline, making it easy to access both at once.
- Re-separate the pages out into two different articles.
Also: I think this page should be moved to Chronology of Jesus. Any objections? -Silence 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Eh, what the heck. I'm revising lots of other pages right now anyway, this page is only rarely frequented by anyone, and it's easier to discuss and revert these things after I've shown what I have in mind. -Silence 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] And in English?
- "If the currently prevailing opinion about the compilation of the gospels is accepted, the earliest body of gospel tradition, represented by Mark no less than by the primitive non-Marcan document (Q document) embodied in the first and third gospels, begins, not with the birth and childhood of Jesus, but with His baptism; and this order of accretion of gospel matter is faithfully reflected in the time order of the invention-of feasts."
Could we have this in plainer language? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Another: "Jesus died after Passover, a Jewish holiday occurring in northern spring."
What is *northern* spring?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.97.41 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you being serious? Northern spring is spring in the northern hemisphere. Spring in the southern hemisphere happens when it is autumn (fall) in the north. It is really not a difficult concept once you accept the world is round. I don't understand why you asked the question. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What dates ARE known?
- 4 BC/BCE – Herod the Great, Jewish-Roman client-king of Judea, dies
- 4 BC/BCE – Herod Antipas, son of Herod, becomes client-king of Galilee
- 4 BC/BCE – eclipse around time of Herod's death
- AD 6 CE – Quirinius census
- 6 – Judea becomes a subjugated Roman province
- 14 – reign of Tiberius Caesar begins
- 26/27 – Pontius Pilate appointed governor of Judea
- c 29 – John the Baptist begins ministry
- ?? – Herod executes John the Baptist
- ?? – Jesus crucified
- 36 – Caiaphas no longer high priest
- 36 – Pilate crushes Samaritan religious uprising
- 36/37 – Pilate removed from office
- 37 – Tiberius dies
- 39 – Herod Antipas exiled by Caligula
- 66 – Jewish-Roman War begins
- 70 – destruction of Jewish Temple & most of Jerusalem by Romans
- 73 – Masada and end of Jewish-Roman War
While vague about Jesus' years, the NT is quite specific about John the Baptist --JimWae 02:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
[edit] Why does this article claim Jesus' ministry began before John the Baptist's ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (28 or 29)?
Luke 3:1 "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ..." Luke 3:3 "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;" Luke 3:21-23 "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, ..." Luke 4:1-2 "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered."
[edit] The Talmud and Chrysostom might aid this article
There is a passage in the Talmud that speaks of the time the shepards grazed their livestock - I would have to research a bit to find which book that this information is in. Basically, the Talmud states that flocks were grazing in the field in March and brought in during the beginning of November. This has something to do with the rain, during the months of rain the animals would be in their respective pens. The author says that the shepards would "take advantage of the winter rains" and I am wondering what evidence you are basing that off of or if you are just assuming things to fit in with the December date. If you want to talk Christian witness to an erroneous Dec. date here is fourth century Bishop John Chrysostom. He writes : "On this day also the Birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this the Birthday of the Invincible One; but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disk, but Christ is the Sun of Righteousness." Plainly you can see how this information might help this article sound more objective and not like it is advocating a certain date over other theories. I was very disappointed in this article. I teach religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
i would have to agree with you on this subject, for it is really sad to see other brothers in christ so wrongly taught in doctrial error i to i am dissappointed in this artical as well i know that more research is to be done and a propper foundation in our lord and saviour jesus christ is to be founded in the our hearts before making silly and doctrial mistakes, for we are accountable to the father in heaven for what we teach others.
shaun fairfield perth w.a 1/06/06
[edit] AD or BC Abbreviations
Just wondering - Anno Dominus is Latin and thus makes sense, but "B.C." is an English acronym - how could Dionysius Exiguus have used this acronym (especially before English existed as a language)? Any information or clarification would be helpful - otherwise I will remove this 'fact' from the article.
- Speaking of AD and BC, shouldn't all Wikipedia articles be using CE and BCE? 161.53.167.66 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- AD is not the same as BC, AD=Anno Domini (In the Year of the Lord) so it's after Christ, BC=before Christ. Sucrine 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- AD does not mean after Christ. It's supposed to be during OR after Christ. However, both BC and AD are off a little because the years were poorly calculated way back when the BC/AD distinction was introduced. Wryspy 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Where are the sources for various interpretations of biblical texts? And shouldn't there be (other) historical evidence of the happenings listed here? - G3, 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
And to judge from the name of this article (this might also be a rename issue) I expected to find non-canonical dates for Jesus's life. Maybe just a link to other articles about what the Apocrypha says, something of that nature.
