Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Proof of Jesus?

cleanfreak

Member
I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him? :study

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.
 
I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him? :study

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.

Don't waste your words.

You are right to want to see his blessing.

It isn't going to come with your rational arguments outside of the Bible. He needs to come round to be prepared to read it and see that the Bible is where you get all your reasons from.

I hope you are able to encourage your friend to look into the Scriptures.

"He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11).
 
I have tried my friend, but he wants legitimate proof as do many.

I am curious on this as well. It is hard for me to believe there are no writings outside the Bible about Jesus.
 
There are, but not in the specific time period.

Many of the "Secular( outside the bible) sources" are WAY WAY WAY outside the time frame, even the Gospels weren't written within the timeperiod you described. They were written at least FOURTY years AFTER Christ.

Not to mention that we can't conclusively say when Jesus was born, the Gospels don't agree.

Luke says it was in the time of a Census, when Corinious(sp?) was governor, but King Harod was king. They never overlapped, plus the Census Luke Described NEVER happened.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_governor_of_Syria_when_Jesus_was_born

I know you might not take that as fact, but at least cross search the information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him? :study

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.
You will not find any writings from the time when Jesus was on earth but that doesn't mean there weren't any, nor does it mean that what the Scriptures say about Jesus aren't true.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

That your friend is asking for proof of Jesus seems to suggest he is out of touch with much modern scholarship. There is hardly a biblical or historical scholar that doubts the existence of Jesus. There used to be much debate about his existence but since it is widely accepted that he did exist, the focus has shifted to just who he is and what he did. Extra-biblical evidence for Jesus from the time he existed is unnecessary.
 
The historian Josephus wrote about the Lord Jesus, but why would a Christian prefer commend Josephus's account rather than that of God's Word?
 
I have tried my friend, but he wants legitimate proof as do many.

I am curious on this as well. It is hard for me to believe there are no writings outside the Bible about Jesus.

In 1st century Palestine people did not go about with smart phones recording everything that happened to pass by. In fact most people could not read let alone write. But even in the 21st century much of the drama of human existence passes unrecorded. I can't remember a journalist dropping in and asking me how things are going with the world. Like most others, I simply don't rate a mention.

So why would anyone worry about a low paid worker from the backwoods of Upper Galilee?

So your friend is right - there is no 'legitimate' evidence that Jesus even existed.
 
If Jesus was related to God in absolutely no way, would anyone deny his existence? No, why? There is more historical evidence/writings of Jesus than many notable people who lived around that time. Did Pilot ever exist? Does anyone doubt his existence? Nope, and guess what, there are more historical writings about Jesus than Pilot himself. Historical evidence for Jesus is there, it's only the ignorant who want to challenge it. It's not a Jesus issue, it's a God issue.

Historians were writing about Jesus after his death for quite some time. I don't mean modern day historians, I am talking about Roman/Jewish historians. Pick up a world history book, and you will be amazed with the many accounts of Jesus after his death.
 
I know you might not take that as fact, but at least cross search the information.

The information has been crossed search and to great detail. Your response about Luke's census is typical for an atheist. I submit the following:

It is a bit long, but a great read.

Luke's Census

In Luke 2.1-5 we read that Caesar Augustus decreed that the Roman
Empire should be taxed and that everyone had to return to his own city
to pay taxes. So Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and there Jesus
was born.

Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation
[1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a
taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his
home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in
v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions.

It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common
at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the
Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea
about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the
Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least
the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place
every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these
procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons
returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian
papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was
enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194].

The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census
described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of
Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered
several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of
Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this
date [4. Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1969), p. 175]. Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above,
an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-4 BC [5. Cf. Bruce,
Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers
the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took
place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of
the earlier census 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted
dates for Jesus' birth]. Another possibility is Bruce's suggestion
that the Greek in Luke 2.2 is equally translatable as "This enrollment
(census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria"
[6. Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192]. This would mean that Luke was
dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship
of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above [7.
While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of
Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke's account, while
still finding more problems that does Bruce (pp. 162-171)].

Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events
recorded in Luke 2.1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and
supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background
behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing
several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in
the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons
were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the
requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently
employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC-AD 14), placing it well
within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the
specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5
BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact
date for Jesus' birth.

Astrology

Astronomical records show that there were conjunctions of Saturn,
Jupiter, and Mars in the years 7-6 BC. In 7 BC, the world saw a triple
conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in an event occurring only once
every 125 years. Then early in 6 BC, Jupiter and Saturn grouped close
to the planet Mars, a configuration repeated only once every 805
years. Later in the spring of 6 BC Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn also
formed an unusually close grouping. Ancient astrologers believed that
the area of the sky named Pisces where these conjunctions occurred
contained signs pertinent to the Hebrew nation, so it is possible that
the "Magi", blending a knowledge of Old Testament prophecies about a
Messiah with heavenly observations (Numbers 24.17), were led to seek
the predicted king in the Land of Israel.

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Jesus was born before then (Matt.
2.19). Luke was a very reliable historian, proven trustworthy over and
over again. (And in Acts 5, Luke shows that he was well aware of the
census under Quirinius in 6 AD which makes it very doubtful that he
would have been confused about the census he describes in Luke 2.)

Josephus and Jewish Antiquities

An argument made by many opponents of the accuracy of the Bible is
that Rome was not taxing or conducting a census in Israel before
becoming a province in 6 A.D. But Josephus records that the Jews were
being taxed by the Romans with commands coming from Syria as early as
44 BC. And the task of raising the funds fell upon the Jewish rulers
in power at the time. For example Josephus records: "Cassius rode into
Syria in order to take command of the army stationed there, and on the
Jews he placed a tax of 700 silver talents. Antipater gave the job of
collecting this tax to his sons . . ." (Jewish Antiquities XIV 271).

Records also indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman
politics. His name is mentioned in Res Gestae - The Deeds of Augustus
by Augustus placing him as consul as early as 12 B.C.
Excerpt from: Kenneh F. Doig, New Testament Chronology, (Lewiston, NY:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).
 
continued.....
Chapter 5
THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS

Luke recorded that before the birth of Jesus, "a decree went out from
Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of
Syria." (Luke 2:1-2) In response to this census Joseph and Mary
proceeded to Bethlehem to be counted.1 and there Jesus was born.

Added note: The word "first" in this context is from "protos"
(prwtoV), defined in Strong's Greek Dictionary as: contracted
superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or
importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all),
former. If the early translators of the New Testament had been aware
of the historical conflict posed by "first" we would long have read
"This was the census before the one taken while Quirinius was governor
of Syria." Then there would have been no perceived difference between
history and scripture.

The latest possible date for the birth of Jesus was before the death
of Herod the Great on November 27, 4 BCE. It also would be desirable
to establish the earliest possible date, and thus set the limits for
Jesus' birth. Augustus' decree for a worldwide census for taxation has
often been used to try to establish this earliest limit. However, the
gaps in our knowledge of the taxations of the period and the details
of the career of Quirinius have led to no firm conclusions. Based on
this lack of information, some have denied the historical validity of
Luke's statement.2 Or, it has been stated the census of the world was
only a generalization of Augustus' ongoing drive to classify the
empire, as evidenced by the many local censuses conducted at different
times.3 However, it can be historically established that Augustus did
decree such a specific census. To use this approach it is necessary to
establish which decree of Augustus would have required a worldwide
census, when he decreed it, and when Quirinius (Cyrenius) put it into
effect in Judea. The words of the Roman historian, Dio Cassius,
provide a starting point.

I. Augustus' Decree for Taxation

Caesar Augustus ruled from 44 BCE to 14 CE. An edict of Caesar
Augustus decreeing a census for purposes of taxation for all the
inhabited earth, or essentially the Roman Empire, is recorded by Dio
Cassius.4 By 5 CE the military expenditures for the widespread Roman
legions exceeded income, and "Augustus lacked funds for all these
troops." (Dio Cassius, Roman History LV 24:9) No tax plan was accepted
at that time. In 6 CE Augustus established a "military treasury. . . .
Now Augustus made a contribution himself toward the fund and promised
to do so annually, and he also accepted voluntary contributions from
kings and certain communities; but he took nothing from private
citizens, . . . but this proved very slight in comparison with the
amount being spent." (Roman History LV 25:3-4) To overcome this
deficit, Augustus "established the tax of 5%, on the inheritances and
bequests which should be left by people at their death to any except
very near relatives or very poor persons, representing that he had
found this tax set down in Caesar's memoranda. It was, in fact, a
method which had been introduced once before, but had been abolished
later, and was now revived. In this way, then, he increased the
revenues." (Roman History LV 25:5-6) In 6 CE Caesar Augustus issued a
worldwide decree that for a second time there would be a 5%
inheritance tax on estates, something beyond the normal taxation. Such
a taxation would require a census to register transferable assets,
such as land, and to record genealogies to establish "very near
relatives." As the benefactor, this taxation would have had the full
support of the Roman military.

Josephus noted the effects on non-citizens of this decree in Judea in
6 CE: "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through
other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been
consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at
this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a
judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance.
Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with
him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came
himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to
take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus'
money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of
a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to
it." (Ant. XVIII 1:1) However, to the north, "a certain Galilean,
whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and
said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the
Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords."
(Wars II 8:1) And, later he wrote of "Judas who caused the people to
revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the
Jews." (Ant. XX 5:2) Caesar's 5% tax was to be on the estates, as
noted by Josephus. The census attached to this taxation was also noted
by Luke: "Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew
away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who
followed him were scattered." (Acts 5:37) The peoples of Judea and
Galilee were already being taxed, and yet they protested this
taxation. What was different this time?

When Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, Judea came under Roman
tribute. (Ant. XIV 4:4; Wars I 7:6) Although Herod later collected his
own heavy taxes, some portion would have gone to Rome. It has been
contended that Rome had no ability for direct taxation in Herod's
territory,5 but, Augustus could interfere in local taxation. When
Samaria remained loyal to Caesar after the death of Herod the Great,
he "eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of regard to their not
having revolted." (Wars II 6:3; also Ant. XVII 11:4) Normally, any tax
money due was likely collected by Herod or his successors and paid
directly to Rome by them. To the taxpayer, their money would have been
seen as going primarily to their local government, and not to Rome. At
the time of Jesus' birth the Romans may have required the taxation,
but the money was collected by Herod's government. The military
purpose of that taxation may not have been general public knowledge,
but only seen as another burdensome tax collected by Herod.

The census for taxation in 6 CE was different. The Romans and their
troops would have directly conducted that census. It was specifically
to support the military, who were not welcomed by most of the Jews.
The first Roman governor, Coponius, had just replaced Archelaus, and
the Jews were suddenly under direct Roman control. This tax was on
their land, which was their inheritance from God. The fanatical Judas
took the opportunity to revolt against the further demands of mortal
men and their military might.

There had been ongoing taxation throughout the Roman provinces.
Augustus' worldwide decree in 6 CE established an additional tax to
support his troops. As noted by Dio, this was the second attempt at
such a taxation, as it "had been introduced once before, but had been
abolished later, and was now revived." There had only been one prior
5% taxing specifically for the military, and it was probably that
decree referenced by Luke, that "went out from Caesar Augustus, that a
census be taken of all the inhabited earth." The decree for taxation
and a census at the time of Jesus' birth was likely that first
unsuccessful attempt to support the military treasury.

Since there is no specific record of the first decree for taxation for
the military, but only the reference by Dio, no dating is presently
available. There are, however, several related early sources.
Tertullian (ca. 155-245 CE), a Christian theologian at Carthage, noted
that a census in Judea took place under Sentius Saturninus, 9-6 BCE.
He wrote, "But there is historical proof that at this very time there
were censuses that had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus,
which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and
descent of Christ." (Against Marcion IV:19) The year, or years, of
taxation is not specified. It is also not known if that census was for
normal taxation of everyone, or if it was specifically related to the
inheritance tax to support the military. It should be noted that
`censuses' is in the plural,6 which suggests normal taxations.
Tertullian may only have presumed such a census based on Luke,
Josephus and his knowledge of the history of the period. He appears to
have known that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time, or,
it has been suggested, had access to an early version of Luke that
described the census as conducted by Saturninus, not Quirinius. The
words of Tertullian do not confirm or establish a specific date for
the census.7

