Do we know that date of the birth of Jesus?

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
You have made a number of errors here.
Quirinius was not in command in Syria, but involved in a prolonged campaign in Galatia. Judaea fell out of his purview.
Similarly Augustus is not recorded as proclaiming a single universal census, nor would 1st century readers have understood Luke in this manner. The Lustra that Augustus did commission was of Roman Citizens, not the population in general. Likewise there is no record of an earlier census than the 6 AD one of Quirinius, which would have been seen as the important one as it started the Judaean Indiction, or Roman tax years.

I have a extensive thread on this topic if you would discuss it further:

The Census at the birth of Christ
I don't agree. Quirinius was named consul by Augustus in 12 B.C. one of the two most important men in the Roman Empire after Caesar himself. But further, Quirinius was also the Legate, the supreme commander of the Roman armies over the eastern provinces. Rome's military headquarters from which Quirinius operated was Apamea, Syria and he ruled jointly with the civilian Syrian governor. In fact, after his conquest of the Homonadenses, he was rewarded with the title "Duumvir," (inscription found in Pisidian Antioch: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae #9502) which is a title given to a magistrate holding a joint office. In fact, the record of Tacitus about Quirinius proves that Quirinius was governing militarily in the area of Syria (Palestine was at the time part of Syria and was governed from there) even before he was made the civilian governor. And Josephus (Antiquities 14:271) records that the Jews were being taxed by the Romans by commands from Syria as early as 44 B.C. So I think there is much more to the history than might first appear.
As to Augustus not being recorded as proclaiming a single universal census ... In the funerary inscription written by Augustus, referred as the Res Gestae Divi Augustus, he proudly claims to have taken a census of the whole Roman Empire (the whole world) three times, in 28 B.C., 8 B.C. (the one which was not carried out in Judea until late 5 B.C. and brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem) and another in 14 A.D. (this does not include the census taken in Palestine in 6 A.D. which was local, not empire wide.)
In Christ,
Deborah
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree. Quirinius was named consul by Augustus in 12 B.C. one of the two most important men in the Roman Empire after Caesar himself. But further, Quirinius was also the Legate, the supreme commander of the Roman armies over the eastern provinces. Rome's military headquarters from which Quirinius operated was Apamea, Syria and he ruled jointly with the civilian Syrian governor. In fact, after his conquest of the Homonadenses, he was rewarded with the title "Duumvir," (inscription found in Pisidian Antioch: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae #9502) which is a title given to a magistrate holding a joint office. In fact, the record of Tacitus about Quirinius proves that Quirinius was governing militarily in the area of Syria (Palestine was at the time part of Syria and was governed from there) even before he was made the civilian governor. And Josephus (Antiquities 14:271) records that the Jews were being taxed by the Romans by commands from Syria as early as 44 B.C. So I think there is much more to the history than might first appear.
As to Augustus not being recorded as proclaiming a single universal census ... In the funerary inscription written by Augustus, referred as the Res Gestae Divi Augustus, he proudly claims to have taken a census of the whole Roman Empire (the whole world) three times, in 28 B.C., 8 B.C. (the one which was not carried out in Judea until late 5 B.C. and brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem) and another in 14 A.D. (this does not include the census taken in Palestine in 6 A.D. which was local, not empire wide.)
In Christ,
Deborah
Doesn't Luke 2 mention Quirinius as governor of Syria?
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree. Quirinius was named consul by Augustus in 12 B.C. one of the two most important men in the Roman Empire after Caesar himself.
In theory Consuls were the most powerful men in the Principate, part of the pretend "we're still a Republic" game, but in practice power resided with Augustus himself. Thus frequently both consuls were held by men who weren't Augustus or his immediate coterie, especcially if Suffect Consuls are taken into account. A Consulship only showed favour of the Emperor, to say it makes him of 'the second most powerful men after Caesar' is a stretch. This more belongs to men like Agrippa, Tiberius, Germanicus, Marcellus etc.
But further, Quirinius was also the Legate, the supreme commander of the Roman armies over the eastern provinces. Rome's military headquarters from which Quirinius operated was Apamea, Syria and he ruled jointly with the civilian Syrian governor. In fact, after his conquest of the Homonadenses, he was rewarded with the title "Duumvir," (inscription found in Pisidian Antioch: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae #9502) which is a title given to a magistrate holding a joint office.
A Legatus merely means someone in control of a legion instead of the person holding its Imperium, in this case Augustus himself as Cilicia was an Imperial province. Quirinius is never named as "supreme commander over the armies of the eastern provinces", there is no source that records this. It is anyway unlikely that Augustus would entrust anyone with such authority after the preceding civil wars of his earlier years, he tended to not allow more than 3 legions to a Proconsul.

The Duumvir title given by Pisidian Antioch is not a Roman title, but a local magistracy of a municipium, ie only a single town. It was likely ceremonial and has nothing much to do with anything here.

Apamea wasn't the Roman headquarters. It was a minor semi-autonomous principality in Syria. The Roman headquarters was Antioch (not Pisidian Antioch, but the Syrian one).
I think you are becoming confused since there is a claim that a census ordered in Apamea somehow claims Rome to have done censusses in its client states, which Apamea was not.
In fact, the record of Tacitus about Quirinius proves that Quirinius was governing militarily in the area of Syria (Palestine was at the time part of Syria and was governed from there) even before he was made the civilian governor.
Citation? There is no such passage in Tacitus. In the Annals it records Quirinius assisting Gaius in Armenia and assisting Tiberius in Rhodes and campaigning in Galatia as Proconsul of Cilicia. There is no record of any involvement in Syria before 6 AD when he became Proconsul there.
There is actually no point during which we can easily argue for Quirinius to at all be involved here.

And Josephus (Antiquities 14:271) records that the Jews were being taxed by the Romans by commands from Syria as early as 44 B.C. So I think there is much more to the history than might first appear.
This is not tax, but levies for assistance as a client state against Parthian involvement.

