Where was Jesus born?

  • Thread starter Thread starter james_neville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DaddyGirl said:
Do you recall where he gets his information?
He’s the Catholic historian who just passed away only last year, yes?

(and the one who defended the burning of heretics at the stake??)
Click to expand...
He died July of last year. The Church has always said that the state had the right to execute. I don’t recall that particular citation. He was always meticulous in his research. His notes are a book into themselves.
 
po18guy said:
I met a Palestinian Catholic man who was studying t a Jesuit university in the US. He and his family live within sight of the fields where the angel appeared to the shepherds to announce Jesus’ birth. This has been handed on through the generations within the area of Bethlehem. To pull off the moving of Jesus’ birth from somewhere else to Bethlehem, Luke would have had to coordinate this with all of the known residents of the City of David. Not very likely.
Click to expand...
I was at Shepherds Field and the Church of the Nativity in 2011. There is a beautiful story that Mary revisited to Bethlehem in her later years and, when asked where Jesus was born, she indicated the site where the Church of the Nativity stands today. She was asked how could she be sure that was the location and she replied, “Because a woman never forget where her child was born.”
 
adrift said:
No I was meaning the Gospels of Matthew and Mark since they are the only ones that mention the birth of Jesus. Comparing them the only thing they agree on is the Virgin birth and Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
Click to expand...
Again, Matthew and Luke are the ones that contain the birth narratives. 😃
 
DaddyGirl said:
If you have the book, I’m most curious as to where he gets his info on a census happening the year Jesus was born that required everyone to return to the birthplace of their ancestors…I can’t find any other scholar finding this.

Most scholars refer back to first century historian, Josephus, who mentions The Census of Quirinius happening around 6-7 AD, the year he was appointed legate of Syria (which was approx 11 years after Jesus was born) but people were not required to go back to the birthplace of their ancestors for it.
But Luke doesn’t mean this census anyway, because he (as does Matthew, also) dates his census at the time of Jesus’ birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4BC.

If you do have the book, can you post a few lines of what he says about it and from where he gets his research?
Much appreciated!
Click to expand...
There is no census in Matthew. Both gospels agree that Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great (explicitly stated in Matthew 2:1; implied in Luke 1:5), although Luke does commit a sort of slight blunder by naming Sulpicius Quirinius, who wasn’t even legate of Syria when Herod was still alive (Quinctilius Varus was the legate then), although one theory (which while somewhat appealing does admittedly have its weaknesses - as all theories do ;)) argues that he also served in a previous term.
 
patrick457 said:
There is no census in Matthew. Both gospels agree that Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great (explicitly stated in Matthew 2:1; implied in Luke 1:5), although Luke does commit a sort of slight blunder by naming Sulpicius Quirinius, who wasn’t even legate of Syria when Herod was still alive (Quinctilius Varus was the legate then), although one theory (which while somewhat appealing does admittedly have its weaknesses - as all theories do ;)) argues that he also served in a previous term.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the alternative theory, which also has its weaknesses of course, that it is suggested an alternate translation of Luke 2:2 indicating that this registration was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.
 
DaddyGirl said:
If you have the book, I’m most curious as to where he gets his info on a census happening the year Jesus was born that required everyone to return to the birthplace of their ancestors…I can’t find any other scholar finding this…
Click to expand...
patrick457 said:
There is no census in Matthew. Both gospels agree that Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great (explicitly stated in Matthew 2:1; implied in Luke 1:5), although Luke does commit a sort of slight blunder by naming Sulpicius Quirinius, who wasn’t even legate of Syria when Herod was still alive.
Click to expand...
farpinho said:
Don’t forget the alternative theory, which also has its weaknesses of course, that it is suggested an alternate translation of Luke 2:2 indicating that this registration was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Click to expand...
If you all go back to*** post #27 and click on the link***, youll be able to read part of a commentary on Lukes supposed blunders. The commentary is by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke.

We moderns are too ready to pass judgement on the ancient writers, when the fault most likely lies at our end.

Please read it!
 
DaddyGirl said:
If you have the book, I’m most curious as to where he gets his info on a census happening the year Jesus was born that required everyone to return to the birthplace of their ancestors…I can’t find any other scholar finding this.
Click to expand...
patrick457 said:
There is no census in Matthew. Both gospels agree that Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great (explicitly stated in Matthew 2:1; implied in Luke 1:5), although Luke does commit a sort of slight blunder by naming Sulpicius Quirinius, who wasn’t even legate of Syria when Herod was still alive.
Click to expand...
farpinho said:
Don’t forget the alternative theory, which also has its weaknesses of course, that it is suggested an alternate translation of Luke 2:2 indicating that this registration was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Click to expand...
Post #27 provided a link to an excerp from a commentary which deals with St Luke`s alleged blunders. The commentary is by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.
It seems that the link was almost universally ignored.
Better luck this time. 🤷

