The Census at the birth of Christ

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's what they were called when Josephus was writing. What evidence have you that the areas didn't become officially distinct at the time Herod the Great's kingdom was divided and not before? What evidence have you that the whole area was not called Judea before the death of Herod the Great?

These borders do not correspond to the Roman Province of Judaea nor Archelaus's tetrachy. They are thus the Jewish perspective and correlate roughly with biblical descriptions of the borders of the Southern Kingdom of Juda. To suggest the name was expanded for some reason between the two makes no sense especcially as it was not normal naming practice to do so.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Once More: Quirinius's Census
Two Recent Archaeological Discoveries
http://www.equip.org/article/the-search-for-jesus-hoax/
http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html

 

[patdee]

Once More: Quirinius's Census
Two Recent Archaeological Discoveries
http://www.equip.org/article/the-search-for-jesus-hoax/
http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html

-

It is a pure waste of time to read the links you posted. The following is why.

First of all, Peter Jennings has got to be one of THE most quintessential fools ever born ; and he died an UN timely death because of his foolish, shortly AFTER he came up with his satan-led, Godless, liberal, "Jesus" garbage.

His death was also brought about by his taking part in a satan-led, "three-some act", of trying to destroy the 2nd term of President Bush. His accomplices also got theirs too. For Dan "Blabber" went down in disgrace and Tom "Brokenjaw" became the last remaining "has -been", that ended the so called "Icons of nightly news". Oh yes indeed!

Secondly: "Dead Sea" findings; and many other so-called "findings" are nothing worth even reading about; BECAUSE all of these "finding" are promulgated and used BY satan; to once again brainwash the world into believing egregious lies about Jesus and Christianity; while at the same time, believing in and lauding EVERY known evil since creation. Oh indeed YES!

And believe it or not; even Jesus helps non believers, to believe in lies. Oh yes:

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God (Jesus) shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Finally: As the late Dr James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries once said, "There is more proof of Jesus and his gospel; than there is that Napoleon lived". As such, the following true life story has been repeated 10's of thousands of times since Jesus died:

There was an ardent atheistic "jew"; who set out to PROVE, beyond any shadow of a doubt; that the entire story of Jesus was a myth. He even went so far as to espouse that the supposed "disciples of Jesus" stole his body while in the tomb; and they revived him, since he was NOT yet dead; to prove Jesus' prophetic words: "Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will build it back".

This satan-led, Godless "jew", spent 10 long years with a fervor second to none; as he interviewed 100's of "so-called" eyewitnesses to the "so-called" miracles Jesus was "supposed" to have done. Yea; he was relentless with a drive fomented in hell.

He even wrote a book to prove, once and for all, that Jesus was NOTHING but a fake "Messiah".

However; as has happened to millions of his satan-led, "ilk" ever since, he ended his book by profoundly saying, "The evidence was just TOO overwhelming to be a myth. And I am proud to say that I am now a Christian".

Oh indeed. Praise Jesus!

This has happened in countless millions of attempts; by satan-led, Godless atheists and agnostics, etc, over the last 2,000 yrs; who have tried in vain to prove that Jesus was NOT deified and all the wonderful "miracles" NEVER happened. Etc, etc, and ETC!

The links you posted are just another satan-led, Godless, liberal attempt; that will once again be debunked by unmistakable, credible evidence that Jesus WAS what He said He was; and He DID perform real miracles; and His death, crucifixion, burial and resurrection; and his ascension into the clouds (on His way back to Heaven); DID happen.

Believe it or not.

Praise His Holy Name!

In any case, may Jesus richly bless you and yours always.

 

[Dirk1540]

Hey @Quid est Veritas? This was the subject that I was confused about when I told you that I would resurrect the thread. It seems like the more I read all of the posts however (along with your thread with @Deborah~) that I got a little overwhelmed and almost didn't know what to ask anymore, lots to take in!

But there was a couple questions, first, I recall it being mentioned but not really elaborated on, is it true that Luke's Greek could loosely mean 'GovernING' as opposed to a literal Governor? Where a shared type of governing, or even a ruling in name only, could be loosely accurate then if Luke says "'When Quirinius was 'Governing'"? Or am I reaching?

And I guess I'll just ask some clarification questions after reading all of this, do we actually have 3 problems? #1 the proof that Quirinius was Governor/Governing, #2 the proof that a worldwide census even existed, and #3 the proof that Joseph & Mary would even be required to make the journey? Am I understanding it correctly that all 3 are a problem?

