When was Jesus born?

[steve53]

"Now to narrow down the date of this… Now usually the Temple was opened at sunrise and closed at sunset, but there was ONE time of the year when the Temple remained open, and this was on Yom Kippur (Night of Redemption). "

Where do you get this from?

 

[bmonk]

And then there is the Gospel of John, which often has surprisingly accurate details not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels.

One can argue, based on John 2: 20-21, “The Jews said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body,” and John 8:57, "the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?’ ” that John sees Jesus as dying age 49 (three years after he was 46, when he is “not yet 50”. That latter phrase would be odd if Jesus were, in fact, about 30.

If we just use this data from John, we get a birth year about 20 BC!

This just points out the difficulties in calculating the exact date. And, as several others have asked, does it really matter? I don’t think so.

 

[patrick457]

And then there is the Gospel of John, which often has surprisingly accurate details not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels.

One can argue, based on John 2: 20-21, “The Jews said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body,” and John 8:57, "the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?’ ” that John sees Jesus as dying age 49 (three years after he was 46, when he is “not yet 50”. That latter phrase would be odd if Jesus were, in fact, about 30.

If we just use this data from John, we get a birth year about 20 BC!

This just points out the difficulties in calculating the exact date. And, as several others have asked, does it really matter? I don’t think so.

A few things:

1.) I think you’re reading too much into the statement about the Temple. In context, the Judaeans are talking of the Temple grounds which is still undergoing construction ( from John’s POV, they were obviously misunderstanding Jesus’ words), not of Jesus’ actual age.

So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

2.) As for the whole “you do not yet have fifty years” issue: the main problem here would be that John’s mention is second-hand. In other words, in the context it is posed as more of a rhetorical question by the Judaeans to Jesus rather than, again, a definite statement about Jesus’ actual age.

The Judaeans said to Him, “Now we have known that you have a demon! Abraham died, and the prophets; and you are saying, ‘If any one may keep my word, he shall never taste of death to the age’. You are not greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died. Whom do you make yourself?" Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom you say that He is your God; and you have not known Him, and I have known Him. And if I say that I have not known Him, I shall be like you - a liar; but I have known Him, and His word I keep. Abraham your father was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and rejoiced.”

The Judaeans, therefore, said to Him, “You do not yet have fifty years, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was - I am.” They took up, therefore, stones that they may throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out from the temple.

Again, drawing from my cabinet of stock answers:

The “fifty years” has been the subject of much speculation. Aside from the ideas that it points to Jesus’ approximate age or that the number was used to symbolize the end of a full working life (all the while knowing that Jesus has not yet completed it), there have also been scholarly theories about how it was a reference to the fifty-year Jubilee period. The Jubilee was the fiftieth year that concluded the cycle of seven “weeks” of seven years in Leviticus 25, when property was returned to the original owners, the farmer was not to sow or reap, and slaves were released. It is also the unit that the Book of Jubilees (2nd century BC) uses to calculate the age of the patriarchs and in its goal of calendrical reform, hence the title.

It is speculated that Jesus (or John) knew of Jubilees and was at this point deliberately making a subtle reference to it: “Abraham your father was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and rejoiced.” (cf. Jubilees 16:20-31, where Abraham rejoices at the promise of a future exalted seed of Isaac.) The book’s concern for the Sabbath, and the fact that even Abraham did not complete four Jubilees before dying, would make the taunt especially appropriate for Jesus, the Sabbath-breaker who had not yet completed even one Jubilee. In any case, they argue that John’s apparent disinterest in concrete dates (he mostly prefers to date events by days or festivals), coupled with his interest in the number seven (the seven “I am” sayings, the seven discourses or the seven semeia or signs that Jesus performs in this Gospel come to mind), makes it more likely in their opinion that the number fifty was used symbolically rather than indicating the actual age of Jesus.

3.) John explicitly speaks only of three Passovers within his Gospel: Jesus’ ministry begins and ends in one, which in a literal reading would put us in a period of more or less two years. The popular idea that Jesus preached for three (or to be more exact, three and a half) years comes not from the Gospels, but from a patristic (Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea) interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (9:24-27), specifically the passage: “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.”

 

[steve53]

And then there is the Gospel of John, which often has surprisingly accurate details not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels.

