The Census at the birth of Christ

[Quid est Veritas?]

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.

Matthew states that Joseph and his family fled to Egypt, but returned on Herod's death. They then went to Nazareth, as Archelaus was reigning in Judaea. It is quite unequivocally Herod the Great Matthew means. Independantly both fit nicely, but Luke and Matthew's account together is a problem. Luke dates by various people, the only problematic one though, is Quirinius' census. Earlier in the thread we discussed various means to reconcile them pending further evidence, so though we can't clearly say they are reconciled, reconciling the two accounts is not outside the bounds of possibility.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

Tertullian mentions, as a well-known fact, “the census taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturnius,” that is to say, from 744–748 U.C., and consequently only a short time before the death of Herod in 750. The accounts of Cassiodorus and Suidas leave no doubt as to the great statistical labours accomplished by the orders of Augustus. The latter says expressly: “Cæsar Augustus, having chosen twenty men of the greatest ability, sent them into all the countries of the subject nations (τῶν ὑπηκόων), and caused them to make a registration (ἀπογραφάς) of men and property (τῶντε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν).”


dates of the six censuses in Egypt under Augustus were 11/10 B.C.E., 4/3 B.C.E., 4/5 C.E., 5/6 CE., 11/12 CE., and 12/13 CE…. [This appears to be a 7 year cycle]


Judæa, not yet being a Roman province, took the census according to the Jewish method, which was based on the tribes and their families. Under the Roman law, women were subject to the capitation tax, so Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

there is a reference to an empire wide registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added).

This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C.

Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C.

And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45)...


an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts."

the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

This 'father of the people' was understood to apply to the entire Roman empire, which, as we have seen, included anything and everything under Roman power.

"In 2 BC, the title PP was conferred on Augustus by the Senate, the equestrian order and the people of Rome (fast. Praenestini CIL V Z33; R. Gest. div. Aug. 35; Suet. Aug. 58, cf. an inscription from Sion dating to as early as 8 BC, ILS 6755). For the first time, the title referred to the salvation of the entire patria (i.e. the population of the imperium Romanum; for the terminology cf. [4. 3Z9, 3 31 f.I), who were now placed under the Mela of Augustus as pater."

Eusebius of Caesaria. Also dated the native iti census to 3 to 2 BC.

If Herod the great lived until one BC. Everything seems to align. There was a major census. Everywhere from Egypt to Armenia. Around 3 BC. For the ULTIMATE purpose. Of acknowledging the Divinity of Augustus. What more spiritually fitting time for the Messiah to be born? The truly divinely ordained. Messiah, born at the time that a mortal man was claiming divine honors. Across North Africa in Eurasia.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

there is a reference to an empire wide registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added).

Nope. That is not a reference to an 'Empire-wide registration', but to Augustus being given the title Pater Patriae. The idea being, that Augustus as the Princeps, was now also the Pater Familias of the Roman people. Firstly, this requires no census, as was just a honorific bestowed by the senate, and secondly, specifically refers to the Roman Res Publicae, not the provincials and non-citizens. In fact, it follows from Augustus' references to his censorship and lustra in the Res Gestae. People are getting confused with later uses of the term Patriae as patrimony, or as 'country', but these aren't relevant or valid in the Principate.

This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C.

Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C.

And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45)...


an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts."

the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

This 'father of the people' was understood to apply to the entire Roman empire, which, as we have seen, included anything and everything under Roman power.

"In 2 BC, the title PP was conferred on Augustus by the Senate, the equestrian order and the people of Rome (fast. Praenestini CIL V Z33; R. Gest. div. Aug. 35; Suet. Aug. 58, cf. an inscription from Sion dating to as early as 8 BC, ILS 6755). For the first time, the title referred to the salvation of the entire patria (i.e. the population of the imperium Romanum; for the terminology cf. [4. 3Z9, 3 31 f.I), who were now placed under the Mela of Augustus as pater."

Eusebius of Caesaria. Also dated the native iti census to 3 to 2 BC.

