AndresDeLaHoz

I'm always hearing from people about how we know about the existence of Jesus because there's a census that has him and whatnot. Could anyone fill me in on what this is?

CX

Sure...it's nonsense. There is no written record (aside from the NT) of Jesus' birth. The census described in ALk cannot be proven to have taken place at the time in question. Most scholars regard the infancy narratives as largely legendary.

AndresDeLaHoz

figures.

malookiemaloo

Just because the census (or anything else for that matter) is only mentioned in the Bible and nowhere else is very poor evidence of its non-existence IMHO.

However, I fully concede that there are difficulties with the whole timimg of Jesus birth which have been aired many times on this forum-Herod and Quirinius apparantly being about 10 years adrift from each other.

However, assuming that Matthew is correct, the question which puzzles me is why did Luke mention the census if it did not take place? Why did he mention Quirinius if he was not, in fact, Governor of Syria? Did he diliberately lie? Did he make an innocent error? Remember he 'dilligently searched these things'.
Any views anyone?


m

Peter Kirby

Quirinius became governor of Syria in 7 CE and instituted the first Roman census of Palestine at that time, which was a famous event that provoked protest (census implies taxation). The author of Luke would have heard about the census of Quirinius without being able to put an exact date on it from memory.

best,
Peter Kirby

malookiemaloo

Thanks for this, Peter.

I am a bit confused. I always understood that world history denied any census at Jesus's birth. Or does that only apply if Jesus's birth is taken as around 4BC?

Luke also mentions that the census was of 'the entire Roman world' not just Palestine.


m

Peter Kirby

Since historians discount the stories about Herod in relation to the birth of Jesus, we don't have any basis for an absolute chronology of the start of the life of Jesus. The indications of the age of Jesus when ministering are the 30 years in Luke and the "not yet fifty" in John, with most preferring Luke, but it's not likely that either had proof of his exact age. If the death of Jesus is between 26 and 36 CE (when Pilate was prefect), and if the age of Jesus at death is between 20 and 50, then the birth of Jesus is between 24 BCE and 16 CE, the later the younger Jesus is and the later in the reign of Pilate he got whacked. So it is indeed possible that Jesus was born during the time of the census of Quirinius in 7 CE.

However, even then, Luke's story would not be error free. There was not a census of the entire Roman world at once at any time in the first century. That doesn't stop Luke from telling a good story, though, making Jesus a savior for all humanity, somewhat like the emperor Augustus himself.

For more information, please see the painstaking efforts of Richard Carrier.

best,
Peter Kirby

malookiemaloo

malookiemaloo

Thanks for this.


m

Paul Baxter

The best introduction to these sorts of issues I've seen is E P Sanders short, but valuable book, _The Historical Figure of Jesus_. He manages to talk about a huge number of these problems in a short space. He doesn't go very far towards trying to find solutions, but the book is worthwhile just to see what the historical issues/problems are.