The Date of the Nativity in Luke, by Richard Carrier

[Jude]

First of all, let me say Richard's article is well written and caught my attention more than any other on the subject of Jesus' birth. The statement that Richard made that Jesus wasn't necessarily born at the time of John the Baptist could be true if the bible is totally off regarding the basic story of Jesus. However, if one can depend, on faith, that the story in Luke is basically correct (perhaps with some small mistakes since the bible obviously has errors of unknown origin, i.e. writers or copiers) then Jesus would HAVE to have been born near when John was born. I say this because Anna declares Mary's womb to be fruitful.

What is your response to Jesus probably being born near John, and does it "hurt" or "help" the biblical view that Jesus must have been born somewhere between 5-7 B.C.?

One other thing... Have you heard the idea that the governor of Syria was there primarily as a "consultant" prior to his governship in 6 A.D.? Could this be the mistake made by Luke or a copier (trying to correct something they thought was a mistake)?

I am in the process of opersonally searching out the errors in the bible and what may have lead to those area. Sometimes, in such cases as numerical errors, it is really easy to see the reason for the error. Sometimes, however, it isn't so easy to understand how the error found it's way into the bible.

P.S. For the sake of trutfulness, I believe in God but NOT the inerrancy of the bible. I don't believe God "needs" an inerrant written bible. I'm not out to get anyone to "join" my ranks or agree with my ideas but I AM interested in people, no matter what they believe or their affiliations, with knowledge to share that knowledge with me so I can better understand my own pursuits.

Thanks for any response.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding The Date of the Nativity in Luke (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Richard Carrier]

Originally posted by Jude
Jesus would HAVE to have been born near when John was born. I say this because Anna declares Mary's womb to be fruitful.

I have already discussed this in some detail in the cited essay (readers please see Luke (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Luke)). If you mean to ask for additional discussion, I am preparing a book on the subject, which presents even more research than the online piece. In the book, among other things, I present literary-interpretive evidence that Luke might not mean that the womb was with child at that time (cf. the OT parallel at Deuteronomy 28:4, where the same present participle construction is used in the Septuagint clearly in reference to future generations and not to present conceptions). But it is also significant that Luke need not be referring to Herod the Great anyway, as I explain in the online essay.

I believe in interpretive charity--that we are to give an author the benefit of a doubt before convicting him of self-contradiction. And Luke is easily reconciled with known history without any twisting or turning--in fact, all one need do is abandon un-evidenced presumptions (such as that Herod means Herod the Great) and Luke becomes consistent both with himself and known history. This, therefore, is probably how he should be read. This is what anyone who treats all historical texts consistently must conclude as having the greater probability. Still, it is always possible that Luke contradicts himself--getting some historical details wrong. But then we must ask: Which details? Is he wrong about the birth coinciding with the census? Or about the date of the census? Or that Jesus was born near when John was? Or about when John was born? What? We can't really say. Any one error is as likely as any of the others. So no solution is afforded by such a presumption.

All this of course assumes Luke had any real information at all. Instead, he may be picking events that suit his ideological, symbolic, and narrative agenda without any "modernist" regard for historical truth, or without any actual evidence beyond his personal inspiration by the Holy Spirit (which the rest of us would call his "imagination"). The fact that Luke and Matthew present entirely different nativity stories, yet derive almost all their other material from Mark and Q which both lack any nativity story, would stand in any other historical study as solid proof that there was no actual source for the nativity. For when we see two texts copying another common text nearly verbatim, and both copies add narrative content not in their common source, yet both copies offer completely different narrative content for what is clearly supposed to be the same event, that is very strong proof that both authors are contriving. Unless there is some reason in evidence to believe otherwise, historians would so conclude when faced with the same situation in any other field. And bible studies cannot be privileged with special methods.

Originally posted by Jude
What is your response to Jesus probably being born near John, and does it "hurt" or "help" the biblical view that Jesus must have been born somewhere between 5-7 B.C.?

My response is already in the essay in question (see link above). As to whether it "hurts" or "helps" the theory that Jesus was born between 5 and 7 BC, that depends on how one treats all the other evidence in Luke. For example, if one abandons the census narrative as a legendary embellishment, then one could credibly maintain an interpretation of Luke that agrees with Matthew. But is such an arbitrary selection of evidence any more justified than the reverse, namely rejecting the Herodian Slaughter narrative as legend, and interpreting Luke the other way, as not declaring a coincidence of the birth of John and Jesus? Either route seems to me as plausible as the other. So again, no solution presents itself. It is all the worse, again, if neither Luke nor Matthew are really giving us any facts they actually knew outsider their imagination ("inspiration"). And we can't rule that out, not even to a degree of probability.

Originally posted by Jude
One other thing... Have you heard the idea that the governor of Syria was there primarily as a "consultant" prior to his governship in 6 A.D.? Could this be the mistake made by Luke or a copier (trying to correct something they thought was a mistake)?

I discuss the manifest improbability of such a solution in the sections of the same essay entitled Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#legate) and Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#dual) (and also Was "Quirinius" a Mistake for Someone Else? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tertullian)). Many of the general points made in those sections apply equally well to every conceivable "other position" solution besides the specific theories there addressed. One could again just as easily claim the reverse: that Matthew made a "mistake" or was erroneously "corrected" in attributing the Slaughter (and hence the date) to the reign of Herod the Great rather than Herod Archelaus or any of the other Herods (such as Herod Antipas, who did in fact rule Galilee in 6 A.D.), or of mistaking the Herodian tale as referring to Jesus when originally it only referred to John. And so on. Once you start allowing the arbitrary presumption of "mistakes" or "corrections" you eliminate all grounds for preferring one solution over another. So again, no solution is available that way. We remain in ignorance.

Originally posted by Jude
Sometimes, however, it isn't so easy to understand how the error found it's way into the bible.

It is already an unjustified heuristic to limit your solutions to the category of "error." For that rests on two conjoined presumptions: (1) that Matthew and Luke both believed they were writing objective history in the same sense we understand today; and (2) that Matthew and Luke had actual sources for the facts they pretend to relate (rather than just drawing on their imaginations, whether in conjunction with (1) or with the alternative, below). But we can only maintain (1) in regard, at best, to Luke. For Luke alone follows the genre of history in his structure, form, and style. Matthew, in contrast, follows the genre of midrashic hagiography, whose narrative purpose was traditionally mythic, symbolic, and structural, not historical (and there are ample historical implausibilities in Matthew that confirm this categorization). And we can't maintain (2) for either text, since neither author names or identifies any source for any piece of information, while instead we have the tradition-history evidence supporting fabrication that I outlined above.

So what does that leave us? I think it is more probable that Matthew did not even think he was writing an actual historical account of the nativity, but that he was composing a myth about the birth of Jesus to serve larger, more important symbolic aims--namely, to provide a symbolic, midrashic exegesis on the meaning of the Good News and Christ's role therein. This is even more likely in the case of Mark, as I argue elsewhere, and that has clear consequences for the credibility of Matthew and Luke, who both rely on Mark rather uncritically. So I do not see any grounds to trust Matthew as presenting any true historical facts. At the same time, I do not see any grounds for convicting him as a liar--it is his later audience who mistook his project, and probably never Matthew's design to deceive them.

In contrast, I think it is probable that Luke at least thought he was writing history (if he was sincere, as he could have been), or (if he is a liar--and there were plenty of those, even among early Christian authors) that Luke wanted his readers to believe he was writing history (he certain consciously presents and structures his work in that manner). But Luke also probably generated his narrative through methods we would not accept as valid today, including the "ad hoc" employment of Josephus to "color" his account with historical details never originally associated with Jesus, and his reliance on sources who probably were not intending their writings to be taken as historical (such as, certainly, Mark, and perhaps other similar oral or written sources now lost, who were originally writing or passing on symbolic myth, which Luke then mistook as history). There are places where Luke clearly doctors his narrative in a mythic way--such as the Road to Emmaus story (an analysis of which will appear in another forthcoming book). But the question is: is that Luke fabricating history, or someone whom Luke overheard and mistook as relating history? I suspect we will never know.

But my point is: error is not the only theory that can account for biblical discrepancies (internal and external).

