What year was Jesus born?

[McQuacks]

Does anyone have any good links about what year Jesus was born? I would appreciate any, thanks
-McQ 8-)

 

[Khristeeanos]

All that I have read indicates that Jesus was born in either 4 or 3 B.C.

Sorry I don't have a link. :-?

 

[Skipdawg]

Here is one you may enjoy. :

http://www.raptureready.us/birthday.htm

 

[dcookcan]

Here is one you may enjoy. :

http://www.raptureready.us/birthday.htm

Thanks for sharing that excellent link for Jesus' B'day. I have been through that concept and study of His birth with the conclusion that He was born on Rosh Hashanah (Yom Teruah). The corresponding Gregorian Calendar date is September 11th, 3 BCE. This date was arrived at through a complex study of scropture combined with available historic references linking astronomical events. I only have a hard copy; sorry no internet address.

I think most scholars can agree, however, that Jesus birth corresponded to one of the Hebrew fall festivals.

 

[Georges]

Here is one you may enjoy. :

http://www.raptureready.us/birthday.htm

Thanks for sharing that excellent link for Jesus' B'day. I have been through that concept and study of His birth with the conclusion that He was born on Rosh Hashanah (Yom Teruah). The corresponding Gregorian Calendar date is September 11th, 3 BCE. This date was arrived at through a complex study of scropture combined with available historic references linking astronomical events. I only have a hard copy; sorry no internet address.

I think most scholars can agree, however, that Jesus birth corresponded to one of the Hebrew fall festivals.

Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) gives the best evidence of support for the birth of Christ.

 

[Quath]

I don't think you can work it out. Luke says Jesus was born during a census. From history, the only census that works, is the one at 6 A.D.m after Herod the Great had died. Yet Matthew says that Jesus was born when Herod was alive. So there is the basic contradiction.

If you want a complete analysis of the contradiction, check out Infidel.org: The Date of the Nativity in Luke.

I saw an article in the 2004 December issue of Time that talked about some of this. The problem is one Biblical author is trying to appease the Jews and get them to accept and the other is trying to appease the pagans. So Jews would accept Jesus better if he had been associated with the place of King David. The pagans would accept virgin mothers (all the rave back then).

Quath

 

[Gary]

Utter rubbish... there is no contradiction, only the usual infidel/atheist shortsightedness.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Read and learn.

 

[Quath]

Utter rubbish... there is no contradiction, only the usual infidel/atheist shortsightedness.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Read and learn.

There was no census before 6 AD because the Roman Empire did not control Judaea. Once they control it, they implement a census for taxtation. The Romans had no need to perform a census of a region of land they were not taxing directly.

So the census happens when we expect (when Rome takes over) in 6 AD, after Herod dies.

You can't accept that this is false, so you will go out of your way to try to make it true, no matter how outlandish the reasoning.

Quath

 

[McQuacks]

There was no census before 6 AD because the Roman Empire did not control Judaea. Once they control it, they implement a census for taxtation. The Romans had no need to perform a census of a region of land they were not taxing directly.

To quote from Gary's link:

It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.)
Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament,(1962) and The Archeology of the New Testament (1970)]

Regarding a Roman census when Herod was ruling:

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.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Question-o ... census.htm

Also from the above link, in regards to a censuses around the time of Jesus:

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.

I was actually just reading about this in "The Case for Christ," pg. 101.
So Luke speaks of a census performed when Quirinius was governing Syria, and also during the reign of King Herod. The problem is that Herod died in 4 B.C. and Quirinius didn't begin governing Syria until A.D. 6, shortly after that conducting a census.
During an interview with professor of NT archaeology John McRay, McRay pointed out that an "eminent" archaeologist, Jerry Vardaman, did a lot of research concerning this, and he found a coin with the name "Quirinius" on it with "very small writing, or what we call 'micographic' letters." The finding placed him as procunsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod, which means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses. So the census that Luke speaks about would have happened during the reign of the first Quirinius. "Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, this would work out quite well."
Also, Lee did more research and found Sir William Ramsay came up with a similar theory, and he "concluded from various inscriptions that while there was only one Quirinius, he ruled Syria on two seperate occasions, which would cover the time of the earlier census."
"Other scholars have pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, 'This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.'"
-McQ 8-)

 

[Gary]

Thanks McQ...



