Thanks for the response video! I just happened to stumble upon it when it was premiering! Anyway, you presented the counter arguments well and I appreciate that you did so in a respectful way. Cheers.
Wow was a quick response and gracious one from Useful Charts. Always appreciate your work and willingness to be as objective as possible and even more so now seeing your gracious response to a well mannered criticism.
Wow. Thanks for the kind comment. We have our disagreements on some biblical issues but I love your channel overall, even on the videos where I might have an alternative perspective to provide. You do some awesome work and definitely deserve the success you've had.
One of my favourite things is graceful disagreements between knowledgeable people. Thus is how we get closer to the truth. And if the truth is more important than winning an argument,that is such a blessing for everyone
Useful Charts states that Luke's mistakes are the result of him prioritising theological points over historical ones. But the parenthesis about the timing of the census has no theological value. It's a purely historical detail. I understand the line of argument that Luke wanted to get Jesus to Bethlehem for theological reasons, but he does that without any reliance upon the parenthetical detail about Quirinus. Why would Luke place Mary and Joseph in Galilee prior to the birth if he wanted them in Bethlehem for theological reasons? Matthew makes no reference to Galilee, so this would only be a problem of Luke's own making, to which he would then invent a superfluous historical detail to an already unnecessary journey of his own creation.
"But the parenthesis about the timing of the census has no theological value" --- I think the argument might be that Luke is planting a "callback" to the census. Similar to how writers would claim to be some historical figure as a literary device. It's not a glaring error so much as a sort of reference saying "he was born in the time that resentment was building up between Rome and Judea".
Luke didn't write the gospel according to Luke because he collected existing materials and presented to Theophilus. This is why we have similar wordings in Matthew and Mark in Luke. So this doesn't make Luke a historian. Luke plagiarized earlier manuscripts and that's fraud to attribute authorship to him. He even acknowledged in chapter 1 of using records that were in existence then. So people should stop calling him a historian
The authors of both Luke and Matthew needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for theological reasons, but to be brought up and preaching in Galilee because that's where he's supposed to have been. They simply created two different origin stories. Matthew's author had Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem already, fleeing Herod by going to Egypt, and moving to Galilee when Joseph was informed by God that it was safe to return, but saw that Herod's son was on the throne and didn't want to risk it and so moved to Galilee, out of his reach. Luke's author, playing off being the historian, didn't particularly like that story for whatever reasons and so created the nonsense census excuse to have Mary and Joseph be in Bethlehem just in time for the birth before going back home, using an actual census that was nothing whatsoever like what was written.
Cool response, appreciated seeing Luke’s reliability track record highlighted. I had watched the Useful Charts video and if I remember right, he didn’t mention any alternatives for the 6 CE Luke birth year. He left it with “Matthew and Luke disagree, oh well”. The census and rulers mentioned in the Gospels are insightful as they connect Christian and secular timelines
See my separate post about Marin's work and the methodology regarding lunar eclipses. That's the most reliable way to reconcile/normalize the various calendars.
It seems that the conflict comes from Josephus stating that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 AD, while Luke seems to indicate that Quirinius was governor in 4 BC. So the first question I would raise is: why is Josephus automatically right, and Luke is automatically wrong? Oh, yeah ... because Luke is a Christian.
Luke isn't automatically wrong. He was wrong. Gotta love it when apologists use this kind of language as though there's some sort of kneejerk assertion that Luke was wrong. Quirinius was governor in 6 and conducted a census when Rome made Judea a Roman province to be directly governed by a Prefect, Coponius. Prior to that King Herod and later his sons paid tribute meaning they collected taxes. This changed when Rome deposed Herod Archelaus in 6 thus necessitating a census since Rome would be collecting taxes directly. This led to the uprising of Judas the Galilean. Mary and Joseph, on the other hand, lived in Galilee under Herod Antipas and would not have been affected by the census. Hope that helps.
There's also the possibility that the error lies with Josephus who confused different names for Quintinius with different rulers. John H. Rhoads argues this in a paper "Josephus Misdated The Census of Quirinius"
@@williamwatson4354 Even if they did, Jesus family living under Antipas wouldn't have been required to participate and then we've got the absurdity of Augustus deciding to have descendants of a long out of power Davidic dynasty gather in the place of David"s birth.
Could also be that Josephus was the one blundering dating Quirinius 15 years too late. I believe he is the only one talking about Quirinius. Why asume Luke is wrong if the other option also only has one witness? Would also explain acts 5:27
That isn't quite it. We also have to look at why Quirinius took the census. He took it to annex Judea and to liquidate the state of the son of Herod the Great, Herod Archalaus. Now even the Gospel of Matthew states Archalaus succeeded Herod. So either someone has to prove that Herod died before 4 BC which would contradict a lot of historical documents, or that Archalaus ever existed, in order to fit Quirinius into 4 BC.
One might add that Luke is ambiguous about whether everyone had to return to their hometown during the census. Jason Engwer argues for this in his blog post "Luke's Census Didn't Involve Ancestry". Great video.
I think that everyone was counted where they lived. Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was working on a major project near Nazareth. When Mary and Joseph were returning from Egypt, they were going to Bethlehem but because of Antiphas went to her home town instead.
@@abcdefghijfghij we don't have only Mathew or only Luke. God inspired both to write Gospels from different perspectives. Much of what Jesus tought was in the form of parables so that only those who wanted to understand could. Much of the Bible is like that. If you don't want to understand, you can't.
@@markhorton3994 "Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was working on a major project near Nazareth" Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't the Bible. Its clear that the census story needed to be made up in order to create a connection between Jesus and Bethlehem which was required if Jesus was going to be made to fit OT Biblical prophecy.
@@davidfaraday7963 Extra Biblical sources, which is what many non believers demand. Also interpolation of what the Bible says. Scholars better than myself say that there was a major building project near Nazareth. When Mary and Joseph with Jesus were going back from Egypt they were going to Bethlehem until diverted by danger. They started out from Nazareth, why would they want to go to Bethlehem unless it was Joseph's home? Not proof just what I think is the most likely possibility. You are of course entitled to disagree.
I really like to some Christians debunk some usefulcharts videos, specially when he talked about The old testament with bad arguments saying that Abraham is mythology because The names of some places was late names, and The EXODUS is too because there is no evidence in egypt(But there are some evidences yes and There are many internal evidences). And for last, The last mistake was he talking about Israel Finkelstein theories about The low cronology and United Israel as a fact, but The Finkelstein theories are not well suported by other Archeologists of Israel, and recently we found another evidence(inscription of king ezekiah) to not support this theory.
Go over to the Ancient Egypt and the Bible channel and ask David Falk to debunk some of those videos. He's the Christian RUclipsr for whom it's most in his area of expertise (he's an OT scholar and Egyptologist, and he even wrote a computer program which allows you to tell if a chronology for the Ancient Near East is valid).
If Luke says Quirinius was governor over Syria, why does that have to wait until after Agrippa was deposed for him to take control of Judea? I didn't see anywhere in either side of this video discussing the time frame Quirinius was governor over Syria, but only saw it debate when he gained power over Judea, but Luke didn't say he had power over Judea when Jesus was born, only that he was governor of Syria. Of the dating of the Census of Quirinius, it should be noted that it took the ancient world far longer to conduct a census that it does the modern day. It wasn't until the late 1800s that we were first able to conduct a census in only 9 months. In the 13th Century, the Mongols conducted a census that took 20 years. So a census could have started before Harod the Great died, and ended after Quirinius gained power in Judea. But last of all, it is worth asking why we always assume Josephus got everything right and Luke got everything wrong? We generally trust sources that are closer to the time they're reporting, and we know that Luke/Acts was written before Josephus, so why do we favor Josephus' reliability over Luke's? Especially when Luke so commonly does get his facts right, and Josephus is known to error? Why can't we say that Josephus got some information wrong about Quirinius and the census instead of Luke?
This seems the critical point to me. If Quirinius ruled Syria WHILE Herod was ruling Judea, there is no conflict at all. Luke could be talking about an earlier census than the 6AD one. Many secular scholars trust Josephus instead of Luke simply because they have a bias against Christianity.
Thanks for responding to Useful Charts Eric! I’ve seen some of his videos and was a little troubled by what he said. (because he has such a nice presentation that you almost believe what he’s saying) please continue to respond to his videos and explain that there are no errors in the Bible like the sceptics say. It truly is God’s word.
That would be problematic, but I would not leave the faith because I’ve tasted and seen that Jesus is good. He actually saves sinners. And in that I praise God!
Always believe God. Those against the Bible will always be against the Bible. Is good to get good responses for their objections. However, if those against the Bible wrote History, expect it to be against the Bible. As scientists think they used science against Bible, expect them to get even more stuff against our faith in God.
Yeah, any time I've watched a Useful Charts video that touches on the Bible I've got the impression that he is simply regurgitating something from the sceptical end of scholarship (though I've occasionally seen him put forwards something I've never seen elsewhere). I'm not sure whether this is because he's unaware of the existence of Conservative and Biblical Maximalist scholarship or if he's chosen never to read any of it.
He probably isn't aware. I was only aware of skeptical scholarship until not very long ago. It gets most of the media's publicity so most people would tend to lean over to that side of the spectrum (especially if they're already skeptical of Christianity).
Another possible theory, though probably not the best: the Bible app shows where parts of the Bible could be translated in a different way, and for Luke 2:2 it gives that when it says “when Quirinius was governor” it could mean before. This would mean that it was a translation error rather than Luke failing to get facts right. Again, this is probably not the best evidence and not well researched. But still, it is something to think about.
It's actually a very solid idea. Luke's grammar in this sentence is essentially shorthand and likely is a contrasting reference to the later census of Acts 5:37. The strongest evidence, really, is that Luke mentions the 6AD census in Acts, and clearly indicates that it comes later than the one mentioned in Luke 2. So Luke couldn't have meant that census in Luke 2. His statement that it was the first census means that it's earlier. The only other option is to claim that Luke did all his historical research, got everything right except for the census, then later learned the correct dates of the censuses, so that he could use them in Acts, but didn't bother to mention in Acts that he made a mistake earlier, even though both books combine to form a continuous narrative. It's a real stretch.
The Census Luke is talking about In Luke 2 is not a Tax-related Census It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
@@valentino3228 Could you provide any evidence that there was ever any census that was not tax-related in the Roman Empire, and also the reason why they were conducted if not for taxes? You make it sound like this census in question was literally only done for celebration, which seems a tad ridiculous to me considering how much effort conducting a census requires.
Well done for the most part. Something to note, there was a tributary counting (as you mentioned the one under Gaius (?)) for Augustus' silver jubilee (for the purpose of his 25th year of rein,) approximately in 3 BC (Augustus began reign in approx January of 27 BC, so the count would be done in time for 2BC.) Further, according to Josephus' account of Herod's death, the events of his illness, death, and burial proceedings would more likely fit in the timeline of 1BC (completing around January, and thus before the passover as you pointed out,) fitting in with Jesus being under 2 (a toddler as you point out) when the Magi arrived. Overall you did well.
Gaius/Caius? Was the "sits first of all" proconsul in 1AD. Augustus confers with Gaius when Archelaus shows up between Passover and Pentecost for comfirmation shortly after Herods death. Antiquities of the Jews 17:229 This helps confirms Herods death in 1AD, after the 29 Dec 1BC eclipse.
@@voymasa7980 Roger that. I calculate the wise men arrived in Jerusalem mid Dec 1BC. Found and worshipped Jesus on 25 Dec 1BC in Nazareth. Then Herod threaten the 2 year old babes in Bethehem. Herod died about 2 weeks later. Herods end of life illness drove him crazy. He executed 42 dissidents on 29 Dec 1BC. I can't help but wonder if the Bethlehem babes were slipped into that execution?