[jflaugher]

hello,

i'm sorry for intruding in this correspondence, i just wanted to throw in my two cents - if it is even worth that much.

i think that the problem is that people in the modern world and people in the ancient world had different ways of telling stories. in the modern world we are interested in fact... did it really happen this way to was it that way.

in the ancient world, people were less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth. in the ancient world, a factual story would have been considered boring. who would want to read homer if homer only told facts? but, people would want to read homer if some how the story inspired them with revelation and inspiration... even if the story didn't happen exactly the way homer tells it.

in all likelihood, jesus was probably not related to john the baptist... jesus probably heard about john baptizing people, and he probably went to where john was and he probably became one of john the baptist's disciples for a while. i find it rather interesting that out of all the people living in ancient palestine, john the baptist was the only figure of religious significance that jesus was not at odds with.

i don't know why luke makes john jesus' cousin - none of the other gospel writers felt that need - luke did. there are many possibilities on why that might have been. perhaps, that story was circulating around orally and luke liked it. perhaps luke was simply using a literary technique. or, maybe it was a way for luke to make john a person of greater significance.

i find it rather odd that jesus and john, if they were cousins, would not have ever met each other while children - thus making john's revelation about jesus at the baptism unnecessary.

anyway, just a thought.

josh

[-DM-]

Originally posted by jflaugher
in the ancient world, people were less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth."Fact" and "truth" are synonymous according to my dictionary and thesaurus.

-DM-

[jflaugher]

yes, that is a common idea, and the word truth can be used that way. however, there's a difference between true things and truth. true things are those things that have happened exactly the way they're told. truth can be a fictional account that has themes or ideas that invoke inspiration or illumination. something within that piece of fiction touches you, and you nod and say, "yeah that's right."

even though the story is not true, there is a truth about it. example, romeo and juliet is a fictional story, but there is truth within it - namely the truth about the vitality of romantic love. it says something about how far a person is willing to go to be with his/her true beloved. poems are often pieces of fiction that bare wittness to truth (e.g. e dickenson's "i heard a fly buzz when i died" and the unknown author of "sir gawain and the green knight").

the story of king arthur and camelot, or even robinhood are stories that are fictional - and people knew them to be fictional when they were composed, yet there are truth themes within their structure.

the dictionary might say that the word "cool" means that you have caught a chill - or anything else pointing towards temperate conditions. but you and i know there are other meanings to the word "cool."

thank you for the reply.
josh

[-DM-]

My feeling is that you were and are using "truth" in a special way, a way that is outside the way that it is normally and commonly understood. When you do so, unless you qualify what you mean (as you have now done), then your intended meaning will not likely be correctly understood. We have to use words according to their dictionary definitions (which are mostly descriptive definitions rather than prescriptive definitions) if we want to be understood.

There may be some truths in a fictional account, but a fictional account of an event is not "truth." In fact, "fiction" often implies a purposeful deception. Care needs to be taken in the choice of words.

-Don-

[jflaugher]

no, i'm sorry i don't agree with that, don.

i think that something like a fable is a different kind of truth, even though the story itself is not a factual one - the intended message of the fable is true - and therefore constitutes truth.

the great classic works of fiction didn't last centuries because they were simply entertaining - it was because the message of the story rang with a truth that enlightened the reader.

even something simple like the folk song clementine - there probably was no little girl named clementine who died while walking ducklings to the water - but, if you're a parent and want to warn your children against going to close to the water... well you come up with a song that they can sing and remember. the fact that the story itself is not true does not negate "the truth" about the possible dangers of being careless by a lake, river, etc. this fits in with the dictionary definition, because the message is a fact, even though the story itself is not a fact.

josh

[-DM-]

josh:

So far as I am concerned, you stretched the commonly understood meaning of the word 'truth' so as to use it in a "proprietary" way when you said: "in the ancient world, people were less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth." Obviously you disagree. I nevertheless acknowledged your point when I said, "There may be some truths in a fictional account, but a fictional account of an event is not "truth." [Emphasis added.] Obviously you disagree. I think that we will just have to leave it at that.

Regards,
-Don-

[jflaugher]

agree to disagree? i agree

[Richard Carrier]

Originally posted by jflaugher
I think that the problem is that people in the modern world and people in the ancient world had different ways of telling stories. In the modern world we are interested in fact... did it really happen this way to was it that way. In the ancient world, people were less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth.

That is basically what I am saying: this is a viable alternative explanation to "error." Though Don is right: you should avoid using "truth" in such a way without qualification (as for example you provide in your first response to him). Ironically, that proves your point: for this is exactly what is peculiar about the modern mindset, that we take "truth" and "fact" as synonyms. The ancients did not. The word for "truth" in Greek (al�theia) could be applied to myths (mythoi) and was considered the opposite of lies and deception (pseudos). Thus, so long as you wrote a myth that did not lie or deceive, you could tell the truth without any historical "facts" (pragmata).

Thus, for example, in Plutarch's On Isis and Osiris he starts out by seeking the "truth" about the gods, and in so doing he ranged across everything imaginable, including purely symbolic myth, and he accepts such "truth" approvingly--though paints it as a dichotomy between the ignorant masses who need to receive the "truth" couched in myth and symbol, and the elite intellects who can stomach the raw truth as it factually is. Hence a dispute would only arise when there was disagreement over whether a myth, by relating what was not historically fact, counted as deception or not. And such debates did exist in antiquity, but the factualists were usually in the minority--though it is they who planted the seeds for the modern mind. Plato, for example, tried to cut a middle ground by distinguishing "truth" as knowledge of the ideal (the invisible, true meaning of things that lies hidden behind the appearances) and "opinion" (dogma) as knowledge of what we call "facts."

But that was then. This is now. The point is: when you are speaking to moderns, you need to speak their language--and that is what Don is saying, and he is right. But that does not detract from the value of your point, which is also correct--just not presented in the correct language of today.

[jflaugher]

Thanks Richard for your brilliant explanation of the differences between modern and ancient uses of the word truth.

[Shawn60]

"i find it rather odd that jesus and john, if they were cousins, would not have ever met each other while children - thus making john's revelation about jesus at the baptism unnecessary."

The purpose of the baptism was to receive the Holy Spirit. It was after this that Jesus fasted for 40days and nights and he began performing miracles. He performed no miracles prior to his baptism.

[Clarification]

I had a problem with this quote:

"Rivera's source for this information is an undated article in an obscure newsletter called The Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA) written by John Goodrich and entitled " 'Comet Sunday' to Draw Attention to Heavens." "

Having at one point lived in Harrisburg, PA (the capital of Pennsylvania), it should be noted that the Patriot-News is far from "an obscure newsletter", but rather central Pennsylvania's largest daily newspaper with a daily circulation in excess of 100,000. While neither the quality or numbers put it on a level of the Philadelphia Inquirer (daily circulation 387,000), the Washington Post (daily circulation 709,000), or the New York Times (daily circulation 1.12 million), I certainly think it ranks a bit higher than "an obscure newsletter".

I'm not sure if it affects the overall quality of the article in question; however, given that the Patriot-News article is being used to demonstrate "how the [census] story gets distorted in transmission by careless authors" does call into question the care given by the author regarding his own commentary and research.

[Richard Carrier]

Thank you for pointing this out. This was written so long ago I don't recall what led me to assume it was a newsletter, but that was clearly wrong. I have requested the editors drop the words "obscure newsletter" from the text. I apologize for the error.

[FreezBee]

Excuse me for intruding in the debate, but at errancywicki (cf. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2:2#Neutral ) there is a link to a page with some relevant info:

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

It is beyond me the judge if the info changes anything, but here is a probe:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."

So maybe there was a census bce, and maybe someone served twice as legate of Syria.

And maybe I'll have a closer look at it, when I get more time for that :)


- FreezBee

[Amaleq13]

Richard's article addresses that alleged evidence here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II).

[FreezBee]

Richard's article addresses that alleged evidence here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II).

