Gospel harmonizations of the birth narrative and summary

It is not hard to find attempts to harmonize the gospels of Matthew and Luke; for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/harmony/. Unfortunately, these make no attempt to reconcile the details. They simply present a narrative that allows the reader to believe that a harmonization is possible, and thus, all is good in the world of fundamentalist Christianity, or more correctly, the apologist attempts to sow doubt, any doubt, into the obvious fact that the two birth narratives are irreconcilable.  The apologist never explain how Jesus can be born both at the time of King Herod and after the deposition of his son, Herod Archelaus, or why a census would be held in a client state when the only purpose of a census would be to allow the Romans to assess taxes. To sow doubt, here are some of the claims this author has seen:

1. Quirinius could have been the governor of Syria twice, so that the census could have been held while King Herod was still alive. This, however, has no merit, because there still would not have been a census held in a client kingdom. King Herod and his sons paid tribute to Rome: how they raised the funds was more-or-less irrelevant to Rome.

2. Jesus may have been born in a different village called Bethlehem, but in Galilee. This, too, is not supported as Galilee, as has already been pointed out, was under the rule of Herod Antipas, and not Herod Archelaus. If the family feared Archelaus, then when they returned from Egypt, they simply would have returned to Bethlehem in Galilee; however, the point is, the prophesy had to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in Judea.

3. The family returned to Bethlehem after presenting Jesus at the Temple. This does not make any sense with respect to the idea of going to Bethlehem simply for the purpose of a census. Also, all Luke says is "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth." Why would the author leave out such dramatic events such as the family fleeing to Egypt. Also, the timelines do not align. Iudaea was incorporated into the Roman Empire as a province in 6 CE, and King Herod died in 4 BCE.

4. One site suggests that there may have been an Imperial census and local customs were allowed to prescribe how the census was performed (https://crossexamined.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census/) . This is, of course, absurd, as censuses are not even allowed under the Jewish interpretation of the scriptures. Also, once again, suppose only those Jews living in Iudaea would be performing a census under these conditions. Except for a very few, it is unlikely that most lived in their ancestral home (David being a distant ancestor of Joseph), and thus, once again, we see millions walking all over Judea for no purpose at all. It also doesn't answer why the census applied to a client state.

​

Again, the goal of the apologist is not to actually present a harmonization that makes sense, but rather to simply sow doubt into the obvious: the authors of Matthew and Luke needed to get Jesus born in Bethlehem to have him fulfill a prophesy, and as neither had Mark to guide them, so they both tell amazing tales that have no basis in reality: a census that did not happen, and a slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem that also did not happen. Let us see if Matthew and Luke do better with the events after Jesus's resurrection. If your belief is that the scriptures are inerrant, this is a problem, but as with homeopathy, facts are annoying things that can be ignored.'

​

On Quora, one poster tries to make a number of claims in order to harmonize the accounts between Matthew and Luke. To achieve this, the apologist must demonstrate that there was a census in Judea while King Herod was still alive. To do this, he sets up a logical fallacy by suggesting that because the author of Luke was correct on certain items, the author must also be correct on others. This is, of course, incorrect, but here is what the apologist has to say about the author of Luke:

"History proves that Luke knew exactly what he was talking about."

Simply because an author does refer to actual historical events and names actual historical figures does not mean any other claims are true. For example, consider the two scenarios:

1. The most common analogy is that of Spiderman and New York: the story of Spiderman does indeed have true statements about New York, including many of the actual mayors of New York, but this does give any credence to the claim that J. Jonah Jameson was once the mayor of New York.

2. However, a better example are the forged diaries of Hitler by Konrad Kujau: these diaries contained many different clear facts, and history shows that Konrad "knew exactly what he was talking about." That does not, however, give any additional credence to the fictionalized personal statements that have no historical evidence supporting them.

The apologist also uses the word "prove," something that really only is used in mathematics. In history and in science, you can have overwhelming evidence, but that is not proof. However, the true believer will skim through the following alleged claims and then come away believing that this is actually a "proof" of some sort. As I have previous suggested, the true believe is not looking for truth, but simply needs claims that appear to support those believes. All the correct statements made by the author of Luke simply demonstrate that he had heard various narratives of what may have happened in the past. Having one name or place or date correct is not evidence that other names or places or dates are correct.

