aa5874

In 'Church History' book 1.5.2 by Eusebius, this is written about the birth of Jesus.

"It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eight after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him. His birth took place during the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

See www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Now, Augustus reigned from 27BCE to 14CE, and forty two years would put the birth of Jesus at about 14CE.

The 28th year after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra, 30BCE, would put the birth of Jesus at about 2BCE.

The taxation by Cyrenius, took place thirty seven years after Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium, 31BCE (Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.1), so that would put the birth of Jesus at about 6CE.

So, according to the Eusebius, Jesus was born on three different dates, simultaneously, 2BCE, 6CE and 14CE.

But the author of Matthew disagreed, this author claimed that a Jesus was born before the death of king Herod the Great, see Matthew 2.1 and 2.16. Herod the Great died 4BCE, and this would put the birth of Jesus at about 6BCE.

And added to that, Irenaeus in Against Heresies bk 2.22, claimed Jesus died more than fifty years old, even though crucified under Pilate, governor from 26-36CE, this would put the birth of Jesus from about 24 to 14BCE.

When was Jesus actually born, 24-14BCE, 6BCE, 2BCE, 6CE, 14CE or not at all?

The History of the Church with respect to the birth of Jesus appears to be completely flawed just from the writings of Eusebius alone.

spin

If Augustus was thought to have reigned from the time of the Second Triumvirate (43 BCE) and this was effectively the case in Rome, The 43nd year would be 2/1 BCE. This would be consistent with Eusebius's reference to the subjugation of Egypt.

However, Eusebius is certainly not a historical source over the matter: he was writing several centuries after the fact. If there are flaws in his indications regarding centuries before his time, the fact seems irrelevant.


spin

mountainman

My considered opinion is that Jesus did not exist at all.
The common era is marked from the birth of Apollonius of Tyana.
He is the calumnified philosopher sage whose writings were
opposed by Eusebius in the fourth century, directly, and
also via the forgery of the author Lucian. His temples were
destroyed around Antioch in 325 before Nicaea, and the
priests of these temples executed.

The writings of Eusebius are fraudulent misrepresentation
of ancient history. The fraud was exposed firstly in the
words of Arius 325 CE, and secondly in the written words
of the Emperor Julian 362 CE. Julian's writings were burnt
and the tax-exempt Bishop Cyril censored the fact that
Julian had arraigned christian history to be fraudulent.

That's my take.
Best wishes,

Pete

aa5874

The reign of Augustus is recorded as January 27BCE to August 14CE. And even if 43BCE is used, which would put the birth to about 1-2BCE, this date does not reconcile with the 6CE, the date of the census of Cyrenius, according to Josephus.

I do not understand how Eusebius writings on Church history with respect to the birth of Jesus can be regarded as irrelevant. Eusebius is the one of the most prominent Church Fathers and a major player in the canon of the NT. All of his writings should be taken seriously.

Eusebius claimed to be writing history. This is chapter 1 of book 1, The plan of the work, Church History, "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own, and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing."

And what exactly are the flaws with respect to the dates given by Eusebius of the birth of Jesus?

spin

So if Augustus didn't rule Rome from 43 BCE onward until his death, who did??

You've already been told: he wrote his thoughts 300 years after the reputed facts. Can you tell me from which reputably traceable sources he got his information? I thought not. That's your problem.

You'd make a good christian apologist.

So does David Irving.

There's no way to know from what reputable sources they were derived.


spin

aa5874

In the History of the Church, with respect to the birth of Jesus, Eusebius made references to the writings of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and War of the Jews.

Church History, by Eusebius, book 1.5.3, "Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of Hebrew historians also mentions this census, which was taken during Cyrenius' term of office"

Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus, book 18.2.1 and 15.7.2 made mention of Cyrenius and the death of Cleopatra and Anthony. There is also mention of Octavius Caesar in 'Ant. of the Jews' bk 15.5.2, so it is known where Eusebius got his information from.

spin

Oh, so Eusebius got the bit about Augustus and the Ptolemies ("It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eight after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end") -- the bits that interested you -- from Josephus? Where?


spin

aa5874

Eusebius, I would believe, could do some maths. There are dates and events in the writings of Josephus that Eusebius could use to come up with his own calculations, if he could add and subtract at all.

I really don't expect a word for word quote from Eusebius of all Josephus writings. If someone were to die today, September 9 2007, Eusebius, if he was alive and could do maths, could say that this person died in the seventh year of the presidency of George Bush.

Minimalist

Octavian "ruled" for four years before the Senate awarded him the title of "Augustus."

That little fact (along with no "year zero") is what is supposed to have tripped up Dionysius Exiguus, too.

aa5874

So, if we do the maths, according to Eusebius, the birth of Jesus occurred simultaneously at 2BCE (the 28th year after the death of Anthony and Cleopatra), 6CE (the taxationof Cyrenius) and 12CE (the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus).