flaws in the gospels: Jesus' birth, when?

[gnostic]

I thought I'll just start a new thread, instead of posting in the other thread - When was Yeshua born? Summer/Winter

The church has determined to set the date on Christmas' Day, but whether Jesus was really born on this date, can never be known for certain. So I'll start my new now.

-------

According to both gospels, Matthew and Luke, Jesus has to be born when Herod the Great was still alive (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5). (Also Augustus (27 BCE - 14 CE) was still ruling the empire at that time.)

According to Luke (2:1-2), it also has to happen at the time of the census, when Quirinius was still governor of Syria.

Other than that, there is no indication if was winter or summer in Judaea. Since, we can't determine what season (or month and day) it was when Jesus was born, then I would like to address what year Jesus was born in.

According to Luke, Jesus was conceived 6 months after John the Baptist was conceived:

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary

Herod died in 4 BCE. So obviously Jesus was born before that. The gospel of Matthew clearly indicated that Joseph took his wife and Jesus to Egypt, until Jesus' death and Archelaus reigned in Judaea. But Joseph didn't stay in Judaea (Matthew 2:22), and went to live in Galilee.

Herod Archelaus, however did stay in power in Judaea for very long, because he lost his throne in 6 CE.

However, according to Luke, not much is mentioned about Herod the Great, and there was no persecution and massacre of children in Bethlehem, and no exile of Joseph to Egypt. Everything is peaceful in comparison to Matthew's gospel.

Now here is the problem. (Actually there are many problems above, but that will take me too long to write up.)

The problem is Quirinius and his census.

According to Luke a census was supposed to take place when Quirinius was governor (or legate) of Syria. Quirinius didn't become legate of Syria until after Herod Archelaus was dethroned and banished from Judaea, which is 6 CE. There was no census during later years of Herod the Great's reign and Quirinius was never governor while Herod the Great was alive. The census would have taken place either that year (6 CE) or the year later (7 CE).

(A little history lesson. During the Republican days, it was the Senate that appoint ex-consuls (proconsuls) and ex-praetors (propraetors) to their respective provinces to govern. But by the time of Augustus, the Senate only had control of two provinces: Asia Minor and Africa. The rest of the governors were appointed directly by Augustus himself, and generally had titles like legatus or prefectus.)

And the census and taxation didn't happen until after Herod Archelaus had already left Judaea.

Herod the Great died in 4 BCE and the governorship of Quirinius began in 6 CE. A gap of 10 years.

So either Matthew or Luke is wrong of when Jesus was born, because they certainly both can't be right. (Or they both can be wrong, since I think both gospels' narratives are far-fetched, but this thread is not about what I believe in.)

1. Who is right?
2. How do we reconcile the difference in conflicting dates?

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I forgot.

Most modern bible experts put the date of Jesus' birth to about 6 BCE. I don't know why they think this is the year Jesus was born.

Anyway. That would put 12 to 13 years between Jesus' birth and the census of Quirinius. Again, I don't see how Jesus' birth could have occur during the Luke's census, if this date is true.

Either Jesus was born before Herod's death (6 CE) or born in the year the census took place (c. 6 or 7 CE); for it can't be both.

I probably should have posted this in Bibical Debates forums. I would appreciate it if someone could move this thread there. Thanks.

 

[gnostic]

Some people have read this topic, but no one has bother to reply.

I would have thought this would be different and interesting topic than about, if Jesus was born on Christmas' day or not. The topic on Jesus/Christmas has been done to death, so I thought it would be more refreshing to tackle about Herod/Roman census issues with regarding to Jesus' birth.

 

[gnosticx]

jesus was not born on 25th december... this day was sol invictus' main day of worship and they were sun worshippers or should i say still are as they just changed their name to wrest control of the jesus phenonemon...they were successful and wev worship on SUNday and christmas on 25 dec....

 

[gnostic]

Hi gnosticx.

This is not thread about December 25th or Christmas' day. This topic is covered in several other recent threads. I am sorry that I didn't make myself clear about it.