@@leericmarvin slipped in as far as records go? He was well known for slaughtering people so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't recorded. There's a book called Jesus Christ our Promised Seed which includes usage of biblical and historical records, and the Babylonian Chronology to estimate similar numbers to yours
It's sad your subscribers are largely outmatched by Useful Charts. I'll be sure to share the video with everyone I can. Thanks for the awesome work, Eric. God bless you.
It's telling that when it comes to sacred texts usefulcharts disagrees with Christian understanding of history but aligns with Islamic understanding of history
To be fair when it comes to sacred texts he does disagree with the understanding of his own religion, judaism. So if he has an bias it isn't an anti-christian bias
The decree of the census of augustus occurred because of the 750th anniversary of the founding of rome and the naming of agustus as pater patriae. Herod the great died at the close of 1bc. The triple conjunctions of jupiter and regulus and the occultation of jupiter and venus in 3bc plus the sun in the belly of virgo with the moon under her feet occured on feast of trumpets 3bc. Not to mention a meteor shower occurring at the same time. The most number of significant astrological events as well as the 750th anniversary and silver jubilee of Augustus and therefore the opportunity for herod the great to also impose an oath of loyalty to the messianic families is so hard to miss.
... you're a blessing, Erik, and - somewhat of an accomplished historian! Man - you give that reasonable defence! It's all we can do, but - Lord almighty, Jesus Christ: it's still reasonable! Thank you Kind regards Kim
This is by far the largest historical problem with the Gospels (unless you automatically discount the possibility of the miraculous). And really, it's an argument from absence of evidence. We know that Quirinius held a census in 6AD and scholars have drawn the line between the two events. It seems very out of character of Luke to have gotten something like that so wrong if indeed Jesus was born between 6BC and 4BC.
Hey Erik! I just made a video about Archelaus and I realized I made a mistake. He wasn’t the oldest son, he was actually the 5th son. The argument still stands because his public policy wasn’t known, however he wasn’t the oldest son and natural heir apparent. 3 of his older brothers were killed but 1 was still alive but written out of the will.
A note on Tacitus: Tacitus never says that the Clitae returned to their homes for a census. The Clitae were being compelled to 'report their property our way and pay tribute' ('nostrum in modum deferre censum, pati tributa') and therefore 'retreated to the heights of Bull Mountain' ('in iuga Tauri montis abscessit') where they could resist taxation. They're not being registered for a census, nor do they return to their homes for such a purpose. (Different translations will say 'Cietae' and 'Clitae'; Cietae is what the manuscript says, but certain philologists have conjectured that it should say Clitae.) As for the census of Gaius Vibius Maximus, it tells people who are currently absent to return to their homes (ἐφέστια) for registration. Joseph, on the other hand, is going to Bethlehem because he is 'of the house and lineage of David' (Luke 2.4); these are two very different reasons. The Egyptians are going to their own homes, whereas Joseph is going to his ancestor's home. For these to be the same, Joseph's reason for returning would have to be that he was a resident of Bethlehem. I suppose you could say that the text does not explicitly deny that Joseph lives in Bethlehem, but then it would be rather strange that it does not affirm this either, since this would be a far better reason for going to to Bethlehem. Finally, the οἰκουμένη commonly referred to the inhabited/'civilised' world as whole, not to a local land, and was also used to refer to the Roman world (LSJ, s.v.). That's how it is it used by the author of Luke-Acts elsewhere (Luke 4.5, 21.26; Acts 11.28, 17.6, 17.31, 19.27, 24.5.) and by the Gospel of Matthew (28.14). The example of Acts 11.28 is interesting, but it is not the same construction (πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην vs. ἐφ' ὅλην τὴν οἰκούμενην) and it is not clear whether Agabus is talking about one singular 'great famine' or 'great famine' generically, as Greek lacks an indefinite article; since there were indeed quite a few famines during Claudius' reign, all over the empire, this is not a clear-cut case. But certainly the most natural meaning of ἡ οἰκουμένη in such a context as Luke 2 is 'the world' (i.e. the Roman empire). But I do agree with you that Luke is almost certainly referring to Herod the Great; he's very good at keeping his Herods and their titles straight elsewhere (Luke 3.1, 3.19, 9.7; Acts 12.1, 13.1), even where Mark gets confused (Mark 6.14).
Another suggestion for Joseph's returning to Bethlehem is that he had some small property there (obviously not enough to stay there himself) and had to register for taxes.
I think this explanation is good. I think the obvious reference to the time of Jesus' birth in Luke that you pointed out, about Zacharias and Herod is the more weighty one and obviously puts Jesus' birth at around the same time as Matthew's gospel. I was always hesitant to pit Luke and Matthew agaist eachother as Luke is such a careful historian and Matthew has all that prophecy, and if he invented all the events, he would probably invent events that fit more with the prophecy that he is citing. I always took the census as being a different one that we've not heard about. Or that there is some good reason as to why Luke mentions it. Also as you pointed out, not even Luke believes that the census and Jesus' birth coincided as he clearly told us that Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. I think it's one thing to say that Luke got mixed with his history, and quite another to say that he doesn't know the difference between 20 and 30 years of age. Now as to the census, looking at the passage in Greek, I am no expert but I do some light study and translation in Greek and am an experienced amateur. It seems to me that rather than saying that the year in which the order for the census was ordered and the year it was completed, it seems to be actually clarifying the issue. At this time (the time of Jesus' birth) the order was given to make a census. And then it explains that this census actually took place at the time of Kyrenaios being the govenor of Syria. It is clarifying the order of events, not absolutely connecting the issuing of the decree and the actual census taking place. Only the time of the giving of the decree of Caesar is connected to Jesus' birth, not the census itself.
Literally just discovered your channel today. Matt Baker @UsefulCharts does great work. I'm researching the whole debate over the birth of Jesus and after watching his video on it, which is nicely done, I was seeking clarification on Luke and found you. GREAT channel.
The other issue is there is an alternate reading "This census topk place before" rather than "This was the first census that took place under" On both reading several things are true 1) Quarinius was did not need to be the initiator 2) both would need to be before the 6CE census It is more obvious for the alternate reading, but since Luke states this is an earlier census than the one he references later, it will need to be before it. The idea that it can't be an earlier census comes from 3 issues with the person denying the facts, firstly an a priori assumption the Bible is wrong until an outside source proves it true, secondly that even then the Bible must somehow be wrong, and thirdly that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence. It is really just relying on faulty logic to assume the Bible is wtong in a way they would never do for any other text.
"Then a second time, acting alone, by virtue of the consular power, I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of C. Censorinus and C. Asinius [8 B.C.]; at this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were recorded." Couldn't this be the census that Luke is talking about?
My "headcanon" is that the phrase "his own town" refers not to a hometown, but to the town where the person is currently living (vs visiting/traveling through). Mary & Joseph go to Bethlehem NOT because the census makes them, but it provides them an excuse to escape from the ire of those in Nazareth (because of Mary's "illegitimate" pregnancy) and begin a new life.
@@abcdefghijfghij They spend up to 2 years in Bethlehem before the Magi show up. Tack on (up to) a few years in Egypt before returning to Bethlehem. The only reason why they went back to Nazareth instead staying in Bethlehem is because of Archelaus.
@@abcdefghijfghij Yes, both of them leave out/skips over details the other has that would be important if they were telling the "whole story". But that isn't their goal, nor should we treat it as such
@@abcdefghijfghij And I guess that's where we'll disagree. Might not be "useful" (and I wish I could explain it better), but I don't see it as any kind of contradiction
"Was Christ born at Bethlehem?" By WM Ramsay makes some very interesting observations about the career of Quirinius. Particularly, on pages 227-228 he discusses a fragment of a marble inscription fount in Rome in 1764 that seems to equate to Quitinius' career (the name of the person to whom the inscription referred was either not present or damaged beyond legibility), while also indicating that he was in charge of Syria twice. Ramsay goes on to discuss the normal rate of progression through the ranks to proconsul, and shows that he could've indeed been proconsul of Syria for the first time by or before 4BC, and that his time of being a tutor was in fact after this. I can understand the nay-sayers rejecting the inscription being about the career of Quirinius because of the lack of a name on the stone (mainly because I know that they want the Bible to be false). However, it's also disingenuous for them to look at the inscription, see that it matches the career of Quitinius in every way, except that they think he governed Syria once, but the inscription says twice, and based on their ASSUMPTION, made because of their world view, declaring that the inscription wasn't referring to him. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flys like a duck, and quacks like a duck, yet they expect everyone to believe it's a dog. The rocks have "cried aloud." The Gospel of Luke is indeed correct.
This is a really great response video. I do have a bit of a quibble about the shepherds that went to visit Jesus (although I don't think this is a nontrivial point). After watching this video, I was apt to agree about the traditional nativity view being incorrect with respect to the age of Jesus. After some further reading, I think Luke is clearer about this issue than I realized and that there are some good reasons to believe that the shepherds actually did visit Jesus while he was a baby. First, Luke states clearly that the angel told the shepherds they "...will find a baby..." and when they had arrived, they found "...a baby lying in a manger." Second, we ought to trust Luke when he tells Theophilus that he undertook "...to write an orderly account for you..." This is because Luke tells us that the shepherds found Jesus *possibly* before he was circumcised on the eighth day, but they at least most likely saw him before Jesus' was presented at the temple according to the Law of Moses. According to Leviticus 12, this happens at about 33 days after circumcision. So, on a basic reading of the text and with a little context, it seems to me that the shepherds most likely visited Jesus before he was presented at the temple and when Mary had to make the necessary burnt and sin offerings (approximately 41ish days after his birth) before Jesus was a toddler. What do you think?
How come no one talks about the claim that Herod the great died around 1 bc anymore? I remember hearing that there was an obvious misstransmision in later manuscripts of josephoes about the date of his death and earlier ones have him dying later around 1 bc? {it was either that or some kind of calculation error when converting it to our (bc. - ad.) dating system) Was this just conjecture? Do scholars no longer see that as viable?
One of the greatest archaeologists of all time, Sir William Ramsay didn’t think Luke was very accurate. In fact, he traveled throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and other places during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in an attempt to refute Luke’s historical records in the Book of Acts. Before his travels he believed that Luke couldn’t have been very accurate because of a lack of archaeological evidence to support Luke’s claims. Ramsey, after years of study, found the exact opposite to be true, and he completely reversed his position. In fact, Ramsay went on to say, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense … in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915). Another famous scholar, A.N. Sherwin-White, said: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd.” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963).
Interesting - as I said in the response to your preview post, I have many objections to the "scholarly dating" - most of which are different from your objections. I appreciate your facepalm at 12:45. I did almost exactly the same thing when I watched his video. But remember, he's a secular Jew. He doesn't believe Moses, the founder of his religion, was a real person - of course he's not going to believe the Gospels accurately report on Jesus.
Difficult to believe Luke could make a big historical blunder when he begins his gospel declaring "I have accurately followed (researched) everything from the top, and write them in order unto you Theophilos".
I really dislike how some people miscalculated Jesus' birth year and now we are stuck with our calender shifted by 4-6 years off the actual birth of Jesus. If Jesus was killed in 33 AD, then he could have been anywhere from 32-39 depending on your source. I think 33 is a great number counting his ministry starting at 30 (significant age for priests) and having a 3 year ministry, or have him killed at 40 (significant number in Judaism). I know his age is not of the utmost importance, but I like to believe God reconciled all these things to be numerically sound
One other thing is that the dating of the census comes from Josephus's Jewish Wars, but it Antiquities of the Jews, he seems to avoid that time-setting detail. He even mentions the exact same event three times. Once at 4 B.C., another at 2 B.C., and the last at 6 A.D. There is even external evidence to show that Josephus was wrong, namely, the Gospel of Luke.
