Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Scholars and the dates of Jesus' Birth and Death

This section is for data gathering on scholarly views. Please debate with the scholars and each other elsewhere to protect my poor, librarian's sense of order. 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris

D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

"All things considered, then, we can only estimate that Jesus must have been born sometime during 6-4 B.C." --CTSWyneken 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The various data do not, then, allow us at this time to resolve the problem. Both April 7, A.D. 30, and April 3, A.D. 33, must be considered possible dates for the crucifixion."

[edit] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. (1998)

"If we remember the prevailing tradition represented by the majority of the early Christian scholars dated the birth of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., and if we accept the time of Herod's death as between the [lunar] eclipse of Jan 9/10 and the Passover of April 8 in the year 1 B.C., then we will probably date the nativity of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., perhaps in mid-January in 2 B.C." p. 319, §549. Haldrik 13:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John P. Meier

A Marginal Jew (full citation in article notes)

"a time somewhere between 28 and 33 seems the most likely date for Jesus' death." 1:375.

"Jesus was born not long before the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.)" 1:375

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991-, vol. 1:407
"Jesus of Nazareth was born-most likely in Nazareth, not Bethlehem-ca. 7 or 6 B.C., a few years before the death of King Herod the Great (4 B.C.) ... He was dead by the evening of Friday, April 7, 30. He was about thirty-six years old."
p. 406
"We have seen that it is likely that Jesus began his ministry in A.D. 28 and died on Friday, April 7, 30.
p. 229
"During the reign of King Herod the Great (and if Matthew is to be believed, toward the end of his reign, therefore somewhere between 7-4 B.C.), a Jew named Yeshia (=Jesus) was born, perhaps in Bethlehem of Judea but more likely in Nazareth of Galilee-at any rate, in a small town somewhere within the confines of Herod's kingdom."
p.375
'This helps set vague limits for Jesus' lifea as a whole: he was not born after 4 B.C., his ministry took place around the late twenties or early thirties A.D., and he was crucified somewhere between A.D. 28 and 33.
--Andrew c 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989

This work is a set of essays in honor of Jack Finegan on the chronology of the life of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Vardaman

Professor of Religion, Mississippi State University.

"Prevailing view is that Jesus was born between 8 and 2 BC and that he died around AD 30-33." p. 56.

"my judgment that Jesus was born in late 12 BC and that he was crucified around AD 21." p. 56.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest L. Martin

Director of the Academy for Scriptural Knowledge, Alahambra, California

"I believe that there are seven historical and biblical factors that show the reasonableness of a 3 or 2 BC birth for Jesus." p. 86.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul L. Maier

Professor of History at Western Michigan University.

"...yields 5 BC, the most likely date for the Nativity." p. 119

"On many bases, then, 3 April AD 33 makes a strong claim as the date of the Crucifixion." p. 126.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikos Kokkinos

Senior Scholar, St. Hugh's College, Oxford University.

"Places the Crucifixion of Jesus in 36." p. 162.

"It follows that Jesus was born in 12 BC." p. 163.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does he think Jesus lived 48 years? Or did you mean 2 BCE? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to double check, but I believe he's arguing the dates for the reign of Herod are off by 10 years. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William F. Dankenbring

Long article [click here] "February, or late winter, just before spring, in 4 B.C." rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you give a quick idea who this fellow is? --CTSWyneken 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The article had lots of good content. A quick search afterward shows that he is a Herbert W. Armstrong follower. No evidence of his credentials found - perhaps it is just plagiarism. rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I suspect, then, he doesn't have scholarly credentials. Good news: anyone can put material on the internet. Bad news: anyone can put material on the internet. --CTSWyneken 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Witherington III

Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. He is author of the highly praised The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Historical Jesus (InterVarsity, 1997).

From "Primary Sources." Christian History, August 1998 p12(1).

"Jesus was born somewhere between 4 and 6 B.C."

and

"A Roman trial was held, after which Jesus was executed on the eve of Passover on Friday, April 7, A.D. 30, on a hill called Golgotha, outside the city gates of Jerusalem. "

Sorry, no page numbers because this came from InfoTrac OneFile Plus .--Andrew c 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Grant

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71

"About the date of Jesus' birth there are equally perplexing problems. The belief that he was born in AD 1 only came into existence in the sixth century AD when a monk... His birth-date should be reassigned to 6 or 5 or 4 BC, though some prefer 11 or 7 [25].