This topic is about if Jesus' birth occur in the year of (A) when the census had taken...years after Herod's death (Luke's version) or (B) when Herod was still alive but no census (Matthew's version).

Matthew's version make no mention of census whatsoever, while Luke's version make absolutely no mention of the massacre in Bethlehem.

According to Flavius Josephus, Quintus was not governor of Syria, until Herod Archelaus (not to be confused with Herod the Great) was banished from Judaea, when Judaea became officially a Roman province. The census also didn't occurred till after Archelaus' exile.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some people have read this topic, but no one has bother to reply.

I do not understand this fixation on "flaws in the gospel." It's been done to death. Unresolvable contradictions exist. Nu?

 

[gnostic]

Made an error here. It should read "Herod's death", not "Jesus' death".

Edit: Herod died in 4 BCE. So obviously Jesus was born before that. The gospel of Matthew clearly indicated that Joseph took his wife and Jesus to Egypt, until Herod's death and Archelaus reigned in Judaea.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

gnostic-

Why did you conclude 4 BCE for Herod's death ?________________

According to Josephus: Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon before a Passover.
[Jewish Antiquities XVII 167[vi 4]213 [ix 3]

There was a total eclipse of the moon on 1 BCE about three months before Passover.
That eclipse was on January 8th [Julian Jan 10th] 18 days before Shebat 2.
Shebat 2 [Shebat [Jan/Feb] of our calendar] being the traditional day of Herod's death.

As far as Quirinius: Luke [2v2] mentions about the time of the 'first' registration or taxing.

Justin Martyr cited Roman records as Quirinius being governor at the time of Jesus birth.

Which early historian ever challenged what Luke wrote?_____________
Even critic Celsus did not mention any evidence to the contrary.

 

[gnostic]

Which early historian ever challenged what Luke wrote?_____________

Flavius Josephus.

The very same author that you have mentioned in your reply, which I will expand a little more, later.

Even critic Celsus did not mention any evidence to the contrary.

I have not read Celsus, so I don't know if Celsus wrote anything about Josephus' works when he was attacking Christianity.

Justin Martyr cited Roman records as Quirinius being governor at the time of Jesus birth.

But Justin Martyr is merely basing his assumption on Luke's gospel than on real Roman records. And Justin wrote over hundred years after the supposed census and supposed Jesus' birth. On the other hand, both Josephus and Luke wrote over 70 years after these events.

I don't know where Luke's sources, but of the 2, Josephus is the one who had real access to Roman records, since Josephus know both emperors, Vepasion and Titus, both of which had campaigned in Judaea. Josephus himself, had taken part in Judaean politics and rebellion. Therefore Josephus have access to both Judaean and (Roman) provincial records.

So who do you think was a better authority on Roman and Judaean politics? Not Luke, a mere disciple of Paul. And certainly not Justin Martyr and Celsus.

Which will bring me to the next point.

According to Josephus: Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon before a Passover.
[Jewish Antiquities XVII 167[vi 4]213 [ix 3]

There was a total eclipse of the moon on 1 BCE about three months before Passover.
That eclipse was on January 8th [Julian Jan 10th] 18 days before Shebat 2.
Shebat 2 [Shebat [Jan/Feb] of our calendar] being the traditional day of Herod's death.

As far as Quirinius: Luke [2v2] mentions about the time of the 'first' registration or taxing.

Clearly you know (or acquainted with) Josephus' work - Jewish Antiquities.

If you believe that Jesus was born during the last remaining years of Herod the Great's reign, then it is not possible that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. This is because you ignored the later part of Book XVII after you mentioned the eclipse and death of Herod. Quirinius' appointment to governor of Syria and his census occurred after Herod the Great's death and after Archelaus' banishment from Judaea.

Here is the source for when Quirinius (his name is Cyrenius in this translation) became governor of Syria:

Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. 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.