I know that Bible difficulties will come down to 'Possibilities' at times as opposed to solutions. Yeah this is an interesting puzzle. I do like what the one poster suggested when he/she said that Joseph & Mary CHOSE to go down instead of having to go down. The reason I liked that suggestion is because I was thinking that the move was necessary in order to set up the chess board (prophecies) for things that had to take place afterwards (the birth and the wise men, leading to the massacre by Harod, leading to the flight to Egypt, etc). Just a thought. I haven't chewed on this enough to throw out any serious theories yet though.

Augustus did three Lustra, or censusses of Roman Citizens, not the 'whole world'. This is what the Gestae records and even lists the numbers as about 5 million (out of a probable population of about 60 million in the Empire by modern estimations). No Roman author records a census of ALL the inhabitants and such a novel thing would surely have been mentioned. The Romans did censusses province by province at fixed intervals, the Indiction, and this likely is how readers would have understood Luke - not the modern fallacy of an empire-wide census.

I feel like here you started driving at a great point but maybe didn't follow through. Luke is not an incompetent author, hmm, there's gotta be an explanation behind him calling a local provincial fixed interval census a 'Whole World' census. So you're pointing out in your post that such a thing simply didn't exist, and that modern readers of Luke would have known not to interpret it as existing because they too knew it didn't exist...AND we know Luke is a meticulous historian! I feel like you were on the verge of a great point but stopped short, what were you driving at? The wording does seem very odd for Luke if those factors were common knowledge!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Hey @Quid est Veritas? This was the subject that I was confused about when I told you that I would resurrect the thread. It seems like the more I read all of the posts however (along with your thread with @Deborah~) that I got a little overwhelmed and almost didn't know what to ask anymore, lots to take in!

But there was a couple questions, first, I recall it being mentioned but not really elaborated on, is it true that Luke's Greek could loosely mean 'GovernING' as opposed to a literal Governor? Where a shared type of governing, or even a ruling in name only, could be loosely accurate then if Luke says "'When Quirinius was 'Governing'"? Or am I reaching?

This doesn't actually matter. What people forget or do not know, is the nature of Roman officials in question. Syria was an Imperial province, which therefore fell directly within the Imperium of Augustus. Therefore, its 'Governor' via his proconsular imperium, was Augustus himself. All Syrian governors were therefore Legates of Augustus, bearing delegated authority ftom him, and appointed to their post by him. They were not officially appointed by the Senate nor in Augustus' time by the Curia. If Quirinius was 'governing' in Syria, he was thus the Governor, as much as Quinctilius Varus or Germanicus or anyone else ever appointed to the post. There is no functional difference, nor would Romans have differentiated the two concepts, as regardless it was just delegated Imperium at play here.

And I guess I'll just ask some clarification questions after reading all of this, do we actually have 3 problems? #1 the proof that Quirinius was Governor/Governing, #2 the proof that a worldwide census even existed, and #3 the proof that Joseph & Mary would even be required to make the journey? Am I understanding it correctly that all 3 are a problem?

1 is a problem, as we have no reason to suspect Quirinius to be governing earlier then 6 AD, and every reason to think he was not, as such a post is never mentioned in panegyrics where we would expect it.

2 is not a problem, as we don't need nor should expect a "worldwide census" in the sense that modern people read into the text. This is merely an artifact of anachronistic reading.

3 is problematic, as this certainly goes against customary Roman usages. It is an issue regardless, as Matthew seems to suggest prior Bethlehem residence with a later move to Nazareth, so is incongruent.

I know that Bible difficulties will come down to 'Possibilities' at times as opposed to solutions. Yeah this is an interesting puzzle. I do like what the one poster suggested when he/she said that Joseph & Mary CHOSE to go down instead of having to go down. The reason I liked that suggestion is because I was thinking that the move was necessary in order to set up the chess board (prophecies) for things that had to take place afterwards (the birth and the wise men, leading to the massacre by Harod, leading to the flight to Egypt, etc). Just a thought. I haven't chewed on this enough to throw out any serious theories yet though.

Yes, this has occured to me as well. My wife and I live more than 1000km from where we grew up, but we travelled there for the birth of our daughter, as our parents live there and could support us. Maybe Joseph did something similar? Afterall, he was of the house of David and Bethlehem is the city of David.