One can argue, based on John 2: 20-21, “The Jews said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body,” and John 8:57, "the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?’ ” that John sees Jesus as dying age 49 (three years after he was 46, when he is “not yet 50”. That latter phrase would be odd if Jesus were, in fact, about 30.

If we just use this data from John, we get a birth year about 20 BC!

This just points out the difficulties in calculating the exact date. And, as several others have asked, does it really matter? I don’t think so.

I think you are on to something, bmonk. Patrick, I feel, is over-thinking things.

You can make a good case for Jesus’ crucifixion in A.D. 36. Why not have Halley’s comet be the Star of the East? I passed by about 12 B.C.

That would make Jesus 47 at the time of his crucifixion. And his ministry, based on a passage in Luke, at a more believable seven-plus years.

When the irate Jews excoriated Jesus for preaching with authority even though he was “not yet fifty”, that is probably exactly what they meant.

 

[patrick457]

I think you are on to something, bmonk. Patrick, I feel, is over-thinking things.

You can make a good case for Jesus’ crucifixion in A.D. 36. Why not have Halley’s comet be the Star of the East? I passed by about 12 B.C.

If one thinks that the chronology should be revised, why not?

That would make Jesus 47 at the time of his crucifixion. And his ministry, based on a passage in Luke, at a more believable seven-plus years.

Which passage is it?

When the irate Jews excoriated Jesus for preaching with authority even though he was “not yet fifty”, that is probably exactly what they meant.

I just don’t see why we need to interpret “not yet [having] fifty years” to just mean “forty-something.” Besides, how did the Judaeans exactly know how old Jesus was? And why does one need to take that rhetorical question - read the context - as a definitive statement? Looking at the statement and to say that this is evidence for Jesus’ actual age is missing the point: the point that the Judaeans are making is, Jesus could not have seen or known Abraham, who died centuries before.

 

[steve53]

The passage in Luke that states Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year in Tiberius’ reign, which would be A.D. 28. Luke 3:1, I believe.

There is no known hallmark age in Jewish men of 50, that would automatically make men more wise and more believable. Certainly nothing in the NT or Josephus to suggest it.

And Josephus says that many Essenes lived to be over a hundred in those days. Ananus was probably in his nineties when he died, as was John the Evangelist. The High Priesthood likely had dozens of elders in their eighties who did nothing but hang around the Temple answering questions and giving advice.

And here comes the relatively young and uneducated Jesus to challenge them all, as if he had a personal connection with god. The audacity of the man!!

 

[JesuisSean]

Which birth date are you referring to?

1. From God’s point of view, ALL is seen, thus a birth date is the date of conception.
2. From our limited point of view, a birth date is the date of the emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.

Answer 1) Sept 11, 3BC.
Answer 2) June 17, 2BC.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081224-star-bethlehem.html

Information concerning the date June 17 2BC, is found many times over within the KJV Bible. However, only those whom are not blind when it comes to seeing the truth, can see this.

Those who walk the path of truth with Jesus, can find it. Those who only believe in Jesus, can not find it. One only practices a belief if one is located at a distance from the TRUTH.

I believe that if I continue to breath, I will remain conscious.

I chose to move to the truth of which this belief spoke of while I was located at a distance from it. Thus I chose to walk the path of truth rather than choose to simply stick to my belief and thus pass out instead.

Unfortunately, most people these days are quite happy with their beliefs and disbeliefs, and thus stick to their beliefs and disbeliefs, and thus they are quite happy with being located at a distance from the TRUTH, and thus do not even think of approaching the TRUTH, thus they remain within the zone of less than truth.

Thus they ask, " When was Jesus born? ".

The reach of beliefs and disbeliefs only take you so far. There is still a distance to go to get to the actual truth itself. Thus the truth sits beyond the reach of mere beliefs, thus the truth is beyond belief. Thus if a truth of massive scale is presented to a believer who sticks to his or her beliefs, this truth will not be seen, for such a person can only see what he or she believes.

Thus if a huge true figure, such as Jesus Christ, was placed directly in front of a group of believers who stick to being located at a distance from the truth, via sticking to their beliefs, they would probably flog, scourge, and crucify this fellow of such holiness.

 

[patrick457]

The passage in Luke that states Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year in Tiberius’ reign, which would be A.D. 28. Luke 3:1, I believe.