Justin Martyr, who was born in about 105 CE, wrote to defend the
Christians against persecution, and appealed, "Now there is a village
in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which
Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registries of the
taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in Judea." (First
Apology, 34) Here is an appeal to the public registries, which have,
unfortunately, been lost. Whether his comments are derived only from
the writings of Luke, or he had independent verification of the
earlier "taxing under Quirinius" is not known. He also refers to
Quirinius as the "first procurator in Judea," as opposed to governor
of Syria. Again, there is no specific dating.

II. Quirinius Was Governor of Syria

Since there is not yet sufficient information to establish the year of
the first inheritance taxation, perhaps it is possible to identify
when Quirinius became "governor of Syria" and could have conducted
such a census. The problem is that it does not seem possible to
establish that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 CE. The
governors of Syria during the period, with their approximate dates,
were:8
Chart XII
Governors of Syria
BCE 10-9 M. Titius
BCE 9-6 Gaius Sentius Saturninus
BCE 6-3 P. Quinctilius Varus
BCE 3-1 L. Calpurnius Piso (?)
BCE 1-4 CE Gaius Julius Caesar
4-6 CE L. Volusius Saturninus
6-7 CE P. Sulpicius Quirinius
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
continued...
Varus succeeded Saturninus as governor of Syria in about 6 BCE (Ant.
XVII 5:2). In the chapter on "Herodian Chronology" it was determined
that Varus was still governor after the death of Herod, at least until
Summer of 3 BCE, and perhaps for another year or so. Jesus was born
before Herod died, while Varus was governor of Syria. Quirinius was
governor after Herod died. Quirinius does not appear to have been
governor of Syria during the reign of Herod, at least in the usual
sense.

It has been suggested that Quirinius was an imperial procurator for
Caesar, and may have been the "Sabinus, Caesar's procurator" mentioned
by Josephus (Ant. XVII 10:1).9 However, this reference is after the
death of Herod and not related to a census. Little is known of
Quirinius. He was a consul in 12 BCE, and sometime thereafter
conducted the Homanadensian war against that tribe in the Cilician
Taurus country of Asia Minor. This action was complete about 6 BCE.
The exact status of Quirinius during this period is not known.10 The
inscriptions of the period are not conclusive.11 Without further
information it is only a guess that he had some official status to
direct a census in Judea during the period before the death of Herod
the Great. The suggestion that he was governor of Syria shortly after
the death of Herod is irrelevant, since Jesus was born before Herod
died. In 6 CE Augustus appointed him governor of Syria. He was later a
favorite of Tiberius and was buried with honors in 21 CE (Tacitus,
Annals, 3:48).

Luke acknowledged the later "days of the census," in 6 CE, which were
disrupted by Judas of Galilee. The records are clear that Quirinius
was governor of Syria then, but Luke's gospel distinguishes that the
census at the time of the birth of Jesus was the "first." Luke
certainly knew the chronology and rulers of that period. However, it
has been suggested that Luke's intent was to say that the enrollment
at the time of Jesus was the first one, as distinguished from the
later one when Quirinius was governor of Syria. That is, Luke was not
saying that Quirinius was governor at the time of the first census.
The Greek usage can be interpreted to say: "This census was before
that [census] when Quirinius was governor of Syria."12 Perhaps a
better translation would be: "This census was the first before that
under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria."13 As such, the
Scripture is historically satisfied, but this translation does not
advance our knowledge of the chronology of Jesus.

[It would stand to reason the word "first" is uniquely used here as if
to suggest an event preceding].