Yes, you are right - I just took a closer look at Richard's paper:

Some are tempted to propose the notion that Luke made a mistake: that he really meant Publius Quinctilius Varus rather than Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. Of course, this would entail that Luke is wrong, and thus would admit that the text as we have it (which reads "Quirinius") contradicts Matthew. And it fails to solve the census problem anyway (as discussed above). But it is also not a plausible conjecture, although it is a very old one: around the turn of the 3rd century, it is believed that Tertullian claimed the Lukan census occurred during the tenure of Gaius Sentius Saturninus (who was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 B.C.). Of course, Tertullian is not very reliable, and makes this claim in the context of antiheretical rhetoric, so he is not to be trusted as an authority on this point. Moreover, this would have been an easy mistake to make: the governor relieved by Quirinius was Volusius Saturninus, who governed Syria from 4 to 5 A.D. But in fact Tertullian does not link Sentius Saturninus with the census in Luke 2:1, as is commonly supposed by those who ignore the context of this passage. Rather, he says censuses (plural, not singular) prove that Jesus had brothers, in defence of Luke 8:19-21. Since Tertullian believed Jesus was the first born, just as Luke says he was, there could not be any record of his brothers in the census of the nativity. Therefore, Tertullian could not possibly have been thinking of the census during which Jesus was born. So he may well mean another Sentius Saturninus (an ancestor of the other), who was governor of Syria in A.D. 19-21, a plausible time before which Jesus' siblings would have been born. For the sentence sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus eius inquirere potuissent, can be translated "But it is also well known that censuses were conducted under the Augustus in that time in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, consulting which they can investigate his family."[
(From Tertulian (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tertullian))

Though maybe the sentence thet I've highlighted might mislead some people into believing that Richard has some argumentative problemata, since he tries to discredit the reliability of Tertullian :)


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Ok, I have now had my time to reread Richard Carrier's article, that I hadn't read since spring 2003, and the CTT article I linked in my first post. If anyone is interested, my assessment of the latter article can be found here: The CTT article in closer look (http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Talk:Luke_2:2#The_CTT_article_in_closer_look).

- FreezBee

[gtmoore]

Luke is contradicted by Ireneous.
Ireneous believed Jesus was born in 33 CE, and was alive around 98 CE. (Or around, at any rate, perhaps as a ghost, as Ireneous seems to believe Jesus was crucified in 66 CE.)

[-DM-]

Ireneous believed Jesus was born in 33 CE, and was alive around 98 CE.Your source for this is what? If your source is Joseph Wheless (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/), or a secondary source based on Wheless, you need to take what was claimed with a good dose of skepticism.

[Richard Carrier]

Luke is contradicted by Ireneous.
Ireneous believed Jesus was born in 33 CE, and was alive around 98 CE. (Or around, at any rate, perhaps as a ghost, as Ireneous seems to believe Jesus was crucified in 66 CE.)

Like Don, I need you to give me the actual citation from Irenaeus. Because this is news to me.

[knightfall]

I just read this article yesterday, so i am much later than anyone here.

The article is brilliantly written and successfully addresses any of the apologist refutations of the contridiction existing between the matthew and luke nativity date.

One aspect i noticed in regards to the first archeological find presented in the article is that it is a fragment of a funeral stone, with the missing parts filled in. I am not familiar with greek language, but, based upon its english translation the use of the word "again" in the last phrase, it could only be a continuation of the previous sentance in that first the preconsulate of asia was attained, then secondly that of syria,....etc. (phoenicia) Since this is a funeral stone it makes no sense to use the word "again" for a governorship that is second of the same province without establishing that there was a prior governorship in that region. However, it is not mentioned and is unclear as to what the estimated stone's size was and how much of it was missing, but if the missing parts filled in are representitive of it's estimated size then it would be absurd to describe a governors second reign of a province in such a way. A funeral stone, similiar to an obituary is suppose to sum up key aspects of a persons life (what they are known for).

Would any president have engraved on their tombstone " again was elected president of the united states without stating how many terms they served or establishing that there was a first term? Of course, i realize i am taking modern day applications to this, but since this is translated to english this the only practical conclusion i feel there is.


"obtained the preconsulate of the province of asia....
again of the deified augustus syria....."

[Richard Carrier]

One aspect i noticed in regards to the first archeological find presented in the article is that it is a fragment of a funeral stone, with the missing parts filled in. I am not familiar with greek language, but, based upon its english translation the use of the word "again" in the last phrase, it could only be a continuation of the previous sentance in that first the preconsulate of asia was attained, then secondly that of syria,....etc. (phoenicia) Since this is a funeral stone it makes no sense to use the word "again" for a governorship that is second of the same province without establishing that there was a prior governorship in that region. However, it is not mentioned and is unclear as to what the estimated stone's size was and how much of it was missing, but if the missing parts filled in are representitive of it's estimated size then it would be absurd to describe a governors second reign of a province in such a way. A funeral stone, similiar to an obituary is suppose to sum up key aspects of a persons life (what they are known for). Would any president have engraved on their tombstone " again was elected president of the united states without stating how many terms they served or establishing that there was a first term? Of course, i realize i am taking modern day applications to this, but since this is translated to english this the only practical conclusion i feel there is.

First, this stone is inscribed in Latin, not Greek. Second, I don't think an estimate for its original width is available. It probably cannot be usefully determined. The text reads, here in ultra-literal translation retaining Latin word order and abbreviations actually on the stone:

Proconsul. province Asia select[ed] ...
of the Divine Augustus again Syria and Ph[oenicia]...

It's important to notice that this is a bunch of abbreviations, not full sentences. In order to say "He was selected for the proconsulate of the province of Asia" it says "proconsul. province Asia select[ed]" which reads in Latin as truncated as it does in English. So when the next line says "of the Divine Augustus again Syria-Phoenicia" this is just more abbreviation. To save space, instead of rewriting "procunsul. province selected" the inscribers just wrote "iterum" which is equivalent to our phrase "ditto" albeit more formal in tone, to stand in for the previous "procunsul. province selected." It is possible it stood in only for "procunsul." since we don't have the rest of the line, where "province selected" would have appeared if they were written. Likewise, we don't have the rest of the line preceding the first appearance of "proconsul." so we don't know if that was preceded by "of the Divine Augustus" as well, or whether this was positioned between the two assignments in a common method of assigning it economically to both, or whether the reference to Augustus related to his possession of the consulship at the time, which he did not always hold (http://www.unrv.com/government/consul-1-bc.php), in which case the guy on the tomb would have been proconsul for someone else in Asia, whoever the formal consul was in the year of the appointment, then of Augustus in Syria. And so on. There are many unknowns. But none of them justify the Christian interpretation.

[daveb2k]

While I admire the intelligence and scholarship displayed in the attempt to reconcile the Gospels with secular history, it seems to me that it is a pointless exercise, because the simplest explanation is that Matthew and Luke were not trying to detail the circumstances of Jesus birth --- instead, they were attempting to conceal them.

To any rational person, the appearance of angels and other supernatural manifestations in both accounts should be enough to show that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, as Mr. Carrier points out in his article, Matthew and Luke are telling two completely different stories. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph apparently live in Bethlehem in their own home, but flee to Egypt shortly after Jesus's birth, and remain there for some years, in response to the warning of an angel that Herod was seeking the child, even to the point of slaughtering all the male infants in Bethlehem --- another absurdity that should destroy Matthew's credibility on any other subject.

Luke not only does not support Matthew in any of this, he directly contradicts it --- having Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth, required to travel to their "ancestral home" in Bethlehem for a census (another absurdity --- think of all the Romans living in Asia Minor, Syria, or Egypt, who would have to travel to Italy to fulfill this requirement), returning to Nazareth, and rather than hiding from Herod, actually presenting Jesus in the Jerusalem temple.

The obvious conclusion is that both accounts are pure fiction, and the obvious reason for making these stories up is revealed by just about the only thing the two accounts have in common --- that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but was raised in Nazareth.

Occam's Razor --- the simplest explanation is the best. Matthew and Luke were trying to prove that Jesus OF NAZARETH was the Messiah, who had to be born in BETHLEHEM. Since Jesus was born in Nazareth, they COULDN'T give a true account of his infancy, so they made up stories that explained how someone born in Bethlehem grew up in Nazareth. Unfortunately, they not only did not coordinate their efforts, but they both included details that were absurd.

As corroborating evidence of this rather obvious hypothesis, we can look at the other major requirement of Messiahdom, namely descent from King David. And we find exactly the same thing -- two completely different genealogies, both unknown anywhere else either in or out of the Bible, but both agreeing on one thing, namely that Jesus was descended from David, as expected of the Messiah.

