Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

Isn’t it that 6 A.D. refers to a time after the death of the Lord? How could Luke, writing about Christ’s birth, relate such birth to a census to be done in 6 A.D. yet? I am confused…

Evidently, you are. According to the Christian calendar, Jesus was born in 1 A.D., but it has some errors.

According to Matthew, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. (King Herod’s death) or according to Luke in 6 A.D. the time of the census when Judea (and Bethlehem) came under the direct control of the Roman ruler of Syria.

The date of Jesus’ death is between 30 and 36 A.D. depending on how one interprets the Gospels.

 

[Little_Les]

Hi Les

It tells me that you are a GIGO person

tim

The word of the Holy Spirit, not mine. Sorry if you think he is wrong.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

If you have evidence of an earlier census of Judea conducted while Quirinius was the Roman ruler of Judea and Syria, please present it.

Please forgive the lengthiness of this reply, but this should answer your question in detail:

a. The census of Caesar Augustus, during a time when Cyrenius (Latin, Quirinius) was “hegemon” of Syria (province included Judea, which was the kingdom of Herod the Great in 3/2BC), corroborates the year 3 or 2BC for the nativity.

b. Cyrenius was not an ordinary governor; he was a Roman procurator who had powers directly from Augustus, which in contemporary terms means a powerful “man-Friday”, a Legatus Augusti [Justin Martyr said that Roman records showed Quirinius as the procurator of Syria: Apol. I, 34. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X, pg. 216, has this revealing comment on the role of a Roman procurator: “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself {see Tacitus, Agric., 15}. These procurators were appointed by the Emperor quite independently of the legatus {governor} and the relations between the two were frequently none too friendly”].

c. The resident governor at the time (4 to 2BC) was Sentius Saturninus, and this fact is confirmed by Tertullian, a lawyer by profession, and a Christian apologist, who lived in the late 2nd century [In his Adv. Marcionem, IV, 7, he says, “There is historical proof that at this very time censuses had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus respecting the family and descent of Christ.” And he dated the census taken at the time of Christ’s birth as 3/2BC.

Corroborating information:

1. The year 2BC was one of the most important in the career of Augustus, as he was sixty years old and it was the Silver Jubilee of his rule (begun in 27BC; it was also the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome).
2. On February 5, 2BC, the Senate and the people of Rome awarded him the highest of all decorations: Pater Patriae (Father of the Country).
3. There was no year like it for celebrations in Rome, and the festivities and celebrations encompassed the Empire in its entirety (the provinces).
4. Augustus knew beforehand of the special honor, and issued an “edict” calling for a fresh registration of all who lived within the borders of the greater Empire (Lk.2:1-5).
5. The purpose of this registration was to secure an oath of allegiance to Caesar Augustus in his Jubilee year.
6. Josephus mentioned that an oath of allegiance was demanded by Augustus about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod [Antiquities, XVII, 41-45 “There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women {of Herod’s court}. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear. The king laid a fine upon them. Pheroras’ wife {Herod’s sister-in-law} paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness {for they were supposed, by their great intimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of prophecy}, prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her and Pheroras and their children. Salome {Herod’s sister}, who was aware of all that was being said, came and told the king of them. She also told him that many of the court {of Herod} were corrupted by them. Then the king put to death the most guilty of the Pharisees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, the most beautiful young man about the court, and the great instrument in the king’s unlawful pleasures. He {Herod} likewise slew everyone in his own family, who adhered to those things which were said by the Pharisee. But Bagoas had been elevated by them and was told that he should someday be called father and benefactor of the {new} king, who was to be appointed according to their prediction, for this king would have all things in his power, and that he {the king} would give him {Bogoas} the capacity of marriage, and of having children of his own”].
7. Various authors have suggested that this “oath of allegiance” and the census mentioned by Luke are one and the same [Lewin, Fasti Sacri, and more recently P.W. Barnett, Expository Times, 85 {1973-74}, pps. 377-380].
   (To be continued)

