When was Jesus born

[AlexBP]

Ironically I am using Josephus's the Antiquities of the Jews. It is probably mostly reliable, except for the TF and James, the brother of Jesus part.

I agree, your use Josephus is pretty ironic. Apparently your position is that within a single work, you'll accept quotes from that work as "mostly reliable" if they work in favor of the argument you want to make while simultaneously rejecting quotes from the same work that don't work in your favor. Of course you're begging the question of why you consider Josephus to be mostly reliable?

As I recall, in a previous thread you insisted that the gospels couldn't be trusted because there was a 100-year gap between their original composition and the date of the earliest existing fragments. (Your numbers turned out to be wrong, of course.) With Josephus, there's a gap of about 1,000 years between when he wrote Antiquities and the earliest existing manuscripts. So if you don't trust the gospels, obviously you should distrust Josephus even more, if you want to be logically consistent.

As for your claim that the census referred to was in 6 or 7 A.D., you can't prove that. While there's historical evidence of a census in the province during those years, there's no basis for asserting that it was the only census ever taken. There might have been others, including one when Herod was still alive.

The passage does not say "everyone should be registered" it says "all the world should be registered". So your argument about the word everyone simply does not apply.

I was not making an argument as much as trying to help you understand obvious facts about linguistics. Some words and phrases are interpreted as meaning things different from their literal construction. The word "everyone" is constructed from the "every" and "one", so literally its construction implies that it means every single person on earth. However, when we use the word, we rarely mean exactly that. Instead we mean all the persons in some group, with context determining exactly what that group is.

If you translate "everyone" into French, you get "tout le monde", which literally means "all the world". Nevertheless, the French do not have any trouble understand what's meant by that phrase, just as we English-speakers don't have any trouble understanding what's meant by "everyone". Even small children can understand this quite easily. Thus it's somewhat difficult to figure out what you're hoping to accomplish by raising this point. For that matter, it's somewhat difficult to figure out what you're hoping to accomplish with any of the things you post. Do you honestly believe that any of the material you copy from atheist or anti-Christian websites will surprise us? Do you think that we haven't seen all this crud a hundred times before? I'd wager that for most of us, the obvious lameness of all this stuff helps make our faith more secure by further convincing us that there aren't any anti-Christian arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[BrainInVat]

Oikumene means "inhabited world", from oikos (home or house) and ge (land or earth); it was usually used to describe the known, civilized world. Rome ruled the world, at last as far as everyone within Rome's borders were concerned.

I am perfectly fine with interpreting "the whole world" as the Roman Empire. The problem is that the census was not an empire wide census, but a provincial census.

 

[BrainInVat]

Revelation 12, Astral Prophecy and the Birth of Christ on 9/11 - YouTube​

Note the 80min. window.

This video talks about Revelations 12:1-2 which talks about future events, not past events.

Revelations 12:1-4

"A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. 3Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth."

When did Revelations 12:3-4 happen, metaphorically or literally? Also it gives the date of Jesus's birth as 3 BC, at which time neither Herod the Great or Quirinius were in power.

 

[BrainInVat]

Originally Posted by BrainInVat
Ironically I am using Josephus's the Antiquities of the Jews. It is probably mostly reliable, except for the TF and James, the brother of Jesus part.

I agree, your use Josephus is pretty ironic. Apparently your position is that within a single work, you'll accept quotes from that work as "mostly reliable" if they work in favor of the argument you want to make while simultaneously rejecting quotes from the same work that don't work in your favor.

I have explained in detail why the references to Jesus in Josephus's The Antiquities of the Jews are suspicious. In addition there is a strong motivation for Christians to add references to Jesus into The Antiquities of the Jews, but not much motivation for anyone to change the date during which Quirinius was governor.

As I recall, in a previous thread you insisted that the gospels couldn't be trusted because there was a 100-year gap between their original composition and the date of the earliest existing fragments. (Your numbers turned out to be wrong, of course.)

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 has been dated to between before 100 AD to after 150 AD. I admit my memory was faulty and I thought that it had been dated to 150 AD, but the date I gave is still within the range, and it doesn't change my point. There are many reasons to doubt the validity of the gospels. Including internal contradictions, latter additions, 30+ gospels which did not get included into the New Testament, other acts and epistles which did not get included into the New Testament, contradictions with science, contradictions with geography, contradictions with history, the fact that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same, and supernatural events.

While there's historical evidence of a census in the province during those years, there's no basis for asserting that it was the only census ever taken. There might have been others, including one when Herod was still alive.

