When was Jesus born?

[Subduction Zone]

More about the year Jesus was born. I guess there are lots of things we learn in school that may not be accurate later. Written by James A. Nollett:
"When I attended Catholic parochial schools, the nuns taught us that Jesus was born “in the Year 0. Today, it is generally taught that Jesus was born during or before 4 BC. But there is no actual record of this date."
A very detailed account.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2012/PSCF12-12Nollet.pdf

That was somewhat interesting. He at least did acknowledge he ten year difference between the two birth dates. But I think that he used some poor reasoning when it came to the death of Herod. The author based the date of Herod's death on the year of a lunar eclipse. The closest match that he could find was one in 1 BCE. The problem with that is he is assuming that the eclipse story is right and that the year of Herod's death was wrong. But the dating of Herod's death that Josephus gave is not the only evidence of Herod dying in 4 BCE. There is also the date of Herod's sons taking over for him. That is well recorded in Roman history and that was 4 BCE. Herod does not sound like the man to turn over the reigns to his kingdom willingly. So we have at least two independent sources that imply 4 BCE and only one for 1 BCE.

 

[Colt]

LOL! That is not an explanation. That is a claim. And yes, I can and I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a myth. We can go over it point by point by point.

Do you know how we know that the Census of Quirinius was the first census of the area?

Your claim that Lukes nativity story is all a myth is just a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim that Lukes nativity story is all a myth is just a claim.

No, I supported it with historical evidence.

And the Gospel of Luke is anonymous. We do not know who wrote it.

 

[Colt]

No, I supported it with historical evidence.

And the Gospel of Luke is anonymous. We do not know who wrote it.

You haven't provided any historical evidence, just your opinion.

 

[Colt]

Here's my take on that right now -- we're all imperfect and can transmit events in different ways. I do believe that some comments by historians and/or religious commentators may not be complete. Or accurate.

There were 3 empire wide census under Caesar Augustus, 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD. Luke would have been referring to the 8 BC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't provided any historical evidence, just your opinion.

I have provided links to various Wikipedia articles. I do believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica also supports hits. Unfortunately liars for Jesus have flooded the internet with spam so unless you know of a particular historian it is hard to find a historical account. Ooh! Thanks for reminding me:

Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels

The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011) Richard Carrier It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction...

infidels.org

There you go, an article by a person that is an expert on the Roman history of the time and the languages used.

And just for fun an article from the Encyclopedia Britannica"

Biblical literature - Gospels, Parables, Miracles | Britannica

Biblical literature - Gospels, Parables, Miracles: Though the fact that Jesus was a historical person has been stressed, significant, too, is the fact that a full biography of accurate chronology is not possible. The New Testament writers were less concerned with such difficulties than the...

www.britannica.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were 3 empire wide census under Caesar Augustus, 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD. Luke would have been referring to the 8 BC.

Citation needed. Please demonstrate with a reliable (that means no Liars for Jesus) source.

 

[Colt]

Citation needed. Please demonstrate with a reliable (that means no Liars for Jesus) source.

Roman Census Figures

Roman Census statistics, from Servius Tullius to A. D. 48

www.csun.edu

 

[Subduction Zone]

Roman Census Figures

Roman Census statistics, from Servius Tullius to A. D. 48

www.csun.edu

From what I have seen you are conflating different sorts of censuses. They had censuses of Roman citizens, that is what those appear to be. But the Judeans were never "Romans". They were a conquered territory. Even a Christian source that I looked at pointed out the Rome never did an empire wide census during the reign of Augustus. Counting Romans is not the same as an empire wide census.

 

[Colt]

I have provided links to various Wikipedia articles. I do believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica also supports hits. Unfortunately liars for Jesus have flooded the internet with spam so unless you know of a particular historian it is hard to find a historical account. Ooh! Thanks for reminding me:

Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels

The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011) Richard Carrier It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction...

infidels.org

There you go, an article by a person that is an expert on the Roman history of the time and the languages used.

And just for fun an article from the Encyclopedia Britannica"

Biblical literature - Gospels, Parables, Miracles | Britannica

Biblical literature - Gospels, Parables, Miracles: Though the fact that Jesus was a historical person has been stressed, significant, too, is the fact that a full biography of accurate chronology is not possible. The New Testament writers were less concerned with such difficulties than the...

www.britannica.com

Luke doesn't give a specific date!

A legatus Augusti pro praetore (lit. 'envoy of the emperor – acting for the praetor') was the official title of the governor or general.

Quirinius already held the title or rank of Legatus Legionis along with Titius, Saturninus and Varus who governed Syria. Titius, Saturninus and Varus took turns managing Syria’s ‘domestic’ affairs from From 12 BC to 4 BC. In order to have the authority to lead multiple legions in the war against the Homonadenses sometime between 12 and 1 BC, Quirinius already held the title of governor or general of the affairs outside of Syria prior to his post from the successful campaign. People "assume" that his title Legatus Legionis began in 6 AD when in fact he would have held the title during the 8 B.C. census. A 6 AD census would have been the second while holding the title but the first as Govonor of Syria

 

[Colt]

From what I have seen you are conflating different sorts of censuses. They had censuses of Roman citizens, that is what those appear to be. But the Judeans were never "Romans". They were a conquered territory. Even a Christian source that I looked at pointed out the Rome never did an empire wide census during the reign of Augustus. Counting Romans is not the same as an empire wide census.