A corollary to this theory is that although Jesus was not the Messiah, he actually existed. If he had been fictional, they could have just called him "Jesus of Bethlehem" and not bothered with absurd schemes to make him wind up in Nazareth.

[Richard Carrier]

Although you make some valid points, daveb2k, they aren't all sound.

Natives of Italy would all be Roman citizens, and thus would not have been affected by a provincial census of non-citizens in Syria. Moreover, there was already a system in place for counting citizens abroad, using fictional "tribes" that had no geographical location. But counting an entirely foreign body of people in a newly acquired province would require adapting to local circumstances, and using existing tribal arrangements centered around acknowledged geographical tribal centers would not have been impractical and could well have been the practice, at least in Palestine. There is also evidence it was actually done (see Luke's Description of the Census (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#WholeWorld)).

It is also not valid reasoning to argue that if Jesus had been fictional they would have just called him "Jesus of Bethlehem" and not bothered with absurd schemes to make him wind up in Nazareth. There are many other reasons why he might have required the appellation Nazarene, including prophecies they were relying on that are not included in the surviving canon (since the OT canon was not settled even by Jews until a century later, and the NT quotes as scripture books like Enoch that didn't make the cut, nor survive entire). Thus, "he was called Nazarene because he actually came from Nazareth" is a theory, but not the only one, and the mere existence of a theory is not enough to rule out alternatives.

[Unregisteredlm]

Good day to you,
On your very first paragraph I picked that there is a precise dating vs Matthew and Luke. Would you be kind to justify your trust in the precise dating, pliz compare and contrast the dating mechanisms in simple terms.

Thank you.

W

[Richard Carrier]

Good day to you,
On your very first paragraph I picked that there is a precise dating vs Matthew and Luke. Would you be kind to justify your trust in the precise dating, pliz compare and contrast the dating mechanisms in simple terms.

Thank you.

W

Read the article. Not the first paragraph. The whole thing.

If then you are still confused, read the sources cited in the article.

If after all that you are still confused, I charge $50 an hour as a history tutor.

[e4mmacro]

If you do a google search on Zumpt and quirinius you will see that some Christians are quoting some work by Zumpt which is suppsoed to establish that Luke got the date of census correct in his nativity. Richard Carrier doesn't mention Zumpt (who published in about 1854). Has anyone looked critical at Zumpt's argument?

[Doug Shaver]

The point is: when you are speaking to moderns, you need to speak their language
Amen. When I read a story and ask whether it is true, I'm not wondering whether the author thought he was telling the truth or "a truth." I'm asking whether the events actually occurred.

If I want to know the author's state of mind, I will ask, "What was the author thinking when he wrote this?"

[Ted Hoffman]

Hi Richard,
I am reviewing Sander's The Historical Figure of Jesus and his arguments on pahe 86-87 and references may be of interest and you may want to address them in your excellent article. I assume you can easily get a copy of it so I will go straight to what I have written in my assesment of Sander's arguments.
Difficulties start emerging when Sanders starts by listing statements that he asserts are almost beyond dispute and that belong to the framework of Jesus’ life. The first statement is that “Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great” p.10.
But is this claim almost beyond dispute? Sander’s answer appears in the seventh chapter. Critical scholars, including Sanders regard the birth narratives in Matt 1:18-2:23 and Luke 2:1-39 as invented by the evangelists. Sanders notes that the “two gospels have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other” p.85. He questions the likelihood of Augustus (who Sanders regards as the most rational of all Caesars before him) issuing a decree requiring people to register in their ancestral homes for tax purposes .
Sanders finds difficulties with Luke’s census which is dated near Herod’s death in 4BCE yet the census took place in 6 CE when Quirinus was the legate of Syria as we know from both Josephus and an ancient inscription. Another problem besides the date conflict is that Rome took a census of people who lived in Judea Samaria and Idumaea, not Galilee as Luke asserts. And even then, Sanders notes, there was no requirement for travel. Sanders notes down all these problems then suggests that the most likely explanation for Luke’s account is that he or his source accidentally combined 4 BCE (Herod’s death) and 6CE which was Quirinus’ census (p.87). Sanders writes that after the source had ‘discovered’ that there was a census at the time of Herod, he decided to elaborate the event to make it a reason for Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem .
Sander’s basis for assigning weight to the possibility that Luke accidentally combined 4BCE and 6CE is the assertion of Roman historian Ronald Syme that similarities between 4BCE and 6CE lead to confusion. And Syme’s assertion is further based on the claim that W. W. Tarn “a well-known Hellenistic historian, once wrote that Herod died in 6CE” (see note 3).
In essence, this is a noted incident being treated interpreted as evidence of a phenomenon by Sanders who then proceeds to and ascribe Luke’s alleged error to that phenomenon. This, of course, is not sound methodology. In the first place, the idea that there are “similarities” between 4BCE and 6CE does not make sense.

Note 3:
Sanders references Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 1981,pp. 404f., “who cites the distinguished Roman historian, Ronald Syme. Syme pointed out that the similarities between 4 BCE and 6CE easily led to confusion and still sometimes do: W. W. Tarn, a well-known Hellenistic historian, once wrote that Herod died in 6CE.” p.300

[Richard Carrier]

If you do a google search on Zumpt and Quirinius you will see that some Christians are quoting some work by Zumpt which is suppsoed to establish that Luke got the date of census correct in his nativity. Richard Carrier doesn't mention Zumpt (who published in about 1854). Has anyone looked critical at Zumpt's argument?

That's like citing a paper in 1854 defending the ether theory of light. If they have to ignore all contemporary scholarship and dig up some dead guy's antiquated work from 150 years ago, that alone says enough about the merits of their case. I'm not going to waste my time on this, unless for some reason, somehow, Zumpt noticed some facts that no one else has in the two whole lifetimes that have passed since. And if that's the case, please tell me what those facts are. Otherwise, you can safely ignore him and anyone who actually thinks he's worth citing.

[Richard Carrier]

Sanders doesn't sound worth any special attention. From what you say, he says nothing new, and much of what he does say is poor.

He questions the likelihood of Augustus (who Sanders regards as the most rational of all Caesars before him) issuing a decree requiring people to register in their ancestral homes for tax purposes.

This isn't as crazy as it sounds. That may have been the most plausible procedure in highly nomadic or rural provinces like Gaul or Judaea. It might also have been arranged without Augustus knowing, since how the census was completed was the task of the local governors--early emperors were not big on micromanagement.

The census of Roman citizens was also conducted by tribes, though by then tribal affiliation was a bureaucratic fiction, but Romans were highly organized and often patriotic about the census and thus didn't need to be corralled. The Jews, however, were very hostile to a census, thus more compulsion or careful corralling may have been needed. And since they already had a tribal structure like Rome, simply having them go to their tribal districts to register may have been Quirinius's idea of making his job easier without getting Augustus involved.

Moreover, censuses also tabulated land ownership, so if Joseph owned land in Bethlehem, he would probably prefer to be there for the census, which could have entered the oral tradition as a garbled "everyone had to go."

Now, all that doesn't mean that's what happened--the transit may indeed be bogus--but it's not implausible, and it would be odd to invent something everyone knew never happened, then or ever. Liars are usually much smarter than that, and even dupes tend to notice and either purge or "correct" obvious falsehoods in transmitted tales.

...yet the census took place in 6 CE when Quirinus was the legate of Syria as we know from both Josephus and an ancient inscription.

I assume he means the Lapis Venetus. If so, that does not give a date for the census.

Another problem besides the date conflict is that Rome took a census of people who lived in Judea Samaria and Idumaea, not Galilee as Luke asserts.

Luke all but says Joseph was a citizen of Bethlehem, which was in the census district, not in Galilee. Indeed, that may be the reason he had to go there--if no censors were in Galilee, yet he was required by law to be assessed, then he had to go home.

[Doug Shaver]

Luke all but says Joseph was a citizen of Bethlehem, which was in the census district, not in Galilee. Indeed, that may be the reason he had to go there
Finally, a plausible explanation.

[Minimalist]

Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I.


History tells us that Quinctillius Varus was Governor of Syria at Herod's death in 4 BC. At that time a serious revolt broke out against the sons of Herod taking over which caused Varus to intervene with the legions from Syria. I have never seen any historical reference to an 'ending' for Varus term of office and, given traditional Roman practicality, it seems unlikely that they would have replaced their commander in the field in the middle of a war.