And the text of the note [25]: E. M. Smallwood, Greece and Rome, April 1970, pp. 85f., 89f. Luke's reference (2.2) to the census of 'Cyrenius' (Publius Sulpicius Guioronius, governor of Syria, AD 6) should be dicounted. --Andrew c 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Durant

Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, 1994, p. 557-558

"Both Matthew and Luke assign Jesus' birth to "the days when Herod was king of Judea" -consequently before 3 B.C. Luke, however, describes Jesus as "about thirty years old" when John bptized him "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius" -i.e., A.D. 28-29; this would place Christ's birth in the year 2-1 B.C. Luke adds that "in thjose days there went out a decree of Caesar Agustus that all the world should be taxed . . . when Quirinius was governonr of Syria." Quirinius is known to have been legate in Syria between A.D. 6 and 12; Josephus notes a census by him in Judea, but ascribes it to A.D. 6-7; we have no futher mention of this census. Tertullian records a census of Judea by Saturninus, governon of Syria 8-7 B.C.; if this is the census that Luke had in mind, the bith of Christ would have to be palced before 6 B.C."

and p. 570-571 (note: new info)

"On the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan (our April third), probably in the year 30*, Jesus and his apostles ate the Seder, or Passover supper, in the home of a friend in Jerusalem. *There is much dispute about the duration of Christ's mission and the year of his death. We have seen Luke dating Christ's baptism in the year 29-29. The chronology of Paul, as based upon his own statements in Galatians I-II, the chronology of the procurators who tried him, and the tradition of the death in 64, apparently require the dating of Paul';s conversion in 31. Cf. Chapter XXVII"

--Andrew c 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar

Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998, p. 528

"Jesus is linked with the reign of king Herod teh Great (37-4 B.C.E.), during whose incumbency Jesus was allegedly born. We also have the name of Herod Antipas, tetrarch from 4 B.C.E. to 39 C.E., who ruled Galilee during Jesus' life and beheaded John the Baptist; and the name of Pntius Pilate, the Roman procurator (26-36 C.E.) under whom Jesus was crucified. Jesus therefore lived in a period bounded by a date prior to the death of Herod on the one side and by the end of Pilate's tenure in 36 C.E. on the other."

--Andrew c 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geza Vermes

Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew, Macmillan, 1973, p.20

[Refering only to what is presented in Mark] "Date of death: 'under Pontius Pilate', between AD 26 and 36"

p. 21

[Also refering only to Mark] "The only indirect evidence on his date of birth is concealed in the verse describing him as being of about thirty yeras of age when John baptized him in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, probably in AD 28/29."

--Andrew c 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. T. Robertson

An older, but well respected scholar. He wrote a massive manual (1,000+ small-print pages!) on Greek grammar and syntax that is still considered authoritative. This is from Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament (Broadman & Holman, 1970), on Luke 2:2:

The first enrolment (ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη). A definite allusion by Luke to a series of censuses instituted by Augustus, the second of which is mentioned by him in Ac 5:37. This second one is described by Josephus and it was supposed by some that Luke confused the two. But Ramsay [q.v., Luke the Physician] has shown that a periodical fourteen-year census in Egypt is given in dated papyri back to A.D. 20. The one in Ac 5:37 would then be A.D. 6. This is in the time of Augustus. The first would then be B.C. 8 in Egypt. If it was delayed a couple of years in Palestine by Herod the Great for obvious reasons, that would make the birth of Christ about B.C. 6 which agrees with the other known data. When Quirinius (Κυρηνίου). Genitive absolute. Here again Luke has been attacked on the ground that Quirinius was only governor of Syria once and that was A.D. 6 as shown by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. I.I). But Ramsay has proven by inscriptions that Quirinius was twice in Syria and that Luke is correct here also. See summary of the facts in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 118-29.

I don't have Luke the Historian in the Light of Research and I can't find it online, but I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy sometime. --MonkeeSage 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herod and the number 2

The reasons given for choosing a year usually have something to do with the NT verses about Herod killing all male babies under the age of two. A few points, that perhaps everyone knows (or perhaps not).