[edit] Day of birth
I removed this sentence from the section: For instance, Roman Catholics believe Jesus was born on December 25, and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe it to be January 9. In fact, both Catholics and Orthodox celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25. It's just that many Orthodox still use the Julian Calendar when it comes to church dates, and December 25 on the Julian calendar happens to correspond to January 9 or thereabouts on the Gregorian Calendar. The difference has nothing to do with when Jesus was born, and everything to do with whether to follow the Pope's lead and switch calendars (or switch for the sake of convenience, meshing with what is now the civil calendar in most places.) Wesley 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the writer's climatological reasoning for Jesus being born in December is completely illogical. Winters there are very cold (relatively) and somewhat rainy, leading one to believe that shepherds tending their flocks in the fields probably wouldn't happen during these months. I can't imagine a shepherd, with clothing made for hot and dry climates, would be spending the night in the fields with temperatures around 40 degrees F. Also, you'll find that shepherds in any culture would have usually tended flocks when the weather is warm, especially at night when protection is needed most during warmer months. Furthermore, the fact that is rainy does not necessariy mean that grasses would be growing. The normal harvest months in that region are April through September, with grasses and grains such wheat being harvested in April and May.
[edit] NPOV issue
"Moreover, the gospels appear to disagree with one another as to the sequence of various events which they describe (though many have attempted to harmonize them), and are considered by some commentators to be unreliable in any case"
This is pushing a POV that the Gospels contradict themselves in sequence. However, I notice that this article doesn't really cover the issue very well. I'm putting an NPOV tag onto the article until this is sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the gospels do not agree chronologically. This isn't a POV, its a fact. Look at Papias, he says specifically about Mark "It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ."--Andrew c 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- If they don't agree chronologically, I'm sure it won't be hard to give specific examples. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- When did Jesus curse the fig tree, before or after overturning the tables in the temple? When did Jesus overturn the tables according to John? When did John the Baptist die? When was Jesus rejected in his hometown? etc--Andrew c 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
See Synoptic problem.
[edit] Rename
- support --Striver 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- reject see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
I reject this proposal because the article includes nonbiblical sources. (Shouldn't the posters of the "support" and "reject" have identified themselves?) Wryspy 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unknown reference
- Jesus was actually born on the 14th April 6BC
That's at the bottom of the November/January section. Where did that come from? Did someone just throw that up there? It's got nothing to do with the rest of the section and isn't sourced. Unless someone borrowed ol' Doc Brown's Delorian and went back in time, I don't think we can know for sure. --TimPendragon 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] lead
This is a high-importance, start-class article, so I'm here to work on it. I'm starting with the lead. If you read wp:lead, you might agree with me that lots of WP leads are pretty poor. Jonathan Tweet 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection on Page?
Might need some protection, maybe semi or something, because lots of vandals. --HeeroYuiX 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Falsely implied calculation
The article states "In his calculations, Dionysius miscalculated the death of Herod by four years, resulting in the awkward situation that Jesus' birth is usually dated into the years 'BC' (Before Christ)." The wording of this passage implies the calculations of Dionysius survived, he considered the death date of Herod in his calculations, and he miscalculated the date. As far as I know, Dionysius's calculations did not survive, and we have no idea how he calculated the Incarnation of Jesus. --Gerry Ashton 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question moved from main article
my teacher told me that Jesus was born on 1 ad. that was the start of the Anno Domini [A.D.] i'm confused? my mom says that they shouldn't teach that stuff at school. b/c they don't tell the whole truth. Question was added to article at 20:59, 22 December 2007 UTC from IP address 71.226.74.239. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- See the article Anno Domini. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Birthday of Yeshua
Matthew 13:1-23, "He who has ears [to hear], let him be listening and let him consider and perceive and comprehend by listening."
The birth of Yeshua or Jesus is one of the easiest calculations in the Bible. It's important to note that Jesus was not born on December 25 -- that day belongs to the birth of a pagan sun god, called Mithra.
As to the birthday of Jesus, you don't need to chart the stars. You don't even need to know Hebrew. The New Testament provides certain clues or facts about the year (7 BC) and day (Elul 1) he was born.