Other than the fact that the 'normal' term of office was 3 years there is absolutely nothing to have prevented Augustus from simply prolonging his term until peace was restored and Antipas and Archelaus were safely ensconced on their respective thrones.

In any case, we know where Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was at this time and it was not in Syria. He had his own province to govern in Turkey.

Anyway, if you have evidence for a break in service of Varus' term as Governor of Syria, I would love to see it.

[Richard Carrier]

History tells us that Quinctillius Varus was Governor of Syria at Herod's death in 4 BC. At that time a serious revolt broke out against the sons of Herod taking over which caused Varus to intervene with the legions from Syria. I have never seen any historical reference to an 'ending' for Varus term of office and, given traditional Roman practicality, it seems unlikely that they would have replaced their commander in the field in the middle of a war.

Other than the fact that the 'normal' term of office was 3 years there is absolutely nothing to have prevented Augustus from simply prolonging his term until peace was restored and Antipas and Archelaus were safely ensconced on their respective thrones.

In any case, we know where Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was at this time and it was not in Syria. He had his own province to govern in Turkey.

Anyway, if you have evidence for a break in service of Varus' term as Governor of Syria, I would love to see it.

I am not aware of any evidence for Varus being governor in and after 2 B.C. You need to start by asking for that evidence.

But it isn't impossible, since as far as I know we have no good evidence of who was governing at the end of that century. In my article I follow current scholarship in assigning dates to Varus of 6 to 3 B.C., a mere three years and still concluding after any succession squabbles had been sorted. But as I also note there, he may have continued even past 3 B.C. Hence if anyone adduces evidence he was governing Syria in 2 B.C. (please let me know what evidence that is), that would obviously not be a second term, but simply a continuation of his one term, exactly as you suggest.

[Minimalist]

Right. Varus disappears from history for a while after his term in Syria and reappears with his appointment to the governorship of Germania in 6/7 AD. I have no evidence for this but 9-10 years ( 3 BC to 6 AD) seems like a long gap for a person of Varus' status to go without an appointment. Augustus certainly did not give Quirinius a vacation like that. It is completely possible that he had another appointment in between and history has simply no surviving record of it.

In any case, I always thought, IMHO, that your essay on The Date of the Nativity in Luke was a brilliant summation of the inherent contradiction in the gospels and I figured I'd take this opportunity to tell you so.


Bob

[Dungheap]

It's a minor point, but I think I've found the primary source for placing a Syrian governorship of Quirinius "between 10 and 7 BC". "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by Sir William Ramsay (the 1915 editiion is available in a scan online at the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft), which matches the citation from the "anonymous apologetic tirade" in note 7.3.

Indeed, Ramsay makes almost the exact assertion as Elder and with the same assurance. Three relevant quotes match the flavor of his argument.

"...it may be confidently said that the consulship of Quirinius in 12 B.C was intended to qualify him for commanding the armies of Syria." - p. 281

"The war therefore falls between 10 and 7 B.C. Quirinius, consul in 12, probably came to Syria in 11 and the war would begin in 10." - p. 289

"It [the Antioch inscription] is also a crowning step in the proof that the story in Luke II. 1-3 is correct, for it exhibits to us Quirinius as engaged in the war, and therefore as governor of Syria before 6 B.C." - p. 292

Ramsay, it seems, has a propensity for treating his own conjecture as established fact. In a similar fashion, he turns Acts 12:13-15 into an entire chapter of his book establishing Rhoda as an eyewitness source for Luke and therefore evidence of Luke's reliability as an historian.

[Minimalist]

That's all well and good but it seems as if other sources, such as this, have one Gaius Sentius Saturninus being Governor of Syria between 9 and 6 BC, before Quinctillius Varus' term began.

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/saturninus_3

Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus

Probably* one of the three sons of Gaius Sentius Saturninus who accompanied their father during his term as imperial legate to Syria (9-6 BCE)



Emphasis added.

[Richard Carrier]

Varus disappears from history for a while after his term in Syria and reappears with his appointment to the governorship of Germania in 6/7 AD. I have no evidence for this but 9-10 years ( 3 BC to 6 AD) seems like a long gap for a person of Varus' status to go without an appointment. Augustus certainly did not give Quirinius a vacation like that. It is completely possible that he had another appointment in between and history has simply no surviving record of it.

Not merely possible, but likely. It would actually be very unusual if we had a complete record of his career. For any but the most exceptional historical persons of that age there are routinely substantial gaps or confusions in this regard, so no "vacation" need be proposed to explain the silence. The record has gaps enough all on its own.

[Minimalist]

That essay got me thinking (always dangerous) about the other side of the equation; when did 'Jesus' die? How does the minimum 10 year differential in the nativity impact the presumed date of death?

I'm new here but it is permissable to expand into that idea in this thread?

[waked]

Hi Richard,

In Arabic the word Nazarene is a synonym for Christen does that help to clear any thing?

[RSM]

This is an interesting thread in more than one way. What really catches my attention is the dates. The opening post was written Dec. 27, 2003. This is nearly two and a half years later. I'm glad that Richard Carrier is still around to answer questions.

Hi Richard,

In Arabic the word Nazarene is a synonym for Christen does that help to clear any thing?

I don't know the answer to your question but here is my idea: Since Jesus of Nazareth is the so-called founder of Christianity, it stands to reason that in another country with another religion they would equate the two words to mean the same. A couple millennia of chit-chat and trading have passed since these legendary events and the original meanings of the words may have gotten lost in the meantime.

This question raises a different kind of question for me. Are the words "Nazarene" and "Nazarite" and "Nazareth" related? If so, the root would seem to be "nazaret" or something similar. What does it mean? Samson was a Nazarite and therefore forbidden to cut his hair or consume strong drink. Then in the New Testament Nazareth is a town and Jesus is called a Nazarene.

We know from his reply to the accusations that the "Son of Man" was "eating and drinking," and also from the Last Supper story, that Jesus consumed strong drink. In fact, his first miracle was turning water to wine. I don't think we read any reference to his hair so we don't know if he was bald or had long hair or something in between.

Am I drawing links between unrelated but similar words or are they related? I've been asking this question since I first read the Bible as a child. If someone can answer I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[rahrens]

Hi, Richard,

I've been ghosting about for a while, reading the various articles in the Secular Web, and trying to tie it all together in a way that makes sense to my growing sense of secularism. Your articles have all been very beneficial to that effort, thanks!

Just the other day, I ran into a theory you've probably heard before, and I am wondering about your reaction to it. Pardon me if it doesn't fit too well here, but I'll try.

The theory is that Jesus' life story is a false construct in the second century, based upon a parallel to the life history of Julius Ceasar.

It is from the book Jesus was Caesar by Francesco Carotta, Kirchzarten.

web site: http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma/33-37.html

I guess the tie in to this forum would be that, were this true, based upon various postulations about apostolic writings in the book "Et tu Judas? Then Fall Jesus!" by Gary Courtney, web site:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pontificate/6.htm

then all of our speculations about the birth of Jesus, vs the census, John the Baptist, etc., are based upon pure fiction, and the various discrepancies in the gospels can be explained by the fact that the writers of those gospels didn't care about factual proof, as they were writing for doctrinal purposes, and facts weren't, in their opinion at the time, important or relevant.

Much of Gary's theory rests upon the writings of Paul and his apparent ignorance of the details of Jesus' life and death, at least as evidenced in his letters. He also makes much of the apparent failure of Paul to elicit any detailed information about Jesus in his travels to Jerusalem from anybody that lived there and must have known Jesus, and his failure to visit any of the sites that an early Christian to that city must have wished to see, i.e., Golgotha, the tomb, room where the last supper must have been held, etc., and must have still been known about and accessible.

Of course, I am not a Biblical scholar, and I have no idea if any of this is considered valid by anybody that has studied the subject extensively.

Just how valid do you think this line of thought is?

[waked]

Hi,

You are right but christens are mostly called ((massehi)) from messiah .so maybe the name Nazarene is the name of anther sect because according to my information the name of the city Nazareth where not to be found in the old testament and there was no evidence that the city where inhabited before 70 C.E .
And Nazarene can mean ( nazer ) which means the guardian of a farm or the Forman of a group of workers .

