The Census at the birth of Christ

[Quid est Veritas?]

According to the gospel of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed the legate of Syria in 6 AD, after Judaea was annexed to Rome. He then proceeded to order a census for tax purposes as was common Roman usage in new provinces.
This followed the partition of Herod the Great's kingdom into the tetrachies of Galilee under Herod Antipas, Judaea under Herod Archelaus and the tetrachy of Philip in 4 BC. Now Herod Archelaus was quite incompetent, provoking rebellions and acting outside his powers etc. and as a consequence was deposed and exiled to Gaul by order of Augustus. Judaea became a province, while the other two Herodian rulers remained in power. It was at this point that the seasoned ex-consul Quirinius was sent out to sort out the new province and suppress the lingering rebellion according to Josephus.

Now there are a number of problems here:

1: Matthew unequivocally states Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in Bethlehem. In fact he mentions that Joseph returning from Egypt decides to go to Nazareth so as not to live under Herod Archelaus. Thus Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC and thus a full 10 years before the census that was supposed to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

2: Earlier in Luke when discussing John the Baptist's birth, it is stated this occured during Herod's reign. Thus when Mary visited Elizabeth she was pregnant and thus likely also during Herod's reign.
This Herod might be Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. If the former than we have 10 years before the census of Quirinius again, if the latter then it contradicts Matthew.

3: According to Luke, Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth in Galilee. He was thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas and therefore had no need to be counted in a Judaean census. Besides this was for tax purposes and it makes no sense why he would let himself be taxed when he had no need to do so.

4: The Romans did not require people to travel to specific places based on descent for censuses. Joseph could have been counted wherever he was (which was of course Galilee and thus outside the census area in entirety). Even if Joseph held property in Bethlehem that needed to be registered, there was no need for him and his pregnant wife to travel there.

So this makes it very difficult to pin down what is going on here. I have heard people say that maybe there was an earlier census done by Quirinius under Herod, but why would a high-up Roman be the flunky of a petty client king? Besides this still means Luke is in error as it explicitly says when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

So what do you think?

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

According to the gospel of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed the legate of Syria in 6 AD, after Judaea was annexed to Rome. He then proceeded to order a census for tax purposes as was common Roman usage in new provinces.
This followed the partition of Herod the Great's kingdom into the tetrachies of Galilee under Herod Antipas, Judaea under Herod Archelaus and the tetrachy of Philip in 4 BC. Now Herod Archelaus was quite incompetent, provoking rebellions and acting outside his powers etc. and as a consequence was deposed and exiled to Gaul by order of Augustus. Judaea became a province, while the other two Herodian rulers remained in power. It was at this point that the seasoned ex-consul Quirinius was sent out to sort out the new province and suppress the lingering rebellion according to Josephus.

Now there are a number of problems here:

1: Matthew unequivocally states Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in Bethlehem. In fact he mentions that Joseph returning from Egypt decides to go to Nazareth so as not to live under Herod Archelaus. Thus Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC and thus a full 10 years before the census that was supposed to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

2: Earlier in Luke when discussing John the Baptist's birth, it is stated this occured during Herod's reign. Thus when Mary visited Elizabeth she was pregnant and thus likely also during Herod's reign.
This Herod might be Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. If the former than we have 10 years before the census of Quirinius again, if the latter then it contradicts Matthew.

3: According to Luke, Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth in Galilee. He was thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas and therefore had no need to be counted in a Judaean census. Besides this was for tax purposes and it makes no sense why he would let himself be taxed when he had no need to do so.

4: The Romans did not require people to travel to specific places based on descent for censuses. Joseph could have been counted wherever he was (which was of course Galilee and thus outside the census area in entirety). Even if Joseph held property in Bethlehem that needed to be registered, there was no need for him and his pregnant wife to travel there.

So this makes it very difficult to pin down what is going on here. I have heard people say that maybe there was an earlier census done by Quirinius under Herod, but why would a high-up Roman be the flunky of a petty client king? Besides this still means Luke is in error as it explicitly says when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

So what do you think?

What do I think? I think Christians and scholars have looked into these passages for 2000 years. Perhaps we should widen our search?