I feel like here you started driving at a great point but maybe didn't follow through. Luke is not an incompetent author, hmm, there's gotta be an explanation behind him calling a local provincial fixed interval census a 'Whole World' census. So you're pointing out in your post that such a thing simply didn't exist, and that modern readers of Luke would have known not to interpret it as existing because they too knew it didn't exist...AND we know Luke is a meticulous historian! I feel like you were on the verge of a great point but stopped short, what were you driving at? The wording does seem very odd for Luke if those factors were common knowledge!

There was no worldwide census in the modern sense of everyone being counted at the same time. The problem is not Luke, but anachronistic reading of the passage. There were provincial Roman censuses done at intervals for taxation, though. First century readers would have understood Augustus calling for a universal census as that all should be counted and assessed for tax, but not necessarily at the same time. The passage should be properly understood that an accounting of everyone in the Empire was to be performed, meaning provincial censuses undertaken at fixed intervals depending on the province, and the year this was first done in Judaea, under Quirinius, was when Jesus was said to be born. It does not mean that a specific year an Empire-wide census had to have been done, as this was unnecessary and impractical in the first century, nor is this what the text calls for, as it is specifically connected to the first of the cyclical Indiction censuses in Judaea.


The Lustra were only of Citizens, which was basically only Italy and a few local elites, which was far simpler and easier done. Rome didn't have a fixed bureaucratic machinery at this stage, with each magistrate apportioning duties to his freedmen, juniors and hangers-on as he saw fit. The Lustra just entailed updating the citizen rolls by adding new grants by Augustus, and removing the dead and adding births. Hardly a universal census at all.
If Augustus did a universal census in the modern sense, he certainly would have mentioned it in his Res Gestae.

 

[JackRT]

This doesn't actually matter. What people forget or do not know, is the nature of Roman officials in question. Syria was an Imperial province, which therefore fell directly within the Imperium of Augustus. Therefore, its 'Governor' via his proconsular imperium, was Augustus himself. All Syrian governors were therefore Legates of Augustus, bearing delegated authority ftom him, and appointed to their post by him. They were not officially appointed by the Senate nor in Augustus' time by the Curia. If Quirinius was 'governing' in Syria, he was thus the Governor, as much as Quinctilius Varus or Germanicus or anyone else ever appointed to the post. There is no functional difference, nor would Romans have differentiated the two concepts, as regardless it was just delegated Imperium at play here.


1 is a problem, as we have no reason to suspect Quirinius to be governing earlier then 6 AD, and every reason to think he was not, as such a post is never mentioned in panegyrics where we would expect it.

2 is not a problem, as we don't need nor should expect a "worldwide census" in the sense that modern people read into the text. This is merely an artifact of anachronistic reading.

3 is problematic, as this certainly goes against customary Roman usages. It is an issue regardless, as Matthew seems to suggest prior Bethlehem residence with a later move to Nazareth, so is incongruent.

Yes, this has occured to me as well. My wife and I live more than 1000km from where we grew up, but we travelled there for the birth of our daughter, as our parents live there and could support us. Maybe Joseph did something similar? Afterall, he was of the house of David and Bethlehem is the city of David.


There was no worldwide census in the modern sense of everyone being counted at the same time. The problem is not Luke, but anachronistic reading of the passage. There were provincial Roman censuses done at intervals for taxation, though. First century readers would have understood Augustus calling for a universal census as that all should be counted and assessed for tax, but not necessarily at the same time. The passage should be properly understood that an accounting of everyone in the Empire was to be performed, meaning provincial censuses undertaken at fixed intervals depending on the province, and the year this was first done in Judaea, under Quirinius, was when Jesus was said to be born. It does not mean that a specific year an Empire-wide census had to have been done, as this was unnecessary and impractical in the first century, nor is this what the text calls for, as it is specifically connected to the first of the cyclical Indiction censuses in Judaea.


The Lustra were only of Citizens, which was basically only Italy and a few local elites, which was far simpler and easier done. Rome didn't have a fixed bureaucratic machinery at this stage, with each magistrate apportioning duties to his freedmen, juniors and hangers-on as he saw fit. The Lustra just entailed updating the citizen rolls by adding new grants by Augustus, and removing the dead and adding births. Hardly a universal census at all.
If Augustus did a universal census in the modern sense, he certainly would have mentioned it in his Res Gestae.

There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.


The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them . Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

 

[Dirk1540]

Good move bumping your post up @JackRT. @2PhiloVoid posted a link early on that people liked as well,

A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2

This doesn't actually matter. What people forget or do not know, is the nature of Roman officials in question. Syria was an Imperial province, which therefore fell directly within the Imperium of Augustus. Therefore, its 'Governor' via his proconsular imperium, was Augustus himself. All Syrian governors were therefore Legates of Augustus, bearing delegated authority ftom him, and appointed to their post by him. They were not officially appointed by the Senate nor in Augustus' time by the Curia. If Quirinius was 'governing' in Syria, he was thus the Governor, as much as Quinctilius Varus or Germanicus or anyone else ever appointed to the post. There is no functional difference, nor would Romans have differentiated the two concepts, as regardless it was just delegated Imperium at play here.


1 is a problem, as we have no reason to suspect Quirinius to be governing earlier then 6 AD, and every reason to think he was not, as such a post is never mentioned in panegyrics where we would expect it.

2 is not a problem, as we don't need nor should expect a "worldwide census" in the sense that modern people read into the text. This is merely an artifact of anachronistic reading.

3 is problematic, as this certainly goes against customary Roman usages. It is an issue regardless, as Matthew seems to suggest prior Bethlehem residence with a later move to Nazareth, so is incongruent.

Yes, this has occured to me as well. My wife and I live more than 1000km from where we grew up, but we travelled there for the birth of our daughter, as our parents live there and could support us. Maybe Joseph did something similar? Afterall, he was of the house of David and Bethlehem is the city of David.


There was no worldwide census in the modern sense of everyone being counted at the same time. The problem is not Luke, but anachronistic reading of the passage. There were provincial Roman censuses done at intervals for taxation, though. First century readers would have understood Augustus calling for a universal census as that all should be counted and assessed for tax, but not necessarily at the same time. The passage should be properly understood that an accounting of everyone in the Empire was to be performed, meaning provincial censuses undertaken at fixed intervals depending on the province, and the year this was first done in Judaea, under Quirinius, was when Jesus was said to be born. It does not mean that a specific year an Empire-wide census had to have been done, as this was unnecessary and impractical in the first century, nor is this what the text calls for, as it is specifically connected to the first of the cyclical Indiction censuses in Judaea.


The Lustra were only of Citizens, which was basically only Italy and a few local elites, which was far simpler and easier done. Rome didn't have a fixed bureaucratic machinery at this stage, with each magistrate apportioning duties to his freedmen, juniors and hangers-on as he saw fit. The Lustra just entailed updating the citizen rolls by adding new grants by Augustus, and removing the dead and adding births. Hardly a universal census at all.
If Augustus did a universal census in the modern sense, he certainly would have mentioned it in his Res Gestae.

This added some clarity for me, thanks. Quinctilius and Quirinius are pretty close, so the theory of a mix up in names or a very early scribal error on the names isn't too bad, but at the same time that would leave us with a hard error without any possibilities of an explanation for harmony.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Good move bumping your post up @JackRT. @2PhiloVoid posted a link early on that people liked as well,

A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2


This added some clarity for me, thanks. Quinctilius and Quirinius are pretty close, so the theory of a mix up in names or a very early scribal error on the names isn't too bad, but at the same time that would leave us with a hard error without any possibilities of an explanation for harmony.

A mix up of the two is unlikely, and would still give us massive problems, yes.

Luke explicitly connected it to Quirinius' census, even pointing out it being the first one. This we have from Josephus, so Luke's date is very precise.
Matthew explicitly gives us a date under Herod the Great, even mentioning his successor Archelaus. If Luke confused Quinctilius and Quirinius, then his entire census story falls completely flat - which is the heart of why they left Nazareth and Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

On another note, Quirinius is often written as Kyrenius in the Eastern half of the Empire, even in extent copies of Luke, which makes a confusion of the two far less likely than it appears in the English.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

Agreed, although Italian censuses also were for tax purposes. The census to enroll men of military age was conducted of Citizens to update the rolls of the Comitia Centuriata, originally a military militia then legal body, but had largely fallen by the wayside by the 1st century. It was only done for Lustrum ritual and bureaucratic purposes by this time.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them . Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

Once again, you are conflating two separate Judases. Please see post 25 in this thread. The tax revolt was not in Galilee, and the crucifixions after Sepphoris was burnt occurred 10 years earlier, under orders of Quinctilius Varus.

 

[Dirk1540]

A mix up of the two is unlikely, and would still give us massive problems, yes.

Luke explicitly connected it to Quirinius' census, even pointing out it being the first one. This we have from Josephus, so Luke's date is very precise.
Matthew explicitly gives us a date under Herod the Great, even mentioning his successor Archelaus. If Luke confused Quinctilius and Quirinius, then his entire census story falls completely flat - which is the heart of why they left Nazareth and Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

On another note, Quirinius is often written as Kyrenius in the Eastern half of the Empire, even in extent copies of Luke, which makes a confusion of the two far less likely than it appears in the English.

