The Census at the birth of Christ

[Erik Nelson]

Unbelievable? Is Luke's Description of Quirinius Historically Inaccurate? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[RDKirk]

Unbelievable? Is Luke's Description of Quirinius Historically Inaccurate? | Cold Case Christianity

Point I'd like to make about that article: The four points he discusses are precisely how we as military intelligence analysts evaluated information from a human contact.

1. Is this first-hand information?
2. Is this information corroborated by or consistent with any of our known reliable sources?
3. Is the informant proven reliable? Has he been proven accurate in the past? Has been proven wrong in the past? Those are two different questions, because an honest informant can still be honestly wrong.
4. What is the motivation of the informant for giving us this information? What does he get out of it? What does he avoid with it? What are his biases?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Point I'd like to make about that article: The four points he discusses are precisely how we as military intelligence analysts evaluated information from a human contact.

1. Is this first-hand information?
2. Is this information corroborated by or consistent with any of our known reliable sources?
3. Is the informant proven reliable? Has he been proven accurate in the past? Has been proven wrong in the past? Those are two different questions, because an honest informant can still be honestly wrong.
4. What is the motivation of the informant for giving us this information? What does he get out of it? What does he avoid with it? What are his biases?

Hypothetically. If Luke were to contradict Josephus. Why would one automatically prefer Josephus over Luke? Luke was decades closer to the census events, he described.

 

[Erik Nelson]

https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/15498/

I followed the link to the book and bought a copy from Amazon Kindle.

The article is extremely persuasive. That Luke intentionally reference the one and only census of Quirinius. Noted by Josephus. To have started. The "fourth sect" of First Century Judaism. After the Sadducees Pharisees and Essenes. Namely, the violent zealots.

The senses of Corineus. Marked the end of Judae and independence. And it's annexation by the Pagan Roman Empire. That would be a very plausible. Timing and contacts. For the birth of the Messiah to redeem Israel. Moreover. Herod Archeleus. Was known as cruel and violent? He maliciously oppressed the Jews and Samarians alike. Causing them to complain and appeal to Rome. Fits the profile of. A baby butcher. As per the massacre of the innocents.

Luke was intentionally. Drawing his readers attention. To the start of the violence Zealot movement that was destabilizing the region. And inviting trouble from Rome. Luke was arguing that the. True. Redemptive movement. Also began in the very same census of Quirinius. Just as Judae's independence. Came to an end.

This would be consistent with the belief that Judas Iscariot was a zealot. An opponent of the True Kingdom of Heaven.

Personally, I wonder if the original text of Matthew read, something like "Herod the terrible" Which was miss read into "herod the great" somewhere along the line?

 

[RDKirk]

Hypothetically. If Luke were to contradict Josephus. Why would one automatically prefer Josephus over Luke? Luke was decades closer to the census events, he described.

That's what that author is saying, and I agree with the methodology of his opinion.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That's what that author is saying, and I agree with the methodology of his opinion.

Chapter 7: The Dark Decade in History

 

[Yekcidmij]

Hypothetically. If Luke were to contradict Josephus. Why would one automatically prefer Josephus over Luke? Luke was decades closer to the census events, he described.

There are others that believe Josephus misdated the census too:

"JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS", Rhoads, John. JETS 54.1 (March 2011) 65–87

Link: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

 

[Erik Nelson]

There are others that believe Josephus misdated the census too:

"JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS", Rhoads, John. JETS 54.1 (March 2011) 65–87

Link: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

Awesome article thanks for that.

According to the excellent book WINDOWS INTO THE BIBLE. The Jewish Talmud remembers Nickodemus. He was the third wealthiest person in Jerusalem. Second only to Ananias and Caiaphas the high priests I guess. He lived from the crucifixion until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD

So he was alive when Luke wrote Luke and acts in approximately 62. AD

Nickodemas as a powerful priestly member of the Sanhedrin was intimately involved in Jesuses trial and crucifixion and burial. If so much as one jot or tiddle of Luke's account had been factually in error. Nicodimus would have denounced and refuted him and Paul. And the whole Christian community.

Moreover, High Priest Ananias himself lived on until approximately the same time. High Priest Ananias himself was alive when Luke wrote Luke and acts. If Luke had made a simple typo. High Priest Ananias would've had a field day.

Especially since Luke may have written Luke and acts to Ananias, his son High Priest Theofilos.

Whatever happened was visually indistinguishable from what Luke reported.

