When was Jesus born?

[Jayhawker Soule]

my next excursion is to try to figure out Judea's connection with Syria. I like to establish, if I can, things in my own mind.

Think Rome.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However -- I will say that Luke, being a physician, strikes me as someone who would be careful about his testimony.

I see absolutely no basis for that presumption. In fact, quoting Levine:

The Gospel according to Luke, also known as the Third Gospel, and the book of Acts are traditionally ascribed to Luke, a physician who accompanied Paul on his missions (Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 1.24). Neither the Gospel nor Acts, however, claims Lukan authorship, and sufficient distinctions between the portrait of Paul provided in his authentic epistles and his depiction in Acts call into question the author's personal familiarity with the apostle. [ibid]​

There seems to be very little that can be presumed about his works.

 

[YoursTrue]

Think Rome.

Yes I want to learn more about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see absolutely no basis for that presumption. In fact, quoting Levine:

The Gospel according to Luke, also known as the Third Gospel, and the book of Acts are traditionally ascribed to Luke, a physician who accompanied Paul on his missions (Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 1.24). Neither the Gospel nor Acts, however, claims Lukan authorship, and sufficient distinctions between the portrait of Paul provided in his authentic epistles and his depiction in Acts call into question the author's personal familiarity with the apostle. [ibid]​

There seems to be very little that can be presumed about his works.

I like to be careful even in reading analyses of something as influential as the Bible. I agree that his being a physician does not mean he's perfect but that is something for me to consider. Still to move on though to relationships between Syria, Rome, Judea, and of course, the census.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see absolutely no basis for that presumption. In fact, quoting Levine:

The Gospel according to Luke, also known as the Third Gospel, and the book of Acts are traditionally ascribed to Luke, a physician who accompanied Paul on his missions (Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 1.24). Neither the Gospel nor Acts, however, claims Lukan authorship, and sufficient distinctions between the portrait of Paul provided in his authentic epistles and his depiction in Acts call into question the author's personal familiarity with the apostle. [ibid]​

There seems to be very little that can be presumed about his works.

Interesting the author used the term authentic Epistles but anyway...back to Syria, Rome, Judea and the census. If possible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting the author used the term authentic Epistles but anyway...

Why do you find that interesting?

 

[HonestJoe]

The question has been brought up by more than one that the accounts in the Bible by Luke and Matthew differ insofar as when Jesus was born.

Note that neither of them give any kind of date, the timing is just extrapolated from people and events they mention. The problem is that those extrapolations are inconsistent.

I've always suspected that the stories of Jesus' birth and early life (and possibly a lot more) were always rhetorical mythology to support the image of Jesus as the messiah. They were never intended to be factually accurate but focused on religions symbolism, hence the differences between the different telling's and potential inconsistencies with historical fact as generally understood.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've always suspected that the stories of Jesus' birth and early life (and possibly a lot more) were always rhetorical mythology to support the image of Jesus as the messiah. They were never intended to be factually accurate but ...

Again, quoting Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you find that interesting?

Because the author says "authentic".

 

[YoursTrue]

Note that neither of them give any kind of date, the timing is just extrapolated from people and events they mention. The problem is that those extrapolations are inconsistent.

I've always suspected that the stories of Jesus' birth and early life (and possibly a lot more) were always rhetorical mythology to support the image of Jesus as the messiah. They were never intended to be factually accurate but focused on religions symbolism, hence the differences between the different telling's and potential inconsistencies with historical fact as generally understood.

Right now I'm concentrating on the time period in luke and Matthew and Syria and Rome and Judea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting the author used the term authentic Epistles but anyway...back to Syria, Rome, Judea and the census. If possible.

Why do you find that interesting?

Because the author says "authentic".

I'm done here ...

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm done here ...

Ok. No problem. Thanks anyway.