If Herod the great lived until one BC. Everything seems to align. There was a major census. Everywhere from Egypt to Armenia. Around 3 BC. For the ULTIMATE purpose. Of acknowledging the Divinity of Augustus. What more spiritually fitting time for the Messiah to be born? The truly divinely ordained. Messiah, born at the time that a mortal man was claiming divine honors. Across North Africa in Eurasia.

Again, while an oath was administered to prove loyalty, this is hardly what is presented here: Pater Patriae does not refer to non-citizens, nor was a census nor oath required for its application, as a grant from the Senate; the oath was only administered in areas directly under Augustus' Imperium (so Imperial as opposed to Senatorial provinces), not universally; there is no evidence the oath was universal as opposed to only local elites (which better fits Roman practice); Client kingdoms still wouldn't be included.

There is zero evidence of any universal onetime census ever undertaken by Rome, though all the provinces were periodically counted for tax purposes.

Tertullian mentions, as a well-known fact, “the census taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturnius,” that is to say, from 744–748 U.C., and consequently only a short time before the death of Herod in 750. The accounts of Cassiodorus and Suidas leave no doubt as to the great statistical labours accomplished by the orders of Augustus. The latter says expressly: “Cæsar Augustus, having chosen twenty men of the greatest ability, sent them into all the countries of the subject nations (τῶν ὑπηκόων), and caused them to make a registration (ἀπογραφάς) of men and property (τῶντε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν).”

This is a problem in and of itself. The Sentius Saturninus that may perhaps be the governor from 4 BC, is not the same one that was governor prior to 7 BC - rather his son. The Elder one went on to serve with Tiberius in Germany, so is well out of the way.

Tertullian ascribing a census to roughly 8 BC under Saturninus directly contradicts Luke. Quirinius was definitely Proconsul of Galatia at that stage, so could not possibly have anything to do with such a census. A census of Syria was perhaps conducted under the confirmed proconsulate of the younger Saturninus in 19 AD, as that would fit the periodic indiction tax cycles, so Tertullian probably confused father and son. Why one would be conducted under Roman Aegis in 8 BC makes no sense, as Judaea was a client Kingdom under Herod then.

So Tertullian is probably wrong; and if he isn't, he is contradicting Scripture anyway.

dates of the six censuses in Egypt under Augustus were 11/10 B.C.E., 4/3 B.C.E., 4/5 C.E., 5/6 CE., 11/12 CE., and 12/13 CE…. This appears to be a 7 year cycle

Source? This is interesting, as Egyptian Indiction cycles were usually 12-15 years. Not impossible that censuses were conducted inbetween this, as Egypt was directly ruled by the Emperor via an Equestrian prefect. Where did they get this from?

Judæa, not yet being a Roman province, took the census according to the Jewish method, which was based on the tribes and their families. Under the Roman law, women were subject to the capitation tax, so Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem

Judaea, not being a Roman province, there is no evidence nor compelling reason to assume a census at this stage at all. Luke's reference is explicitly to Quirinius' census, which was the first done in the Roman province of Judaea.

There is a lot of supposition here, but very little concrete, I am afraid.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Nope. That is not a reference to an 'Empire-wide registration', but to Augustus being given the title Pater Patriae. The idea being, that Augustus as the Princeps, was now also the Pater Familias of the Roman people. Firstly, this requires no census, as was just a honorific bestowed by the senate, and secondly, specifically refers to the Roman Res Publicae, not the provincials and non-citizens. In fact, it follows from Augustus' references to his censorship and lustra in the Res Gestae. People are getting confused with later uses of the term Patriae as patrimony, or as 'country', but these aren't relevant or valid in the Principate.

Again, while an oath was administered to prove loyalty, this is hardly what is presented here: Pater Patriae does not refer to non-citizens, nor was a census nor oath required for its application, as a grant from the Senate; the oath was only administered in areas directly under Augustus' Imperium (so Imperial as opposed to Senatorial provinces), not universally; there is no evidence the oath was universal as opposed to only local elites (which better fits Roman practice); Client kingdoms still wouldn't be included.

There is zero evidence of any universal onetime census ever undertaken by Rome, though all the provinces were periodically counted for tax purposes.


