Thank you for a nuanced and in-depth discussion of the Biblical accounts and the problems with ancient sources generally. Very balanced and insightful!
I picked up How Rome Fell few years back, and I really enjoyed it. I only recently found out that you have an TH-cam channel while watching Invicta. Thank you for this gem!
Hello Mr. Goldsworthy. First I just wanted to say I'm loving your videos and their particular focus on evidence from ancient sources. Second I'm curious what the name of the song you play at the end of your videos is? Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Ave!
Mr. Goldsworthy - have you considered the Anno Domini dating to have been originally based on the Julian calendar in which the leap year was fixed under Augustus (1BC) and retrofitted to be Christ’s birthday?
A sane and helpful placing of these narratives in a wider context. I was always told that Classicists treated the New Testament texts as they did other works from this time and culture. The results of their work is usually much less sensational and more soundly based than of many biblical scholars. I was taught by John Robinson who believed in the early dating of much NT material and whose instruction for an essay on these narratives was summed up in these words: " I want theology not gynaecology!" I suspect if Matthew and Luke are looking down on this discussion they might well be asking why the Churches ignore so much of their narratives? When did you hear Matthew's riveting genealogy read in church yet alone discussed or delve into its number codes? How many people like the Lucan narrative with the OT stories of women considered barren and the fulfilment coming in the gift of a special child? Puzzles we can solve and we never return but mysteries are another matter ....
Thank you for this video. Would anyone have scholarship or sources discussing a historical Jesus? I'm not against religious texts for this, but am interested in reading as much I can find.
Regarding the census: Why would a census require everyone to go to their ancestral hometown? Wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to be in the town they currently live in for taxation purposes? Did the actual census of Quirinius in 6 CE require this travel to an ancestral hometown? Besides, what is an "ancestral hometown"? If someone asked you what your ancestral hometown is what would you say? How would you know (without the internet and unable to read) what your ancestral home was 1,000 years ago? Additionally, I can't imagine major disruption such travel would have over the whole Roman Empire. Regarding Christmas: Augustine he writes in ‘On the Trinity’ (c. 399 - 419) : ‘For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.’ "According to tradition" prophets die on the same day the are conceived; therefore, if Jesus died and was conceived March 25 that places his birth on December 25.
Because people usually have property there and were known there. There are documented examples of people going back to their hometwon for registration (not for the 6 AD "census" but that date is out of the question anyway). PS. Note that the gospel doesn't actually speak of "taxation purposes".
You're absolutely right. It's utterly idiotic and unheard of that people had to return to their ancestral hometown (whatever that means anyways), which would defeat the purpose of a census in every way imaginable. Here's the human need and desire to make up something about their alleged god and tie him to (the equally fictional) David. It's so shamelessly and oviously made up, yet people even today believe that nonsense.
I think this is simply a narrative invention by the author to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, to fulfill several Old Testament prophecies. Both gospels agreed Jesus lived in Nazareth and had his ministry there, so both needed to find a way to explain why he wasn't born there, despite living there his whole life. So Matthew came up with a story of Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem but being forced to flee, and then relocating to Nazareth, while in Luke they already lived in Nazareth and only had to go to Bethlehem temporarily because of the census and this weird stipulation that you had to go to the hometown of your ancestors who lived 1000 years ago.
@frankvandorp9732 Nobody speaks of an ancestor 1000 years ago. You basically rejecting what all sources without competition tell: that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in favour mere feelings.
Interesting video. Actually made me think that a video on Philo and Josephus may be worthwhile. As I understand it, Josephus' account of Jesus may represent later additions to text (basically forgeries when it comes to a few sentences/points), but that people seem to feel his account of John the Baptist is legitimate. What are your thoughts?
The obvious issue with trying to place Quirinius in Syria in 4BC is that there is no reason to do so, as there is no indication that Quirinius ever held such a position earlier, or that any census was held then (if that was even possible when Judea was still a client kingdom and not part of the Roman Empire). These theories assume a lot of very unlikely and contrived events and coincidences, none of which are supported by any historical evidence, because the only reason these theories were invented is because people want the Gospels to be true. No objective reading of the evidence would ever lead someone to believe these theories. If any other historical source talked about the reign of Herod the Great being contemporary with the census of Quirinius, we would simply conclude that source was mistaken and misplaced one of these two events by ten years in the chronology and no one would bat an eye.