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

(cont. from previous)
8. An inscription with such an oath of obedience has been found in Paphlagonia, and is clearly dated to 3BC [Lewis & Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. II, pps. 34 and 35, Harper Torchbooks Edition has these words, “taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them”, and importantly, the whole of the population were required to swear it: “The same oath was sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts”].
9. Augustus received his most prestigious title, the Pater Patriae, or “Father of the Country”, on February 5, 2BC, and wrote of it in his Res Gestae [VI, 35].
10. Since most people in Judaea and the Empire were not Roman citizens, Augustus could have decreed in 3BC that everyone should swear an oath of absolute obedience to him to accompany his award as being “Father of the Country”.
11. The inscriptional oath found in Paphlagonia, the oath mentioned by Josephus, and the census of Luke are one and the same.
12. The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3BC), the census brought Roman agents “to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple” [History of the Armenians, trans. R.W. Thomson, Book II, 26].
13. Orosius, who lived in the fifth century and quoted early sources, wrote: “[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled…This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually…This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society” [VI, 22 and VII, 2; he also identified the year as 3BC].
14. The fact that oaths and censuses should go together should be no strange thing, as most Roman census declarations required an oath of allegiance to the emperor, as in the example of one such declaration of property tax ended with: "We swear by the fortune of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrian Augustus…under oath [Lewis & Reinhold, vol. II, pg. 387]; and “I swear by Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus that I have kept nothing back” [iobid., pg. 388].
15. It thus seems highly probable that all in the Empire registered an oath of obedience and an approval of the Pater Patrae to Augustus at this time and that Quirinius had been sent to the East to conduct it.
16. It is reasonable that a period of about a year was allowed for complete enrollment, thus beginning the registration of 3BC, in plenty of time for the celebrations in 2BC when the title became official.
17. That the registration was not for the purpose of taxation is seen by the fact that as long as King Herod was alive, no taxes were paid to Rome - rather they were paid directly to Herod (immediately upon Herod’s death, the Jews asked Archelaus [Herod’s successor] to relieve them of excessive taxes [Antiquities, XVII, 205]). Had the Jews been paying taxes directly to Rome brought about by the census of Quirinius, this request would have been irrelevant. From 63BC to 47BC Judea was part of the province of Syria and paid tribute directly to Rome. From 47BC to 40BC Hyrcanus was the “ruler of the free republic” [Antiquities, XIV, 117], but the Jews still paid direct taxes to Rome. When Herod became king, however, the tribute to Rome ceased and Herod collected all the taxes. This continued until 6/7AD when direct taxation was again imposed in Judea.
18. Official censuses involving taxation took place every 20 years (in 28BC and 8BC), but the next official census was in 14AD, which was 21 years after 8BC and not 20 as one would expect. Could it be that 2BC was dropped out of the yearly taxation in celebration of Augustus’ Silver Jubilee?
19. In 3BC Quirinius was special governor during the time of the governorship of Saturninus, who was responsible for conducting the special census concerning the Pater Patriae for Augustus.
20. The oath of loyalty issued by Augustus in 3BC brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to their native city of Bethlehem.
1. Mary normally would not have needed to go with Joseph, but since both were royal claimants, both had to appear in person and sign the document.
2. All “royal claimants” would have especially been singled out to take the oath.
3. Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house of David, and of course, so was Mary (Lk.2:4).
21. The census of 3BC is the only census after the one in 8BC, and 8BC is too early for the birth of Christ.

 

[Little_Les]

Please forgive the lengthiness of this reply, but this should answer your question in detail:

a. The census of Caesar Augustus, during a time when Cyrenius (Latin, Quirinius) was “hegemon” of Syria (province included Judea, which was the kingdom of Herod the Great in 3/2BC), corroborates the year 3 or 2BC for the nativity.

b(To be continued)

We need not go any further until you provide proof that Quirinius as head man of Syriain 3/2 B.C. and that Syria included Judea in 3/2 B.C.

Until you do, the rest of your argument is without merit.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

We need not go any further until you provide proof that Quirinius as head man of Syriain 3/2 B.C. and that Syria included Judea in 3/2 B.C.

Until you do, the rest of your argument is without merit.

Who said he was “head man”? The greek in Luke 2 says “hegemon” which means, generally, “ruler”. If you had gone on to point b. you would have seen that Quirinius fit this description, and we have been discussing this for over a week already. It is amazingly hard to get any new information across to you.

 

[agangbern]

Evidently, you are. According to the Christian calendar, Jesus was born in 1 A.D., but it has some errors.

The Christian calendar says that Jesus was born in 1 A.D? Can you give the link here as proof of that declaration?

