When was Jesus born?

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Rather, it could be claimed to support the idea. It's a pretty weak claim.

 

[Colt]

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.

The census of Augustus in 8 B.C. is the better candidate. IMOP

“The account of Augustus' deeds that was widely disseminated throughout the empire after his death makes reference to three imperial censuses during his reign: in 28 bce, 8 bce, and 14 ce.”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire..."

Is there a non-biblical record of this census?

No, there is not.

Even more contentious, however, is the notion that "everyone went to his own town to register." That is complete nonsense. Historians have noted that there is no historical record of Emperor Augustus ever giving such an order, that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at the time the birth was supposed to have taken place, and that there were insurmountable logistical problems if everybody in the Roman Empire had to travel to their ancestral towns in order to be accounted for and to pay their taxes.

Not to mention "which" ancestral town. Is it where your father was born? Grand-father? Great-great-great-great grandfather?

This is a complete fabrication by Luke in order to get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem, in order fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Israel’s future ruler coming from Bethlehem Ephrathah (Micah 5:2).

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The writings, in general, have not been basically altered since they were put together long ago and that tells me that if the compilers thought they were fake or untrue they would not have survived as they have. But that's me, obviously not everybody thinks that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, there is not.

Even more contentious, however, is the notion that "everyone went to his own town to register." That is complete nonsense. Historians have noted that there is no historical record of Emperor Augustus ever giving such an order, that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at the time the birth was supposed to have taken place, and that there were insurmountable logistical problems if everybody in the Roman Empire had to travel to their ancestral towns in order to be accounted for and to pay their taxes.

Not to mention "which" ancestral town. Is it where your father was born? Grand-father? Great-great-great-great grandfather?

This is a complete fabrication by Luke in order to get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem, in order fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Israel’s future ruler coming from Bethlehem Ephrathah (Micah 5:2).

Aside from your other comments, are you saying that there are no non-biblical records of any census at all that Caesar Augustus took or asked for? I don't know yet, but I'd like to know what you mean by the above.

 

[Colt]

No, there is not.

Even more contentious, however, is the notion that "everyone went to his own town to register." That is complete nonsense. Historians have noted that there is no historical record of Emperor Augustus ever giving such an order, that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at the time the birth was supposed to have taken place, and that there were insurmountable logistical problems if everybody in the Roman Empire had to travel to their ancestral towns in order to be accounted for and to pay their taxes.

Not to mention "which" ancestral town. Is it where your father was born? Grand-father? Great-great-great-great grandfather?

This is a complete fabrication by Luke in order to get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem, in order fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Israel’s future ruler coming from Bethlehem Ephrathah (Micah 5:2).

“The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.”

Census-taking in the ancient world - Office for National Statistics.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

“The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.”

Census-taking in the ancient world - Office for National Statistics.

I would ask you to do further research on that. I do believe that the Office for National Statistics erred, assuming an old Biblical trope was true.

Try asking the question "did roman censuses actually require people to go to their birthplace?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Aside from your other comments, are you saying that there are no non-biblical records of any census at all that Caesar Augustus took or asked for? I don't know yet, but I'd like to know what you mean by the above.

Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph. By this time the Jews were spread out all over the known world. Can we seriously believe that the Romans would have required them to come back to Palestine, carrying everything they owned? How would the tax officials have assessed their land? In The Rise of Christianity the former Bishop E. W. Barnes remarks: "The Romans were a practical race, skilled in the art of government. It is incredible that they should have taken a census according to such a fantastic system. If any such census had been taken, the dislocation to which it would have led would have been world-wide. Roman historians would not have failed to record it."

 

[Colt]

I would ask you to do further research on that. I do believe that the Office for National Statistics erred, assuming an old Biblical trope was true.

Try asking the question "did roman censuses actually require people to go to their birthplace?"

It's unclear if that was the case, but since Lukes's writing was contemporary to people living in the Roman empire and in the same generation that Joseph lived in, its curious that Luke would have made such a claim if it wasn't valid. Everyone reading Lukes's gospel would have found it odd that he made the claim that a family representative needed to swear an oath to a census officer sent from Rome concerning taxable property by traveling to the birthplace of the head of the household. I understand Luke getting the particular census wrong but adding the need to travel just doesn't make sense if he were trying to fool Romans reading his book! Considering the objection to being counted by Jews its quite reasonable that the Romans made requirements of the Jews in Galilee that may not apply to other regions of the Romen empire.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's unclear if that was the case, but since Lukes's writing was contemporary to people living in the Roman empire and in the same generation that Joseph lived in, its curious that Luke would have made such a claim if it wasn't valid. Everyone reading Lukes's gospel would have found it odd that he made the claim that a family representative needed to swear an oath to a census officer sent from Rome concerning taxable property by traveling to the birthplace of the head of the household. I understand Luke getting the particular census wrong but adding the need to travel just doesn't make sense if he were trying to fool Romans reading his book! Considering the objection to being counted by Jews its quite reasonable that the Romans made requirements of the Jews in Galilee that may not apply to other regions of the Romen empire.

Surely you are aware that Luke is not the only Gospel writer!?! Matthew also gets Jesus born in Bethlehem, but not through a census or taxes. Rather, Matthew has Joseph have a dream forewarning of Herod's intent, after meeting the Magi looking for where this new "King of the Jews" is to be born. Mark always refers to Jesus as being from Nazareth, and never once mentions Bethlehem. And Mark, written about 66 AD or later, is the earliest Gospel, at least 35 years after the death of Jesus.