Honestly, this one is a real head-scratcher. All I know is that the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi depicted in Matthew places a firm date of Jesus' birth in December of 7 BCE (with the Conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter). The Church Father Tertullian writes that it was S. Sentius Saturninus that conducted the census and he was indeed the governor at that time. Most likely, the mention of Quirinius in Luke 2:2 is an interpolation error. No way the Lord Jesus could have born in 6 CE because this would be too late for him to have interacted with Pontius Pilate and would have contradicted the timeline for the death of John the Baptist coinciding with the marriage of Herodias as mentioned by Luke. The key is to find a fragment of Luke 2:2 in the Vetus Latina from the 3rd century.
Another important issue is that Luke directly states that his Gospel is accurate and highly corroborated and its addressed to a king. Saying Luke willingly invented or didnt care to corroborate stuff would be more than just writing fiction, it would be saying Luke is willingly deceiving the reader, at which point one needs to prove Luke was unreliable. Luke 1:1-4 [1] Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, [2] just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, [3] it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
I think it’s interesting how Luke never really interjects into his narrative with fulfilled prophecy, and only quotes the Old Testament to give cultural and religious context to Theophilus. Obviously, as a gentile, Theophilus didn’t believe in the Jewish scriptures, so quotations from it wouldn’t have meant anything to him.
Just a couple of comments as this popped up on my feed and I've done a lot of writing on this lately. Of course all of this is only meant as respectful dialogue. Luke 2:1 and Acts 11:28 are not the exact same phrase. 2:1 is pas whereas 11:28 is holos. While similar, it's not as if it's a clear example of an author using the phrase in the exact same way (and that's assuming Luke 1-2 and Acts 11 are even from the same author). It's also not so clear that the famine in Acts 11:28 extended only to Judea. Suetonius' account of Claudius getting mobbed in Rome due to the famine seems to imply that, while not universal, it extended beyond Judea. οἰκουμένην more often than not referred to the entire inhabited land (even in Luke/Acts), and Matt 24:14 even uses the same phrasing as Acts 11:28 in this sense: the known inhabited world. Regardless, even if it did only refer to Judea. Under Herod the Great, Judea would not have been subject to a census decree from Ceasar Augustus. The other issue is that in regards to the Cietae, being forced to return property as tribute is not the same as being asked to return to one's hometown to be counted for taxation purposes. The census of Gaius Vibius Maximus required people to return to their present homes, not their ancestral homes. Basically to prevent people from being "out of town" during the census. Luke is very clear that their home was in Nazareth, and that Joseph was going to Bethlehem because it was the hometown of his ancestor David. That is unheard of among ancient Roman census practices.
Hey thanks for the reply. Since it's the holiday I'm a bit busy and can't respond to all of this at the moment, but you wrote: "Regardless, even if it did only refer to Judea. Under Herod the Great, Judea would not have been subject to a census decree from Ceasar Augustus." Was Herod the Great in good standing and able to levy his own taxes and not be subject to a census from Augustus? No, near the end of his reign, Herod fell out of favor with Augustus, who sent him a sharply worded letter telling him that whereas he had treated him before as his friend, he would from that point on treat him as his subject (Josephus, Antiquities 16.9.3) Formally or in effect, Herod was demoted from rex socius to rex amicus and thus lost the authority to conduct his own taxing-an authority that he enjoyed in any event only at the pleasure of Augustus. From Josephus we learn that at this time the Romans required an oath of allegiance to Caesar from the citizens of Herod’s domain (Antiquities 17.2.4). This would be a step in the reduction of Palestine from a kingdom to the status of a Roman province.But within a year or so, as Josephus reports, Herod managed to get back into Augustus’s good graces.
@@TestifyApologetics If you haven't already, I'd recommend two very recently published chapters that cover these arguments. Herodian Taxation in Chapter 4 of To Caesar What Is Caesar's by Udoh (2020) and Chapter 3 of Escaping Shame titled: the Census under Quirinis by Croy (2022). Udoh in particular deals with claims of a Herodian census under Augustus, finding it implausible that either Rome or Herod would have conducted a census of Judea during Herod's reign.
Luke says Jesus was 30 at his baptism (which was 26 CE) Therefore, Luke thought Jesus was born around 6BCE About, "the census took place when Quirinius was governor of syria" The thing is the gospel of Luke wasn't written in Greek but in koine greek, and in koine greek, there's the notion of ablative case If we take in to account that it may be an ablative case, the sentence become "when Quirinius was governor out of Syria" Between, 12 BC to 1 BC, Quirinius was governor in Galitia.
IP has an interesting video basically showing a case for why Josephus is wrong about when the census is (or more exactly, why we’re interpreting Josephus wrong).
Don't know where you're getting your timeline for the beginning of the reign of Archileus, but venerable scholarly works, such as Ernest Martin's "The Birth of Christ Recalculated", place it about a year later, using records of lunar eclipses and records about the aftermath of Herod's death (touring the bier, funeral, etc.). It's quite certain that pinpointing Herod's death can be most accurately reckoned as a displacement from a lunar eclipse - - the whole thing turns on picking the correct one.
Can’t remember where, but I thought someone had worked out when Zachariah was serving in the temple, and Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant when visited by Mary?
Thanks for this video. Does that mean you'd be willing to commit to a date of ~6BC for the birth of Jesus? It would be great to see a video where all this information is put together as a positive case, with a timeline of all the facts.
If there was a God (man) he would be shaking his head saying, :I can't believe they take this stuff literally." Maybe that is why the verse says 'Do not give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which only minister questions." 1 Timothy 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables,... Reinforced in Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Useful Charts uses mainstream Biblical translations, so - if there are errors in the dating - these errors come from the Bible, not from Matt Baker. Dating the Quirinius Census is almost certainly correct because it follows from Herod the Great's death, and Herod Archelaus taking over from him as Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea until he was exiled in 6CE, when the census was taken to understand the area at the end of Archelaus' rule. The census is directly connected to a historical event that happened a decade after Herod the Great died, so placing Jesus' birth in the time of Herod the Great AND the census is wrong.
The explanation for the discrepancy regarding the birth of Jesus is much simpler than many scholars try to invent, yet very shocking, and thus overlooked. One has to take into account whole context of Matthew's and Luke's gospel in regard to Jesus'es birth and his childhood. Then you realize the descriptions differ a lot. The explanation for all these differences is, that there simply were two different Josephs (as proven by given different genealogies), two different Marys and therefore even two different Jesus children. The family described by Matthew lived in Betlehem, was visited by the three kings and had to escape to Egypt. The family described by Luke lived in Nazareth and moved to Betlehem only for the census which happened after Herod died (so they had no reason to escape and simply returned to Nazareth). There is of course much more to say regarding this. For those who want to study this more deeply, source of this explanation is Rudolf Steiner (who investigated these events through his clairvoyant abilities).
The problem is not Jesus birth but Herod's death. The Census Luke is talking about In Luke 2 is not a Tax-related Census It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
Luke does not say Jesus was born in the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke says Jesus was baptized and began his ministry about the time he turned 30, Luke chapter 3
We have multiple lunar eclipses that Josephus could be referring to. The year 1 bc seems to be a better fit. Plus, a special census was taken in the year 2 bc because the senate was giving Augustus another honor.
I love your channel, but is anyone going to point out the glaring mistake you made at 10:00? If you go back to 9:45, UsefulCharts very clearly says "It WASN'T an empire wide consenus," and you misheard him and thought he said that it was empire-wide. You then proceeded to argue against that point for a little while not realizing that you simply misheard him. I rewinded the video several times to make sure I wasn't imagining it.
Thanks for the great video! Check out the article by John Rhoads in JETS 54.1 titled, "JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS," for a very compelling argument that Josephus, not Luke, is the one who got it wrong.
The Census Luke is talking about In Luke 2 is not a Tax-related Census It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
I think my biggest criticism of this video is that you consider Matt Baker to be a "mixed bag" when it comes to biblical matters, when the only problem with him regarding biblical matters is that he doesn't default to the Christian reading of the Bible. Even if we assume that your counter points are valid (I personally think some of them are), you have to admit that the most straightforward reading of the Bible narrative results in pretty much the timeline that Useful Charts presents. There's a reason it's the most accepted narrative among secular scholars. Presenting the most unbiased take shouldn't make you a "mixed bag". Maybe a few caveats about other proposed timelines were missing but that's really nitpicking.
According to Josephus in Antiquities XVII.149, Herod had two rabbis burned alive on the night of a lunar eclipse. This occurred less than a month after the slaughter of children 2 years and younger in Bethlehem. This eclipse event, the only one of its kind in the region in a ten year range, occurred on the equivalent of January 10, 1 BCE. Herod would become ill shortly after and move to Jericho. While there Caesar Augustus essentially forced him to change rule of Judea from Antiper to Archelaus. Herod executed Antiper and five days later died. More details of Archelaus activities and appearance in Rome before the Caesar are found in Roman documents. Thus, Jesus had to have been born in the year 3-2 BCE. Understanding the Appointed Times and the Hebrew (Biblical) calendar, this would make His birth on the equivalent of September 26, 3 BCE during Sukkot.
The reason the 3 wise men are usually put in the nativity scene is because after the 12 days of Christmas, we celebrate epiphany, God revealing Himself to the Gentiles. It's a more whole view of the reason behind the incarnation. And Jesus was born in a cave, not a stable, but no one wants to talk about that, just the Magi.
Ha, Roman tradition made up by gentiles who didn’t and still don’t understand His Appointed Times (Leviticus 23). Yeshua was almost certainly born in a sukkah (a temporary dwelling built for the Holy Days) on Sukkot. A cave? No.
@@scottintexas what are you, larping as a jew? That's embarressing Scott. They used to keep animals in caves, the earliest Christian traditions have his birth in a cave. You can't just call the early church "gentiles who didn't and still don't understand His Appointed Times" These people had direct connections to the appostles if not to Christ Himself.
@@andrewselbyphotography “Larping as a Jew?” As much as you are larping as a Christian based upon your apparent rudeness. Clearly, you just hate being wrong more than knowing the truth. I pray the Spirit softens your heart.
@@scottintexas dude, you said I was a gentile that didn't understand His appointed time, and you laughed at church tradition. I'm sorry you can't take a little joking around. But if you don't want to back up your claims then then I don't know what else we would talk about.
@@andrewselbyphotography I didn’t find it to be joking. Here is what the Jesus said about tradition, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” Mark 7:8-9 You think this only applies to the “church” leaders of Jesus’ day? And, I did not call you a gentile; I made a statement. You applied it to yourself presumably for a reason. As to backing up my statement, look for my other comment among the comments.
Bible Chronologue - Gospel: [a=Spring; d=Winter] Luke 1 (John B is Born 6mo Before) 8d Matthew 1 (Jesus is Born) 7b Matthew 2 (Astrologers) 5 (Herod Kills Children 2 and Under) (Joseph Escapes to Egypt) (Herod Dies; Archelaus Enthroned) 4a (Joseph Returns Afterward) ~CLASSICAL PERIOD ENDS~ 1 BCE ~COMMON ERA~ 1 CE Luke 2 (Quirinius’ Census) 6a (Matthew expresses the birth of Jesus as during Herod the Great. Luke, in Greek, says “her” census referring to the kingdom of Augustus, rather than “this census.” Luke now interjects, Mary is the ‘one who was promised to him… and fulfilled her pregnancy,’ according to the Greek, not, “was full of pregnancy” or “about to give birth” and then shares the story of birth saying that was where he was born, before continuing where he left off, with the census. Otherwise Jesus would be 24 in Luke 3.) (Passover Mar/Apr; Jesus 12) 14b/c 26-36 Luke 3 (15th Yr Tiberius) 29c (Jesus Baptized ~35; Begins Career) (Luke 3:23 “Began Career About 30/In 30s”) (Jesus Dies ~39) April 3, 33a (Jesus Resurrected) April 6, 33
(Pentecost) May 26, 33b (Jesus 40 if Born in Early May)
10:18 Testify said, "Luke is not saying that it was a census over the entire Roman empire." Apparently, that is EXACTLY what Luke said. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Greek text since I do not know that language. However, I did check every English translation of Luke 2:1 that I could find..... 28 in all...including the King James, NIV, NLT and ESV. NOT ONE OF THOSE TRANSLATIONS supports your interpretation of Luke 2:1. ALL OF THEM say that this edict was to be applied empire-wide or world-wide. The text in Greek must be unambiguous to have produced such a powerful consensus of translators with different backgrounds! I must conclude that your interpretation, Testify, is wrong.