[Minimalist]

Apparently the moderators have no objection so here goes. This is most of what I posted on another board in a battle with a couple of Fundies. I have edited it a bit because the other board is a bit more, shall we say "freewheeling," than this one. We have a minimum 10 year discrepancy between Herod the Great's death in 4 BC and Quirinius' census in 6 AD. What does this imply for the alleged date of his crucifixion?

I have another question for the Jesus Freaks. This one probably shouldn't go here because it involves some actual historical facts but, WTH? Why start unnecessary threads?

Anyway, here are some actual historical facts from early in the first century BC.

1- Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judaea from 26-36 AD.
2- Tiberius was Emperor of Rome from 14- 37 AD.
3- Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea from 4 BC - 39 AD.
4- Herod's half-brother Philip was Tetrarch of Iturea until his death in 33/34 AD.
5- Philip was married to Herodias until his death.
6- Lucius Vitellius was consul of Rome in 34 and Governor of Syria from 35-37/8.
7- Aretas IV was King of Nabataea from 9-40 AD and his daughter, Phasaelis, was married to Antipas as a diplomatic marriage by Herod the Great.

Josephus tells us that Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist around 35 AD. Josephus indicates that Herod feared some sort of rebellion caused by John's preaching. Be that as it may, Josephus' date does bear out the so-called Gospel of Luke....to a point. Here is that point.

Luke claims that the reason John was arrested and later killed was that he denounced the marriage of Herod Antipas to the wife of his deceased brother, Philip. [Luke 3: 19-20] This event did take place. Josephus duly informs us that when Philip died Antipas did in fact sail to Rome to obtain approval of Tiberius for what was, after all, a royal wedding and therefore a matter of statecraft that Rome would have to countenance for a client state. This was hardly the love-match that Josephus implies....Antipas was nearly 60 and Herodias was nearly 50. It was a power play to unite the two tetrarchies into one kingdom. Nonetheless, Tiberius approved.

The suspected date for this was 34 AD and note that Lucius Vitellius was consul in Rome and in 35 was sent to take over the governorship of Syria. Hold that thought.

Aretas IV, perhaps using his daughter's divorce as an excuse, moved into Antipas' territory of Peraea and defeated Antipas in battle. Tiberius ordered Vitellius to support Antipas which he duly did, thus we know that these events took place AFTER 35 when Vitellius got there.

Now, here comes the problem. If Luke is correct in his motivation then the absolute earliest that John the Baptist could have gotten pissed off about this marriage was towards the end of 34. It would have taken a while for Antipas to get back and forth to Rome and then taken a little longer to arrange a royal wedding. By 36, Vitellius is campaigning against Aretas so these events must have happened in 35. The implication is that John pissed off Antipas for a while before being arrested which ties in nicely with Josephus' date of 36 for his execution.

Matthew 4:12-18 claims that when Jesus heard that John had been jailed he began his ministry and started gathering 'disciples.' It still cannot have been much before 35 that this happened. Now faced with the certain date for Pilate's recall to Rome in 36, even if it was late in 36 ( Tiberius died in 37 and Pilate did not get back to Rome in time to be charged for his mis-deeds before the Emperor's death ) it does not leave a great deal of time for Jesus to have done much of anything and still be tried by Pilate.

So the question that was put was when was Jesus killed? Another poster later came back and pointed out that it did not matter when in 36 that Pilate was recalled because the Passover occurs in the Spring and that the very last Passover that Pilate would have been in Judaea would have been 36. So a 3 year ministry for Jesus is out of the question and even a one-year ministry gets problematical.

Now, giving the latest possible date, Passover 36 would, in Matthew's chronology mean that Jesus was roughly 40 and in Luke view would have been around 30.

Anyway, I'd be curious to hear the opinions of others on this.

[RSM]

I can give an opinion, if that is what you're asking for. I am not very knowledgeable in the field but I do have an opinion.

My opinion is that this level of details and dates was totally outside the interests and concerns of the gospel writers. They were probably writing for uneducated people (not Palestinian Jews) with no access to Roman records so what did it matter--just write a story that had the desired theological impact. Set it sufficiently in the long-ago and far-away so that no one could refute anything if facts did happen to be somewhat garbled.

Who could have known that anyone would collect these disparate stories into a single volume? Even more fanstastic would have been the idea that anyone beyond their own time would give a hoot about their scribbles.

For example, I sure don't expect anyone (of a totally different language, culture, geographical area/planet, and religious situation) to be analyzing these posts a couple thousand years from now. Nor does anybody navigating in religious or civil politics these days expect their speeches and sermons to be analyzed with such scrutiny a couple thousand years down the road. Have we any reason to think the gospel writers were any different?

Let's take this one step further and imagine that it could actually happen that someone unearths these posts two thousand years hence. It is possible that all traces of the Bible will have been lost by that time (don't tell the Christians I said this because it might drive them paranoid). All the evidence that such a literature as a "bible" ever existed would be known only through our references to it. The only parts of the "bible" then available to these hypothetical unearthers of the distant future would be the tiny bits we quote in our posts. Based on those quotes they might try to reconstruct what the Christian religion was actually about. This, of course, assumes that they use the same techniques of scholarship that we use today. And that is quite a major assumption.

Let's get back to our own time. Now you can open your eyes.

[Minimalist]

IOW, the occasional historical tidbit that can be identified is, more or less, an accident?

[NotAnAtheist]

I don't know if this is an established theory, but here is something that occurred to me. Luke 2:1-7 doesn't actually say Jesus was born during the census taken by Quirinius. Rather it says that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to register because Augustus had issued a decree that a census be taken. Verse two says that this decree was fulfilled by Quirinius (i.e. he completed a census), but it doesn't necessarily date the actual decree, or proclamation, by Augustus. Perhaps Luke meant that the decree was eventually fulfilled by Quirinius, long after Jesus was born. This could mean that a previous governor attempted to fulfill the decree, but cut short his effort for some reason (possibly to avoid rioting) before completing the census. By the time of Quirinius's census, the holy family would have been long established in Nazereth following the birth of Jesus. I know there is no evidence to support this very literal reading of the verses (at least as they have been translated into English). Perhaps there is some evidence to refute it? Just wondering.

[-DM-]

Luke 2:1-7 doesn't actually say Jesus was born during the census taken by Quirinius.

LK 2.2, 6-7, 21: This census—the first—took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria ... Now it happened that, while they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to a son, her first-born ... he was called Jesus.

[Minimalist]

At the same time as Quirinius became governor of Syria, Emperor Augustus approved a petition from the Judeans to pension off the Tetrarch, Archelaus, and become a Roman prefecture. The first prefect was a man named Coponius.

So, the Romans would have had no need to conduct a census of any kind in the land of an allied king. Whatever tribute was paid to Rome would have been as a result of treaty and not direct taxation right up until the time when the Romans assumed direct rule of the region. At that time, of course, a census would have been needed but not before.

[NotAnAtheist]

I admit my idea is subtle, perhaps hopelessly so. However, I don't think you quite caught my meaning. These are the verses I referred to (Luke 2:1-7):

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register. 4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Verse two is parenthetical in this translation (NIV), and I assume that it is grammatically parenthetical in the original Greek. However, in verse one, what is taking place "In those days" is the issuing of a decree by Caesar Augustus. Now, if we drop the parenthetical information for a moment, we know from verse three that "everyone" went to register for a census in response to this decree and from verses four and five that "everyone" included Joseph and Mary. My hypothesis was that another governor (not Quirinius) initiated this registration, but didn't complete the census. The parenthetical information from verse two might suggest that Quirinius eventually completed a census in response to a proclamation that hadn't been fulfilled by his predecessors.

Let me give a contemporary example in the following sentences. "In 1993, the federal Liberal Party of Canada proclaimed that the government would fund a national childcare system. (This was the system implemented by social services minister Ken Dryden in 2005.)" If I were to rewrite those sentences without dates (in the style of the biblical writers), I might write: "Around the time that the federal Liberal Party of Canada defeated the Mulroney Conservatives, it proclaimed that it would fund a national childcare system. (This was the system implemented by social services minister Ken Dryden.)" Reading the sentence without dates, one might wrongly assume that the Liberals implemented childcare funding immediately, not after a span of 12 years.

[-DM-]

I don't think you quite caught my meaning.I think I did catch your meaning.