As the source I provided said, its difficult to actually know who they were counting. Roman history regarding some of this stuff isn't always clear. Its cobbled together and hotly debated among scholars. The absence of anyone named Pontius Pilate in Roman archaeology led many Bible skeptics to claim that he wasn't even real up until 1961 when Pilates name was discovered engraved on a limestone fragment in the ruins of the Roman stadium in Caesarea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As the source I provided said, its difficult to actually know who they were counting. Roman history regarding some of this stuff isn't always clear. Its cobbled together and hotly debated among scholars. The absence of anyone named Pontius Pilate in Roman archaeology led many Bible skeptics to claim that he wasn't even real up until 1961 when Pilates name was discovered engraved on a limestone fragment in the ruins of the Roman stadium in Caesarea.

Perhaps but unlike your Pilate example we do have every good records of Roman Censuses, We also have evidence from the Hebrews themselves that the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE was the first of Judea. Have you forgotten that censuses were banned in Israel since the time of David? There was a revolt by conservative Jews in 6 CE because censuses had been against their laws. The leader of the revolt is even known.

It is time to fact facts, there is plenty of evidence that Luke's census would have put the birth in 6 CE and the even in Matthew would have been year 4 BCE or earlier.

 

[Colt]

Perhaps but unlike your Pilate example we do have every good records of Roman Censuses, We also have evidence from the Hebrews themselves that the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE was the first of Judea. Have you forgotten that censuses were banned in Israel since the time of David? There was a revolt by conservative Jews in 6 CE because censuses had been against their laws. The leader of the revolt is even known.

It is time to fact facts, there is plenty of evidence that Luke's census would have put the birth in 6 CE and the even in Matthew would have been year 4 BCE or earlier.

I don't need to face any facts; I believe Jesus was born in 7 B.C.

BTW, what are the census records of the Quirinius census? Where are those numbers????

Also, Harod the great had considerable trouble from the Jews about taxation. Census numbers along with declaration of assets were the basis for taxation. Its simply speculation to say that there was no prior census of the Jews who had been occupied by the Romans for half a century! Yea, they didn't like being counted at all!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to face any facts; I believe Jesus was born in 7 B.C.

For no good reason. The point is that there is no year that can be put on his birth. Both Gospel accounts fail when it comes to history.

BTW, what are the census records of the Quirinius census? Where are those numbers????

I am not a historian, I can only relay what some of them say on this topic. That was a pointless question to ask. Why did you do that? When you ask a question you should have an honest reason for asking it.

Also, Harod the great had considerable trouble from the Jews about taxation. Census numbers along with declaration of assets were the basis for taxation. Its simply speculation to say that there was no prior census of the Jews who had been occupied by the Romans for half a century! Yea, they didn't like being counted at all!

No, once again, the census was illegal in Israel since the time of David. There was an uprising due to the Census of Quirinius from conservative Jews because it broke their religious laws. Various sources that I have linked tell you that. In fact the Wiki article on it starts off with that piece of information:

"The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (called Zealots) led by Judas of Galilee."

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And now a question for you, since you do not seem to care that the account in Luke differs by ten years from the one in Matthew why do you even care since you have a date that neither agree upon?

 

[Colt]

For no good reason. The point is that there is no year that can be put on his birth. Both Gospel accounts fail when it comes to history.


I am not a historian, I can only relay what some of them say on this topic. That was a pointless question to ask. Why did you do that? When you ask a question you should have an honest reason for asking it.

No, once again, the census was illegal in Israel since the time of David. There was an uprising due to the Census of Quirinius from conservative Jews because it broke their religious laws. Various sources that I have linked tell you that. In fact the Wiki article on it starts off with that piece of information:

"The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (called Zealots) led by Judas of Galilee."

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And now a question for you, since you do not seem to care that the account in Luke differs by ten years from the one in Matthew why do you even care since you have a date that neither agree upon?

I asked the question about the census figures of a Quirinius census because there are only 2 references to it that everyone relies on, Luke and Josephus. Some think that it was Josephus, not Luke, who misdated Quirinius's census. The theory is that the Judas whom Josephus associates with a tax revolt in AD 6 (Ant. 18.4-23) is the same Judas whom Josephus says was killed a decade or so earlier by Herod the Great (Ant. 17.148-67).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked the question about the census figures of a Quirinius census because there are only 2 references to it that everyone relies on, Luke and Josephus. Some think that it was Josephus, not Luke, who misdated Quirinius's census. The theory is that the Judas whom Josephus associates with a tax revolt in AD 6 (Ant. 18.4-23) is the same Judas whom Josephus says was killed a decade or so earlier by Herod the Great (Ant. 17.148-67).

Luke got several things wrong about the census. For example the idea of returning to where you were born is counterproductive. If defeats the purpose of the cenus.