About the date of Jesus’ birth

Tea Syriac Gospel of Childhood states that Augustus Caesar ordered the inscription of all men in his native land in “the year 309 of the era of Alexander.” That statement, if correct, would seem to date the birth of Jesus quite definitively. However, most scholars would almost certainly agree that Alexander the Great became king of Macedon in 336 BC. Alexander “would therefore correspond to approximately 28 BC, several decades before the traditional date attributed to the birth of Jesus. Therefore, such an early date would suggest that the Syriac Gospel of Childhood he was wildly ignorant about the true date of Jesus’ birth or our modern understanding of the time Jesus supposedly lived is wildly wrong.

Interestingly, a similar dating problem is also clearly present in the Gospel of Luke regarding the enrollment that preceded the birth of Jesus. Tea Gospel of Luke states that Augustus Caesar ordered the inscription and that it was the first inscription taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Historical records suggest that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 CE and that, shortly after becoming governor of Syria, he did in fact take a census of Judea. It is also quite clear to historians that Quirinius became governor of Syria long after the death of Herod the Great, which is generally believed to have occurred in 4 BC. C. Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive. These apparent contradictions have led many Biblical scholars to try to claim that Quirinius served as an “interim” governor sometime before 6 CE and that there was another census conducted by Quirinius in Judea at some point during that time that somehow never was. had registered.

What we have then are two documents that both attempt to establish the date of the registration that preceded the birth of Jesus. One document attempts to date the inscription by referencing the “age of Alexander”, a strategy similar to the dating method commonly used throughout the Seleucid Empire, while the other document dates the event using the traditional Roman dating method (i.e. referencing well-known rulers and related events). And curiously, it seems that both documents fail to reach any kind of consensus on when the alleged inscription took place.

Interestingly, he had the Syriac Gospel of Childhood and the Gospel of Luke Both clearly pinpointed the exact same event, they would have provided a very compelling date of Jesus’ birth. However, as passed down throughout history, these documents appear to contradict each other, as well as some fairly well-established facts. Therefore, instead of appearing to be in harmony with each other, they appear to be in total discord; two witnesses telling what appear to be completely different stories.

But perhaps there is more to the story (or stories) than meets the eye.

The dating method that was commonly used throughout the Seleucid Empire (which included Syria and sometimes Judea) for over 1000 years was to count the number of years since Seleucus I Nicatur returned to Babylon, which scholars claim had place in 311 a. C. The “era of Alexander” effectively ended in that year; therefore, there never was such a thing as “the year 309 of the era of Alexander”. However, there was a year 309 in the Seleucid era, and that year corresponds essentially to 3 BC. C., very close to the date that is traditionally given for the birth of Jesus. So it seems quite likely that the original Syriac text said “the year 309 after the era of Alexander “and that there was a translation error that led to the word from being replaced with the word after.

You also have to take another close look at the Gospel of Luke. Tea Gospel of Luke, as transmitted over the years, states that the registration was the first inscription that took place weather Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, as the Syriac Gospel of Childhood, all dating problems miraculously disappear if the word before is replaced by the word weather. In fact, such a substitution also helps explain why the word first was used: to differentiate that inscription from the second inscription that would take place later, when Quirinius finally became governor of Syria in AD 6 It seems likely then that someone who was familiar with the census conducted by Quirinius in 6 CE (which was the only census conducted by him after he became governor) mistranslated the passage in Luke so he referred to that later census instead of the earlier inscription.

In fact, an earlier inscription took place in Judea before 6 CE. On February 5, 2 a. C., César Augusto was awarded the title Pater patriae, which means “father of the fatherland”, by the Roman Senate. As others have noted, as part of the process of awarding that title to Augustus, residents of all Roman provinces were ordered to swear allegiance to Augustus as their new patriarch. One requirement of the oath was that it be taken in the ancestral home of each adult male; the idea seems to be that each resident would formally renounce their former patriarch at the same time that they swore an oath to their new patriarch, Augustus. In addition, each resident’s oath to Augustus had to be recorded in an official public registry or register; You cannot simply affirm that they have taken an oath or not. In fact, this oath is practiced to this day; When someone becomes a United States citizen, for example, they take an oath of allegiance to the United States and at the same time renounce their former citizenship, and the taking of the oath is recorded as part of a public record.

Now someone might point out that 2 a. C. and 3 a. C. differ by one year. However, the Babylonian calendar year began in 1 Nisanu, which would be in late March or early April. Therefore, as reported in the Syriac Gospel of Childhood, February 2, 2 a. Actually it would have fallen at the end of the history of the year 309 of the Seleucid Era.

Of course, stubborn critics could argue that such a deal is pure coincidence and / or the result of extremely clever manufacturing. However, these critics should ask themselves if they doubt these things because they are not true or because they want them to be. When two unrelated witnesses in a close examination appear to be telling the same story, care should be taken before reporting their testimony.