 

[Erik Nelson]

There are others that believe Josephus misdated the census too:

"JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS", Rhoads, John. JETS 54.1 (March 2011) 65–87

Link: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

I can't tell you how awesome that article is. Thanks again. Are you in contact with the author?

I think there really is an obvious answer. I run into this all the time with my science students. Trying to learn. All the Greek alphabet symbols used in physics.

Every single one of them at first. Mistakes. The Greek R. Called Rho For Latin P. I mean, they look almost the same.

Your author says that the tax revolt really occurred under Quirinius.

Josephus misattributed. To Coponius

If Josephus? Misread Latin P for Greek row.

Then Coponius becomes Quirinius

mystery solved.

josephus, up to his eyeballs in source manuscripts And flipping back and forth between the scrolls. Without modern copy and paste. confused Greek and Latin. He misread Coponius as Quirinius and confused and conflated the 2 men.

The story is completely coherent. Herod the Great. As a staunch ally of Rome. Allowed the Romans to install their eagle insignia on to the temple. If he was willing to do that certainly he was willing to. Authorize. A Romans Taxation Census of his allotted territories also.

The highly unpopular taxation senses began in 5 BC. And continued until 3 or 2 BC. It took years to complete because of all of the disturbances at uprisings and rebellions.

THE HOLY FAMILY OBEYED THEIR HIGH PRIEST JOAZAR AND SO TRAVELED TO BETHLEHEM TO REGISTER FOR THE CENSUS in 5BC

The Magi arrived a year later in 4 BC. When Jesus was one year old. Herod the Great. Not wanting to take any chances Herod, the great doubled the figure. And ordered the slaughter of all babies up to 2.

But famed church historian Eusebius of Caesarea. Was also right to report that this taxation census? Was completed in 3 to 2 BC?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Are you in contact with the author?

No I just ran across it while rummaging through JETS journals a few months ago and remembered seeing it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Especially since Luke may have written Luke and acts to Ananias, his son High Priest Theofilos.

I have seen the theory that Theophilus was Theophilus ben Ananus. Not sure I'm convinced, but it is interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Luke-Priest-Authority-Author-Gospel/dp/0754662594

https://www.amazon.com/Authorship-H...547312541&sr=1-2&keywords=david+allen+hebrews

Theophilus ben Ananus - Wikipedia

 

[Erik Nelson]

I have seen the theory that Theophilus was Theophilus ben Ananus. Not sure I'm convinced, but it is interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Luke-Priest-Authority-Author-Gospel/dp/0754662594

https://www.amazon.com/Authorship-H...547312541&sr=1-2&keywords=david+allen+hebrews

Theophilus ben Ananus - Wikipedia

I think that the Mathius Josephus talks about as quoted in your article. Was Mathias Ben Theo Filus the high priest at the time of Jesus his birth?

 

[Erik Nelson]

So Jesus was born on or about 25 December 5 BC. And Herod the Great. Lived until Passover, the following year. March or April of 4 BC. So the Magi must have arrived in about February of 4 BC, when Jesus was about 2 months old.

That tells me that Herod the great realized the Messiah was about 2 months old so he told his soldiers to massacre all innocence up to 2 years old. He would have said 2 decades or 2 centuries if he thought he could have gotten away with it.

But as it were that was the multiplier that was the margin of safety that many commentators have speculated and attributed to Herod the Great. He leapt from 2 months old to 2 years old.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To point out a few things:

Sabinus is a common Roman name. This official's title however, has nothing to do with Quirinius. To claim their titles are similar is frankly silly. He is described as a treasurer of Syria, so a financial official. That means he is likely a Quaestor, who were mostly delegated financial affairs. This is the lowest rung of the Cursus Honorum, the start of someone's career. What he is described as doing, securing Caesar's and Roman property in Josephus, is exactly what you would expect. Quaestors or military tribunes were often sent into client states, like Julius Caesar himself as a military tribune was sent to Nicomedes of Bithynia.

Quirinius however, is attested as a Proconsul of Cappadocia and Galatia and was a consul in 12 BC. His title is as a direct legate of Caesar in Josephus. He was far too senior for such a petty appointment. He was one of Augustus' most senior officials - in fact, appointed as Rector to Augustus' primary heir Gaius when he went east. He was basically his right-hand man, but also there to reign in the youth if he got out of hand. There is simply no way that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, whose career was well attested and given a public funeral in Rome, would be securing Caesar's property in a petty client-state. That he would be appointed to incorporate one, sure, but to assume him the same as a unknown Sabinus is ludicrous. Tacitus would anyway have mentioned an adoption that such a change of name necessitates, as to Rome adoption was an honour bestowed on promising youths, bringing them into old families.