There probably were other censuses taken prior to 6 AD in Judea, but Quirinius was not governor during any of them as he became governor in 6 AD.

If you translate "everyone" into French, you get "tout le monde", which literally means "all the world".

Firstly we are not talking about French we are talking about ancient Greek. Secondly ViaCrucis already pointed out that Oikumene means "inhabited world".

It is oikumenical because it is not simply local.

The census was local.

 

[AlexBP]

I am perfectly fine with interpreting "the whole world" as the Roman Empire. The problem is that the census was not an empire wide census, but a provincial census.

Local governors were allowed to decide when, where, and how to take a census. Nonetheless the idea of taking a census originated in Rome, and the imperial desire for information was the motivating force behind any local census in Syria or any other province. Hence I don't see why it's a problem for Luke to tie the census to Augustus.

There probably were other censuses taken prior to 6 AD in Judea, but Quirinius was not governor during any of them as he became governor in 6 AD.

Your are incorrect about the dates of Quirinius' governorshpi in Syria. Try this link. Quirinius may have held the governorship prior to 6 A.D.

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.
​

In addition, some linguists believe that the verse in question is translated incorrectly, and may actually be referring a census before Quirinius was governor, rather than while he was governor.

As I've said before, whatever source you're copying and pasting from is obviously not reliable. As long as you continue to copy and paste from it, you'll be proved wrong over and over again.

 

[BrainInVat]

Hence I don't see why it's a problem for Luke to tie the census to Augustus.

I don’t either. The problem is to tie the census to an empire wide census. This passage does indeed show that Caesar ordered the census.

The Antiquities of the Jews book 17 chapter 13 section 5

"So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius [Quirinius], one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."

This passage also shows that Syria annexed Judea when Quirinius became governor and took the census.

Your are incorrect about the dates of Quirinius' governorshpi in Syria. Try this link. Quirinius may have held the governorship prior to 6 A.D.

This website talks about an inscription called the Lapis Tiburinus, which is mostly eroded. The following is a translation of the Lapis Tiburinus:

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

How you get that Quirinius was governor of Syria prior to 6 AD I don’t know. In addition Publius Quinctilius Varus was the governor of Syria when King Herod died, and Gaius Senius Saturnius was governor prior to him.

The Antiquities of the Jews book 17 chapter 9 section 3

“…But Sabinus, Caesar's steward for Syrian affairs, as he was making haste into Judea to preserve Herod's effects, met with Archclaus at Caesarea; but Varus (president of Syria) came at that time, and restrained him from meddling with them, for he was there as sent for by Archceaus, by the means of Ptolemy. ..“

The Antiquities of the Jews chapter 17 chapter 5 section 2

“2. Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria, and was come as an assessor to Herod, who had desired his advice in his present affairs…”

In addition, some linguists believe that the verse in question is translated incorrectly, and may actually be referring a census before Quirinius was governor, rather than while he was governor.

Unfortunately I don’t know ancient Greek. However, here is Christian site which debunks this. Once More: Quirinius's Census

Why would Luke bring up Quirinius becoming governor 10 years after the birth of Jesus? It would be like saying “Bill Clinton was impeached. This impeachment happened prior to Gordon Brown becoming prime minister of England”. It would be a non-squitter.

 

[AlexBP]

There are many reasons to doubt the validity of the gospels. Including internal contradictions, latter additions, 30+ gospels which did not get included into the New Testament, other acts and epistles which did not get included into the New Testament, contradictions with science, contradictions with geography, contradictions with history, the fact that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same, and supernatural events.

I seem to recall that in a previous thread, several posters asked you to give examples of what you're talking about or to explain your reasoning logically, and you didn't answer.

In this thread, however, we're debating whether Josephus's Antiquities is reliable. You've said that it is without explaining why, while simultaneously giving reasons why you view the gospels as unreliable. One such reason you give is that "no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same". Can you show me two ancient manuscripts of Antiquities that are exactly the same? If not, then don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquities as unreliable? Another reason you give for classifying the gospels as unreliable is "supernatural events". Does Antiquities include supernatural events? If so, then don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquities as unreliable? You mention the gospels having "contradictions with science, contradictions with geography, contradictions with history". Does Antiquities have any contradictions with history, geography, or science? If so, don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquities as unreliable?

Furthermore, large portions of Antiquities are simply taken from the Bible or from Jewish tradition. If you think of one as unreliable, then doesn't that logically mean that the other has to be unreliable as well?