I found a Dan Wallace article that talks about this, and he exposes some explanations as being failures. And this is how he concludes the article...

"In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”

I'm wondering however, is this even possible? Let's try to theorize a future discovery that would vindicate Luke! You would need 2 right? First proof that Quirinius was Governor in 4 BC, and then proof that there was a 4 BC census in Judea! Am I wrong, is it possible to theorize just 1 future discovery to vindicate this 'Error?'

 

[JackRT]

I found a Dan Wallace article that talks about this, and he exposes some explanations as being failures. And this is how he concludes the article...

"In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”

I'm wondering however, is this even possible? Let's try to theorize a future discovery that would vindicate Luke! You would need 2 right? First proof that Quirinius was Governor in 4 BC, and then proof that there was a 4 BC census in Judea! Am I wrong, is it possible to theorize just 1 future discovery to vindicate this 'Error?'

There is one other possibility that would vindicate Luke. Perhaps it was Matthew that was wrong. After all, there is no independent historica evidence lof the Magi's visit or the Slaughter of the Innocents or the Flight to Egypt.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I found a Dan Wallace article that talks about this, and he exposes some explanations as being failures. And this is how he concludes the article...

"In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”

I'm wondering however, is this even possible? Let's try to theorize a future discovery that would vindicate Luke! You would need 2 right? First proof that Quirinius was Governor in 4 BC, and then proof that there was a 4 BC census in Judea! Am I wrong, is it possible to theorize just 1 future discovery to vindicate this 'Error?'

No, a single discovery is quite possible. It would just have to be very specific.

What you should remember firstly, is that in the close of Herod the Great's reign, he was out of favour with Augustus.
Herod's reign ended chaotically. Matthias and Judas, two rabbis in the temple, incited an uprising to remove the Golden Eagle he erected over the Temple. He executed his two sons Aristobolus and Antipater, who he felt were plotting against him - this led to Augustus' snide remark that it is better to be Herod's pig than his son.
Herod had also shown an independant streak in making war on the Nabataeans and trying to control the incense trade, while at the same time building a number of fortified positions like Masada and Herodias, that Rome did not particularly like in her vassals. This was afterall a strategic frontier defending Egypt and Syria's flank from Parthia.
Augustus tended to annex troublesome vassals and to organise their realms into provinces, as he would later do after Herod's son Archelaus' mismanagement.
It is clear that in the closing years of Herod's reign, his independance was curtailed a bit by the Romans, with annexation likely a looming threat - which is why his sons were so unsure of Augustus accepting the provisions of Herod's will.

Secondly, remember that we are dating Quirinius' census by Josephus. Now Josephus is a known corrupted source - for instance the clear fact that the Testamonium Flavium had been under the pen of a redactor, as the extent version is different then early Christian references to it; and the addition of extra material, like Paulina's scandal in the middle of an account of Pilate's career.
Josephus is mostly taken as accurate, but it is not hundred percent.

So, if we keep these two points in mind, a single discovery could account for the two gospels' differences.
If we discover an account or decree of Augustus, that appointed Quirinius to oversee a provisional or preliminary investigation of the annexation of Herod's realm, then we are golden.
For a census done at this time would be the first Indiction of Judaea, with the second Indiction being the 6 AD census - with Josephus or a later redactor confusing the two, as Judaea wasn't annexed at that time afterall. It would also explain why Galilee would fall under the census; which doesn't fit the 6 AD one, where it was outside the Roman province.
For Quirinius to do so, he would likely be appointed the Syrian legate, thus supporting his 'governorship', and the Syrian governor at that time is unknown (although likely Calpurnius Piso, and Quirinius being legate of Syria and Galatia that this would entail is unlikely - Augustus did not usually allow such concentrated power). As it would be a short term appointment, that came to nothing in the end, it may be overlooked by Tacitus and others on account thereof.

Alternately, an early Josephus that lacked the passage on Quirinius' annexation, or one that placed the passage earlier in the narrative, would also allow a lot of leeway to reconciliation of the Gospels. It would not confirm them though. This is again possible, as Josephus is known to be a little corrupted (although this would itself be a significant discovery in that Antiquities would thus be even more corrupted then previously thought).