 

The apologist has the hypothesis that there must have been a census in Judea during the time of King Herod where Quirinius held some sort of official position in Syria. The apologist then supports this position with a sequence of claims, some of which have evidence to support that claim, and others which do not, but if one takes all the claims as valid, they do appear to support the hypothesis of the apologist.

 

Point #1: Did Caesar Augustus ever issue a decree around this time?

The first point is a claim that Augustus held a census in 2 BCE. We have in Augustus's first-person record of his achievements, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, the following paragraph:

When I was consul the fifth time (29 BCE), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 BCE) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens.

​

Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 BCE), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens.

​

And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 CE), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

Thus, the author of Luke is correct in recording that there were empire-wide censuses held, but the closest to the time of Jesus is 8 BCE, and this was simply too early, for the author of Luke begins the story of the adult Jesus following the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, so 28-29 CE. Also, the author claims that Jesus was "about thirty years old" when he began his ministry. At a very minimum, if Jesus was born in 7 BCE, then in 28CE, he would be 35 years old. However, let us look at the evidence the author uses to demonstrate a empire-wide census. The apologist refers to part of the last paragraph of Res Gestae Divi Augusti:

When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 BCE), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple, in the Julian senate-house, and in the forum of Augustus under the chario which had been placed there for me by a decision of the senate. When I wrote this I was seventy-six years old.

Unfortunately, the apologist found a slightly different quote, which the apologist truncated:

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

The apologist is claiming that the only way for the "entire Roman people" to give him the title "Father of [the] Country" is for there to have been a census held where, I guess, every citizen was asked if this title should be bestowed upon Caesar Augustus. This is about the most absurd claim one could imagine, especially when just a few paragraphs earlier, Augustus explicitly enumerated the three censuses he held.

​

Next, to support that there actually was a census held in 2 BCE, the apologist says the following:

Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augusts 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.

First, Orosius lived over four hundred years after the events described, and he was an orthodox priest and a student of Augustine of Hippo. The one historical book he wrote has the title Historiae Adversus Paganos (History against the Pagans). This author is hardly an unbiased source. Let us take the entire paragraph which the apologist quotes only one short phrase from:

At that time, that is, in the year when Caesar, by God's ordination, established the firmest and truest peace, Christ was born, whose coming that peace waited upon and at whose birth the angels joyfully sang in the hearing of men, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."

It was at this time that he who had secured universal supremacy refused to be called Lord of men, or rather dared not, when the true Lord of all mankind was born among men.

It was also in this year when God had deigned to assume the appearance and nature of man, that this same Caesar, whom God had predestined for this great mystery, for the first time ordered a census to be taken of each and every province and that all men should be enrolled.

In these days, then, Christ was born and His name was entered in the Roman census list immediately after His birth.

This is that earliest and most famous acknowledgment which designated Caesar first of all men and the Romans lords of the world;

for in the census list all men were entered individually, and in it the very Maker of all men wished to be found and enrolled as a man among men.

From the very foundation of the world and the beginning of the human race an honour of this kind had never been granted, not even to Babylon or to Macedonia, not to mention any kingdom of lesser rank. Neither is there any doubt that it is clear to everyone from his own knowledge, faith, and investigation, that it was by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that this City prospered, was protected, and brought to such heights of power, since to her, in preference to all others, He chose to belong when He came, thereby making it certain that He was entitled to be called a Roman citizen according to the declaration made in the Roman census list.

This fifth-century author requires a census to occur just before the birth of Jesus, so without evidence, he simply posits that one existed, and then continues to make the claim that Jesus himself was a Roman citizen. While I could acknowledge that "father of [the] country" and "first of all men" are sufficiently similar titles that the reference by Orosius to the second may indeed be a reference to Augustus being given the title of "father of [the] country", this does not give any evidence that such a census was held. It is just too fantastic that this apologist could use this as a claim to support a census being held in Judea in 2 BCE, but the true believer will never go back and read the original sources, and will be placated by the pleasing and supportive claims of the apologist.

​

Next, the apologist makes another claim:

Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records.

I am reading Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, and I cannot find any reference to the above claim. Augustus would not require an oath from every peasant in every backwater hamlet, and he certainly would not require a census that obligates individuals to travel long distances just to administer such an oath if it was needed. If I do find something that parallels the claim of the above apologist, I'll expand on it here in the future. Unfortunately, the author does not quote the source, and Chapter 10 includes paragraphs 40 through 49, so perhaps 41-45 refers to something in paragraphs 2 through 6 in Chapter 10, but why not give the actual quote?