 

[Chesterton]

I think this addresses a couple of the things you bring up:

 

[JackRT]

According to the gospel of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed the legate of Syria in 6 AD, after Judaea was annexed to Rome. He then proceeded to order a census for tax purposes as was common Roman usage in new provinces.
This followed the partition of Herod the Great's kingdom into the tetrachies of Galilee under Herod Antipas, Judaea under Herod Archelaus and the tetrachy of Philip in 4 BC. Now Herod Archelaus was quite incompetent, provoking rebellions and acting outside his powers etc. and as a consequence was deposed and exiled to Gaul by order of Augustus. Judaea became a province, while the other two Herodian rulers remained in power. It was at this point that the seasoned ex-consul Quirinius was sent out to sort out the new province and suppress the lingering rebellion according to Josephus.

Now there are a number of problems here:

1: Matthew unequivocally states Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in Bethlehem. In fact he mentions that Joseph returning from Egypt decides to go to Nazareth so as not to live under Herod Archelaus. Thus Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC and thus a full 10 years before the census that was supposed to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

2: Earlier in Luke when discussing John the Baptist's birth, it is stated this occured during Herod's reign. Thus when Mary visited Elizabeth she was pregnant and thus likely also during Herod's reign.
This Herod might be Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. If the former than we have 10 years before the census of Quirinius again, if the latter then it contradicts Matthew.

3: According to Luke, Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth in Galilee. He was thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas and therefore had no need to be counted in a Judaean census. Besides this was for tax purposes and it makes no sense why he would let himself be taxed when he had no need to do so.

4: The Romans did not require people to travel to specific places based on descent for censuses. Joseph could have been counted wherever he was (which was of course Galilee and thus outside the census area in entirety). Even if Joseph held property in Bethlehem that needed to be registered, there was no need for him and his pregnant wife to travel there.

So this makes it very difficult to pin down what is going on here. I have heard people say that maybe there was an earlier census done by Quirinius under Herod, but why would a high-up Roman be the flunky of a petty client king? Besides this still means Luke is in error as it explicitly says when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

So what do you think?

You make excellent points. What follows is something I researched and wrote a few years ago. It somewhat duplicates what you have just posted:

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').

More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them . Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

 

[RDKirk]

What difference does it make?

That is a straightforward question. This is a "Christian Only" theology section, so I'm presuming nobody here has the intention of tearing down anyone's faith.

So what difference do you think it makes that several different ancient amateur writers, writing decades after the event from second-hand reports, didn't get all their dates lined up?

 

[Chesterton]

What difference does it make?

That is a straightforward question. This is a "Christian Only" theology section, so I'm presuming nobody here has the intention of tearing down anyone's faith.

So what difference do you think it makes that several different ancient amateur writers, writing decades after the event from second-hand reports, didn't get all their dates lined up?

Well it's something worth discussing. Inquiring minds want to know, as they say.

 

[pdudgeon]

Well it's something worth discussing. Inquiring minds want to know, as they say.

looks to me like you need more information to narrow down the time of Jesus' birth.
So what about looking for the timing of the Star of Bethlehem?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161201112550.htm

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to the gospel of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed the legate of Syria in 6 AD, after Judaea was annexed to Rome. He then proceeded to order a census for tax purposes as was common Roman usage in new provinces.
This followed the partition of Herod the Great's kingdom into the tetrachies of Galilee under Herod Antipas, Judaea under Herod Archelaus and the tetrachy of Philip in 4 BC. Now Herod Archelaus was quite incompetent, provoking rebellions and acting outside his powers etc. and as a consequence was deposed and exiled to Gaul by order of Augustus. Judaea became a province, while the other two Herodian rulers remained in power. It was at this point that the seasoned ex-consul Quirinius was sent out to sort out the new province and suppress the lingering rebellion according to Josephus.