A discovery of an early Matthew lacking the birth narrative, similar therefore to Mark or John, would also support Luke being in the right - but this would not help supporters of Biblical accuracy much.

More complex arguments based on multiple new discoveries, text or inscriptions, is far more likely therefore, if we are ever to reconcile the two Gospels' accounts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is one other possibility that would vindicate Luke. Perhaps it was Matthew that was wrong. After all, there is no independent historica evidence lof the Magi's visit or the Slaughter of the Innocents or the Flight to Egypt.

There is no independant verification of the slaughter of the Innocents, but it is certainly in keeping with Herod's paranoia and cruelty in his closing years. Besides, Bethlehem was a small town at the time, so the Slaughter would probably just kill less than a hundred infants, maybe as few as 20 depending on the population. Such a minor atrocity may certainly be overlooked in an account where Herod kills and tortures his own sons amongst other egregious acts.
Likewise the Flight to Egypt would be the obvious option to escape Herod, as Egypt was the closest large Jewish population outside his jurisdiction.
One could perhaps more reasonably expect mention of the Magi though, as this was obviously a fairly strange occurrence, for which those learned in Scripture were consulted.

As things currently stand, both Matthew and Luke gives information that gives us conflicting set times, based on corroborating accounts outside the gospels. If you are not resorting to extrapolation and conjecture to establish historicity, you would have to favour one Gospel over the other.

 

[JackRT]

Likewise the Flight to Egypt would be the obvious option to escape Herod, as Egypt was the closest large Jewish population outside his jurisdiction.

Actually there was the city of Damascus which had quite a large population of Jews at the time and was far closer.

 

[Dirk1540]

No, a single discovery is quite possible. It would just have to be very specific.

What you should remember firstly, is that in the close of Herod the Great's reign, he was out of favour with Augustus.
Herod's reign ended chaotically. Matthias and Judas, two rabbis in the temple, incited an uprising to remove the Golden Eagle he erected over the Temple. He executed his two sons Aristobolus and Antipater, who he felt were plotting against him - this led to Augustus' snide remark that it is better to be Herod's pig than his son.
Herod had also shown an independant streak in making war on the Nabataeans and trying to control the incense trade, while at the same time building a number of fortified positions like Masada and Herodias, that Rome did not particularly like in her vassals. This was afterall a strategic frontier defending Egypt and Syria's flank from Parthia.
Augustus tended to annex troublesome vassals and to organise their realms into provinces, as he would later do after Herod's son Archelaus' mismanagement.
It is clear that in the closing years of Herod's reign, his independance was curtailed a bit by the Romans, with annexation likely a looming threat - which is why his sons were so unsure of Augustus accepting the provisions of Herod's will.

Secondly, remember that we are dating Quirinius' census by Josephus. Now Josephus is a known corrupted source - for instance the clear fact that the Testamonium Flavium had been under the pen of a redactor, as the extent version is different then early Christian references to it; and the addition of extra material, like Paulina's scandal in the middle of an account of Pilate's career.
Josephus is mostly taken as accurate, but it is not hundred percent.

So, if we keep these two points in mind, a single discovery could account for the two gospels' differences.
If we discover an account or decree of Augustus, that appointed Quirinius to oversee a provisional or preliminary investigation of the annexation of Herod's realm, then we are golden.
For a census done at this time would be the first Indiction of Judaea, with the second Indiction being the 6 AD census - with Josephus or a later redactor confusing the two, as Judaea wasn't annexed at that time afterall. It would also explain why Galilee would fall under the census; which doesn't fit the 6 AD one, where it was outside the Roman province.
For Quirinius to do so, he would likely be appointed the Syrian legate, thus supporting his 'governorship', and the Syrian governor at that time is unknown (although likely Calpurnius Piso, and Quirinius being legate of Syria and Galatia that this would entail is unlikely - Augustus did not usually allow such concentrated power). As it would be a short term appointment, that came to nothing in the end, it may be overlooked by Tacitus and others on account thereof.

Alternately, an early Josephus that lacked the passage on Quirinius' annexation, or one that placed the passage earlier in the narrative, would also allow a lot of leeway to reconciliation of the Gospels. It would not confirm them though. This is again possible, as Josephus is known to be a little corrupted (although this would itself be a significant discovery in that Antiquities would thus be even more corrupted then previously thought).

A discovery of an early Matthew lacking the birth narrative, similar therefore to Mark or John, would also support Luke being in the right - but this would not help supporters of Biblical accuracy much.

More complex arguments based on multiple new discoveries, text or inscriptions, is far more likely therefore, if we are ever to reconcile the two Gospels' accounts.