It is beginning of Book 18 that Josephus narrated or mentioned the census:

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest

As you can see, history have Quirinius and the census after the banishment of Herod's son (Archelaus) from the tetrarchy of Judaea.

So if Jesus was born during the census, then Jesus could not possibly be born in the so-called events of Herod the Great, the 3 magi, and the massacre of Bethlehem's sons.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I forgot to answer one of your questions.

Why did you conclude 4 BCE for Herod's death ?________________

Herod's son, (Herod) Archelaus was banished in 6 CE, the same year as Quirinius' appointment in Syria and the census, that is undisputed. And Archelaus ruled tetrarchy of Judaea for 10 years, hence would put it at 4 BCE.

It should be noted that there was never a census during Herod the Great's reign, BECAUSE Herod was a client king.

Romans do not do census that are not Roman provinces. A client king may pay tribute to Rome, but such tribute don't require a Roman census. You only need to do census if it require tax, and only those province directly administered by Roman provincial governor. So the claim that a Roman census in Judaea taking place during the reigns of Herod the Great, and even during Archelaus' reign for that matter, doesn't make sense.

The tetrarchy of Judaea became Roman province in 6 CE. A prefect is assigned to manage administration in Judaea, but the the prefect has to answer to the governor (legate) of Syria.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Flavius Josephus.
The very same author that you have mentioned in your reply, which I will expand a little more, later.
I have not read Celsus, so I don't know if Celsus wrote anything about Josephus' works when he was attacking Christianity.
But Justin Martyr is merely basing his assumption on Luke's gospel than on real Roman records. And Justin wrote over hundred years after the supposed census and supposed Jesus' birth. On the other hand, both Josephus and Luke wrote over 70 years after these events.
I don't know where Luke's sources, but of the 2, Josephus is the one who had real access to Roman records, since Josephus know both emperors, Vepasion and Titus, both of which had campaigned in Judaea. Josephus himself, had taken part in Judaean politics and rebellion. Therefore Josephus have access to both Judaean and (Roman) provincial records.
So who do you think was a better authority on Roman and Judaean politics? Not Luke, a mere disciple of Paul. And certainly not Justin Martyr and Celsus.
Which will bring me to the next point.
Clearly you know (or acquainted with) Josephus' work - Jewish Antiquities.
If you believe that Jesus was born during the last remaining years of Herod the Great's reign, then it is not possible that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. This is because you ignored the later part of Book XVII after you mentioned the eclipse and death of Herod. Quirinius' appointment to governor of Syria and his census occurred after Herod the Great's death and after Archelaus' banishment from Judaea.
Here is the source for when Quirinius (his name is Cyrenius in this translation) became governor of Syria:
It is beginning of Book 18 that Josephus narrated or mentioned the census:
As you can see, history have Quirinius and the census after the banishment of Herod's son (Archelaus) from the tetrarchy of Judaea.
So if Jesus was born during the census, then Jesus could not possibly be born in the so-called events of Herod the Great, the 3 magi, and the massacre of Bethlehem's sons.

What Scripture ever said there was three magi ?____________

Josephus was born 'after' Jesus death.
Luke was already a physician traveling with Paul when Josephus was a boy.

The name of Quirinius [ Publius Sulpicius Quirinius] appears in a list of Roman counsuls in 12 BCE -Chronographus Anni CCCLIIII

Josephus relates Quirinius assignment to Syria as governor in connection with the simultaneous assignment of Coponius as Roman ruler of Judea.
[Jewish Antiquities XVIII 1,2,3,4 [i1]
The revolt at that later time frame is the revolt referred to at Acts 5v37.
That places Quirinius as governor of Syria in 6 CE.

The inscription 'Lapis Tiburtinus' found in Rome can apply to Quirinius as on going to Syria became governor for the: 'second time'.
That could make the 'first' time Quirinius governor of Syria in the BCE period.
Hence, Luke's reference to the 'first' tax at Luke 2v2.

The Greek word Luke used 'he.ge.mon' generally translated as governor can be a term used to describe Roman legates, procurators and proconsuls.
So 'hegemon' is basically leader or high executive officer.
So, at the time of the 'first' registration Quirinius serving in Syria could have been in the capacity of that special legate of the emperor.

There is also the factor of Josephus making reference to a 'duel' rulership of Syria since he speaks of two people [Saturninus and Volumnius] serving simultaneously as governors. [Jewish Antiquities XVI,277,280; XVI 344[x8]

Also, if Josephus is correct in his listing of Saturninus and Varus as successive presidents of Syria, it is then quite possible that Quirinius also served simultaneously with Saturninus.

The inscription found in Venice [Lapis Venetus] refers to a census by Quirinius in Syria, but does not state if was in an earlier or later governorship.

What year' before a Passover' and an eclipse of the moon did Herod die?
According to Josephus Herod died after an eclipse before a Passover.
Which eclipse was close to a Passover ?

 

[gnostic]

The Greek word Luke used 'he.ge.mon' generally translated as governor can be a term used to describe Roman legates, procurators and proconsuls.
So 'hegemon' is basically leader or high executive officer.

You don't know what you're talking about.

In the 1st imperial settlement (27 BCE), Augustus took control of most of the provinces in the empire, leaving ONLY JUST 2 PROVINCES under the control of the Senate. These 2 provinces are Africa and Asia (Minor). Most of the important provinces, like Syria, for example, is governed by legate.

Yes, Augustus can appoint ex-consuls and ex-proconsuls as his governors, hence legates, but the person governing in Syria has always had the title of legate (during Early Roman Empire periods), not proconsul or procurator. Quirinius did not have the title of proconsul, which was reserved for Senate controlled provinces (Africa and Asia Minor), but yes he was indeed a consul at the time of his appointment in Syria (6 CE).

Josephus made it quite clear that Quirinius' appointment of legate of Syria in 6 CE WHEN ARCHELAUS WAS BANISHED FROM JUDAEA. Judaea was not a Roman province while Herod the Great and his son (Herod Archelaus) were still rulers of Judaea. Judaea at the time of their rules had the status in Rome as client kingdom (hence not province). Taxation is only confined to the Roman province, tributes to client kingdoms. The former does require census, but the later don't require census.

The census for taxation reason only took place because Judaea had become a "Roman province", again 6 CE, instead of client kingdom.

And there was no census for the entire Roman world, like the way Luke stated, at the time of Quirinius' governorship (beginning 6 CE).

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

The census only occurred because of Judaea's new status as a Roman province. And since Syria was the most important eastern province (a legate outranked the prefect and procurator) in the entire Levant region (except for those kingdoms) Quirinius had to oversee the census of Judaea.

Your reasoning is completely flawed for the so-called 1st registration occurring in Herod's reign is not only wrong it is pure deception on your part.

And there was no 1st and 2nd time of Quirinius. There is only 1 time that Quirinius was in Syria with regards to census in Judaea. You are making it up.

The revolt at that later time frame is the revolt referred to at Acts 5v37.
That places Quirinius as governor of Syria in 6 CE.

I agreed that revolt referred to the time of The revolt at that later time frame is the revolt referred to Quirinius in Syria, 6 CE, hence it had nothing to do with Herod the Great (and Archelous) nor Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

I don't understand your reasoning, uravip2me.

While Herod the Great and his sons were alive, particularly Archelous, their kingdom(s) were not Roman province(s) and therefore not subject to both census and taxation.

Josephus who was writing about the same time as Luke clearly stated that Augustus ousted Archelous out of his kingdom and converted the client kingdom into a province in 6 CE. No where does Josephus indicate that there was a census prior to 6 CE, let alone in Herod's late reign.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't understand your reasoning, uravip2me.
While Herod the Great and his sons were alive, particularly Archelous, their kingdom(s) were not Roman province(s) and therefore not subject to both census and taxation.
Josephus who was writing about the same time as Luke clearly stated that Augustus ousted Archelous out of his kingdom and converted the client kingdom into a province in 6 CE. No where does Josephus indicate that there was a census prior to 6 CE, let alone in Herod's late reign.