 

[AlexBP]

The problem is to tie the census to an empire wide census.

Luke never uses the phrase "empire wide census". In fact he never even uses the word "census". Luke uses the Greek word apographo, which means a count or a registration. Augustus desired, for bureaucratic reasons, that the population of the empire be counted and pressured the local rulers of the provinces to do so. This is what motivated frequent local censuses in Syria and everywhere else. Luke is correct. There is no problem with what he wrote.

 

[BrainInVat]

If you don’t like The Antiquities of the Jews, Tacitus agrees with Josephus in History book 5 section 9:

“…On Herod's death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod.”

I admit it is a bit awkward to be using The Antiquities of the Jews as a source after questioning the authenticity of two small portions of it, but don’t you feel awkward attacking several portions of it after defending its authenticity before?

In this thread, however, we're debating whether Josephus's Antiquities is reliable. . You've said that it is without explaining why

One reason to think that Josephus is reliable is because of his agreement with archeology. Here are some examples:

In War (VII, 286) Josephus states that the walls of Masada were 1300 meters long, and the walls were 4 meters thick. This is correct Y. Yadin, "The Excavations of Masada - 1963/64 Preliminary Report", IEJ 15 (1965), p. 69.

According to Josephus in War (I, 403) the walls of Samaia-Sebaste were 3720 meters. This is correct. J. W. Crowfoot et. al., The Buildings at Samaria, London 1942, pp. 39-40

The description of the harbor of Caesarea is accurate. Holum G. K., Hohlfelder R. L., Bull J. R., Raban A., 1988: King Herod‘s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea; W. W. Norton & Company, New York - London

According to Josephus in War (IV, 474) Jerusalem and Jericho are about 30 km apart and Jericho is 12 km from the Jordan. This is correct. According to War (I, 265) Jerusalem and Herodium are 12 km apart. This is correct. According to War (II, 516) Jerusalem and Gibeon are 10 km apart. This is correct.

However, Mark 5:1 has this to say

“They came to the other side of the lake [Sea of Galilee], to the country of the Gerasenes.”

Gerasa is not near the Sea of Galilee.

Mark 7:31 has this to say

“Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.”

Sidon is north of Tyre. The Sea of Galilee is south east of Tyre.

Mark 8:10 has this:

“And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha”

There is no such place as Dalmanutha.

Luke 4:29

“They got up, drove him out of the town [Nazareth], and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.”

There is no cliff near Nazareth.

Josephus was an advisor to Emperor Titus and would thus have had access to historical records such as the governors of Syria. We have no idea who wrote the Gospel of Luke and what sources he was using.

In this thread, however, we're debating whether Josephus's Antiquities is reliable. You've said that it is without explaining why, while simultaneously giving reasons why you view the gospels as unreliable. One such reason you give is that "no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same". Can you show me two ancient manuscripts of Antiquities that are exactly the same? If not, then don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquities as unreliable?

If you wish to base a religion on a book than there is a much higher standard for the book you wish to base your religion on than other books. In particular if you believe that the bible is the perfect word of God (I know all Christians do not believe this), than the fact that no two ancient manuscripts agree perfectly is enough to invalidate that belief.

Another reason you give for classifying the gospels as unreliable is "supernatural events". Does Antiquities include supernatural events? If so, then don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquities as unreliable?

I believe Josephus writes about three omens, which occurred prior to the destruction of the Temple. One of them was a cow giving birth to a lamb. Another was the temple doors flying open without a reason. I don’t remember the third. I am not defending those portions of The Antiquities of the Jews, and it does somewhat bring the rest of The Antiquities of the Jews into question. However, the bible contains many more supernatural events, so much so that the rest of it becomes hard to believe as well.

You mention the gospels having "contradictions with science, contradictions with geography, contradictions with history". Does Antiquities have any contradictions with history, geography, or science? If so, don't you view that as a reason for classifying Antiquitiesas unreliable?

Other than the three omens I mentioned I am not aware of any contradictions with science. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few other contradictions with science, as Josephus knew almost no science by modern standards. Again the bible must be held to a higher standard if you claim that it had divine influence, as God should know all of science. If you know where Josephus contradicts geography or history let me know.

Furthermore, large portions of Antiquities are simply taken from the Bible or from Jewish tradition. If you think of one as unreliable, then doesn't that logically mean that the other has to be unreliable as well?