As to Augustus not being recorded as proclaiming a single universal census ... In the funerary inscription written by Augustus, referred as the Res Gestae Divi Augustus, he proudly claims to have taken a census of the whole Roman Empire (the whole world) three times, in 28 B.C., 8 B.C. (the one which was not carried out in Judea until late 5 B.C. and brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem) and another in 14 A.D. (this does not include the census taken in Palestine in 6 A.D. which was local, not empire wide.)
In Christ,
Deborah
Augustus did three Lustra, or censusses of Roman Citizens, not the 'whole world'. This is what the Gestae records and even lists the numbers as about 5 million (out of a probable population of about 60 million in the Empire by modern estimations). No Roman author records a census of ALL the inhabitants and such a novel thing would surely have been mentioned. The Romans did censusses province by province at fixed intervals, the Indiction, and this likely is how readers would have understood Luke - not the modern fallacy of an empire-wide census. Lustra were more a propitiary rite coupled by Roman housekeeping, but had nothing to do with the Jewish world at large, let alone a carpenter from Nazareth like Joseph.

Please review my thread that I mentioned earlier, all of this has been discussed therein in some depth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Doesn't Luke 2 mention Quirinius as governor of Syria?
This was after 6 AD when Quirinius was sent to rule Syria and manage the incorporation of Judaea into the Empire after the Romans deposed the incompetent Archelaus.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Book II, Chapter 16, Part 7 (426-427):
(426) "The king's troops, now outmatched in numbers and courage, were forced to evacuate the Upper City. Their adversaries rushed in and set fire to the house of Ananias the High Priest and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice. (427) They then carried their combustibles to the public archives, eager to destroy the money-lenders' bonds so as to prevent the recovery of debts ... the keepers of the record office fled and the building was set on fire."
Sorry, I still can't find this quote in the Jewish War, book II, Chapter 16. It is a long speech by Agrippa mostly, but I am unable to find this passage. A cursory glance through the rest of the early part of the work could also not turn it up. Are you sure the referencing is correct?

Edit: Don't worry, I found it. It is in Chapter 17.
 
Upvote 0

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Doesn't Luke 2 mention Quirinius as governor of Syria?
Yes, but Quirinius shared rule with the civilian magistrate as the military legate over Syria before he was appointed civil magistrate. There is a record from Tacitus that Quirinius was serving in Syria as the consul for Augustus in 12 B.C. (Tacitus Annals - Book III). Then there is an inscription known as the Aemilius Secundus inscription that references "Publius Sulpicius Quirinius legate of Caesar in Syria," which was before Quirinius was appointed civil magistrate. And then two other inscriptions discovered in the early 1900's in Pisidian Antioch which served as military command center and eastern outpost for the Roman Empire. In both inscriptions Sulpicius Quirinius is given the title "Duumvir" which means he held a joint governorship with Quinctilius Varus who was the civil magistrate at the time of Jesus' birth until soon after Herod's death in 4 B.C.
That's why Luke pointed out this was the first census (the one decreed by Augustus in 8 B.C.) when Quirinius ruled in Syria, not the second one under Quirinius in A.D. 6 when Judaea and Galilee, formerly a client kingdom, was made a Roman province.
Hope this helps, I know it can be a tangled web to unravel.
In Christ,
Deborah
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but Quirinius shared rule with the civilian magistrate as the military legate over Syria before he was appointed civil magistrate. There is a record from Tacitus that Quirinius was serving in Syria as the consul for Augustus in 12 B.C. (Tacitus Annals - Book III). Then there is an inscription known as the Aemilius Secundus inscription that references "Publius Sulpicius Quirinius legate of Caesar in Syria," which was before Quirinius was appointed civil magistrate. And then two other inscriptions discovered in the early 1900's in Pisidian Antioch which served as military command center and eastern outpost for the Roman Empire. In both inscriptions Sulpicius Quirinius is given the title "Duumvir" which means he held a joint governorship with Quinctilius Varus who was the civil magistrate at the time of Jesus' birth until soon after Herod's death in 4 B.C.
That's why Luke pointed out this was the first census (the one decreed by Augustus in 8 B.C.) when Quirinius ruled in Syria, not the second one under Quirinius in A.D. 6 when Judaea and Galilee, formerly a client kingdom, was made a Roman province.
Hope this helps, I know it can be a tangled web to unravel.
In Christ,
Deborah
Okay, thanks! :)

Syria is a very interesting place, historically.
 
Upvote 0

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, I still can't find this quote in the Jewish War, book II, Chapter 16. It is a long speech by Agrippa mostly, but I am unable to find this passage. A cursory glance through the rest of the early part of the work could also not turn it up. Are you sure the referencing is correct?

Edit: Don't worry, I found it. It is in Chapter 17.
Ach, I must be getting old, I'm normally very careful with my citations! My apologies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
In theory Consuls were the most powerful men in the Principate, part of the pretend "we're still a Republic" game, but in practice power resided with Augustus himself. Thus frequently both consuls were held by men who weren't Augustus or his immediate coterie, especcially if Suffect Consuls are taken into account. A Consulship only showed favour of the Emperor, to say it makes him of 'the second most powerful men after Caesar' is a stretch. This more belongs to men like Agrippa, Tiberius, Germanicus, Marcellus etc.

A Legatus merely means someone in control of a legion instead of the person holding its Imperium, in this case Augustus himself as Cilicia was an Imperial province. Quirinius is never named as "supreme commander over the armies of the eastern provinces", there is no source that records this. It is anyway unlikely that Augustus would entrust anyone with such authority after the preceding civil wars of his earlier years, he tended to not allow more than 3 legions to a Proconsul.

The Duumvir title given by Pisidian Antioch is not a Roman title, but a local magistracy of a municipium, ie only a single town. It was likely ceremonial and has nothing much to do with anything here.

Apamea wasn't the Roman headquarters. It was a minor semi-autonomous principality in Syria. The Roman headquarters was Antioch (not Pisidian Antioch, but the Syrian one).
I think you are becoming confused since there is a claim that a census ordered in Apamea somehow claims Rome to have done censusses in its client states, which Apamea was not.

Citation? There is no such passage in Tacitus. In the Annals it records Quirinius assisting Gaius in Armenia and assisting Tiberius in Rhodes and campaigning in Galatia as Proconsul of Cilicia. There is no record of any involvement in Syria before 6 AD when he became Proconsul there.
There is actually no point during which we can easily argue for Quirinius to at all be involved here.