III. Joseph and Mary Register for the Census

Luke went on to say that, "all were proceeding to register for the
census, everyone to his own city." (Luke 2:3) It has seemed a problem
that the Jewish method of returning to one's own tribal headquarters
to be "numbered" was used for a census under Herod.14 The Romans
usually took a census in one's home town.15 However, in a census for
inheritance taxation it would be expected that this would be conducted
where the tribal records were kept, no matter who conducted the
census. Joseph was a descendent of David of the tribe of Judah.
David's ancestral home was in Bethlehem, and in that town the land
records and genealogies required for such a census would have been
located. Or, simply, Joseph was born in Bethlehem but then lived in
Nazareth. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to register for this
census, and there Jesus was born.

As will be seen in the following chapters, the evidence suggests a
winter birth for Jesus. But, why would Joseph and Mary journey to
Bethlehem in the middle of winter to register for the census? There
are several possibilities. Joseph may have recently inherited some
land. Since the special taxation was related to inheritances, Joseph
journeyed to Bethlehem to claim his estate and settle any taxes due.
He would have there registered his property for the census. Or,
perhaps Joseph had recently become eighteen years of age, and as an
adult was required to then register as an independent household.16 Or,
they had recently married, and the registration of the family was
required. Or, Joseph and Mary thought that their child might be the
promised Messiah and that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
(Mic. 5:2). They may have timed their trip to Bethlehem for the census
to ensure that Jesus was born there. Also, registration may have been
required before the end of the Roman year, that is, December 31, and
they were late. However, there is no need to require that Joseph's
registration occurred immediately after the census for taxation was
decreed. There are other possibilities, but these are mostly
speculation.

IV. Conclusion

In support of Luke's description of the census that brought Joseph and
Mary to Bethlehem, it is confirmed that Augustus did decree a 5% world
wide inheritance tax to support the military. This was sometime before
the second taxing in 6 CE and likely before Herod's death in 4 BCE; it
was at some point discontinued. When this census took place cannot yet
be determined, and Quirinius' official status at that time is unknown.

An alternate translation suggests that Luke was actually saying that
the census was only the one before that when Quirinius was governor of
Syria in 6 CE. Luke was not saying he was governor when the first
census was taken.

It does not seem presently possible to establish an earliest limit for
the birth of Jesus. As such the search must go elsewhere to establish
the date of His birth. As will discussed in the following chapters,
the conception of John the Baptist and Jesus offers a surprising
answer.

Notes:

1. R. Smith, "Caesar's Decree (Luke 2:1-2): Puzzle or Key?," CTM 7
(1980), looks at Luke's intent to establish Joseph and Mary as subject
to the decrees of Caesar.

2. For example, G. Cornfield, The Historical Jesus - A Scholarly View
of the Man and His World (New York: Macmillan, 1982), 90; T. P.
Wiseman, "`There Went Out a Decree from Caesar Augustus...'," NTS 33
(1987), 479-480.

3. See R. E. Brown, "Gospel Infancy Narrative Research from 1976 to
1986: Part II (Luke)," CBQ 48, 4 (1986), 670.

4. E. W. Faulstich, "The Birth of Jesus," IAT (July 1986).

5. E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ Vol. 1 (London: Clark, Rev. 1973), 413-416.

6. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1977), 553.

7. C. F. Evens, "Tertullian's Reference to Sentius Saturninus and the
Lukan Census," JTS NS24, 1 (1973), 39, concludes that, in context,
Tertullian's argument was not concerned with the census of Luke and
"ought not be introduced into discussions of it."

8. Schurer, History Vol. 1, 257-259. His dates are here modified to
extend Varus' term to 3 BCE.

9. Although Sabinus is called "procurator" by Josephus, Coponius is
usually recognized as the first governor in Judea.

10. J. Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament (Boulder, CO:
Westview, 1981), 5, reported micrographic lettering on coins of the
period that suggest that Quirinius was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia
from 11 BCE until after the death of Herod. J. Vardaman, "Jesus' Life:
A New Chronology," CKC, uses microlettering on coins to establish
Jesus' birth in 12 BCE. However, the microletters are probably
graffiti unrelated to the date of issue of the coins, and therefore
undatable.

11. G. R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus -
Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson,
1984), 152-153.