Yes. Of course I do not believe Old Testament stories when they are retold by Josephus. When I said I believe Josephus is mostly reliable I was not referring to books 1-10, in which he is mostly just retelling the Old Testament, but to books 11-20. I have only ever referenced books 17-20.
Are there 30+ versions of The Antiquities of the Jews each of which badly contradict each other in every chapter? You should hold the bible to a higher standard than The Antiquities of the Jews, but it doesn't even meet the standards of The Antiquities of the Jews.

 

[BrainInVat]

Luke never uses the phrase "empire wide census". In fact he never even uses the word "census". Luke uses the Greek word apographo, which means a count or a registration. Augustus desired, for bureaucratic reasons, that the population of the empire be counted and pressured the local rulers of the provinces to do so. This is what motivated frequent local censuses in Syria and everywhere else. Luke is correct. There is no problem with what he wrote.

What is the difference between a census and a count or registration?

 

[AlexBP]

However, Mark 5:1 has this to say

“They came to the other side of the lake [Sea of Galilee], to the country of the Gerasenes.”

Gerasa is not near the Sea of Galilee.

Actually Gerasa is near the Sea of Galilee. 14 miles away according to the atlas I checked. However, it's unclear why you're even mentioning this. Does the Bible say that "Gerasa is near the Sea of Galilee?" If not, then what's your point?

Mark 7:31 has this to say

“Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.”

Sidon is north of Tyre. The Sea of Galilee is south east of Tyre.

So? Is there any reason to believe that it was impossible for Jesus to head north and then turn around and head south? If not, then what's your point?

Mark 8:10 has this:

“And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha”

There is no such place as Dalmanutha.

Even if there is no such place as Dalmanutha today, that doesn't mean that there was no such place when Jesus lived.

Luke 4:29

“They got up, drove him out of the town [Nazareth], and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.”

There is no cliff near Nazareth.

How do you know that there is no cliff near Nazareth?

 

[AlexBP]

What is the difference between a census and a count or registration?

It seems that you're just trying to distract attention away from the total failure of your original argument. You said that "the problem" was that Luke tied the census under Quirinius to an empire-wide census. Since Luke does no such thing, your argument is baseless. Arguing about minute details in the definition of ancient Greek words won't save you from being proven wrong.

 

[Cuddles333]

An 1840s picture of Nazareth.



The place (as recorded in Mk.5) where Jesus and His disciples stepped off the boat at the very south end of the Lake of Galilee, was called Umm Qais. There is a large hill extending down to the sea that can accommodate 2000 head of swine at this site.

The place where they crossed back, was all pretty much destroyed by the Romans in the mid 60s during the Jewish revolt. The town was located near Magdala.

 

[BrainInVat]

Gerasa is not near the Sea of Galilee.

Actually Gerasa is near the Sea of Galilee. 14 miles away according to the atlas I checked.

Actually Gerasa is about 39 miles away from the Sea of Galilee. I found this from "As The Crow Flies" Distance Calculator. I used Dganya Alef, Israel as the location of the Sea of Galilee. Probably the distance would be slightly shorter if I had used another location. More importantly there is a city in between the Sea of Galilee and Gerasa. It is called Gadara. Other cities that are nearer to the south east side of the Sea of Galilee (The area the passage probably refers to) than Gerasa include Hippus, Raphana, Pella, and Scythopolis.

However, it's unclear why you're even mentioning this. Does the Bible say that "Gerasa is near the Sea of Galilee?"

Yes it does. It says that the country of the Gerasenes borders the Sea of Galilee, which it doesn’t.

Mark 7:31 has this to say

“Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.”

Sidon is north of Tyre. The Sea of Galilee is south east of Tyre.

So? Is there any reason to believe that it was impossible for Jesus to head north and then turn around and head south? If not, then what's your point?

If the Bible said Jesus went from Tyre to Sidon and then to the Sea of Galilee there would not be a big problem, except that it would be nice to have a motivation for such a journey. E.g Jesus went to preach and heal people in Sidon, rather than just passing through, which would make the journey silly. The problem is the passage says Sidon is between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee.

Mark 8:10 has this:

“And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha”

There is no such place as Dalmanutha.

Even if there is no such place as Dalmanutha today, it doesn't mean that there was no such place when Jesus lived.

There is no record of Dalmanutha either. There might have been small towns that we have no record of, but we probably have records of all of the districts.

Luke 4:29

“They got up, drove him out of the town [Nazareth], and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.”

There is no cliff near Nazareth.

How do you know that there is no cliff near Nazareth?

