Post by gottagitgud on Jul 13, 2020 7:43:22 GMT
The gospel of Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). That census was in 6 CE, 10 years after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE. However, Matthew's nativity story takes place under the reign of Herod the Great. Both accounts are in direct contradiction with one another, and cannot be reconciled without some massive mental gymnastics.
4 BCE: Herod the Great dies. His kingdom is split in 4 pieces. His son Archelaus becomes tetrarch of Judea. Another son, Antipas, becomes the ruler of Galilee.
6 CE: Archelaus turns out to be a bad king, and the Jews ask the Romans to depose him. The Romans do so. They make Judea a part of the Roman province of Syria and appoint Quirinius as governor of Syria. Quirinius performs a census in Judea. Not in the whole Roman world, as Luke claims. Also not in Galilee, which was still ruled by Antipas.
Another problem with the Luke narrative: Nothing in the Roman documents suggests the idea that they forced people to return to their places of origin for the census. And it doesn't make much sense. The intention of the census was to recollect taxes (as the gospel author states), what is needed to know is how much people are earning where they usually live and work. It would be illogical and serve no purpose to make people go back to their places of origin with the consequent cost, slowness, and interruption of economic activity.
4 BCE: Herod the Great dies. His kingdom is split in 4 pieces. His son Archelaus becomes tetrarch of Judea. Another son, Antipas, becomes the ruler of Galilee.
6 CE: Archelaus turns out to be a bad king, and the Jews ask the Romans to depose him. The Romans do so. They make Judea a part of the Roman province of Syria and appoint Quirinius as governor of Syria. Quirinius performs a census in Judea. Not in the whole Roman world, as Luke claims. Also not in Galilee, which was still ruled by Antipas.
Another problem with the Luke narrative: Nothing in the Roman documents suggests the idea that they forced people to return to their places of origin for the census. And it doesn't make much sense. The intention of the census was to recollect taxes (as the gospel author states), what is needed to know is how much people are earning where they usually live and work. It would be illogical and serve no purpose to make people go back to their places of origin with the consequent cost, slowness, and interruption of economic activity.