Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?

 

By Dr. Mohiuddin Waseem

AbrahamicFaiths@hotmail.com

 

 

According to the Christian Scholarship of today the date of Jesus Christ’s birth cannot be placed with certainty. For many it might seem obvious that Jesus must have born in the year 1 of the Christian era (C.E) or Anno Domini (A.D). But as the Christian calendar was developed 500 years later by a monk named Dionysius, who apparently miscalculated it by around 4 years, the birth of Christ today is believed to have happen in 4 B.C. Because all Christian references for Christ’s birth are from New Testament (obviously) you are inclined to believe that it happened when Roman were the rulers. And if you believe that it was in fact the Roman era as the New Testament suggests it becomes logical to follow the subsequent events in his ministry from the Bible including his arrest, trial and crucifixion a collaborated effort between the Romans and the Jews of his time.

 

Many Muslim scholars entertain the Christian account of Christ’s suffering as a possibility but as the Holy Quran explicitly states that Jesus was “neither killed nor crucified” these Muslim scholars believed that someone else might have substituted in place of Christ to suffer the torment on the cross, which was in fact a minority opinion among a few early Christian sects and some how in the course of history became a Muslim opinion. If you ask these Muslim sources when exactly the substitution occurred you will find a variety of opinions about it. Some believe it happened in a room before Jesus’ arrest when his likeness was put on one of his disciples who volunteered (referring to the fabricated Gospel of Barnabas); others may tell you that it happened when he was carrying the cross en route to crucifixion; yet still others say it happened on the cross.

 

But before we discuss this point any further and for the sake of discussion let me divide the evidence we have about Christology into two genres. One is of course the “Western” Roman Catholic account which influenced the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as all the Protestant Churches. And the other evidence we have which I would like to call “Eastern” comprise of Jewish traditions called “Talmud” and Muslim traditions known as the Holy Quran.

 

Because the Talmudic account of Jesus and his mother are somewhat hostile in nature many Christians try to refrain from discussing those. But with out repeating the allegations of Talmud there seems to be an important sentence in it stating that “Jesus appeared during the time of Alexander Janneus’ (roughly 100 B.C) who happened to be the second last Jewish King of Maccabee family who ruled with an iron fist that history has recorded that he ordered crucifixion of eight hundred rabbis in a single day all because of religious differences. Even though Talmud was written 200-600 A.D at a time when Christian-Jewish sachem was at its height, the rabbis did not mention any part of Romans in the alleged trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ when blaming others could have saved their own neck from Christian persecution; instead they boosted in Talmud that Jesus was killed at the hands of Jews and that makes me inclined to believe that may be it was in fact the real time period when Jesus’ actually appeared.

 

Similarly, The Holy Quran also does not mention a single word of Roman involvement, rather like Talmud the story remains purely a Jewish matter.

The Holy Quran says, “The People of the Scripture (Jew) ask of thee (Mohammad) that thou shouldst cause an (actual) Book to descend upon them from heaven. They asked a greater thing of Moses aforetime, for they said: Show us Allah plainly. The storm of lightning seized them for their wickedness. Then (even after that) they chose the calf (for worship) after clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) had come unto them. And We forgave them that! And We bestowed on Moses evident authority.

And We caused the Mount to tower above them at (the taking of) their covenant: and We bade them: Enter the gate, prostrate! and we bade them: Transgress not the Sabbath! and We took from them a firm covenant.

Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the Prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened, Nay, but Allah hath set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few.

And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger; They slew him not nor crucified him, but the matter was made dubious unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain,

But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever mighty, wise. (Holy Qurann 4; 153-159).

If we stick to Jewish and Quranic accounts it becomes clear that Jesus was born not in the Roman era but at a time when Jews were the rulers in Judea. Also, as the Holy Quran does not support ‘substitution theory’ neither can we find any authentic Hadith from Prophet Mohammad on this matter it is safe to conclude that it was a personal opinions of a few  2nd and 3rd generation early Muslim converts who might have borrowed it from different Christian sects of Asia Minor.

And God knows best.