4 ms·
Conversely, I always hear the claim that Jesus was born on 1 AD, but on what evidence do we know that? Some random monks in the dark ages tried to guess so they
by galdosdi 11y ago
Conversely, I always hear the claim that Jesus was born on 1 AD, but on what evidence do we know that? Some random monks in the dark ages tried to guess so they could make a calendar, and that's the guess they came up with.
While the modern estimate certainly has uncertainty too (how could we ever _know_ such a thing with complete certainty?), there's no way it's _less_ accurate than the original estimate made by some random monk in the middle ages, working with much less data. It does not make sense to privilege that random monk's guesses over today's guesses.
According to Wikipedia, there's two different methods -- written Roman records of Herod as mcphage mentions, or using written Roman records of Pilate's crucifixion and subtracting the claimed age of Jesus at that time. Both methods give years that are in the same ballpark, roughly 4 to 6 BC, which should give confidence that they are close. No method gives an answer of around 1 AD. (Actually, it's pretty impressive that some monks working hundreds of years later in the dark ages are no more than a few years off from today's best estimates)
- emodendroket 11y agoThe Wikipedia page on this topic also mentions trying to work backward from the reference to Jesus being "about 30 years old" during his ministry, which could point to about 1. So really I don't think anyone knows for sure.
- galdosdi 11y agoYes, so the point is at best, there's no reason to privilege any particular one of these guesses, whether 4 or 5 or 1 or whatever. We just don't know, ergo the AD/BC date system does _not_ center about a date that has much meaning for anyone, which was the O/P's point
- emodendroket 11y agoWell... except it was explicitly chosen because it was a guess at the birth of Jesus. That has meaning even if the guess may be off.