These are the verses I referred to (Luke 2:1-7)I have multiple versions of the Bible, and I had looked at these verses in those multiple versions.

Verse two is parenthetical in this translation (NIV), and I assume that it is grammatically parenthetical in the original Greek.It is not parenthetical in the original Greek. The use of parenthesis in the case of the NIV, and setting off in dashes in the version I quoted, is a judgement call on the part of the translators.

Here is the translation from YNG (no parentheses):
And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled — this enrolment first came to pass when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
Here is the same verse from the ASV (no parentheses or dashes):
Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

According to the notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (from Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy, two authorities whom I tend to trust), Qurinius was at this time a special legate or commissioner of Augustus to carry on a war against a rebellious tribe, the Homonadenses. As such he was military governor of Syria, while the civil administrations was in the hands of Varus.

In any case, hopefully Richard Carrier himself will weigh in on this.

-DM-

[Minimalist]

No one except "Luke" makes reference to any "world-wide" decree by Augustus, though.

Three times in the course of his long reign he did take a census of Roman citizens according to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti but this would have had no impact on "Joseph" or his family. This would have been a long time before Caracalla's decree granting citizenship to all free men in the Empire.

[Amaleq13]

My hypothesis was that another governor (not Quirinius) initiated this registration, but didn't complete the census. The parenthetical information from verse two might suggest that Quirinius eventually completed a census in response to a proclamation that hadn't been fulfilled by his predecessors.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Josephus tells us not that this was an ongoing census that Quirinius took over and completed but one specifically conducted because Quirinius (ie Rome) took over direct control of the region.

[NotAnAtheist]

In a previous post, I made a clumsy attempt at taking a shortcut in expressing my meaning by inventing the unhelpful (and surely meaningless) term "grammatically parenthetical". What I meant was that a passage could be written in such a way that certain clauses or phrases interrupt the main narrative or argument with extra, explanatory, or even extraneous information. This would be true, regardless of punctuation. Let me give an example. In Luke 3-1:18, John the Baptist is baptizing people "in the country around the Jordan" (again from the NIV, but I don't think it matters). Look at the way Luke writes verses 18-21: "18And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them. 19But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. 21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too."

You could make the argument that, here again, you have an irreconcilable discrepancy with Matthew; for in Matthew 3:15 John the Baptist is depicted as the one who baptizes Jesus, but here Luke has John in prison when Jesus was baptized. However, someone might reasonably counter this argument by saying that the information in verse nine is parenthetical because it interrupts the main narrative with information that is out of order chronologically. (That is, that Herod imprisoned John sometime after Jesus was baptized.)

One other small point for those of you who approach this by saying that no other historical sources mention an imperial decree for a worldwide census, that there wouldn't be any need for a census before direct Roman governance, that Josephus doesn't mention an aborted census, etc. You are quite right, and I have already acknowledged that there is no evidence to support my idea about how to read this passage in Luke 2. (I meant no corroborating historical or archaeological evidence.) I suppose that makes my idea as weak as the theory of evolution with its famous "missing links" in the fossil record. (That's a joke, by the way.)

[-DM-]

You could make the argument that, here again, you have an irreconcilable discrepancy with Matthew; for in Matthew 3:15 John the Baptist is depicted as the one who baptizes Jesus, but here Luke has John in prison when Jesus was baptized.If by "here" you mean LK 3.1-18... LK 3.21: Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized...."This refers to a baptism that had already taken place (which we would naturally assume was prior to the imprisonment of John) and begins a narrative about Jesus. The arrangement obviously seems not to be intended to be chronological, but that doesn't necessarily make it "parenthetical," rather the narrative about one person ends and the narrative about another person begins; the author of Luke was finishing his narrative about John prior to beginning his narrative about Jesus. The author of Matthew arranges his narrative differently than the author of Luke, but I don't see any discrepancy between the two in terms of John's alleged baptism of Jesus.

-DM-

[NotAnAtheist]

However, someone might reasonably counter this argument by saying that the information in verse nine is parenthetical because it interrupts the main narrative with information that is out of order chronologically. "verse nine" is a typo. I meant verses 19 and 20.

[Minimalist]

However, someone might reasonably counter this argument by saying that the information in verse nine is parenthetical because it interrupts the main narrative with information that is out of order chronologically.



I understand what you are saying and Josephus is famous for digressions! Consider this example from Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5:

So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais.


As noted above, Josephus begins by talking about Aretas' attack and Tiberius' order to Vitellius, which can not have happened before Vitellius actually got to Syria, sometime in 35. As you say, we then have this digression in Paragraph #2 about John being killed but Josephus merely hints that this happened sometime earlier. Then in #3, we are back to Vitellius moving on Petra.

[Minimalist]

I have already discussed this in some detail in the cited essay (readers please see Luke). If you mean to ask for additional discussion, I am preparing a book on the subject,


Has this book been published?

If so, what is the title and is it available from Amazon or some other source?

[Stephen_Webb]

"i find it rather odd that jesus and john, if they were cousins, would not have ever met each other while children - thus making john's revelation about jesus at the baptism unnecessary."

The purpose of the baptism was to receive the Holy Spirit. It was after this that Jesus fasted for 40days and nights and he began performing miracles. He performed no miracles prior to his baptism.

I find it rather odd that people believe that the purpose of Y'shua's baptism was for him to recieve the holy spirit, since he must have taken the flesh of his mother Mary [justification issue](as the father had no flesh to offer - this would imply that the holy spirit was the life that entered Mary to make a virgin pregnancy possible...and therefore existed in/as Y'shua from the moment of his worldly conception, which would be necessary for him to be perfect in the flesh even though his mother was imperfect)

[Richard Carrier]

Just FYI I have no time to engage in forum discussions on diverse topics or to teach online, so I can't reply to most of what is being said here. I can only respond to specific questions significantly relevant to the accuracy or completeness of my Secular Web articles. The rest you will have to discuss among yourselves.

[One timer]

"What about that obscure textual variant? Finegan's only source for this claim is a mysterious, unpublished speech given by David Beyer.[17.3] In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them he does not identify their relationship to other manuscripts or their known quality or origins. All Finegan (and Beyer) does is "count manuscripts" and argue that older manuscripts are the most reliable. But neither is true, as any palaeographer knows. We have no way of knowing which of the manuscripts Beyer counted were copies of other extant manuscripts (and thus completely irrelevant to the question), and we have no idea whether the manuscripts he looked at are known to be reliable or unreliable or to what degree or in what ways. Older manuscripts can sometimes be poorer than new manuscripts, since newer ones can be based on even older but more reliable archetypes (see "On Calvinist Scorn of Textual Criticism" for more about textual analysis), and older ones may stem from especially faulty textual traditions. Moreover, Beyer examined only manuscripts in the British Museum and the Library of Congress--yet the best manuscripts are in France and Italy--one of which is the oldest, Codex Ambrosianae F 128, inscribed in the 11th century (the oldest manuscript Beyer examined was 12th century); and another is the most reliable: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984, transcribed in 1354; both confirming a reading of "twentieth," and thus invalidating all his conclusions from the start. Finegan and Beyer seem ignorant of all of these issues. Consequently, we cannot trust them here."

1) You might try looking at:

David Beyer, "Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius," pp. 85-96, in _Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers_, ed. E. Jerry Vardaman. Mercer University Press: 1998. ISBN 0-86554-582-0.

Hardly "a mysterious, unpublished speech". Honesty should require you to update your paragraph on Beyer. I'd challenge the "Obscure textual variant" comment too. Perhaps you know more than I do. (No, I am not Beyer or Finegan.) But I digress...

2) In 17.3 "Beyer says little more than Finegan does on this subject" contradicts the statement about "In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them..." No Finegan doesn't name them, but he refers to Beyer. But actually naming the manuscripts is saying a lot more. That is a significant difference.

I'll forgo adding more details on the manuscript evidence. Just wanted to point out these two items. To paraphrase your words; consequently, we cannot trust your web site...

No reply is needed. I don't want to get into a war of words and evidence. Believe what you will.

[Richard Carrier]

1) You might try looking at: David Beyer, "Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius," pp. 85-96, in _Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers_

You aren't a very good reader. I said when Finegan cited it, it was unpublished. I then cite the very paper you do in the end of the attached footnote, so why do you think I didn't? Indeed, you quote the very remark (though strangely omitting the title of the book that you then claim to be introducing me to). So what's your game?