Further, Josephus' timing of the census fits Roman practice very well. A census was conducted when new provinces were incorporated, thus starting the taxation indiction for that province. That is what Quinctilius Varus was doing when Germania revolted, too. Numismatically, that is when Judaea appears as a Roman province. Censuses in client states are not well supported, and basically wasted effort. That is why the vast majority trust Josephus here - it fits Roman practice perfectly.

Josephus does have confused accounts sometimes, like Mucina and Paulina, but few doubt him here. As to the Judases of Galilee, why not? The accounts aren't as similar as the article posted in 107 claims. Read Josephus yourself. One is in Jerusalem and the Temple, another in Galilee around Sepphoris. Sepphoris was burnt in Tacitus, so I see no reason to doubt it. Judas was a common enough name, as the NT attests. That a rebellion would try and gain the support of some Rabbi or Teacher or something is perfectly reasonable. That is what the Hasmonaeans always did, or what happened in 69 AD or 132 AD. A rebellion that did not try to gain the support of the religious establishment is unlikely to be worth noting at all. This reads to me as if someone claimed WWI and WWII had to be a reduplication of the same events because of all the similarities (belligerents, strategy of going via Belgium, etc.). We have limited sources here, and the claim of duplication is highly speculative - and less likely than actual two or three separate revolts in the view of the vast majority of scholars - with good reason. It explains Herod's actions at the end, his executing Antipater for instance; it explains Archelaus' deposition; it explains Sepphoris' destruction and the construction of Tiberias. That it requires a high priest to be deposed multiple times: So? High Priests were deposed multiple time. Hyrcanus II and Aristobolus were both deposed and reinstated many many times. It is really not implausible.

As to confusing Coponius and Quirinius - unlikely. The biblical Cyrenius was a common way Quirinius was transliterated at the time - remember, we aren't dealing witha petty official, but a major figure of Augustus' latter reign here. It would require more than confusing a rho for a p, but signifantly more letters. Further, Josephus was ignorant of Latin, and employed Greek scribes. Such a mistake is highly unlikely from any first century writer, and if anyone were to make it, I think Luke doing so more likely than Josephus whose sitting at the heart of Roman power, a client of Vespasian no less.

 

[Erik Nelson]

according to the redated reconstruction of Josephus, the taxation census of 5BC was condoned by high priest joazar who urged compliance

the holy family traveling to Bethlehem distanced them from rebellion in Galilee, and obeyed Joazar a fellow priest like john the Baptist and family

according to the chapter about Galilee in "Windows into the bible" Galileans were extremely fervent Jews loyal to Hasmonean Jerusalem.

Easy to interpret the references to Matthias = Sadducee in two of the duplicate accounts as high priest Matthias ben theophilus, deposed by herod for supporting the rebellion of judas the galilean

Herod installed Joazar who condoned the census

Archelaus soon deposed Joazar the collaborator to mollify Galileans

HP Matthias was a Hasmonean appealing to his family's heartland of support against Rome and client Herod??

 

[Erik Nelson]

To point out a few things:

Sabinus is a common Roman name. This official's title however, has nothing to do with Quirinius. To claim their titles are similar is frankly silly. He is described as a treasurer of Syria, so a financial official. That means he is likely a Quaestor, who were mostly delegated financial affairs. This is the lowest rung of the Cursus Honorum, the start of someone's career. What he is described as doing, securing Caesar's and Roman property in Josephus, is exactly what you would expect. Quaestors or military tribunes were often sent into client states, like Julius Caesar himself as a military tribune was sent to Nicomedes of Bithynia.

Quirinius however, is attested as a Proconsul of Cappadocia and Galatia and was a consul in 12 BC. His title is as a direct legate of Caesar in Josephus. He was far too senior for such a petty appointment. He was one of Augustus' most senior officials - in fact, appointed as Rector to Augustus' primary heir Gaius when he went east. He was basically his right-hand man, but also there to reign in the youth if he got out of hand. There is simply no way that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, whose career was well attested and given a public funeral in Rome, would be securing Caesar's property in a petty client-state. That he would be appointed to incorporate one, sure, but to assume him the same as a unknown Sabinus is ludicrous. Tacitus would anyway have mentioned an adoption that such a change of name necessitates, as to Rome adoption was an honour bestowed on promising youths, bringing them into old families.