According to Matthew, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. (King Herod’s death) or according to Luke in 6 A.D. the time of the census when Judea (and Bethlehem) came under the direct control of the Roman ruler of Syria.

Mathew says that Jesus was born before 4 B.C.? I have never read that in the gospel of Mathew. What verse is that? Mathew said that it was in the time of King Hereod, but he did not say that it was before 4 B.C. The latter seems merely a conclusion of the reader that is made words of Mathew.

The date of Jesus’ death is between 30 and 36 A.D. depending on how one interprets the Gospels.

So, Jesus date of death is relative?

 

[Little_Les]

The Christian calendar says that Jesus was born in 1 A.D? Can you give the link here as proof of that declaration?

Mathew says that Jesus was born before 4 B.C.? I have never read that in the gospel of Mathew. What verse is that? Mathew said that it was in the time of King Hereod, but he did not say that it was before 4 B.C. The latter seems merely a conclusion of the reader that is made words of Mathew.

So, Jesus date of death is relative?

(1) Find any good encyclopedia and look up the history of the calendar. It will tell how a monk, Dennis the Short, was tasked with and developed of the calendar based on the supposed date of the birth of Christ.

(2) Yep, that what Matthew wrote. And King Herod died in 4 B.C. If Matthew says Jesus was born during King Herod’s reign, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. Luke says during the census conducted by Quirinius, ie, 6 A.D. Take your pick.

(3) The exact year of Jesus’ death is unknown.

 

[Little_Les]

Who said he was “head man”? The greek in Luke 2 says “hegemon” which means, generally, “ruler”. If you had gone on to point b. you would have seen that Quirinius fit this description, and we have been discussing this for over a week already. It is amazingly hard to get any new information across to you.

There is no point in reading your long conjecture (source not given) until you establish your first point.

And “fits the description” is not historical evidence.

I don’t waste time with conjecture, only evidence.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

There is no point in reading your long conjecture (source not given) until you establish your first point.

And “fits the description” is not historical evidence.

I don’t waste time with conjecture, only evidence.

As I said, in point (b) it quotes Justin Martyr in his first Apology as saying Quirinius was the procurator at that time. Of course, if you exclude any evidence given by Christians, then I’ll have to look elsewhere, but note that the first Apology was publicly addressed to the Roman Emperor himself, and the Roman Senate, so Justin would have to be extremely stupid to introduce historical error in a matter so easily exposed by checking the historical records.

Furthermore, not only did Justin say that the Quirinius was the procurator at that time, he said that the Romans could check the census register to verify his story that Mary and Joseph registered there.

Here is the Introduction to the Apology:
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

And here is the passage itself (Chapter 34):
And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: “And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.” Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Luke says during the census conducted by Quirinius, ie, 6 A.D. Take your pick.

Little Les,

Luke says that it was during the **first **census by Quinirius. Why did you leave out the word ‘first’ in your quote above? In fact, the census of 6AD was the second census by Quinirius.

Since you claim with such certainty that this event was in 6AD, then tell us when the second census by Quinirius was performed.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les,

Luke says that it was during the **first **census by Quinirius. Why did you leave out the word ‘first’ in your quote above? In fact, the census of 6AD was the second census by Quinirius.

Since you claim with such certainty that this event was in 6AD, then tell us when the second census by Quinirius was performed.

You are correct. This is the actual quote from Luke in the NAB:

“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.”

(1) So we know from Luke that this 'enrollment" involved Judea.

(2) It occurred when Quirinus was the Roman ruler (governor, legatus, procurator, or other term).

(3) It was the first enrollment (or census) made when Quirinius was ruler.

(4) The “second census” of Quirinus is your invention, not mine to explain.

 

[Little_Les]

As I said, in point (b) it quotes Justin Martyr in his first Apology as saying Quirinius was the procurator at that time. Of course, if you exclude any evidence given by Christians, then I’ll have to look elsewhere, but note that the first Apology was publicly addressed to the Roman Emperor himself, and the Roman Senate, so Justin would have to be extremely stupid to introduce historical error in a matter so easily exposed by checking the historical records.

Furthermore, not only did Justin say that the Quirinius was the procurator at that time, he said that the Romans could check the census register to verify his story that Mary and Joseph registered there.