2) ...actually naming the manuscripts is saying a lot more. That is a significant difference.

I disagree, it is only a little more information, and that wholly inadequate to making Finegan's case, for the very reasons I explain there.

To paraphrase your words; consequently, we cannot trust your web site...

My words were "Finegan and Beyer seem ignorant of all of these issues. Consequently, we cannot trust them here." What information are you claiming I am ignorant of? I already cite the only book you mention, and I already state what little information Beyer adds to Finegan. So how does the quoted standard of trust relate to my paper?

[eliotitus]

One other thing... Have you heard the idea that the governor of Syria was there primarily as a "consultant" prior to his governship in 6 A.D.? Could this be the mistake made by Luke or a copier (trying to correct something they thought was a mistake)?

Technically this isn't a problem at all as the words in the earliest manuscripts mean leader or in charge or something of that ilk. It's also known the governor of the time was particularly incomptent leaving Cyrenius to do pretty much everything in the way of controlling the region so it is an understandable word to put in their, and it doesn't (from what I've been lead to believe when raising this point with someone who's read the text in ancient Greek) neccesarily mean governor. Other than that carry on.

[Phil Hill]

I think the article is excellent - sent me back to read the Bible again for the first time in ages, and reading it in the light of this article is very instructive.

I know the article is about the date of Jesus' birth, not that of his death, but nonetheless, the latter is important in that context, as is shown by the fact that it also figures in the article. However, one argument I have often seen in all discussions of the date of the crucifixion has to do with pinpointing a year in which the first day of Passover would have been a Friday, and I have often seen the claim that this was the case in both 30 and 33 AD. However, I have now used 2 excellent Internet resources - (1) the calendar-system converter www.calendarhome.com/converter/, which has not only Gregorian and Hebrew calendars but also any other you can think of, including Mayan, and (2) the moon-phase indicator www.moonsystem.to/checkupe.htm, which is important because the first day of Passover is always Nissan 15, and since the Jewish calendar is lunar, that means it is always the full moon. These sites indicate that that is not true, that Nissan 5 in 30 AD was a Wednesday or maybe (if there was a correction because of the moon on that day), a Thursday, but that in 36, Nissan 15 was on a Friday. That would then make sense in light of the other evidence brought forth in the article. Does anyone have any information on this aspect?

Moreover: the Tivoli stone cannot possibly refer to Varus, since it is so laudatory. It was clearly written after Augustus' death, since it refers to him as "divine", which means that it was long after Varus' ignominious death in Germany. It is not conceivable that anyone would have put up such a laudatory public tribute to the man who was at that time at the top of the disgrace list of the Roman Empire, whose family considered themselves lucky that they were even allowed to bury his head with private honors.

Moreover, not only is there no record of Varus being governor or Syria twice during the last BC decade (or any other second time), there is no record of him being involved in any warfare (against kings or anyone else) other than the crushing of the Jewish rebellion after Herod's death and, of course, the beginning of the German liberation war.

The quote that you refer to is one of a number I have seen - many of them in German - which try to link Varus and Jesus through some kind of extremely questionable conjectures about the presence of Ponitus Pilate in Germany during that war (probably, he, like any other ambitious officer, did time of the German front - so what?). Usually, they involve some kind of mystical-religious reference to the Externsteine, a spectacular outcropping of granite near the place that has now been proven NOT to be the site of the defeat of Varus, but which was certainly a sacred Germanic site. One thing is for sure - any Roman who caught sight of those rocks after 9 AD was a POW.

ph

[Richard Carrier]

However, one argument I have often seen in all discussions of the date of the crucifixion has to do with pinpointing a year in which the first day of Passover would have been a Friday, and I have often seen the claim that this was the case in both 30 and 33 AD. However, I have now used 2 excellent Internet resources - (1) the calendar-system converter www.calendarhome.com/converter/...and (2) the moon-phase indicator www.moonsystem.to/checkupe.htm, which is important because the first day of Passover is always Nissan 15, and since the Jewish calendar is lunar, that means it is always the full moon. These sites indicate that that is not true, that Nissan [1]5 in 30 AD was a Wednesday or maybe (if there was a correction because of the moon on that day), a Thursday, but that in 36, Nissan 15 was on a Friday. That would then make sense in light of the other evidence brought forth in the article. Does anyone have any information on this aspect?

Month: According to John Jesus died on Friday the 14th, unless you interpret him as hedging the facts, as I suggest is possible, although I have since considered the reverse is possible, too, that his death was originally conceived as on the 14th, and moving it to the 15th (as in the Synoptics) is the distortion. But even then I think it most likely even the original date is a theological fiction. The same way that pagans "moved" the dates of eclipses to coincide with major battles, so Christians would be inclined to fictionally "move" the Passover to coincide with the death of Jesus (or vice versa). Finegan discusses many other facts and theories that could present problems for fixing the exact date, so I think certainty here is not to be had. In any case, Finegan believes it was the 14th, not the 15th, and I know other scholars do, too.

Year: Finegan discusses and cites the relevant scholarship. I haven't checked these sources or their analysis, but I would be inclined to distrust a free website over a peer reviewed paper (even an old one). I have no assurance the web calendars are correct for ancient chronology. On the one hand, there are a lot of special problems to account for in determining dates prior to the invention of the Gregorian calendar, making conversion more difficult than a computer program might account for. On the other hand, the moon's orbit has been and continues to decelerate, while the earth day continues to grow in length due to the deceleration of the earth's rotation, and a computer program might fail to include these factors when calculating events thousands of years ago. Moreover, the dating of Passover was in part accomplished by visibly identifying the new and full moons (the Talmud reports detailed procedures for this, yet none involve consulting astronomers or using astronomical instruments), which imports the possibility of the calendar being in error by a day in either direction for any given year (so when our math says the new moon was on a particular day, that does not mean they said so: they may have placed the beginning of the full moon a day early or late, not being any the wiser).

In short, I can't trust a web script. A human expert has to address this issue specifically, ensuring all details are attended to. If there has been any peer reviewed scholarship on this subject that is more recent than Finegan (especially anything within the past ten or twenty years), I would consult that (assuming it doesn't simply rely on the same old past work). I haven't looked. But if you (or anyone) knows of any, feel free to send me the most recent citations. Until then, we should trust Finegan's sources more than generic websites.

Moreover: the Tivoli stone cannot possibly refer to Varus, since it is so laudatory...

I am not aware of anyone who claims it refers to Varus (neither I nor any Christian apologist). So I don't know what you are thinking of. Though some do try to place the birth of Jesus under Varus, I don't think those same people try to link the Tibertinus to Varus (beyond merely using it to "prove" the general principle that governing Syria twice was possible).

[Phil Hill]

Thank you for your response. Sorry about the second part of the message about Varus, that was supposed to go to a different person, but I'm new here, and must have made some mistake.

Obviously, we have to verify these resources for accuracy, but as to the accuracy of the Jewish calendar: the moon-phase page shows the moon as an image at the time (Julian date) entered. And since, as you point out, the Jewish calendar was constantly corrected by visual checking against the actual position of the moon, we can check the actual date of passover in a given year by means of this website, simply by seeing if the 15th of the Jewish month is full moon or not, which is what I did. Obviously, if someone thinks the crucifixion was on the 14th, he thinks the last supper was not a Seder, but was held one day earlier. But the 15th, placing the crucifixion in 36 AD, fits well with your placing the nativity in 6/7 AD.

As to the accuracy of the Julian calendar: We are fortunate that for our purposes, it was, during the first half of the 1st century AD, virtually accurate, since it had not been successfully implemented by Julius Caesar before he was knifed, and Augustus finally implemented it in 8 AD, so that the first non-leap-year that truly used the correct system was 9 AD, the year of the battle of the Teutoburg Forest (my specialty). By 36 AD, the discrepancy that eventually made the Gregorian system necessary would have only built up to around 5 or 6 hours. So the Roman, and "our", calendar can be used as a scale for calculation during this period without going through the torturous recalculations that medieval historians have to use.

My point is simply that these resources make it relatively easy to check this aspect; obviously, they themselves have to be checked, too. But what they seem to do is confirm the accuracy of your theory, since we know that Jesus war around 30 when he died.

ph