Further, Josephus' timing of the census fits Roman practice very well. A census was conducted when new provinces were incorporated, thus starting the taxation indiction for that province. That is what Quinctilius Varus was doing when Germania revolted, too. Numismatically, that is when Judaea appears as a Roman province. Censuses in client states are not well supported, and basically wasted effort. That is why the vast majority trust Josephus here - it fits Roman practice perfectly.

Josephus does have confused accounts sometimes, like Mucina and Paulina, but few doubt him here. As to the Judases of Galilee, why not? The accounts aren't as similar as the article posted in 107 claims. Read Josephus yourself. One is in Jerusalem and the Temple, another in Galilee around Sepphoris. Sepphoris was burnt archeaologically about 6 AD, so I see no reason to doubt it. Judas was a common enough name, as the NT attests. That a rebellion would try and gain the support of some Rabbi or Teacher or something is perfectly reasonable. That is what the Hasmonaeans always did, or what happened in 69 AD or 132 AD. A rebellion that did not try to gain the support of the religious establishment is unlikely to be worth noting at all. This reads to me as if someone claimed WWI and WWII had to be a reduplication of the same events because of all the similarities (belligerents, strategy of going via Belgium, etc.). We have limited sources here, and the claim of duplication is highly speculative - and less likely than actual two or three separate revolts in the view of the vast majority of scholars - with good reason. It explains Herod's actions at the end, his executing Antipater for instance; it explains Archelaus' deposition; it explains Sepphoris' destruction and the construction of Tiberias. That it requires a high priest to be deposed multiple times: So? High Priests were deposed multiple time. Hyrcanus II and Aristobolus were both deposed and reinstated many many times. It is really not implausible.

As to confusing Coponius and Quirinius - unlikely. The biblical Cyrenius was a common way Quirinius was transliterated at the time - remember, we aren't dealing witha petty official, but a major figure of Augustus' latter reign here. It would require more than confusing a rho for a p, but signifantly more letters. Further, Josephus was ignorant of Latin, and employed Greek scribes. Such a mistake is highly unlikely from any first century writer, and if anyone were to make it, I think Luke doing so more likely than Josephus whose sitting at the heart of Roman power, a client of Vespasian no less.

is it possible there was one revolt. Against Quirinius and another against Coponius?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

is it possible there was one revolt. Against Quirinius and another against Coponius?

Coponius was the first prefect of Judaea, so I don't see what difference that would make. Both would still fall post 6 AD.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Coponius was the first procurator of Judaea, so I don't see what difference that would make. Both would still fall post 6 AD.

wasn't Quirinius in Judea much earlier.?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

wasn't Quirinius in Judea much earlier.?

Not on record. Hence so many attempts to equate him with other figures like Sabinus (as in those articles). Quirinius was propraetor of Crete and Cyrenaica in 15 BC, Consul in 12, Proconsul of Galatia and Cappadocia from 12 to about 5 BC, Rector of Gaius thereafter and Proconsul legate of Syria from 6 AD. There is no evidence placing him unequivocally in Judaea any time before 6 AD when he oversaw the census as Syrian governor.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Not on record. Hence so many attempts to equate him with other figures like Sabinus (as in those articles). Quirinius was propraetor of Crete and Cyrenaica in 15 BC, Consul in 12, Proconsul of Galatia and Cappadocia from 12 to about 5 BC, Rector of Gaius thereafter and Proconsul legate of Syria from 6 AD. There is no evidence placing him unequivocally in Judaea any time before 6 AD when he oversaw the census as Syrian governor.

Well let me get this straight. Luke nowhere explicitly says "Herrad The Great." He says Harid. Harrad Arcelus, Called himself harid. What if Luke meant Herrad Archelaus when he said harid?

How about this as a scenario? According to church tradition, Matthew First wrote in Judea in surprise surprise Hebrew. Both the Jews and the Samaritans loathed. Harrid Archelaus because he was so cruel. They basically called him herrad the terrible. What if in the original Hebrew first edition of Matthew? Matthew wrote herrad the terrible. When Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek. The translator read harrid the terrible. And rendered it Herod the Great.

6 to thirty six AD. Seems to fit all of the data. Up through Jesus being 30 years old. At the crucifixion under Pilate.