So, as we come up on Christmas day, certain people may believe that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, 0000. Nobody in this forum probably but fun to make jokes about. But many people believe that the accounts in Matthew and Luke provide at least some accurate information. Not me, I think they are both pure fiction, but the Matthew account including a mention of Herod leads many people to think that Jesus was born in 4 b.c.e, while Herod the Great was still alive. I’ve seen some estimates of between 7 and 2 b.c.e though I don’t know where those come from.
However Luke mentions that Cyrenius (or Quirinius, not sure about spelling) was governor of Syria. According to a source I have, Quirinius took office in 6 c.e. Why is 6 c.e or later not ever mentioned as the year of Jesus’s birth. Is my source bad? Or is there some other information in play here?
Personally, thinking that Jesus didn’t start his ministry until he was about 34 years old makes no sense to me. By that time he would have been married, had several kids, a job, etc. I cannot see him giving that up unless he had some kind of mid-life crises that drove him from normal life, something like Moses, but there is no mention of that in the NT. So he was some 34 year old still living with his parents when he decided to start preaching? I don’t think so.
On the other hand, a late teen or early twenties Jesus moving out to start a ministry makes a lot more sense. This age seems much more appropriate, which would put his birth year at 6 c.e. or later. Not that we can ever really know but I am wondering why scholars think Jesus was born before the common era. Any thoughts?
Luke’s story seems to be a concoction to contrive a birth in Bethlehem, matching King David and therefore fitting with a kingly line of heritage.
The census was real. The Herod dynasty’s empire was collapsing in chaos and the Romans needed to take over, so a census was needed for taxation purposes.
But Luke has Joseph and his young {second?} wife Mary traveling 100 kilometers to Bethlehem for the census. Apart from the impracticality, the mathematics of relocating people to the seat of an ancestor simply does not work. Ancestors double with each generation back {2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, …} so we are talking 1024 ancestors at 10 generations, a million at 20 generations, potentially a billion at 30… David lived roughly 1,000 years BC. It is obvious that practically every Jew in the Holy Lands at the time of Jesus would be a descendant of David, and of all his contemporaries who managed to raise fertile children. And they would all be distant cousins. Which ancestor would a citizen choose?
Luke was highly educated in literature and probably the medical arts, but mathematics eluded him. The Romans, immensely practical people, would not have demanded people leave their homes and productive businesses to travel to the town of a remote ancestor.
Like Matthew’s flight to sanctuary in Egypt, Luke’s journey to Bethlehem is a fiction tying the Jesus narrative to the traditions of the Hebrew scripture.
The date in December has no historical basis, but is simply the adoption by early Christians of the existing pagan festival of Yuletide, three days after the Winter solstice, marking the turn of the seasons and giving the promise of a Spring to come.
Yes, yes, Luke’s story and Matthew’s story are both concoctions, I get that. My question is why Jesus’s birth is typically listed as 4 b.c.e. consistent with Matthew’s concoction and not 6 c.e. consistent with Luke’s concoction? Even Bart’s Newsweek blog post (which I just read) talks about the census in 6 c.e. as being 10 years after Jesus’s birth. How can he possibly know or assume that? We have no idea when Jesus was born, except long enough before 30 c.e. to make him an adult by that time. Or am I missing something?
By the way Trevelyan, it seems the whole ancestor tracing thing is only concerned with following the male line, so the numbers don’t double all the time. Female ancestry did not matter to them I guess. Tracing full ancestry makes everybody related eventually. Did you know that all American presidents can trace ancestry to King John of England (Magna Carta days) except for Martin van Buren? Even Barak Obama (through his mom of course). I don’t know about Donald Trump.
A minor mathematical point: ancestors double each generation back in the male line. One father, two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers. To get to a million ancestors would take 20 generations counting both males and females, but 21 generations counting males only.
As to the year of Jesus’ birth, it does seem that historians are giving more credence to Matthew’s tale of the slaughter of male infants in Bethlehem than to the relevance of the census of Quirinius {a Latin name, rendered in Greek as Cyrenius}. This seems odd, because Matthew’s story is obvious Midrash, invoking the slaughter of the male infants by Pharaoh in the time of Moses. In fact, both stories, Matthew’s and Luke’s, look more like attempts to tie the Jesus narrative to Hebrew tradition than factual reportage.