This is not tax, but levies for assistance as a client state against Parthian involvement.


Augustus did three Lustra, or censusses of Roman Citizens, not the 'whole world'. This is what the Gestae records and even lists the numbers as about 5 million (out of a probable population of about 60 million in the Empire by modern estimations). No Roman author records a census of ALL the inhabitants and such a novel thing would surely have been mentioned. The Romans did censusses province by province at fixed intervals, the Indiction, and this likely is how readers would have understood Luke - not the modern fallacy of an empire-wide census. Lustra were more a propitiary rite coupled by Roman housekeeping, but had nothing to do with the Jewish world at large, let alone a carpenter from Nazareth like Joseph.

Please review my thread that I mentioned earlier, all of this has been discussed therein in some depth.
It seems to me the stretch is to assume that Quirinius had no involvement in Syria until he was appointed civil magistrate in 6 A.D. A Roman legate was the equivalent of a general. They would be of senatorial rank and would outrank all other military. And when the legate was also a consul, one of the highest ranking political positions in the Empire (only 2 were elected each year), you’re talking about a man who held enormous authority.

Syria was an especially important province for Rome, arguably the most important province as it was from here that Rome defended its border against the only other world superpower at the time, Parthia. This province was so important militarily that of the only six legions in the entire eastern third of the Empire, four of those legions were garrisoned in this one small province of Syria, III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata. And the highest ranking military commander in the entire eastern region was Quirinius. To suggest that the highest ranking military commander in the region had “no involvement” in the most militarily important and heavily fortified province in the region is difficult to believe.

And especially in light of the fact that the campaigns in which Quirinius showed himself so capable were all fought in the provinces next to Syria, Galatia to the northwest, Armenia to the northeast, and later Ituria which was in Syria just north of Galilee. This was the point of citing Tacitus, as I said, that Quirinius was certainly engaged in conflicts in this region during this period.

And add to that the discovery of the Aemilius Secundus inscription which identifies Quirinius as “the legate of Caesar in Syria,” it makes it too much of a stretch to suggest that Quirinius had “no involvement in Syria” during this period and his military command and campaigns in the region.

And I disagree about the title Duumvir. It is a Roman title for two magistrates or officials who held a joint office. It was actually very common at the time, and the inscription demonstrates that Quirinius could hold office jointly with a local civil governor so one cannot just assume that Quirinius could not be a “ruler” in some capacity in Syria even while there was a civil magistrate. That capacity would be the legate.

As for the censuses decreed by Caesar, the Res Gestae doesn’t say that he ordered a census of certain provinces or some part of the empire. It says “I made a census of the people” … “A second time … I again performed the lustrum … A third time … I performed the lustrum.” This was not one census divided into three parts, it was a census “of the people” made three different times, each time amounting to approximately the same number. And from everything I have seen a population of 60 million for the Roman Empire would be extremely high and improbable. Even if the women and children were included in the population (they were not included in the census), it would still be a high number.

Now granted, the census would have been conducted at various times (it took time to plan, organize, and then implement a census requiring longer for larger provinces or for those on the frontiers), and in a client kingdom like Judaea and Galilee, it would be conducted by the local ruler, King Herod. And further, unlike a census in other parts of the Roman Empire where men registered in their own towns, in Judaea the law required two things for a census: 1) it was forbidden to count the people (Exodus 30:11-16), so instead a small tax was levied of a half shekel on every man and woman and the coins were counted (In 1 Samuel 11:8 King Saul used shards of pottery and in 2 Samuel 24 David counted the people in violation of the law and 70,000 Jews died in a plague); and 2) the people had to be counted “by tribes,” thus each man and woman had to return to their ancestral seat. This would of course cause a major disruption to the economy, shops would have to close, farmers and herders would have to leave their fields and flocks and herds, and there would be a mass migration as the whole populace was suddenly shifted as people left their homes and traveled to their ancestral seat. You can well imagine that Herod would conduct the census in such a way as to minimize this disruption so it would have taken an even longer period of time to plan and implement a census, so a decree issued by Augustus for a census in 8 B.C. might well have not been actually implemented in Judaea until 6 B.C. but then 6000 Pharisees refused to take the required oath which could have delayed the census until the following year, 5 B.C.

And if you are familiar with the seasons in 1st century Israel, the early winter would be the least disruptive time of the year for such a shifting of the population, when the crops have all be sown and agricultural activity is suspended until the harvests begin in the spring, but early enough in the winter that the weather was still mild and the heaviest rains have not begun yet, December would have been the most opportune time for such a census.

In Christ,

Deborah
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me the stretch is to assume that Quirinius had no involvement in Syria until he was appointed civil magistrate in 6 A.D. A Roman legate was the equivalent of a general. They would be of senatorial rank and would outrank all other military. And when the legate was also a consul, one of the highest ranking political positions in the Empire (only 2 were elected each year), you’re talking about a man who held enormous authority.
Quirinius was not in command in Syria during this period - Quinctilius Varus was, a man with a resume as illustrious as Quirinius'. Quirinius was engaged in a prolonged campaign in Galatia, which had its own problems, and Varus was a well-known commander in his own right, in fact had held the consulship earlier than Quirinius. I find it a stretch to assume Quirinius' involvement in a province outside his purview under a magistrate as senior as himself, if not more.

Quirinius wasn't Consul during the period, he had held the consulship in 12 BC, he was a proconsul. This was a title for a senior governor who held important provinces after their consulship.

During the Principate, usually two Consuls were appointed early in the year, who then resigned mid-year, so that another two could become Suffect Consuls. This was a way to increase the pool of Governors for the burgeoning Empire. To characterise Quirinius as thus 'one of 2 most powerful men' is specious.