It shows how shallow the atheist/infidel research really is. They are a very sad bunch and in spite of the vast amount of time that Quath has spent here, I have seen very little improvement in his understanding.

Imagine if you were an atheist... your whole world view points to nothing beyond what we see and experience in this world. You believe that Christians are deluded but you spend hours and hours on a Christian forum debating and arguing with people who you think are silly.

It does not make any sense at all.

:-?

 

[Quath]

Look at the contradictions just in this thread to see how different experts arrive at different dates. McQuacks says that Herod died in 4 B.C. Dcookcan claims Jesus was born in 3 BCE. Now unless there is a mixup in which calendars we are using, these contradict each other.

But as for the specifics of the census. The Romans did a census when expected - when they took over Judaea. It makes no sense for them to do a census if they were not going to follow it up with a takeover. Yet you want us to believe that would just do a census and then not take over the region.

As for Quirinius being governon twice - it doesn't appear probable at all. For one, in Roman history, no one one has governered the same province twice. Also, we know the governor from 12 to 3 BC and the Romans did not have any co-governors.

As for the coin, the guy who read them said that microletters say that Jesus was born in 12 BC. So if you accept this date, you have an even harder time reconciling Jesus's history. Check out Infidel.org for a debunking of this fraudulent coin.

Quath

 

[McQuacks]

But as for the specifics of the census. The Romans did a census when expected - when they took over Judaea. It makes no sense for them to do a census if they were not going to follow it up with a takeover. Yet you want us to believe that would just do a census and then not take over the region.

Hey Quath,
If you take a look at this link that I posted http://www.johnankerberg.org/Question-o ... census.htm , they give reasons that Augustus may have wanted to hold a census in Judea. To quote from that link again: "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."

In regard to someone governing twice:

However, an interesting possibility has been suggested by an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus," a tombstone which records the achievements of an Augustan army officer. (See Appendix for text of inscription). The key phrase translates as "pro praetor of Syria twice."8 Unfortunately the stone is broken in such a way that the name of the officer is missing." http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm

. While this does not prove anything concerning Quirinius, it does open the possibility for someone ruling twice.
Also from the above link:

We have no further information from antiquity as to Quirinius' next assignment, but we do know that sometime between 12 and 6 BC he successfully commanded the Roman army in a campaign against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia. Since the only Roman legion based in the whole of Asia belonged to Syria,12 and since the area to be conquered was contiguous to Syria, it is reasonable to think that Quirinius was placed in command of this Syrian legion and was given responsibility for overseeing the entire region in the effort to pacify the Homonadensians. If this is the path which Quirinius followed, it is possible to see his whole career in the East not simply as a series of isolated events, but as different functions of his overall command of the whole area. (See inscriptions in Appendix.)
How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria? Normally we would expect the governor to be the supreme commander in the area, the direct representative of the Emperor, the head of both civil and military affairs. This would leave no room for either an extraordinary commander over the whole region on the one hand, or else for a governor of Syria on the other, providing we understand the office of governor in its usual sense. The solution, it appears, lies in realizing that the office of governor of Syria was much less strictly defined than we might expect. If we can rely on Josephus' account (Antiquities 16.9.1) regarding the Roman government of Syria, he reports that during Herod's reign there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, the "officers of Caesar" (Greek Kaisaros hegemosi). Apparently the responsibilities of the office were very great and required an assistant to help with everyday affairs. Whether Voulmnius was co-equal with Saturninus or only his chief assistant, the passage still indicates that more than one person could be "governors" or "leaders of Syria" (twn Surias epistatountwn).