12. H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), 21.

13. L. H. Feldman in W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2,"
JETS 27 (1984), 48-49.

14. Schurer, History Vol. 1, 411-3.

15. J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton
Univ. Press, 1964), 234-238.

16. There is no Scriptural basis for the claim that Joseph was an old
widower, already with a family of children. Some require such an
explanation to claim that Mary had no other child after Jesus, even to
suggest that she remained a perpetual virgin.
 
......from Dr. Richard P. Buchar
Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, and the Census
By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be
taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that
took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went
to his own town to register" (Luke 2:1-3).

All those even vaguely familiar with Luke's Christmas story have heard
of Caesar Augustus and his famous decree. It was this decree that sent
Mary in the ninth month of her pregnancy 80 miles south to Bethlehem,
along with husband Joseph. But could such a thing have really
happened? Do we have any proof from historical sources outside of the
Bible that the Roman emperor ever authorized a census? Yes, we do.

"Caesar Augustus" reigned as emperor of the Roman empire from 27 B.C.
to 14 A.D. (Or 727 A.U.C. to 767 A.U.C.), 41 years in all. The
grandnephew of Julius Caesar (100- 44 B.C.), his real name was Gaius
Octavius and he lived from 63 B.C. to 14 A.D. Because Julius Caesar
had legally adopted Octavius as his son, Octavius took the name
"Caesar" from Julius, which in later years became a name almost
equivalent to "emperor." "Augustus" is a Latin term that means "worthy
of reverence."

Caesar Augustus's reign was marked by peace and security - the famous
Pax Romana - as well as by lavish building projects throughout the
empire. In addition, according to Paul Maier, Augustus had such an
intense interest in religion within his realm that, if not for his
other great achievements, he might have gone down in history as a
religious reformer. In his day, belief in the traditional Greco-Roman
pantheon had decreased dramatically as philosophical skepticism grew
and a growing number joined the foreign mystery religions. Augustus
was convinced that belief in the old gods had made Rome great so he
set out to encourage his subjects to return to the worship of these
gods. He restored eighty-two temples in Rome alone! He became the
pontifex maximus (highest priest) in the state cult.1


What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke
2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world
should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all
the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be
taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo,
which literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official
listing of citizens.2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It
would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing
taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of
citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that
number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the
census (see below).

But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record
outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As
a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How
do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of
Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest
achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he
ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on
two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.

The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In
all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the
Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth
between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood
it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to
reach Palestine.

The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke
mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically,
something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us
in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius
was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out
exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know
exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is,
according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria
in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!

We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about
our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio
Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His
full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what
the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his
political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family
tradition and inheritance. It was through his military conquests in
Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor
to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.

Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he
shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his
Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work.
Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!

The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first
census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while
Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census?
One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is
sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution
because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This
census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."

A second theory holds that by saying "first census" Luke is telling
his readers that there was another census that Quirinius oversaw. Was
there a second one? Yes, and Luke mentions it in the Acts 5:37! The
second census mentioned in Acts would have taken place in 6 A.D. Since
it is well known that the Romans often held provincial censuses every
fourteen years, it would follow that the "first census," the one at
the time of Christ's birth, would have been held in approximately 8
B.C. -- if the fourteen year census cycle was in place at this time.
The problem with this second solution is that Luke is specifically
saying that the first census (the 8 B.C. one) took place while
Quirinius was governor of Syria; and from all available extrabiblical
sources, he wasn't. According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has
been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour
of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there
as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is
possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2.

Of the two theories the first has more to commend it, in my opinion.
Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources
and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and
he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration. The bottom line is
that the evidence that we have points to 8 B.C. as the date when the
"Christmas census" would have been authorized.

So much for dating the census. What about motivation to authorize it
in the first place? Do we have any clues from the historical sources
about what might have motivated Caesar Augustus to issue his censuses?
Perhaps one. Roman historian Dio Cassius tells us that Augustus was so
concerned about the declining marriage and birth rate in his empire,
that he passed legislation that made promiscuity a crime, which
penalized bachelors in their right to inherit, and which bestowed
political advantages on fathers of three or more children.5 Because of
his demonstrated concern about marriage and birth rate in his empire,
it is likely that one of the reasons that Augustus authorized the
censuses was to see whether his legislation was working, or, at the
very least, to see how birth rates fared.

Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway
Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their
ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that
such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least.
A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt,
in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their
original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D.
has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving
(1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2)
his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his
left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name;
(6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living
with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three
official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest,
because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and
Mary would have had to provide for the census.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time (New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, 1991), 6.

2. Other than its occurrences in Luke 2, the only other occurrence of
apographo in the New Testament is Hebrews 12:23 " to the general
assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and
to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made
perfect" (NAS).

3. See Tacitus, Annals, II, 30; III, 22, 23, 48. See Seutonius,
Tiberius x1ix; See Dio Cassius 1iv, 48; See Josephus, Antiquities
17:355; 18:26; 20:102. See also Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical
Chronology, (Princeton, 1964), 234-238.

4. E. M. Blaiklock, "Quirinius," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
of the Bible, vol. 5, gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 6.

5. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 1vi, 1-10. Dio Cassius tells of one
occasion when Augustus was so vexed by the declining marriage and
birth rates that he strode into the Forum, separated the married men
and bachelors he found there into two different groups and then let
the bachelors have it: "What shall I call you? Men? But you aren't
fulfilling the duties of men. Citizens? But for all your efforts, the
city is perishing. Romans? But you are in the process of blotting out
this name altogether! . . . What humanity would be left if all the
rest of mankind should do what you are doing? . . . You are committing
murder in not fathering in the first place those who ought to be your
descendants!" Quoted in Maier, In the Fulness of Time, 6.

6. This is cited in Maier, Fullness, 4, who is quoting from A. H. M.
Jones, ed., A History of Rome through the Fifth Century (New York:
Harper and Row, 1970), II, 256f.
 
.......from Dr. John Ankerberg
Was Luke Wrong About the Census Under Quirinius?
by Dr. John Ankerberg

For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records
of Jesus life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament
is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:

Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar
Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was
the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to
Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was
of the house and family of David, in order to register along with
Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child.

So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and
this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics
say there are five reasons why Luke's account is historically
incorrect.

1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of
Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn't it be mentioned by one or another
of the ancient historians who recorded this period?

2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman
census in Palestine.

3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D.
6, many years after Jesus was born.

4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to
Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.

5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod's kingdom
while Herod was still alive.

In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his
chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter
Jennings in his ABC Special "The Search for Jesus," and continues to
be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin
Yamauchi told me:

Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a
census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee.
And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem.
One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that
he didn't have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of
all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman
events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that
Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.

An Empire-wide census?

Let's answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree
from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was
he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman
historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different
provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one
in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial
empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered
censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only
one time.

Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans
undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt,
for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were
taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number
of years, and substantiates Luke's reference to Augustus's census, but
it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when
Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect
with the year of Jesus' birth in 4 B.C.

But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament
Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000]
states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at
7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established
with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3
B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on
documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell
and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.

Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar
Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod's paranoia. Herod
frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he
had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and
the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman
emperor to do so.

So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is
reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that
would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of
Herod's territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of
4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.

The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical
reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible
reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, "this is a case
where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not
directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn't mean that
it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur
only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or
inscriptions."

But what about Luke's reference, "this was the first census taken
while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the
"first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote,
usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also
be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be
referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was
governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or
even taken by Quirinius himself?

Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in
Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the
number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As
such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and
highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the
turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his
trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the
region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.

The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition
period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9
to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between
these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may
have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census
taxation when he could not trust anyone else.

Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.

Why did Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem?

Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not
have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been
required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that
in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is
essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."
This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to
Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many
reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with
Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.

I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own
modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact
that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple
at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a
prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?

Could a census have taken place while Herod was alive?

Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have
been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?

This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the
emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact,
when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and
Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his
sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one
of his vassal kingdoms.

Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor
with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a
friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.

Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s
domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both
Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of
Augustus in Herod’s realm.

Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the
Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have
been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been
divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under
Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory
belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense
that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were
under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall
census.

