Why do secular historians not place Jesus' age at the time of his crucifixion at 32?
Hi, I am Catholic but I figured I'd ask this question here rather than a Christian subreddit due to the fact that from what I understand, it is secular historians that place Jesus' age at His death at the lower end of the 33-39 estimate. Bear in mind I will almost certainly say something incorrect, hence why I am here, to find out where I've gone wrong.
*As I understand it* the most common birth year for Jesus among both secular and religious historians is 4 BC, with 5-6 BC and 7 BC also being debated.
And that the most common year given for Jesus' death is 30 AD for secular historians, and 33 AD for religious historians.
Pretty much everyone agrees Jesus was mist likely born in September or October.
So if there is room for Jesus to have been born in 4 BC, and there is no year zero (0 BC/0 AD), meaning He turned 3 in Sept/Oct 1 BC and 4 in Sept/Oct 1 AD, and there is also room for Him to have been crucified in 30 AD, then why does Wikipedia list His lowest potential age as 33? Would it not be 32? 4 in 1 AD + 28 years puts Him turning 32 in Sept/Oct 29 BC, and He would still be that age at His crucifixion in April 30 AD.
I'm sure I must have gone wrong somewhere and would appreciate being told where, thank you.