 

The apologist then adds another claim:

But more than that, 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." 

Here is Harland's translation of that stele:

In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, in the third year from the twelfth consulship, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . .  engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them.  By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life.  I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them.  Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing.  I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms.  But if I do anything contrary to this. . .  oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore,  I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . .  for them (?). . .  In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . .  by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . .   Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).

The dating is correct: Augustus's twelfth consulship began in 5 BCE, and thus three years thereafter is 2 BCE, but this only refers to an oath "that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . .  engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them." It does indicate that this oath was also taken by people in a place called Neapolis, but there is a region to the south-west of Paphlagonia given this name, so this very much sounds like a local oath, and it was an oath and not a census. The apologist is trying to conflate a census with an oath, and if this is blindly accepted by the reader, then this will support the apologist's hypothesis. The apologist, however, provides no evidence that such oaths necessarily coincided with a census.

​

Finally, the apologist brings forth another orthodox writer:

And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, 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.''

This author, too, lived centuries after the events described, and this author is also motivated to present a version of history that supports the orthodox claims. However, in the History of the Armenians, I can find no such reference to the above claims. If anyone can please point out where this text describes a census, please let me know!

​

Thus, the apologist presents nothing concrete once the original sources are analyzed. The one source that claims a census occurred in 2 BCE was a Christian author living centuries later, and who also called Jesus a "Roman citizen."

​

Point #2: Did Quirinius hold a high office in Syria at this time, such that he could be referred to as hēgemoneuontos of Syria?

We know that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 CE, but this would place the census in 6 CE, a decade after the death of King Herod. The apologist therefore focuses on just the word ἡγεμονεύοντος, with the claim:

Luke assigns Quirinius the position of hēgemoneuontos, often translated “governor.” Yet the word refers simply to a high office denoting a local ruler. The word is not a precise identification of which office the person held, but rather that they ruled from a high position of power in general. 

To humor the apologist, Quirinius did campaign against the Homonadenses tribe in central Anatolia from 12 BCE to 1 BCE, but most of this tribe existed within the Roman province of Galatia, with the only extension into Syria being the mountainous regions of Cilicia in the north-east corner of Syria. Why would the author of Luke refer to a Roman legate who does not hold any administrative authority in Syria when it would have been more sensible to refer to the actual governor of Syria?

​

To be fair, here is the Koine Greek:

αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.

Stepping through this:

1. The Koine Greek phrase αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ (haútē apographē) can be translated into English as "this registration" or "this census." The word "αὕτη" (haútē) means "this," and ἀπογραφὴ (apographē) is feminine and can refer to a registration, census, or enrollment. The context in which this phrase is used would determine the most precise translation.

2. The Greek word πρώτη (prōtē) is the feminine form of the adjective πρῶτος (prōtos), which means "first" or "foremost." Therefore, a reasonable translation of πρώτη into English is "first" or "foremost," depending on the context. As this word is feminine, it must modify the word "census," so "This first census..."

3. The Greek word ἐγένετο (egeneto) is a form of the verb "γίγνομαι" (ginomai), which means "to become" or "to happen." Therefore, a reasonable translation of "ἐγένετο" into English is "it happened," "it occurred," or "it became," depending on the context in which it is used.

4. The Koine Greek word ἡγεμονεύοντος (hēgemoneuontos) is a present participle form of the verb ἡγεμονεύω (hēgemoneuō), which means "to lead" or "to govern." Depending on the context, a reasonable translation of ἡγεμονεύοντος into English could be "leading," "governing," or "ruling."

5. The Koine Greek word τῆς (tēs) is the genitive form of the definite article "ὁ" (ho), which means "the" in English. The genitive case typically indicates possession or association. Therefore, a reasonable translation of τῆς into English is "of the" or "the" depending on the context in which it is used.

6. The Koine Greek word Συρίας (Syrias) is the genitive form of "Συρία" (Syria), which refers to the country of Syria. Therefore, a reasonable translation of "Συρίας" into English is "of Syria" or "from Syria," depending on the context in which it is used.

7. The name "Κυρηνίου" (Kyrēniou) is in the genitive case. In this context, it is associated with the governing official Quirinius, and the genitive case is used to indicate possession or association. The translation "of Quirinius" or "Quirinius's" would capture the genitive case relationship in English.