I don't have time to explain everything, but if anyone wishes to know more there are several articles on the Internet that delve into the subject.
To determine the approximant date, you must take into consideration the Hebrew traditions of Yom Kippur or Purification and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Then we must convert the day from the Hebrew to Gregorian Calendar making a slight adjustment for the change. Fortunately, the Jewish people have kept their calendar for the last 5768 years. So, we can use a Hebrew Date Converter [1] to correlate the date to our calendar.
I calculate the date to be between August 15-21 in the year 7 BC. If you want the exact date with precision, you might consult an expert on the Hebrew Calendar. - [Isaiah C] 67.185.221.213 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] birth date october: failed verification
The 1st external link in the October section cannot be accessed (it asks for name and password). I've tried connecting with two browsers (Konqueror, Firefox). adriatikus | talk 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Possible content to merge
This well sourced, well written content was removed from Jesus as being too detailed. While a lot of the stuff is already covered here, perhaps some is salvageable. Anyone want to try to add any of this stuff:
- The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 90 AD/CE),[1] and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE).[2] Scholars debate over the details of Jesus' birth, and few claim to know the exact year or date of his birth or death.
- The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus. In Western Christianity, it has been traditionally celebrated on December 25 as Christmas (in the liturgical season of Christmastide), a date that can be traced as early as 330 among Roman Christians. Before then, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany,[3] also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan River and possibly additional events in Jesus' life. (Many today in Eastern Christianity celebrate Christmas on January 7 because they continue to use the Julian calendar, in which December 25 corresponds to January 7 on the Gregorian calendar now in common usage.) Some scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer date.[4] Some scholars[specify] speculate that the December 25th date of the celebration derived from a Christian opposition to or absorption of the cult of the unconquered sun (Sol Invictus) promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. The pope, Benedict XVI, has challenged this theory, arguing that a December 25th date was determined simply by calculating nine months beyond March 25th, regarded as the day of Jesus’ conception (the Feast of the Annunciation).[5]
- In the 247th year during the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum," or "before Christ (was) born"), and assigned to the following year "AD 1", "Anno Domini 1", which translates as "in the year of Lord", thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus. The system was created in the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization.
- It is hard to date Jesus' birth because some sources are now gone and over 1,900 years have passed since the Gospels were written; however, based on a lunar eclipse that the first-century historian Josephus reported shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a role in Matthew's account), as well as a more accurate understanding of the succession of Roman Emperors, Jesus' birth would have been before the year 3 BC/BCE.
- The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both place Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great. Luke describes Jesus' birth as occurring during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea. Josephus dates the census to 6 AD/CE (which Luke refers to in Acts 5:37), long after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC/BCE.[6] However, scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE.[7]
- The date of Jesus' death is also unclear. To some, the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion as directly before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan (called the Quartodeciman), whereas the synoptic gospels describe Jesus' Last Supper as the Passover meal[8] (see Mark 14:12) on Friday 15 Nisan; however, some scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.[9] Further, the Jews followed a lunisolar calendar with phases of the moon as dates, complicating calculations of any exact date in a solar calendar. According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, which takes into consideration the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and the dates of the Passover in those years, Jesus' death was probably on April 7, 30 AD/CE or April 3, 33 AD/CE.[10]
-Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] For those for whom the POV is not obvious
Surely it is POV to have lede say:
- He rose from the dead three days later, appeared to the disciples and others, and then ascended to heaven.
Additionally, there are 2 main tasks to chronology - dating & sequencing. When the birth & (especially) death dates cannot be established within less than 10 year period, AND # of years of ministry ranges from 1 to 3, what is the point of assigning years to other events? There is also much disagreement just on sequencing. The article should focus on discussion of major chronological events - birth, beginning of ministry, death. Anothertopic could be discussions on sequencing. Any mention of articles of faith as fact should be in a separate article identified as a faith-based view.--JimWae (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Common to whom? Christians? Over 2/3 of humans would not commonly agree that he rose & ascended
- Modifiers of one sentence do not clearly apply to an entire paragraph unless explicitly so stated--JimWae (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- those who would interpret the gospels as in the first 2 sentences are not the same group as those who would so commonly interpret the last sentence. The switch needs to be made explicit.