From the above link concerning the translation of "governor" in Luke:

Let us begin by noting that the phrase in the KJV "when ... was governor" translates the present active participle of the verb hegemoneuw. The sense of the word is "while ... was ruling."...In fact, the Greek word denotes rulership or leadership in general.

Concerning the state of Quirinius's rule around the time of Jesus:

Furthermore, based on our understanding of the irregular nature of Roman administration of the province, it appears highly likely that Quirinius was exercising an important command in the area of Syria from about 12 BC until 6 BC at least and possibly until AD 9 or even later. Like Agrippa before him, this may not have required his constant presence but would have made it imperative from him personally to oversee the more sensitive matters like the Homonadensian war, the census after Archelaus' banishment in AD 6, and very possibly the census mentioned in Luke 2.

Whew, too much research for one day! : My eyes are bugging out. ;) Maybe Gary can find more on it too.

**edited** One last note about another possible interpretation of the verse in Luke:

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. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=21 ... FORM=CVRE2

-McQ 8-)

 

[Quath]

If you take a look at this link that I posted http://www.johnankerberg.org/Question-o ... census.htm , they give reasons that Augustus may have wanted to hold a census in Judea. To quote from that link again: "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."

Part of the problem is that Luke says that census was of "all that was inhabited." We know this was not the case. So we know that Luke's understanding of the census is not perfect, so why not other details of it? In other words, Luke could have made mistakes. This seems the most likely explanation or do you believe that it was a census of all that was inhabited?

From what I have read, if the Romans had conducted an earlier census, I would expect Josephus would have documented it like he documented the other census.

In regard to someone governing twice: [quote:bc2f3]However, an interesting possibility has been suggested by an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus," a tombstone which records the achievements of an Augustan army officer. (See Appendix for text of inscription). The key phrase translates as "pro praetor of Syria twice."8 Unfortunately the stone is broken in such a way that the name of the officer is missing." http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm

. While this does not prove anything concerning Quirinius, it does open the possibility for someone ruling twice.[/quote:bc2f3]
If you check out Infidel.org, it says

Even more importantly, this inscription does not really say that the governorship of Syria was held twice, only that a second legateship was held, and that the second post happened to be in Syria. From what remains of the stone, it seems fairly obvious that the first post was the proconsulate of Asia. This means that even if this is the career of Quirinius, all it proves is that he was once the governor of Syria.

How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria?

This really pushes it because why name someone as governor who was not? Luke could have just referred to the real governon instead of a special command?

Also from the above like, it explains how Quirinius would have been accosiated with Galatia, not Syria during this time:

Second, just because Quirinius was probably assigned a Syrian legion to fight bandits on the mountain border between Galatia and Cilicia, it does not follow that he had any kind of command in Syria. To the contrary, he was in the province of Galatia, not Syria, and by special command of Augustus. It only makes sense that he was appointed legate of Galatia for this war, for otherwise the actual legate of Galatia would have been fighting it. A Syrian legate would have no business fighting a war in someone else's province, especially in a territory that would leave him cut off from his own province by a large mountain range: for the Homanadenses were active in the mountain-lake valley in Galatia, boxed in by the mountains of Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria--the valley surrounding Egridir lake, Turkey, on a modern map. Every expert familiar with the facts agrees that "only an army coming from the north could subjugate mountain tribes" in that region, in other words an army led from the province of Galatia, not Syria. So it would be quite nonsensical of Luke to refer to Quirinius' command and probable governorship in the province of Galatia as "holding a command in Syria," all the more so since "being a ruler of Syria" is what the phrase actually means anyway (since "Syria" appears in the genetive, not dative case).

**edited** One last note about another possible interpretation of the verse in Luke: [quote:bc2f3]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. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=21 ... FORM=CVRE2

-McQ 8-)[/quote:bc2f3]
I still would have thought such a census would have been documented.

Quath