A noble effort Professor, one that will be wasted on the anti-christians who will respond with venom. I have always tried to put the Torah and scriptures into historical reference and appreciate your video. To expect different accounts of events to agree entirely is to ignore the evidence we have from our own court proceedings where eyewitnesses can't agree on details.
Firstly you can stop playing the victimised Xtian card, Secondly, there are no eye witness accounts written in the Gospels...all are drawn from word of mouth oral tradition many decades after any alleged event..further the gospels are written in Koine Greek by anonymous authors in lands outside the Levant...Mark even gets the geographical layout/ directions wrong, so clearly the author and source don't know the region...but don't worry you can still keep your faith despite the Jesus narrative being fictional for the most part.
The census was about Property Tax and ownership. That’s why the Jews had to return to their ancestral land and be recorded as owners for the Romans. Joseph and Mary’s ancestral land was in the area of Bethlehem
The Josephus gloss: having some experience with faked / forged documents I have never seen, nor am I aware of favourable document that was "improved" it is invariably a negative or neutral document that gets the improvement. On this basis, absent new evidence, my opinion is that the original work was not favourable to Christianity.
It speaks volumes of the false intellectuals who follow the great Adrian Goldsworthy nowadays that commenters refute the existence of Jesus Christ when that was never discussed in the video beyond Mr. Goldsworthy stating that we do know Jesus existed and we do know Jesus died. The tl;dw for anyone who hasn't watched the video yet is a discussion of the date of birth of Jesus Christ (which we don't know as fact), and that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
@@r0ky_M Your question makes as much sense as "If there are no tomatoes in the dog's den, would a submarine float above England." Whatever an "official moniker" is suppoesed to be ... if you mean what name Jesus's passport would show (if passports existed) then it would be "Jesus, son of Joseph". That's how ancient Jewish names work.
The dating of Christmas is not related to temporally proximate pagan rites or festivals. It is actually based upon the date of the Crucifixion filtered through ancient ideas about the conceptions and deaths of great men and prophets. The tldr version: for great men it was believed that the dates of the conceptions and deaths of great men happened on the same day of the year. Jesus was executed on March 25th. That would then be his date of conception. Work forward 9 months and you get December 25th. Hence, the dating of the celebration of the birth of Christ, no pagan connotations whatsoever.
Matthew 2:14 states that Joe and family went to Egypt until the death of Herod. Luke 2:39, says that they waited 40 days for the pupose of Purification ritual at the temple in Jerusalem, and went thence to Nazareth. ...Which is correct?”
I have heard it said that there is a big gap between the ritual and going to Nazareth (Luke's account). The justification being that each author takes emphasis on different events. Herod's order is to kill male children under 2 years of age, so that timeline can be anywhere between Jesus's birth to 2 years of age. At the end of the day, the mind will justify and rationalize what you want given the evidence. I understand my bias, but I rationalize (perhaps more than I would other sources) the Gospel accounts as facts, so that is what I will believe.
When I see 40 days, my spider senses immediately start to tingle. That number often is not used as an exact measurement, but as a symbolic reference to testing or probation. Christians have the flood story, Moses and the Temptation, and even in Islam you will see the use of 40 days (Idda - mourning).
@@vatsmith8759 Exactly, everything was pasted together from different accounts created many years after these literary elements were alleged to have occurred.
If at my son's birth 3 wise men bearing gifts turned up at the maternity ward, I think I'd remember it. Later, kids in the village would yell at him "hey, got any frankinsense left? Any gold?" But no, the family just seemed to forget about it. At least mum would think, "hey, I didn't have sex with anyone, I got pregnant, an archangel visited me, I wasn't stoned to death, what the fuck is going on?"
Ok the exact date 25th is definitely not associated with any specific celebration, but that doesn’t mean that Christmas has no relation to earlier winter solstice celebrations.