Man, this post is so good that I might print it out to keep with my notes.

...and the Syrian governor at that time is unknown (although likely Calpurnius Piso...

Maybe I missed this when I read through the thread, so how long was this unknown Syrian governor window? And why do we only THINK it was Piso? Thanks!

...I'm going back and re-reading the thread (although it's good to bump all the info up anyway)...could have sworn that it was said that PubliusQuinctilius Varus was the known governor, I missed something, but I read through it quickly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Maybe I missed this when I read through the thread, so how long was this unknown Syrian governor window? And why do we only THINK it was Piso? Thanks!

...I'm going back and re-reading the thread (although it's good to bump all the info up anyway)...could have sworn that it was said that PubliusQuinctilius Varus was the known governor, I missed something, but I read through it quickly.

Quinctilius Varus was governor from 7 to 4 BC. Then there is a gap from 4 BC to 1 BC in which we aren't sure who was governor, then Gaius, Augustus' grandson, was appointed. Quinctilius Varus' period covers the important few years of the end of Herod's reign, when Matthew's account obviously takes place.

As for the missing governor, there is an important inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus that we need to consider here. This is an epitaph of a Proconsul, but the name and head of the inscription is missing. This records that the unnamed Proconsul was twice Governor of Syria, was Governor of Asia, obtained a triumph, and defeated two enemy kings.
As this person was twice Governor of Syria, we must look at known Roman Governors of the province to look for one that fits. From our current list, no one is doubled during the period in which this proconsul was active, so this is the epitaph of the Governor of 4 - 1 BC, who was also once governor thereafter or before as well.
Initially, there was much support for the idea that this is Quirinius from various writers, thus reconciling the Gospels, most notably Mommsen, but the career on this stone doesn't fit the obituary of Quirinius in Tacitus. Quirinius never defeated two enemy kings, nor governed Asia.
Sentius Saturninus (Proconsul of Syria from 9-7 BC) or Calpurnius Piso (Proconsul of Syria from 17-19 AD) fit best, with the latter having not only also governed Asia, but being recorded as defeating two Thracian Kings and being awarded triumphal decorations for it, making him the stronger candidate. There is however, insufficient information to conclude it definitely.

The gap from 4-1 BC however does allow for a very short, perhaps one year appointment of Quirinius, but this would be difficult to support. Again though, it falls after Herod's death, so still gives continuity issues regardless, unless you cast doubt on the dating of Herod's demise.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually there was the city of Damascus which had quite a large population of Jews at the time and was far closer.

Damascus fell within Herod the Great's sphere of influence, as Augustus had granted control of the Trachonitis south of Damascus to Herod in 20s BC to counter the rapaciousness of Zenodorus in the area, and he likely had some oversight over Damascus itself thereafter. He definitely controlled the approaches and had a lot of sway in the city himself, with Roman blessing.

 

[Dirk1540]

Quinctilius Varus was governor from 7 to 4 BC. Then there is a gap from 4 BC to 1 BC in which we aren't sure who was governor, then Gaius, Augustus' grandson, was appointed. Quinctilius Varus' period covers the important few years of the end of Herod's reign, when Matthew's account obviously takes place.

As for the missing governor, there is an important inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus that we need to consider here. This is an epitaph of a Proconsul, but the name and head of the inscription is missing. This records that the unnamed Proconsul was twice Governor of Syria, was Governor of Asia, obtained a triumph, and defeated two enemy kings.
As this person was twice Governor of Syria, we must look at known Roman Governors of the province to look for one that fits. From our current list, no one is doubled during the period in which this proconsul was active, so this is the epitaph of the Governor of 4 - 1 BC, who was also once governor thereafter or before as well.
Initially, there was much support for the idea that this is Quirinius from various writers, thus reconciling the Gospels, most notably Mommsen, but the career on this stone doesn't fit the obituary of Quirinius in Tacitus. Quirinius never defeated two enemy kings, nor governed Asia.
Sentius Saturninus (Proconsul of Syria from 9-7 BC) or Calpurnius Piso (Proconsul of Syria from 17-19 AD) fit best, with the latter having not only also governed Asia, but being recorded as defeating two Thracian Kings and being awarded triumphal decorations for it, making him the stronger candidate. There is however, insufficient information to conclude it definitely.

The gap from 4-1 BC however does allow for a very short, perhaps one year appointment of Quirinius, but this would be difficult to support. Again though, it falls after Herod's death, so still gives continuity issues regardless, unless you cast doubt on the dating of Herod's demise.