Thus, a reasonable, if terse, translation is

This first census happened [during the] governing of Syria of Quirinius.

To be clear, the apologist is once again misrepresenting the Greek: the word in question is not "governor", but "governing" and so it is the "ruling of Quirinius of Syria." It would make no sense to say the "ruling of Quirinius from Syria" in this context.

​

Point #3: Did two registrations occur under Quirinius, such that one could be said to be “the first?”

Here is the apologist's verbiage:

Indeed they did.

Quirinius’ well-known census occurred in 6/7 A.D. It nearly led to the Jewish people revolting, as they held that a census ran contrary to God’s commands.

A few years after the census concluded, Quirinius’ tenure as legate of Syria ended.

Where, then, is the first census?

Right in 3–2 B.C., as point #1 demonstrates.

Some have speculated that the Greek word protos should not be translated “first,” but rather “before.” Thus, instead of Luke saying that this was the first census under Quirinius, it happened before the census of Quirinius.

It’s a neat idea, but it doesn’t matter much in the end. Either way, Luke is recording that the events leading Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem occurred before the 6/7 A.D. census.

Given that Quirinius was a hēgemoneuontos in Syria during the 3-2 B.C. registration, we know exactly when Luke was referring to.

The apologist is using erroneous claims to support a claim that the census in Luke somehow refers to a census in 2 BCE. To begin, it does not say that this is the "This first census of Quirinius...", but rather it was "This first census happened..." We know that in the census in 6 CE was sufficiently offensive to many of the Jews that some even revolted, including Judas of Gamala and his zealous followers. If a census occurred either under King Herod or Herod Archelaus, one would have expected a much stronger objection, for King Herod and his son were already seen as foreign usurpers of the Judean throne (recall, they were Idumeans or Edomites, and only forcibly converted to Judaism when the Hasmonaean dynasty conquered that region). If King Herod or Herod Archelaus violated Judean law, this would have almost certainly resulted in an outcry at least as strong as against the Roman census. It is entirely reasonable to translate this phrase as meaning "the first census" in Iudaea, the census we know was overseen by Quirinius during the transition of the ethnarchy of Judea to the Roman province of Iudaea.

​

The apologist then claims

Some have speculated that the Greek word protos should not be translated “first,” but rather “before.” Thus, instead of Luke saying that this was the first census under Quirinius, it happened before the census of Quirinius.

True, there are sporadic cases where πρώτη (prōtē) may mean "before," but its primary sense is ordinal, indicating the initial position in a sequence. The apologist refers to "Some" without any names or references.

This census happened before the governing of Syria of Quirinius.

However, as this is now describing the relationship with "the governing", the word would have been the masculine πρώτης and not the feminine πρώτη. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation is that this is translated as "This first (f) census (f) happened..." The apologist is not even trying to be honest in this attempt. Instead, the apologist is simply throwing out as much obfuscation as possible so as to convince the fundamentalist Christian reader that there may actually be some merit to anything this apologist has said.

​

The apologist then repeats the hypothesis, hoping that the reader believes the claim:

Luke is recording that the events leading Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem occurred before the 6/7 A.D. census.

​

The last statement demonstrates how dishonest the apologist is, for he places the present participle form of the verb into a position in an English sentence where one would expect to see a noun:

Given that Quirinius was a hēgemoneuontos in Syria during the 3-2 B.C. registration, we know exactly when Luke was referring to.

The correct substitution would remove the article "a" and simply see:

Given that Quirinius was [ruling or governing] in Syria during the 3-2 B.C. registration, we know exactly when Luke was referring to.

This, however, defeats the hypothesis of the apologist, for Quirinius was neither engaged in either the ruling or governing of Syria in 2 BCE, he was leading a military campaign in central Anatolia in an area that overlapped Syria only in the northwestern mountains on the borders of this Roman province.

​

Point #4: Did Rome ever take a census in subject kingdoms like Israel?

The apologist begins with a meaningless and unsupported claim:

Despite the objections of many skeptics today, Rome did precisely this.