@@curtiswilson859 It has no relationship to earlier (or later) winter solstice celebrations. It is based entirely off of the date of Jesus crucifixion.
Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinious did the census in 6CE. 10 year discrepancy. Fail. Zacharias served the course of Abijah at the Temple, which is the 8th week. He went home and knocked Elizabeth up. She would be 6 months pregnant late December when Mary was accosted. So her parturition would be end September early October. 12/25 Epic Fail
Thank you for this discussion. I remember learning in high school that Muhammad was described as the most documented person in medieval history. However, I was also taught that if religious texts were excluded, there would be only very dubious records to report on him. It sounds much the same with Jesus. One interesting point is that Muhammad was a much more important person in his lifetime and came much later, so one would expect more.
There’s nothing close to the reliability of the gospels because no one wrote down anything about Islam for two centuries after the prophet’s death. In contrast, the synoptic gospels are from at the latest ~70 years after Jesus’s death.
@@WagesOfDestructionNo he’s correct, there’s a massive source problem with early Islamic history. There’s next to nothing written down prior to the Umayyad period.
@@johndean8518You are touching on a problem that I also find puzzling. Saying 'next to nothing' is a bit of a stretch, though I agree that the sources for early Islamic history are sparse and often problematic. I find this lack of contemporary documentation surprising, especially given that Muhammad, according to Islamic texts, was a significant leader who interacted with communities known for strong literary traditions, such as Persians, Christians, and Jews. One would expect more written records from his time or at least corroboration from external sources. For example, we have non-Islamic sources like the Doctrina Jacobi from the 7th century, which may refer to Muhammad. However, this text is inconsistent with later Islamic writings and reflects a hostile perspective, making it unreliable as a historical source. Graves and coins from the period provide some evidence of early Islamic governance, but again they offer limited insight into Muhammad's life or the early Muslim community. One significant issue with early Quranic manuscripts is that radiocarbon dating only tells us the age of the parchment, not when the text was written on it. For example, the Birmingham Quran Manuscript which is likely the earliest Quranic fragment we have. Radiocarbon analysis dates its parchment to between 568 and 645 CE, with paleographic studies suggesting it was written in the mid-7th century CE-around 13 years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE. Given Muhammad’s reported influence and interactions with literate communities, it remains puzzling why more contemporary records don’t exist.
The purpose of a census is to record where you live and work in order to later come back and make you pay up. The authorities would not be interested in where your ancestors are from. But for Luke it’s important to demonstrate that scriptures are fullfilled so he invents a reason to place Jesus in Bethlehem. It’s a beautiful story, but that’s what it is, not history.
The Nativity story was written hundreds of years after the alleged events. The oldest gospel, Mark, written 60-100 years later and even the more contemporaneous letters of Paul contain no references to the Nativity.
The nativity accouns were NOT written hundreds of years later. Even by the current, critical consensus Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD, which makes them 80-90 years after the events, Mark, as you said, doesn't report anything and no, Mark was not written 60-100 years but, according to the critical consensus 65-70. However, that critical consensus usually dates the gospels (Mark and Luke in particular) way too late based on circular logic.
My theory, Jesus is quite strongly associated with Nazareth and was probably born there. Retro conning him to prophecy requires him to be born in Bethlehem so a story is concocted to make it so. Nobody had access to histories at the time so folk memory suffices, Quirinus is spliced in because older people remember him but cannot date him precisely. It's the way human memory works.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh What known facts, everything is uncertain about the place and date of Jesus birth, all we can really surmise is that he was born, lived and was crucified and that he had a lot of followers, everything else is down to faith not recorded history.
To my surprise, Professor Goldsworthy was willing to stretch historical credibility to its limits to give the orthodox Christian view on the birth of Jesus the benefit of the doubt. However, there is broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the biblical accounts of the Nativity are primarily mythological.
You got a very professional (i.e. impartial) overview of the available evidence, no more, no less. There are already far too many takes on the subject strongly leaning one way or the other, and not enough that simply discuss the wider context, like here.