BIRTH CENSUS Claims that Luke made an error in referring to the “census of Quirinius” in Luke 2:1-6 - are commonplace. But, while it is easy to say Luke was confused about Judean history before his time, it is rather harder to substantiate the argument that Luke was confused about events known to people of his own time. In this respect, read Luke 1:1-4. Regarding the census cited in Acts 5:37, there is strong evidence of a census being conducted in Judea in 6AD, while Quirinius was governor of Syria but after Archelaus had been deposed and banished to Vienna (Josephus, _Antiquities,_ 17.13.2, 5; 18.1.1). Luke clearly knew about the census mentioned by Josephus, because both Josephus’ account and Acts 5:33-39 mention “Judas the Galilean”. It seems clear, then, that the census referred to by Luke in Acts 5:33-39 was not the one he referred to in Luke 2:1-2. In Luke 2:1-2, we see that the reference is to the first registration when Quirinius was “governing Syria” (not “governor of Syria” as most Bible translations render it). According to Emil Schürer ( _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ 1896, Vol 1, pp 351-354): _During the period B.C. 3-2, there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. … The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius … was governor of Syria._ Extra-biblical records are even less certain about who might have been governor of Syria from 1BC to 4AD (Schürer, pp 354-357). In 4-5AD, though, Volusius Saturninus was governor of Syria. Josephus tells us that Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria in 6AD after the banishment of Archelaus ( _Antiquities,_ 17.13.5; 18.1.1; 18.2.1). Hence it seems Quirinius had governed Syria twice - the first period being from 3BC until at least 2BC (and possibly as late as 4AD) and it was during this first period of governorship that Quirinius conducted the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2. Josephus also records that, less than a year before Herod the Great died, over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar and were fined for not doing so ( _Antiquities_ 17.2.4). The fact that the number is recorded and that the offenders were fined suggests the pledge was required at the time of a census. Such a pledge could have been sought following the Roman Senate’s bestowal of the title ‘Pater Patriae’ (Father of the Country) on Caesar Augustus on 5 February 2BC. Since it would make sense to administer the pledge and take the census at the same time, it is at least possible that this is the event to which Luke 2:1 refers. Our lack of independent verification of what Luke wrote does not make Luke wrong.
So if Jesus was born before 4BC and started his 3 year ministry when he was 30, how did the crucifixion happen in 30AD or 33 AD? Did his ministry took longer then 3 years? (I'm a Christian, am just wondering)
The verse in Luke says he was "about" 30. The word "about" in the Greek is hosei, and is also used to mean "as if, as it were, like." It's an approximation. If some were to say "about" 30 or "around" 30 to me, I would think 30 plus or minus 3, but it could 30 plus or minus 5 to others depending on the speaker.
Dates and numbers in the Bible have theological meanings : some are actually idioms and cannot be taken literal as we do today. 40 is such a number in scripture as it isn't always literal: Moses life is 3x40 , or 120 : 40 days and 40 nights just as 3 days and 3 nights isn't literal as it's Friday PM to Sunday AM.
Science can actually track back 5 Constellations that converged over Israel in September 9/11 3 B.C. This is a Good date 4 Jesus birth. See: Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video on why he thinks this date is accurate for Jesus birth.
Nativity are only inaccurate if you want a snap shot of a specific second in time. By that criteria every Star Wars poster, and a vast amount of othrr art are inaccurate. The nativity scene is rich piece if theological art where rich and poor (wise men and shepherds) and oxes and mules (Jews and Gentiles) are all brought together in Christ. There's a lot more going on besides, including references to the Old Testament and foreshadowing, which you completely lose if you start getting too literal and "factual". Before widespread literacy, images were used to aid teach theology and there are often multiple levels of meaning stacked into the them.
I disagree with he popular Magi didn't arrive till 2 years later claim. Matthew 2:1 is unambiguous that they Arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The the later references people around with are what alternate explanations. And No Luke never said Jesus was born in an Inn that's a mistranslation. As far as Quinirus goes, my first theory is that Quirinus is not being mentioned at all, this spelling is quite from how Josephus spells that name and is much more similar to how Luke elsewhere spells Cyrene. Luke 2 can be translated as saying the First Census of the Governing of Syria and Cyrene. But it also could also perhaps refer to Quirinus was Consul in 12 BC which for other has became the year I believe the Nativity happened.
The Census Luke is talking about In Luke 2 is not a Tax-related Census It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
@@Kuudere-Kun I read it in a study conducted by a number of historians and endorsed by Gerard Gertoux. Sometimes historians rely on other historian's theories, however, some go further and delve into the details to analyzes the findings independently.
Jesus was born on Sunday, March 1, 7 BC. He should have been born in September. He was given the 15th of September for his official birthday & to be in line for Messianc requirement. The West Manasseh Magi visited Jesus in September, when he was 6 months old. ///Luke is not making one of his alleged 'errors' when he talks about the birth of Jesus. Matthew & Luke are talking about 2 different time periods. Matthew's account is about Jesus' actual physical birth into the world. Luke's account is 12 years later in 6AD, when Jesus was 12 years old. 6 AD was also the year of the census. Qurinius was never governor of Syria when Herod was alive. The oppression of the Jews took place in 6AD. There is a reason for identifying the oppression as being in that year. This was the year that the native kings were removed, the direct rule of Roman orocurators was imposed, & the census of property they required led to an armed uprising & continual zealot activity. On Tuesday, April 6, 6 AD, Judas the Galilean (heavenly host) prepares for his uprising against the census. On Tuesday, June 1, the uprising occurs, led by Judas the Galilean, Theudas ('Moloch', the king, the 'Scepter) & Joseph (the 'Star') take part. Judea had now become an occupied country, without its own government, ruled by Roman procurators. This was indeed the 'Wrath', the beginning of oppression. Qurinius, the governor of Syria, was sent to oversee the change, & at once imposed a census, in which everyone had to declare his property. Joazar Boethos counseled moderation, but Judas (the Galilean) saw it as the ultimate challenge. They were now faced with a choice between bondage to the Roman's & a heroic fight for liberty. Judas' uprising was promptly put down by the Roman's. Immediately afterwards, the peace party swept into power with Ananus as High Priest, trusted by the Roman's to encourage peaceful co-operation. His sons, 5 of which became high priests, all adopted the same policy: westernized views & reasonable friendship towards Rome. Their emblem was the dove, & their blessing, at the beginning of worship, was 'Peace be with you'. The change in power came just in time for Jesus 12th birthday, when he was to undergo the ceremony of a 2d 'birth'. As the Ananus family held that he was legitimate, he now went through it as the heir of the Crown Prince, amid demonstrations of joy. His parents took him to Qumran, to the Queen's House,, the 'Manger', where he had been born, to reenact the event. A boy at the age of 12 went through a ceremony equivalent to the Orthodox Bar Mitzvah, when he was formally separated from his mother. This early initiation was symbolized as a kind of 2d birth. When Mary 'brought him forth' she was following the symbolism in which Jesus was separated from her. When he was 'wrapped in cloths', he was being clothed in the ceremonial vestment. .
I love your facepalm when he says that the Gospels are largely literary in nature and less concerned with detail. How anyone can claim that Luke isn't concerned with detail is beyond me.
That is one possible explanation that IP has seriously raised, and it's weird that how Josephus is usually assumed to be correct while the Gospels are assumed to be wrong.
@Testify Furthermore, the census is not even a miracle claim like the resurrection is. It is one thing to be skeptical because of an event that is very rare, like what happened to Jesus and a simple historical claim like the census. No one places that same amount of scrutiny on Tacitus or Josephus. If anything, we would be hyper skeptical of all history if the same skepticism was placed on extra biblical texts.
Isn't some of this like 1st century Jews and gentiles saying things like in the Day of Trump.... meaning his 4 years or the last 15 years? When MacGregor was the top dog and Tyson Fury was linear Champ and Simpsons was on television and Biden was in the White House and Bush was too. There is potential overlap in names and similar titles, offices, and positions.
Are you familiar with Chinese history and Jesus? According to Chinese history, during the Han dynasty, the emperor's astronomers predicted the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. It kinda suggests the maggi were actually Asian and were guided by a constellation called " Altair" that was visible for 70 nights . I honestly haven't had time to dig into this, but, it seems legit. What do you think?
12:13 it occurred to me, the guy making this video (smart charts), I hope not, but may live his whole life and then die believing Matthew and Luke record different accounts of Jesus’ birth. My heart breaks because he would see Jesus and be so confused, thinking he knew Jesus couldn’t have been really raised from death.
Does no one outside of a group of biblical scholars go with september 11 3BCE?? There a 90 minute window that day which all the astrological signs in revelations are present. Also supposedly herods death is debated between 4 and 2 BCE
Thanks for the response video! I just happened to stumble upon it when it was premiering! Anyway, you presented the counter arguments well and I appreciate that you did so in a respectful way. Cheers.
Wow was a quick response and gracious one from Useful Charts. Always appreciate your work and willingness to be as objective as possible and even more so now seeing your gracious response to a well mannered criticism.
Wow. Thanks for the kind comment. We have our disagreements on some biblical issues but I love your channel overall, even on the videos where I might have an alternative perspective to provide. You do some awesome work and definitely deserve the success you've had.
Love this wholesome interaction
One of my favourite things is graceful disagreements between knowledgeable people. Thus is how we get closer to the truth.
And if the truth is more important than winning an argument,that is such a blessing for everyone
Both of you guys make A+ content!
May God bless your ministry brother
Thanks for your support ! 🙏
Useful Charts states that Luke's mistakes are the result of him prioritising theological points over historical ones. But the parenthesis about the timing of the census has no theological value. It's a purely historical detail. I understand the line of argument that Luke wanted to get Jesus to Bethlehem for theological reasons, but he does that without any reliance upon the parenthetical detail about Quirinus.
Why would Luke place Mary and Joseph in Galilee prior to the birth if he wanted them in Bethlehem for theological reasons? Matthew makes no reference to Galilee, so this would only be a problem of Luke's own making, to which he would then invent a superfluous historical detail to an already unnecessary journey of his own creation.
"But the parenthesis about the timing of the census has no theological value" --- I think the argument might be that Luke is planting a "callback" to the census. Similar to how writers would claim to be some historical figure as a literary device. It's not a glaring error so much as a sort of reference saying "he was born in the time that resentment was building up between Rome and Judea".
Luke didn't write the gospel according to Luke because he collected existing materials and presented to Theophilus. This is why we have similar wordings in Matthew and Mark in Luke. So this doesn't make Luke a historian. Luke plagiarized earlier manuscripts and that's fraud to attribute authorship to him. He even acknowledged in chapter 1 of using records that were in existence then. So people should stop calling him a historian
The authors of both Luke and Matthew needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for theological reasons, but to be brought up and preaching in Galilee because that's where he's supposed to have been. They simply created two different origin stories. Matthew's author had Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem already, fleeing Herod by going to Egypt, and moving to Galilee when Joseph was informed by God that it was safe to return, but saw that Herod's son was on the throne and didn't want to risk it and so moved to Galilee, out of his reach. Luke's author, playing off being the historian, didn't particularly like that story for whatever reasons and so created the nonsense census excuse to have Mary and Joseph be in Bethlehem just in time for the birth before going back home, using an actual census that was nothing whatsoever like what was written.