Yes, Rome did conduct censuses in client states and kingdoms like the kingdom of Judea, but that is not what is relevant here: the question is, would Augustus ever order such a census in Judea while King Herod was alive? The author then quotes Tacitus, in the Annals, Book 1, Chapter 11:

[Augustus] ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand, and had added a counsel, that the empire should be confined to its present limits, either from fear or out of jealousy." [Tacitus, Annals 1.11]

The text in bold was highlighted by the apologist. Immediately, we see that the author is either lying or simply copying from someone else, for the very first word is wrong: it is Tiberius who is ordering that the little book be brought forth, for the Latin phrase "cum proferri libellum recitarique iussit" should be translated as "when he ordered a little book to be brought forth and read aloud." Here is the entire chapter:

After this all prayers were addressed to Tiberius. He, on his part, urged various considerations, the greatness of the empire, his distrust of himself. "Only," he said, "the intellect of the Divine Augustus was equal to such a burden. Called as he had been by him to share his anxieties, he had learnt by experience how exposed to fortune's caprices was the task of universal rule. Consequently, in a state which had the support of so many great men, they should not put everything on one man, as many, by uniting their efforts would more easily discharge public functions." There was more grand sentiment than good faith in such words. Tiberius's language even in matters which he did not care to conceal, either from nature or habit, was always hesitating and obscure, and now that he was struggling to hide his feelings completely, it was all the more involved in uncertainty and doubt. The Senators, however, whose only fear was lest they might seem to understand him, burst into complaints, tears, and prayers. They raised their hands to the gods, to the statue of Augustus, and to the knees of Tiberius, when he ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand, and had added a counsel, that the empire should be confined to its present limits, either from fear or out of jealousy.

Augustus is dead, and this is being spoken by Tiberius.  The apologist only copied the last few sentences and misattributes it.

​

What is worse, is that the apologist is trying to suggest that this text refers to a census, but that is simply not the case. You will note that the apologist only bolded the text "the number of citizens and allies" but excludes the "under arms." The actual Latin phrase is "quantum civium sociorumque in armis," which is better translated as a question of how large the armies of the Empire and its allies. This has nothing to do with taking a census of all citizens. Additionally, the apologist tries to suggest that "the number of citizens and allies" also refers to the subsequent item "subject kingdoms", but this, too, is absurd. This is a sequence of items that are being described in the little book:

This contained a description

1. of the resources of the State,

2. of the number of citizens and allies under arms,

3. of the fleets,

4. subject kingdoms,

5. provinces,

6. taxes imposed on people or on goods,

7. necessary expenses and

8. customary bounties.

Item 6 is translated above as "taxes, direct and indirect" but in my opinion, "tributa aut vectigalia" is better translated as the phrase above. In any case, the size of the military and subject kingdoms are two separate items on this list.

​

Next, without context as to what Schürer actually wrote, the apologist Harold Hoehner, an biblical scholar who taught at the evangelical Dallas Theological Seminary:

Schürer did not think that Augustus would have a census taken in Palestine during Herod’s reign. Certainly Herod had enough autonomy as indicated by his being allowed to mint coins. However, the Romans did take a census in vassal kingdoms. In fact, in Venice a gravestone of a Roman officer was found which states that he was ordered by P. Sulpicius Quirinius to conduct a census of Apamea, a city of 117,000 inhabitants, located on the Orontes in Syria, which was an autonomous city-state that minted its own copper coins. In A.D. 36 under Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia. Again, the powerful Nabatean kings in Petra, who had the right to mint coins were, it seems, obliged to have the Roman financial officers in their domain.

It would have been courteous to include Schürer's arguments, but this apologist does not. Instead, we see a number of claims:

 

Claim 1: A census was held by Quirinius in the autonomous city-state of Apamea, a city of 117,000 inhabitants, located on the Orontes in Syria. 

This is apparently from a tombstone, so let us look at the text of the tombstone of

Q(uintus) Aemilius Q(uinti) f(ilius) / Pal(atina) Secundus [in] / castris divi Aug(usti) [sub] / P(ublio) Sulpi[c]io Quirinio le[g(ato) Aug(usti)] / [Ca]esaris Syriae honori/bus decoratus pr[a]efect(us) / cohort(is) Aug(usti) I pr[a]efect(us) cohort(is) II classicae idem / iussu Quirini censum egi / Apamenae civitatis mil/lium homin(um) civium CXVII / idem missu Quirini adversus / Ituraeos in Libano monte / castellum eorum cepi et ante / militi<a=E>m praefect(us) fabrum / delatus a duobus co(n)s(ulibus) ad ae/rarium et in colonia / quaestor aedil(is) II duumvir II / pontifex{s} / ibi positi sunt Q(uintus) Aemilius Q(uinti) f(ilius) Pal(atina) / Secundus f(ilius) et Aemilia Chia lib(erta) / h(oc) m(onumentum) amplius h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur)