What Luke says is this:

And in the fifteenth year of the dominion of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod tetrarch of the Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, upon the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, there came a word of God to John son of Zacharias in the wasteland, and he came to all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance to remission of sins, as it has been written in the scroll of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

"A voice shouting in the wasteland:
'Prepare the way of the Lord,
straight make His paths.
Every ravine will be filled up,
and every mountain and hill made low,
and the crooked will become straight,
and the rough ways level;
and all flesh will see the salvation of God."

…] Now it came to be, in all the people being baptized, Jesus also being baptized and praying, that the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form like a dove on him, and a voice came from heaven: “You are my son, the beloved, in you I take delight.” And Jesus was, when he was beginning, about thirty years of age …]

Of course one could argue here that Luke is being figurative, signifying that Jesus is now portrayed as being ‘the right age’ for His mission (see below).

 

[patrick457]

There is no known hallmark age in Jewish men of 50, that would automatically make men more wise and more believable. Certainly nothing in the NT or Josephus to suggest it.

Fifty years was the fullness of age. In the Old Testament it was the age of retirement: only men thirty (there’s that number again!) to fifty years of age may serve in priestly duties, beyond that they are expected to retire, though they could still assist in their former duties (Numbers 4:3, 23, 30; 8:25, 26). It is not so much about Jesus being ‘wise’ but Jesus not yet being ‘advanced in years’; how could He have seen Abraham, who died centuries ago - which is really the point of why they are asking this question - if He didn’t even reach the fullness of His life?

And since this is probably relevant, I quote from a footnote from Jesus and Archaeology (ed. James H. Charlesworth), in a chapter written by Joe Zias entitled The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy about the average lifespans of the inhabitants of that area - usually believed to be an Essene site. This is in the context of dental evidence about the men and women of the settlement:

Unlike bone, the highly mineralized nature of teeth makes them unique markers of human biological events. Bone is subject to remodeling, whereby cortical defects in the skeletons of young individuals or minor fractures disappear during growth, thus obliterating traces of one’s biological past. Teeth, however, are incapable of altering their mineral structure, and therefore defects such as caries, abcesses and attrition leave a permanent record of one’s personal history. [sup]45[/sup]

1. G.H. Sperber, “Paleodonpathology and Paleodontotherapy,” Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 52 (1986): 835-38.

This personal history is clearly seen in the skeletal remains from the ancient Near East due to the widely differing environments in the region that continue to leave their imprint on the dental record of the region’s population. Desert environments subject the dentition to differing environmental stresses due to the highly abrasive nature of the foods consumed there, the way this food is prepared, and the difficulty in keeping windblown sand out of the daily diet. As a result, the dental attrition rate for individuals living in desert areas is greatly accelerated compared to those living in higher elevations, such as the Judean hills, Samaria, and Galilee, where the inhabitants do not face these environmental conditions to the same degree.
Studies in Israel have shown that the attrition rate, expressed as the wear on the occlusal surfaces, differs greatly among populations, depending on the environment they inhabit.46

1. P. Smith, “Diet and Nutrition in the Natufians,” AJPA 37 (1972): 233-38.

 

[patrick457]

When comparing peasants (fellahin) with desert Bedouin, significant differences already appear in young adults (twenty to twenty-four years old), and these rates nearly double in later years (thirty-five to forty-four years old). Thus the permanent molars for desert dwellers are worn down at an alarming rate when compared to nondesert dwellers. When viewing the dentition of the adults in the cemetery at Qumran, one clearly sees two differing lifestyles, that of the desert versus that of the uplands. Those individuals living in the desert for extended periods presented severe dental pathologies, including dental abscesses, antemortem tooth loss, and enamel wear in which the dentine was exposed. These pathologies typically associated with desert environments were present in the Bedouin skeletal material coming from the southeastern extensions. In comparison, the dentition of the males unearthed in the main cemetery was markedly different from the females in type and frequency of dental pathology. The surprisingly little wear on the posterior dentition was clear evidence of a differing diet and environmental history between the two groups. Therefore, it is clear from the dental evidence that the males interred in the main cemetery were not indigenous to the desert region but came to the site after their formative years, thus explaining the differential between the contrasting dental pathologies seen in the two populations. Had both groups shared a common past since birth, living under identical environmental conditions, these marked dental differences would not have been present.
The dental evidence (observed in the skeletal material) presented from the main cemetery, when compared to the females and children, supports the literary evidence of Philo and Pliny that males only came to Qumran from towns sometime after their twentieth year to join the desert brotherhood.47.

1. Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 42.

Their life span, however, was not long, as the average age at death, according to my calculations, was only thirty-four years. [sup]48[/sup]

1. Stegemann (The Library of Qumran, p. 47) estimates thirty years as the average age of death, whereas I would estimate thirty-four years on the basis of the material I viewed in Munich. The difference between our estimates is probably due to his factoring in the females, as the mortality data for females in antiquity shows that their longevity was shorter than that of males. Josephus (War 2.151) writes that the Essenes are long-lived, most of them remaining alive over a hundred years. This he attributes to the simple and disciplined lives they led. As few actually lived past forty, many dying in their twenties, this is a gross exaggeration and raises the question of the truthfulness of Josephus’ account of the Essenes. In fact, if longevity is a measure of the quality of life, then the mortality rate expressed by the cemetery data suggests that their health status was seriously compromised. One of the cardinal principles of paleopathology, the paradox of pathology, is that the lack of observed skeletal pathology may indicate a population that is unhealthy. If one enjoys good health and one’s immune system is not compromised, then one survives these inevitable illnesses that all populations are subject to. The marks these chronic illnesses leave on the skeletal system show that their immune system was in fact robust and healthy enough to enable them to withstand these pressures. Thus, what was once believed to be a very unhealthy population in terms of observed pathology is today regarded as relatively healthier than one that evidences no gross pathology. In other words, they simply came down with an acute or chronic illness and were so immunologically compromised that they died immediately, leaving no skeletal signs of the illness.

 

[steve53]

Your scholarship is admirable Patrick, but again you are downplaying the only real source we have for those times, Josephus.

First off, the Jewish lands were not the arid semi-desert that is seen today. In many areas, rain was plentiful, and there were Artesian wells a’plenty. There were settlements around the Asphaltitis, where there is desert today. The population flourished. The Jewish east was a prosperous and productive area in the times of Jesus.

Second, Josephus likely knew some of these old ascetics who lived for such a long time. And he ascribed the remarkable length of the life of the Essene to the peacefulness and regularity of their lives, and the simplicity in their diet. Which is prescient to what we know today. And Josephus is clear that the elder Ananus assumed duties as High Priest of the Second Temple (appointed by the Romans) in A.D. 7. And if, as you argue, that no one could assume priestly duties until they were thirty, then when Josephus states Simon Ananus died in A.D. 68, he would have been over ninety.

Elders were respected back then. Just as were prophets who might have been younger than thirty, who were thought to be touched by god. No reason to think that, after fifty, they were relegated to lesser positions. Rather the opposite, if they were vigorous and still had their wits about them, and Simon Ananus apparently did.

I don’t think anyone really believes that Qumran was an Essene settlement. Many reasons for this, not the least of which is that it was far outside the community, and had a sophistication of structure that the Essene would not have bothered to build.

 

[DanPF]

On His birthday.

 

[patrick457]

Your scholarship is admirable Patrick, but again you are downplaying the only real source we have for those times, Josephus.

First off, the Jewish lands were not the arid semi-desert that is seen today. In many areas, rain was plentiful, and there were Artesian wells a’plenty. There were settlements around the Asphaltitis, where there is desert today. The population flourished. The Jewish east was a prosperous and productive area in the times of Jesus.

True. It does seem that conditions were more hospitable 2000 years ago back then in the central and northern Negev desert than today: there was apparently more rainfall, which allowed people to cultivate tracts of land using water harvesing. But the point at hand is that people from non-desert environments have different dental patterns than those who live in such areas.

Second, Josephus likely knew some of these old ascetics who lived for such a long time. And he ascribed the remarkable length of the life of the Essene to the peacefulness and regularity of their lives, and the simplicity in their diet. Which is prescient to what we know today. And Josephus is clear that the elder Ananus assumed duties as High Priest of the Second Temple (appointed by the Romans) in A.D. 7. And if, as you argue, that no one could assume priestly duties until they were thirty, then when Josephus states Simon Ananus died in A.D. 68, he would have been over ninety.

Elders were respected back then. Just as were prophets who might have been younger than thirty, who were thought to be touched by god. No reason to think that, after fifty, they were relegated to lesser positions. Rather the opposite, if they were vigorous and still had their wits about them, and Simon Ananus apparently did.