Yes, Archelaus king in Judea while the young Jesus was down in Egypt.
His rule would give Joseph and Mary reason to settle up in Nazareth outside of his jurisdiction. [Matt 2vs22,23]

Not at Luke [2vs1,2], but at Luke [3v1] does Luke mention Herod Antipas.
Luke [3v1] just refers to Antipas as Herod which was the political situation,
Not at Jesus birth, but Luke chapter 3 is set at the time of the start of Jesus ministry.

By Luke [2v2] making mention of a first or earlier registration can place Quirinius as going to Syria becoming governor for the second time.
-Lapis Tibrtinus [Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Vol 14 p.397, No.3613]
On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius' name,
that can mean Quirinius was a previous governor of Syria in the BCE period.

When the Romans conquered Egypt in [30 BCE],
wasn't the census registration already a tried-and-tested feature of those Egyptians ?
Easily the Romans could have learned or adopted that system with their own procedures adapting to their own empire.

Roman governor Gaius Vibius Maximus mentions the house census.
His 104 CE edict's copy is in the British Museum.

What was the date of Herod's death? Jewish tradition says: Shebat 2.
Shebat 2 falls in our January/February calendar.

The eclipse of January 8th, 1 BCE was a 'total' eclipse lasting 1 hr. 41 min.
and was 'before' a Passover as Josephus wrote that Herod died not long after the eclipse and 'before' a Passover.
Whereas the early morning eclipse of 4 BCE was only 36% in magnitude.

Wasn't Josephus wrong in writing that when Herod was 15 years old, instead should have been 25 years old? Herod was not appointed governor of Galilee at age 15 around the year 47 BCE.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, Archelaus king in Judea while the young Jesus was down in Egypt.
His rule would give Joseph and Mary reason to settle up in Nazareth outside of his jurisdiction. [Matt 2vs22,23]

Not at Luke [2vs1,2], but at Luke [3v1] does Luke mention Herod Antipas.
Luke [3v1] just refers to Antipas as Herod which was the political situation,
Not at Jesus birth, but Luke chapter 3 is set at the time of the start of Jesus ministry.

Sorry, but what's your point with the 2nd paragraph?

I know that Herod the Great had sons to succeed him and that each was given the name of "Herod" (Herod Archelous and Herod Antipas). But I don't see why you need to drag Antipas into the debate, when it was not his kingdom (Galilee) that was being subjected to census and taxation. There's no need to complicate the issue with Antipas.

By Luke [2v2] making mention of a first or earlier registration can place Quirinius as going to Syria becoming governor for the second time.
-Lapis Tibrtinus [Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Vol 14 p.397, No.3613]
On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius' name,
that can mean Quirinius was a previous governor of Syria in the BCE period.

Quirinius didn't oversee census twice in Judaea.

And just as important, he wasn't legate/governor twice in Judaea.

Luke doesn't say anything about either of the above about running governorship and census twice in Judaea.

But I do see your confusion now.

Quirinius was a legate before his office in Syria in 6 CE, but it wasn't in Syria. Quirinius was quelling rebellions in Galatia and Cilicia, where Quirinius was governor of Galatia. This governorship was in 5 to 3 BCE.

Except for Luke (gospel), nothing in history connect with Quirinius directly to Herod the Great. Quirinius wasn't around in Syria. Matthew doesn't mention any census whatsoever, nor Quirinius.

And lastly, it is purely conjecture and interpretation that Quirinius was twice legate in Syria, because Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum does not provide any name. Nor do the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum relate to anything to do with the census. Also the way I read, it only say being governor twice, but it does not necessarily mean the governor of same province.

And if you've read the whole of Book 17, you will see that before Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of Syria, the office was held by Publius Quinctilius Varus, starting in 9 or 8 BCE. And from the description of Josephus, Quinctilius Varus was still governor during Archelous' rule in Judaea.