Thus, this aspect is actually correct: The city of Apamea has 117 thousand citizens. However, unlike the client kingdom of Judea under King Herod, Apamea is a city inside a Roman province. Certain cities in the Roman Empire did have varying degrees of autonomy, depending on various circumstances, but they were all cities within Roman Provinces, so it would not be unreasonable to subject them to censuses, for taxes would still need to be collected from the citizens. Harold Hoehner seems entirely focused on the right to mint their own coins. The parallel, however, simply does not exist: he even acknowledges that all that Apamea was allowed to produce were copper coins, not the bronze or silver metals used by King Herod. What Harold does not address, however, is that the client kingdom of Judea was allied to Rome and trusted by Augustus. King Herod paid tribute to Rome as required and he maintained stability in his region. As described above, holding a census in Judea violated Judean sacred teachings, and when a census was held in 6 CE, there were revolts against the Roman state. Holding a census under King Herod's reign would have given no benefit to Rome and would have destabilized King Herod's position. 

​

Claim 2: In A.D. 36 under Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia.

Here, Harold is misrepresenting something, and the apologist is simply copying what was said by Harold without any attempt to verify what was said. Archelaus was indeed the last king of Cappadocia, after which it was it was made a Roman province in 17 CE.

But even if one client kingdom was subject to a census, this does not mean that another would, also. For example, in 30 BCE, Herod traveled to Rhodes to meet with Octavian and sought his support. This meeting marked the beginning of a positive relationship between Herod and Octavian. Herod pledged loyalty to Rome and received confirmation of his kingship from Octavian, solidifying his position as a client king under Roman authority. As long as King Herod was loyal to Rome, there would be no need to interfere in Judean politics.

​

Claim 3: The powerful Nabatean kings in Petra, who had the right to mint coins were, it seems, obliged to have the Roman financial officers in their domain.

Here, again, Harold harps on minting coins, but no references are given to this claim, and this does not necessarily imply that censuses were held in Petra. Indeed, if a census was documented as being held in Petra under Roman suzerainty, one would almost be sure that Harold would mention this.

​

In summary, the only evidence provided that client states and client kingdoms were subject to censuses include a record that an autonomous city within a Roman province was subject to a census, a kingdom that had since been made a Roman province was subject to a census, and that there were Roman financial officers in Petra. We already know that there was no empire-wide census in 2 CE, for Augustus himself boasts of his census in 8 BCE and is completely silent about a census even close to the end of the life of King Herod. The apologist is trying to suggest that it is possible that a census may possibly be held within Judea, but there is no evidence supporting this, and the empire-wide censuses simply did not occur anywhere close to the alleged time at which Jesus was born. There was a census in Judea, that is, the Roman province of Iudaea, in 6 CE, and in response to this census, Judas of Galilee and his zealous followers led a revolt against the Romans, but that is the only reasonable time that a census might have been held in Judea.

​

Point #5: Did Rome require people to return to their hometowns to be registered?

The purpose of the census held in the newly formed Roman province of Iudaea was to provide the data required for imposing taxes, and it is likely the reason that most censuses were held throughout the Roman empire. The apologist gives evidence that yes, indeed, Romans may have been compelled to return home to the province in which they resided.

​

However, the author of Luke does not suggest that Joseph was returning to Bethlehem because he had business there. Instead, he returned there "because he was descended from the house and family of David." This is not recorded anywhere in the gospel of Mark, and this provides two supporting claims: that Jesus was from Bethlehem, and that Jesus was descended from King David (and therefore one how could hold the kingship of Judea, unlike King Herod). This supposes that Joseph and Mary spent most of their lives in Nazareth but that Joseph had some sort of significant business affairs in Bethlehem. This is however, refuted on two points:

1. Joseph did not have a home in Bethlehem, for "she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place in the guest room."

2. Joseph and Mary "offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”" and if you Leviticus 12:6-10, the requirement is that “she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtledove for a purification offering” but if “she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a purification offering.” 

Both of these suggest that the family was not wealthy, did not have property in Bethlehem, so does not appear to have been engaged in any form of business in Bethlehem. Another glaring point is that neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem were significantly populated centers at the time of the birth of Jesus. Why would a wealthy businessman, one sufficiently wealthy to be required to go to Bethlehem for the purposes of a census, live in a rural backwater village that had none of the amenities of even, for example, Capernaum.