Cool response, appreciated seeing Luke’s reliability track record highlighted. I had watched the Useful Charts video and if I remember right, he didn’t mention any alternatives for the 6 CE Luke birth year. He left it with “Matthew and Luke disagree, oh well”. The census and rulers mentioned in the Gospels are insightful as they connect Christian and secular timelines
See my separate post about Marin's work and the methodology regarding lunar eclipses. That's the most reliable way to reconcile/normalize the various calendars.
It seems that the conflict comes from Josephus stating that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 AD, while Luke seems to indicate that Quirinius was governor in 4 BC. So the first question I would raise is: why is Josephus automatically right, and Luke is automatically wrong? Oh, yeah ... because Luke is a Christian.
that's precisely the reason even though Luke is objectively more careful about his facts than Josephus.
Luke isn't automatically wrong. He was wrong. Gotta love it when apologists use this kind of language as though there's some sort of kneejerk assertion that Luke was wrong. Quirinius was governor in 6 and conducted a census when Rome made Judea a Roman province to be directly governed by a Prefect, Coponius. Prior to that King Herod and later his sons paid tribute meaning they collected taxes. This changed when Rome deposed Herod Archelaus in 6 thus necessitating a census since Rome would be collecting taxes directly. This led to the uprising of Judas the Galilean. Mary and Joseph, on the other hand, lived in Galilee under Herod Antipas and would not have been affected by the census. Hope that helps.
@@sp1ke0kill3r You just did it. Assumed Jospehus is correct, which automatically makes Luke wrong. That's exactly what I'm saying.
@@BatMite19 Nope. I assumed nothing. Sooner or later you have to put away the script
@@sp1ke0kill3r You stated a bunch of "facts" without any point of reference. Care to back them up?
I mispronounced the Clitae pretty bad, think I left odd the L. Oh well.
That L was pretty odd.
Take the L bro!
What the L?
You're not the first you know.
It was the first... the Angels did sing...
There's also the possibility that the error lies with Josephus who confused different names for Quintinius with different rulers. John H. Rhoads argues this in a paper "Josephus Misdated The Census of Quirinius"
Even if Josephus was wrong about the dates, the Romans would have never required citizens to leave their home for a city their ancestors lived in.
But it was Luke who mentions Quirinius. This only depends on Josephus in the apologetics script
@@williamwatson4354 Even if they did, Jesus family living under Antipas wouldn't have been required to participate and then we've got the absurdity of Augustus deciding to have descendants of a long out of power Davidic dynasty gather in the place of David"s birth.
Thank you! This response was needed.
Could also be that Josephus was the one blundering dating Quirinius 15 years too late. I believe he is the only one talking about Quirinius. Why asume Luke is wrong if the other option also only has one witness? Would also explain acts 5:27
I agree. I think Josephus blundered.
That isn't quite it. We also have to look at why Quirinius took the census. He took it to annex Judea and to liquidate the state of the son of Herod the Great, Herod Archalaus.
Now even the Gospel of Matthew states Archalaus succeeded Herod. So either someone has to prove that Herod died before 4 BC which would contradict a lot of historical documents, or that Archalaus ever existed, in order to fit Quirinius into 4 BC.
One might add that Luke is ambiguous about whether everyone had to return to their hometown during the census. Jason Engwer argues for this in his blog post "Luke's Census Didn't Involve Ancestry".
Great video.
Jason Engwer is a beast when it comes to the birth narratives.
I think that everyone was counted where they lived. Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was working on a major project near Nazareth. When Mary and Joseph were returning from Egypt, they were going to Bethlehem but because of Antiphas went to her home town instead.
@@abcdefghijfghij we don't have only Mathew or only Luke. God inspired both to write Gospels from different perspectives. Much of what Jesus tought was in the form of parables so that only those who wanted to understand could. Much of the Bible is like that. If you don't want to understand, you can't.
@@markhorton3994 "Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was working on a major project near Nazareth" Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't the Bible. Its clear that the census story needed to be made up in order to create a connection between Jesus and Bethlehem which was required if Jesus was going to be made to fit OT Biblical prophecy.
@@davidfaraday7963 Extra Biblical sources, which is what many non believers demand. Also interpolation of what the Bible says. Scholars better than myself say that there was a major building project near Nazareth. When Mary and Joseph with Jesus were going back from Egypt they were going to Bethlehem until diverted by danger. They started out from Nazareth, why would they want to go to Bethlehem unless it was Joseph's home? Not proof just what I think is the most likely possibility. You are of course entitled to disagree.
I really like to some Christians debunk some usefulcharts videos, specially when he talked about The old testament with bad arguments saying that Abraham is mythology because The names of some places was late names, and The EXODUS is too because there is no evidence in egypt(But there are some evidences yes and There are many internal evidences). And for last, The last mistake was he talking about Israel Finkelstein theories about The low cronology and United Israel as a fact, but The Finkelstein theories are not well suported by other Archeologists of Israel, and recently we found another evidence(inscription of king ezekiah) to not support this theory.
Go over to the Ancient Egypt and the Bible channel and ask David Falk to debunk some of those videos. He's the Christian RUclipsr for whom it's most in his area of expertise (he's an OT scholar and Egyptologist, and he even wrote a computer program which allows you to tell if a chronology for the Ancient Near East is valid).
@@stephengray1344 Ditto!
If Luke says Quirinius was governor over Syria, why does that have to wait until after Agrippa was deposed for him to take control of Judea? I didn't see anywhere in either side of this video discussing the time frame Quirinius was governor over Syria, but only saw it debate when he gained power over Judea, but Luke didn't say he had power over Judea when Jesus was born, only that he was governor of Syria.
Of the dating of the Census of Quirinius, it should be noted that it took the ancient world far longer to conduct a census that it does the modern day. It wasn't until the late 1800s that we were first able to conduct a census in only 9 months. In the 13th Century, the Mongols conducted a census that took 20 years. So a census could have started before Harod the Great died, and ended after Quirinius gained power in Judea.
But last of all, it is worth asking why we always assume Josephus got everything right and Luke got everything wrong? We generally trust sources that are closer to the time they're reporting, and we know that Luke/Acts was written before Josephus, so why do we favor Josephus' reliability over Luke's? Especially when Luke so commonly does get his facts right, and Josephus is known to error? Why can't we say that Josephus got some information wrong about Quirinius and the census instead of Luke?
I understand that Josephus was not a great historian, and he made many mistakes.
This seems the critical point to me. If Quirinius ruled Syria WHILE Herod was ruling Judea, there is no conflict at all. Luke could be talking about an earlier census than the 6AD one.
Many secular scholars trust Josephus instead of Luke simply because they have a bias against Christianity.
@@bbgun061
Many of the people who are skeptical of the Bible are biased for no good reason.
Thanks for responding to Useful Charts Eric! I’ve seen some of his videos and was a little troubled by what he said. (because he has such a nice presentation that you almost believe what he’s saying) please continue to respond to his videos and explain that there are no errors in the Bible like the sceptics say. It truly is God’s word.
If you were to come to believe there was any error in the Bible would you leave your faith?
That would be problematic, but I would not leave the faith because I’ve tasted and seen that Jesus is good. He actually saves sinners. And in that I praise God!
Always believe God. Those against the Bible will always be against the Bible. Is good to get good responses for their objections. However, if those against the Bible wrote History, expect it to be against the Bible. As scientists think they used science against Bible, expect them to get even more stuff against our faith in God.
Thanks
Thank you!
Yeah, any time I've watched a Useful Charts video that touches on the Bible I've got the impression that he is simply regurgitating something from the sceptical end of scholarship (though I've occasionally seen him put forwards something I've never seen elsewhere). I'm not sure whether this is because he's unaware of the existence of Conservative and Biblical Maximalist scholarship or if he's chosen never to read any of it.
He probably isn't aware. I was only aware of skeptical scholarship until not very long ago. It gets most of the media's publicity so most people would tend to lean over to that side of the spectrum (especially if they're already skeptical of Christianity).
He's a secular jew I'm pretty sure. Of course he's knowingly spewing skeptic takes.
@@lessthanthree5686ohhhh
@@lessthanthree5686 That's an ad hominem.
Another possible theory, though probably not the best: the Bible app shows where parts of the Bible could be translated in a different way, and for Luke 2:2 it gives that when it says “when Quirinius was governor” it could mean before. This would mean that it was a translation error rather than Luke failing to get facts right.
Again, this is probably not the best evidence and not well researched. But still, it is something to think about.
It's actually a very solid idea. Luke's grammar in this sentence is essentially shorthand and likely is a contrasting reference to the later census of Acts 5:37.
The strongest evidence, really, is that Luke mentions the 6AD census in Acts, and clearly indicates that it comes later than the one mentioned in Luke 2. So Luke couldn't have meant that census in Luke 2. His statement that it was the first census means that it's earlier.
The only other option is to claim that Luke did all his historical research, got everything right except for the census, then later learned the correct dates of the censuses, so that he could use them in Acts, but didn't bother to mention in Acts that he made a mistake earlier, even though both books combine to form a continuous narrative. It's a real stretch.
The Census Luke is
talking about In Luke 2 is not a
Tax-related Census
It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
@@valentino3228 Could you provide any evidence that there was ever any census that was not tax-related in the Roman Empire, and also the reason why they were conducted if not for taxes?
You make it sound like this census in question was literally only done for celebration, which seems a tad ridiculous to me considering how much effort conducting a census requires.
@Gen-ZChristian +
Well done for the most part.
Something to note, there was a tributary counting (as you mentioned the one under Gaius (?)) for Augustus' silver jubilee (for the purpose of his 25th year of rein,) approximately in 3 BC (Augustus began reign in approx January of 27 BC, so the count would be done in time for 2BC.) Further, according to Josephus' account of Herod's death, the events of his illness, death, and burial proceedings would more likely fit in the timeline of 1BC (completing around January, and thus before the passover as you pointed out,) fitting in with Jesus being under 2 (a toddler as you point out) when the Magi arrived.
Overall you did well.
Gaius/Caius? Was the "sits first of all" proconsul in 1AD. Augustus confers with Gaius when Archelaus shows up between Passover and Pentecost for comfirmation shortly after Herods death. Antiquities of the Jews 17:229 This helps confirms Herods death in 1AD, after the 29 Dec 1BC eclipse.
@@leericmarvin which means that the events of the slaughter of the innocent's would have occurred around 2 or 1 BC. Lines right up
@@voymasa7980 Roger that. I calculate the wise men arrived in Jerusalem mid Dec 1BC. Found and worshipped Jesus on 25 Dec 1BC in Nazareth. Then Herod threaten the 2 year old babes in Bethehem. Herod died about 2 weeks later. Herods end of life illness drove him crazy. He executed 42 dissidents on 29 Dec 1BC. I can't help but wonder if the Bethlehem babes were slipped into that execution?
@@leericmarvin slipped in as far as records go? He was well known for slaughtering people so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't recorded.
There's a book called Jesus Christ our Promised Seed which includes usage of biblical and historical records, and the Babylonian Chronology to estimate similar numbers to yours
Thanks again Erik. Once again...
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
Would love to see a expanded hour long version of this
It's sad your subscribers are largely outmatched by Useful Charts. I'll be sure to share the video with everyone I can.
Thanks for the awesome work, Eric. God bless you.
The ones who are right don't often get much attention.
LOL 😆
@@matamoros6525 yes
Thank you! Very useful stuff.
Useful Charts often gets anything biblical wrong. It makes me doubt the accuracy of everything else they do.
Because they have a bias towards the Bible, all skeptic as of the Bible have a bias towards it.
I believe that the translation of Luke with Quirinius being "governor" of Syria; he was "procurator" before he was formerly named as governor.
It's telling that when it comes to sacred texts usefulcharts disagrees with Christian understanding of history but aligns with Islamic understanding of history
He's a Jew, so not exactly shocking when he is consistently posting videos against Christ amongst otherwise great content.
To be fair when it comes to sacred texts he does disagree with the understanding of his own religion, judaism. So if he has an bias it isn't an anti-christian bias
@@igorlopes7589He has more of a bias against the "Pre-Christ Christianity" parts of Judaism.