This is a problem in and of itself. The Sentius Saturninus that may perhaps be the governor from 4 BC, is not the same one that was governor prior to 7 BC - rather his son. The Elder one went on to serve with Tiberius in Germany, so is well out of the way.

Tertullian ascribing a census to roughly 8 BC under Saturninus directly contradicts Luke. Quirinius was definitely Proconsul of Galatia at that stage, so could not possibly have anything to do with such a census. A census of Syria was perhaps conducted under the confirmed proconsulate of the younger Saturninus in 19 AD, as that would fit the periodic indiction tax cycles, so Tertullian probably confused father and son. Why one would be conducted under Roman Aegis in 8 BC makes no sense, as Judaea was a client Kingdom under Herod then.

So Tertullian is probably wrong; and if he isn't, he is contradicting Scripture anyway.


Source? This is interesting, as Egyptian Indiction cycles were usually 12-15 years. Not impossible that censuses were conducted inbetween this, as Egypt was directly ruled by the Emperor via an Equestrian prefect. Where did they get this from?


Judaea, not being a Roman province, there is no evidence nor compelling reason to assume a census at this stage at all. Luke's reference is explicitly to Quirinius' census, which was the first done in the Roman province of Judaea.

There is a lot of supposition here, but very little concrete, I am afraid.

I followed one of the earlier links

http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html

Fortunately, an incredible amount of information about the Egyptian census process is known. Bagnall and Frier, who give us the most detailed and complete discussion, suggest that the dates of the six censuses in Egypt under Augustus were 11/10 B.C.E., 4/3 B.C.E., 4/5 C.E., 5/6 CE., 11/12 CE., and 12/13 CE…. The first census papyri that came to light near the end of the last century strongly suggested that there was a firm lapse of fourteen years between censuses, but this evidence is from later in the Roman period than evidence which has subsequently come to light. A fourteen-year cycle has been the basis of much argumentation regarding the Quirinian-Lucan census(es), but it has become clear that this fourteen-year cycle is not attested in the Ptolemaic era or prior to the census of 11/12 C.E...

Egyptian censuses occurred in 14-year intervals from 19/20 ce on (19/20, 33/34, 47/48, etc.), but before that at 7-year intervals, at 11/10 bce, 4/3 bce, 4/5 ce, and 11/12 ce, with the declarations made in the year given and the register established in the following one. There is thus some basis for thinking that there were four censuses in Egypt during the reign of Augustus, in the following regnal years: 20 (11/10 bce), 27 (4/3 bce), 34 (4/5 ce), 41 (11/12 ce). Direct papyrological evidence exists for the registration of 10/9 BCE (and thus by implication the declaration in 11/10), and the declarations and registrations, respectively, of 4/5 and 5/6 ce, and 11/12 and 12/13. It is also possible that one’s status declaration (ἐπίκρισις) was made in the year before the actual census declaration."

First. The census of Quirinius in 6 AD. Aligns rather well with. Those established in Egypt. Perhaps. Agustus deposed Arcelus. In lockstep with his. Imperial censuses?

Second, I would be very grateful if you could please clarify. What dates slide with The passing of Herod the Great? if Herod the great died in one. BC what else moves 3 years. Forward in time?

Tertullian seems to have said. That Saturninus, Conducted a census in. Judea. Approximately 2 years before the death of Herod. Could be construed as 3 BC? In lockstep with the Egyptian censuses.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I followed one of the earlier links

http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html

Fortunately, an incredible amount of information about the Egyptian census process is known. Bagnall and Frier, who give us the most detailed and complete discussion, suggest that the dates of the six censuses in Egypt under Augustus were 11/10 B.C.E., 4/3 B.C.E., 4/5 C.E., 5/6 CE., 11/12 CE., and 12/13 CE…. The first census papyri that came to light near the end of the last century strongly suggested that there was a firm lapse of fourteen years between censuses, but this evidence is from later in the Roman period than evidence which has subsequently come to light. A fourteen-year cycle has been the basis of much argumentation regarding the Quirinian-Lucan census(es), but it has become clear that this fourteen-year cycle is not attested in the Ptolemaic era or prior to the census of 11/12 C.E...

