Tea Syriac Gospel of Infancy states that Augustus Caesar ordered the enrollment of each man in his native land in the “year 309 of the age of Alexander”. That statement, if correct, would seem to date the birth of Jesus fairly definitively. However, most scholars would almost certainly agree that Alexander the Great became King of Macedon in 336 BC. C., that the accession of Alexander to the Macedonian throne would have reasonably constituted the beginning of the “age of Alexander”, and that the “year 309 of the age of Alexander” would therefore correspond to approximately 28 a. C., several decades before the traditional date of the birth of Jesus. Therefore, such an early date would suggest that either the Syriac Gospel of Infancy Either he was grossly ignorant of the true date of Jesus’ birth or our modern understanding of when Jesus supposedly lived is grossly wrong.
Interestingly, a similar dating problem is also clearly present in the Gospel of Luke regarding the inscription that preceded the birth of Jesus. Tea Gospel of Luke he famously claims that Caesar Augustus 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. 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 assert that Quirinius served as “acting” governor sometime before 6 CE and that Quirinius had taken another census in Judea sometime during that time that he somehow never did. had registered.
What we have then are two documents that both attempt to establish the date of the census that preceded the birth of Jesus. One document attempts to date the inscription by referring to 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., referring to known rulers and related events). And interestingly, it seems that both documents fail to reach any kind of consensus on when the supposed inscription took place.
Interestingly, he had Syriac Gospel of Infancy and the Gospel of Luke Both clearly pointing to the exact same event, they would have provided a very convincing date for the birth of Jesus. However, as passed down through history, these documents seem to contradict each other, as well as some fairly well-established facts. Thus, instead of appearing to be in harmony with each other, they seem 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 according to scholars took place in 311 BC The “age of Alexander” effectively ended in that year; therefore, there never was such a thing as “the year 309 of the age of Alexander”. However, there was a year 309 in the Seleucid Era, and that year essentially corresponds to 3 BC. C., very close to the date traditionally given for the birth of Jesus. So it seems quite likely that the original Syriac text reads “the year 309 after Alexander’s era” and that there was a translation error that led to the word of being replaced by the word after.
One should also take another closer look at the Gospel of Luke. Tea Gospel of Lukeas passed down over the years, states that the inscription was the first registration that took place weather Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, as the Syriac Gospel of Infancyall dating problems miraculously disappear if the word prior to 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 familiar with the census taken by Quirinius in AD 6 (which was the only census taken by him after he became governor) mistranslated the passage into Luke so he was referring to that later census rather than the earlier registration.
In fact, an earlier inscription took place in Judea before 6 CE. On February 5 from 2 a.m. to 5 p.m. C., Caesar Augustus was granted the title fatherland, meaning “father of the country”, by the Roman Senate. As others have noted, as part of the process of granting that title to Augustus, residents of all Roman provinces were ordered to take an oath of allegiance to Augustus as their new patriarch. A 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 as swearing in their new patriarch, Augustus. Additionally, each resident’s oath to Augustus had to be recorded in an official public registry or register; one could not simply state that they had or had not taken the oath. In fact, such an oath is practiced to this day; when someone becomes a citizen of the United States, for example, he takes an oath of allegiance to the United States and, at the same time, renounces his previous citizenship, and the oath is recorded as part of a public record.
Now someone might point out that 2 B.C. C. and 3 a. C. differ by one year. However, the Babylonian calendar year began in 1 Nisanu, which would be at the end of March or beginning of April. Thus, as reported in the Syriac Gospel of InfancyFebruary 2, 2 a.m. C. would have actually fallen at the end of the tale in the year 309 of the Seleucid Era.
Of course, stubborn critics might argue that such a deal is pure coincidence and/or the result of extremely clever manufacturing. Such critics, however, should ask themselves whether they doubt these things because they are not true or because they wish they were. When two unrelated witnesses on close examination appear to tell the same story, one must be careful before denouncing their testimonies.