Here is Christian website which states that there is no cliff within 2.5 miles of the synagogue, not on “the brow of the hill on which their town was built” Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus?

 

[BrainInVat]

Originally Posted by AlexBP View Post
Luke never uses the phrase "empire wide census". In fact he never even uses the word "census". Luke uses the Greek word apographo, which means a count or a registration. Augustus desired, for bureaucratic reasons, that the population of the empire be counted and pressured the local rulers of the provinces to do so. This is what motivated frequent local censuses in Syria and everywhere else. Luke is correct. There is no problem with what he wrote.

Originally Posted by BrainInVat View Post
What is the difference between a census and a count or registration?

It seems that you're just trying to distract attention away from the total failure of your original argument. You said that "the problem" was that Luke tied the census under Quirinius to an empire-wide census. Since Luke does no such thing, your argument is baseless. Arguing about minute details in the definition of ancient Greek words won't save you from being proven wrong.

You are the one who brought up this whole registration versus census thing. I asked you to explain your argument and you responded by saying that I am trying to distract attention away from the argument.

Look at Luke 2:1-2 again

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

What registration does the word "This" in the second sentence refer to? It refers to the registration of "all the world" ordered by Emperor Augustus. The second sentence does not make sense unless it is talking about an empire wide census. If all you read is the first sentence you might argue that Emperor Augustus did not mean that all Roman provinces should have simultaneous censuses, but that all provinces should have periodic censuses. This is a very weak argument to begin with, but it completely falls apart with the second sentence.

However this isn't even the biggest problem with the passage. The problem is that Quirinius was not governor of Syria while Herod the Great was King of Judea.

 

[AlexBP]

The problem is the passage says Sidon is between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee.

This is flatly not true. Mark does not say that Sidon is between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee.

There is no record of Dalmanutha either. There might have been small towns that we have no record of, but we probably have records of all of the districts.

Mark does not describe Dalmanutha as an official district. He describes it using the Greek word "meros", which can be used to refer to any type of place.

As I've told you several times before, as long as you copy and paste claims from atheist websites, you're going to get proven wrong over and over.

 

[AlexBP]

Yes it does. It says that the country of the Gerasenes borders the Sea of Galilee, which it doesn’t.

This is flatly incorrect. Mark does not say that the country of Gerasenes borders the Sea of Galilee.

(I acknowledge being wrong about the distance between Gerasa and the Sea, but since Mark says nothing about that distance it's not relevant to the reliability of that episode.)

Here is Christian website which states that there is no cliff within 2.5 miles of the synagogue, not on “the brow of the hill on which their town was built” Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus?

The article that you linked to thinks that the episode in Luke is entirely reliable. We're you simply hoping that I wouldn't read it?

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

 

[John 1720]

When was Jesus born? Luke 2:1-7 has this to say.

“In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.”

The census referred to in this passage was taken in the year 6/7 AD. As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census. Does it seem reasonable to anyone that people would have to go to their ancestral town of a thousand years ago to register for the census? If Joseph had identified himself as a descendent of King David he would have been executed by the Romans.
According to both Matthew and Luke Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. So Jesus was born both before 3 BC and in 6 or 7 AD. That is a miracle.

Hi Sir,
According to tradition Jesus was born in late 3 BC. That was not problematic until the 19th century when the Lunar eclipse specified by Josephus was rethought to have occurred in 4 BC and the reigns of His sons specified by Josephus seemed to agree. More recently that viewpoint has been debated, since the 4 BC eclipse would not fit the timeframe or anount to much that ould have been visible in Judea or Galilee. It's more likely the eclipse of 1 BC would be the correct one - which means Josephus reign of Herod's sons would have been coregent with that of their infamous dad. That's really not much of a problem, since many rulers tried to back up their reigns as co-regents. In this case, however, it would have been unlikely Herod would have ever let his sons rule with him. Of course after he was dead there wasn't any reason to fear him any longer.
As far as the census goes it is true that there was one in AD 6 but it is quite possible one happened earlier as well. We have one in the US every 10 years so I assume they had them in Rome periodically as well. Anyhow, there is not any data tht rules that out.
In Christ, John 17:20

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

According to both Matthew and Luke Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. So Jesus was born both before 3 BC and in 6 or 7 AD. That is a miracle.

I think it would be a bigger miracle if there was an agreement on the truth between competing factions ....
and is a bigger miracle that world wide there is agreement on the truth as people (Ekklesia) walk in union with Jesus and the Father! (as written in the NT, not seen often by most people)