I hate to be picky about this Trevelyan but there is not a doubling with just the male line. Male line includes only the father, the father’s father (grandfather only on father’s side, not grandfather on the mothers side), father’s father’s father, etc. In modern terms it would mean Joseph (hence Jesus if you do not buy into the virgin birth) would have a nearly identical Y chromosome to David. This would be remarkable, if true, and the point of Paul’s statement in Romans 1:3 about Jesus being the seed of David. Of course the Jews of 2000 years ago knew nothing about Y chromosomes but still this male lineage thing seems to be very important. Odd though that Joseph, in the orthodox view, was only considered Jesus’s stepfather. Kills the whole Y chromosome lineage thing, and makes Joseph’s lineage irrelevant.
I’m thinking that theologians, rather than historians, traditionally give more credence to Matthew’s tale than to Luke’s. I would like to know why that is? And why historians seem to have adopted the theologian’s view rather than the “we don’t have any idea what year Jesus was born” view. Maybe historians don’t give credence to either Matthew or Luke and I just have not heard about it.
mreichert said
I hate to be picky about this Trevelyan but there is not a doubling with just the male line. Male line includes only the father, the father’s father (grandfather only on father’s side, not grandfather on the mothers side), father’s father’s father, etc. In modern terms it would mean Joseph (hence Jesus if you do not buy into the virgin birth) would have a nearly identical Y chromosome to David. This would be remarkable, if true, and the point of Paul’s statement in Romans 1:3 about Jesus being the seed of David. Of course the Jews of 2000 years ago knew nothing about Y chromosomes but still this male lineage thing seems to be very important. Odd though that Joseph, in the orthodox view, was only considered Jesus’s stepfather. Kills the whole Y chromosome lineage thing, and makes Joseph’s lineage irrelevant.I’m thinking that theologians, rather than historians, traditionally give more credence to Matthew’s tale than to Luke’s. I would like to know why that is? And why historians seem to have adopted the theologian’s view rather than the “we don’t have any idea what year Jesus was born” view. Maybe historians don’t give credence to either Matthew or Luke and I just have not heard about it.
The only possible historical value in the birth stories is the possibility that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still ruling. Had they thought otherwise, the stories or underlying oral traditions would have been different, but still involving birth in Bethlehem, because that was said to be the birth place of a future Messiah.
Thanks, mreichert, for straightening me out on the male line ancestry. And as you say, everyone is related to everyone, if we trace far enough back. David was about 1,000 years before Jesus, roughly 40 generations. I think gavriel has a very good point about the belief in a connection to the Herod era shaping the traditions.
Yes, I get that the Herod the Great reference in Matthew makes it relatively easy to approximate a year for Jesus to be born. I still wonder why Matthew’s account, and reference to Herod, seems to carry more weight than Luke’s account with its reference to Quirinius. Maybe more people knew about Herod and when he died than knew about Quirinius and when he was governor? Maybe Luke’s notion about “everyone to his own city” had been considered so ridiculous that Luke’s account is discounted in general? I don’t know.
My remaining question is: About how old was Jesus at the crucifixion? I doubt we can ever know for sure but it seems like the general consensus is over 30 years old. My thinking is that he was quite a bit younger, early twenties or so. Mostly this comes from something I read awhile ago about expectations for male Jews at the time, that they were expected to be married and settled down by their mid 20s. I can imagine Jesus being a very spiritual guy through his teens, not satisfied with the way things were going in his world from a religious/spiritual viewpoint. He would be getting family pressure to get married while in his early 20s, this prompting him to go on his own pilgrimage to John the Baptist and getting him started on his ministry. Just a theory based on my understanding of human nature.
mreichert said
Yes, I get that the Herod the Great reference in Matthew makes it relatively easy to approximate a year for Jesus to be born. I still wonder why Matthew’s account, and reference to Herod, seems to carry more weight than Luke’s account with its reference to Quirinius. Maybe more people knew about Herod and when he died than knew about Quirinius and when he was governor? Maybe Luke’s notion about “everyone to his own city” had been considered so ridiculous that Luke’s account is discounted in general? I don’t know.My remaining question is: About how old was Jesus at the crucifixion? I doubt we can ever know for sure but it seems like the general consensus is over 30 years old. My thinking is that he was quite a bit younger, early twenties or so. Mostly this comes from something I read awhile ago about expectations for male Jews at the time, that they were expected to be married and settled down by their mid 20s. I can imagine Jesus being a very spiritual guy through his teens, not satisfied with the way things were going in his world from a religious/spiritual viewpoint. He would be getting family pressure to get married while in his early 20s, this prompting him to go on his own pilgrimage to John the Baptist and getting him started on his ministry. Just a theory based on my understanding of human nature.
Luke sometimes makes gross errors historically, for instance in Acts he gives an incorrect chronology for Theudas and Judas the Galilean, driven by the motive for securing sympathy from a leading and respected pharisee sage. The reference to Quirinius should probably be regarded the same way, Luke wanted to put Jesus safely in a Roman matrix as a good marketing strategy. The story is pure spin.