  • There is no independent historical account of such an action by Herod - but there are of Herod killing TWO of his own sons (older than 2).
  • There is no rationale provided for Herod choosing to let babies older than 2 live - the presumption being that the 3 wise men somehow knew how old the new king was & told Herod.
  • If Herod died 4 BC, and lived for about 2 years after the massacre, then this supposed massacre would have taken place about 6 BC. If there is some reason for killing babies as old as 2, then (taking everything at face value) Jesus could already have been 2 (hence born 8 BC) --JimWae 05:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair summary of some of the issues, Jim. There is a ton more, of course. Can you help with documenting the conclusions of Biblical Scholars and Historians above? We can then use the data to establish the ranges that scholars use. --CTSWyneken 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are also those who believe the Star of Bethlehem was a conjunction of planets—either Jupiter and Saturn in 6 BC/E, or Jupiter and Venus in 2 BC/E.

What of the fact that the census when Quinirius was govenor of Syria happened several years after Herod the Great died? This is something that continues to bug me.

Of course, there is also the parallel between Herod killing the male children in Jesus' time, and Pharoah doing the same thing in Moses' time.

Feel free to move this if it doesn't fit this subpage. I'm just riffing off of JimWae's Herod comments. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie, simply because we do not have documentation of an earlier census does not mean one did not happen. We actually have very little documentation of anything in the 1st Century or before. The old adage applies here: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
That being said, we're collecting scholar's opinions here, not our own. --CTSWyneken 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw JimWae's questions and comments so I thought I'd add a few of my own. My father always said, "Ask, or you'll never learn." You can just as easily move this to an archive or another subpage. Archive 44 is open. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some astronomers fall all over themselves trying to find the celestial event - and lay commentators even suspect Halley's comet (12 BCE) - I am content that it is mostly mythological - and that the birth year is wide open. If God wanted a celestial event, why wouldn't he just write "I am" or "I am born" or "Do the right thing" - or whatever the most important message is - with the stars? Apparently, taking everything at face value, God does not want us to know the year--JimWae 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been said that the "Wise Men" were members of a small number of Babylonian Jewish astrologers, and that the conjunction would have meant something entirely different to other astrologers (and to most Jews, who saw astrology as idolatry). As for the rest, God only knows—and I mean that literally. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, the point is, what do scholars say. I think from the citations above, we can say there's little consensus on the birth date. I think this goes a way towards including a termenus a quo and a <termenus ad quem (range of dates). --CTSWyneken 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedias

[edit] Cambridge Encyclopedia

"Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth." Cambridge Encyclopedia ed. David Crystal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 638.

"He was apparently born in Bethlehem, c. 6-5 BC (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC)... The date of death is uncertain, but is usually considered to be in 30 or 33."

--CTSWyneken 11:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia

Eds., Herbermann, Pace, et al. (Encyclopedia Press, 1913), s.v., Biblical Chronology. Another oldie, but goodie. Article by J. A. Howlett.