So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other
vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s
disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with
his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to
conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was
[FONT=&quot]still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
[/FONT]
 
Historians were writing about Jesus after his death for quite some time. I don't mean modern day historians, I am talking about Roman/Jewish historians. Pick up a world history book, and you will be amazed with the many accounts of Jesus after his death.

Why did they not write about him DURING his life here on earth?

The Bible states that Jesus performed so many miracles, that books would not be able to contain them.

Surely, one of these who received such a miracle also wrote about it? Think of the 5,000 that were fed.....and again later on the other miracle mass feeding? Surely one of those wrote something outside of the bible talking about the miracles.....even it is just one?

Surely?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ask you atheist friend if he can find proof of the existance of George Washington and if so, ask him to substantiate his proof.
 
Proof is by faith the size of a mustard seed to allow yourself to grow into the knowledge that produces understanding of that which is a fact. Is the grass green and the sky blue! Does 1+1=2! We have to say yes because it is a proven fact that through faith in our teachers they have taught us by proven fact.

Jesus, whom is that very Spirit that is God come in the flesh of man is also a proven fact as we do not even need the written word to understand that it was God that formed His creation from nothing as all things have to have a beginning as things do not just happen by chance, but must have a created beginning and even science is proving God is real. God knows the hearts and the intents of the heart and if one is truly seeking to know the existence of Christ then God will reveal Christ to them who diligently seek his face, but be patient and still long enough for Christ to reveal himself to you if you are sincere in looking for him.

Proof is in the sincerity of the heart.
 
Proof is by faith the size of a mustard seed to allow yourself to grow into the knowledge that produces understanding of that which is a fact. Is the grass green and the sky blue! Does 1+1=2! We have to say yes because it is a proven fact that through faith in our teachers they have taught us by proven fact.

Jesus, whom is that very Spirit that is God come in the flesh of man is also a proven fact as we do not even need the written word to understand that it was God that formed His creation from nothing as all things have to have a beginning as things do not just happen by chance, but must have a created beginning and even science is proving God is real. God knows the hearts and the intents of the heart and if one is truly seeking to know the existence of Christ then God will reveal Christ to them who diligently seek his face, but be patient and still long enough for Christ to reveal himself to you if you are sincere in looking for him.

Proof is in the sincerity of the heart.

Science isn't proving God though. Science and the data it is gathering is neutral. It can be interpreted theistically or atheistically but it proves neither side.
 
Why did they not write about him DURING his life here on earth?

The Bible states that Jesus performed so many miracles, that books would not be able to contain them.

Surely, one of these who received such a miracle also wrote about it? Think of the 5,000 that were fed.....and again later on the other miracle mass feeding? Surely one of those wrote something outside of the bible talking about the miracles.....even it is just one?

Surely?

They didn't have the internet 2000 years ago, they didn't have television, a news crew, or a printing press. How many events were recorded (historically) while the events were occurring? Especially 2000 years ago? That statement basically answers itself. Jesus performed miracles, he died, then was raised from the dead. A lot of people didn't realize that he truly was Christ until AFTER the fact.

Secondly...Jesus did perform many miracles while he was here on earth. However; you need to understand a few simple things. How many people that were effected by the miracles decide that they were going to randomly write about there experience? When Jesus cured the blind, did they stand up, run to find some paper and write about it? No...They did what every other person did 2000 years ago, they SPOKE to people about it. Other than the rich/people of nobility, who could even write? Let's not forget, we are dealing with people who were primarily farmers 2000 years ago. Not everyone could even read/write. In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if less than 10% of the population was even literate. In addition, lets say a few people did decide to write about their experience (keeping in mind that nearly everyone was illiterate). How many of those documents would survive 2000 years? If a nobody decided to write about christ, it is likely that document he wrote would rot away in his house.

So there you have it. The word of Jesus spread. Not by pen and paper, but by word of mouth. The events of Jesus were realized AFTER his death by the literate, scholars, and historians. People who could write about such things. Better yet, people who were of high reputation, famous, and had their works preserved.

I said it before, and I say it again. There is more historical evidence for Jesus Christ, than the majority of noteworthy people of his time.
 
Back
Top