Syria was an especially important province for Rome, arguably the most important province as it was from here that Rome defended its border against the only other world superpower at the time, Parthia. This province was so important militarily that of the only six legions in the entire eastern third of the Empire, four of those legions were garrisoned in this one small province of Syria, III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata. And the highest ranking military commander in the entire eastern region was Quirinius. To suggest that the highest ranking military commander in the region had “no involvement” in the most militarily important and heavily fortified province in the region is difficult to believe.
Quirinius was not the highest ranking commander in the area. Tiberius was active in the area, as was Gaius Caesar, not to mention Quinctilius Varus and Calpurnius Piso.
Quirinius spent the entire period of his proconsulship engaged in a difficult war in Galatia, so it would be out of character for Augustus to have reassigned and then returned him there, especcially as we have no source claiming this.

And especially in light of the fact that the campaigns in which Quirinius showed himself so capable were all fought in the provinces next to Syria, Galatia to the northwest, Armenia to the northeast, and later Ituria which was in Syria just north of Galilee. This was the point of citing Tacitus, as I said, that Quirinius was certainly engaged in conflicts in this region during this period.
These passages in Tacitus make it almost certain he was not involved in Syria, as Tacitus would have mentioned this when recounting his career. Multiple periods as proconsul of Syria would most definitely have been mentioned and we see Quirinius' plate already quite full, acting for a period as Tiberius' second for instance.

And add to that the discovery of the Aemilius Secundus inscription which identifies Quirinius as “the legate of Caesar in Syria,” it makes it too much of a stretch to suggest that Quirinius had “no involvement in Syria” during this period and his military command and campaigns in the region.
The tombstone of Aemilius Secundus dates from 20 AD and refers to Quirinius' period as governor after 6 AD. It is no proof of earlier involvement, which most historians think is unlikely.

There is another inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus which purports to mention a governor of Asia becoming proconsul of Syria, but this likely refers to Calpurnius Piso. It doesn't fit Quirinius either.

And I disagree about the title Duumvir. It is a Roman title for two magistrates or officials who held a joint office. It was actually very common at the time, and the inscription demonstrates that Quirinius could hold office jointly with a local civil governor so one cannot just assume that Quirinius could not be a “ruler” in some capacity in Syria even while there was a civil magistrate. That capacity would be the legate.
Duumvir is a form of Roman titulature, but it wasn't an official one in the Imperial magistracies. It was a local honorary title in most cases or for local magistrates - basically "mayors" of colonies or municipium.
In this capacity, Quirinius was named the Duumvir of Pisidian Antioch, which was likely honorary. Pisidian Antioch is in central Anatolia, very far away from Syria, and the inscription says nothing whatsoever on the administration of the East as a whole, or even Pisidia. I think you are confusing the major city of Antioch in Syria with this minor Anatolian municipium and then drawing grandiose and erroneous conclusions.

Regardless, Rome only started to differentiate civil from military authority under the Dominate. In the period of the early principate a governor held both, for Romans would not see them as exclusive zones, but all falling under the concept of Imperium. So to create some dual magistracy in Syria here is anachronistic and patently false.

As for the censuses decreed by Caesar, the Res Gestae doesn’t say that he ordered a census of certain provinces or some part of the empire. It says “I made a census of the people” … “A second time … I again performed the lustrum … A third time … I performed the lustrum.” This was not one census divided into three parts, it was a census “of the people” made three different times, each time amounting to approximately the same number. And from everything I have seen a population of 60 million for the Roman Empire would be extremely high and improbable. Even if the women and children were included in the population (they were not included in the census), it would still be a high number.

Now granted, the census would have been conducted at various times (it took time to plan, organize, and then implement a census requiring longer for larger provinces or for those on the frontiers), and in a client kingdom like Judaea and Galilee, it would be conducted by the local ruler, King Herod. And further, unlike a census in other parts of the Roman Empire where men registered in their own towns, in Judaea the law required two things for a census: 1) it was forbidden to count the people (Exodus 30:11-16), so instead a small tax was levied of a half shekel on every man and woman and the coins were counted (In 1 Samuel 11:8 King Saul used shards of pottery and in 2 Samuel 24 David counted the people in violation of the law and 70,000 Jews died in a plague); and 2) the people had to be counted “by tribes,” thus each man and woman had to return to their ancestral seat. This would of course cause a major disruption to the economy, shops would have to close, farmers and herders would have to leave their fields and flocks and herds, and there would be a mass migration as the whole populace was suddenly shifted as people left their homes and traveled to their ancestral seat. You can well imagine that Herod would conduct the census in such a way as to minimize this disruption so it would have taken an even longer period of time to plan and implement a census, so a decree issued by Augustus for a census in 8 B.C. might well have not been actually implemented in Judaea until 6 B.C. but then 6000 Pharisees refused to take the required oath which could have delayed the census until the following year, 5 B.C.

And if you are familiar with the seasons in 1st century Israel, the early winter would be the least disruptive time of the year for such a shifting of the population, when the crops have all be sown and agricultural activity is suspended until the harvests begin in the spring, but early enough in the winter that the weather was still mild and the heaviest rains have not begun yet, December would have been the most opportune time for such a census.

In Christ,

Deborah
Once again, a Lustra counted Roman Citizens. Not all inhabitants. This is very clear from all our sources. Augustus as Censor carried out a census of all Roman citizens to perform the Lustra. This has nothing to do with client kingdoms like Herodian tetrachies or kingdoms nor with non-Romans. To say this was a universal census is simply unsupportable ftom the sources, be they Tacitus, Suetonius or inscriptions like the Gestae.

Anyway, Rome itself likely had a population of about 2 million in this period, so it is quite silly to suggest the Empire's population so low. 60 million is amongst the lower estimates, some ranging to about 90-100 million for the Empire as a whole.

There is simply no support for a universal census having ever been carried out and again, first century readers would not have understood Luke in this manner.

Again, there is no record of Censusses being conducted in client kingdoms either. The oft-mentioned census in Apamea is sometimes used to suggest this, but as I stated earlier this is not such an example as this was a municipium of Syria.

This is simply conjecture based on little evidence here. I myself am very interested in this question, as I am a Roman history buff, but at the moment I consider the problem of Quirinius's census vis-a-vis Christ's birth insoluble, as I described in detail in my thread on this topic earlier mentioned.
 