Egyptian censuses occurred in 14-year intervals from 19/20 ce on (19/20, 33/34, 47/48, etc.), but before that at 7-year intervals, at 11/10 bce, 4/3 bce, 4/5 ce, and 11/12 ce, with the declarations made in the year given and the register established in the following one. There is thus some basis for thinking that there were four censuses in Egypt during the reign of Augustus, in the following regnal years: 20 (11/10 bce), 27 (4/3 bce), 34 (4/5 ce), 41 (11/12 ce). Direct papyrological evidence exists for the registration of 10/9 BCE (and thus by implication the declaration in 11/10), and the declarations and registrations, respectively, of 4/5 and 5/6 ce, and 11/12 and 12/13. It is also possible that one’s status declaration (ἐπίκρισις) was made in the year before the actual census declaration."

Interesting. I followed his reference, and the original article is far less clear than presented here. It suggests the possibility of a previous 7 year cycle in Egypt, based on some dubious and scattered papyri evidence, so Bagnall concludes it is an attractive reconstruction, but not very definitive. I have attached the article.

First. The census of Quirinius in 6 AD. Aligns rather well with. Those established in Egypt. Perhaps. Agustus deposed Arcelus. In lockstep with his. Imperial censuses?

Egypt was adminstered separately from Judaea. The latter was under the Proconsul of Syria administratively, hence Quirinius oversaw the census, Syrian proconsuls intervened militarily in Jewish affairs, Paul was taken to Festus, etc. Egypt fell under an Equestrian prefect, a measure to prohibit too ambitious senators of controlling its resources. So what is going on in Egypt, is unlikely to have much bearing on Judaean administration. Jerusalem reported to Antioch, not Alexandria.

Second, I would be very grateful if you could please clarify. What dates slide with The passing of Herod the Great? if Herod the great died in one. BC what else moves 3 years. Forward in time?

Tertullian seems to have said. That Saturninus, Conducted a census in. Judea. Approximately 2 years before the death of Herod. Could be construed as 3 BC? In lockstep with the Egyptian censuses.

Saturninus was proconsul from 9-7 BC by Roman sources before moving to Germania. He could not have done any Judaean census in 3 BC. If he did do one, it would have to be before 7 BC, at which point Herod was still very much alive. The play with Herod's death is from 5 -1 BC based on other events, but this still plays havoc with Luke's Quirinius Census. 4 BC is taken as the most likely, as that is the date his sons start issuing their own coinage as Tetrachs.

Essentially, altering Herod's death doesn't change when Quirinius' census takes place nor Roman events, but does alter Jewish events (like those uprisings in Josephus we were talking about), alters Jesus' birth date as Herod had all the kids about 2 years of age killed, and the narrative suggests Jesus didn't stay in Egypt long before Herod's death. It perhaps shortens the gap, but crucially, it moves Jesus' birth into the period in which we are unsure who was Proconsul of Syria. So if we assume an earlier Proconsulate of Quirinius here (unrecorded), and Herod died 1 BC, Jesus could have been born when Quirinius was Syrian governor. As mentioned earlier, if a provisional assessment of Judaea for a possible annexation on the death of Herod was done, this could be the origin of the census story - even if not the formal one of Quirinius in 6 AD.

 

[Erik Nelson]

An inscription of Quirinius was found on a coin and at the bottom of a statue that dates him as proconsul of Syria & Cilicia at 11 BC.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Somewhere here that has been asked and answered before. It is really not worth anyone's time.
All they have to do is google it for the answer.

Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education
Was Luke wrong about the census of Quirinius? | CARM.org



Quirinius census response apologetics - Norton Safe Search

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

An inscription of Quirinius was found on a coin and at the bottom of a statue that dates him as proconsul of Syria & Cilicia at 11 BC.

What coin and statue are you referring to?

The Lapis Tiburtinus in your quoted picture has been mentioned numerous times above, and probably refers to Piso rather than Quirinius, but is cerainly not very conclusive evidence of anything.

 

[Erik Nelson]

What coin and statue are you referring to?

The Lapis Tiburtinus in your quoted picture has been mentioned numerous times above, and probably refers to Piso rather than Quirinius, but is cerainly not very conclusive evidence of anything.

well, if one accepts Church Tradition...