Now there are a number of problems here:

1: Matthew unequivocally states Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in Bethlehem. In fact he mentions that Joseph returning from Egypt decides to go to Nazareth so as not to live under Herod Archelaus. Thus Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC and thus a full 10 years before the census that was supposed to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

2: Earlier in Luke when discussing John the Baptist's birth, it is stated this occured during Herod's reign. Thus when Mary visited Elizabeth she was pregnant and thus likely also during Herod's reign.
This Herod might be Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. If the former than we have 10 years before the census of Quirinius again, if the latter then it contradicts Matthew.

3: According to Luke, Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth in Galilee. He was thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas and therefore had no need to be counted in a Judaean census. Besides this was for tax purposes and it makes no sense why he would let himself be taxed when he had no need to do so.

4: The Romans did not require people to travel to specific places based on descent for censuses. Joseph could have been counted wherever he was (which was of course Galilee and thus outside the census area in entirety). Even if Joseph held property in Bethlehem that needed to be registered, there was no need for him and his pregnant wife to travel there.

So this makes it very difficult to pin down what is going on here. I have heard people say that maybe there was an earlier census done by Quirinius under Herod, but why would a high-up Roman be the flunky of a petty client king? Besides this still means Luke is in error as it explicitly says when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

So what do you think?

I think it simply reflects the fact that ALL historical writing is subject to the varieties of human cognition in the art of composing narratives and accounts that can only but "represent" whatever reality of the past is under the consideration of the writer.

If the writings don't get the historical details precisely correct, but instead give us an approximate impressionistic view of the work and person of Jesus Christ, so what? It's not like all the other histories of the ancient world were just peachy keen in their historical accuracy and coherence with the rest of the world either. Writing is just that: a written impression.

In this case, the fact that Luke at least mentions a census, even if he may not have gotten all the details coordinated "just right" shows that he was making a strong effort to present a coherent account of the typical social contexts in which Jesus came into the world. Luke isn't contradictory; rather, his account is perhaps inconsistent with other historical accounts and/or data. We need to be more cognizant of the difference between "Contradiction" and "Inconsistency"--they are not the same.

Also, here are a few things to consider for those who may not have already done so. So, just how inconsistent was Luke?:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/16/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx

Furthermore, I don't think we as Christians have to require the biblical writers to be "Exact! Exact! Exact!" in everything they've written to count them as inspired. It's not the documents that make Christianity true, rather it is the presence and work of God through and in the world, as well as through the Church which Jesus "ekked out" that makes the Bible useful and spiritually authoritative.

This is my approach to reconciling the value of something like Luke's conception of a census during the youth of Jesus for the life and practice of the Church of Christ. If we expect perfection of a medium that can never deliver perfection, such as that which Luke was utilizing, we do ourselves a cognitive disservice.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think this addresses a couple of the things you bring up:

As I said before, Quirinuis could not have been under anyone during Herod the Great's reign. He was the propraetor of Cyrene in 14 BC, then became Consul in 12 BC. Thereafter he was in command of a series of campaigns in central Anatolia and then proconsul of Galatia and Cilicia from about roughly 11 BC to 2 BC. Augustus then appointed him Rector to his son Gaius.
Quirinius was a former Consul. There is no way such a high official would be placed under much lower officials to conduct a census earlier.

Roman censuses were not delayed for years and years either. The Romans were efficient and especcially so when collecting tax and keeping order. It would be profoundly out of character to delay a result for 10 years and again Judaea was not directly ruled or taxed, but via surrogates. Such a census would anyway be out of date by that time anyway.

To build on the previous point, Josephus generally has a favourable view of Herod the Great in the Jewish War and a less favourable one in Antiquities. Josephus never mentions that Herod had his authority decreased or withdrawn nor any direct Roman involvement within Judaea until after his death. Josephus wrote with a Roman audience in mind, so would have mentioned this. Besides Augustus tended to dethrone and replace or to annex troublesome client-kings, like he did to Herod Archelaus, not to partially interfere too much in their affairs. So a Roman census during Herod's reign is very unlikely and Quirinius to have been responsible almost impossible.

The Egyptian papyrus referenced refers to a census to be conducted under the prefect Caius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD. It does not state people have to return to their ancestral homes, but that itinerant workers have to return home. This is perfectly reasonable. Luke however clearly says Joseph is an inhabitant of Nazareth, not an itinerant, and again he would be travelling from where no census was being conducted into a Roman province for the explicit purpose of going to the city of his ancestors. The Egyptian census of 104 AD is no support for this contention.