@WagesOfDestruction So? Why would the core be less mythological than the whole? Because only then can you persist in delusion? Because thats the only way to cherry pick Christ into reality?
That Prof. Goldsworthy retains his humility about the limits of our understanding of history, even after a lifetime of study and celebrated scholarship, is the ultimate proof of his credibility.
@@eudemaniacI don't think it's a sign of humility when he claims that everybody else is ignorant and only he knows. For example he claims nobody can know the date when the gospel of Mark was written, just to claim that he knows it cannot be later than 100 AD.
There is not enough emphasis on the implausibility of the biblical narrative, e.g., the travel back to an ancestor's home for tax purposes. What about the contradictions present in the two biblical accounts? There is too much straying from solid history. What a shame, as this could have been done more rigorously from an academic perspective. The narrative has more to do with apologetics rather than objective historical methodology. Very disappointed. Flaxen Saxon.
@@dyingearth To be fair, the Council of Nicaea did not such thing. Also not what @johnstuart7244 probably thinks it did. The Council if completely irrelevant to the issue.
Can't be sure of that. It may have depended on your living situation and where you lived (e.g. a Roman province vs a client kingdom). Tax collection may have been very inefficient in some regions at this period which saw major changes taking place. Over time it would become more formalized. Also, we know Roman citizens had to be present in Rome in order to vote. They could not vote in absentia.
@@rc8937 Not useful historical reference and utilized for nonsensical assertions. The gospels are fictions from an age which did not recognize the concept.
@@markwrede8878In your opinion. However if you applied the same level of scrutiny to much of the ancient world, many of the things you may think are 'true' have huge doubts cast over them.
The Bible is many things, but accurate History is not one of them. Virtually none of the characters in the OT or NT can be found in the historical record in any way. Indeed, the more we look the less we find.
Virtually NONE? Many from Old Testament times have been found in Assyrian records. And major players in the 1st century A.D. are referenced in the New, e.g. Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and some lesser ones, as Professor Goldsworthy mentioned in this video.
Is the bible itself not a historical record? I mean, what are these historical records you are refering to that are infallible? Are Herodotus, Xenophon or De Bello Gallo 'historical records' by our modern yard stick? Seems crazy to me to just dismiss the bible as having no worth, considering the context of the corpus of that we work with in ancient history.
@@Najahaje-r9u Hey! I just put Augustus in my "Spiderman" comic. Therefore, both are real and knew each other in real life......If professor X says it's true it must be true! Lets count all the Logical Fallacies we both just made... Cheap apologetics always fail.
Step 1: pretend that the Bible is not part of the historical record. Step 2: make yourself ignorant of the reduced historical record as much as possible. Step 3: Write comments like "The Bible is many things, but ..."
Thank you for a nuanced and in-depth discussion of the Biblical accounts and the problems with ancient sources generally. Very balanced and insightful!
Absolutely
the bible is really gay
As a kid in the 60's, I loved to read about history (especially ancient). Watching this awesome video was a nice holiday gift for me. Thank you.
Thank you for this balanced, reasonable investigation.
I picked up How Rome Fell few years back, and I really enjoyed it. I only recently found out that you have an TH-cam channel while watching Invicta. Thank you for this gem!
Adrian you can publish as much content over Christmas as you like, it's all welcome!
It feels weird to call the professor, Adrian, like if I referred to my father as Neil or dude. 😂
Simply tremendous stuff, thank you Mr. Goldsworthy. I hope you and the family have a joy-filled end to the year.
This was perfectly timed to occupy my mind while wrapping gifts this year - thank you!
Hello Mr. Goldsworthy. First I just wanted to say I'm loving your videos and their particular focus on evidence from ancient sources. Second I'm curious what the name of the song you play at the end of your videos is? Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Ave!
Thanks for this early Christmas present. Merry Christmas Dr. Goldsworthy and Gussy the cat!
Mr. Goldsworthy - have you considered the Anno Domini dating to have been originally based on the Julian calendar in which the leap year was fixed under Augustus (1BC) and retrofitted to be Christ’s birthday?