- The assignment of actual dates has very little to do with interpreting the gospels at all --JimWae (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I have used both tagging (with pointers to where the tags apply) & talk page - and will probably continue to do so
- The lede is better - but still gives the impression that the gospels are the major source of dating. The only attempt at chronology in the gospels themselves relates to John the Baptist & saying Jesus was "about 30". The external sources need to be mentioned
- There is little point to assigning years to all the events this article does, since eah could be off by as much as 10 years. A more realistic tack would be to divide the events into FIRST YEAR (xx AD to xx+10 AD), SECOND YEAR (xx+1 AD to xx+11 AD), THIRD YEAR (xx+2 AD to xx + 12 AD) - with a note that there is no indication in John that any more than one year took place JimWae (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
No, that's silly. The dating of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Great are both extremely well-known. If you might read the article, you could see that in fact, there are some fairly clear external tie-downs for dating. Tb (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about attempting to understand what I said - I was referring to events in Jesus' life. Herod & Pilate dates would pretty much bracket Jesus' events. AND I made several points - not just one --JimWae (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Luke says that Jesus was "about 30" at the time of his baptism. Maybe you need to read the "Year of death" section. Everything you have said is already addressed in the article (including the disagreement between John and the synoptics about the length of Jesus' public ministry). So I think that your comments are not helpful to improve the article. If you think there is a span of ten years which should be noted, please indicate what you think that span should be, but when you talk in generic terms as you have done, it's almost impossible to determine what improvements you think should be made. Tb (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Contrary to your claim that the "lede" "gives the impression that the gospels are the major source of dating", the lead actually says that the chronology is reconstructed from events named in the gospels and and externally known events. If you have a wording that you think would express that better--rather than what simply seems to be an objection to the existence of the article as a whole--propose a better wording here. Tb (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- So, you think "Relating those externally known events" sufficiently covers it?? --JimWae (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- The lede should reflect the upcoming article. There is a profound scarcity of info in the gospels themselves to do ANY dating at all. I have already pointed to text re John the Baptist as being (probably) the only place any dating was attempted in the gospels. Beyond that, we have little more than the times various Romans & Jews occupied their administrative positions - all of which uses so-far-unspecified external sources.
- This article is NOT a priority for me. I was concerned to remove some of the POV & the implications that Christians had preferential access to this topic.
- Perhaps Josephus could be mentioned somewhere in the article & as a source in the lede
- Btw, how does this make sense: "Elsewhere, Luke states that Jesus was 'about thirty' when he began preaching, implying a birth date around 2/3 BC."? --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't people "About 30" from as early as age 24 to as late as 37 or so?
- The article says JB started his ministry in 28/29 AD, that Jesus started his AFTER JB, AND has Jesus starting his own ministry in 26 AD (2 or 3 years BEFORE JB). Some remarks on this are needed.
- I suggest that instead of trying to include a running yearly account of Jesus events (about which there is so much discrepant opinion), that they just be put in 1st yr, 2nd year, 3rd year. D0 I need to spell that out in great detail? --JimWae (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- the lede says "The accounts of the four canonical gospels have the following shape: Jesus was born between 8 BC and AD 6".
- the gospels cannot give us this "shape" without external sources. Saying the gospels give us this "shape" is misleading
- There is NO external source for any slaughter of the innocents. Star of bethlehem will never be identified --JimWae (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "About thirty"
People who are about thirty aren't "24 to 37" except when like me you wished you were younger when you were 37. But it's perfectly reasonable for the article to be improved by making its assumptions and the issues concerning them more explicit. What I'm not sure is how you think that should be done, given that the text is already there. It's not like the question is hidden. It's not possible to list every qualification and question in the introduction. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Attribution of all the summary in the front to the Gospels
You're right that this was imprecise. I've changed it; let me know if that works there. The lead can't somehow include all the questions and uncertainties which are expressed later in the article, but it certainly can improve them. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Slaughter of the innocents
Of course there is no external source, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. This is not a replacement for Historicity of Jesus or Historical Jesus or External verification of elements from the gospel narratives. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] confusing sentence?
Question: "how does this make sense: 'Elsewhere, Luke states that Jesus was 'about thirty' when he began preaching, implying a birth date around 2/3 BC.'?"