The decree of the census of augustus occurred because of the 750th anniversary of the founding of rome and the naming of agustus as pater patriae. Herod the great died at the close of 1bc. The triple conjunctions of jupiter and regulus and the occultation of jupiter and venus in 3bc plus the sun in the belly of virgo with the moon under her feet occured on feast of trumpets 3bc. Not to mention a meteor shower occurring at the same time. The most number of significant astrological events as well as the 750th anniversary and silver jubilee of Augustus and therefore the opportunity for herod the great to also impose an oath of loyalty to the messianic families is so hard to miss.
... you're a blessing, Erik, and - somewhat of an accomplished historian!
Man - you give that reasonable defence! It's all we can do, but - Lord almighty, Jesus Christ: it's still reasonable!
Thank you
Kind regards Kim
This is by far the largest historical problem with the Gospels (unless you automatically discount the possibility of the miraculous). And really, it's an argument from absence of evidence. We know that Quirinius held a census in 6AD and scholars have drawn the line between the two events. It seems very out of character of Luke to have gotten something like that so wrong if indeed Jesus was born between 6BC and 4BC.
Thank you for all of your posts. They are ALWAYS excellent. You have a real gift for this kind of apologetic work and it is critically needed.
Continue to point out that there is no truth like The Truth amen
Hey Erik! I just made a video about Archelaus and I realized I made a mistake. He wasn’t the oldest son, he was actually the 5th son. The argument still stands because his public policy wasn’t known, however he wasn’t the oldest son and natural heir apparent. 3 of his older brothers were killed but 1 was still alive but written out of the will.
A note on Tacitus: Tacitus never says that the Clitae returned to their homes for a census. The Clitae were being compelled to 'report their property our way and pay tribute' ('nostrum in modum deferre censum, pati tributa') and therefore 'retreated to the heights of Bull Mountain' ('in iuga Tauri montis abscessit') where they could resist taxation. They're not being registered for a census, nor do they return to their homes for such a purpose. (Different translations will say 'Cietae' and 'Clitae'; Cietae is what the manuscript says, but certain philologists have conjectured that it should say Clitae.)
As for the census of Gaius Vibius Maximus, it tells people who are currently absent to return to their homes (ἐφέστια) for registration. Joseph, on the other hand, is going to Bethlehem because he is 'of the house and lineage of David' (Luke 2.4); these are two very different reasons. The Egyptians are going to their own homes, whereas Joseph is going to his ancestor's home. For these to be the same, Joseph's reason for returning would have to be that he was a resident of Bethlehem. I suppose you could say that the text does not explicitly deny that Joseph lives in Bethlehem, but then it would be rather strange that it does not affirm this either, since this would be a far better reason for going to to Bethlehem.
Finally, the οἰκουμένη commonly referred to the inhabited/'civilised' world as whole, not to a local land, and was also used to refer to the Roman world (LSJ, s.v.). That's how it is it used by the author of Luke-Acts elsewhere (Luke 4.5, 21.26; Acts 11.28, 17.6, 17.31, 19.27, 24.5.) and by the Gospel of Matthew (28.14). The example of Acts 11.28 is interesting, but it is not the same construction (πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην vs. ἐφ' ὅλην τὴν οἰκούμενην) and it is not clear whether Agabus is talking about one singular 'great famine' or 'great famine' generically, as Greek lacks an indefinite article; since there were indeed quite a few famines during Claudius' reign, all over the empire, this is not a clear-cut case. But certainly the most natural meaning of ἡ οἰκουμένη in such a context as Luke 2 is 'the world' (i.e. the Roman empire).
But I do agree with you that Luke is almost certainly referring to Herod the Great; he's very good at keeping his Herods and their titles straight elsewhere (Luke 3.1, 3.19, 9.7; Acts 12.1, 13.1), even where Mark gets confused (Mark 6.14).
Saving this as ammunition for the war on Christmas. Great video, brother.
Another suggestion for Joseph's returning to Bethlehem is that he had some small property there (obviously not enough to stay there himself) and had to register for taxes.
I think this explanation is good. I think the obvious reference to the time of Jesus' birth in Luke that you pointed out, about Zacharias and Herod is the more weighty one and obviously puts Jesus' birth at around the same time as Matthew's gospel. I was always hesitant to pit Luke and Matthew agaist eachother as Luke is such a careful historian and Matthew has all that prophecy, and if he invented all the events, he would probably invent events that fit more with the prophecy that he is citing.
I always took the census as being a different one that we've not heard about. Or that there is some good reason as to why Luke mentions it. Also as you pointed out, not even Luke believes that the census and Jesus' birth coincided as he clearly told us that Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. I think it's one thing to say that Luke got mixed with his history, and quite another to say that he doesn't know the difference between 20 and 30 years of age.
Now as to the census, looking at the passage in Greek, I am no expert but I do some light study and translation in Greek and am an experienced amateur. It seems to me that rather than saying that the year in which the order for the census was ordered and the year it was completed, it seems to be actually clarifying the issue. At this time (the time of Jesus' birth) the order was given to make a census. And then it explains that this census actually took place at the time of Kyrenaios being the govenor of Syria. It is clarifying the order of events, not absolutely connecting the issuing of the decree and the actual census taking place. Only the time of the giving of the decree of Caesar is connected to Jesus' birth, not the census itself.
Good response 👍
Literally just discovered your channel today. Matt Baker @UsefulCharts does great work. I'm researching the whole debate over the birth of Jesus and after watching his video on it, which is nicely done, I was seeking clarification on Luke and found you. GREAT channel.
The other issue is there is an alternate reading "This census topk place before" rather than "This was the first census that took place under"
On both reading several things are true
1) Quarinius was did not need to be the initiator
2) both would need to be before the 6CE census
It is more obvious for the alternate reading, but since Luke states this is an earlier census than the one he references later, it will need to be before it.
The idea that it can't be an earlier census comes from 3 issues with the person denying the facts, firstly an a priori assumption the Bible is wrong until an outside source proves it true, secondly that even then the Bible must somehow be wrong, and thirdly that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
It is really just relying on faulty logic to assume the Bible is wtong in a way they would never do for any other text.
"Then a second time, acting alone, by virtue of the consular power, I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of C. Censorinus and C. Asinius [8 B.C.]; at this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were recorded." Couldn't this be the census that Luke is talking about?
Too early?
My "headcanon" is that the phrase "his own town" refers not to a hometown, but to the town where the person is currently living (vs visiting/traveling through). Mary & Joseph go to Bethlehem NOT because the census makes them, but it provides them an excuse to escape from the ire of those in Nazareth (because of Mary's "illegitimate" pregnancy) and begin a new life.
@@abcdefghijfghij They spend up to 2 years in Bethlehem before the Magi show up. Tack on (up to) a few years in Egypt before returning to Bethlehem. The only reason why they went back to Nazareth instead staying in Bethlehem is because of Archelaus.
@@abcdefghijfghij Sure, neither Gospel has the "complete" story. I'm using both, not competing one against another
@@abcdefghijfghij Yes, both of them leave out/skips over details the other has that would be important if they were telling the "whole story". But that isn't their goal, nor should we treat it as such
@@abcdefghijfghij And I guess that's where we'll disagree. Might not be "useful" (and I wish I could explain it better), but I don't see it as any kind of contradiction
"Was Christ born at Bethlehem?" By WM Ramsay makes some very interesting observations about the career of Quirinius. Particularly, on pages 227-228 he discusses a fragment of a marble inscription fount in Rome in 1764 that seems to equate to Quitinius' career (the name of the person to whom the inscription referred was either not present or damaged beyond legibility), while also indicating that he was in charge of Syria twice. Ramsay goes on to discuss the normal rate of progression through the ranks to proconsul, and shows that he could've indeed been proconsul of Syria for the first time by or before 4BC, and that his time of being a tutor was in fact after this.
I can understand the nay-sayers rejecting the inscription being about the career of Quirinius because of the lack of a name on the stone (mainly because I know that they want the Bible to be false). However, it's also disingenuous for them to look at the inscription, see that it matches the career of Quitinius in every way, except that they think he governed Syria once, but the inscription says twice, and based on their ASSUMPTION, made because of their world view, declaring that the inscription wasn't referring to him. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flys like a duck, and quacks like a duck, yet they expect everyone to believe it's a dog.
The rocks have "cried aloud." The Gospel of Luke is indeed correct.
This is a really great response video. I do have a bit of a quibble about the shepherds that went to visit Jesus (although I don't think this is a nontrivial point). After watching this video, I was apt to agree about the traditional nativity view being incorrect with respect to the age of Jesus. After some further reading, I think Luke is clearer about this issue than I realized and that there are some good reasons to believe that the shepherds actually did visit Jesus while he was a baby. First, Luke states clearly that the angel told the shepherds they "...will find a baby..." and when they had arrived, they found "...a baby lying in a manger." Second, we ought to trust Luke when he tells Theophilus that he undertook "...to write an orderly account for you..." This is because Luke tells us that the shepherds found Jesus *possibly* before he was circumcised on the eighth day, but they at least most likely saw him before Jesus' was presented at the temple according to the Law of Moses. According to Leviticus 12, this happens at about 33 days after circumcision. So, on a basic reading of the text and with a little context, it seems to me that the shepherds most likely visited Jesus before he was presented at the temple and when Mary had to make the necessary burnt and sin offerings (approximately 41ish days after his birth) before Jesus was a toddler. What do you think?
Merry Christmas, Testify!
How come no one talks about the claim that Herod the great died around 1 bc anymore? I remember hearing that there was an obvious misstransmision in later manuscripts of josephoes about the date of his death and earlier ones have him dying later around 1 bc? {it was either that or some kind of calculation error when converting it to our (bc. - ad.) dating system) Was this just conjecture? Do scholars no longer see that as viable?
One of the greatest archaeologists of all time, Sir William Ramsay didn’t think Luke was very accurate. In fact, he traveled throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and other places during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in an attempt to refute Luke’s historical records in the Book of Acts.
Before his travels he believed that Luke couldn’t have been very accurate because of a lack of archaeological evidence to support Luke’s claims. Ramsey, after years of study, found the exact opposite to be true, and he completely reversed his position. In fact, Ramsay went on to say,
“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense … in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915).
Another famous scholar, A.N. Sherwin-White, said: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd.” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963).
Interesting - as I said in the response to your preview post, I have many objections to the "scholarly dating" - most of which are different from your objections.
I appreciate your facepalm at 12:45. I did almost exactly the same thing when I watched his video. But remember, he's a secular Jew. He doesn't believe Moses, the founder of his religion, was a real person - of course he's not going to believe the Gospels accurately report on Jesus.
Difficult to believe Luke could make a big historical blunder when he begins his gospel declaring "I have accurately followed (researched) everything from the top, and write them in order unto you Theophilos".
I really dislike how some people miscalculated Jesus' birth year and now we are stuck with our calender shifted by 4-6 years off the actual birth of Jesus. If Jesus was killed in 33 AD, then he could have been anywhere from 32-39 depending on your source.
I think 33 is a great number counting his ministry starting at 30 (significant age for priests) and having a 3 year ministry, or have him killed at 40 (significant number in Judaism). I know his age is not of the utmost importance, but I like to believe God reconciled all these things to be numerically sound
One other thing is that the dating of the census comes from Josephus's Jewish Wars, but it Antiquities of the Jews, he seems to avoid that time-setting detail. He even mentions the exact same event three times. Once at 4 B.C., another at 2 B.C., and the last at 6 A.D. There is even external evidence to show that Josephus was wrong, namely, the Gospel of Luke.
Honestly, this one is a real head-scratcher. All I know is that the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi depicted in Matthew places a firm date of Jesus' birth in December of 7 BCE (with the Conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter). The Church Father Tertullian writes that it was S. Sentius Saturninus that conducted the census and he was indeed the governor at that time. Most likely, the mention of Quirinius in Luke 2:2 is an interpolation error. No way the Lord Jesus could have born in 6 CE because this would be too late for him to have interacted with Pontius Pilate and would have contradicted the timeline for the death of John the Baptist coinciding with the marriage of Herodias as mentioned by Luke.