A sane and helpful placing of these narratives in a wider context. I was always told that Classicists treated the New Testament texts as they did other works from this time and culture. The results of their work is usually much less sensational and more soundly based than of many biblical scholars. I was taught by John Robinson who believed in the early dating of much NT material and whose instruction for an essay on these narratives was summed up in these words: " I want theology not gynaecology!" I suspect if Matthew and Luke are looking down on this discussion they might well be asking why the Churches ignore so much of their narratives? When did you hear Matthew's riveting genealogy read in church yet alone discussed or delve into its number codes? How many people like the Lucan narrative with the OT stories of women considered barren and the fulfilment coming in the gift of a special child? Puzzles we can solve and we never return but mysteries are another matter ....
Thank you for a very even-handed lecture on this subject.
Perfect timing
Thank you for this video. Would anyone have scholarship or sources discussing a historical Jesus? I'm not against religious texts for this, but am interested in reading as much I can find.
Regarding the census:
Why would a census require everyone to go to their ancestral hometown? Wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to be in the town they currently live in for taxation purposes? Did the actual census of Quirinius in 6 CE require this travel to an ancestral hometown?
Besides, what is an "ancestral hometown"? If someone asked you what your ancestral hometown is what would you say? How would you know (without the internet and unable to read) what your ancestral home was 1,000 years ago? Additionally, I can't imagine major disruption such travel would have over the whole Roman Empire.
Regarding Christmas:
Augustine he writes in ‘On the Trinity’ (c. 399 - 419) : ‘For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.’
"According to tradition" prophets die on the same day the are conceived; therefore, if Jesus died and was conceived March 25 that places his birth on December 25.
Because people usually have property there and were known there.
There are documented examples of people going back to their hometwon for registration (not for the 6 AD "census" but that date is out of the question anyway).
PS. Note that the gospel doesn't actually speak of "taxation purposes".
You're absolutely right. It's utterly idiotic and unheard of that people had to return to their ancestral hometown (whatever that means anyways), which would defeat the purpose of a census in every way imaginable. Here's the human need and desire to make up something about their alleged god and tie him to (the equally fictional) David. It's so shamelessly and oviously made up, yet people even today believe that nonsense.
I think this is simply a narrative invention by the author to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, to fulfill several Old Testament prophecies.
Both gospels agreed Jesus lived in Nazareth and had his ministry there, so both needed to find a way to explain why he wasn't born there, despite living there his whole life. So Matthew came up with a story of Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem but being forced to flee, and then relocating to Nazareth, while in Luke they already lived in Nazareth and only had to go to Bethlehem temporarily because of the census and this weird stipulation that you had to go to the hometown of your ancestors who lived 1000 years ago.
@frankvandorp9732 Nobody speaks of an ancestor 1000 years ago. You basically rejecting what all sources without competition tell: that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in favour mere feelings.
@@frankvandorp9732 BINGO
Interesting video. Actually made me think that a video on Philo and Josephus may be worthwhile. As I understand it, Josephus' account of Jesus may represent later additions to text (basically forgeries when it comes to a few sentences/points), but that people seem to feel his account of John the Baptist is legitimate. What are your thoughts?
The obvious issue with trying to place Quirinius in Syria in 4BC is that there is no reason to do so, as there is no indication that Quirinius ever held such a position earlier, or that any census was held then (if that was even possible when Judea was still a client kingdom and not part of the Roman Empire). These theories assume a lot of very unlikely and contrived events and coincidences, none of which are supported by any historical evidence, because the only reason these theories were invented is because people want the Gospels to be true. No objective reading of the evidence would ever lead someone to believe these theories.
If any other historical source talked about the reign of Herod the Great being contemporary with the census of Quirinius, we would simply conclude that source was mistaken and misplaced one of these two events by ten years in the chronology and no one would bat an eye.
A noble effort Professor, one that will be wasted on the anti-christians who will respond with venom. I have always tried to put the Torah and scriptures into historical reference and appreciate your video. To expect different accounts of events to agree entirely is to ignore the evidence we have from our own court proceedings where eyewitnesses can't agree on details.