Mary, mother of Jesus - Wikipedia

then Jesus was born about 3 BC

his mother Mary was about 13 when she bore Jesus

so Mary was born about 16 BC...
right about at the beginning of the renovation of the temple of Jerusalem...

perhaps Joachim & Anne consecrated Mary to the temple, in her 3rd year, c. 13 BC...
on the first 7th Sabbath year of the renovations?

the temple renovations may have played an important role in the story of Mary ? Think there's something important about it all

 

[mindlight]

According to the gospel of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed the legate of Syria in 6 AD, after Judaea was annexed to Rome. He then proceeded to order a census for tax purposes as was common Roman usage in new provinces.
This followed the partition of Herod the Great's kingdom into the tetrachies of Galilee under Herod Antipas, Judaea under Herod Archelaus and the tetrachy of Philip in 4 BC. Now Herod Archelaus was quite incompetent, provoking rebellions and acting outside his powers etc. and as a consequence was deposed and exiled to Gaul by order of Augustus. Judaea became a province, while the other two Herodian rulers remained in power. It was at this point that the seasoned ex-consul Quirinius was sent out to sort out the new province and suppress the lingering rebellion according to Josephus.

Now there are a number of problems here:

1: Matthew unequivocally states Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in Bethlehem. In fact he mentions that Joseph returning from Egypt decides to go to Nazareth so as not to live under Herod Archelaus. Thus Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC and thus a full 10 years before the census that was supposed to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

2: Earlier in Luke when discussing John the Baptist's birth, it is stated this occured during Herod's reign. Thus when Mary visited Elizabeth she was pregnant and thus likely also during Herod's reign.
This Herod might be Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. If the former than we have 10 years before the census of Quirinius again, if the latter then it contradicts Matthew.

3: According to Luke, Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth in Galilee. He was thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas and therefore had no need to be counted in a Judaean census. Besides this was for tax purposes and it makes no sense why he would let himself be taxed when he had no need to do so.

4: The Romans did not require people to travel to specific places based on descent for censuses. Joseph could have been counted wherever he was (which was of course Galilee and thus outside the census area in entirety). Even if Joseph held property in Bethlehem that needed to be registered, there was no need for him and his pregnant wife to travel there.

So this makes it very difficult to pin down what is going on here. I have heard people say that maybe there was an earlier census done by Quirinius under Herod, but why would a high-up Roman be the flunky of a petty client king? Besides this still means Luke is in error as it explicitly says when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

So what do you think?

I see no reason not to trust Luke over other ancient sources. Josephus for example is not entirely reliable when it comes to dates and had no direct experience of Syria.

Herod was sick in the last years of his reign so the traditional date of his death in 1 BC is entirely possible with the sons that replaced him backdating their reigns into the time of their fathers sickness.

Quirinius is in the area from 12 BC with his campaign against the Homonadenses and may have been the real power in Syria in 4-1BC also. In the Roman records there is a gap in the records for the governorship of Syria between 4-1BC or at very least claims about this period are inconclusive. It is possible that Quirinius's plans for a census were called off for the interval between 1BC and 6 AD when he was away from the area. Luke was actually born in Syria in Antioch so it seems less likely he would make a mistake about this than the other sources used to dispute him.

The doubts about and weakness of the kings of one of their client states may have led Rome and Quirinius to ask for a registration of citizens at this time but this might not have been fully carried out until his second period as governor. Augustus was friendly with Herod the Great but had no reason to trust his sons and given his military successes no reason to fear them. He may well have envisaged a deeper integration of the province of Judea as a part of a grander plan for consolidation of the provinces of the East.

The fact is that the sources are inconclusive or unreliable apart from Luke so just trusting the bible on this seems the best option.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well it's something worth discussing. Inquiring minds want to know, as they say.

You can go to Youtube and view the ministry of Dave Hunt. He is the best for showing that the Bible and the historical record are consistent with each other. I think it is part of his message showing that the Bible is absolutely the true Word of God. He has gone thoroughly into all the existing historical documents that describe the history around the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, and he is able to show that those narratives are totally consistent with what was going on with the Roman and Jewish leadership at the time, and the events surrounding them.