Here is the Introduction to the Apology:
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

And here is the passage itself (Chapter 34):
And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: “And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.” Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

Procurator at what time exactly?

Please state a specific chapter of a specific writing.

Yes, since they are trying to explain away, many years after the fact, an error in their belief system, historians should rely on impartial historians of that period rather than later Christian apologists.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

(3) It was the first enrollment (or census) made when Quirinius was ruler.

(4) The “second census” of Quirinus is your invention, not mine to explain.

So your explanation is that this was the first and ONLY census under Quinirius… and that “first enrollment” doesn’t suggest that there were 2 or more. And you think our interpretations are far-fetched?

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
The Christian calendar says that Jesus was born in 1 A.D? Can you give the link here as proof of that declaration?

Mathew says that Jesus was born before 4 B.C.? I have never read that in the gospel of Mathew. What verse is that? Mathew said that it was in the time of King Hereod, but he did not say that it was before 4 B.C. The latter seems merely a conclusion of the reader that is made words of Mathew.

(1) Find any good encyclopedia and look up the history of the calendar. It will tell how a monk, Dennis the Short, was tasked with and developed of the calendar based on the supposed date of the birth of Christ.

The point is: It was not the calendar that says Jesus was born in 1 A.D.

(2) Yep, that what Matthew wrote. And King Herod died in 4 B.C. If Matthew says Jesus was born during King Herod’s reign, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. Luke says during the census conducted by Quirinius, ie, 6 A.D. Take your pick.

Again, the point is: Mathew did not write/say that Jesus was born before 4 B.C.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Good day Gottle! You seemed a little distraught over inerrancy, so I thought I’d put some things together for you to think about, to encourage you in your walk with God…

ISTM that that to insist on inerrancy warps the Bible into being an error-free body of written signs, at the cost of draining away the Christ-centred significance that gives it life & power.

Based on what you wrote here, about how you felt that total inerrancy drains away the Christ-centered significance of Scripture, I thought you might enjoy pondering the following point made by Pius XII and picked up on by John Paul II:

“The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in the following terms: ‘Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error’ (EB, n. 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum (n. 13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning” (JP II address to the PBC, 1993).

A train time-table may be totally inerrant - that doesn’t make it a gospel.

You are correct. Inerrancy doesn’t make Scripture, Scripture. Having God as it’s author is what makes Scripture, Scripture, and what also secures inerrancy. As Pillar of Truth mentioned,

God is held by the Church to be the primary author of Scripture, and God cannot be the author of error.

A declaration of this truth comes from Vatican I: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (Ch. 2, On Revelation). This divine revelation, this inerrancy, under the authorship of God, extends to all of Scripture: “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (DV, 11).

TI has no specifically Christian significance - the Nativity narratives do: so why need they be TI?

Why historically accurate…

Before moving on, I want to quote the following from Dei Verbum: “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)” (19).

Keeping this in mind, you may enjoy thinking about the relationship that exists between the historical facts mentioned in Scripture and the divine significance resting on and present in those facts, as expressed here by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“The Christian faith has its specificity, primarily in that it refers to historical events, or better to a coherent history, which actually took place as history. In this sense, the question about the fact, the reality of the event, is essential to it, and must make room for the historical method. But these historical events have meaning for the faith only because it is certain that in them God Himself acted in a specific way and the events contain something which surpasses simple historical facticity, something which comes from elsewhere and gives them meaning for all times and for all people. This surpassing element must not be separated from the facts, it is not a meaning which is subsequently added to them from without, but rather it is present in the event itself, and yet it transcends the purely factual aspect” (Current Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism, 2002).

Benedict XVI writes something similar to this in his book, Jesus of Nazareth.

I hope this comes as a blessing to you. Happy pondering! And may the Lord be with you!

 

[wilkerl]

That’s an interesting question – one I’ve never really thought about. I think the nativity story has always had a kind of magical, wondrous quality to me. Angels singing, stars shining, Eastern kings mixing with shepherds. Did it all happen exactly that way? Probably not – especially since Matthew and Luke don’t agree on the details themselves.

What I know – with absolutely no doubt – is that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. He was fully human, born as a completely vulnerable baby. And in his birth, God broke into the world in a special way, confirming his love for us and his desire to reach out to us. And through the birth of that tiny baby, the world was changed forever.