Firstly you can stop playing the victimised Xtian card,
Secondly, there are no eye witness accounts written in
the Gospels...all are drawn from word of mouth oral tradition
many decades after any alleged event..further the gospels
are written in Koine Greek by anonymous authors in lands
outside the Levant...Mark even gets the geographical layout/
directions wrong, so clearly the author and source don't know
the region...but don't worry you can still keep your faith despite
the Jesus narrative being fictional for the most part.
@r0ky_M Nothing of what you said is accurate which is insane considering how many claims you made
It’s not because we don’t have evidence if this census that it didn’t exist.
Very informative thanks.
The census was about Property Tax and ownership. That’s why the Jews had to return to their ancestral land and be recorded as owners for the Romans. Joseph and Mary’s ancestral land was in the area of Bethlehem
Ancestral land, but no property to stay at? What benefit would Rome have from this kind of census?
The Josephus gloss: having some experience with faked / forged documents I have never seen, nor am I aware of favourable document that was "improved" it is invariably a negative or neutral document that gets the improvement. On this basis, absent new evidence, my opinion is that the original work was not favourable to Christianity.
It speaks volumes of the false intellectuals who follow the great Adrian Goldsworthy nowadays that commenters refute the existence of Jesus Christ when that was never discussed in the video beyond Mr. Goldsworthy stating that we do know Jesus existed and we do know Jesus died.
The tl;dw for anyone who hasn't watched the video yet is a discussion of the date of birth of Jesus Christ (which we don't know as fact), and that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
If his year of birth matters not, Then why specifically call
him "Jesus Christ"..was that his official moniker at the time?
@@r0ky_M Your question makes as much sense as "If there are no tomatoes in the dog's den, would a submarine float above England."
Whatever an "official moniker" is suppoesed to be ... if you mean what name Jesus's passport would show (if passports existed) then it would be "Jesus, son of Joseph". That's how ancient Jewish names work.
@@str.77 so title "Jesus Christ" is just church marketing crapola.
@@r0ky_M Jeshua ben Yussef
@@r0ky_M What? This makes no sense.
What does his moniker have to do with him being born in 0 AD, 1 AD, 3 AD, or 4 BC? (or any other year)
Thank you.
The dating of Christmas is not related to temporally proximate pagan rites or festivals. It is actually based upon the date of the Crucifixion filtered through ancient ideas about the conceptions and deaths of great men and prophets. The tldr version: for great men it was believed that the dates of the conceptions and deaths of great men happened on the same day of the year. Jesus was executed on March 25th. That would then be his date of conception. Work forward 9 months and you get December 25th. Hence, the dating of the celebration of the birth of Christ, no pagan connotations whatsoever.
I have also heard this.
Matthew 2:14 states that Joe and family went to Egypt until
the death of Herod. Luke 2:39, says that they waited 40 days
for the pupose of Purification ritual at the temple in Jerusalem,
and went thence to Nazareth. ...Which is correct?”
Probably neither?
I have heard it said that there is a big gap between the ritual and going to Nazareth (Luke's account). The justification being that each author takes emphasis on different events. Herod's order is to kill male children under 2 years of age, so that timeline can be anywhere between Jesus's birth to 2 years of age. At the end of the day, the mind will justify and rationalize what you want given the evidence. I understand my bias, but I rationalize (perhaps more than I would other sources) the Gospel accounts as facts, so that is what I will believe.
When I see 40 days, my spider senses immediately start to tingle. That number often is not used as an exact measurement, but as a symbolic reference to testing or probation. Christians have the flood story, Moses and the Temptation, and even in Islam you will see the use of 40 days (Idda - mourning).
They're both fabricated stories for different reasons
@@vatsmith8759 Exactly, everything was pasted together from different accounts created many years after these literary elements were alleged to have occurred.
If at my son's birth 3 wise men bearing gifts turned up at the maternity ward, I think I'd remember it. Later, kids in the village would yell at him "hey, got any frankinsense left? Any gold?" But no, the family just seemed to forget about it. At least mum would think, "hey, I didn't have sex with anyone, I got pregnant, an archangel visited me, I wasn't stoned to death, what the fuck is going on?"