Upvote 0

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Quirinius was not in command in Syria during this period
Quirinius was not in command in Syria during this period - Quinctilius Varus was, a man with a resume as illustrious as Quirinius'. Quirinius was engaged in a prolonged campaign in Galatia, which had its own problems, and Varus was a well-known commander in his own right, in fact had held the consulship earlier than Quirinius. I find it a stretch to assume Quirinius' involvement in a province outside his purview under a magistrate as senior as himself, if not more.

Quirinius wasn't Consul during the period, he had held the consulship in 12 BC, he was a proconsul. This was a title for a senior governor who held important provinces after their consulship.

During the Principate, usually two Consuls were appointed early in the year, who then resigned mid-year, so that another two could become Suffect Consuls. This was a way to increase the pool of Governors for the burgeoning Empire. To characterise Quirinius as thus 'one of 2 most powerful men' is specious.


Quirinius was not the highest ranking commander in the area. Tiberius was active in the area, as was Gaius Caesar, not to mention Quinctilius Varus and Calpurnius Piso.
Quirinius spent the entire period of his proconsulship engaged in a difficult war in Galatia, so it would be out of character for Augustus to have reassigned and then returned him there, especcially as we have no source claiming this.


These passages in Tacitus make it almost certain he was not involved in Syria, as Tacitus would have mentioned this when recounting his career. Multiple periods as proconsul of Syria would most definitely have been mentioned and we see Quirinius' plate already quite full, acting for a period as Tiberius' second for instance.


The tombstone of Aemilius Secundus dates from 20 AD and refers to Quirinius' period as governor after 6 AD. It is no proof of earlier involvement, which most historians think is unlikely.

There is another inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus which purports to mention a governor of Asia becoming proconsul of Syria, but this likely refers to Calpurnius Piso. It doesn't fit Quirinius either.


Duumvir is a form of Roman titulature, but it wasn't an official one in the Imperial magistracies. It was a local honorary title in most cases or for local magistrates - basically "mayors" of colonies or municipium.
In this capacity, Quirinius was named the Duumvir of Pisidian Antioch, which was likely honorary. Pisidian Antioch is in central Anatolia, very far away from Syria, and the inscription says nothing whatsoever on the administration of the East as a whole, or even Pisidia. I think you are confusing the major city of Antioch in Syria with this minor Anatolian municipium and then drawing grandiose and erroneous conclusions.

Regardless, Rome only started to differentiate civil from military authority under the Dominate. In the period of the early principate a governor held both, for Romans would not see them as exclusive zones, but all falling under the concept of Imperium. So to create some dual magistracy in Syria here is anachronistic and patently false.


Once again, a Lustra counted Roman Citizens. Not all inhabitants. This is very clear from all our sources. Augustus as Censor carried out a census of all Roman citizens to perform the Lustra. This has nothing to do with client kingdoms like Herodian tetrachies or kingdoms nor with non-Romans. To say this was a universal census is simply unsupportable ftom the sources, be they Tacitus, Suetonius or inscriptions like the Gestae.

Anyway, Rome itself likely had a population of about 2 million in this period, so it is quite silly to suggest the Empire's population so low. 60 million is amongst the lower estimates, some ranging to about 90-100 million for the Empire as a whole.

There is simply no support for a universal census having ever been carried out and again, first century readers would not have understood Luke in this manner.

Again, there is no record of Censusses being conducted in client kingdoms either. The oft-mentioned census in Apamea is sometimes used to suggest this, but as I stated earlier this is not such an example as this was a municipium of Syria.

This is simply conjecture based on little evidence here. I myself am very interested in this question, as I am a Roman history buff, but at the moment I consider the problem of Quirinius's census vis-a-vis Christ's birth insoluble, as I described in detail in my thread on this topic earlier mentioned.
My apologies for the delay, I promise it is not for lack of interest, but simply a lack of time. Life gets very busy. But I read over your post you linked to and wanted to respond to it briefly here.


1&2. On Quirinus governing in Syria: You assert that the census of A.D. 6 was “the first” census conducted in Judaea but that has not been proven and the implication from Luke is that it was not. Luke specifically states that the census which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem prior to Herod’s death was “first” made when Quirinus was governing in Syria, intimating that there was either a later census (the one in A.D. 6) or a later time when Quirinus was governing in Syria. Although there is no evidence to prove that Quirinus held the governorship in Syria twice, or that he held it jointly with another, it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and with the Tivoli fragment, a good argument can be made on the grounds that it is possible but that no evidence has been discovered to substantiate it. So while one cannot say that Quirinus was in fact governing in some capacity in Syria prior to Herod’s death, one equally cannot say that he could not have been. There is just no proof either way. But Luke has proven too credible an historian to simply dismiss his reference as a mistake. So unless and until further evidence is discovered, it is simply a moot point. But I will continue to argue that based on all the historical evidence thus far known, it is possible that Quirinus held some position of authority in or over Syria before the death of Herod.


3&4. On the methodology of the census: Under Jewish law three things were required for a census: 1) It was unlawful to actually count the people so instead each person was to be taxed a half shekel and the coins were to be counted instead (Exodus 30:11-16), 2) all the people were to be counted, men and women (1 Samuel 11:8), and 3) the people were to be counted “by tribes,” (for military purposes as the ranks of the Israeli army were organized by tribes Numbers 1:2) which required them to return to their tribal or ancestral seats. The Jews had experienced a bitter lesson in not obeying the law in matters of taking a census of the people when David failed to obey the law and counted the people rather than by collecting the Temple tax and 70,000 were slain by a pestilence (11 Samuel 24). The census at the time of Jesus’ birth and conducted by Herod did not record any dissent or agitation except for the 6000 Pharisees who refused to take the oath of allegiance to Caesar while “all the people of the Jews” took part (Josephus, Ant. XVI 2:4 (42) although it should be noted that about this time there was a rebellion in Galilee that resulted in the destruction of Sepphoris which Josephus attributes to Herod’s death), whereas the later census in 6 A.D. conducted by Quirinus (probably according to Roman law but contrary to Jewish law) resulted in a rebellion and the rise of the Zealot faction which would later lead the nation into revolt and ultimate destruction.