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;

So before Quinctilius Varus, the legate of Syria was Saturninus. And is this Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus who was legate twice in Syria, once in BCE & once CE. You only assume the identity (in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Vol 14 p.397, No.3613) to be Quirinius, but you're wrong.

The eclipse of January 8th, 1 BCE was a 'total' eclipse lasting 1 hr. 41 min.
and was 'before' a Passover as Josephus wrote that Herod died not long after the eclipse and 'before' a Passover.
Whereas the early morning eclipse of 4 BCE was only 36% in magnitude.

The eclipse again?

Ok, I'll play.

Josephus didn't write anything to say it was total lunar eclipse. He merely stated that eclipse and he didn't even mention Passover:

And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.

And like you said the eclipse did occur in 4 BCE, and it was before Passover. The total eclipse that you're in favor of occurred 3 months before the Passover.

Absolutely nothing is mention about the Passover in chapter 6 (of Book XVII).

You're simply quibbling, because whether it (both Herod's death and eclipse) occurred in 4 BCE or 1 BCE, it is still years before Quirinius' legate and census (6 CE).

Matthew mentioned Herod's death, but with no detail and no lunar eclipse, total or otherwise. Luke say absolutely nothing about Herod's death, and also say nothing about any eclipse.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jewish Antiquities XVII, 167 [vi,4]; 213 [ix,3]
Not just chapter 6 but chapter 9 of book 17.
Book 17 pages 554 and 558

Herod having died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover.
Those three months would be occurring 'before' a Passover.
How many months is there between January's death date and the Passover ?
The eclipse date of 1 BCE closer matches the Shebat 2 death date.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in the year 37.
Josephus also says Jerusalem's capture occurred 27 years after the capture of Pompey which was in the year 63. [Jewish Antiquities XVI 487,488 [xvi,4] Page 476 book 14.

Josephus reference to the latter event would make the date of Herod's taking Jerusalem in the year 36.
Josephus saying Herod died 37 years from the time he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem could also mean a 1BCE death date.
If those years are counted according to the regnal year, not the accession-year method, also could present a 1BCE death date.

If Josephus is correct in listing Saturninus and Varus as successive in Syria, then it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously with Saturninus [as Volumnius had done]
or with Varus before Herod's death.
That would not put years before a 'first' census, or earlier census. -Luke 2v2
The 6 CE could be a 'second' or later census since there is no record saying when that 'first' census was.

 

[gnostic]

Here are the list of legates of Syria, starting from near the end of Herod's life:

Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE)
Publius Quinctilius Varus (6 BCE - 5 CE)
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (6-12 CE)
...
Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (17-19 CE)
Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus (19 CE - ? CE)

I don't know who was legate between 13-16 CE.

It should be noted that Varus is the same Varus who was killed in Teutoburg Forest (9 CE), Germany, along with 3 entire legions. Varus was a son-in-law of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. Agrippa was Octavian/Augustus' friend and right-hand-man, since Octavian days in the 2nd Triumvirate and war against Marcus Antonious (Mark Antony). While as legate in Syria (and Judaea), Varus was involved in the messianic revolt in 4 BCE, where he had crucified 2000 rebels.

If Josephus is correct in listing Saturninus and Varus as successive in Syria, then it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously with Saturninus [as Volumnius had done]
or with Varus before Herod's death.

No, he didn't.

Like I said in my last post, Quirinius was legate of Galatea, around time of Herod's death, 5-3 BCE, so he couldn't have possibly be legate in Syria, which was post that Varus held, from 6 BCE to 3 CE.

Some time during stay in Galatea, Quirinius had to quell insurrections in his own province (Galatea), and in neighboring Cilicia, which he was victorious. So Quirinius could not have possibly be overseeing census in Herod's time. Like I said before, Judaea was not a Roman province, but a Roman client kingdom, so there would be no reason for holding a census while Herod the Great was still alive, which you continued to ignore.