1:59 @maklelan has debunked this pagan origins thing multiple times.
As has Religion for Breakfast
Ok the exact date 25th is definitely not associated with any specific celebration, but that doesn’t mean that Christmas has no relation to earlier winter solstice celebrations.
@@curtiswilson859 It has no relationship to earlier (or later) winter solstice celebrations. It is based entirely off of the date of Jesus crucifixion.
Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinious did the census in 6CE. 10 year discrepancy. Fail.
Zacharias served the course of Abijah at the Temple, which is the 8th week. He went home and knocked Elizabeth up. She would be 6 months pregnant late December when Mary was accosted. So her parturition would be end September early October. 12/25 Epic Fail
It's commonly acknowledged in Christianity that December 25 is a matter of convenience to co-opt pagan celebrations.
Thank you for this discussion.
I remember learning in high school that Muhammad was described as the most documented person in medieval history. However, I was also taught that if religious texts were excluded, there would be only very dubious records to report on him. It sounds much the same with Jesus. One interesting point is that Muhammad was a much more important person in his lifetime and came much later, so one would expect more.
There’s nothing close to the reliability of the gospels because no one wrote down anything about Islam for two centuries after the prophet’s death. In contrast, the synoptic gospels are from at the latest ~70 years after Jesus’s death.
@curtiswilson859 I think you will find written evidence for both earlier then that.
@@WagesOfDestructionNo he’s correct, there’s a massive source problem with early Islamic history. There’s next to nothing written down prior to the Umayyad period.
@@johndean8518You are touching on a problem that I also find puzzling.
Saying 'next to nothing' is a bit of a stretch, though I agree that the sources for early Islamic history are sparse and often problematic.
I find this lack of contemporary documentation surprising, especially given that Muhammad, according to Islamic texts, was a significant leader who interacted with communities known for strong literary traditions, such as Persians, Christians, and Jews. One would expect more written records from his time or at least corroboration from external sources.
For example, we have non-Islamic sources like the Doctrina Jacobi from the 7th century, which may refer to Muhammad. However, this text is inconsistent with later Islamic writings and reflects a hostile perspective, making it unreliable as a historical source.
Graves and coins from the period provide some evidence of early Islamic governance, but again they offer limited insight into Muhammad's life or the early Muslim community.
One significant issue with early Quranic manuscripts is that radiocarbon dating only tells us the age of the parchment, not when the text was written on it. For example, the Birmingham Quran Manuscript which is likely the earliest Quranic fragment we have. Radiocarbon analysis dates its parchment to between 568 and 645 CE, with paleographic studies suggesting it was written in the mid-7th century CE-around 13 years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE.
Given Muhammad’s reported influence and interactions with literate communities, it remains puzzling why more contemporary records don’t exist.
The purpose of a census is to record where you live and work in order to later come back and make you pay up. The authorities would not be interested in where your ancestors are from. But for Luke it’s important to demonstrate that scriptures are fullfilled so he invents a reason to place Jesus in Bethlehem. It’s a beautiful story, but that’s what it is, not history.
The Nativity story was written hundreds of years after the alleged events. The oldest gospel, Mark, written 60-100 years later and even the more contemporaneous letters of Paul contain no references to the Nativity.
Mathew and Luke were written 'hundreds' of years later.. really.. have you done your homework on this? *Nose grows*
The nativity accouns were NOT written hundreds of years later. Even by the current, critical consensus Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD, which makes them 80-90 years after the events, Mark, as you said, doesn't report anything and no, Mark was not written 60-100 years but, according to the critical consensus 65-70.
However, that critical consensus usually dates the gospels (Mark and Luke in particular) way too late based on circular logic.
My theory, Jesus is quite strongly associated with Nazareth and was probably born there. Retro conning him to prophecy requires him to be born in Bethlehem so a story is concocted to make it so. Nobody had access to histories at the time so folk memory suffices, Quirinus is spliced in because older people remember him but cannot date him precisely. It's the way human memory works.