It is very easy to get caught up in the details, but this puzzle about Quirinus is only one detail and only one of very few that cannot be conclusively dated. There are so many others which stand on much firmer evidentiary ground which leads to the conclusion that Jesus’ birth would have occurred in early winter of 5 B.C., supporting the traditional date of December 25 which date can be traced back to within one generation of Jesus’ life.


It is an oft repeated claim that if God wanted us to know the date of Jesus’ birth he would have included it in the Scriptures, but then I have to say, just look at the time students of the Scriptures have spent in studying that one question, for me personally it has engaged my heartfelt attention for over 30 years … which leading to study may in fact be the reason God left some things unrecorded.

In Christ,
Deborah ~
 
Upvote 0

AJTruth

Active Member
Supporter
Jan 27, 2017
363
153
winter haven fl
✟22,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The 7 Feasts (Lev 23) of the Lord govern scriptural events & time lines. The Feasts were planned, written & fixed. Before the sun, moon & heavens were set as acting witness's to God plan.

The 7 feasts of the Lord are pre appointed times, prophetic shadows. The foundation all scripture is built on.

The 7 Feasts of the Lord
1) Passover, 2) Unleavened Bread, 3) Firstfruits, 4) Pentesost, 5) Rosh Hashanah 6) Yom Kippur 7) Tabernacles

The 1st 4 Feasts, referred to as the Spring Feasts, Point to Christ's 1st coming.

The Last 3, or Fall Feasts, point to the Christ's 2nd coming.

When was Jesus born?

I've herd many say Dec 25

I've herd many say During the Feast of Tabernacles, Sept - Oct

I herd a Messianic Rabbi lately make a great case for Nisan, March - April

I'll make my case for The Feast of Trumpets during Tekiah Ha-Gadol Sept - Oct

The conception and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ

Jesus the light of the world: Jn 8:12 & Jn 12:35. The Hanukkah Menorah has 9 candles.

The one in the middle is called the servant candle and used to light the rest.

The Lord Jesus was most likely conceived in Dec 4 B.C, during Hanukkah (Festival of Lights - Feast of Dedication) Jesus is the Light of the world (John 8:12)

The Lord Jesus was then born on Sept 11th in 3 B.C, during the (Rosh Hashanah) Feast of Trumpets during Tekiah Ha-Gadol. One Hundred Shofar Blasts bring in the New Year. 33 short blasts of 3 then comes Tekiah Ha-Gadol. A single unbroken blast, held as long as possible.

The Lord Jesus was then circumcised day 8 on Sept, 19 3 BC. During the Feast of Atonement (Yom Kippur)

Then the Lord Jesus dwelled/tabernacled in a manger (sukkah) with his parents during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) that yr.

7 Feasts:
1) During Trumpets: The Lord Jesus is born. (During Tekiah Ha-Gadol)

2) Day of Atonement: Circumcision Of the Lord Jesus. (Day 8)

3) During Tabernacles: The Lord Jesus dwelled/tabernacled in a manger (sukkah) with his parents.

4) During Passover: Jesus dies (Death)

5) During Unleavened Bread: Jesus is buried (Burial)

6) During Firstfruits: Jesus rises (Resurrection)

7) During Pentecost: Jesus sends the Holy Spirit (Christian Church is Born)
 
Upvote 0

cre8id

Active Member
Supporter
Aug 28, 2016
167
71
near Atlanta, GA, USA
✟52,477.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The short answer about knowing for sure when Jesus' actual birthday is, "No, we do not know".... but it was very likely in the spring or fall of the year.... NOT December 25.

The year of Herod's death has been questioned recently also, which would obviously affect the year of Jesus' birth. There are at least a couple of articles which by different authors which reach very similar dates.

One brief (for him) article,
September 11: Happy Birthday to Jesus http://drmsh.com/september-11-happy-birthday-to-jesus/ is by a true achademic Biblical scholar who is an expert on ancient Mid-East languages and customs, Dr. Michael S. Heiser: He says, "Many readers will know that I believe the actual birthdate of Jesus was Sept 11, 3 BC. This isn’t based on any original research of my own (here’s a short YouTube video of me discussing the date)."

Heiser is a somewhat controversial fellow for some of his conservative to semi-conservative views on various interpretaions of certain scriptures, some of which I like and some I do not. But he always tries to give you the information for where he got his information and, if possible, links to those sources.


The other source is a Christian astronomer, Barry Setterfield. He provides the notes that he has for reaching very similar conclusions:
Christmas Star technical notes

In this article, Setterfield remarks:
"Josephus' eclipse was probably the 9th Jan I BC, so Herod died about 24th January I BC. The less favorable eclipse on 29th December 1 BC gives Herod's death on 13 Jan. 1 AD.
NOTE: Herod had all children under 2 killed. This suggests that Jesus may have been born sometime in 3 or 2 BC.

Also Barry summerizes:

. "
Summary of Part 1

Biblical: The two accounts of Messiah's Birth - Matthew 2 and Luke 2 - offer 2 clues as to the time of Christ's Birth. This Birth date must be approximately established to know when the Christmas Star appeared.

(1). Luke 2: The registration decree of Caesar Augustus that resulted in the overcrowded conditions at Bethlehem.

CLUE 1: This indicates Autumn of 3 B.C. as the possible time of Christ's birth.

(2). Matt 2: The interaction of the Wise men with King Herod; his decree for all children under 2 to be slaughtered and his own death shortly afterwards.

CLUE 2: Herod's death gives the latest possible date for Christ's Birth and the subsequent flight to Egypt of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

Technical:

(1). Registratio decree of Caesar Augustus was issued in 3 BC and implemented that Autumn.

(2). Christ was born during the 5 years when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was first Governor (Legate) of Syria - that is sometime from 6 BC to 1 BC.

(3). Registration was acted on in Judea when Saturninus was Proconsul to Syria. Saturninus left after the Registration was complete by 2 BC. Jesus was born before that. This places the Birth in late 3 or early 2 BC.

(4). Josephus records that Herod reigned for 37 years from his appointment as King by Antony in December of 39 BC. This places his death in 1 BC.

(5). Herod died 15 days after the Lunar Eclipse on 9th January I BC. Christ was born before Herod died -perhaps 2 years before or 3 BC.