Actually, you’re talking about Ananus who is the son of (the elder) Ananus aka Annas here, who did die in AD 68 under the hands of Idumaeans. We don’t exactly know what happened to the elder Ananus, or when his death occurred: that is the realm of speculation.

I don’t think anyone really believes that Qumran was an Essene settlement. Many reasons for this, not the least of which is that it was far outside the community, and had a sophistication of structure that the Essene would not have bothered to build.

I wouldn’t quite phrase it that way. It is agreed by a lot of people that Qumran is a sectarian settlement: many of those who think thus - the original excavators of the site included - believe further that it could have been an Essene settlement based on what Pliny writes about the group (Natural History 5.73).

Asphaltites produces nothing whatever except bitumen, to which indeed it owes its name. The bodies of animals will not sink in its waters, and even those of bulls and camels float there. In length it exceeds 100 miles being at its greatest breadth twenty-five, and at its smallest six. Arabia of the Nomades faces it on the east, and Machaerus on the south, at one time, next to Hierosolyma, the most strongly fortified place in Judaea. On the same side lies Callirrhoë, a warm spring, remarkable for its medicinal qualities, and which, by its name, indicates the celebrity its waters have gained.

Lying on the west of Asphaltites, and sufficiently distant to escape its noxious exhalations, are the Esseni, a people that live apart from the world, and marvellous beyond all others throughout the whole earth, for they have no women among them; to sexual desire they are strangers; money they have none; the palm-trees are their only companions. Day after day, however, their numbers are fully recruited by multitudes of strangers that resort to them, driven thither to adopt their usages by the tempests of fortune, and wearied with the miseries of life. Thus it is, that through thousands of ages, incredible to relate, this people eternally prolongs its existence, without a single birth taking place there; so fruitful a source of population to it is that weariness of life which is felt by others. Below this people was formerly the town of Engadda, second only to Hierosolyma in the fertility of its soil and its groves of palm-trees; now, like it, it is another heap of ashes. Next to it we come to Masada, a fortress on a rock, not far from Lake Asphaltites. Thus much concerning Judaea.

 

[patrick457]

To quote from Jodi Magness’ The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2003):

The most controversial point about this passage is that Pliny described the Essenes as living among the palm trees on the western shore of the Dead Sea, abode Ein Gedi. A few scholars have claimed that because Pliny placed Ein Gedi “below” (Latin infra) the settlement of the Essenes, the settlement should be sought in the hills above and to the west of Ein Gedi (instead of at Qumran, which is north of Ein Gedi). On this basis, Yizhar Hirschfield has identified a site he excavated in the hills overlooking the oasis at Ein Gedi as the Essene settlement described by Pliny. However, Hirschfield’s site appears to consist of agricultural installations such as storage cells and irrigation pools and not a settlement of the Second Temple period. Moreover, Menahem Stern and other scholar have shown that Pliny’s description of the Dead Sea appears to progress from north to south, beginning with the Jordan River to the settlement of the Essenes to Ein Gedi and then to Masada. This means that Ein Gedi lay downstream from or south of the settlement of the Essenes. Because this corresponds with Qumran’s location, many scholars identify Qumran as the Essene settlement mentioned by Pliny (a suggestion first made by [Eliezer] Sukenik). On the other hand, Pliny’s passage is somewhat confused, probably because he drew his information from another source (or sources) and did not have firsthand knowledge of the region. For example, Pliny mentioned that Jerusalem and Ein Gedi are lying in ruins. This was indeed the case when he wrote in 77 C.E., seven years after fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Seond Temple. But as we have seen, Qumran was destroyed during the revolt (in 68 C.E.), which means that by the time Pliny composed his work it too was lying in ruins. But he described the settlement of the Essenes in the present tense, that is, as if it still existed when he wrote the work. In addition, Pliny confused Jerusalem with Jericho when he described Ein Gedi as second only to Jerusalem in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm trees.

Personally, I think that saying that Qumran could not have been a sectarian (more specifically an Essene) settlement because of its “sophistication of structure” is IMHO a bit too much of a value judgment based on a personal notion of what an Essene would have been like. Qumran is actually a rather simple (and small) settlement: for one it did not have the rich interior decoration and fine pottery which were so characteristic of contemporary wealthy villas in Judaea (which would raise a problem if one chooses to think of the site as a villa as some do).