​

Now, one might argue that Joseph had some form of business in Bethlehem and because Galilee was in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas and not in the newly established Roman province of Iudaea, but this would have been part of the census in 6 CE, so once again would not support any claim of the apologist.

​

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the two accounts of Jesus's birth:

1. In Luke, Joseph and Mary are recorded as living in Nazareth, and after Mary becomes pregnant, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem, Jesus is born, eight days later, Jesus is circumcised, and a month after that, they travel to Jerusalem to partake in the ritual of purification at the Temple. After this, they return home to Nazareth.

2. In Matthew, there is no mention of a census nor is there any mention of Nazareth. Instead, the family begins in Bethlehem, they then flee to Egypt until the time of King Herod's death, they return but fear to return to Bethlehem because they fear Herod Archelaus, so they go to Galilee not to return home, but because an angel told them to go there. Finally, they do not "return home" to Nazareth, but rather they flee to Galilee and Joseph "made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazarene.”"

​

The apologist does make a great deal about the benefits of having people return to their hometown for censuses, but this is all moot, as there was no Empire-wide census in 2 BCE (as the apologist wishes to demonstrate).  Thus, we get to the last point:

​

Point #6: Did Herod die after these events?

Once again, the apologist alleges that Josephus says this or that, but does not provide any quotes. The apologist claims:

For a long time, history concluded that Herod died in 1 B.C. More recently, attempts have arisen to push Herod’s death earlier, to 4 B.C. But the evidence still favors 1 B.C. for the date of Herod’s death.

To support this claim, he quotes Josephus, so let us look at what Josephus says in Antiquities 17:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus’s government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria; not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them; accused him before Cesar; and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Cesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Cesar, when he heard it, was very angry; and called for Archelaus’s steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome; and whose name was Archelaus also: and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us. So the man made haste in his voiage: and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends. So he told him what Cesar had sent him about: and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome,] Cesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gall, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

Thus, as the census of Quirinius was in 6 CE, we can therefore assume that 6 CE was the last year of Herod Archelaus's rule, and if that was his tenth year of his rule, then that would make 4 BCE the first year of his reign. No amount of generosity can push it to 2 BCE, for if he became the ethnarch early in 2 BCE, then the tenth year of his government would be 8 CE, long after Iudaea was incorporated into the Roman empire as a province. It is not surprising that the apologist makes one claim, and yet completely ignores contrary evidence in the exact same source. We will, however, look at the evidence that was given:

Josephus records that a lunar eclipse preceded Herod’s death, while Passover followed it. This gives us two clear bookends with which to locate the time of his passing.

Reading Antiquities 17, we see that this is indeed correct. Thus, we have an eclipse, Herod's death, and the Passover. At this point, the apologist is clearly referencing incorrect information, for here are the lunar eclipses in the given range of years. The apologist then makes the most bizarre and easily refutable claims. First, the author makes the claim:

There was a partial eclipse in March 13 of 4 B.C, occurring 29 days before Passover. Those who hold to the 4 B.C. date for Herod’s death hold this to be the eclipse Josephus mentioned, yet two problems swiftly arise:

• The eclipse was barely visible in Israel. It was most visible in Africa.

• Josephus records a wealth of activity occurring after the eclipse and before Herod’s death, which cannot fit in a mere 29 days.

There was no lunar eclipse on March 13, 4 BCE, but there was a full lunar eclipse on March 23, 4 BCE. This cannot be reconciled by claiming one is from the Gregorian calendar and one was from the Julian, for the two calendars differ by at most a day or two at the time of King Herod's reign. Recall that the correction to the Gregorian calendar was to account for the accumulated days on account of there being too many leap years, so by the time of the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, approximately ten days had accumulated. This eclipse was a total lunar eclipse which centered close to Sri Lanka, not Africa. Thus, whatever the sources the apologist is referring to are entirely incorrect. On September 15, 4 BCE, there was another total lunar eclipse, this one centered just south of the Horn of Africa, which would also have been readily seen in Judea. King Herod's decline in health could have been around either of these events, with in the second case the Passover mentioned by Josephus being the one in 3 BCE. Both of these total lunar eclipses would have been seen in Judea. The apologist then confounds the issue by claiming that Passover began on Nisan 15, 3757 which corresponds to April 12, 4 BCE. There are not 29 days between March 23 and April 12, and thus all these claims of the apologist are simply misrepresentations to try to obfuscate the issues in the mind of the true believer.