From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke:
A majority of scholars believe that Herod the Great, the ruler of Palestine, died in the [Northern] spring of 4 BC, soon after a lunar eclipse in March of that year…Jesus birth a year or two earlier, between 6 and 4 BC. Objections are now being raised against this view. In fact, several scholars are favouring a date for Herods death in the early [Northern] spring of 1 BC, soon after a lunar eclipse in January of that year… ***Interestingly, this alternative chronology would push the date of Christs birth into full agreement with the testimony of the early Christians......*** a date for Christs birth between 3 and 2 BC.
Click to expand...
If accepted, this chronological revision moves the Nativity closer to the end of the first century BC and opens new possibilites for understanding the circumstances provided by Luke.
Click to expand...
and:
The Jewish historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod`s rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyalty to Caesar. Archeological evidemce confirms that the same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 BC. This might well mean that the registration described in Luke 2:1 involved an oath of allegiance sworn to the Emperor, not a census taken for the purpose of taxation.
Click to expand...
and:
The role of Quirinius is perhaps the most difficult detail to interpret in Lukes narrative (Luke 2:2}. It is well established that he initiated a taxation census soon after he was appointed the provincial legate of Syria in AD 6. Yet evidence is lacking that he held this position more than once or that he ever conducted more than one census. How, then, can Luke associate Quirinius with a census that occured many years earlier, when Jesus was born? ***The most helpful clue might be found in Lukes own words. The Greek expression that he uses in Luke 2:2 for the governing role of Quirinius is the exact description he uses for Pontius Pilates governing role in Luke 3:1. ***Since Pilate "governed" as a regional procurator and was not the legate of an entire Roman province (like Syria), it leaves open the possibility that Luke is referring to an administrative role assumed by Quirinius that had nothing to do with his later position as an imperial legate. This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a "procurator" in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus birth. It likewise enables us to make greater sense of the testimony of another early Christian writer, Tertullian, who says that Saturninus (not Quirinius) was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. It may be that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census (ie, the 3 BC oath-registration) several years before conducting another census for taxation in AD 6.
Click to expand...
Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant. Herods death, Caesars decree, and the governing position of Quirinius are all historical facors that when reconsidered, yield a more coherent portrait of the events surrounding the Nativity. This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 BC, the enrolment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of this oath was organised and implemented in Judea by Quirinus several years before he was made the official governor of Syria.

This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Luke 2:1-2, it helps to confirm Lukes reliability as an historian as well as the early Churchs reliability as a channel of historical traditions.
Click to expand...
** Emphasis added**

The ancient writers weren`t dopes.
 
This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a “procurator” in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus` birth.
Click to expand...
The problem is this: before AD 6, Judaea was not under administration by a Roman prefect (after AD 44, “procurator”). Herod the Great ‘inherited’ the vast Hasmonean territory which encompassed a good deal of Palestine, ruling semi-independently as a client ruler. (Things had been this way ever since Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC, which put a limit to the full independence that was enjoyed by what was then the Hasmonean kingdom, and also detached some recently-conquered territory.) He was expected to pay tribute to Rome and was obliged to support Roman policies and military actions in the eastern Mediterranean; in return, he was more or less free to run his kingdom as he wished. When Herod died, Augustus considered Herod’s wills (he left behind two) and decided to split up the kingdom among three sons. Archelaus received the lion’s share in the form of the southern regions of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea, ruling over it as ‘ethnarch’ (he was never officially granted the title ‘king’, nor did any of his brothers). Both Antipas and Philip were granted the title of ‘tetrarch’ (‘rulers of a fourth’); Antipas inherited the Galilee and Peraea, while Philip received the more remote parts.

All three brothers ruled under the same terms as their father did: both were expected to give tribute and profess allegiance to Rome in return for semi-independence. Archelaus, however, proved to be a highly incapable administrator: due to the actions of some of his subjects Rome decided to depose and exile him (AD 6). His territories were then reconfigured as the province of Judaea, with Augustus appointing a prefect (Coponius) to govern it. It was only by this time that Judaea came under ‘direct’ Roman rule.

As for Quirinius, there’s also the problems which are discussed in detail in the Wikipedia Census of Quirinius article. Besides, at the period in question (2-1 BC), Quirinius was supposed to have been leading a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia (Asia Minor).
 
patrick457 said:
The problem is this: before AD 6, Judaea was not under administration by a Roman prefect…

As for Quirinius, there’s also the problems which are discussed in detail in the Wikipedia Census of Quirinius article. Besides, at the period in question (2-1 BC), Quirinius was supposed “supposed”!] to have been leading a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia (Asia Minor).
Click to expand...
Untill its proved otherwise, id prefer to trust ***St Luke - who was inspired after all ***- and the early Church writers, and Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. i doubt that those two would overlook other factors.

Wikipedia isn`t infallible.

If the generally accepted date of Herods death is becoming increasingly disputed, what else may be......the exact period of Quirinius military campaign? Etc.

Luke was around only a handful of decades after the Nativity.
Were 2,000 years away. When there are historical discrepancies, we moderns tend to blame the ancients, who werent as “unscientific” as we like to think they were. Maybe we dont have all the facts, or were misinterpreting some of what we do have. We`re not infallible, but we sometimes act as if we are.

As that commentary says:
Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant.
Click to expand...
This might be a good analogy for some current scholarship:
cracked.com/video_18117_a-history-channel-documentary-from-future-beatles-3000.html

Well see. Anyway, its not “de fide”. 🤷

And it`s 2:25am here.
 
DaddyGirl said:
If you have the book, I’m most curious as to where he gets his info on a census happening the year Jesus was born that required everyone to return to the birthplace
Click to expand...
I put it away. I have been looking for it now and again for about three months. I am begining to think about reordering it. The last time I tried it was out of print. Before he died, he was redoing the book. I don’t know if that was completed. If I find it, I will send you the information.
 
Fiasco said:
Wikipedia isn`t infallible.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. Did somebody say that? 😛
If the generally accepted date of Herods death is becoming increasingly disputed, what else may be......the exact period of Quirinius military campaign? Etc.
Click to expand...
And that is a good indication of how difficult it is to do ancient history.
Luke was around only a handful of decades after the Nativity.
Were 2,000 years away. **When there are historical discrepancies, we moderns tend to blame the ancients, who werent as “unscientific” as we like to think they were.** Maybe we dont have all the facts, or were misinterpreting some of what we do have. We`re not infallible, but we sometimes act as if we are.
Click to expand...
It goes back to what I’m saying: “modern people are being too hard on Luke and projecting their expectations on him.” 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top