(9) Date of the Nativity of Jesus Christ
At first sight it seems a simple thing to fix the date of the birth of Jesus Christ. Was it not in the beginning of the first year of the Christian Era? It was a monk of the sixth century, named Dionysius Exiguus (the Little) who fixed our present Christian Era, laying down that Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, A. U. C. 753, and commencing the new era from the following year, 754. That date, as we shall see, cannot be correct and, instead of being an improvement on, is further from the truth than the dates assigned by the early Fathers, St. Irenæus and Tertullian, who fixed the date of the Nativity in the 41st year of Augustus, that is to say, 3 years B. C., or a. U. C. 751. We must note first that St. Matthew says (ii, 1) that Our Saviour was born "in the days of King Herod". Josephus tells us (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 1), that Herod died "having reigned 34 years de facto since the death of Antigonus, and 37 years de jure since the Roman decree declaring him king". We know also that he began to reign in the consulship of Domitius Calvinus and Asinius Pollio, 40 B. C., in the 184th Olympiad (Ant., xiv, 5); and that he became king de facto in the consulship of Marcus Agrippa and Canidius Ballus, in the 185th Olympiad (Ant., XIV, xvi, 4). These calculations do not make it sure whether Herod died in the year 3, 4, or 5 B. C., but it is most probable that it was in the year 4 B. C. That date is corroborated by an eclipse of the moon which occurred (Ant., XVII, vi, 4) on the very night that Herod burnt Matthias alive, a few days before his own death; for there was an eclipse of the moon from 12 March to 13 March, 4 B. C. All this points to the fact that Herod died in the year 4 B. C., and that so Our Saviour must have been born before that date. In May, October, and December of the year 7 B. C., a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn took place. Kepler, the astronomer, suggested that perhaps this phenomenon was connected with the star seen by the Magi (Matthew 2:2). But this idea is altogether too uncertain to be entertained seriously, or to form a basis for any reliable chronology. Nor can we come to any more definite conclusion from what St. Matthew says of the sojourn of the child Jesus in Egypt (ii, 14, 19, 22), where he remained till the death of Herod. Herod ordered a massacre of the children up to two years old according to the information about the date of the Nativity which he had received from the Magi. In itself there is nothing unlikely in that, for we know that Herod was a most cruel and whimsical man, having, for instance, summoned to his bedside all the principal men of the Jewish nation with a view to having them shot with darts at the moment of his death, so that there might be universal lamentation when he left this life. We do not, however, know what information Herod possessed as to the date of the Nativity, whether the Magi gave him accurate information, or whether they possessed it themselves; what the incident would seem to show was that Our Saviour was born some time before Herod's death, probably two years or more. So that, if Herod died in the year 4 B. C., we should be taken to 6 or 7 B. C. as the year of the Nativity.
But a difficulty is raised as to the date of the Nativity in connexion with the Roman census mentioned in the second chapter of St. Luke. The Nativity took place after a decree had gone forth from Cæsar Augustus that the whole Roman Empire should be enrolled. The words "This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria" (verse 2), or, more correctly, "This first census was taken whilst Quirinius was governor of Syria", are the source of the difficulty. For we know that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria, and that a census was made in A. D. 7, about eleven years after Herod's death, and it is not denied that Cyrinus was Quirinius. Schürer, in "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ" (Div. I, Vol. II, 105-143), endeavours to prove that the statement is an inaccuracy on the part of St. Luke, and, with more or less emphasis, practically all the critical school takes up the same attitude. But prima facie we are not disposed to accept the contention that St. Luke was in ignorance on such a very elementary subject. C. H. Turner, in Hastings' "Dictionary of the Bible", thinks he may have been misinformed, since "his acquaintance with Palestine was perhaps limited to the two years' imprisonment of St. Paul in Cæsarea". Such an idea seems most unlikely. St. Luke had made careful inquiry about the facts he relates in his Gospel; he had "diligently attained to all things from the beginning", and that too from those who "were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (i, 2, 3). For such a man it seems incredible that he should not have taken the trouble to inquire, not as to some petty Jewish custom, but as to such a public and important event as a Roman census, and to have made himself acquainted with the name of the Roman governor at the time.
At the same time it is not clear what the explanation of the note about Quirinius is. Some suggest that próte has, as it undoubtedly has sometimes in classical Greek, the force of prótera, so that the sense of the passage would be: "This census was held before that which took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria". But there is another explanation. It is true the writer of the article on Chronology in Cheyne's "Encyclopædia" says, with characteristic positiveness, that "any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A. D. 7 is impossible". But on the other hand, Turner, in Hastings' "Dictionary", thinks that there is no inherent improbability in the hypothesis of a census in Judea somewhere within the years 8-5 B. C. There is very little doubt, from an inscription found at Tivoli in 1764, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria; once, as is well known, from a. D. 6-11, but also once at an earlier period. Not at the time of Herod's death, for Quinctilius Varus was then governor; and before him came Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 B. C., before him Titius. But there is no reason why Quirinius should not be placed after Varus. In that case Saturninus would have been the one to begin the census; it would have been suspended for a time, on account of the death of Herod, and then continued and completed under Quirinius, so that his name would have been associated with it. Perhaps this may explain why Tertullian speaks of a census made by Sentius Saturninus under Augustus (Adv. Marcionem, iv, 19); but it is hardly likely, if he had found another and, apparently, a wrong name in St. Luke, that he would not have taken any notice, or given any explanation of it.
From the evidence it seems that the date of the Nativity given by Dionysius Exiguus is not the right one, for it is after Herod's death. Tertullian and Irenæus are nearer to the truth with the years 2 or 3 B. C.; but it must be placed still further back, and probably the year 7 B. C. will not be found to be much astray.
[. . .]
(12) Date of the Crucifixion
It is clear that the Crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate, and hence Our Saviour must have died between A. D. 26 and 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 2). It is also clearly laid down in the Gospels that the Crucifixion took place on a Friday. For we are told that the Resurrection took place on Sunday, and also that it occurred three days after the Crucifixion, but according to the Greek and Jewish mode of reckoning, the third day is what we should call the second day. A difficulty is, however, raised as to whether Our Saviour died on the 14th or 15th of Nisan. Some are of opinion that, whilst St. John held the Crucifixion to have been on the 14th (xix, 31), the Synoptists were in favour of the 15th (Mark 15:42). But it does not seem possible that either St. John or St. Matthew, who were so intimately connected with the facts related, should have been mistaken in this matter, or that, in the same way, either the Synoptists or the Fourth Gospel erred. Nor are we without explanations to reconcile the apparent differences between the Gospels. St. John, we know, favours the 14th of Nisan. But St. Mark, too, tells us how Simon of Cyrene helped Christ to carry the Cross (xv, 21), and how Joseph of Arimathea buried the Body — facts which seem to tell against the Festival Day (xv, 43 sqq.). Besides, the weight of Christian antiquity is in favour of the 14th of Nisan, as are such competent modern scholars as Professor Sanday and the late Bishop Westcott.
If we could make up our mind fully that the Crucifixion took place on the 14th of Nisan, it would help us to determine in what year it happened. For though we cannot always be certain whether a Friday fell on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, still we can be fairly satisfied that the years 29, 30, and 33 fulfilled the necessary conditions, though von Soden, in Cheyne's "Encyclopædia", is of opinion that the year 29 does not do so. It has already been seen that the Crucifixion must have happened somewhere between 26 and 36. It may also be taken that it did not occur after 33, because in the next year Caiphas was deposed from the high-priesthood by Vitellius. We are left, then, with the years 29, 30, and 33 to choose between for the death of Jesus Christ. We cannot be certain in our choice. But naturally we should expect the date of such an important event to be handed down by tradition; and we find a very ancient tradition, going back to A. D. 150, for the date A. D. 29, in the consulship of the Gemini. In favour of it are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Apocryphal Acts of Pilate, Hippolytus, and the Pseudo-Tertullian.