As an aside, scholars who do accept the interpretation of Qumran as sectarian settlement do not agree on where the community’s living quarters were. Some think that they lived inside it: since only a few rooms in the site had second-story floors which could be employed as sleeping quarters, the settlement’s population would not have been very large: estimates range from 10-15 up to 50-70 inhabitants. Others think that (some members of) the community would have dwelt outside Qumran, either/both in tents or huts or/and in the caves (citing the fact that domestic pottery vessels as well as what were believed to be tent equipment were found in some of the caves). As one of the original excavators, Fr. Roland De Vaux, put it this way: “Khirbet Qumrân is not a village or a group of houses; it is the establishment of a community. We must still be more precise: this establishment was not designed as a community residence but rather for the carrying on of certain communal activities. The number of rooms which could have served as dwellings is restricted as compared with the sites designed for group activities to be pursued.”

 

[steve53]

I beg to differ. Both the younger and the elder Ananus died at the same time, in A.D. 68 in the early stages of the Jewish revolt.

People have been trying to pin Qumran on the Essenes for as long as it has been discovered. I think the reason for this is more political than anything else. Jesus might have been an Essene, Qumran was an Essene settlement, i.e. Jesus might have been here! If Archeologists can link Jesus to a site in the Middle East, they will- however tenuous that might be. It makes for good press.

 

[rolazaraberin]

Answer 1) Sept 11, 3BC.
Answer 2) June 17, 2BC.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081224-star-bethlehem.html

People have complained about National Geographic airing some heretical, Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholic things:

istorya.net/forums/tvs-and-movies/16615-is-national-geographic-an-anti-catholic-channel.html
thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/thinking-catholic-blog-13.html

…thus they remain within the zone of less than truth.

If one acquires his TRUTH from National Geographic, he may not be getting the TRUTH, but rather his perception of TRUTH may actually be in closer proximity to a LIE, thus placing him in a “zone of less than truth”.

In short, I don’t trust National Geographic.

…most people these days are quite happy with their beliefs and disbeliefs, and thus stick to their beliefs and disbeliefs, and thus they are quite happy with being located at a distance from the TRUTH…

The fullness of TRUTH, who is Christ, is contained within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. She is the only Church that credibly makes that claim. Thus, I as a Catholic, approach closer to the TRUTH (rather than distance myself) by uniting my beliefs and disbeliefs to those of the Catholic Church.

Contrarily, those that seek outside of the Catholic Church for the TRUTH risk distancing themselves from it.

 

[JesuisSean]

One does not acquire the truth via National Geographic, nor from the Bible.

These simply can provide verifications of truths.

God, and Jesus Christ, do not truly exist within the Bible, thus the truth sits outside of the Bible.

 

[JesuisSean]

By the way, National Geographic does not govern the position of planets.

 

[rolazaraberin]

One does not acquire the truth via National Geographic, nor from the Bible.

Allow me to clarify that: One does not acquire the FULL truth via National Geographic, nor from the Bible alone.

God, and Jesus Christ, do not truly exist within the Bible…

Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God nor Jesus Christ. Catholics do believe that the Bible contains information about God and Jesus Christ.

…thus the truth sits outside of the Bible.

In a way, yes.
The truth can be found within the Word Of God.
Some say that the Word Of God is the Bible alone, but according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Word Of God is the combination of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium:

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
(see paragraphs 97 and 100)

Now coming back to the question: Where can we find the date of Jesus’ birth?
The posts in this thread (and related threads) provide a good clue already and reference the Word Of God which is Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[patrick457]

I beg to differ. Both the younger and the elder Ananus died at the same time, in A.D. 68 in the early stages of the Jewish revolt.

Source?

People have been trying to pin Qumran on the Essenes for as long as it has been discovered. I think the reason for this is more political than anything else. Jesus might have been an Essene, Qumran was an Essene settlement, i.e. Jesus might have been here! If Archeologists can link Jesus to a site in the Middle East, they will- however tenuous that might be. It makes for good press.

Nope. The identification of Qumran as a sectarian area doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus. Besides, the ‘Jesus is an Essene ergo Jesus was in Qumran’ is itself a fringe opinion among those who accept the ‘Essene settlement’ theory.