Historical Reliability of Luke 2's: Census of Quirinius

In this video, we analyze the historical reliability of Luke 2's census. Critics often try. to undermine the nativity story by stating there was no census at the time of Jesus' birth. However, when you get the date of Herod's death correct in 1 BC and dive in Josephus' Antiquities that cover 2 BC, you see that there was instead a loyalty pledge (census) of all Roman subjects to Augustus.

Click Here to Support:

Music provided by No Copyright Music:

Epic Music provided by AShamaluevMusic
Track Info: Epic Motivation - AShamaluevMusic.

#justscripture #josephus #censusofquirinius

[poynt]

This is absolutely ridiculous, a census then is to collect tax, sending Joseph back to his ancestral home is ridiculous concept and completely untrue. The Egyptian papyrus tells to return to their present homes not ancestral.

[lanabowers]

There are 2 accounts of Jesus' birth. Matthew was talking about his actual physical birth into the world. (Jesusnwas born in Sunday March 1, 7BC). Luke was talking about his 2d birth into the community. This was 12 years later when Jesus was 12 years old. Thiz was in 6 AD. This is the year that the census was taken. Quirinius was never governor of Syria when Herod was alive. Herod died in 4 BC. The census was just a registering of property. Joseph & Mary would not have to travel.

[alecepting]

Excellent research. Much of this was covered by Dr. Ernest Martin in his book "The Star of Bethlehem: The Star that Astonished the World". He also bases the 3 B.C. birth of Christ on the signs in the heavens as described in Revelation 12:1-2 and the movement of the stars (Jupiter standing still) when the Magi came in 2 BC to visit the Christ child as a 1 year old. Herod would have died a year later.

[danhoff]

If you hold your mouth right you can harmonize anything.

The bigger question for Christians is why did the Holy Spirit not clarify this through Luke? Surely an extra line could have prevented this stumbling block. Why did He not inspire Josephus to corroborate the slaying of the innocents or two governorships of Quirinius in Syria? When you stop trying to harmonize with a fundamentalist methodology why does it appear so strongly that Luke is paralleling the Elijah/Elisha narrative and Matthew is parallelling Moses? Perhaps because neither one actually knew the backstory and the synoptics were never intended to be read as one super gospel.

I laughed out loud when you brought up the Egyptian papyrus. There is a huge difference between calling migrant workers or travellers back to their own farms and calling them back to their ancestors dwelling locations. In Luke, Mary and Joseph's domicile was clearly in Nazareth and there is no precedent anytime for registering at a distant ancestors residence. This would make as much sense as me reporting for the 2020 census in SD even though I've lived 1200 miles away for 20 years. Luke is clearly using this as a literally device to get the story to Bethlehem and establish a Davidic bloodline.

Bottom line is that a fundamentalist reading cannot stand up to scrutiny.

[kingdomidentity]

I keep watching the video trying to understand something…was Quirinius governing Syria 3/2bc? based on this research? Obviously what Luke wrote is true and accurate but I just see him being legate of Galatia in 3/2bc?

[indyjoeinorlandolarea]

Great explanation by using Scripture to interpret scripture!

[kingdomidentity]

This is what I’ve been looking for! Other explanations weren’t that good.

[petercollins]

First, no competent scholar still considers Herod's death to have occurred in 1 BCE. Since there is ample evidence that his 2 sons took over his rule in 4 BCE, upon his death. The most contemporaneous evidence confirms this dating for the succession of Herod's sons. The only basis to move Herod's death later is a desperate determination to somehow make the gospel account possible.
Second, your entire claim about Quirinius rests on the claims, unproven, of a historian from nearly 2 centuries ago. Modern scholarship universally dates Quirinius governorship of Syria to a 6 CE beginning. And the bible is specific - it does not say that Quirinius oversaw a census; it explicitly names him as the governor. This is another case of you desperation for harmonization making you simply make up absurd and long-disproven "facts."
Third, there has never been any census carried out by the Romans, or under Roman authority, that required anyone to "go back" to any alleged ancestral home. In fact, there has never been any census, anywhere in world history, that required anyone to return to their "ancestral home." Not only would this contradict the purpose of the census - assessing taxes on the basis of how many men were living in a particular place - but it would also utterly destroy the economy of the entire region. It is utterly absurd, and this is refuted by every scholar who is not, again, desperately trying to harmonize the falsehoods of the gospel.

You need to stop lying - deliberately telling falsehoods. And you need to stop trying to convince gullible fools that the biblical attempt is possible.

[jperez]

It would be interesting to find out which star pinpointed the location of Jesus in bethlehem at the moment of the epiphany on 25 December 2 bc

[mr.smith]

Your explanation is garbage with no sources. You're wrong and stop misleading people.