It is much more likely to hold census when Augustus annexed Judaea from Archelous, turning into the province in 6 CE.

Just because the mysterious legate mention of governing Syria twice, once in BCE and again in CE, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, doesn't mean you can jump to conclusion it was Quirinius. You didn't bother to look at Sentius Saturninus who was actually governor twice, in Syria; the 2nd time in 19 CE.

It is lazy scholarship on your part, and totally unsupported.

 

[gnostic]

With regarding to the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew only have the star and the magi, the massacre in Bethlehem and the exile in Egypt.

Luke has none of the above.

Matthew on the other hand has no census, no Quirinius, no shepherds (who witnessed the procession of angels in the sky), no seeking shelter in manger.

And the environments between the 2 gospels are shown to be the exact opposite to each other. Herod threaten Jesus' existence, while in Luke's it was all peaceful, hence no massacre and no exile. In Luke 3, it was peaceful enough that 8 days later, Jesus was circumcised; and then Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple. No exile in Egypt.

It seemed to be 2 completely different birth myths. Even the genealogies are completely different.
Even Nazareth is completely left out in Matthew (2:19-23) until after Joseph decided to return to Israel. Joseph decided to move to Nazareth because of Archelous was ruling Judaea. The omission of Nazareth (everything prior to 2:19-23, so including chapter 1) seemed to indicate Joseph and Mary were actually living in Bethlehem. But of course, Luke tells a completely different story.

The only commonality between the two is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but every other detail about the conception and birth of Jesus are different. When you look at the gospels side by side, they don't make sense.

 

[Plato]

This topic comes up a lot and has been discussed before (although I totally understand that with so many sections and long threads over time on this site, it's impossible to keep up).
Scholars think Jesus was born c. 6BC because in making the 'Roman' calander much later in history, 5-6 years of 'documented' mistakes were made.
The 'key' is this Gospel passage.....Jesus was born 'when the shephards were keeping 'night watch' over their flocks.
This 'night watch' happens only at specific time in the Mideast (due to the seasons) so Jesus's birth can be put at...... late Spring around Passover.
The Roman 'Christmas' time was selected at the start of the Dark Ages (when this had been forgotten) at the time of a Roman Winter festival in Europe.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This topic comes up a lot and has been discussed before (although I totally understand that with so many sections and long threads over time on this site, it's impossible to keep up).
Scholars think Jesus was born c. 6BC because in making the 'Roman' calander much later in history, 5-6 years of 'documented' mistakes were made.
The 'key' is this Gospel passage.....Jesus was born 'when the shephards were keeping 'night watch' over their flocks.
This 'night watch' happens only at specific time in the Mideast (due to the seasons) so Jesus's birth can be put at...... late Spring around Passover.
The Roman 'Christmas' time was selected at the start of the Dark Ages (when this had been forgotten) at the time of a Roman Winter festival in Europe.

The shepherds could have also still been outside in early Autumn meaning Jesus birth could have been in the Fall of the year.
Jesus was put to death in the Spring of the year.
Jesus had a 3 1/2 year ministry.
Jesus started his ministry at baptism when he was age 30.
If Jesus was born in the Spring he could not die at age 33 1/2 in the Spring.
-Daniel 9vs26,27; Hebrews 9vs9-14;10vs1-10

The people were in expectation of Messiah [Luke 3v15] because of Daniel's writings. Not his birth, but his ministry time. [Jesus was 30 Luke 3v23]
Daniel [9vs24-26] prophesies about Messiah's appearance measured in weeks of years. [each week being seven years long]
7 plus 62 of such weeks makes a total of 69 weeks of years.
Meaning that equals 483 years.
Persian history establishes the starting date for counting those weeks of years as 455 BCE [Neh 2vs1-5] with the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Jesus was baptized [Luke 3v21] as Messiah 483 years after 455 in the year 29 CE. Since Jesus was 30 years old at Baptism [Luke 3v23;Numbers 4v3]
Then Jesus birth was more like 2 BCE in the early Autumn.