I didn't even think people thought that Rome did one big census in Augustus's reign. I agree that is very much a silly objection to the biblical account.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You make excellent points. What follows is something I researched and wrote a few years ago. It somewhat duplicates what you have just posted:

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').

More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them . Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

Galilee wasn't directly ruled but under client kings for the whole period and as such wasn't exactly attached to the province of Syria. The census of Quirinius wasn't conducted there nor did Galilee rise in revolt.

Syria with its 3 legions to oppose Parthia was often called on to quell uprisings in the Roman Levant. Quirinius did suppress the uprising of Judas of Galilee, but though Judas was from Galilee and led it, the uprising was in Judaea by Judaeans.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What difference does it make?

That is a straightforward question. This is a "Christian Only" theology section, so I'm presuming nobody here has the intention of tearing down anyone's faith.

So what difference do you think it makes that several different ancient amateur writers, writing decades after the event from second-hand reports, didn't get all their dates lined up?

I don't think this should impact anyone's faith. I like Roman history so I am actually interested in the minor details.
This is also important for working out the exact lifetime of Jesus on earth, which again is only for interest's sake.

On the opposite side, this is a way that Atheists can oppose the validity of Scripture so some form of apologetic is probably required in such a case.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think this should impact anyone's faith. I like Roman history so I am actually interested in the minor details.
This is also important for working out the exact lifetime of Jesus on earth, which again is only for interest's sake.

On the opposite side, this is a way that Atheists can oppose the validity of Scripture so some form of apologetic is probably required in such a case.

We have to remember that the purpose of apologetics is to explain what we believe and why we believe it...but not particularly to convince non-believers. The gospel--Christ and Him crucified--is the vehicle for salvation of the lost who are enabled by the Father to be saved.

There is no new information about this issue, and all the available information has been hashed by many experts for a long time. Expert conclusions are already available.

I believe 2PhiloVoid provides the best apologetic response.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think it simply reflects the fact that ALL historical writing is subject to the varieties of human cognition in the art of composing narratives and accounts that can only but "represent" whatever reality of the past is under the consideration of the writer.

If the writings don't get the historical details precisely correct, but instead give us an approximate impressionistic view of the work and person of Jesus Christ, so what? It's not like all the other histories of the ancient world were just peachy keen in their historical accuracy and coherence with the rest of the world either. Writing is just that: a written impression.

In this case, the fact that Luke at least mentions a census, even if he may not have gotten all the details coordinated "just right" shows that he was making a strong effort to present a coherent account of the typical social contexts in which Jesus came into the world. Luke isn't contradictory; rather, his account is perhaps inconsistent with other historical accounts and/or data. We need to be more cognizant of the difference between "Contradiction" and "Inconsistency"--they are not the same.

Also, here are a few things to consider for those who may not have already done so. So, just how inconsistent was Luke?:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/16/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx

Furthermore, I don't think we as Christians have to require the biblical writers to be "Exact! Exact! Exact!" in everything they've written to count them as inspired. It's not the documents that make Christianity true, rather it is the presence and work of God through and in the world, as well as through the Church which Jesus "ekked out" that makes the Bible useful and spiritually authoritative.

This is my approach to reconciling the value of something like Luke's conception of a census during the youth of Jesus for the life and practice of the Church of Christ. If we expect perfection of a medium that can never deliver perfection, such as that which Luke was utilizing, we do ourselves a cognitive disservice.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I agree mostly.

As to your website, Apamea was annexed to the Roman Republic during Pompey's eastern campaign and was a part of the province of Syria, not a client state. Rome left local government largely intact, thus having cities and leagues ruled by oligarchies or Ephors within their provinces as well. Local currencies were also tolerated. Apamea is thus no argument for censuses being conducted in real client kingdoms of which there is no evidence.
As I explained in an above post, Vibius's census of 104 AD in Egypt did not require someone to travel to his ancestral home.

