judge

I have been reading Richard Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006) and comparing it with The Census of Quintilius Varus.

One obvious point struck me.

The most powerful argument from the christian site is that the census mentioned by Luke is in fact the registration and oath taking of 3 B.C.

The registration is attested to by several sources, yet Richard's article makes no mention of this data and no direct mention of the argument.

Have these arguments and data been dealt with elsewhere by sceptics?

Steven Carr

That is not a census.

Quirinius was not governor.

Herod was dead.

judge

You are splitting hairs, the people registered.

Correct, but hegemon has broader meanings that just govenor IIUC, so saying he was not govenor at this time does not mean he did not act in another role that could be referred to as a hegemon

There is plenty of evidence against this view, it needs to be dealt with.

In other words only true believers can be sure about the claims you make. Anyone with a healthy does of scepticism has good reason, it seems, to doubt.

However I look forward to hearing from others who may wish to deal with the data.

Steven Carr

Even people in a different Roman province?

Steven Avery

Hi Judge and Steven,

And please notice that the Bible does not refer at all to a census
but to a tax (or to be 'enrolled' in the footnote).

Luke 2:1-3 (KJB)
And it came to pass in those days,
that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus,
that all the world should be taxed. *
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, * every one into his own city.

* taxed: or, enrolled

Glenn Miller properly makes note of this distinction.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots".

However note that Glenn undercuts his own position by often quoting
from versions that talk of a 'census'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jayrok

Why does this issue make that much of a difference? Even if Luke's census, or taxation or whatever you want to label it, did occur in 2 or 3 BCE... the birth narratives are riddled with holes to the point that reconciling the census/taxation in Herod's lifetime it would be like putting a band-aid on a dam to stop a leak.

Why does it matter so much to christians that they be right on this one issue?

Steven Avery

They'll get you coming and get you going .. everybody must get stoned.

Jayrok, remember, we didn't make this a 'big historicity issue'. A battleground, if you will. The skeptics and infidels and some anti-mish are the principle ones who raise this issue. Look how much ink they are putting into the other thread.

If we did not take any time and effort to answer (e.g. my small post above) they would say "ah-ha, no answer..yada". Then when we do answer we get your "why does it matter ...".

Shalom,
Steven

judge

Well this might be the impresion ones gets if one reads, say, Richard carriers article. Richard writes WRT to the possibilty of Herods death being in 1 BC

But of course all the evidence is not against such a notion as one can easily see here Astronomy and the Death of King Herod.

Why again does Richard ignore contary evidence and even go to the length to deny any exists
Richard appears to operate just like a religious fundamentalist. Ignore contary evidence and claim none exists.

Well many of them have been taught that their faith depends upon the bible being the inerrant word of God and rather than question this they seek to defend this undefendable position.

But what is just as curious is why Richards article does not deal with what appears to be the strongest arguments from christians.

Are there other sceptics who have tried to counter these arguments?

Jayrok

If this should be an issue, it should be raised by any rational thinking person who happens to read the texts. The fact that only skeptics and the like raise these types of issues is evidence that christians don't want to talk about them... or in many cases I've found, many christians are ignorant of them. That doesn't mean they aren't there for all to see. There is a good reason why stories such as these need constant defending by believers who require the bible to be infallible. But I don't see how an apologist can look in the mirror and honestly believe that all the events in both Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives literally took place in history as written.

Why do you care that someone might say "ah-ha, no answer"? Is it your pride in being right that compels you to search the internet for articles that might offer any type of explanation to a problem? I guess I don't understand the reason God needs human apologists to piece-meal patches to his written word. If it's a human publication, then I can see the need to defend it as divine at all costs. That fact that it cannot speak for itself speaks volumes.

But to me it doesn't matter the dates for Luke and Matthew. That's just one problem of many.

Jayrok

Have you contacted Richard? I'm not sure if anyone else has addressed this particular argument. To me, it's really not a big deal what year Jesus was supposedly born.