The key is to find a fragment of Luke 2:2 in the Vetus Latina from the 3rd century.
Another important issue is that Luke directly states that his Gospel is accurate and highly corroborated and its addressed to a king.
Saying Luke willingly invented or didnt care to corroborate stuff would be more than just writing fiction, it would be saying Luke is willingly deceiving the reader, at which point one needs to prove Luke was unreliable.
Luke 1:1-4
[1] Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, [2] just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, [3] it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Can u make by yourself a long video on what year whas Jesus born?It would be very usful.
I think it’s interesting how Luke never really interjects into his narrative with fulfilled prophecy, and only quotes the Old Testament to give cultural and religious context to Theophilus. Obviously, as a gentile, Theophilus didn’t believe in the Jewish scriptures, so quotations from it wouldn’t have meant anything to him.
Just a couple of comments as this popped up on my feed and I've done a lot of writing on this lately. Of course all of this is only meant as respectful dialogue.
Luke 2:1 and Acts 11:28 are not the exact same phrase. 2:1 is pas whereas 11:28 is holos. While similar, it's not as if it's a clear example of an author using the phrase in the exact same way (and that's assuming Luke 1-2 and Acts 11 are even from the same author). It's also not so clear that the famine in Acts 11:28 extended only to Judea. Suetonius' account of Claudius getting mobbed in Rome due to the famine seems to imply that, while not universal, it extended beyond Judea. οἰκουμένην more often than not referred to the entire inhabited land (even in Luke/Acts), and Matt 24:14 even uses the same phrasing as Acts 11:28 in this sense: the known inhabited world.
Regardless, even if it did only refer to Judea. Under Herod the Great, Judea would not have been subject to a census decree from Ceasar Augustus.
The other issue is that in regards to the Cietae, being forced to return property as tribute is not the same as being asked to return to one's hometown to be counted for taxation purposes.
The census of Gaius Vibius Maximus required people to return to their present homes, not their ancestral homes. Basically to prevent people from being "out of town" during the census. Luke is very clear that their home was in Nazareth, and that Joseph was going to Bethlehem because it was the hometown of his ancestor David. That is unheard of among ancient Roman census practices.
Hey thanks for the reply.
Since it's the holiday I'm a bit busy and can't respond to all of this at the moment, but you wrote: "Regardless, even if it did only refer to Judea. Under Herod the Great, Judea would not have been subject to a census decree from Ceasar Augustus."
Was Herod the Great in good standing and able to levy his own taxes and not be subject to a census from Augustus? No, near the end of his reign, Herod fell out of favor with Augustus, who sent him a sharply worded letter telling him that whereas he had treated him before as his friend, he would from that point on treat him as his subject (Josephus, Antiquities 16.9.3) Formally or in effect, Herod was demoted from rex socius to rex amicus and thus lost the authority to conduct his own taxing-an authority that he enjoyed in any event only at the pleasure of Augustus. From Josephus we learn that at this time the Romans required an oath of allegiance to Caesar from the citizens of Herod’s domain (Antiquities 17.2.4). This would be a step in the reduction of Palestine from a kingdom to the status of a Roman province.But within a year or so, as Josephus reports, Herod managed to get back into Augustus’s good graces.
@@TestifyApologetics If you haven't already, I'd recommend two very recently published chapters that cover these arguments. Herodian Taxation in Chapter 4 of To Caesar What Is Caesar's by Udoh (2020) and Chapter 3 of Escaping Shame titled: the Census under Quirinis by Croy (2022). Udoh in particular deals with claims of a Herodian census under Augustus, finding it implausible that either Rome or Herod would have conducted a census of Judea during Herod's reign.
Luke says Jesus was 30 at his baptism (which was 26 CE)
Therefore, Luke thought Jesus was born around 6BCE
About, "the census took place when Quirinius was governor of syria"
The thing is the gospel of Luke wasn't written in Greek but in koine greek, and in koine greek, there's the notion of ablative case
If we take in to account that it may be an ablative case, the sentence become "when Quirinius was governor out of Syria"
Between, 12 BC to 1 BC, Quirinius was governor in Galitia.
IP has an interesting video basically showing a case for why Josephus is wrong about when the census is (or more exactly, why we’re interpreting Josephus wrong).
Don't know where you're getting your timeline for the beginning of the reign of Archileus, but venerable scholarly works, such as Ernest Martin's "The Birth of Christ Recalculated", place it about a year later, using records of lunar eclipses and records about the aftermath of Herod's death (touring the bier, funeral, etc.). It's quite certain that pinpointing Herod's death can be most accurately reckoned as a displacement from a lunar eclipse - - the whole thing turns on picking the correct one.
Can’t remember where, but I thought someone had worked out when Zachariah was serving in the temple, and Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant when visited by Mary?
Great info as always.
Thanks for this video.
Does that mean you'd be willing to commit to a date of ~6BC for the birth of Jesus?
It would be great to see a video where all this information is put together as a positive case, with a timeline of all the facts.
Yeah probably 4 BC. I'm not worried about being super precise.
I know when Jesus birthday because on Christmas i asked him and he answered thru a video of the magi
If there was a God (man) he would be shaking his head saying, :I can't believe they take this stuff literally."
Maybe that is why the verse says 'Do not give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which only minister questions."
1 Timothy 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables,... Reinforced in Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Jesus was born in September 29 2 BC.
Useful Charts uses mainstream Biblical translations, so - if there are errors in the dating - these errors come from the Bible, not from Matt Baker. Dating the Quirinius Census is almost certainly correct because it follows from Herod the Great's death, and Herod Archelaus taking over from him as Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea until he was exiled in 6CE, when the census was taken to understand the area at the end of Archelaus' rule. The census is directly connected to a historical event that happened a decade after Herod the Great died, so placing Jesus' birth in the time of Herod the Great AND the census is wrong.
The explanation for the discrepancy regarding the birth of Jesus is much simpler than many scholars try to invent, yet very shocking, and thus overlooked. One has to take into account whole context of Matthew's and Luke's gospel in regard to Jesus'es birth and his childhood. Then you realize the descriptions differ a lot.
The explanation for all these differences is, that there simply were two different Josephs (as proven by given different genealogies), two different Marys and therefore even two different Jesus children. The family described by Matthew lived in Betlehem, was visited by the three kings and had to escape to Egypt. The family described by Luke lived in Nazareth and moved to Betlehem only for the census which happened after Herod died (so they had no reason to escape and simply returned to Nazareth).
There is of course much more to say regarding this. For those who want to study this more deeply, source of this explanation is Rudolf Steiner (who investigated these events through his clairvoyant abilities).
The problem is not Jesus birth but Herod's death.
The Census Luke is
talking about In Luke 2 is not a
Tax-related Census
It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
Luke does not say Jesus was born in the 15th year of Tiberius.
Luke says Jesus was baptized and began his ministry about the time he turned 30,
Luke chapter 3
We have multiple lunar eclipses that Josephus could be referring to. The year 1 bc seems to be a better fit. Plus, a special census was taken in the year 2 bc because the senate was giving Augustus another honor.
I love your channel, but is anyone going to point out the glaring mistake you made at 10:00? If you go back to 9:45, UsefulCharts very clearly says "It WASN'T an empire wide consenus," and you misheard him and thought he said that it was empire-wide. You then proceeded to argue against that point for a little while not realizing that you simply misheard him.
I rewinded the video several times to make sure I wasn't imagining it.
UsefulCharts probably has bias against Jesus because he is a secular Jew..
Thanks for the great video! Check out the article by John Rhoads in JETS 54.1 titled, "JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS," for a very compelling argument that Josephus, not Luke, is the one who got it wrong.
The Census Luke is
talking about In Luke 2 is not a
Tax-related Census
It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
How can we show that Luke wasn't just intending to correct matthew/matthew's source?
@Testify
Thank you for earnestly contending for the Faith
Keep in mind that Quirinius was 'governing'... it doesn't say he was the 'governor'... much like Archelaeus wasn't king but was reigning...
I think my biggest criticism of this video is that you consider Matt Baker to be a "mixed bag" when it comes to biblical matters, when the only problem with him regarding biblical matters is that he doesn't default to the Christian reading of the Bible. Even if we assume that your counter points are valid (I personally think some of them are), you have to admit that the most straightforward reading of the Bible narrative results in pretty much the timeline that Useful Charts presents. There's a reason it's the most accepted narrative among secular scholars. Presenting the most unbiased take shouldn't make you a "mixed bag". Maybe a few caveats about other proposed timelines were missing but that's really nitpicking.
Interview Dr.Michael S.Heiser on the tracking back of 5 constellations that convergencecd around 9/ 11 3 BC over Israel.
Yes!
According to Josephus in Antiquities XVII.149, Herod had two rabbis burned alive on the night of a lunar eclipse. This occurred less than a month after the slaughter of children 2 years and younger in Bethlehem. This eclipse event, the only one of its kind in the region in a ten year range, occurred on the equivalent of January 10, 1 BCE. Herod would become ill shortly after and move to Jericho. While there Caesar Augustus essentially forced him to change rule of Judea from Antiper to Archelaus. Herod executed Antiper and five days later died. More details of Archelaus activities and appearance in Rome before the Caesar are found in Roman documents. Thus, Jesus had to have been born in the year 3-2 BCE. Understanding the Appointed Times and the Hebrew (Biblical) calendar, this would make His birth on the equivalent of September 26, 3 BCE during Sukkot.
Can you please give me a non-Biblical link to historical information about the slaughter of children 2 years and younger in Bethlehem? Thanks.
@@JohnBarr-r5bWhy do we need that?
@@carinaslima Because it appears to be made up nonsense
I mean Josephus could be since he wasn't even born until 37 AD, and this wouldn't be the first time he was wrong about something.
The reason the 3 wise men are usually put in the nativity scene is because after the 12 days of Christmas, we celebrate epiphany, God revealing Himself to the Gentiles. It's a more whole view of the reason behind the incarnation. And Jesus was born in a cave, not a stable, but no one wants to talk about that, just the Magi.
Ha, Roman tradition made up by gentiles who didn’t and still don’t understand His Appointed Times (Leviticus 23). Yeshua was almost certainly born in a sukkah (a temporary dwelling built for the Holy Days) on Sukkot. A cave? No.
@@scottintexas what are you, larping as a jew? That's embarressing Scott.
They used to keep animals in caves, the earliest Christian traditions have his birth in a cave. You can't just call the early church "gentiles who didn't and still don't understand His Appointed Times" These people had direct connections to the appostles if not to Christ Himself.
@@andrewselbyphotography “Larping as a Jew?” As much as you are larping as a Christian based upon your apparent rudeness. Clearly, you just hate being wrong more than knowing the truth. I pray the Spirit softens your heart.
@@scottintexas dude, you said I was a gentile that didn't understand His appointed time, and you laughed at church tradition. I'm sorry you can't take a little joking around.
But if you don't want to back up your claims then then I don't know what else we would talk about.
@@andrewselbyphotography I didn’t find it to be joking. Here is what the Jesus said about tradition, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” Mark 7:8-9 You think this only applies to the “church” leaders of Jesus’ day? And, I did not call you a gentile; I made a statement. You applied it to yourself presumably for a reason.
As to backing up my statement, look for my other comment among the comments.