(6). Eighteen early Christian historians place Messiah's Birth in either (a). The 42nd year of the reign of Augustus (which began in 44 BC) or (b). The 28th year of Augustus' Egyptian rule (which began September 31 BC). (c) or 15 full years before Augustus died on 19th August 14 AD.

CONCLUSION: These all give a date for the Nativity of 3 BC.

NOTE: The Shepherds and Flocks; The Tabernacles Festival; and Revelation 12 all combine to give the time of the year as September or October.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.

He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!

December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.

When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.

With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.

But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.
There is scholarly evidence that Herod died in 1 BC. There is a copying error in the manuscripts of Josephus' history.
That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.

Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.

There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I still am convinced it was in the fall. We are given the information about John the Baptist's father, that he was a priest serving in his priestly duties according to the division of Aviyah that he was part of.

Every priest had to serve at the major festivals and also for two week periods during their division's assigned schedule. Given his division, the best analysis I have seen is that he was serving in June. This is when he is told that he will have a son and his wife conceives.

Later, Mary has her visitation and told that she will give birth to the Messiah. 6 months after JB's conception, as immediately after Mary's visitation, she went to see her cousin Elizabeth, the mother of JB and the scripture says it was during Elizbeth's 6 month of pregnancy. I personally believe it was during the Festival of Lights or Hannukah that Mary conceived, as Yeshua is the light of the world.

3 months later, JB is born and has come in the spirit of Elijah to proclaim the lamb that will save the world. To this day, observant Jews set a place for Elijah at the Passover, as they know he must precede the Messiah's coming. JB was born at this time.

6 months later, Yeshua is born, and born in a Sukka, or shelter, for the animals. I believe that this the time of the Festival of Sukkot, or Tabernacles. God has come to Tabernacle among us. His name shall be Emmanuel, or God with us, per Isaiah. It is realistic to think it was during this time and though they were in Bethlehem for the birth, the festival of Sukkot is a week long observance. And they easily could have been in Jerusalem for the festival. And Yeshua was circumcised per the Law on the 8th day, at the temple and they preformed the requirements of purification at Jerusalem as well. Running back and forth from Nazareth would have been problematic at best. They stayed in the area. They were at the ancestral home of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and no doubt had kinsmen they could have stayed with after the census.

Given how God declared in Leviticus 23:1 that all the festivals and observances are a miqras, or rehersals, it seems realistic that Yeshua's birth, like His time of death, was on a feast day. Yeshua died on a feast day (He is our Passover). He arose on a feast day (He is the First Fruits of the resurrection). The church was born on a feast day (Feast of Weeks, also the day the commandments were given on the mount to Moses), so it is not out of line to think that He was born on a feast day, as He is God who tabernacled among us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I would be interested in the analysis you have seen. How did they calculate the dates for service of Zacharias’ course?

All your deductions and conclusions rest on the ordering of the courses so you should be certain you have that right.

I disagree that Jesus could have been born in a sukkah. A sukkah that was specially constructed for use in Jerusalem during Tabernacles could not be used for any other purpose, including stabling animals. And the sukkahs were only constructed in Jerusalem, where all males Jews were required by law to spend the feast, so it's not possible that Jesus could have been born in a sukkah in Bethlehem.

Also, since all male Jews were required to be in Jerusalem for Tabernacles, so there would have been plenty of accommodations for Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. That is, if Joseph was to violate the law and not attend the Temple during Tabernacles when he was within 5 miles.

And then too, it is really not conceivable that Herod would have chosen to conduct the registration during one of the three holy pilgrimages. The registration had to be conducted according to the Law which required the Jews to return to the seat of their tribal territory, which was a huge disruption to the whole nation with people having to leave their fields and flocks and shops and some travel the length and breadth of the country. A census during Tabernacles would have prevented the people from being able to observe the festival, which would have caused a riot.

And since you put a lot of emphasis on the feasts, it is just as possible that Jesus was born during Hanukkah since he has come a light into the world. But be careful in insisting that Jesus’ fulfillment of the feasts had to occur on the day of the feast. After all, there were sacrifices and offerings made not just on Passover, but every day of every feast, as well as every morning and evening every day of the year, and yet Jesus fulfilled every single jot and tittle or every sacrifice and every offering all at once at the Cross. So be careful what plummet you use in constructing your theology.

But I think most historians agree that Joseph and Mary stayed in the area, at least for a few weeks because the Gospel says they went up to Jerusalem for Mary’s purification and Jesus’ presentation to fulfill the law, which would have been the 40th day after birth, on Feb. 2.

Feb. 23 is the most probable date of the visit of the Magi, and that same night Joseph had a dream and the angel told him to take Mary and Jesus and flee. Would anyone suggest that Joseph would not have risen that very night and packed up and fled with Mary and Jesus?

Of course, little did Herod know when he sent his soldiers to slaughter all the babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding countryside that a month after this hellish deed he would collapse and die a truly excruciating and grotesque death.

But to close this, there is a lot more actual historical evidence for the Dec. 25 birth, going back in writing to within a generation of the life of Jesus, so don’t be too quick to draw any conclusions, there’s a lot of fascinating information to learn.

In Christ,
Deborah
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knee V
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I would be interested in the analysis you have seen. How did they calculate the dates for service of Zacharias’ course?

David in 1 Chronicles 24 divided the priests into divisions, or courses. Abijah is the 8th course. And the dates of their service would correspond to the Jewish religious calendar. Starting in the month of Aviv. Each course serving one week in the order that David declared, with all priests serving in weeks of High Holy festivals.

To get the gist of this, you have to be familiar with the Jewish religious calendar. There are actually two calendars in view... the religious calendar and the civil calendar. God established the religious calendar in Exodus. The first month of the religious calendar, Aviv, is in the spring. It is the month of Passover. But that is also the 7th month of the civil calendar. So you have to calculate the individual weeks that each priestly course would serve, also the weeks of prescribed festivals that all the priests would serve, to know when a course was serving. And Zechariah was of the 8th course of Abijah (Aviyah). So factoring that the first month of the religious year is in the spring, calculating out would put Zechariah serving in his course around late June to early July. No way to be more precise than that, as the religious calendar does not jive week for week with the Julien calendar we use. But it is clear that early summer would be when Zechariah was serving specifically in his course, as stated by Luke.