Nice theory, but it doesn't fit the known facts - which you simply dismiss for the sake of the theory.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh What known facts, everything is uncertain about the place and date of Jesus birth, all we can really surmise is that he was born, lived and was crucified and that he had a lot of followers, everything else is down to faith not recorded history.
@inregionecaecorum Uncertain according to you. Your opinion is noted.
It would also fit for Jesus to be a Samaritan rather than a Jew.
@@Berean_with_a_BThwhat facts do you believe you have that others are rejecting
It sounds like the latest Labour relaunch.
orld
To my surprise, Professor Goldsworthy was willing to stretch historical credibility to its limits to give the orthodox Christian view on the birth of Jesus the benefit of the doubt. However, there is broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the biblical accounts of the Nativity are primarily mythological.
I doubt that the essential core is a myth.
You got a very professional (i.e. impartial) overview of the available evidence, no more, no less. There are already far too many takes on the subject strongly leaning one way or the other, and not enough that simply discuss the wider context, like here.
@WagesOfDestruction So? Why would the core be less mythological than the whole? Because only then can you persist in delusion? Because thats the only way to cherry pick Christ into reality?
That Prof. Goldsworthy retains his humility about the limits of our understanding of history, even after a lifetime of study and celebrated scholarship, is the ultimate proof of his credibility.
@@eudemaniacI don't think it's a sign of humility when he claims that everybody else is ignorant and only he knows. For example he claims nobody can know the date when the gospel of Mark was written, just to claim that he knows it cannot be later than 100 AD.
There is not enough emphasis on the implausibility of the biblical narrative, e.g., the travel back to an ancestor's home for tax purposes. What about the contradictions present in the two biblical accounts? There is too much straying from solid history. What a shame, as this could have been done more rigorously from an academic perspective. The narrative has more to do with apologetics rather than objective historical methodology. Very disappointed. Flaxen Saxon.
The conference at Nicea has a lot to answer for.
To be fair, Nicea was trying to nail down the date for the resurrection.
@@dyingearth To be fair, the Council of Nicaea did not such thing.
Also not what @johnstuart7244 probably thinks it did.
The Council if completely irrelevant to the issue.
Which decree and never did anyone move about for tax collection. Fail.
Can't be sure of that. It may have depended on your living situation and where you lived (e.g. a Roman province vs a client kingdom). Tax collection may have been very inefficient in some regions at this period which saw major changes taking place. Over time it would become more formalized.
Also, we know Roman citizens had to be present in Rome in order to vote. They could not vote in absentia.
@@rc8937 Not useful historical reference and utilized for nonsensical assertions. The gospels are fictions from an age which did not recognize the concept.
@@markwrede8878In your opinion. However if you applied the same level of scrutiny to much of the ancient world, many of the things you may think are 'true' have huge doubts cast over them.
argumentum ex silentio
And the gospels never speak of "tax collection" in that context.
OMG I was wondering about why the fark you have to travel to a different town to be taxed... Hmmmm....
The Bible is many things, but accurate History is not one of them. Virtually none of the characters in the OT or NT can be found in the historical record in any way. Indeed, the more we look the less we find.
Virtually NONE? Many from Old Testament times have been found in Assyrian records. And major players in the 1st century A.D. are referenced in the New, e.g. Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and some lesser ones, as Professor Goldsworthy mentioned in this video.
Is the bible itself not a historical record? I mean, what are these historical records you are refering to that are infallible? Are Herodotus, Xenophon or De Bello Gallo 'historical records' by our modern yard stick? Seems crazy to me to just dismiss the bible as having no worth, considering the context of the corpus of that we work with in ancient history.
@@Najahaje-r9u Hey! I just put Augustus in my "Spiderman" comic. Therefore, both are real and knew each other in real life......If professor X says it's true it must be true! Lets count all the Logical Fallacies we both just made...
Cheap apologetics always fail.
Step 1: pretend that the Bible is not part of the historical record.
Step 2: make yourself ignorant of the reduced historical record as much as possible.
Step 3: Write comments like "The Bible is many things, but ..."
@@KarlKarsnark No, Karsnarking fails. You know about your comic book shenanigans (and now we know), but you merely assuming that about the Bible.