Talk:4 BC

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

I've heard this 4 BC as being the most likely date of Jesus' birth before. Given the general lack of primary sources about Jesus, and even laying the challenge to his historicity aside for the moment, is quoting an actual "most likely year of birth" really appropriate? I'd like to see some justification by someone who knows why 4BC is the most likely.User:J.F.Quackenbush

My recollection is that the date is based on Roman records of when a census was taken, and astronomical calculations of when a bright object might have been seen in the sky and called a "star" (a term not as narrowly defined 2000 years ago as it is today). Vicki Rosenzweig

Considering that there are no extant Roman records referring to Jesus, nor any of the major events recorded in the Gospels, it hardly seems like that's a good argument. THe astronomic point is interesting, but if there were a major cosmological event in 4 BC, it seems that it would be more appropriate to list that as the occurence, with a note pointing out that the proximity of that event to 1 AD has postulated that this year is postulated as being the year of Jesus' birthday. I still don't particularly care for the argument though, because it's a bit circular and assumes that the Star of Bethlehem story is literal truth. JFQ

The most accurate dating for Jesus birth is taken from Matthew 2 which put it in the perspective of Herod the Great's death, which we know quite surely to be 4BC. This passage would put Jesus' birth sometime between 8BC and 4BC, most likely in 6BC.

As for there being a lack of primary sources about Jesus, the Gospel texts of the New Testament are some of the most well preserved of ancient literature. The vast majority of other ancient texts we have come from centuries if not millenia later than their originals, in unoriginal languages, and only in a handful of specimens for each. For the New Testament Gospels (among other parts of the New Testament), on the other hand, there exists many specimens, dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and partials into the 2nd century, with many in Greek. And, to boot, history has given us 4 different source versions, each with many of their own respective ancient copies. If you want to claim any political or religious manipulation to the texts through history, we can say this about almost any ancient text. For good or ill to its credit, the New Testament stands among some of the best retained ancient literature in Western civilization. If anything it is a very important historical document for gaining insight into the history and culture of 1st century Palestine. There is little need for specific Roman corroboration -- and we can at least somewhat consider Josephus to offer that, anyway. What I find ironic is that many will look to the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny about the "Christian problem" as specific proof of Christian life during Trajan's reign, and yet while the sources for this are minimal, the Early Fathers have given historians far better preserved volumes of source material. Both sources will have a POV. Both sources can be accused of bias and manipulation. It is a shame that historians suffer a blindness simply because this treasure of source material comes from a Christian POV. It is simply illogical to discount the Gospel texts in that way.

Lastly, as for the astronomical evidence (which I think is fun to wonder about, but not really good for the problem at hand) is that there was an occultation of Jupiter and Venus around July 6 or 7BC, if I recall correctly. (As an astronomy buff I have not done the astronomical software simulations in many years but I was quite surprised when I verified this). Also, the inference in the Gospel texts is that this not a natural phenomenon. Occultations, and even novae, were familiar phenomena to the astronomers of Jesus' day (and far earlier). So it would not make sense to find a naturally occurring phenomenon to explain this -- that is, the historian should assume that the report of it is either fabricated or something unnatural did occur.

Chrismon 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion at Talk:1 BC. -- Toby 04:49 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)