--MonkeeSage 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collier's Encyclopedia

Collier's Encyclpedia ed. Lauen S. Bahr and Bernard Johnston. New York: P. F. Collier, N.D. vol. 13, p. 553


"Neither the year nor the day of Jesus' birth is certain... was perhaps in 6 B.C... the traditional date ... is quite possibly an accurate oral tradition... --CTSWyneken 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Encyclopedia

"Jesus or Jesus Christ." Columbia Encyclopedia, p. 1081.

"Jesus was probably born between 8 B.C. and 4 B.C. ... "

--CTSWyneken 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Gen. Ed., James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), s.v., Jesus Christ, 2. An older source, but still well regarded. The article this is excerpted from is by James Orr.

Birth:

Though challenged by some (Caspari, Bosanquet, Conder, etc., put it as late as 1 BC) the usual date for the death of Herod the Great, March, 4 BC (year of Rome 750), may be assumed as correct (for grounds of this dating, see Schurer, op. cit., Div. I, Vol. I, 464-67). The birth of Jesus was before, and apparently not very long before, this event (Mt 2). It may therefore be placed with probability in the latter part of the previous year (5 BC), the ordinary dating of the commencement of the Christian era being thus, as is generally recognized, four years too late. There is no certainty as to the month or day of the birth. The Christmas date, December 25, is first met with in the West in the 4th century (the eastern date was January 6), and was then possibly borrowed from a pagan festival. December, in the winter season, seems unlikely, as unsuitable for the pasturing of flocks (Lk 2:8), though this objection is perhaps not decisive (Andrews, Conder). A more probable date is a couple of months earlier. The synchronism with Quirinius (Lk 2:2) is considered in connection with the nativity. The earlier datings of 6, 7, or even 8 BC, suggested by Ramsay, Mackinlay and others, on grounds of the assumed Roman census, astronomical phenomena, etc., appear to leave too long an interval before the death of Herod, and conflict with other data, as Lk 3:1 (see below).

Death:

On the hypothesis now accepted, the crucifixion of Jesus took place at the Passover of 30 AD. On the two years' scheme it would fall a year earlier. On both sides it is agreed that it occurred on the Friday of the week of the Passover, but it is disputed whether this Friday was the 14th or the 15th day of the month. The Gospel of John is pleaded for the former date, the Synoptics for the latter. The question will be considered in connection with the time of the Last Supper. Meanwhile it is to be observed that, if the 15th is the correct date, there seems reason to believe that the 15th of Nisan fell on a Friday in the year just named, 783 AUG, or 30 AD. We accept this provisionally as the date of the crucifixion.

--MonkeeSage 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)