- "Elsewhere," that is, not in the text described in the preceding sentence, Luke uses the words "about thirty" to describe Jesus' age when he began preaching, which if he was killed in the late twenties AD, means he was born around 3 BC. Tb (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- "About 30" could NOT result in a range of one year result for birthdate EVEN IF the year he was "about 30" were known (which it is not)
- I thought the appropriate tag for the "biblical TImeline" section would be { { OR } } - but looking at the contradictions around JB, I am thinking { { dubious } } is more appropriate. The way out of this is to NOT try to assign AD years to the events - just use "1st Year", etc... --JimWae (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Except that the whole point of the article is to summarize attempts to date Jesus' life to specific years by correlating externally known events to markers in the Gospels. I'm in complete agreement that the article is a bit of a hash at present; it could well stand significant improvement, but idle "this sucks" isn't very helpful at improvement. Tb (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I think { {dubious}} is entirely relevant to an article that admits it is "guessing", and then contradicts itself. The article says JB started his ministry in 28/29 AD, that Jesus started his AFTER JB, AND has Jesus starting his own ministry in 26 AD (2 or 3 years BEFORE JB). The obvious ridiculousness of this has stood unnoticed by its editors for... (years?), and unless pointed out, there is little motivation for change. Btw, Chronolgy is also about just getting the SEQUENCE down. If the "whole point" of the article is to assign single years (rather than ranges) to each Jesus event, then the "whole point" is WP:OR --JimWae (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What makes it WP:OR? I'm not suggesting that the whole point is to assign single years. The whole point is to date to specific years, whether single or ranges, as the data requires. Of course it lacks references at present, but the topic is one well covered in secondary literature and standard commentaries all contain relevant discussions. It really sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT is going on here. Yes, the article is defective as it stands. This is Wikipedia: make things better. Another editor has just done some work on this; if you don't want to, don't, but Wikipedia is not about complaining, it's about doing. Tb (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Jim, a very helpful source is Finnegan's Handbook to Biblical Chronology. It's extremely even handed, what I think you might call NPOV, and yet obviously by a believing author. He's relentless about all the various theories, etc. You'll probably like it, and I think you'll find where the idea came from that says Tiberius' "15th year" could have been as early as 26. Happy hunting! Herobill (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus visit to Jerusalem in 7 AD
I am very interested to know where this data came from. Personally, I believe it. It fits with the basic facts about Joseph fearing Archelaus (who was deposed in 6 AD) and leaving Jesus behind [in Nazareth, during Passover each year] until age 12. In other words, Jesus would just happen to be twelve in March of 7 AD, the first Passover when Archelaus was "safely" (to Joseph's feeling) gone away. So if Jesus was 12 in March of 7 AD then his birth must have been somewhere during the 12 months preceeding March of 6 BC. Personally (again), my own research suggests Jesus was indeed born in 7 BC, possibly in May. (But the month isn't important at the moment.) Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of my own project, and don't really want to join in the wikipedia effort directly. But I had to comment here because I've been hunting for anyone online who puts Jesus' 12-year-old trip in 7 AD. Honestly, I keep saying to myself, "I can't understand why this hasn't been suggested before." But I can't find it anywhere other than random spots like this [iow, I find it rarely listed but never explained]. Then again, I first posted this theory on my own website as early as 12 to 18 months ago. So who knows? Maybe I'm the source? ;) But I hope not. That would end my hunt. Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I'd be very grateful if anyone can tell me the source for the date "c.7" in this article. Herobill (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, until further research and discussion goes on, I just want to say I have no problem with the "dubious" label on this date. But I definitely don't think it shoudl be deleted, either! Herobill (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biblical Timeline (needs to go)
The Biblical Timeline section is highly problematic. It is entirely unsourced. It is also completely useless to say that Jesus fed the 5,000 is c. 29, if we later say he died in 36 (meaning he had a 7 year ministry), or that he already died in 27. I'm not even sure where these dates are coming from that are attached to specific events (outside death and birth). I believe the brief timeline above this section is all we need (and all that is supported by the sources). What do others think? Should I tag the whole section as totally disputed or just remove it entirely?-Andrew c [talk] 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I share your concerns. Would it be possible to do a timeline just relative to the key points of say birth, baptism, death, as obviously whatever dates are taken for these affects other dates around. Presumably the material now there is built around particular assumptions on these dates, the dating of which is already discussed here and in other articles. It is useful to have the few non-Biblical dates set out in the same timeline, and the range of scholarly opinion on the main key dates of the biblical events. But I presume most of the dates during his ministry are just quesses as to how much could be fitted into year 1, 2 etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)