Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of the Christian faith? What can we really know about Him?

These questions were explored by ABC a few years ago in a two-hour special entitled, "The Search for Jesus," hosted by Peter Jennings. Well, after it aired, we became aware that many scholars wanted to give a second opinion about what was said.

You know about second opinions. If your doctor diagnoses you with a serious illness, and you question his diagnosis, you would not hesitate to ask for a second opinion. Well, many of the conclusions given about Jesus in the ABC Special didn’t seem to ring true, and so we decided to check with 13 other doctors and ask them for a second opinion. We even talked to a few of the same scholars ABC did, just to make sure we were hearing them correctly.

The ABC Special raised many questions about the events and people surrounding Jesus’ birth. Have the Gospel writers presented accurate, historical information? Did Luke make historical errors in dating Jesus’ birth just before a Roman census was taken? Maybe one of the biggest problems people have is with the miraculous aspect of the virgin birth itself. Dr. N. T. Wright taught at Oxford University in England for 22 years. He is respected as one of the foremost historical Jesus scholars in the world today. We talked with him about how he approaches the virgin birth of Jesus as a historian.

In the ABC Special Peter Jennings said, "One thing that almost everyone we talked to agrees on is the religious power of these stories;" – talking about the stories in the New Testament and especially the Christmas story – "they don’t depend on whether they can be verified by historical analysis." What do you think about that?

You may have picked up a newspaper and read the opinions of a group of scholars referred to as the Jesus Seminar. Well, many people assume that the opinions of this group represent what most scholars think about Jesus. We decided to ask scholars in Canada, America, Europe and here in Israel how they evaluated the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, and what they said might surprise you.

What about in scholarly circles in our own country? When you go to your meetings with the other scholars, do they lead the way?

Now, during the ABC Special, some of the professors of the Jesus Seminar said Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, He was born in Nazareth; that the story of Jesus’ birth was simply fabricated by the early church after Christ passed off the scene. But if one follows the logic of the critics, if some Christians created the story Jesus was born in Bethlehem, then there should have been other Christians creating stories that Jesus was born somewhere else. But that is not the case. Historians know that all the traditions, all the stories, all the accounts that have come down to us about where Jesus was born identify only one city, the city of Bethlehem, as being the place where it happened.

In terms of Bethlehem again, were there any other spots, geographical spots, that tradition grew up around that Jesus was born there, or is it only this spot?

Claire Pfann is a faculty member at the Center for the Study of Early Christianity and assistant dean for academic affairs at the University of the Holy Land. She is an expert on Jewish birth practices and the culture of Bethlehem during the time of Jesus. I asked her to summarize some of the information found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus.

Historians think Jesus was born before April of 4 B.C. Why? Evidence from Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5 tell us Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still living. Herod died while Jesus was less than two years old, according to Matthew 2:15. Historians have calculated Herod’s death happened in 4 B.C. They’ve done so on the basis of Romans records and the writings of Josephus where he tells about an eclipse of the moon that occurred the year Herod died. That eclipse has been dated as happening about March 12 of 4 B.C. Further, Josephus tells us that the Passover that year occurred soon after Herod’s son, Archelaus, assumed the kingship. Historians know the Passover occurred on April 17 of 4 B.C. Therefore, when you put all these facts together, since Jesus was born shortly before Herod’s death, he must have been born before April 4 B.C. or possibly a short time before that in 5 B.C.

For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census Luke presents in Chapter 2, verses 1 and 2.

Luke writes: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child."

So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.

First, there is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?

Second, in a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.

Third, a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.

Fourth, Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.

Fifth, Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.

In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings Special and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today.

Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.

Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.

But concerning that problem, the newly published Dictionary of New Testament Background states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.

Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.

So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.

The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events.

But what about Luke’s reference, "this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?

Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.

The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.

Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.

Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census." This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.

Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?

This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.

Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.

Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.

Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.

So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.

One final question. Were the Gospels written so long afterwards that the Gospel writers could get away with bringing in something that was completely fictitious like a virgin birth and nobody else knew about it?