That is how one makes the determination I did regarding birth of John and Jesus. it just takes being a little more familiar with legal prescriptions outlined in the OT. I had some help from some Messianic Jewish believers in Jesus, so I can't take all the credit.

To also see how these things line up regarding Jesus, it calls for a serious study of the festivals laid out in the OT. There are volumes of details that writers of antiquity have outlined as to the prophetical implications of each of the festivals. It is almost a full college course in the amount of information there is regarding the festivals. Unfortunately, the church went to great lengths early on to separate itself from its Jewish roots, so most folks are never taught these kinds of things. There is a lot more to the OT than just the law. And when one sees the details behind Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Hanukkah, etc, it can be like one just went from black and white TV to high def in clarity.

Actually, a sukkah literally is translated as a temporary shelter. It is actually built at home. A temporary shelter for animals is also called a Sukkah. One can celebrate Sukkot, including being in Jerusalem, and not be there every single day of that week. There was no requirement that every person be in Jerusalem. Just every able bodied male, and then, they did not have to be in Jerusalem each and every day of the week, 24/7.

Even in the prophecy of Zechariah that all nations must come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles during the Messiah's reign, does not mean that every man, woman, and child of all the nations be there, or literally within the city each and every day of the festival week.

Regarding Jesus and the Passover.... the lamb that is to be used in the sacrifice is brought into the home for several days before being offered at the temple. It is inspected for blemishes and imperfections. Children even bond with it. We see the same thing with Messiah. He entered Jerusalem on the first of the week prior to Passover. He was inspected (questioned extensively by the Jewish leadership) and people bonded with Him. Then, like the Passover lamb, He was slain. He died at the exact time that the festival lamb, (not the individual lambs each family would bring), was sacrificed at the temple by the High Priest. It is required to be slain at the "twain of the evening" which is 3 in the afternoon. That was the 9th hour of the day, the exact time that the scripture says Jesus died.

When you delve into details of different festivals, you see Jesus in high def. Every little detail speaks of Messiah. Hanukkah was the rededication of the temple after the desecration of it by Antiochus. The Holy of Holies (where the spirit of God resides) was cleansed and rededicated. That would point to when God then came back to reside. Jesus is God that came to reside among us. Hanukkah is a master picture of Messiah coming via Mary's conception. John the Baptist recognized that Jesus had come to reside, when John leaped for joy at hearing Mary's voice, while he was yet only 6 months in the womb of Elizabeth, his mother.

While Hanukkah is not specifically outlined in scripture in detail like the other festivals we are all familiar with, it is a valid festival. Jesus Himself acknowledged the festival went to Jerusalem in observance of it.

John 10:22-23 (NKJV) Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Deborah~

Christ our Passover
Feb 18, 2017
90
29
Mobile, AL
✟21,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I agree that familiarity with the Jewish calendars is helpful. However, the weeks of priestly service were not determined by the dates on the calendar. They served from Sabbath to Sabbath, each course in rotation one after the other, week after week, year after year, regardless of the date on the calendar.

I have seen charts showing the first course serving the first week of the year (Nisan 1 – 7), the 2nd course the 2nd week (Nisan 8 – 14) etc. But that’s just not even possible. Think about it for a minute. Nisan 1 can fall on any day of the week, but the priestly service always started and ended on the Sabbath.

Plus, both the Civil and the Ecclesiastical Calendars were 50 weeks and 4 days long (with the exception of leap years), but 24 courses serving in rotation beginning Nisan 1 would have the last course serving the 48th week of the year, but there are still 2 more weeks plus 4 days to go in the year. Who served those additional 2 weeks and 4 days? And at times a whole month was added to the calendar, who served those extra weeks?

You see then there is a problem with the basic assumption that the weekly service was based on the 1st course serving the first week every year and trying to calculate from there. It just didn’t work that way.

I have also seen claims that an adjustment was made every year to start the count over again with the 1st course, but again, that just wasn’t the way it actually worked.

And we know for sure that it didn’t actually work that way because there are two historical records that are considered authoritative, which is Josephus, who was an eye-witness to the things he writes about, and then there’s all the rich treasure of information in all the Talmudic literature. And from both those sources we know which course was serving on Ab 9/10 of 70 A.D. (late July) when the Temple was burned. If the 1st week/1st course 2nd week/2nd course order was correct, it should have been the 19th course on duty the 9/10 Ab (the 19th week of the year), but it wasn’t, it was the 1st course on duty. Which proves that trying to calculate the priestly service based on starting the count with the first week of the year is not historically accurate.

However again, what we can do is we can take that known historical marker, that the 1st course of Jehoiarib was on duty the week of 9/10 Ab 70 A.D. and we can calculate backwards by weeks (Sabbath to Sabbath) to the year before Jesus’ birth and we find that Zacharias’ course was serving Oct 1 – 8, which in the year 6 B.C. coincided with Tabernacles, which explains Luke using the phrase “the whole multitude of the people” (a phrase usually referring to the whole population) were at the Temple at the hour of prayer the morning Zacharias was chosen to offer up the incense, indicating it must have been a feast day.

Now if you take that date based on the known historical records of what course was actually serving what dates, and then bring all your calculations forward, the time of Christ's birth would have been in December, which in the year 5 B.C. coincided with Hannukah.

But allow me to make one more comment. Don’t be too quick to blame the church for the historic division between the Rabbinic and the Christian Jews. The Christian Jews continued to worship at the Temple until it was removed by God. And even then, Christian Jews continued to attend the synagogues alongside their family and friends and neighbors. But there was growing friction between the synagogue and the church, there seems to be some evidence that the reconstituted Sanhedrin at Jamnia in the late 80’s A.D. banned Christians from the synagogues and pronounced a curse upon them. Be that as it may, some 40 years later, when the bar Kokhba revolt occurred and the Christian Jews refused to fight for a leader they viewed as a false messiah, it drove the final wedge between the church and the synagogue that has never healed.

So the schism in the early years was not solely on the shoulders of the Christians. The Rabbinists shared the blame.

In Christ,
Deborah
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knee V
Upvote 0