I don't expect perfection from ancient authors nor modern levels of supposed 'accuracy'. The gospels are in anyway amongst the most reliable and verifiable texts from the period. This is an interesting conundrum though as Luke gives definitive information as does Mark, which aren't consistent. So from an apologetical and historical standpoint it is important to get our ducks in a row. I have already seen that Vibius's census is often used for apologetics which I was unaware of, but when I read the papyprus text in question I saw this is flawed.

To me Christianity would be true even if the gospels were highly suspect texts. But the fact is that they aren't, so this makes investigation of this census a worthwhile pursuit as there is likely some historical truth here. Perhaps Mark got his Herods confused for instance and could thus go home to Galilee after the dust of the massacre of the Innocents died down.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We have to remember that the purpose of apologetics is to explain what we believe and why we believe it...but not particularly to convince non-believers. The gospel--Christ and Him crucified--is the vehicle for salvation of the lost who are enabled by the Father to be saved.

There is no new information about this issue, and all the available information has been hashed by many experts for a long time. Expert conclusions are already available.

I believe 2PhiloVoid provides the best apologetic response.

New information does come to light from time to time. Pilate's stone was discovered in 1961 thus proving the biblical titulature correct as opposed to Tacitus.
The papyrus of the census of 104 AD was discovered in the early 20th century but only translated and investigated much later. Many Roman texts are still uninvestigated and new technology is allowing us to read previously known texts that are to fragile to handle, such as from Pompeii and Herculaneum.

I agree 2PhiloVoid has a good apologetic response, but I disagree we should thus just shut down debate on this issue.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What do I think? I think Christians and scholars have looked into these passages for 2000 years. Perhaps we should widen our search?

One learns nothing by just appealing to supposed authority. Rather we should investigate the primary texts themselves and use our own God-given Reason supplemented by expert opinion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My goal here is not to cast aspersions on the gospels nor to craft an apologetic response. If that were the case, I would have posted this in an apologetics sub-forum.

I simply wanted to discuss the historical first century setting of the gospels and the problem of the year of Jesus' birth, hence I posted it in the History forum. I appreciate the responses so far, but I would just make that clear.

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

I think this addresses a couple of the things you bring up:

Sorry I can't see YouTube clips can you give a little description of the message please brother

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

What difference does it make?

That is a straightforward question. This is a "Christian Only" theology section, so I'm presuming nobody here has the intention of tearing down anyone's faith.

So what difference do you think it makes that several different ancient amateur writers, writing decades after the event from second-hand reports, didn't get all their dates lined up?

Yes a lot of history is passed down word of mouth today. Just so everyone is clear about my intentions here, I'm trying to pull my church down! I'm looking into other Christian ideas to get ideas on how to rebuild it.If anyone thinks this may make my views biased please say!

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

looks to me like you need more information to narrow down the time of Jesus' birth.
So what about looking for the timing of the Star of Bethlehem?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161201112550.htm

I don't think this should impact anyone's faith. I like Roman history so I am actually interested in the minor details.
This is also important for working out the exact lifetime of Jesus on earth, which again is only for interest's sake.

On the opposite side, this is a way that Atheists can oppose the validity of Scripture so some form of apologetic is probably required in such a case.

My country is riddled with the sacrifice of Christ so his message definatley got here. Was he born On a certain date ? I have no idea! My quest is to find the true message of Christ that was lost to kings and rulers and bring it home to our flock. All evidence needs to be scrupulously looked at and looked at again, but sometimes I think we need a fresh pair of eyes. Could his message have become flesh yet? Is there any signs of hope amongst our brothers and sisters in other places, we are desperate to release our bondage and gain the authority of Christ in our lives. My current search is taking me through the voice of the commonfolk, it's not to hard to find the message of santa and the good will it spread, how much greater shall be the message of Christ.

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

My goal here is not to cast aspersions on the gospels nor to craft an apologetic response. If that were the case, I would have posted this in an apologetics sub-forum.

I simply wanted to discuss the historical first century setting of the gospels and the problem of the year of Jesus' birth, hence I posted it in the History forum. I appreciate the responses so far, but I would just make that clear.

What are you searching for within this period, do you have a goal within your search?