The problem was that he was referring to apologists. Apologists are not historians, they are not archaeologists, they are not scientists. And I do agree with you. They all appear to be Liars for Jesus. There are Christian historians and they are still Christians even if they know that the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are myths. The conflict in dating is pretty much unanimous among the historians that I have seen That is because they look so ignorant if they try to defend the idea of a same date.
I would consider those who try to rewrite history to place the census where the Gospel of Luke states liars to justify the inerrancy of the gospels. The problem is also evidence that the gospels were compiled, edited, and redacted after 74 AD by those not familiar with the time of Jesus most likely by Hellenist believers in Asia Minor. There is other evidence as previously described that supports the authorship as later Hellenist believers.
Here is where first-person Roman records of the times trump the later third-person compilations of the gospels as not historically accurate, By far the overwhelming number of academics including Christian scholars agree with the documented Roman history.
en.wikipedia.org
The
Census of Quirinius was a
census of the
Roman province of
Judaea taken in 6
CE, upon its formation, by the governor of
Roman Syria,
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt of
Jewish extremists (called
Zealots) led by
Judas of Galilee.
The
Gospel of Luke uses the census to date
the birth of
Jesus, which the
Gospel of Matthew places in the time of
Herod the Great (who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE). Most critical scholars acknowledge that Luke is in error, while religious academics have attempted to explain the confusion with historically unverified claims.
Contrary to the
Gospel of Matthew, which places
Jesus's birth in the time of Herod I,
[6] the
Gospel of Luke (
2:1–5) correlates it with the census:
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 [David]. He went to be registered with
Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.
Most
biblical scholars have acknowledged that the Gospel of Luke is erroneous.
[7] Its author seems to have invoked the census as Joseph and Mary's motivation for departing "their own city"
[8] of Nazareth, Galilee, for Bethlehem.
[9] Additionally, the author may have wished to contrast Joseph and Mary's obedience to the Roman edict with the rebelliousness of the Zealots, and also to find
a prophetic fulfilment of
Psalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, [princes] will be born there."
[9][a]Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia (Luke and Matthew also give different accounts of the family's departure from Bethlehem.)[12][c]
Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.[15] Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census, although the region is clearly distinguished from Judaea elsewhere in the gospel.[16][17] Brown also points out that in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author of both books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following Theudas's rebellion of four decades later.