 

[Colt]

The question has been brought up by more than one that the accounts in the Bible by Luke and Matthew differ insofar as when Jesus was born. I am hoping to have a decent discussion as to the various opinions and explanations about this. It gets kind of deep as far as I am concerned since I am not a history buff, and this involves interesting points of history concerning Judea and the governors. Lots of things to note, so hoping to have a decent discussion. In fact, I see that different translations use different terms about this.
Luke 2 from verses 1-7 are quoted here, taken from the Berean Standard Bible.
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.a 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, since he was from the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to him in marriage and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for her Child to be born. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn, a Son. She wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

IMOP August 21, 7 BC at 12:00 noon. According to the UB.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, hopefully maybe back on track. won't say I will finish it, but I like researching it.

Luke 2:1-3 "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.a 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register."
(Berean Standard Bible)

It talks of "those days." Suggesting a section of time -- as in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus (the emperor of Rome) that a census should taken of the whole empire. And it says it was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Now the history of Syria and Judea is interesting and extensive, but I won't go into too much of that now because -- it's a little detailed with much to look up. So it says Caesar Augustus (the emperor of Rome) asked for a census to be taken of the empire. While Quirinius was the governor of Syria.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The question has been brought up by more than one that the accounts in the Bible by Luke and Matthew differ insofar as when Jesus was born. I am hoping to have a decent discussion as to the various opinions and explanations about this. It gets kind of deep as far as I am concerned since I am not a history buff, and this involves interesting points of history concerning Judea and the governors. Lots of things to note, so hoping to have a decent discussion. In fact, I see that different translations use different terms about this.
Luke 2 from verses 1-7 are quoted here, taken from the Berean Standard Bible.
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.a 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, since he was from the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to him in marriage and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for her Child to be born. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn, a Son. She wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

I've never understood why this is so important to some Christians. What does it matter what day Jesus was actually born on? The Christian church has chosen December 25 as the day to remember his Nativity -- since we will never know the actual date, this date is as good as any other.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never understood why this is so important to some Christians. What does it matter what day Jesus was actually born on? The Christian church has chosen December 25 as the day to remember his Nativity -- since we will never know the actual date, this date is as good as any other.

The point is the said differences in Luke's description and Matthew's account. Just researching the situation at the time of Caesar Augustus and Judea is to me very interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can't know

And it doesn't matter

There are those that abuse the Bible by trying to claim that it is all literally true or it is false. But if one makes that error then the Bible is false since there are many clear. self contradictions. But I agree on your point. We cannot know. And it does not matter. The message is what matters and far too often the biblical literalists seem to be those that do not get the message of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm reading more about that (external sources) but am not prepared to offer a comment yet about outside sources. However -- I will say that Luke, being a physician, strikes me as someone who would be careful about his testimony. Possibly to be continued...

The gospel of Luke does not say that it was written by Luke. Though of all of the Gospels, it is the only one with a chance of being written by the person that it was named for. And of course none of them are eyewitness accounts.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never understood why this is so important to some Christians. What does it matter what day Jesus was actually born on? The Christian church has chosen December 25 as the day to remember his Nativity -- since we will never know the actual date, this date is as good as any other.

It's not so much the day (and I do care about the purported date) but rather now about the year. And since the references to connection between Syria, Rome and Judea are there, I'm doing some research on that too.

 

[HonestJoe]

I've never understood why this is so important to some Christians. What does it matter what day Jesus was actually born on? The Christian church has chosen December 25 as the day to remember his Nativity -- since we will never know the actual date, this date is as good as any other.

It isn't really. Their actual concern (even if they don't realise it) is that the uncertainty and inconsistencies could support the idea that Jesus didn't exist, or at least wasn't divine and/or the messiah. That is why there has been so much effort to reconcile and explain all of the facts to establish a definitive narrative. Countless dedicated experts over hundreds of years have failed to achieve that though, so I doubt a random guy on a internet forum is going to stumble across a magic answer.

In general though, I like that people are thinking about historical narratives and how the evidence behind them is used and applied, given its relevance to many more immediate and practical matters.