As to why Jesus never married, there is no reliable information except the likely fact that his family was deeply religious, judged from the fact that his brothers converted. They may have accepted a religious dreamer of sorts and he may have been gay, which may have driven him into religious brooding. There could be lots of other reasons.
Hey gavriel, I like your idea that Jesus may have been “a religious dreamer of sorts and may have been gay”. I’ve been thinking the same thing. Tolerated by his family but thought of as “different”. I just saw a History Channel episode of “Banned by the Bible” with Bart Ehrman as one of the speakers. In one part the show talks about “the secret gospel of Mark”, something we only have hints about, but which apparently implies that Jesus was gay. Then there is the passage Mark 14:51-52 “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked”. Who is this naked guy? Not one of the 12. The secret gospel of Mark may say, if we had that book.
But how old was Jesus likely to be at the crucifixion? I say early 20s but am certainly open to arguments for something else. Not that it is really important to me, just a thought exercise.
mreichert said
Hey gavriel, I like your idea that Jesus may have been “a religious dreamer of sorts and may have been gay”. I’ve been thinking the same thing. Tolerated by his family but thought of as “different”. I just saw a History Channel episode of “Banned by the Bible” with Bart Ehrman as one of the speakers. In one part the show talks about “the secret gospel of Mark”, something we only have hints about, but which apparently implies that Jesus was gay. Then there is the passage Mark 14:51-52 “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked”. Who is this naked guy? Not one of the 12. The secret gospel of Mark may say, if we had that book.But how old was Jesus likely to be at the crucifixion? I say early 20s but am certainly open to arguments for something else. Not that it is really important to me, just a thought exercise.
I do not think that “the secret gospel of mark” lends support to the idea that Jesus was gay. It is too late and secondary and most of the great scholars ignore it. I rather deduce it from the fact that he was not married although many of his disciples were, and Matthew 19:12.
As to the age of Jesus at the cfx, all we have is the guess that he was born at the end of Herod the the Great’s reign (died 4 BCE) and that Pauline chronology (as deduced mainly from his authentic letters) demands a death year around 30 CE or very early in the thirties.
Interesting topic.
I would offer a few thoughts:
It could be that both references are a) to anchor the story (“Oh, I’ve heard of Herod, so this must be historical fact”) and b) set up the story and characters (the census to move the Holy Family to Bethlehem, contrast Herod’s false leadership of Judaism with Jesus’ real one, etc.). In other words, it could be that none are true anchor dates to Jesus’ life.
I think it’s more a matter of working back from the probable lifespan of James (Jesus’ brother) for whom we have some external evidence and timelines, and from Paul’s writings.
In terms of Jesus being gay, does anyone have any information about how gay people were treated? I would think that, even if true, a gay man would marry, sire children etc. even if they satisfied their sexual preferences elsewhere and clandestinely. Not discounting the possibility – it seems remote to me – but it would seem to be inconsequential. There is that part in Mark where a young man runs away naked when Jesus is arrested, and the Secret Gospel of Mark has a similar passage. It may be an initiation rite that reads as more than that today. After all if early Christians embraced homosexuality then why don’t we see it more in their writings or, if not, why mention it at all in one obscure passage?
FWIW,
Andy
AndyB said
Interesting topic.I would offer a few thoughts:
It could be that both references are a) to anchor the story (“Oh, I’ve heard of Herod, so this must be historical fact”) and b) set up the story and characters (the census to move the Holy Family to Bethlehem, contrast Herod’s false leadership of Judaism with Jesus’ real one, etc.). In other words, it could be that none are true anchor dates to Jesus’ life.
I think it’s more a matter of working back from the probable lifespan of James (Jesus’ brother) for whom we have some external evidence and timelines, and from Paul’s writings.
In terms of Jesus being gay, does anyone have any information about how gay people were treated? I would think that, even if true, a gay man would marry, sire children etc. even if they satisfied their sexual preferences elsewhere and clandestinely. Not discounting the possibility – it seems remote to me – but it would seem to be inconsequential. There is that part in Mark where a young man runs away naked when Jesus is arrested, and the Secret Gospel of Mark has a similar passage. It may be an initiation rite that reads as more than that today. After all if early Christians embraced homosexuality then why don’t we see it more in their writings or, if not, why mention it at all in one obscure passage?
FWIW,
Andy
You may be right about the first point, that is, the gospel writers knew Jesus’ approximate age and worked backwards to the last Jewish King of sorts as an impressive anchor point.
The story about the young man escaping naked fits with a party surprised during sleep, and fits Mark’s overall theme – a man escaping naked rather than standing up to the defense of his master.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)