Oh ok now I get why those are stronger candidates. So it seems like what would be needed to harmonize this problem (just with a speculative theory, barring a discovery) is that we had an awkward and unorthodox temporary stay of Quirinius just due to the fact that Herod was a train wreck, and caused an unorthodox situation of leadership to take place...and then after that brief issue we had a more official appointing of Sentius Saturninus or Calpurnius Piso as Governor.

I think the 3 year historical blind spot is a really good thing, it makes even speculation a little stronger because it's not like there's contrary evidence in our way that first has to be overthrown. Heck with a 3 year blind spot who's to say there weren't a few temporary leaders thrown in there briefly?

Ok now I'm running wild with speculations lol, but maybe Quirinius was good friends with the person Luke was addressing (Theophilus) making it the reason WHY Luke would mention him even if he had only a lame 2 week temporary leadership role or something as meaningless as that. Maybe he's writing to Theophilus and it's sort of an implied little side note custom made for him, like "Yeah you know your buddy Quirinius! Well it was during his brief role!" Although for that to be accurate he'd probably have to be more of an older father figure to him, maybe a family friend of his father or grandfather. Or maybe he's good friends with his son, etc. Some type of personalized connection.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Dirk1540 , you need to keep in mind that we are playing with a very limited timeframe.

Quinctilius Varus was proconsul until 4 BC. He was the Governor during the final years of Herod the Great, and thus conventionally the Governor during the plausible period for Matthew's account. Herod died in March/April of 4 BC, and Matthew's account most assuredly requires Herod to be alive, as does our conjecture of Quirinius overseeing the preliminary steps to annexation of Judaea.
This gives us very little time to play with, a month or so at best, putting Matthew's account literally during the last 2 months or so of Herod's life, if we are to put Quirinius partially into our Proconsular list blindspot. I doubt this gives enough time to organise and carry out a census as such.

Another method is to doubt the historically accepted date of 4 BC for Herod's death. This is based on his sons dating their reigns from then, as well as Josephus saying Herod died after a lunar eclipse. Now, we have eclipses in 5 BC, 4 BC and 1 BC in roughly the right area. 4 BC is taken as the correct one, based on his sons' reigns and numismatic evidence, but traditionally a date of 1 BC had also been accepted (hence the calendar). The historical grounds for 4 BC are quite strong, but if you play around with Herod ruling conjointly with his sons, or a on/off regency during his final illness, people have argued that the archaic 1 BC date could also work. This would give us 2 or 3 years during our phantom proconsulate for Quirinius to perhaps be active. This method requires quite a lot of conjecture though, and runs afoul of much of our accepted chronology.


Anyway, on Theophilus, you do know the theory that it was written to a Roman official? The introduction of Luke uses a word meaning "most esteemed" when referring to him: 'kratiste'. This was a common form of address to Roman officials by provincials, and along with the language of having 'carefully investigated' and 'consulted eyewitnesses', this makes Luke look very similar to petitionary letters to Governors or supportive letters in courts of law in Hellenistic times.

Theophilus means 'lover of God', so may just be a generic title for any reader, but the Copts argue it was written to a specific Theophilus in Alexandria, while some argue it was written to the High Priest Theophilus.

The use of the title 'most esteemed' and the legal language however, perhaps supports the idea that it was written for Paul's court case in Rome, after he appealed to the Emperor. It would thus likely be addressed to the Praetor in his case or Paul's defence.
It is also possible that it was written to an eastern proconsul to support Christian claims, similar to petionary apologia sent to Pliny by Christian adherents later in Bithynia or Justin Martyr's works addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Another possibility, explored by Paul Maier and supported by some contextual and mediaeval traditions that he may have been a Christian convert or that his wife might have been, is that it was written to Flavius Sabinus - the prefect of Rome and the future Emperor Vespasian's brother. If this last option is correct, then Flavius Sabinus would certainly know Quirinius, or at least his family, quite well.

 

[Dirk1540]

Oh no I agree that Theophilus was probably a Roman official. I was saying what if Quirinius had a personal link to Theophilus, not Luke to Theophilus...but i was also on the wild side of speculation with that theory.

You're right the window is very small because of the other strong evidence for 4 BC. I was looking at it at first as a mere attempt to chew down the 9 year discrepancy down to at least a 2 or 3 year discrepancy, but your right that leads to other problems. Unless the tiny window or the other possibilities you mentioned are the solution.