Codec

I know that there is general confusion about the birth date of Jesus, based on the Gospels. Citing King Herod who died around 4BC and Quinirius census at around 6AD means both cannot be correct.

However, Herod the Great was succeeded by three of his sons, two of whom were also named Herod.

Whilst these were technically tetrarchs, is there any other reason to believe it was not one of these sons that Matthew & Co. were referring to in their accounts?

jeremyp

Matthew's Herod is specifically Herod the Great as can be seen clearly from this passage:

(Matthew 2 19-22, NRSV, my italics)

Codec

Ahh - thanks - yes that does rather seal it.

Malachi151

Yeah, also there was no census in 6 CE either

spin

Why would you say that if a census was about taxation and Josephus tells us at the beginning of AJ 18.1,

Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Boethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.

spin

Malachi151

There was no such thing as a census that required people to travel to the place of their ancestors, which wouln't even make sense, which is what Luke claimed.

spin

The manipulation of the writer of Luke is irrelevant to the census of 6 CE to deal with the kingdom removed from Archelaus. I was merely interested in the claim that there was no census, a claim which is not correct.

The writer concerned was unaware of how the census worked when he used it as a mechanism in his story.


spin