 

The apologist, however, then makes a different claim:​

In January 10 of 1 B.C., Israel observed a dramatic full eclipse. This means:

• Everyone in Israel witnessed it, unlike the eclipse in 4 B.C.

• It occurred early enough in the year for all of the events Josephus records to occur before Passover

Other details can be mentioned, but the heart of the matter is established clearly by these bookends, as we can verify them with precision.

Herod did indeed die in 1 B.C., allowing full time for a census to occur before his death in 3/2 B.C., Joseph and Mary to travel to Egypt with Jesus, and dwell there for a time before returning after Herod’s death.

There is no lunar eclipse on January 10, 1 BCE, but there were lunar eclipses on August 26, 2 BCE; January 20, 1 BCE; and another on July 17, 1 BCE. The first was a penumbral lunar eclipse centered on South America, the second was a partial lunar eclipse centered in the Pacific Ocean, and the last was a partial lunar eclipse centered off the west coast of South America. None of these would have had a significant display in Judea, almost half a world away, and none were full lunar eclipses, so their effect in Judea would have been little more than a slight darkening of the moon. None of theses could be described as being a "dramatic full eclipse," except perhaps in the eyes of the apologist.

​

Thus, to reemphasize, the apologist is simply making unsupported claims, all in a vain effort to make the true believer "know" that it is possible for the two irreconcilable accounts recorded in Matthew and Luke be be actually harmonious in some bizarre manner.

 

There is one other claim that could be made, and that is that King Herod allowed his sons to rule in his place prior to his death. After all, not only does the 10-year reign of Herod Archelaus coincide with 4 BCE, but also does the 37-year reign of Philip the Tetrarch who reigned until the 20th year of Tiberius, or 34 CE. While Herod Archelaus may have had some authority to speak on behalf of his father before his father's death, it is after the eclipse that Josephus records:

And now Herod altered his testament, upon the alteration of his mind.

For he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the Kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea: and

granted the Kingdom to Archelaus.

He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son; but own brother to Archelaus; by the name of a tetrarchy:

and bequeathed Jamnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis, to Salome, his sister,

with five hundred thousand drachmæ of silver, that was coined.

Thus, Herod Archelaus seems to have only had an opportunity to rule on behalf of his father following the aforementioned eclipse.

​

The apologist's summary

The apologist concludes with a self-aggrandizing claim:

Herod did indeed die in 1 B.C., allowing full time for a census to occur before his death in 3/2 B.C., Joseph and Mary to travel to Egypt with Jesus, and dwell there for a time before returning after Herod’s death.

The apologist is desperate for there to be a census that occurred in Judea prior to the death of King Herod, and thus generates a census out of whole cloth, a census not coinciding with the closest known imperial census of 8 BCE. The author claims that oaths to Augustus somehow count as censuses, even though they would not, and then claim that this non-existent census could have extended to the client kingdom of King Herod, even though this would have destabilized Herod's successful rule over this region of the world. The apologist then claims that there would have been some reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem for this non-existent census, even though both him and Jesus were carpenters, and this does not explain the justification for this journey given in Luke as being because Joseph was "was descended from the house and family of David." If anyone had sufficient business interests in Bethlehem to return there for a census, why would they not have accommodations in that town? Finally, while there may be disputes as to when King Herod actually did die, the claims of there being a "dramatic full eclipse" in 1 BCE are made from the same whole cloth as the non-existent census.

​

Sad, and yet, the true believers will read this post and come out feeling self assured in their faith that Joseph and Mary started in Nazareth, even though the author of Matthew mentions nothing of this, to see Jesus born in Bethlehem so that he could fulfill an alleged prophesy. Then, while the author of Luke describes nothing but Gemütlichkeit in that after ten days Jesus is circumsized and a month thereafter, the family goes to Jerusalem after which they return to Nazareth; the author of Matthew has them fleeing for fear of their lives (or at least Jesus's life) to Egypt, waiting for King Herod to die, and not wanting to return to Bethlehem because of Herod Archelaus, so instead they are directed to go to Galilee, where they almost seem to stumble across Nazareth:

But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there.

And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.

There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazarene.” 

He made his home in Nazareth, he did not return to his home in Nazareth.

​