John written at least 30 years (and likely more) after Mark, was not unaware of Bethlehem’s significance. John mentions a debate where some Jewish people referred to the prophecy which claimed that the messiah would be a descendant of David and come from Bethlehem. But Jesus according to John’s Gospel is never associated with Bethlehem, but with Galilee, and more specifically, Nazareth.

Finally, remember this: The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none was written by an eyewitness. So, really, why are you placing so much emphasis on Luke?

 

[Colt]

Surely you are aware that Luke is not the only Gospel writer!?! Matthew also gets Jesus born in Bethlehem, but not through a census or taxes. Rather, Matthew has Joseph have a dream forewarning of Herod's intent, after meeting the Magi looking for where this new "King of the Jews" is to be born. Mark always refers to Jesus as being from Nazareth, and nwever once metnions Bethlehem. And Mark, written about 66 AD or later, is the earliest Gospel, at least 35 years after the death of Jesus.

John written at least 30 years (and likely more) after Mark, was not unaware of Bethlehem’s significance. John mentions a debate where some Jewish people referred to the prophecy which claimed that the messiah would be a descendant of David and come from Bethlehem. But Jesus according to John’s Gospel is never associated with Bethlehem, but with Galilee, and more specifically, Nazareth.

Finally, remember this: The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none was written by an eyewitness. So, really, why are you placing so much emphasis on Luke?

John fills in stuff missing from the other stories. It’s the need to go to Bethlehem for the census that people question. Someone may also ask why a pregnant women needed to make the trip so close to birth? Why would non Jew Magi from a far away land know something about the Son of God coming into the world? Lots of peculiar anomalies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

John fills in stuff missing from the other stories. It’s the need to go to Bethlehem for the census that people question. Someone may also ask why a pregnant women needed to make the trip so close to birth? Why would non Jew Magi from a far away land know something about the Son of God coming into the world? Lots of peculiar anomalies.

Peculiar anomalies that, to me, point to the crafting of a tale for the purpose of persuasion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph.

I'm not at all sure that Luke's

• All went to their own towns to be registered.

is equivalent to

• All went "to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph."

See Wikipedia > Census of Quirinius.

 

[HonestJoe]

The writings, in general, have not been basically altered since they were put together long ago and that tells me that if the compilers thought they were fake or untrue they would not have survived as they have. But that's me, obviously not everybody thinks that way.

Why do you assume those compilers cared any more about historical accuracy over religious symbology than the authors? After all, those same compliers excluded some gospels from the Bible, not because their authenticity was questioned but that their theology was inconvenient to the religious authorities of the time.

With any historical (or indeed modern) document you're looking at in this way, you have to be aware of the motives and intentions of the writers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not at all sure that Luke's

• All went to their own towns to be registered.

is equivalent to

• All went "to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph."

See Wikipedia > Census of Quirinius.

Well, Matthew has twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph, whereas Luke has forty-two. Even 27 generations is quite a long time. I can go back 6 generations in my family tree, which comes to about 208 years. Do the math, that would mean 1,215 years -- and I allowed some flex for people generally having children younger long ago.

 

[Colt]

Peculiar anomalies that, to me, point to the crafting of a tale for the purpose of persuasion.

If I wrote a story today that said in 1975 a U.S. citizen needed to return to the city of his birth to register for the census then the American audience would immediately discount the story! So why make such an easily falsifiable claim if it’s not even critical to the larger story?

I don’t even believe that Luke has the correct census but I still believe the general story. I don’t believe in the virgin birth, but I still believe in the Son of God becoming the person of Mary’s baby when her and her husband Joseph conceived him. Frankly, if someone was trying to fool somebody then they would have don a much better job of getting the facts straight!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If I wrote a story today that said in 1975 a U.S. citizen needed to return to the city of his birth to register for the census then the American audience would immediately discount the story! So why make such an easily falsifiable claim if it’s not even critical to the larger story?

I don’t even believe that Luke has the correct census but I still believe the general story. I don’t believe in the virgin birth, but I still believe in the Son of God becoming the person of Mary’s baby when her and her husband Joseph conceived him.

What you believe is up to you, and the same is true for me. My tendency is to follow the evidence as I see it. I see no evidence whatever for this strange notion of a god becoming a person by somehow taking over a newly-conceived zygote. Such evidence simply doesn't exist, and for me, that leaves me no particular reason to credit it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, Matthew has twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph, whereas Luke has forty-two.

Good grief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.”

Census-taking in the ancient world - Office for National Statistics.

Really?

"did roman censuses actually require people to go to their birthplace?

"Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors."

Oooh! Good idea:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I saw the quote from the Office for National Statistics. I am rather amazed that they did not think out their response better. The Census office would know what havoc, and to no purpose, that a census as described in Luke would cause. People were taxed where they lived and made money. It would make no sense to have someone go to where they were born. That does not reflect where they live and make money now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you assume those compilers cared any more about historical accuracy over religious symbology than the authors? After all, those same compliers excluded some gospels from the Bible, not because their authenticity was questioned but that their theology was inconvenient to the religious authorities of the time.

With any historical (or indeed modern) document you're looking at in this way, you have to be aware of the motives and intentions of the writers.

What I'm "looking at" is the comparison of the two descriptions of Jesus' birth. And also hoping to understand who is who, such as Caesar Augustus and how Syria fits in with Judea at that time. Thanks.