Bible Chronologue - Gospel:
[a=Spring; d=Winter]
Luke 1 (John B is Born 6mo Before) 8d
Matthew 1 (Jesus is Born) 7b
Matthew 2 (Astrologers) 5
(Herod Kills Children 2 and Under)
(Joseph Escapes to Egypt)
(Herod Dies; Archelaus Enthroned) 4a
(Joseph Returns Afterward)
~CLASSICAL PERIOD ENDS~ 1 BCE
~COMMON ERA~ 1 CE
Luke 2 (Quirinius’ Census) 6a
(Matthew expresses the birth of Jesus as during Herod the Great. Luke, in Greek, says “her” census referring to the kingdom of Augustus, rather than “this census.” Luke now interjects, Mary is the ‘one who was promised to him… and fulfilled her pregnancy,’ according to the Greek, not, “was full of pregnancy” or “about to give birth” and then shares the story of birth saying that was where he was born, before continuing where he left off, with the census. Otherwise Jesus would be 24 in Luke 3.)
(Passover Mar/Apr; Jesus 12)
14b/c
26-36
Luke 3 (15th Yr Tiberius) 29c
(Jesus Baptized ~35; Begins Career)
(Luke 3:23 “Began Career About 30/In 30s”)
(Jesus Dies ~39) April 3, 33a
(Jesus Resurrected) April 6, 33
(Pentecost) May 26, 33b
(Jesus 40 if Born in Early May)
10:18 Testify said, "Luke is not saying that it was a census over the entire Roman empire." Apparently, that is EXACTLY what Luke said. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Greek text since I do not know that language. However, I did check every English translation of Luke 2:1 that I could find..... 28 in all...including the King James, NIV, NLT and ESV. NOT ONE OF THOSE TRANSLATIONS supports your interpretation of Luke 2:1. ALL OF THEM say that this edict was to be applied empire-wide or world-wide. The text in Greek must be unambiguous to have produced such a powerful consensus of translators with different backgrounds! I must conclude that your interpretation, Testify, is wrong.
I've heard that historians from the previous centuries dated the death of Herod in 1 BC, what's your take on that?
Here's an alternative answer to Useful Charts you might consider as to the dating issues. It's in two parts due to RUclips comment limitations.
BIRTH CENSUS
Claims that Luke made an error in referring to the “census of Quirinius” in Luke 2:1-6 - are commonplace. But, while it is easy to say Luke was confused about Judean history before his time, it is rather harder to substantiate the argument that Luke was confused about events known to people of his own time. In this respect, read Luke 1:1-4.
Regarding the census cited in Acts 5:37, there is strong evidence of a census being conducted in Judea in 6AD, while Quirinius was governor of Syria but after Archelaus had been deposed and banished to Vienna (Josephus, _Antiquities,_ 17.13.2, 5; 18.1.1). Luke clearly knew about the census mentioned by Josephus, because both Josephus’ account and Acts 5:33-39 mention “Judas the Galilean”. It seems clear, then, that the census referred to by Luke in Acts 5:33-39 was not the one he referred to in Luke 2:1-2.
In Luke 2:1-2, we see that the reference is to the first registration when Quirinius was “governing Syria” (not “governor of Syria” as most Bible translations render it). According to Emil Schürer ( _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ 1896, Vol 1, pp 351-354):
_During the period B.C. 3-2, there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. … The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius … was governor of Syria._
Extra-biblical records are even less certain about who might have been governor of Syria from 1BC to 4AD (Schürer, pp 354-357). In 4-5AD, though, Volusius Saturninus was governor of Syria. Josephus tells us that Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria in 6AD after the banishment of Archelaus ( _Antiquities,_ 17.13.5; 18.1.1; 18.2.1).
Hence it seems Quirinius had governed Syria twice - the first period being from 3BC until at least 2BC (and possibly as late as 4AD) and it was during this first period of governorship that Quirinius conducted the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2.
Josephus also records that, less than a year before Herod the Great died, over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar and were fined for not doing so ( _Antiquities_ 17.2.4). The fact that the number is recorded and that the offenders were fined suggests the pledge was required at the time of a census. Such a pledge could have been sought following the Roman Senate’s bestowal of the title ‘Pater Patriae’ (Father of the Country) on Caesar Augustus on 5 February 2BC. Since it would make sense to administer the pledge and take the census at the same time, it is at least possible that this is the event to which Luke 2:1 refers.
Our lack of independent verification of what Luke wrote does not make Luke wrong.
"Useful Charts" gets more wrong than he does right. He is definitely biased, which further muddies the waters.
So if Jesus was born before 4BC and started his 3 year ministry when he was 30, how did the crucifixion happen in 30AD or 33 AD? Did his ministry took longer then 3 years? (I'm a Christian, am just wondering)
The verse in Luke says he was "about" 30. The word "about" in the Greek is hosei, and is also used to mean "as if, as it were, like." It's an approximation. If some were to say "about" 30 or "around" 30 to me, I would think 30 plus or minus 3, but it could 30 plus or minus 5 to others depending on the speaker.
Dates and numbers in the Bible have theological meanings : some are actually idioms and cannot be taken literal as we do today.
40 is such a number in scripture as it isn't always literal: Moses life is 3x40 , or 120 : 40 days and 40 nights just as 3 days and 3 nights isn't literal as it's Friday PM to Sunday AM.
Science can actually track back 5 Constellations that converged over Israel in September 9/11 3 B.C.
This is a Good date 4 Jesus birth.
See: Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video on why he thinks this date is accurate for Jesus birth.
The amount of mental gymnastics going on here would fill a medium size sports hall
@coobest6416 Do YOU believe everything you read ???
Nativity are only inaccurate if you want a snap shot of a specific second in time. By that criteria every Star Wars poster, and a vast amount of othrr art are inaccurate.
The nativity scene is rich piece if theological art where rich and poor (wise men and shepherds) and oxes and mules (Jews and Gentiles) are all brought together in Christ. There's a lot more going on besides, including references to the Old Testament and foreshadowing, which you completely lose if you start getting too literal and "factual".
Before widespread literacy, images were used to aid teach theology and there are often multiple levels of meaning stacked into the them.
The typical nativity scene is liturgical. The wise men show up, liturgically, 12 days later. This does not mean they did so in history.
He has a few more christianity videos that are questionable. Except for those I really like Matt’s content
Jesus would have to be around 23 during the time of his baptism which isn’t very close to thirty
I disagree with he popular Magi didn't arrive till 2 years later claim. Matthew 2:1 is unambiguous that they Arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The the later references people around with are what alternate explanations. And No Luke never said Jesus was born in an Inn that's a mistranslation.
As far as Quinirus goes, my first theory is that Quirinus is not being mentioned at all, this spelling is quite from how Josephus spells that name and is much more similar to how Luke elsewhere spells Cyrene. Luke 2 can be translated as saying the First Census of the Governing of Syria and Cyrene.
But it also could also perhaps refer to Quirinus was Consul in 12 BC which for other has became the year I believe the Nativity happened.
The Census Luke is
talking about In Luke 2 is not a
Tax-related Census
It's a Census conducted by Augustus in 2BC to celebrate his 25 year anniversary on the post. That year he received the Pater Patriae recognition, as many other rulers in his post did.
@@valentino3228 I used to support that theory in the past, but it doesn't hold up, there is no getting around that Herod die din 4 BC.
@@Kuudere-Kun Herod's date of death is debatable, has been told has he died in 4BC, but also in 1BC.
@@valentino3228 The 1 BC argument doesn't work.
@@Kuudere-Kun I read it in a study conducted by a number of historians and endorsed by Gerard Gertoux.
Sometimes historians rely on other historian's theories, however, some go further and delve into the details to analyzes the findings independently.
Jesus was born on Sunday, March 1, 7 BC. He should have been born in September. He was given the 15th of September for his official birthday & to be in line for Messianc requirement. The West Manasseh Magi visited Jesus in September, when he was 6 months old. ///Luke is not making one of his alleged 'errors' when he talks about the birth of Jesus. Matthew & Luke are talking about 2 different time periods. Matthew's account is about Jesus' actual physical birth into the world. Luke's account is 12 years later in 6AD, when Jesus was 12 years old. 6 AD was also the year of the census. Qurinius was never governor of Syria when Herod was alive. The oppression of the Jews took place in 6AD. There is a reason for identifying the oppression as being in that year. This was the year that the native kings were removed, the direct rule of Roman orocurators was imposed, & the census of property they required led to an armed uprising & continual zealot activity. On Tuesday, April 6, 6 AD, Judas the Galilean (heavenly host) prepares for his uprising against the census. On Tuesday, June 1, the uprising occurs, led by Judas the Galilean, Theudas ('Moloch', the king, the 'Scepter) & Joseph (the 'Star') take part. Judea had now become an occupied country, without its own government, ruled by Roman procurators. This was indeed the 'Wrath', the beginning of oppression. Qurinius, the governor of Syria, was sent to oversee the change, & at once imposed a census, in which everyone had to declare his property. Joazar Boethos counseled moderation, but Judas (the Galilean) saw it as the ultimate challenge. They were now faced with a choice between bondage to the Roman's & a heroic fight for liberty. Judas' uprising was promptly put down by the Roman's. Immediately afterwards, the peace party swept into power with Ananus as High Priest, trusted by the Roman's to encourage peaceful co-operation. His sons, 5 of which became high priests, all adopted the same policy: westernized views & reasonable friendship towards Rome. Their emblem was the dove, & their blessing, at the beginning of worship, was 'Peace be with you'. The change in power came just in time for Jesus 12th birthday, when he was to undergo the ceremony of a 2d 'birth'. As the Ananus family held that he was legitimate, he now went through it as the heir of the Crown Prince, amid demonstrations of joy. His parents took him to Qumran, to the Queen's House,, the 'Manger', where he had been born, to reenact the event. A boy at the age of 12 went through a ceremony equivalent to the Orthodox Bar Mitzvah, when he was formally separated from his mother. This early initiation was symbolized as a kind of 2d birth. When Mary 'brought him forth' she was following the symbolism in which Jesus was separated from her. When he was 'wrapped in cloths', he was being clothed in the ceremonial vestment.
.
I love your facepalm when he says that the Gospels are largely literary in nature and less concerned with detail.
How anyone can claim that Luke isn't concerned with detail is beyond me.
Baker is assuming that Josephus is correct even though he was wrong about multiple things. When Herod became king is a perfect example.
That is one possible explanation that IP has seriously raised, and it's weird that how Josephus is usually assumed to be correct while the Gospels are assumed to be wrong.
@Testify Furthermore, the census is not even a miracle claim like the resurrection is. It is one thing to be skeptical because of an event that is very rare, like what happened to Jesus and a simple historical claim like the census. No one places that same amount of scrutiny on Tacitus or Josephus. If anything, we would be hyper skeptical of all history if the same skepticism was placed on extra biblical texts.
14:27 fellow lutheran satire watcher detected 😄
would u ever go on a public debate with someone like bart erhman?
Isn't some of this like 1st century Jews and gentiles saying things like in the Day of Trump.... meaning his 4 years or the last 15 years?
When MacGregor was the top dog and Tyson Fury was linear Champ and Simpsons was on television and Biden was in the White House and Bush was too.
There is potential overlap in names and similar titles, offices, and positions.
Are you familiar with Chinese history and Jesus? According to Chinese history, during the Han dynasty, the emperor's astronomers predicted the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. It kinda suggests the maggi were actually Asian and were guided by a constellation called " Altair" that was visible for 70 nights . I honestly haven't had time to dig into this, but, it seems legit. What do you think?
Yeah... I like Useful Charts, but his biblical stuff isn't good at all... love the genealogy charts tho...
@TestifyApologetics
So when Jesus was really born?
The good thing about literary characters is that they can be born exactly when you want
low effort
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
12:13 it occurred to me, the guy making this video (smart charts), I hope not, but may live his whole life and then die believing Matthew and Luke record different accounts of Jesus’ birth.
My heart breaks because he would see Jesus and be so confused, thinking he knew Jesus couldn’t have been really raised from death.
Does no one outside of a group of biblical scholars go with september 11 3BCE?? There a 90 minute window that day which all the astrological signs in revelations are present. Also supposedly herods death is debated between 4 and 2 BCE
Or one BCE please fact check as I can't recall the sources